Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:31): I seek leave to move a motion of censure.

Leave not granted.

Senator BRANDIS: Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to censure the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, in the following terms:

That the Senate censures the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) for:

(a) causing her Chief of Staff to engage in inappropriate conduct with a foreign political entity for the purpose of causing damage to Australia;

(b) causing her Chief of Staff to interfere in the political process of New Zealand for the purpose of undermining the Australian Government;

(c) misleading the Senate by suggesting that the issue of the Deputy Prime Minister's citizenship arose in New Zealand as a result of media inquiries, rather than orchestration by her Chief of Staff;

(d) embarrassing the government of New Zealand, and thereby potentially causing damage to Australia's relationship with one of our closest allies; and

(e) engaging in conduct which makes her unfit to ever hold the office of Foreign Minister of Australia.

Mr President, it has been revealed overnight in the Fairfax Media that the engagement of the New Zealand Labour Party in an attempt to undermine the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and, thereby, to undermine the Australian government was orchestrated by the chief of staff of none other than the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong. As I said in answer to a question from Senator Wong yesterday, it plainly crosses a line when a serious domestic political dispute—because the argument about the Deputy Prime Minister's citizenship plainly is a serious domestic Australian political dispute—is prosecuted by the opposition through not the processes of the Australian Parliament but the processes of the parliament of a foreign friendly nation. That is what has happened here—by conspiring in conspiracy with a foreign political party, namely the New Zealand Labour Party.

Yesterday, after question time, Senator Wong took the very unusual course of speaking in the taking note debate. In the course of the taking note debate, she suggested that this was all a matter of media inquiry by the Fairfax Media of the New Zealand authorities—nothing to do with her. And yet she made that speech to this chamber well knowing that it was her own chief of staff who was the person responsible for the matter, who was behind the matter—something that was revealed in the Fairfax Media overnight, and has been confirmed this morning, including as recently, I'm told, as a few minutes ago by Mr Albanese in an interview on Adelaide radio.

To conceal from this chamber her own direct involvement in a matter of this gravity is disgraceful—utterly disgraceful. Surely, if Senator Wong, knowing what she knew, decided to participate in the debate as she did yesterday afternoon, one would have thought that simple honesty would have caused her to at least disclose that fact to the Senate, but she did not. She remained mute about it, and we have to learn overnight from the Fairfax Media that this was the case.

Now, we've chosen the words 'inappropriate conduct' to describe Senator Wong's behaviour, not because, Mr President, those are my words, but those are the words of none other than the leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, Jacinda Ardern, who described the conduct of her own MP—which was inspired and encouraged by Senator Wong's chief of staff, no doubt with Senator Wong's active knowledge and encouragement—as 'inappropriate conduct'. So we have the question of the inappropriateness of the conduct, and then we have the deeper question of the misleading of the Senate.

Now, this is a suspension motion. We want to have this debate, and I ask the crossbench at least to support the procedural motion moved by the government this morning to enable the Senate to debate a matter which, on any view, is a serious political scandal.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:37): Well, this is the latest in the rather extraordinary tactics of this government to try and distract attention from the fundamental problem, which is that the Deputy Prime Minister was elected whilst apparently being a citizen of New Zealand. Let us be very clear about the facts, and I did cause a statement to be issued yesterday, after the extraordinary and disastrous press conference by the foreign minister, one in which her credibility was substantially damaged—and I regret that, because I think it's in the national interests for the foreign minister to have and retain her credibility—and in which she trashed our bilateral relationship with New Zealand. But, after that, I did cause a statement to be issued, and I also have been very clear today in the media, including doing a press conference and an interview. I want to go through again the circumstances which present themselves and make clear that this motion by Senator Brandis is a grubby, baseless smear in an attempt to distract attention from this government's problems.

Now, I want to make this very, very clear. Questions about the Deputy Prime Minister's citizenship have been public for some time, including by way of questions from the media in July and a direct question to him on television. The story became public as a result of media inquiries. This is an extraordinary motion, because it's actually saying that a minister in the New Zealand government is lying—that's what your motion is saying. It is saying that a minister in the New Zealand government is lying when he says—and he's not a Labour minister, and I know you are happy to trash the relationship—'This story became public as a result of media inquiries'.

I want to make clear to the Senate what I said today and what I will say again in this debate—firstly, at no stage did my staff member request that questions be placed on notice in the New Zealand parliament; end of story. Secondly, I was not aware until this story broke—

Senator Brandis: That's not what the Leader of the Opposition said.

Senator WONG: Well, I know you like baying about this, George, because you want to distract attention from the disaster that the government is. Secondly, I want to be very clear that I did not know, nor did my staff member, that the New Zealand Labour Party had placed those questions on notice until this story had broken. He did not know and neither did I until Monday—end of story. Now, people can decide whether they believe me or they believe this Attorney-General, with his history in this place, his history of being censured and his history of misleading this parliament. I was not aware.

I absolutely accept it was unwise for my staff member to engage in that discussion; I accept that and I have said so publicly. But what I'm more concerned about, and what I'd suggest to the crossbench—

Senator Ian Macdonald: Why did you lie?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Macdonald, withdraw that, please.

Senator Ian Macdonald: I did say, 'Why did you lie?'

The PRESIDENT: Withdraw that, Senator Macdonald.

Senator Ian Macdonald: I will, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Why did you speak this untruth?

The PRESIDENT: Order, on my right!

Senator WONG: What I would say to the crossbench is this: I have been clear about what occurred. The time line is also clear: Fairfax Media questioned the New Zealand government and its minister prior to the questions being lodged in the New Zealand parliament. So it is incorrect to assert, as Senator Brandis does, that this story broke as a result of any action of my office. I think it is really very disappointing that the government—and I understand they're in trouble and I understand they want to throw grenades—yet again today, are prepared to risk their relationship with New Zealand. You've had the foreign minister saying she can't work with a Labour government in New Zealand. You've had the foreign minister—and you've repeated it again today—essentially calling a New Zealand minister a liar. It is an utter disgrace the way this government are prepared to trash bilateral relationships in pursuit of their own agenda. (Time expired)

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (09:42): In the 13 years I have been in this place I have never heard Senator Wong speak with less conviction. Senator Wong is usually, to be fair, a strong and confident performer in this place. I think colleagues could not help but sense the uncertainty and the extremely careful choice of words in everything that Senator Wong contributed in her five-minute debate.

Colleagues, the motion that is before the chamber, moved by Senator Brandis, seeks to suspend standing orders so that a censure motion can be moved and debated. This is an important censure motion. It is particularly important because it relates to the conduct of the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the person that the alternative government of this nation are seeking to put forward to the Australian people as the individual who would hold the high office of foreign minister. Now, as the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the highest responsibility that the holder of that office, even as a shadow, should seek to discharge is to pursue the Australian national interest and to deal with foreign entities, whether personally or through their office, in a way that supports the Australian national interest. What we have seen through the office of the shadow foreign minister is something that the shadow foreign minister herself has conceded in her own words was unwise. We, on this side, agree with Senator Wong that it was unwise, but we believe that that is not an adequate characterisation of what Senator Wong's office undertook.

Each of us in this place, I think, operate on the basis that we have responsibility for that which occurs in our office, and if something occurs in our office that we don't agree with, that we think—to use the words of Senator Wong—'was unwise', then that requires a response. We haven't seen any response to date, so Senator Brandis is seeking to give this chamber the opportunity to fully debate the matters surrounding this very peculiar activity on behalf of Senator Wong and her office.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order, on my left!

Senator FIFIELD: This activity is unwise; it is peculiar; it is inappropriate. It was wrong.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: On my left!

Senator FIFIELD: What Senator Brandis is seeking to do by moving a suspension, in order to provide the opportunity for a censure motion to be moved, is to give this chamber the opportunity to fully debate these matters. It's to give Senator Wong the opportunity to fully answer the questions: what did she know, when did she know it, and what did she do? She has not yet done that.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order, on both sides!

Senator FIFIELD: I'm always very interested when the decibel levels rise on the other side. It's usually an indication of a lack of confidence in their position on a particular issue. You can name them one by one, who will come in on cue. But, despite those laughing opposite, this is not a matter for mirth. This is a serious matter.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: On my left!

Senator FIFIELD: The Senate should be given the opportunity to debate it. That is what Senator Brandis's motion to suspend standing orders is seeking to do—to allow this matter to be ventilated in full.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:47): The Greens won't be supporting the suspension of standing orders today, and we won't be supporting a censure of Senator Wong. This is simply the politics of distraction from a government that is teetering on the edge of political oblivion. This is you trying to cover up, with a not very effective smokescreen, your own chaos. If this is your version of a haka—looking your enemy in the eyes—it's not a very good one. It's not a very good one, if this is the best you can come up with.

Two things are really clear to the Australian Greens: the Australian people are sick and tired of the mess that we're seeing in this parliament. They're sick and tired of hearing about this citizenship issue and they want us to fix it. We have, continually in the last two weeks, proposed a solution—that is, an audit of every MP by the Australian Electoral Commission to make sure that these issues are cleared up beyond any doubt. That's what the Australian people want, and I urge the Senate to support that, rather than coming in here and pulling stunts and wasting taxpayer time and taxpayer money.

Government senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order, on my right!

Senator WHISH-WILSON: The second point the Australian Greens would like to make today is: Senator Wong made a very good point about—I was going to use a word that probably wouldn't be parliamentary—the pathetic press conference by our foreign minister yesterday. That's what it was. It totally backfired. What confidence can the Australian people have in a foreign minister who has picked a fight with New Zealand as a smokescreen for her own party's chaos, who, along with Senator Payne and other members of the cabinet and the Prime Minister, is the decision-maker in this place on behalf of the Australian people and who is committing Australian Defence Force personnel next week to the Korean Peninsula in direct provocation of a madman in Pyongyang, who has made it very clear that that would be a provocation?

This is the same government that is presiding over extremely important issues around our national security, around our ANZUS alliance and around potentially catastrophic nuclear war in our own region.

Senator Payne interjecting—

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I make this point very carefully, Senator Payne: you expect the Australian people to have confidence in your government and in your foreign minister after the debacle we saw yesterday. People see this as politics. They don't see this as important, policy based parliamentary work. This is politics to cover up for a Prime Minister who is in his last gasp of political power. That's what this is covering up. This is the politics of distraction at its worst. But it's worse than that because it's actually dangerous. We're in a situation now where the Australian people have to have faith in your government's ability to make important decisions. If you want to suspend standing orders in here and get my party, the Greens, to support it, then suspend standing orders to discuss sending ADF personnel to the Korean Peninsula next week in direct provocation of an escalation in North Korea. What we should be discussing, clearly, is de-escalation of and other ways forward in what I hope will be a perfectly avoidable conflict in North Korea.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (09:51): Pauline Hanson's One Nation will be supporting this motion by the government.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator HANSON: When the opposition has finished! We will be supporting this motion, purely for the debate—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator HANSON: because I believe the people of Australia have a right—

The PRESIDENT: Point of order, Senator Hinch?

Senator Hinch: Point of order, Mr President. Can we have some more volume on Senator Hanson's microphone?

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. I'm sure the audio people have heard that.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Could I ask senators on both sides to allow the senator to be heard?

Senator HANSON: Isn't it surprising that, when I raise something, I wish it to be open for debate so the people of Australia can hear what is going on, what is happening with dual citizenship for many members of this parliament at this time! Isn't it a shame that the opposition is not willing to be open and honest about this. I have listened many times in this parliament to the opposition wanting answers from the government. I remember the time with the Solicitor-General; it was disgraceful what was happening. I believe what has happened here is that Senator Wong has gone and used her office in a backdoor way to get information. This is based purely on the fact that it was only a few days ago that our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, asked Bill Shorten to join with the government to bring this matter to rest. This is an underhand move. They could have done it openly and honestly to prove to the people of Australia whether anyone had dual citizenship. It was the Prime Minister that offered that in the first place.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: On my left! Senator Collins!

Senator HANSON: This has been underhand, and it needs to be debated; it needs to be open. I am sick of hearing in the halls of this parliament who may have dual citizenship and who may not. The onus to prove whether they have it or not is not that of the people making the allegation. It is up to everyone on the floor of this chamber and in the other place to prove that they do not have dual citizenship. Put it to rest; the people of Australia deserve this. If you are not prepared to do this—

The PRESIDENT: Point of order, Senator Collins?

Senator Jacinta Collins: Yes, point of order, Mr President. I would like Senator Hanson to be relevant to the motion before us.

The PRESIDENT: As you know, Senator Collins, in a suspension motion, the debate is quite wideranging.

Senator Jacinta Collins: She is not even addressing the issue around—

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Collins! Senator Hanson, you have the call.

Senator HANSON: They're not very happy with what I have to say on this whole issue. You've got too much to hide and you're covering up a lot. There are a lot of questions to be asked about a lot of other people in this chamber. Even Senator Wong's citizenship has been questioned. Even Senator Dastyari's citizenship—through you, Chair—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Dastyari, a point of order.

Senator Dastyari: I'm well aware it's an ethnic name, but can the senator please address me by my proper title.

The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order—well, addressing you by your correct title is, but I don't think Senator Hanson misused your title. Senator Hanson, you have the call.

Senator HANSON: In all honesty, you get the loudest screams from the people who don't want an open and honest debate. So let's have this debate and expose it for what it is. Stop trying to shut it down, and let the people know exactly what is happening. If Senator Wong has not done the wrong thing, then she can have her say in full in the debate and her colleagues can speak up on her behalf, but don't scream when it's your turn to express yourselves. If it were on the other side of this chamber and the opposition were in government, they would be screaming blue murder over this as well—and I have no doubt about it. So, when you have to answer to the people of Australia—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: On my left. Order! Everyone knows that the motion is in relation to a suspension of standing orders.

Senator HANSON: I'll close this. I hope it does go to debate, and I will have more to say about it then. Thank you.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (09:55): This is clearly a desperate tactic from a government that is clearly not able to even control its own backbench anymore, because of its shocking failure to control the chaos that looms throughout this government. This is a government that has failed dismally to manage the affairs of this country, because it can't even manage the affairs of its own party. And it comes to this chamber with this shockingly desperate effort to distract attention away from its bungling—it's nothing more than bungling—of nominations for election to this parliament.

The motion the minister has put before us should be rejected because it is factually wrong. Senator Wong has not caused her chief of staff to engage in inappropriate conduct. Senator Wong has not caused her chief of staff to interfere in the political processes of New Zealand. Senator Wong has not misled this Senate. It is fact that the minister in New Zealand pointed out that it was Fairfax Media that initiated its inquiries and it was Fairfax Media that discovered the truth about the citizenship of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. It is also the case that the leader of the Labour Party in New Zealand highlighted the fact that it was not in any way associated with Senator Wong's staff that any names were mentioned in conversations about the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. In fact, what we should actually look at is a censure motion directed squarely at the Australian foreign minister. We have sound relations with the New Zealand government, our oldest ally, our partner in ANZUS, our partner, of course, throughout the 20th century and our fundamental foundation relationship in international terms. It is the foreign minister Julie Bishop who has accused ministers in New Zealand of lying, of conspiracy. It is the foreign minister of this country who has behaved in a totally inappropriate and totally disgraceful manner by undermining relations with our closest ally. It is the foreign minister of this country who has behaved in this disgraceful manner.

It is not Senator Wong. It is not her staff. It is Senator Brandis who has come into this chamber in this quite disgraceful and deceitful manner to try and present this as something other than the fact that the government can't even control its internal affairs anymore. Its morale is comedy. It is in complete and total chaos. It is the government of Australia that now is on the brink of collapse. It is not the relationship between the Labor Party and the people of New Zealand, the government of New Zealand or the Labour Party in New Zealand. It is this government that has failed dismally the people of this country. It is this government that is now asserting that there is a conspiracy, treason—this is the sort of language that our foreign minister is using. It's an extraordinary proposition that, in this day and age, this government has become so desperate, so in need of some distraction from its own failings, that it uses this type of language. How can this possibly be sustained in this chamber? How could it possibly be the case that a censure motion is warranted in these circumstances against Senator Wong?

The censure motion should be against the foreign minister of Australia, Julie Bishop. She is the one who brought the reputation of this country into disrepute, and it is Senator Brandis who has aided and abetted her. Senator Brandis has sought to justify the different actions that are being taken by the National Party in the Senate as against the National Party in the House of Representatives, and we all understand the reasons for that. The National Party in the Australian Senate is, of course, quite dispensable, but the National Party in the House of Representatives is critical to the future survival of the Prime Minister, who, I might add, said:

The Australian people elected the government. Bill Shorten wants to steal government by entering into a conspiracy with a foreign power ...

What an extraordinary proposition, that the Labor Party of Australia is engaged in a conspiracy with a foreign power, namely New Zealand. What a joke! (Time expired)

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (10:01): I have to say from the outset that I don't believe this is a very productive way for us to start the day in the Senate. There are many pressing issues facing this country. I don't have any doubt whatsoever that every contact was brought to bear to establish the facts about Mr Joyce's citizenship. It is a circumstance that someone has exploited for political gain. I don't think it's interference of a treasonous nature, malfeasance or anything else. I would challenge anybody in this place to say they would not have done the same. I recall that there are members of the government, including the Prime Minister himself, who went to great lengths to contact the then Prime Minister of Great Britain to say that I shouldn't be speaking at a Tory conference when I went over there. We know that people exploit personal contacts for political gain, to smite their enemies or anything else. So it doesn't matter to me whether we approve of what Senator Wong's chief of staff has done. (Time expired)

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (10:02): Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than one minute.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator XENOPHON: I indicate that I've discussed this matter with my colleagues Senators Griff and Kakoschke-Moore this morning. We would not support the censure motion if it came to a vote. We do not support this particular suspension of standing orders because we believe that there has been a de facto debate in relation to it. There is one aspect in clause (c) of the motion that makes assertions against Senator Wong in terms of misleading the Senate. I do not make any judgement with respect to that, but, if the government has serious matters to raise, then that is a separate issue for the Privileges Committee of the Senate. It is a separate issue altogether. So we cannot support a censure motion. I echo some of the sentiments of Senator Bernardi in relation to this.

Senator HINCH (Victoria) (10:03): Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator HINCH: I'll be supporting the government on this motion to suspend standing orders. I'm not saying that I will vote for them when it comes to the line, because I believe that the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, bowled underarm yesterday. In the past, I've voted in favour of the Greens when they have raised issues that I think should be aired and I've voted against them as well. I do support Senator Whish-Wilson's comments when he talked about the fact that most of the crossbenchers sat over here on dual citizenship and all of you, the government and the ALP, sat over there. If you want to end all this now, get it over and done with and get on with the stuff that Senator Bernardi talked about. Call it; get it over and done with. Let every senator and every member of the House of Representatives put up or shut up. That's the way it should be done. It's been put up by the Greens twice and the government and the ALP have not voted in favour of it. As I said, I'll be supporting the government to let them get up and air their dirty laundry. I do believe it's a smokescreen for 'Crocodile Dunedin', as they call the member for New England now. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis to suspend standing orders be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye and those against say no. I think the ayes have it.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: I'm happy to call it for the noes if you would like me to call it for the noes. A division will be required in any event. So a division is required.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Just before I put the question, in relation to the request that the noes had it last time, the indication from the floor was 37 no votes. So I think it was fair to call it for the affirmative. But, in any event, I think a division would have been required. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (10:11): 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 FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (10:12): 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 makes minor technical amendments to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to rectify an unintended consequence of the sunsetting regime established under the Legislation Act 2003.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act provides for the protection and conservation of the environment, biodiversity and heritage values through zoning, issuing of permissions and implementation of plans of management in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The amendments made by the Bill will prevent plans of management that have been made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act from being inadvertently revoked if regulations giving effect to these plans are repealed and remade to address sunsetting. Plans of management are an important environmental management tool to ensure that activities within areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are managed on the basis of ecologically sustainable use. The Bill will allow the protective measures in the plans to continue to apply.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:12): This morning, I am pleased to speak on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017 and to highlight the attributes of our Great Barrier Reef. It's an iconic and beautiful reef and, as we know, it's the world's largest. As custodians of it, as it is here on our doorstep, we must take extra special care of this wonderful asset. It's more than 2,300 kilometres long and has more than 2,900 individual reefs. It's critical that the government protect this pristine World Heritage listed area. We need it to be protected because its rich environment is home to so many ecosystems. Not only is it critical to the tourism industry in Queensland; it also underpins the choices that tourists make to visit the whole of our continent. It also underpins employment not only in Queensland but right around the country.

The bill before us, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill, proposes a number of technical amendments to rectify an unintended consequence of the sunsetting regime within the substantive legislation. We support these amendments, and they're certainly necessary for the protection and ongoing management of our reef. The sunsetting regime was established in the Legislation Act 2003 and provided for the automatic repeal of some legislative instruments. As has been identified, steps must be taken to preserve some of these instruments. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations (Amendment) 1993 sunset every 10 years and are due to sunset in April next year.

Under current legislative arrangements, when regulations are sunset and remade, plans of management within the reef are revoked. That means there are no substantive management arrangements in place in a really important area such as Cairns and the Whitsunday islands. As a tourist to Cairns, I know it's really important that tourism is controlled, monitored and managed so that any damage to the reef does not occur. So, if the management plans were to be revoked as a result of sunsetting, it would require the Senate and the House of Representative to go right through the legislative process again to remake those plans, taking up time and resources for something that's already working very well. This was not the intention of the sunsetting provisions, and these unintended consequences need to be resolved.

The amendments provided for this bill prevent plans of management of the Great Barrier Reef being automatically revoked if regulations giving effect to these plans are repealed. We can see how plans of management can be switched off so they have no effect, rather than being formally revoked. This will allow time for regulations to be updated without the management of the reef being impacted. We know that these plans support tourism industries in the area and are vital to operations. The plans of management assist with the implementation of effective environmental management and ecologically sustainable practices. They complement marine park zoning in that they specifically address issues that pertain to specific areas. This is critically important for at-risk or vulnerable species or ecosystems in need of protection in our reef. The Great Barrier Reef management plans operate in Cairns, Hinchinbrook Island, Shoalwater Bay and the Whitsundays. As I highlighted earlier, they are key tourist areas that need these tools to protect and support the reef.

This will ensure the ongoing effective management of the reef and surrounding areas. As we know, the Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest coral reef ecosystem, and Labor has a proud and strong record of defending and protecting the reef. Indeed, it was the Whitlam government that implemented Australia's first-ever marine reserve over the reef. I am proud that the last Labor government established Australia's marine reserve network, the largest network of marine protected areas in the world. These sorts of legacies are becoming even more important as the world's oceans are subject to increasing environmental degradation and decline.

We know our own reef is facing significant threats from climate change—threats that must be taken seriously by our government, but, apparently, you do not. We must do all we can to protect the health of our reef, and the plans of management are critically important to this work and are a very practical tool. So, while Labor support this bill which enables the legacy of the management plans to stay in place, we believe we can go further in protecting our reef and our environment. We can't simply act on these management plans, which deal with very specific acreage on the reef. There's a lot more that needs to be done.

We must have a government that is prepared to do more than this to protect our reef—and protect it from all sides—and this includes protecting the Coral Sea, which has such a rich biodiversity on the eastern side of the reef. That biodiversity corridor is incredibly important. However, the government is not protecting the Coral Sea. They're looking to wind back ocean protections in the Coral Sea, proposing to gut half of the area that was put into marine national parks by the Labor government. This is a terrible, terrible thing to do. It's a terrible shame. It takes the largest step backwards that this nation has ever seen when it comes to conservation in the Coral Sea.

We should also be protecting the Great Barrier Reef from the other side. I'm pleased to see that that's what the Queensland Labor government is doing by putting land clearing rules in place to ensure that run-off from land clearing doesn't negatively impact on the Great Barrier Reef. But the federal Liberal government have been supporting the Liberal-National Party in Queensland to not support these protections for our reef, which are aimed at halting the broadscale clearing of the trees and remnant vegetation that are incredibly important for controlling run-off.

Most importantly we need to protect our Great Barrier Reef from climate change. We can see that the government is completely missing in action when it comes to acting on climate change, and it is not doing anything real to tackle the causes of it. Indeed, some of those opposite don't even believe it's real. You are not fit guardians for our Great Barrier Reef. The Liberal government can't be trusted to protect Australia's unique environment, and it can't be trusted with the protection of our Great Barrier Reef.

I take this opportunity in the Senate today to urge the government to do better and to do more to protect one of Australia's most prized environmental assets. I urge the government to stop fighting against responsible land-clearing protections. I urge the government not to undo protections in the Coral Sea and I urge them to act on climate change and to stop the causes of decline in our reef in order to keep it healthy.

Labor can and will do these things. Our environmental commitments go much further in their protective efforts than these amendments before us in the parliament today. Labor has a Great Barrier Reef plan that involves a more coordinated and efficient long-term management of the reef, which is, importantly, properly funded and resourced. What we've put forward includes an investment of up to $100 million to review and improve current management practices in the reef and to consult with relevant stakeholders. This is further supported by Labor's comprehensive climate change action plan that delivers real action on climate change and, in doing so, contributes to global efforts to reduce the harmful effects of climate change on our reef, including the impact of coral bleaching.

As I conclude my remarks, I want to reflect on the fitness of the government to legislate on these important matters. There was an incident in the House of Representatives yesterday that made it clear that they could not manage their own legislative agenda on these matters. Last night the government lost a vote in the House on this very issue. One of Labor's amendments to this bill was carried by a majority of members, 69 to 61, and the government then sought to gag debate to hide their own incompetence in managing these issues in the House. It was only the second time in history that a government has lost a vote on a second reading amendment against itself.

We know it's not the first of the failures of the Turnbull government. We've seen many times in the House that they have come so close, and that they hold power in the House of Representatives, at times, by only one vote. Let's not forget that in the House of Representatives a bill to protect penalty rates was lost by only one vote, which meant that up to 700,000 Australians would have been better off had it not been for this government. Let's think about which vote it is that made the difference to votes like that in the House of Representatives. One Mr Barnaby Joyce, our Deputy Prime Minister, perhaps should not have even been voting. He is a dual citizen, as is patently clear, and he is not eligible to sit in the House of Representatives.

It's a disgrace to see from those opposite what double standards they have. We can see that Senator Canavan has done the right thing by stepping down from the ministry and agreeing not to vote until the matter of his citizenship is resolved, so why won't this government do the same and hold the Deputy Prime Minister to account?

What we have seen over the past few days or, in fact, over the entire term of government, is a government in absolute chaos. When we have such tight votes in the House of Representatives, how can any question before the parliament, including legislation such as this that we are debating now, be resolved with any legitimacy at all?

Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:26): I rise today to speak on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017. We support the bill before the chamber as it makes minor amendments to the act to deal with the sunsetting of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983. Under the current legislative arrangements, plans of management made under the act will be automatically revoked when the regulation sunsets. This would mean that there would be no management arrangements that would exist for high-volume tourist areas, such as Cairns and the Whitsunday islands. Given the importance of management plans—management plans doing things like setting limits for anchoring, for cruise ship operation and for wildlife protection—the creation of each plan is a really important deliberative process.

The Greens believe that the chaos and uncertainty that would ensue if these plans were revoked, obviously, is not in the interests of the reef or, indeed, the tourist operators along the Queensland coast who absolutely rely upon the health of the reef for their business. But let's be serious: there is nothing in this bill that will go to the long-term sustainability and preservation of the reef. The government likes to make a show of the Reef 2050 Plan: that they've reduced dredging or that they've reduced agricultural run-off. Senators Macdonald and O'Sullivan tried to pass a motion last week to tell us that the World Heritage Committee did not downgrade the reef to 'endangered' status. But there is a gaping hole at the centre of this government's reef strategy, which is the total absence of a plan for dealing with the No. 1 threat to the Great Barrier Reef—and that, of course, is global warming.

While we are playing around the edges—yes, we've got to make sure the management plans are in place—they are not going to protect the reef. It's not just the Greens who are saying this. The Australian Academy of Science, the highest science-based body in the country, said:

At a high level, the fundamental driver of reef degradation now and increasingly in the future is climate change. The impacts of climate change on the reef are already being felt, and action cannot be postponed.

Here's what the World Heritage Committee and advisory bodies said:

Climate change remains the most significant overall threat to the future of the property.

And the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, in its 2014 outlook, stated:

Climate change remains the most serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef. It is already affecting the Reef and is likely to have far-reaching consequences in the decades to come.

What we are seeing is devastation. We are seeing sea temperatures rising due to a warming earth brought on by the greenhouse effect. We are seeing increased risk and the increased frequency of mass coral bleaching and thermal stress. Over the 2016-17 summer, two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef was affected by coral bleaching. It made our scientists who were observing this bleaching say that all they could do was weep. That two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef which was affected by coral bleaching was back-to-back with the coral bleaching that occurred in 2016, and it was the fourth bleaching event in 19 years: in 1998, 2002 and then in 2016 and 2017. What is remarkable is that prior to 1998 there had not been an observed coral-bleaching event in the Great Barrier Reef before. So it began in 1998, and now we are seeing it ramp up.

We know that with a bleaching event coral reefs need at least a decade between events if they are going to have a chance of recovery, and so we saw the recovery between 2002 and 2016. But when you have back-to-back bleaching events—when you have 2016 followed by 2017, and who knows how quickly the next bleaching event is going to occur—that means the death of the Great Barrier Reef. Just consider what that means—what that means to the precious ecosystems of the reef; what that means to all the animal species that depend upon the reef; what that means to the Queensland economy and to the tourism economy; and what that means to infrastructure along the coast if we lose that reef which provides such an important barrier along the Queensland coast.

So this is the threat to the Great Barrier Reef. And as these threats continue, we know what's causing the coral bleaching; we know what's causing the death of the reef. It's our increasing pollution—the pollution from the burning of coal, gas and oil. So, given the scale of the threat to the reef and given the magnitude of the effect from climate change that's been so clearly identified, you would expect that rather than just fiddling around the edges and making sure that the management plans are going to be back in place, that the government should be putting together a plan that reflects the need to tackle climate change head-on.

But where is this plan? All that the government's climate change mitigation strategy from the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan says is that it is the government's Direct Action Plan. That's it—that's the government's plan for climate change mitigation. This is literally the only substantive emissions reduction mechanism that the government has put forward as part of the reef plan. Direct action is a policy that has wasted billions of dollars—billions of our dollars—in planting mulga, or encouraging that mulga in north-west New South Wales doesn't get cleared. Look, it's very good that the mulga in New South Wales doesn't get cleared or that some of it is replanted, but we are paying billions of dollars for that to occur while at the same time our emissions from the burning of coal, gas and oil continue to skyrocket. At the same time as well, while we are spending all that money protecting mulga in north-west New South Wales we have ongoing land clearing in Queensland in the catchment of the Great Barrier Reef. That far outweighs the soaking up of carbon that the mulga in New South Wales is doing.

The increased land clearing in Queensland is one of the most extraordinary things that has not been stopped by this government, and it has not been stopped by the Queensland Labor government either. Land clearing in those areas of Queensland has actually increased from 300,000 hectares a year to 400,000 hectares a year in recent years. And it's not just in Queensland: we've got ongoing land clearing in other parts of New South Wales and we've got the ongoing logging of our native forests. Again, if you put together all of these impacts from the removal of vegetation—which is there as a really important carbon store in our environment—that is wiping out any impact of the government's Direct Action Plan. And that's it: that's all the government is saying we need to be doing to tackle climate change. It is a complete fig leaf and it is going to do absolutely zip to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

So that's what's happening on the land-clearing side. That's what's happening on the government's direct action side. That's all that the Reef 2050 plan says that we need to be doing about tackling climate change.

On the other side is the government's agenda to absolutely ramp up the use of coal, which is talked about over and over again in this place. We've got a government that is hell-bent on coal, a government that can't imagine a world without coal, a government that is obsessed with digging up every last bit of coal and burning it and, in the process, cooking the climate and destroying the Great Barrier Reef. This is a Liberal government where the backbench insists that if the private sector doesn't actually want to build a new coal-fired power plant, then the government should pick up the tab and build it instead. This is a government that wants to include coal in its definition of clean energy. This is a government that's never seen a coalmine, a coal seam gas field or a piece of coal export infrastructure that it doesn't want to approve.

This is a government that wants to give away a billion dollars of our money to a multinational coal company to build a rail link to the Galilee Basin. No example stands out more than this. At the same time as we're talking about a few minor issues, minor legislative changes and governance changes to management plans of the Great Barrier Reef, we have a government that, hand-in-hand with the Queensland Labor government, is willing to facilitate the approval, subsidisation and construction of the Adani Carmichael coalmine. Any government that had the slightest bit of interest in trying to do something about stopping dangerous climate change would have ruled out this mine from day one. It's a mine that's being fought and opposed by citizens right around the country. Millions and millions of committed citizens are saying as one, 'We need to stop this madness.' It is heading in the wrong direction compared with what we need to be doing. We need to be protecting our climate and protecting wonderful natural assets like the Great Barrier Reef. This will be the mine that opens up the Galilee Basin to exploitation. The Galilee Basin is estimated to have 250,000 square kilometres of thermal coal sitting beneath it. It's a ticking time bomb. That coal has to stay in the ground if we are going to have a future for humanity on this planet. It has to stay buried underground if we have any hope as an international community of meeting our Paris target of staying under two degrees.

The bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef is occurring with only one degree of warming. That's what one degree of warming has caused to the Great Barrier Reef. Even if we keep that warming to under two degrees the Great Barrier Reef is gone. That's something that I, as a senator in this place, am not willing to accept. That's why we will continue to fight for serious action to protect the Great Barrier Reef. That means being serious about climate change, and that means being serious about planning for the end of coal. The choice is stark: it's coal or the reef. It's a choice between throwing a lifeline to the polluting industries of the past or protecting the future—our future, the future of the reef, the future of our planet—a healthy future for generations to come. And it's well past time for other members of this place to choose a side.

The Greens have been very clear. Our colleagues here, around the country and around the world have been clear that we are at a crossroads. We need to be keeping fossil fuels in the ground. We need to be shifting our energy sources to renewable energy. This is the direction in which we need to head. We could be stopping the Adani Carmichael mine today. We could be stopping it if those on the Labor benches would only stand up and say that they do not support the approval and the construction of the Adani Carmichael mine and that if they were to win government they would rule it out. If they would stand up and say that today, we know the Adani coalmine would be finished. We need the Queensland Labor government to rule it out. For all its talk about wanting to stop climate change, the Queensland Labor government is hell-bent on ensuring that the Adani Carmichael mine goes ahead. We want the Labor Party to join with the Greens today and rule it out. If we have Labor and the Greens together, we can make sure that the troglodytes of that side, the troglodytes of this government, who are hell-bent on coal, who think that coal is the future, can be wiped out along with the Carmichael mine. The Greens will be moving an amendment to this legislation, similar to the one moved in the House by my colleague Adam Bandt yesterday. The amendment has been circulated in the chamber on sheet 8212.

I really welcome the chance to contribute to this debate today, because any issue to do with the future of the Great Barrier Reef is important in itself. We know how precious and important and valuable the reef is, and this really underlines, because of the threats to the reef, why we need to be spending so much energy and time and effort to make sure that the issue of the biggest threat to humanity on this planet, the issue of the biggest threat to those natural assets like the Great Barrier Reef, gets the time that it deserves in this place. We really have to build the case that we, the parliament, have got the power here to make changes. We've got the power here to move legislation that will accelerate that shift to clean, renewable energy and to make sure that we get out of the dirty fossil fuel energy industry that our country has relied upon.

I welcome the chance to contribute to this debate, and I'd also like to acknowledge all the work that my former colleague Senator Waters has done, both in relation to the fight for a safe climate and in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. I hope to see former Senator Waters back here in due course to continue that important work.

In conclusion, the Greens will be supporting this bill, but we must make it known that without a plan for a safe climate this bill is not worth the paper that it's written on. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate notes that global warming is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef and calls on the government to immediately take all available steps to stop the Adani Carmichael coal mine."

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (10:42): The disarray that accompanied this bill's passage through the other place last night was by no means the most embarrassing thing that happened to the dysfunctional Turnbull government yesterday, but it was perhaps the clearest example—and there were so many examples—of this government's utter inability to govern itself, the parliament or the country in any manner that doesn't immediately descend into utter chaos.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017 is a fairly simple bill. It corrects a technical issue with existing legislation, and Labor does support the bill. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the world's largest coral reef ecosystem, currently has four plans of management in place. They operate in Cairns, Hinchinbrook Island, Shoalwater Bay and the Whitsundays. This bill addresses those issues associated with the sunset clause in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, and that has the effect of revoking plans of management where those regulations which give those plans effect are repealed. The changes proposed by this bill are designed to protect this automatic revocation, and the amendments do not have any further consequences for either policy or budgeting.

Labor are happy to support this bill; however, what we are unhappy about is how this little procedural bill is basically the only substantive interest in protecting the Great Barrier Reef that this government has shown since 2013. That is why the shadow minister, Tony Burke, moved a second reading amendment to this bill in the other place, so that the parliament could make clear its belief that the Turnbull government has completely failed to protect the Great Barrier Reef. That second reading amendment read:

… that:

(1) the Government is failing to protect Australia's iconic Great Barrier Reef by:

   (a) failing to act on climate change;

   (b) supporting the Liberal National Party in Queensland in blocking reef protections aimed at halting the broad

scale clearing of trees and remnant vegetation; and

   (c) winding back ocean protection, put in place by Labor, around Australia and specifically in the Coral Sea; and

(2) this Government cannot be trusted to protect the Great Barrier Reef and fight for Australia’s unique environment".

The government voted against this amendment, as you would expect. But what happened? They lost in the other place by 69 votes to 61. This government lost a vote on the floor of the other place—again. A government lost a second reading amendment on the floor of the other place for the second time since Federation—indeed, for the second time in the term of this government. The Leader of the House didn't just drop the ball on this vote, he couldn't even catch it in the first place. The government didn't lose the vote on this bill by just one vote, either; it wasn't a close-run thing. They lost by eight votes, by over five per cent of all the votes available to the government. Where was Mr Abbott for that vote? Where were Mr Falinski, Mr Entsch and Mr Ted O'Brien? Where were Minister Bishop and Mr Tehan? Where were Minister Chester and Minister Fletcher? Where was Minister Hunt, the former environment minister? Where were Minister Ciobo, Minister Keenan and Minister Dutton? Where were they for this vote? Where was Minister Wyatt? Where was the Prime Minister? Where was the constitutionally illegitimate, as he himself admitted yesterday, Minister Joyce? Where were they? Perhaps they agreed with the amendment—they should have. It was a comprehensive, humiliating defeat again for this government in the other place. It would have been bad enough if the government had happened to do this in isolation, but it happened so soon after question time. The mortification! I can just imagine it. Only one government has suffered such a defeat, and it is this government under this Prime Minister—twice.

But, to this bill: it's the only example of the government's legitimate attempts to protect the Great Barrier Reef, and it is a very, very pathetic and meagre attempt. Let me note for the Senate that the international community came together between 5 and 9 June this year, in New York, to recognise the importance of our oceans. When the Turnbull government appeared at that conservation conference it went about talking about the achievements of Australia and making its case as to why Australia should be recognised as a good citizen for protecting our oceans. What were the examples that the Turnbull government used to make the case of how good it is at protecting our oceans? They were the protections put in place by the previous, Labor, government, when Tony Burke was the environment minister. They are protections that this government is now trying to remove. At the conference, the government didn't mention that it is actively in the process of removing oceans' protections. You only have to look at what is happening to coral reefs throughout the world to recognise that the health of these areas is of extraordinary importance at this time of global warming. At a time when our oceans are under much more pressure than ever before and at a time when plastics, pollution, acidification and overfishing are all creating challenges in our ocean beyond what we have ever experienced before, what does this government decide to do? It decides to engage in the largest removal of protected areas in the history of any government on this planet. Of all the conservation decisions that have ever been made by any government in history, this government right now is engaging in the largest removal of areas from conservation ever. Look to the Coral Sea, the Osprey Reef, the Shark Reef, Bougainville, Marion Reef or Vema Reef. There are almost none that escape the cuts that this government is making. Half the areas that Labor established as marine national park, this government wants to remove.

The minister has said, completely disingenuously, 'Look, it's not a problem because the boundaries are being kept the same; we're just changing the rules on what you can do inside them.' Imagine if the Labor government took half the national parks established under Malcolm Fraser on land and said, 'Look, it's fine, the boundaries are still the same; you are just allowed to go in now and shoot all the bandicoots.' This is just bizarre and offensive in the extreme, and it's exactly what this government is proposing to do with the national parks that have been established in our oceans.

When an area is first protected, there is often the political argument about the boundaries and the level of protection, like when Joh Bjelke-Petersen wanted to drill in the Great Barrier Reef or like when Bob Hawke was determined to make sure that we save the Franklin, the Daintree and Kakadu. Once these have been protected, there have been no backward steps. Even though the Fraser government might not have liked some of the decisions the Whitlam government made, once they were made they respected them and there were no backward steps in environmental protection. At the time some World Heritage listings were made, even though the Howard government opposed some of the protections that had been put in place by the Hawke and Keating governments, once Howard came into office they had a decision of no backward steps.

National parks in the ocean make a real difference and we've got proof that they make a real difference. The proof comes from when the Howard government did the right thing on this. The Howard government established the zoning in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Howard government—quite bravely at that time, and against the views of some of its own membership—put in some areas where no fishing would be allowed at all and other areas where sustainable fishing would be allowed. And now the science is in on what the Howard government did. Coral trout inside protected areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park have 80 per cent additional biomass above the coral trout in the non-protected areas. It has been established and proven by the Howard government itself that protected areas make a substantial difference in the health of the environment, but this government has decided to break that accord that Australia has observed ever since environmental protection first began.

The 44 large-scale marine reserves that Labor established are the areas that science says we should and ought to protect. The Marine Bioregionalisation of Australia—out of which most of the existing marine reserves are based, including those in the south-east of the country, like around Tasmania—is drawn from integrating multidisciplinary data into a picture of how biodiversity is structured across Australia's oceans. The understanding allows us to know what we need to protect and where the areas most at risk are if we don't act soon. These reserves remain an incredible opportunity to turn the tide on the protection of oceans. These marine reserves are the most comprehensive network of marine protected areas in the world and represent the largest addition to the conservation estate in Australia's history. If left alone, this new network of marine reserves would help ensure that Australia's diverse marine environment and the life it supports remain healthy, productive and resilient not just for this generation but, of course, for future generations.

But that hope, I fear, is swiftly dwindling. The Abbott and Turnbull governments are the first governments we have had in this country which have been willing to remove areas of protection. We saw it with the World Heritage areas in my home state of Tasmania, where this government sought to get the World Heritage Committee to take areas out of protection. The World Heritage Committee dealt with that application in just three minutes. Portugal—where the meeting was held—described this government's application as 'feeble', and the committee threw it out unanimously. But this government has kept on keeping on, doing this now to the oceans.

In fact, the Turnbull government is worse on this than the Abbott government. The Abbott government commissioned a review into Labor's marine national parks, and, after all the claims that those opposite made that this wasn't science based, the Abbott government review then came back and said, yes, it was. And then the government decided to gut the protections anyway. This government's own review said the principles upon which these plans were put in place were science based, and yet this government is now looking at making the decision to remove the largest areas of conservation that have ever been undertaken by any country in the world.

Labor has a proud history of protecting and defending the Great Barrier Reef. This includes the Whitlam government's implementation of Australia's first marine reserves over the reef. Labor also more recently established Australia's marine reserve network, the largest network of marine protected areas anywhere in the world. In the light of the extensive loss of coral and significant threats to the reef's health posed by climate change, it is ever more pressing that this legacy be upheld today.

One important practical tool to protect and support the Great Barrier Reef is its plans of management. Plans of management assist with the implementation of ecologically sustainable practices and effective environmental management, especially for at-risk or vulnerable species or ecosystems in desperate need of protection.

Labor's environmental policy commitments go much further in their protective efforts. Specifically, Labor's Great Barrier Reef marine plan involves more-coordinated and efficient long-term management of the reef that is appropriately funded and resourced. This includes investing up to $100 million to review and improve current management practices in the reef, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, and this is further supported by Labor's comprehensive Climate Change Action Plan, which will deliver real action on climate change and, in so doing, preclude its harmful effect on the reef, including coral bleaching.

This government has a job to do and should get on and do it, instead of navel-gazing at its dysfunction constantly. It should get back to the consensus that existed throughout the Howard government and throughout the Fraser government. Our Great Barrier Reef has been here for generations. Once an area is protected, there can be no backward steps. A process of protection that began under Keating, continued under Howard and was concluded in the last Labor government is now potentially being gutted by this dysfunctional, out-of-touch Turnbull government. Is that to be Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's legacy—to turn the Great Barrier Reef into just a barrier? Well, Labor won't allow that to happen. We will always stand to protect the Great Barrier Reef, and we have a plan to do so.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:59): I think I can safely that none of us are going to get to go up into space, look back on this beautiful planet and see what is one of the marvels of this world: the Great Barrier Reef, the single biggest living marine organism on this planet. It is nearly 3,000 reefs, nearly 10 per cent of the world's reef systems. And how amazing would this look from space? How beautiful does it look when we go diving or snorkelling on the Great Barrier Reef or take our children, like I have? But it is actually what it looks like under the water that is truly amazing. The Great Barrier Reef is a sanctuary, a nursery to thousands of different corals, bony fish, algae, marine plants, rays, sharks, turtles and whales.

It is an absolutely amazing place to visit, and yet we know it is under unprecedented stress and cumulative pressures from overfishing, from land based pollution and run-off, from invasive species like starfish, from lack of protection and from plastics floating in the ocean. Of course, lastly but most importantly, the reef is dying because of warming waters, and warming waters are correlated to global emissions, to our changing climates and man's—I should say humanity's—stupidity.

If we want to talk today here in the Senate about a management plan for the Great Barrier Reef and we want to look at this legislation then, yes, there are lots of good things we can see in this management plan across these cumulative stressors on the reef. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we can save the reef by just focusing on things like land based pollutions, collecting starfish or contributing money to groups that clean up the plastics on the beaches of the thousands of islands across the Great Barrier Reef. If we don't take action on climate then we know from unprecedented back-to-back bleachings on the Great Barrier Reef that we will lose the reef and it will happen in our lifetime, on our watch. That's a concept that horrifies me. We may actually lose one of the great wonders of the world because of our own short-sightedness and our own stupidity. But I will get back to that later.

I want to talk about a couple things in the management plan that are near and dear to my heart. I want to start with talking about plastic pollution in the ocean. I want to acknowledge today the good folks from Sea Shepherd and Boomerang Alliance who were in the House last night along with a whole group of stakeholders who want to help clean up our oceans. Last night we also had the Humane Society International, Surfrider Foundation, Birdlife Australia and a whole bunch more people, including scientists, who had come together at parliament to meet with decision-makers and impress upon them the fact that we are slowly choking our oceans with the millions of tonnes of plastic that go into our oceans every year. It's not just what is going into the ocean off the coast of the Great Barrier Reef; this is washing up from all around the world.

I know Senator Williams recently went to visit the Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Tuvalu, and they have exactly the same problem. These places are being choked. We are turning the ocean into a plastic soup by our own short-sightedness and our own stupidity.

I know Tangaroa Blue is receiving funds under this management plan to get beach clean-ups in place on the many islands of the Great Barrier Reef. They are contributing that to a national database. But we're not doing anywhere near enough. With these islands what is most troubling and concerning is not what we see on the coastline when we walk on the beaches but what's going on under the water. We only see a fraction of the plastics. More than 60 per cent of the plastic in the ocean sinks to the bottom. The stuff we can see is nowhere near the volume of the plastics that are broken up into microplastics—particles that we know are consumed by the diverse and abundant marine life on the Great Barrier Reef. And those particles have toxins attached to them. These are scientific facts. We have even found plastic in plankton in the Antarctic; the basis of our food chain is consuming plastic.

This is one of the many threats that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority manages in conjunction with the Queensland government. But we are not doing enough. Looking at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority plan, all we can do is clean it up. But we're kidding ourselves if we think that's going to help. Unless in this country and internationally we look at our use of plastics—redesign, refuse and recycle, new schemes that we know will help reduce plastic going into the ocean—then we will never solve that problem.

There is another issue that's near and dear to my heart. Sadly, the Queensland Labor government recently gave permission to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for a 10-year program to set baited drum lines to kill sharks in the Great Barrier Reef—a 20th century technology that's not necessary. Sharks are absolutely critical to healthy oceans. This is just a crass plan based on a political decision to continue to kill sharks indiscriminately. That includes sharks that should be protected, such as hammerhead sharks, which we know are endangered but haven't even made their way onto our endangered list yet. Why does the Queensland government use this technology when we could use smart drum lines and other technologies that can help mitigate the risk of shark attacks? I'm very disappointed, considering how important sharks are to the health of the reef. We know from studies about trophic cascades that if we remove our apex predators on these reefs it leads to all sorts of negative consequences for biodiversity. I'm disappointed that recently the drum line program has been given another 10 years of life just when we're getting close to looking at how we can better manage our marine resources and balance off the protection of human life.

I want to talk a little bit about marine protected areas. As much as I have always supported marine protected areas, I am very concerned about this government's short-sightedness, on the back of a few stakeholders, in removing the protections that were in place under current plans for marine protection areas, especially in the Coral Sea and around the Great Barrier Reef. We should be doing everything we possibly can to increase our protection of the ocean at a time when we know oceans are under unprecedented stress and threats. It boggles my mind, it is not fathomable, that any government would be reducing protections in this day and age. We should be doing everything we can to protect our ocean for future generations. And yet we have before us—it's now in a consultation phase—a plan to reduce protections for marine protected areas. I think most would Australians agree that we need to do everything we can if we are to save the Great Barrier Reef. Let me also be very clear: marine protected areas aren't going to stop coral bleaching. They may help reduce the stressors in these hotspots of biodiversity—and they do; it's scientifically proven—but the reef will die unless we cut our emissions and act on climate change.

Building one of the world's biggest coalmines not that far from the Great Barrier Reef—even putting aside the impact of more ports and turning the Great Barrier Reef into a coal, oil and gas superhighway by running thousands of tankers through these delicate and pristine areas every year, putting them at risk of oil spills, as we know from around the world—will be absolutely devastating to the Great Barrier Reef. And this government is actively courting giving taxpayer funds to a project that will become the biggest coalmine in the world. There should be no new coalmines if we are to be serious about tackling the dangerous emissions that lead to global warming. It is a black-and-white thing.

Why is this government so intent on rolling back renewable energy? Why is this government so intent on sticking its head in the sand on climate change? I know why the Labor Party support coal mines. That's black and white. They don't have any negotiating power on this with their unions, with the CFMEU and others that want coalmines. I understand what their position is; I don't agree with it. We have to be very clear: if we want to protect the Great Barrier Reef, which is what we are debating here today, we need courage, we need some political spine and conviction to move our generation of energy to being 100 per cent renewable in this country. We need to leave coal in the ground. Coal not only kills people but, we know, is killing the Great Barrier Reef.

It is not about me going diving on the Great Barrier Reef and enjoying that experience with my kids; it is the biodiversity and the abundance of marine life. This is the nursery of the ocean. If we want to have fishing, be it commercial or recreational, then we need to understand that marine protected areas are insurance policies on a healthy ocean for the next generation. We are taking out insurance policies. And to Senator Williams, through you, Chair: of course there may be costs associated with this kind of mitigation and adaption. If you take out an insurance policy, you have to pay a premium, but it is worth it when the risks are catastrophic. If we don't take action to protect the Great Barrier Reef through marine protected areas and through action on climate, we will lose this natural asset, this wonder of the world that you can see from space. It's been there for tens of thousands of years, yet we will lose it in our lifetime.

I am chairing a committee that is shortly going to the Great Barrier Reef, and all senators are invited to join me if they wish to participate. We'll be hearing from scientists, we'll be hearing from the tourism industry and we'll be hearing from the fishing industry—people with different views on this. We collect the evidence and data we need to make an informed report in this Senate. That's what we do. I can tell you from what we've heard already, from some of the world's best scientists in their areas who are looking at warming waters off the Great Barrier Reef, that 25 years ago, when they started measuring water temperatures in the Great Barrier Reef, they could never have predicted not only that we would have the major coral bleaching episode a few years ago but that we would then have back-to-back coral bleaching episodes. That was unthinkable 25 years ago. What is going on with our climate now that we are seeing huge parts of the Great Barrier Reef bleaching and dying? Then there are extreme weather events—another stressor on the Great Barrier Reef. Last year's cyclone—the physical, mechanical activity of the wind and the swell—caused immense damage to the reef that is already, in parts, on its last knees. I should have said that differently, shouldn't I? It is already on its knees. This is the point: these are cumulative stressors. We acknowledge, and that's why we'll be supporting the legislation, that the stressors on the reef are many and they're cumulative.

But now is not the time to be reducing protections. Now is not the time to be in the pocket of the commercial fishing industry, like this government is. Now is the time to be getting the balance right and actually protecting the reef. If we want fishing for future generations and we want to keep alive the biodiversity that is so essential to our healthy oceans, we need to tackle these big issues and we need to make some hard decisions. That is what the data tells us now. That is what the evidence is telling us.

If we have more coral bleaching events in the next five years then, the experts tell us, the reef will die. If you were a betting person and I asked you to put money on it, Acting Deputy President, which way would you bet, based on what the data's telling you? You'd be a fool not to bet that we're going to have more bleaching events.

During the double dissolution last year, I went down to the measuring station at Cape Grim and did a social media video in 120-kilometre-an-hour winds, and I saw that we'd just passed 400 parts per million, Senator Chisholm, through you, Chair—400 parts per million. We are now on track, based on the last year, to be at 420 parts per million within the next 10 years, or possibly even 450. That is what scientists tell us is runaway global warming. We are that close. And it will happen in our lifetime, based on current emission projections. The signs are there. The siren is sounding. Why are we ignoring it? Why have we got our head in the sand? Why have we got our hands over our ears? They're the questions I think Australians are asking. Well, from what I've seen in here, it's vested interests that run the big parties; it's special interests. It's not for the public good that we're delivering a lack of action on things like climate change or marine plastic. We need to step up.

My party is a party that will stand in here, time and time again, and take the strongest line. To quote an ex-MP, Mr Peter Garrett, who I think I might have quoted twice this week, 'Sometimes you've got to take the hardest line.' When we are facing these kinds of risks and what the evidence tells us, we have to take the hardest line if that's the choice we make—that we want to save the Great Barrier Reef. If we don't, I'd be devastated, and I think most Australians would. So let's at least be honest about it. If, in balancing the risks, we choose more coalmines, and the biggest coalmines in the world, which will have a material impact on global warming, then we've made a simple choice. And it is a binary choice in my opinion. It is black and white: it's the reef or it's more coal. You can't have both; you can have one or the other.

With each year that goes by, new events tell us that the ocean is in trouble. We have ocean acidification—another thing that, unfortunately, this management plan can't do anything about. If the ocean continues to acidify—because carbon dioxide, from emissions of carbon, is absorbed by the ocean—at the rates that science is suggesting to us, then our corals will also die. I mean, these are black and white.

This is why I wonder that this government tried to essentially get rid of CSIRO's Oceans and Atmosphere and climate change divisions. I am proud to say that Senator Rice and I—and, I will acknowledge, Labor's Senator Carr, Senator Singh and others—fought really hard to stop that happening. We not only managed to get most of those scientists' job losses reversed but actually got new funding for the climate change research centre in Hobart in my home state of Tasmania.

But it is nowhere near enough. These scientists are telling us: we need to act. This plan in front of us today helps us manage some of the stressors that we know the reef is under, but—let's not kid ourselves in here today—it's not enough. If we truly want to do something for the Great Barrier Reef, whether we want to fish there, dive there or take our kids there, or whether we just care about having a healthy ocean and about biodiversity and marine life, for the sake of nature and the things that we put value on, then we need to take strong action.

While we'll be supporting this legislation, I suggest to Senator Macdonald, who is in the chamber—he'll be coming up to the Great Barrier Reef with me in a few weeks' time and others are welcome to join us; Senator Chisholm, you're welcome to join us—that we get the evidence in front of us to make better decisions.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Before I call Senator Chisholm, I would just remind honourable senators in the debate—and I recognise that there was absolutely nothing inappropriate in how it was directed—not to refer to the chair or any other honourable senators as potentially being a fool or anything else. Notwithstanding personal thoughts, there should not be direct references to the chair in that respect.

I understand that in the context of Senator Whish-Wilson's speech there was no negativity attached to it, that it was just the phraseology chosen in the context of saying, 'You would be a fool to bet against it.' It was personalised, and I just think, if we can refrain from that, it would be advantageous for all of us.

Senator Whish-Wilson: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order, just to get this on the record. That definitely is not what I was implying.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that perfectly, and it is just a general caution for everybody that it is easier if we don't personalise these things, even if it is inopportune.

Senator Gallacher: What about disorderly conduct?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You may take that approach.

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (11:21): Following on from Senator Whish-Wilson on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017, I do look forward to joining him in North Queensland in the week after next. As a Queensland senator—and I identified this in my first speech—the Great Barrier Reef is something that I dedicate a lot of my time to, to ensure that the party has a very strong policy framework when it comes to dealing with the reef. I certainly would echo his criticisms of the LNP federally—this government—and also at the state level, where they have been responsible for degrading the reef on a regular basis.

I just wanted to pick up on something that Senator Rice mentioned in regard to the tree-clearing laws, where she implied some criticism of the state Labor government. I would point out that they did propose to take strong action on tree-clearing laws. Unfortunately, they are in a minority government and couldn't get the numbers to pass that. But I am very confident that they will take strong tree-clearing laws to the next election and, hopefully, they can win a majority government and implement those laws. If we look at the history, particularly with regard to tree clearing, it has been Labor governments at the state level that have taken action—first under Peter Beattie and then supported by Anna Bligh as Premier. When they implemented those laws, they basically drove the federal government's commitment to meet its Kyoto protocols. Nothing is more important in terms of our emissions than those tree-clearing laws that were passed in Queensland.

Then what happened? We lost in 2012. We all know that Campbell Newman won. What came back? They got rid of the tree-clearing laws, the bulldozers started up and the tree clearing has been happening at an alarming rate. I certainly think that in regard to the EPBC Act the federal government needs to take stronger action by using these laws to crack down on those people who are tree clearing. I think there have been something like only four prosecutions of those who are doing the wrong thing and that, obviously, there is a lot more that the federal department and the federal government could be doing to put pressure on those people, to stop those people from that unabated tree clearing that is going on and the associated damage that does to the reef.

I think the other things that are really important are the reef run-off and the ability to actually capture the damage that it is doing to the reef as well. I think that's something we will look at whilst we are in Cairns. Also, I think that we need to look at that throughout the coastline, because there are parts of the reef catchment which are heavily farmed districts and that do not have appropriate levels of checking what damage that is doing to the reef. Particularly, there is the importance of tourism in areas where we've seen the impact of Tropical Cyclone Debbie as well and the ability of those tourism operators to get back on their feet.

The other significant aspect of this bill—and Senator Singh touched on this as well—is the chaos and dysfunction that we saw in the House of Representatives when this was voted on yesterday. Whilst there has been significant chaos and dysfunction this week from the government, it really did bring itself to bear in the House of Representatives yesterday when they lost the vote for the second time. That is absolutely unique. What did they lose on this motion? This is something that is really important: the government failed to defend themselves. The amendment put forward by Labor went to the fact:

(1) the Government is failing to protect Australia's iconic Great Barrier Reef by:

(a) failing to act on climate change;

(b) supporting the Liberal National Party in Queensland in blocking reef protections aimed at halting the broad scale clearing of trees and remnant vegetation; and

(c) winding back ocean protection, put in place by Labor, around Australia and specifically in the Coral Sea; and

(2) this Government cannot be trusted to protect the Great Barrier Reef and fight for Australia's unique environment.

This is what was passed yesterday in the House of Representatives. The government can't even muster the numbers to defend its own inaction on the Great Barrier Reef, which is such an important piece of Australia.

Is it any wonder, when you see outcomes like that in the House of Representatives, that when we turned up this morning we saw stunts like the attempted suspension of standing orders, which they failed to get the numbers for in this place. When you look at the dysfunction of this government and the impact that is having on the community, it is their failure to actually operate as a government on the important issues that this country is facing. Instead of seeing the government operating yesterday, what we actually saw was a Prime Minister claiming a foreign interference. We saw a Foreign Minister willing to debase her position and put an important, longstanding relationship with New Zealand at risk. We saw a government lose a vote in the House. We saw an incompetent Leader of the House in the other place—he claims to be an election-winning machine, but he was not much good at that in the House of Representatives yesterday. That explains why we see these failed stunts today that really do this government no justice. For those people crying out for a federal government that is operating in the interests of Australians, we have seen none of that from the government this week or, indeed, in recent months.

So let's actually look at what happened yesterday. This is a government that was willing to put our relationship with New Zealand at risk. This is a government that was willing to put the important trade relationship with New Zealand at risk. And they are so desperate, flailing around, that they are willing to come into this chamber and pull stunts like they did this morning—and fail at that as well. It shows you they are out of control. It shows you they are not operating in the interests of Australians. This government is a failure at every level, and Australians are increasingly waking up to the dysfunction and chaos of those opposite.

I would ask that, when it comes to the reef, they would take their obligations seriously, that they would look at their current EPBC Act and take action on important issues such as tree clearing, which is doing so much ongoing damage to the reef at the moment. They really do have such a poor record, and the fact that they failed to defend themselves in the House of Representatives yesterday speaks volumes to their inactions on the reef.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (11:28): I despair that in this chamber, and in parliament, there are so many ill-informed politicians taking part in debates such as this and passing off to unsuspecting members of the public who might be listening to this debate their ideological campaigns and portraying them as facts.

Senator Rice: It is called science.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I am now the longest-serving parliamentarian in this parliament. I have seen the standard of debate deteriorate over the 27 years that I have been here. When you have speakers like the first two speakers in this debate, who mouthed the words, who told deliberate mistruths—I suspect they don't know they're deliberate mistruths, because they're just reading some information that some staffer down the back corridor has said, 'This will sound good on the radio'. They simply have no idea—

Senator Rice: It is called science.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I will come to you, Senator Rice, and I will demonstrate to you how what you portray as 'debate' is pure ideological claptrap.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, I remind you to make your remarks to the chair, thank you.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: If you showed some balance and stopped Senator Rice interjecting, perhaps I would refer my—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, please resume your seat.

Senator Whish-Wilson: Point of order. Senator Macdonald clearly just made a reflection on you in the chair.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's why I have sat him down. Senator Macdonald, I remind you of the standing orders. It is my responsibility to make sure debate occurs in a respectful manner and within the confines of the standing orders. You were directly addressing Senator Rice. I was very clear when I directed you to make your comments to me. Any views that you have about how I chair the Senate, please keep to yourself. Senator Williams.

Senator Williams: I rise on a point of order. I agree with what you just said. Could you please bring to the attention of Senator Rice standing order 197 because of her continuing interjections to Senator Macdonald?

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, please sit down. I intend to address the points made by Senator Williams. As you know, Senator Williams, I have just taken over the chair; I've been in a meeting. I will closely watch all senators, but thank you. Senator Macdonald.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: My speech has only gone a little way so far, but what happens with the Labor Party and the Greens is they try to drown me out every time. Senator Rice has continually interjected. Can I seek your protection from me so that I will not be tempted to directly respond?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please resume your seat. I have responded to that. Please continue your contribution.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. As I always say in these debates, you know you're hitting the truth when the Greens and the Labor Party continue to make points of order—baseless points of order, I might say—simply to make sure that I am not heard exposing the ideological claptrap that particularly the first two speakers today demonstrated in this debate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, please resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson.

Senator Whish-Wilson: On a point of order: Senator Macdonald clearly reflected on you. That was my point of order, which you have now addressed. He has just done it again by saying that my point of order was baseless. That is the second time he has reflected on your decisions on a point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I believe I have addressed those points and made my views clear. Please continue, Senator Macdonald.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Again, I point out to those who might be listening that the Greens and the Labor Party particularly will try to prevent anyone from exposing their ideological claptrap that they pass off as facts in debates such as this. This ideological claptrap is propagated by similarly left-wing ideological groups like GetUp!, who now are an arm of the Greens political party. To their eternal shame, the Labor Party leader, Mr Shorten, improperly gave $100,000 of union workers' money to set up that group. He gave it—it appears, because he hasn't been able to respond—illegally under the standing orders of the Australian Workers' Union. We await Mr Shorten to answer that. But I do despair—and I've seen this over the 27 years I have been here—that now senators get up and say any lie and portray it as facts. People listening to this debate might be confused into believing these lies. I have to say, at least in relation to the last two speakers, there was some direction to this debate and some factual information, not that I agree with it, but there was some attempt to deal with this matter.

This bill is another coalition government action on the Great Barrier Reef. I refer to the first speaker who wrongly claimed that the Labor Party have been the saviour of the Great Barrier Reef. This document that I'm reading from was produced not by friends of ours but by an alliance of leading marine conservation organisations. They published a book called A big blue legacy: The Liberal National tradition of marine conservation. This booklet clearly demonstrates that every single positive action on the Great Barrier Reef, from the setting up of the World Heritage listing to the setting up GBRMPA back in 1981, has been by governments of this political persuasion.

As I say, the people who produced this book that I'm reading from aren't particular friends of ours, but they have to acknowledge the truth of the matter, which is that any serious single advance on protecting our marine environment in Australia has come from Liberal-National Party governments. In fact, it was a Liberal government under then Senator Robert Hill who set up the world's first oceans policy. That's the fact. But, if you listened to the first two speakers, you'd believe that Mr Hawke or some other Labor luminary did these things. They are simply not factual, and that's the point I make.

I'm pleased that Senator Chisholm entered this debate, because at least we have one Queenslander who lives, in his case, close to—in my case, adjacent to—the Great Barrier Reef. I might just pause there to note that every single federal electorate in Queensland that adjoins the Great Barrier Reef is held by someone from the Liberal National Party. That has been the case for most of the time that I have been here, and why? It is because we who live there understand the Barrier Reef. We don't get tied up, we don't get confused, by the lies that are propagated by those who would destroy the reef and everything that is supported by it.

I was in Tonga recently, and the Deputy Prime Minister said to me: 'Oh, you're from Townsville. Isn't it a shame the Barrier Reef is dead?' That sort of view comes from intelligent people around the world. Why? Because the Greens particularly, and their cronies, go around telling the world the Great Barrier Reef is dead. As we all know, the Great Barrier Reef is alive and well and absolutely magnificent. That's, I guess, why Senator Whish-Wilson wanted to do a scuba-diving trip on the Great Barrier Reef, because it is a wonderful experience; it is magnificent. There are parts of the Great Barrier Reef that are under some stress, but that has been the case for all of its existence.

I want to give credit to those at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, with whom I regularly meet, and those at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—both are based in Townsville, where I'm based—who I regularly communicate with. Some of those at James Cook University I totally disagree with and think are ideologically directed, but there are others there who do wonderful work on the Great Barrier Reef. They are also based in Townsville and Cairns. I want to congratulate them on the work they do. They would be the first to tell you that there are parts of the Barrier Reef under challenge, but there are, equally, greater parts of the Great Barrier Reef that are magnificent. But the Greens will go around the world trying to destroy the Queensland tourism industry by saying it is dead.

And that's why, as I say, I'm pleased that at least Senator Chisholm was in this debate. The other speakers in this debate come from as far away from the Great Barrier Reef as you can be in Australia, one from Western Australia and two from the great south island of Tasmania.

The first two speakers in this debate, the first one in particular, kept saying what the Labor Party were going to do. Well, the Labor Party were in power for six years and did absolutely nothing. They did absolutely nothing. They talked about some marine reserve. They talked about what should happen to protect various parts of the marine environment of Australia but did nothing. It was left to an incoming coalition government, again, to actually do something about the Great Barrier Reef.

We're told—we were told by the first two speakers particularly—about how climate change is ruining the reef. I'm a believer in climate change. I know the climate changes; it always has. We once used to be covered in ice, so clearly the climate is changing. I don't enter into the debate, because I simply don't know—I'm not a scientist—but there are equal numbers of recognised competent scientists who take different views on the matters of carbon emissions and climate change. I don't get into that debate, because I don't know.

What I do know is that Australia emits less than 1.3 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. As Dr Finkel told me at estimates, if we shut Australia down completely—not if we cut our emissions by 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 50 per cent, but if we cut our emissions by 100 per cent and stopped every motor vehicle, factory and electric light in Australia—it would make not one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world. Yet the first two speakers would blame this government for somehow emitting all this carbon that somehow destroys the Barrier Reef.

A few facts always help in these debates. There are, as we speak, 621 new units of coal-fired generation under construction around the world. Can I repeat that figure: there are 621 new units. Of these, 299 are in China, adding to their 2,100 units of coal-fired generation. The extra 299 units will produce some 670 million tons of carbon dioxide a year—more than the total emitted from Australia. This is just the new ones. There are 120 new units of coal-fired power under construction in India and 34 in Vietnam. Would you realise, Madam Deputy President, that Australia has a total of 73 units of coal-fired generation in the country, and none of them under construction now? We have 73, compared with 621 new ones being built as we speak. These new units in China and Vietnam will use clean Australian coal. If they didn't use clean Australian coal they would be buying their coal from other places around the world which have what we all know as dirty coal.

Now I will simply address some of the mistruths or the misinformation provided by other speakers. Senator Rice said the federal government is about to give away a billion dollars of money to a multinational coal company. I think she's talking about the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and I think she's talking about Adani. If she is, this demonstrates the point I made right at the beginning of my speech. Those out there might think the federal government is about to give Adani a billion dollars. That is simply—can I say it's a lie? That is simply a lie. If that is what she is talking about, she should know—she has been here long enough to know—that the government is not giving away anything or doing anything. An independent statutory authority called the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is looking at loaning money. I don't know whether they're talking with Adani—nobody knows, might I say—but they are thinking about loaning money. They don't have power to give anything to anyone. They can loan money. Now, there's a deliberate fact. Listeners might think, 'Oh, isn't that bad?' But it's just untruthful, and I despair that senators get up in this chamber and tell mistruths and portray them as facts.

Senator Rice also said that there were millions of citizens out there opposing Adani. This's simply not true. We opened the Adani headquarters in Townsville—the Queensland Labor Premier, the Townsville Labor mayor, Senator Canavan and I. There were five protesters as we went in, and when we came out an hour later that had swelled to eight—which proves to me that 199,992 of Townsville's population of 200,000 people support Adani. I know they do. It means jobs and it means a lifeline to many of the struggling small businesses in Townsville. Again, Senator Rice's claim is completely untrue. We're told Indigenous people are against it, yet we've had evidence at a Senate inquiry from the major Indigenous group in the area and they totally support it. Why? Because it means jobs and a real life for their people. This sort of disruption and the portrayal of wrong facts as facts is a despair on this parliament.

Senator Rice also said it was 'coal or the reef'. Well, the reef has been there for centuries and coalmining has been there centuries, and they can exist easily together. We were told that the Labor government in Queensland was hell-bent on Adani going ahead. That's one of the things Senator Rice has said that is probably half true. The Palaszczuk faction of the Queensland Labor government, headed by Ms Palaszczuk, understands the importance of jobs for Queensland and the need for the royalties to try and balance the Queensland budget. As Senator Rice said, that faction of the Queensland Labor Party are hell-bent on Adani going ahead—and I support them and congratulate them for it. Unfortunately, the other element of the Queensland Labor Party, which seems to be taking control, is totally against it. They don't care about jobs for the workers and they don't care about the Queensland economy.

Senator Singh spoke about the bill, which she's clearly never read. She said very little about the bill but, as she is a Tasmanian, I can understand that. Her speech was spent gloating about something that happened in the other chamber by accident last night. It might all be very interesting for the Labor Party, and it might give them a flush of excitement, but it had nothing to do with this bill. Senator Singh attacked the Australian government at the United Nations. She forgot to mention that the Queensland Labor government was there at the UN, shoulder to shoulder with the Australian government as it should have been—again, congratulations where it's due—trying to save the barrier reef.

We are addressing the health of the reef. As I've mentioned, parts of it are good and parts of it are bad. But the scientists are looking into it. Senator Singh also talked about the largest removal of conservation areas that Labor established. Again, anyone hearing this might think it is a fact. It is simply not true. Labor established nothing in their six years of government. It was left to the Liberal government, following Labor, to take some real action, and today's bill is a little bit a part of that. Senator Singh, again portraying the myth—if you say it long enough, perhaps people might start to believe you—also said that Joh Bjelke-Petersen wanted to drill on the reef and was stopped by Labor. Sorry, Senator Singh, but you need to look up the history. It was actually stopped by the Fraser Liberal government, not by the Labor government. Senator Singh talked about the biomass of coral trout—and she's right there; that's one bit that's right. But do you know what she was talking about? She was talking about the green zones that had been set up not by Labor, not by the Greens, not by the Queensland government but by a Commonwealth Liberal-National Party government—and it is those green zones which this bill deals with today.

Senator Whish-Wilson, regrettably, but continuing the Greens approach, is telling everyone we are going to lose the Barrier Reef in our lifetime. The Barrier Reef is resilient. It will be there long after Senator Whish-Wilson and I are dead. We have to do what we can to help the reef along, and we are doing that. Thanks to the coalition government, and thanks to those agencies that I have mentioned, there continues to be a lot of work being done there. There are a lot of people of good will who understand that most of the Barrier Reef is great. There are elements of the Great Barrier Reef that are increasing in coral cover. But the Greens will always pick that smaller portion which is currently in some trouble. This bill furthers the coalition's advances on the Great Barrier Reef and deserves the Senate's support.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:50): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to speak because, although the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017 is a simple bill, I must address, as Senator Macdonald has, some of the lies and falsities peddled before. It seems that whenever we hear the three words 'Great Barrier Reef', the Greens and now increasingly the Labor Party fall into madness. We wonder now about the rainbow coloured, solar powered unicorns that are going to die. Everywhere there is madness when we hear three words 'Great Barrier Reef'. I want to address that because Senator Pratt started this absolute nonsense, Senator Rice continued it and then Senator Whish-Wilson continued it. I want to congratulate Senator Macdonald for speaking up and telling the truth.

This bill, at its core, is simple. This is a mechanical bill that fixes an unintended consequence of existing law. It is not about saving the planet. Particular regulations governing the Great Barrier Reef have sunset clauses which automatically expire at a certain date and need to be renewed if they are to be retained. This is a measure to prevent regulations from continuing once they have become outdated and unnecessary. This is not about the collapse of the Great Barrier Reef. In this particular case, the government does not want to let these regulations expire yet and would like to renew them by repealing and then reinstating those regulations with a new sunset date. There is nothing to see here. However, as the law is written, doing this would require the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to remake its existing plans of management. This is a pretty bureaucratic process, to say the least—and I'm sure Senator Leyonhjelm would agree with me—that needs to comply with part VB of the act and involves consultation periods et cetera—in other words, it is a hassle for no change, no benefit. This bill will simply allow the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to retain its existing plans of management when the regulations are reset. Our party has discussed this bill and decided to support it.

I must address Senator Pratt's comments because in her early comments she stated, 'We in federal parliament are the reef's custodians.' That, sadly, is the state in which we find ourselves now in the state of Queensland and the country of Australia. The real custodian under the Constitution is the state government of Queensland on behalf of the people of Queensland yet what we see now are federal environmental ministers reporting to UN bodies on the state of Queensland's Great Barrier Reef and we see misrepresentations from the United Nations. We see the reef being trashed in reputation only, not in physical existence. We see the reef being trashed in misleading and false statements, starting in this chamber, from the Greens and the Labor Party. We heard Senator Whish-Wilson talk about the reef being tens of thousands of years old. It's only 6,000 years old in the Whitsunday areas and in the north it's only 8,000 years old. Senator Macdonald is correct; the Greens peddle fantasies. We need to end the misrepresentations that are hurting jobs, because the Great Barrier Reef is alive and well and thriving.

Senator Pratt raised the clearing of trees. There is no problem with that whatsoever when it's done by farmers on their own land. Because who are the best custodians for the land? The people who own the land and, in that case, it is the farmers. Farmers don't want to see wasted chemicals going on their land. They don't want to see excess pesticides, fertilisers going on their lands. That costs them money for nothing. Farmers don't want to see topsoil being washed off the land, because they value the topsoil. Farmers are the best custodians because, when they come to sell, when they come to pass on to their kids, they want to maximise the value of their land. That's why farmers are the only ones with skin in the game, and farmers alone are the best to make the decision on whether or not to clear trees.

As I said, the three words 'Great Barrier Reef' put the Greens into pseudo-alarm: 'The sky is falling, we'll all be killed, we need action on climate, it's a wonder of the world, you can see it from space.' How many times have we heard this? 'It has been there for tens of thousands of years,' says Senator Whish-Wilson. Actually, no, it hasn't, as I've just explained. The Great Barrier Reef seems to now be collecting another milestone. It has died more times than John Farnham has retired, and we still see the endless claims.

Let's get on to Senator Rice's topic: climate change. But, before doing so, let's remind everyone of Senator Macdonald's wonderful question during Senate estimates to the chief scientist, Dr Alan Finkel. Senator Macdonald asked him one simple question: if all carbon dioxide output from humans in Australia stopped, what would be the impact on climate globally? And the chief scientist's response after beating around the bush was two words: 'virtually nothing'. In fact, it would be nothing.

We not only don't believe, as Senator Pratt says, in climate change being caused by carbon dioxide from humans; we know it is not being caused by humans. In fact, we know there is nothing unusual or unprecedented occurring in climate, and I will soon be discussing the results from my challenges of the CSIRO. Consider these hard facts, physical observations, hard data, measurements. For the last 22 years there has been no trend other than flat in global atmospheric temperatures—22 years with no warming, 22 years with ever-increasing and record carbon dioxide output from China, India and the Western developed world. There has been no warming despite record amounts of carbon dioxide from human activity.

The longest temperature trend in the last 160 years was 40 years of trend from 1936 to 1976—40 years when human production of carbon dioxide increased dramatically due to the Second World War and the postwar economic boom. And what was that trend? It was a falling temperature trend. There were rising carbon dioxide levels from humans, and the temperature fell for 40 years, the longest trend in the last 160 years. And then we look at the Bureau of Meteorology's own records and we find that temperatures in the 1880s and 1890s were warmer than today. And the CSIRO doesn't dispute that. In fact, I will issue a challenge again to anyone in the Labor Senate benches and anyone in the Greens Senate benches: find me someone who will debate the empirical evidence and the corruption of science, and I will gladly meet that challenge.

People don't seem to understand that some of the same coral species that we have on the Great Barrier Reef exist off the coast of Thailand, where the temperature is two degrees warmer. People don't seem to understand that, on any given day in Queensland, the temperature at the northern part of the reef will be four or possibly five degrees centigrade warmer than the southern part. People don't seem to recognise that in 2008 we had record cold temperatures in South-East Queensland and the southern portion of the Great Barrier Reef bleached entirely naturally.

There is no evidence of humans affecting global climate and there is no evidence that humans through impact on climate are affecting the Great Barrier Reef. There is a gaping hole in Senator Rice's plan. Pictures of cute animals, colourful exotic fish and wild alarmist statements are not evidence of anything happening. They are not evidence; we need to go to the empirical evidence, as I have just presented.

Sadly, Senator Macdonald raised the name of Senator Robert Hill. He was no saviour of the Barrier Reef. He was a foot soldier, I believe, of the United Nations—certainly misguided, possibly a useful idiot. But let's get back to the facts: based on those facts, the Greens are anti-science. They undermine science, they misrepresent science and they falsify science. As a result—because, in protecting the environment, the first step is to care enough to get the facts—because they distort the truth they cannot be pro-environment, because they are hurting the environment. By shutting down our production of carbon dioxide here and sending it to Third World countries with outdated power stations that do not have pollution-scrubbing equipment, the Greens are actually increasing total pollution globally. The Greens are increasing pollution globally—real pollutants: sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide particulates. The Greens are hurting the environment.

The Greens are anti-industry. They are killing jobs in this country: farming jobs, mining jobs, manufacturing jobs, service industry jobs and tourism jobs in Queensland. They are anti-worker, for the obvious reasons: they're killing jobs. They're antidevelopment. They're killing progress. Fundamentally, for human progress we need decreasing energy prices. The Greens' stated outcome, their stated desire, and their outcome already being achieved, is to increase energy prices. That is the exact reverse—the reverse!—of what is needed for human progress.

So that makes the Greens anti-civilisation: anti-industry and anti-progress. They are anti-Australia because they are undermining Australian sovereignty by pushing the UN agenda. They are anti-female, pushing the Islamisation of this country. They are anti-homosexual because they're pushing Islamisation of this country. In short, they are anti-human: anti-people, anti-civilisation and anti-progress.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party will delight in continuing to support the reef and the people of Queensland and Australia. We support farmers and we support the environment. We must do whatever we can to focus on cutting real pollutants—sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide particulates. We must protect the water, we must protect the soil and we must do that based on facts, and that starts with care to unearth the facts.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party supports the truth. We want to pass this bill and we want to do it by ensuring that we present the facts, expose the Greens and protect Queensland jobs. We join with the government in recommending passage of this bill. Thank you.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:02): I rise to oppose the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017. The bill attempts to preserve Commonwealth's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority by fixing a drafting error that would see the bureaucracy's management plan lapse in 2018. But we should allow such an accident to happen so that we can do away with this Commonwealth bureaucracy.

Henry David Thoreau, a US abolitionist, wrote a famous essay in 1849 called 'Civil Disobedience'. Thoreau states:

That government is best which governs least.

By extension, I can only assume that Thoreau would have thought the government is worst when governing most. I would agree with this. On that basis, this government is very bad. The government is an addict to regulation and an addict to bureaucracy. I am intent on helping the government to put itself in rehab to reduce this addiction, one piece of regulation at a time.

A valuable step in this rehabilitation process relates to the Great Barrier Reef. There is more government regulation around the Great Barrier Reef than any other natural feature in Australia. We all know that the Great Barrier Reef is beautiful. It's known around the world for its biodiversity. It's a tourism mecca and we all value it highly. The Queensland National Trust has named it 'a state Icon of Queensland'. But none of this justifies the Commonwealth government meddling in state business. In case you haven't noticed, the Great Barrier Reef is entirely in Queensland, and yet the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is a Commonwealth body. This is not a discussion about climate change, but a question of overregulation, unnecessary and avoidable regulation.

I have a better idea—dissolve the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Give responsibility of the reef to the state in which it is located and reduce the regulation oversight burdens of the federal system. If nothing else, this would help discourage the perception that the Commonwealth government will come stomping in with its giant jackboots at every opportunity. Thoreau would not be impressed with the Australian Commonwealth government's approach to the Great Barrier Reef. Let Queensland do its job. Abolish the Commonwealth Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:05): I rise to speak briefly to the second reading amendment moved by the Greens. I have already spoken in the second reading debate. I note in those remarks earlier, I recognised the impact of climate change on the reef and the strong record of action on climate change that the Labor Party has. However, we don't support this second reading amendment. We don't support the singling out of any specific project, because we note that effective action on global climate change will require a strong global architecture, regulating and limiting emissions, not only in Australia but also globally. Therefore, we shouldn't be singling out any specific project—Chinese industry, American industry, global transport, agricultural emissions, land clearing or proposed projects like the Browse Basin, Adani coalmines or future developments in the North West Shelf. We need a global architecture limiting such emissions.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (12:06): I thank senators who've contributed to this debate, although I do note that this is essentially a very non-controversial bill. The requirement to have had some eight or nine senators speak in a debate that has gone on for a couple of hours was probably quite unnecessary. I appreciate that people like, sometimes, to seize the opportunity to wax lyrical about matters relating to climate change policy or mining approvals or the like. Ultimately, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017 is very precise, very short and very specific in terms of what it seeks to do.

This bill makes minor technical amendments to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to rectify an unintended consequence of the sunsetting regime that was established under the Legislation Act 2003. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act provides for the protection and conservation of the environment, biodiversity and heritage values through zoning issues of permissions and implementation plans of management in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The amendments made under this bill will simply prevent plans of management made under this act from being revoked if regulations giving effect to these plans are repealed and remade to address sunsetting.

Plans of management are an important environmental management tool for managing activities within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park on the basis of ecologically sustainable use. This will simply allow the protective measures in those plans, currently in place, to continue uninterrupted into the future. Plans of management are prepared specifically for intensively used or particularly vulnerable groups of islands and reefs and for the protection of vulnerable species or ecological communities. There are currently four plans of management in place, mainly around Cairns, Hinchinbrook Island, Shoalwater Bay and the Whitsundays.

The Australian and Queensland governments have been working together for the long-term management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for over 40 years.    We note and respect Senator Leyonhjelm's passionate views in relation to federalism and the responsibilities of the states and territories. We also note that the Great Barrier Reef is, of course, a World Heritage item. It is one in which the cooperation of Commonwealth and state governments has been long-established. And we are proud of the type of effective regime that has been put in place for the protection and management of that World Heritage area.

We are also very proud, as a government, of the significant investment that we have made in relation to the establishment of the Reef Trust and cooperative arrangements with the Queensland government that have seen record sums invested in the ongoing protection of the Great Barrier Reef into the future. As all members of the Senate and Australians appreciate, it is one of the world's largest coral reef systems and includes 2,900 coral reefs, 600 continental islands, 300 coral cays and about 150 inshore mangrove islands. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Queensland Department of National Parks, Sport and Racing, through the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, operate a joint field management program for the marine and island national parks, ensuring efficient, coordinated, cooperative management and oversight. Among other management tools, the field management plan uses the management plans that this bill seeks to ensure continue into the future to deliver practical on-ground actions to support and maintain well-functioning marine and island ecosystems that support economic, traditional and recreational uses of the Great Barrier Reef.

I commend this bill to the Senate. The government will not be supporting the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice. As I said at the outset, this bill is very precise in its intent. This bill deals particularly with ensuring the continuity of management plans. It does not need to be sidelined or used as a mechanism for other issues to be debated. There have been plenty of debates in this place already in relation to the Adani mine. I'm sure there will be others in future. However, the government stands by the very strong environmental safeguards that are in place in relation to the approvals around that mine and is absolutely confident that its operation would provide jobs and economic activity in regional Queensland and would not have any negative consequences for the Great Barrier Reef.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:18): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (12:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (12:19): 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 BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (12:20): 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—

PETROLEUM AND OTHER FUELS REPORTING BILL 2017

This Bill would establish a reporting regime for petroleum, other fuels and fuel-related products to improve Australia's fuel statistics.

The Australian Government has produced statistics on the production, refining, import, export, consumption and end‑of‑month stocks of petroleum and fuels such as ethanol for over forty years. These statistics are used by government agencies to monitor the market and energy security; by business to monitor supply and demand trends and prioritise future investment; and by international organisations to help compile global statistics which increase market transparency.

In recent years, the proportion of businesses contributing to the statistics has declined, while the fuel market has become increasingly competitive and diverse in both the sources of fuel and the types of fuel available. While a clear majority of the industry supports the statistics and continues to contribute data, declining participation in some categories has reduced the coverage, usefulness and accuracy of the statistics. The introduction of a compulsory reporting requirement will ensure that the Government can continue to produce reliable and useful fuel statistics.

The production of accurate statistics is particularly important as the Government implements its plan to return to compliance with Australia's obligation as a member of the International Energy Agency to hold fuel stocks equivalent to 90 days of the previous year's average daily net oil imports. Including stocks as part of the reporting requirement will ensure Australia's oil equivalent stockholdings can be calculated accurately and in a timely manner.

The Bill sets up a legislative framework for mandatory reporting. The specific reporting requirements will be provided in subordinate legislation to ensure the reporting requirements stay up-to-date with changes in the market and technology. The fuel market has the potential to undergo significant change, from the use of biofuels to battery powered cars to the introduction of hydrogen fuel cells. It is important that new products and activities can be swiftly added to the reporting requirements to ensure the statistics remain relevant.

During consultation on the reporting requirement, businesses made clear that they expect their sensitive information to be treated securely. The Bill provides extensive protections for personal or commercially sensitive information. For example, the Bill prohibits the publication of information that could identify an individual or enable commercial‑in‑confidence information to be determined. This ensures that reporting businesses can be confident that their sensitive information will be stored securely, only used where necessary, and only published where appropriate.

The Government is committed to minimising the regulatory burden associated with mandatory reporting. Data-sharing arrangements are being pursued with a number of Federal, state and territory agencies to ensure that data already reported to government is used first, rather than requiring it to be reported twice. For example, the Bill will authorise the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to share import and export data collected through the customs regime to remove the need for this information to be recollected. The Bill also requires an independent review to be undertaken in 2021 to ensure the impact and effectiveness of the reporting regime is evaluated and, if necessary, able to be refined.

PETROLEUM AND OTHER FUELS REPORTING (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2017

This Bill supports the implementation of the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017.

This Bill will empower the Australian Taxation Office and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to share data they have collected with the Department of the Environment and Energy to reduce the reporting burden associated with the reporting obligation imposed by the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017. The data provided to the Department of the Environment and Energy will also be used to monitor compliance with the reporting obligation contained in the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (12:20): I rise to speak on the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017 and the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017. Anyone who has dealt with the Australian gas market knows it is one of the most opaque and least transparent markets in Australia. No-one knows exactly how much gas is produced, who holds it, how much it is sold for and where it goes. This bill takes one small step towards improving that transparency and, as such, Labor is supportive of the bill.

Rather than relying on voluntary disclosure of information, this bill will require gas companies to disclose information regarding gas suppliers to the government. That information can be used to inform public policy and, with appropriate safeguards to protect confidential information, to inform the general public, researchers, the industry and others. But no-one should be fooled into thinking if this bill becomes law we will have a solution to the gas crisis this government has let develop.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Energy like to blame the last Labor government for this crisis—and, in fact, any other crisis we have. This is a crisis that has seen gas prices for Australian industry rise from around $4 per gigajoule a few short years ago to up to $20 per gigajoule today. It is a crisis that has the potential to devastate Australian industry and Australian jobs. It is a crisis that is impacting electricity affordability and our security of supply.

Unlike this government, Labor has been warning about this crisis for years. As long ago as 2015, Labor adopted a gas export national interest test to ensure gas exports didn't come at the expense of Australian industry and households. What was the Liberal Party's response? Echoing the gas industry, they said a gas export national interest trust would increase red tape. Rather than act, they did nothing and let an impending crisis turn into a debilitating crisis that is now threatening industry, jobs and even our power supply.

Once the crisis had become so severe that even the Liberal Party couldn't ignore it they held a series of morning teas with industry promising to halve gas prices. And then they backtracked on that same promise. They promised to introduce export controls through their domestic gas security mechanism—a mechanism Labor is hopeful will lower prices and increase domestic supply, but one that doesn't directly address price and won't be implemented until next year, if ever. No wonder stakeholders feel it will lock in high prices and fail to alleviate supply shortages. The government still won't support a simple test to ensure gas exports are in the national interest. Labor supports a strong LNG industry and a strong domestic gas market. It shouldn't be beyond our abilities to have both.

The fact is that when it comes to industry policy, like in so many other areas, this government is divided, ineffectual and blame-shifting its way to an ever-increasing shambles. One of their favourite blame-shifting targets is always the states. The Labor government of Victoria is a favourite target when it comes to the national gas crisis. They really love to blame Victorian bans on onshore gas development, forgetting that the New South Wales Liberal government also has such a ban. There is no attempt to play a constructive role in building and supporting community consent for responsible gas development in these states. It is all about blaming someone else.

When Labor was in government we worked with crossbenchers to foster community consent for responsible onshore gas development by building up processes communities could have confidence in and could understand. We established that independent expert scientific committee to advise on potential developments and their impacts on water resources. We included a water trigger in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

The Liberal government abolished this good work, and when the inevitable happened, when communities opposed new developments, they started wagging the finger at the states for representing the view of the communities that they actually represent. This seems to be the typical Liberal approach to energy: deny a problem and oppose other solutions; let the problem get so big that it's then impossible to deny it anymore, then blame others. That is because they don't have the unity, the intelligence or, indeed, the ability to play a constructive role in finding and then actually implementing a solution—spin and substance. The longer the energy crisis goes on, the more Australians know about it and are fearful.

The government's approach to the gas crisis is mirrored in its approach to the electricity crisis. The electricity policy paralysis from this government has led to an energy crisis. Wholesale electricity prices have doubled under the Liberal government, while carbon pollution is once again on the rise. The government's Finkel review, which has been discussed many times in this place, recommended that a clean energy target be implemented urgently to end the policy uncertainty strangling investment and to deliver new supply and lower prices. The government is too weak and divided to deliver on the central recommendation from its own review.

Labor understands that this is a real crisis. That's why we're willing to put aside our preferred policy of an emissions trading scheme, to implement a clean energy target. We've discussed this in this place, but we have no partner in government. We have no-one to negotiate with. The government are paralysed by their own disunity. They can't address the largest electricity crisis this nation has faced in living memory. We have some government members saying that they would scrap the 2020 renewable energy target, while others are on record as saying that it's here to stay. We have some members, like the Deputy Prime Minister, saying coal is the future and the government should fund new coal plants with taxpayer funds, while the views of the Minister for the Environment and Energy range from, in one quote, 'The government stands ready to finance new coal plants,' to, in another quote:

We don't have a plan on the table to build a new coal-fired power station …

Seemingly—and there has been a lot of media—his view depends on the audience he's addressing, or is it actually the state where he's making his comments? The Treasurer has veered from bringing lumps of coal into the other place—and that was truly a great moment!—to recently saying:

Let's not think that there's cheap new coal, there's not.

Is it any wonder that the government can't agree with itself on a national energy policy when individual ministers can't agree with themselves?

This would be amusing, and I know that there has been laughter at times, if it weren't so serious. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. Industry, households, jobs, our security—they all rely on affordable, secure energy and increasingly on clean energy. What is needed is clear: a national energy policy to support new investment, a policy like a well-designed, clean-energy target. At this historic crossroads at the beginning of a global energy revolution, Australia finds itself with a government divided and inadequate to the task before it. Australians know, and they desperately need, so much better.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:29): I'm rising today to speak to the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017 and the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017. Two years ago I participated in the Senate inquiry into Australia's transport energy resilience and sustainability, which was undertaken by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. In that committee a lot of evidence was presented, and we heard, that Australia was not complying with our commitments under the International Energy Agency to hold 90 days of liquid fuel reserves. In many cases we didn't even know what our fuel reserves were. The data wasn't there. There was a complete lack of information about the level and exact extent of our fuel reserves. It was astounding how we were completely failing to meet our international obligations. For years the government has relied on compliance surveys by both upstream and downstream oil and gas companies. It was very apparent, as we heard the evidence and read the submissions, that the voluntary compliance was not doing the job. We heard from the industry that mandatory reporting would be very onerous and would create all sorts of compliance costs, but I must say that, when that evidence was presented, it rang hollow, and other witnesses to that committee confirmed that most of the super major oil companies know exactly what sort of fuel stocks they are holding and can spit it out at the push of a button but don't choose to.

We also heard from Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn that Australia is the only developed oil and fuel importing country in the world that has no mandated government or industry stockholdings or government control over part of the oil fuel infrastructure. This should have been shocking, but really, when you see how this government is serving the interests of the fossil fuel industries, it wasn't surprising at all. It has the lightest of touches with regulation or compliance with reporting when it comes to the oil, gas and coal industries.

But at least here we are with these bills, and they are an improvement on the status quo. I congratulate the government for finally bringing them to the parliament, for these bills will improve the situation. They will require that regulated entities provide a report to the Secretary of the Department of the Environment and Energy regarding current petroleum and liquid fuel activities and products. They will permit the secretary of the department to collect and publish information regarding those petroleum and liquid products. They do contain important provisions around the handling of commercial information and they will give those necessary enforcement powers to government to ensure compliance.

We know the importance of an accurate record of our fuel stocks. Yes, they will help us to ensure compliance with our international obligations under the International Energy Agency, but it's also imperative that the Australian public and the stakeholders who require this information have an accurate record of the state of our industry. Analysts, researchers and, most importantly, the people who are planning the long-term decarbonisation of our economy rely on this data so we can make that energy transition. We need to have the best available data to keep prices down and energy supplies secure as that transition occurs.

In summary, the Greens acknowledge that moving to the mandatory collection of fuel statistics is way overdue, and we will support the bills before the parliament today. But what we aren't talking about today is the other, much more significant part of fuel security, and that's that, if we are serious about fuel security and energy security, our reliance on these petroleum products must come to an end. That means that we need to be seriously moving to decarbonising the transport fuels. That's where the debate should be moving. Yes, mandatory reporting of the statistics of how much we have of petroleum products is important, but much more important is the action that we need to take so that we don't need to rely upon those petroleum products.

All over the world there are actions in which Australia is being left behind. A key one is the shift from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles. We are woefully behind in making that shift to electric vehicles, which can be powered on 100 per cent renewable energy. Given that our transport greenhouse gas emissions are up there second only to stationary energy as the most significant part of our greenhouse gas emissions, this is where we need to be taking action if we're going to be serious about tackling global warming.

In other countries around the world in recent months we have seen some really significant changes. For example, in the United Kingdom and France, they are going to be phasing out new sales of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040. We have not seen a skerrick of a sign or heard a whisper that the government is looking at doing that. We haven't got a target for electric vehicles. We've got no mechanism in place to increase the number of electric vehicles on the market. It is such an important element of decarbonising our transport system, and we are just sitting still and going nowhere with that.

Fuel efficiency is another issue. While we still have petrol-fuelled and diesel-fuelled vehicles, we need to make sure they are the most fuel-efficient vehicles available. Internationally, we know that 80 per cent of the international light vehicle market already has standards, and yet Australia is a dumping ground for the low-quality vehicle variants because we don't have these standards. It would save consumers hundreds of dollars in fuel if we had fuel efficiency standards. And it would save fuel. That's the sort of measure that's going to be making a really important dent in ensuring we are using petroleum most efficiently, reducing the amount of oil that we're using and making sure that the oil that is being used is being used as efficiently as possible. From the reporting that's been done, we know that those hundreds of dollars in fuel savings to consumers are going to more than offset the extra cost of investing in more fuel-efficient vehicles.

There are other ways, of course, that we can act to reduce our reliance on imported fuel and so tackle our fuel security. One way is to shift as much transport as possible away from private vehicles and to public transport, which is much more easily powered by renewable energy than personal vehicles, which mostly use liquid fuels. That means planning our cities for that shift so that the amount and mode share of public transport is increased and the number of trips done on public transport lifts up from the current rate, which in cities across our country is only 10 to 20 per cent. That is the sort of thing that would make a serious dent in tackling fuel security.

Then there are the modes of transport which don't require any fuel, renewable or fossil, other than the fuel that you put into your body, and that's active transport. So we really need measures to increase the rates of walking and cycling in our cities. That would not only be good for fuel security and for reducing people's costs of transport; it would also be very important for our health. Every trip done by active transport, by people walking and cycling, is improving people's health. We need to be making cycling safer and more accessible. We know what's holding us back there. What stops people from cycling is that we don't have safe cycling infrastructure.

We need to look at these transport issues holistically. We can't just pick out one little thing and say, 'Okay, we're going to put in place measures that require mandatory reporting on fuel stocks.' We need to work out how we can bring all of these things together so that measures to improve cycling and increase the use of public transport can sit side-by-side with measures to shift freight from heavy road vehicles onto rail, to get freight vehicles to move away from fossil fuels and to encourage the use of hydrogen for heavy freight vehicles. If the government is serious about tackling the multitudinous issues involved in making our transport systems more secure and safer, and climate change, then these are the sorts of measures that we need to be undertaking going forward.

So the Greens are supporting this bill today, but we see that, really, it underlines just how much further we still have to go. We need to take action on a whole range of important measures if we are truly to make our transport systems safe, secure and reliable.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (12:39): I thank senators for their contributions to this debate and for their indications of support for this bill. The Turnbull government takes energy security matters incredibly seriously, across both the stationary energy and transport energy sectors. Whilst this bill focuses particularly on transport energy fuels and related topics, I note that Senator Moore's contribution stretched into other energy markets and systems. As a government, we are taking serious action to ensure the affordability and reliability of Australia's energy markets whilst also ensuring that Australia meets its international obligations in relation to climate change. Our investment in and pursuit of sensible investments such as Snowy 2.0 makes far more sense for ensuring energy security in the future than do the policies of, say, my home state of South Australia, where, thanks to the failure of energy policy by the state government, we now see fleets of diesel generators being brought into the state to operate over the summer. They will of course be using diesel, the dirtiest fuel source for climate change emissions, to generate energy. In relation to this bill and the actions we're taking in relation to the transport energy space, that is also depleting stocks of petroleum fuels reserves and otherwise, owing to the excessive use of diesel fuel resulting from the South Australian state Labor government's failed and flawed energy policy. We have other approaches that are dealing with not only the retail market, distribution and the operation of energy markets but also with generation—by investing in Snowy 2.0, the exploration of other pumped hydro facilities, and projects such as the solar-thermal operation at Port Augusta.

This bill relates specifically to the accuracy, reliability and timeliness of Australia's fuel statistics. It will help to safeguard energy security, particularly in the transport energy space and the operation of the fuel market, and it will help to ensure that Australia meets its international obligations. It will provide for accurate statistics which will help Australia plan a return to compliance with the International Energy Agency oil stockholding obligation. It will ensure that we capture all relevant fuels within the Australian market, which will ensure we can comply, and do so at minimal potential cost to all sectors. The government is committed to energy security. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Whish-Wilson ) (12:42): As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (12:43): I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:37): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 4 December 2017:

Digital delivery of government services, with particular reference to:

(a) whether planned and existing programs are able to digitally deliver services with due regard for:

   (i) privacy,

   (ii) security,

   (iii) quality and reliability, and

   (iv) value for money;

(b) strategies for whole of government digital transformation;

(c) digital project delivery, including:

   (i) project governance,

   (ii) design and build of platforms,

   (iii) the adequacy of available capabilities both within the public sector and externally, and

   (iv) procurement of digital services and equipment; and

(d) any other related matters.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:37): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government opposes this motion because a referral will result in an unnecessary use of time and money for the committee and secretariat. The government has initiated a review of all projects over $10 million, and all critical business systems, with the results to be released shortly. The government publicly releases detailed IT investment information regularly on the AusTender website, which Labor acknowledged in their media release of 14 August.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:38): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 December 2017:

The integrity of the water market in the Murray-Darling Basin, with particular reference to:

(a) the allegations of theft and corruption in the management of water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin,

(b) the investigation and public disclosure by authorities, including the New South Wales Government and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, of reported breaches within the Murray-Darling Basin, including the Barwon-Darling Water Sharing Plan,

(c) the actions of member states in responding to allegations of corruption and the potential undermining of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan,

(d) the use of Commonwealth-owned environmental water for irrigation purposes, and the impact on Basin communities and the environment,

(e) the operation, expenditure and oversight of the Water for the Environment Special Account, and

(f) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:38): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 420 standing in my name for today concerning an order for the production of documents relating to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

Senator XENOPHON: I move the motion as amended:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that: (i) the Murray Darling river system is a national resource,

(ii) the aim of the Murray Darling Basin Plan, agreed to in 2012, is to ensure that water is shared between all users, including the environment, in a sustainable way,

(iii) it is important that the Commonwealth, the States and users comply with the agreed plan,

(iv) on 24 July 2017 the ABC's Four Corners program aired serious allegations in respect of the Barwon-Darling in relation to water pump tampering, theft and rorting, collusion between officials and irrigators, failures by officials to properly monitor compliance and the shutting down of compliance units in the face of alleged non-compliance, irregularity and illegality, and

(v) the Senate has an oversight responsibility in relation to implementation and execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan and visibility to modelling—financial and compliance data assist the Senate in this regard; and

(b) there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by the start of business on 11 September 2017:

(i) documents associated with the proposal to purchase water licences held by Tandou Ltd in June 2017, including ministerial briefs, and the associated contracts,

(ii) draft and final reports and supporting documents, including assumptions used, about all modelling undertaken by the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) for the Barwon-Darling Unregulated River between 1 January 2014 and today,

(iii) draft and final reports and supporting documents about all investigations or work undertaken by the MDBA tracking the movement of environmental water in the Northern Basin between 1 January 2014 and today—including documents about the legal extraction of environmental water and/or potentially unlawful extraction of water,

(iv) a summary of expenditure of monies from the Water for the Environment Special Account to 30 June 2017 and today including:

(A) the criteria for distributing monies from this account,

(B) the evidence that these criteria had been met by the beneficiary of monies from this account, and

(C) all transactions from this account to individuals or companies in relation to properties on the Barwon-Darling Unregulated River,

(D) the scope of work associated with the transactions; and

(v) reports on the distribution of monies for the On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program in the Barwon-Darling Unregulated River between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2017 including:

(A) the criteria for distributing monies from this program,

(B) all transactions from this program to individuals or companies, and

(C) the scope of work associated with the transactions.

Question agreed to.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (15:41): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to link pay for members of the Defence Force to pay for Parliamentarians or to CPI, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator LAMBIE: 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 LAMBIE (Tasmania) (15:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator LAMBIE: I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

DEFENCE AMENDMENT (FAIR PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE ADF) BILL 2017

Today this chamber is presented with an opportunity to debate and vote for the Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2017.

This Private Senator's Bill was introduced in the last Parliament. It was debated in this chamber during the 44th Parliament and passed, but the House failed to bring it on for debate and consideration. Thus I have re-introduced it in this 45th Parliament. This bill links pay for military personnel of the Australian Defence Force with pay for Australian parliamentarians or to the consumer price index, whichever is higher.

It became obvious for the need of this bill after the Liberal government, led by then-Prime Minister Abbott, announced a change in pay rates for members of our Army, Navy and Air Force which was in fact a pay cut after our nation's inflation rate was taken into consideration. The majority of fair-minded Australians have recognised that the system of determining wage rises for our diggers, sailors and airwomen and airmen has been broken and needs fixing.

The Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2017 will serve as an equitable remedy to a fractured military pay system that determines the amount of pay to personnel of our Army, Navy and RAAF.

This simple piece of legislation, if agreed to by the majority of senators in this chamber, will provide service members of our Australian Defence Force certainty and a guarantee that they will receive a fair pay increase. The Bill does this by putting in place a minimum pay rise, which at the very least keeps track with the consumer price index or politicians' pay increase, whichever is higher.

Because ADF members, unlike emergency services, non-uniform public servants and civilians, cannot be represented by a union, they are left to negotiate pay and conditions with one hand tied behind their back. This bill means the men and women of our ADF have their pay indexed independently, leaving them to focus on the important and invaluable work they do in service of our nation.

In short, this bill is reasonable and measured. It does not have any provisions that are excessive. If you believe that Australian Defence Force members deserve a fair-go when it comes to calculating their wages, then my Private Senator's Bill will be very difficult to vote against.

I urge all my Senate colleagues to support this Private Senator's Bill, which is in keeping with our fair-go ethos—bringing equity in pay to the men and women who serve our great nation.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:45): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 428 standing in my name for today concerning an order for the production of documents relating to advice from the Solicitor-General before asking that it be taken as formal.

Leave is granted.

Senator DI NATALE: I move the motion as amended:

That—

(a) the Senate notes:

   (i) the admission of the Member for New England, Mr Barnaby Joyce MP, that he may hold New Zealand citizenship,

   (ii) that the New Zealand Government has confirmed that Mr Joyce is a citizen of New Zealand, and

   (iii) that the case has been referred to the Court of Disputed Returns; and

(b) there be laid on the table, by the Attorney­ General, by no later than 12 noon on 17 August 2017, the Solicitor-General's advice regarding the eligibility of the Member for New England to continue to sit as a member of the House of Representatives or serve as a minister in the Cabinet.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:46): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government opposes the motion. It has been the longstanding practice of both coalition and Labor governments not to release legal advice to government. There is no reason whatsoever to depart from that practice in this instance.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion—Senator Gallagher, are you seeking leave?

Senator Gallagher: Sorry, I'm just not clear on what the amendment is—just the time, is it?

The PRESIDENT: And that has been circulated in the chamber, I understand. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale for the order of production of documents be agreed to.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:54): On behalf of the chair of the Environment and Communications References Committee, Senator Whish-Wilson, I present additional information from the committee on its inquiries into the continuation of construction of the Perth Freight Link and into the recent fires in the remote Tasmanian wilderness.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:55): As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present the Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 10 of 2017.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (16:55): On behalf of Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 9 of 2017 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:56): On behalf of the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Mr Goodenough, I present Human rights scrutiny report: Report 8 of 2017.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator WILLIAMS: I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 8 of 2017.

The committee's legislative mandate under section 7(a) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 requires it to examine the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law.

The resulting scrutiny report seeks to provide parliament with a credible technical examination of the human rights implications of legislation. In undertaking this examination, the committee receives legal advice in relation to the human rights compatibility of legislation, in which it is supported by an external legal adviser and secretariat staff.

The report does not assess the broader merits or policy objectives of particular measures. Like all parliamentarians, scrutiny committee members may, and often do, have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation. Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not, and have never been, bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports.

Nine bills in this report were assessed as either promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights and are therefore listed as raising no human rights concerns.

As outlined in chapter one of the report, the committee is also seeking further information in relation to four bills. The committee requests additional information where a statement of compatibility has not adequately addressed human rights matters.

The committee has also concluded its examination of four pieces of legislation following correspondence with the relevant minister. The committee's comments for concluding matters are outlined in chapter two of the committee's report.

I have noted previously that a key role of the committee is to inform the deliberations of parliament by providing a credible technical assessment of the human rights compatibility of legislation.

In this respect, I would like to highlight that there has been recent commentary about the work of the committee as a mechanism to protect and promote human rights from United Nations processes. The UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, in its recent Concluding Observations on Australia, noted the role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in reporting on human rights scrutiny issues. Further, in relation to broader policy matters, the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, in his recent report on his mission to Australia, referred to the committee's work on its Inquiry into Freedom of Speech in Australia and Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act.

I encourage my fellow senators and others to examine the report to enhance their understanding of the committee's work.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 8 of 2017 to the Senate.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:56): I present the government's response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on its inquiry into Review of Administration and Expenditure No.14 (2014-15). I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report: Review of Administration and Expenditure No.14 (2014 ‑2015)

August 2017

Response to the recommendation