Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:04): I rise to speak in favour of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2020—the Greens' bill that looks to introduce a climate trigger impact assessment into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, otherwise known as the EPBC Act. Now is the time for action. The world's leading climate scientists have told us we have a little over 10 years to cut our emissions in half. We have to get on with the job. Instead, of course, what we're seeing is emissions continuing to rise rapidly. We need a rapid transition to renewable energy. Australia's emissions keep going up and we've got to do everything we can to get them to come down. This bill is about trying to make sure things don't get worse. We have got a lot of work to do to reach the levels that the scientists are advising to reduce our pollution. The last thing we should be doing is making that job harder. That's what this bill strives to address.

We have a government that is effectively asleep at the wheel. When the country burns—as it has over this summer—when thousands of properties are lost, dozens of people are killed and over a billion animals die, and when economists estimate that the cost to the Australian economy of this summer's bushfires could reach as high as $1 billion, this government needs to stop acting as it is. We need to ensure that we reduce carbon pollution and that we have a plan to address climate change.

The cost of Australia's climate fires over this summer is over 250 million tonnes of CO2. That is a conservative estimate of what is being released into the atmosphere. We know the job to reduce climate change is already getting harder, day by day. We have a government with its head in the sand, asleep at the wheel, insisting that technology, not real reform, is going to be enough. We need to put in place the rules, the laws and the plans that are going to ensure that we have a safe climate for our children's future. The current government response is simply not good enough.

Our climate is on the brink of collapse as we continue to mine and burn coal, oil and gas. Our ecosystem is crumbling. You can see that with the results of the environmental devastation that has happened just here in Australia over the last couple of months. Our precious native flora and fauna are rapidly becoming extinct. Our waterways, rivers and streams are becoming contaminated and dry. Yet we are somehow supposed to trust that this government has everything in hand, that it has the climate crisis under control. Well, it simply does not.

We're somehow supposed to trust that this government will lead us on the world stage to meet our 2030 emissions reduction targets at a canter. Yet, of course, we know that this is done with cooking the books and trickery. The rest of the world have watched Australia burn this summer, knowing that we are at the forefront of the biggest threat that humanity has ever faced. They have seen the result of climate change with the climate fires that continued over summer. They, too, want the world to act, and they want Australia to participate in that. No-one trusts that this government is going to do it without a dramatic change of direction.

We have a government that is beholden to the coal industry and the fossil fuel lobby. We have an opposition party that is paralysed by inaction. Yes, we have an opposition party that has in the last few days announced a 2050 target, but it has no plan as to how to get there. We need action now, not into the distant future. Not only are we seeing Australia's total emissions steadily climb; so too are we seeing increasing amounts of political donations to the corrupted majors from the fossil fuel lobby. In 2018-19 alone, fossil fuel donations to the Liberal, Labor and National parties amounted to more than $1.8 million. If you want to know what's holding back climate action in this country, that is the reason. This was up 48 per cent from $1.3 million the year before, and, given Australia's track record of deliberately opaque, woefully inadequate political donation disclosure, the true figure is estimated to be at least five to 10 times higher. Here's a headline we should all be seeing: 'Australia's major political parties—proudly brought to you by the fossil fuel industry'. That's currently what is holding back our climate action.

We have to get real about the plans in place to reduce carbon pollution, to confront climate change and to ensure that we create a safe climate for our children's future. No other party but the Greens will call out the government in this manner and hold them to account. No other party but the Greens will keep fighting for real action on climate change. But we need to work cooperatively in this place if we are to deal with this most pressing threat to humanity—this most pressing threat to the health and survival of our planet. There are some simple things that need to be done to ensure we can take those steps needed to address the crisis that the scientists and the experts are warning of. Years ago, Ross Garnaut, when he wrote his report to this place about the threats of climate change, warned that bushfires, droughts and extreme weather would have a huge economic impact on our country, and that, today, is exactly what we are seeing. That is what we need to confront, and we need some steps to get there. This climate trigger bill is one way to ensure that we can stop making climate change worse.

Our environmental laws have simply not kept up with environmental reality. Right now we are in an extinction crisis. We have 517 animals, 87 distinct ecological communities and over 1,300 unique plant species listed as nationally threatened. That's Australia's environment—threatened, at risk of extinction. These numbers are all trending in the wrong direction, and this summer's climate fires have made that situation even worse. Globally, the UN tells us, there are a million species under threat of extinction and, to add pressure to the scale and impact the fires have had on these vulnerable species, we are running out of time more than ever. It is simply not good enough to think that this climate emergency and extinction crisis is something that is out of sight, out of mind. It is not. It is happening right here right now, and we have to make sure, as political representatives and as the community's voices in the parliament, that we stand up and do something. This is happening not in the distant future and not in some far off land; it is happening right here in our backyard. That is why we've introduced this climate trigger bill. The central point of this piece of legislation is to ensure that major projects—mining, oil and gas drilling, large-scale land-clearing projects—are assessed for their impact on climate change. How much worse will they make the climate crisis? How much pollution will these projects emit? How much pollution are these projects going to put into the atmosphere, making it harder for us to deal with the climate emergency we all know we are facing?

I think many members of the community would be shocked to know that, despite having environmental laws at the federal level—national laws that are meant to protect our environment—by which projects are meant to be assessed, we have no assessment as to what impact a project, an operation or a new mine will have in relation to climate change. When you put forward an application to set up or open a new mine, whether that be in Queensland, South Australia or anywhere else, you should have to make sure you know how much worse your project is going to make climate change. At the moment, that assessment is simply not done. The Adani coal mine can get a tick of environmental approval without having any assessment in relation to the impact that a massive, big coal mine will have on the climate. Of course, that's crazy. We all know that digging up more fossil fuel—digging up more coal, shipping it off overseas and burning it, or sinking an oil well in the Great Australian Bight—is going to have a huge impact on climate change. When we're all working so hard and there is a desire to reduce pollution and to get global temperature rise capped at 1½ degrees, the last thing we need is more pollution being put into the atmosphere. The last thing we need is to make it harder and tougher for us to reduce our pollution.

This climate trigger bill is a simple, reasonable, logical step. If we are to reach net zero emissions, then we have to stop making the situation worse. We have to stop taking two steps forward and one step back. Yes, we need to transition out of the fossil fuel industry into clean, green renewable energy. Yes, we've got to become more energy efficient and use the technology advancement to our best to ensure that we can transition the whole economy. It becomes harder and harder to do that the more new mines, new oil drilling projects and new massive land-clearing operations occur. They're going to make it more difficult to reduce our carbon pollution into the future.

Our environment laws should simply assess projects on how much impact they have on the environment, and that has to include the impact on our climate. We know that climate change is the biggest threat to health and safety and to the protection of Australia and the world's environment. It is an impact and a threat to our economy, and it's an impact and a threat to our health. We saw children over the summer wearing face masks to try and keep healthy from that terrible hazy smoke just here in Canberra. We saw children in Sydney going to the playground wearing face masks. That is the type of future we are looking at if we don't arrest dangerous global warming fast.

There's been a lot of debate already in this place and outside this place over the last few days as to what targets we should have. Well, we need to start now by reducing carbon pollution, and not just in 2050. We have to start doing the hard work now, and one of the simple things we could do is to stop making the situation worse. We've got a lot of cleaning up to do. We shouldn't be creating more mess as we try and deal with it.

We know that climate change is having a huge impact on some of the most precious parts of Australia's environment. I think about what happened to my home state of South Australia over the summer. I think about the fact that a third of the vineyards in the Adelaide Hills have been wiped out because of these climate fires. The economic impact of that on my state is going to continue for a long time. Here in the Canberra region, only last week, wineries declared that there would be no vintage this season because of the smoke tainted grapes in the Canberra wine area. That's less jobs. That's less money. That's less services in our community. When I think about the environmental devastation of these fires, I think about the fact that 80 per cent of the Blue Mountains world heritage area was devastated by fire. I think about the tragic impact of wiping out half of Kangaroo Island on our beautiful environment there and the precious animals that call that place home. Over half of the koalas on Kangaroo Island perished in the fires. Our tourism industry is on its knees. Our environment is in collapse, and this bill would at least be one step forward in the plan to address climate change. So I appeal to the opposition and the government: if you're serious about getting the targets right, let's stop making things worse and put in place proper assessment for these projects into the future. (Time expired)

Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (10:19): I rise this morning to speak against the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2020. This is a bill which purports to introduce a 'climate trigger'—as it has been described—through a thorough environmental assessment of emissions-intensive activities. But in reality this is nothing more than greenwash and green tape from a political party who consistently place this country and its economic fortunes last on the podium of priorities and who are instead intent upon wrecking this country and its economy.

The bill seeks to define, in the broadest terms, actions which involve mining operations, drilling operations or land clearing as emissions-intensive actions, regardless of the actual emissions associated with such operations. Those of us who understand basic economics understand that all of those operations lie at the very heart of the operational and economic success of this country and are integral to our prosperity and success. This bill seeks to destroy industries which are reliant on these types of operations, and it does so by adding more green tape and creating convoluted regulations which will do nothing but wreck, disrupt and destroy those wealth-generating activities which allow this country to prosper.

The fact is that activities such as mining, drilling exploration and land clearing are already subject to stringent regulation under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and are also subject to stringent state and territory legislation on top of that. Insofar as they impact matters of national environmental significance, mining, drilling, land clearing and other activities are subject to rigorous assessment and scrutiny by both Commonwealth and state authorities. This regulatory framework is designed to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of our natural resources. Australia's response to emissions reduction is already being properly and responsibly addressed through a broad framework of government policy and legislation. This bill seeks to introduce yet more regulation and yet more green tape for its own sake and in truth is nothing more than a green Trojan Horse seeking to blunt economic development in this country.

This bill is premised on the misinformation that Australia's emissions are somehow responsible for the tragic bushfire season we have just experienced. But of course the Australian people are too clever to fall for such irresponsible hysteria. Just this morning Newspoll reported that only 35 per cent of people surveyed believe climate change was the main cause of the severity of the bushfires. So, if passed, this bill would give the means and the opportunity to challenge, delay, hinder and in some cases completely prevent developments on the grounds of being emissions intensive, when there is no proper basis to claim such.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is a proud legacy of the Howard government, and the Morrison government is committed to ensuring this legislation continues to strike the right balance, enabling development to proceed in a way which protects our unique natural habitat. In fact, there is a 10-year independent statutory review of the act underway, and this bill attempts to circumvent that process. Professor Graeme Samuel, who is leading the review, has conducted a broad range of consultations to inform his report. So, if ever there was a time to be amending this act, now is not that time. This bill is ill-conceived and will merely duplicate much existing regulation, bog down industry and damage our economy.

In contrast to the Australian Greens' craven attempt to wind back economic prosperity, the Morrison government understands that sensible, reasonable and responsible attempts to reduce emissions can be made without the need to trash our economy. The Morrison government is taking meaningful action to deliver lower emissions while growing our economy and keeping our electricity prices down. While the Labor Party struggle internally with the same uncosted, unchecked emissions policies they took to the election, and were defeated on, the Morrison government has outlined a real plan to meet and beat our targets. We are on track to overachieve on our 2020 target by in the order of 411 million tonnes. We have a package of measures to meet and beat the 2030 target. We've laid out that we'll deliver the target 11 years ahead of time, through supporting farmers, businesses and communities to reduce greenhouse gasses; by bringing new electricity generation projects online, such as Snowy 2.0 and the Battery of the Nation; and by supporting households and businesses to improve their energy efficiency and to lower their household energy bills. We're now seeing record levels of renewable investment, including almost $9 billion in investments from the Commonwealth. Therefore, the utility of this bill in the chamber today is as questionable as it is unnecessary.

In fact, if the Greens actually wanted to lower or reduce emissions in this country then they would be advocating for the elephant in the room—a nuclear energy industry. Australia has had in the past an opportunity to pursue nuclear energy—a form of energy which is clean, efficient, abundant and virtually emissions free. Fortunately, this country still has the opportunity to establish a nuclear industry, as this country's geology, climate, plentiful resources and stable democracy make it possible. Yet the Greens have refused to even consider such an industry. Canada—as a case study—chose to pursue a nuclear industry in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result, they have seen a safe multibillion-dollar industry thrive. As the world's second-largest producer of uranium, Canada now exports 85 per cent of its product, as part of an industry worth $1.3 billion per annum. Nuclear energy provided 15 per cent of Canada's electricity in 2018 with next to zero emissions. In the order of 60,000 Canadian jobs are now supported by its nuclear industry, many of them high-paying and high-tech. If countries like Canada, France and the United States can meet substantial amounts of their electricity needs from nuclear reactors, there really is no reason that Australia should not or could not generate most, if not all, of its electricity from new, efficient and, most importantly, safe nuclear power generation. But, sadly, the Australian Greens are seemingly incapable of articulating why it is that they remain resistant to such a solution, save to observe that in the world of green Left politics no solution is palatable unless it is 100 per cent ideologically pure.

Those of us who tell us that we're experiencing a climate emergency can, sadly, no longer have their ideological cake and eat it too. We need less politically motivated grandstanding and more pragmatism in order to reduce our emissions further. So, for the Australian Greens, who talk the emissions reduction talk, it's now time to walk the nuclear-power walk.

Senator McALLISTER ( New South Wales ) ( 10:28 ): This has been an awful summer. It's been an awful summer particularly in my home state of New South Wales, which has suffered awfully under an unprecedented bushfire crisis and then in parts of the state with extreme weather events, particularly in relation to rainfall that has then gone on to produce flooding. It's a state that's been suffering and continues to suffer from drought, and all of these things are directly related to climate change. All of these things are consistent with the predictions made for many decades by climate scientists about the consequences of a warming planet. All of these things should propel people in this place—in this chamber and in the other place—to action on climate.

The great shame—the great waste—of the last seven years of coalition government is their complete and total inability to get a grip on this problem. The internal dynamics within the coalition party room are simply so bad, so divisive and so difficult, that no leader—not Mr Abbott, not Mr Turnbull and not Mr Morrison—has been able to present a coherent energy policy, or a coherent climate policy, to their own party room and have it accepted.

On this side of the chamber, we are keenly aware of the urgent need for action and we have offered support to the many variants of climate policy and energy policy that have been put forward by the government. We're interested in the clean energy target. We were interested when they were talking about an emissions intensity scheme. We were interested, certainly, when they were talking about the National Energy Guarantee, and I guess we'll be interested in whatever it is that they bowl up next.

We understand that it is absolutely critical that we move to an evidence based policy that accepts what the economists tell us about the cost of future energy, accepts what the science tells us about the cost of inaction on climate change and accepts what the market tells us about the enormous instability and uncertainty that this continuing failure to have an energy policy is placing on it. The truth is the market is on strike and, if there is a problem in our electricity system, it arises directly from the failure of the government benches over seven years to develop an energy policy that anyone can understand. The problems arise directly from the National Party, who simply don't accept the science of climate change—and you heard the ignorant responses presented by National Party members and senators last night when they were asked about this same question. But the problems also arise inside the Liberal Party from a group of people who prefer the culture wars on climate to actual solutions.

I want to be clear that the bill before the chamber today seems unlikely to do very much about any of these problems. My concern is that this is part of what has been a very effective branding strategy on part of the Greens political party to let everyone know they're opposed to climate change, but I don't think it's part of a coherent strategy to lay out a policy agenda that Australians can get behind. I don't think it's part of a political strategy that will built a broad constituency across the community in support of climate action. On the bill in particular, let's be honest about it. We all understand how this works. This bill will not succeed. If it manages to pass the Senate, it will go on to languish on the Notice Paper in the House of Representatives, and the government controls the legislative agenda in the House of Representatives. They're not prepared to consider their own climate change legislation, let alone legislation prepared by another party. Even if the legislation did by some miracle get up, it wouldn't make that much difference at all to the task, because the task is transforming the Australian economy to net zero by 2050 and starting now to do it.

Let's be clear about what this bill will and won't do. Nothing in this bill relates to the potential emissions of the product of a mine—just the emissions from the construction itself. This legislation treats a mine producing dirty brown thermal coal exactly the same way as it treats a mine producing zinc for solar panels. The only factor that matters is the emission from constructing it. In any event, the act that it seeks to amend, the EPBC Act, contains substantial discretions for the minister. The nature of judicial review means that the merits of this discretion will never be tested by a court, and this bill would not stop the Minister for the Environment approving 15 new Adani-size mines side by side in the middle of a rainforest if she set her mind to it. That's not to say there aren't interesting proposals in the bill. We look forward to having an opportunity to consider through the committee process whether it's fit for purpose. But this is not part of a realistic strategy for combating climate change. More importantly, it is not part of a strategy for building a coalition to combat climate change.

The Greens political party have their origin in an environmental movement that was practical and grounded. It's an ethos that has been enormously influential in Australian politics. Indeed, part of my political awakening, and part of the reason I was interested in politics as a kid, was that overdevelopment threatened the beautiful place in which I grew up in northern New South Wales. People in my community didn't like it and they responded politically. People from all walks of life got together. They were united by the realisation that the environment that surrounded us was more valuable to us than what had been promised by developers. And it didn't just happen. Small-business owners, farmers, teachers, tradies—they were all in it. You might have thought that there was more to drive those people apart than to bring them together, but local campaigners, people who showed real leadership and whom I truly admire, created a movement that was open enough for very different people to find a place in it. It was open enough and big enough that all sorts of people could come together, feel welcome and fight for common values together. Those environmentalists, those people in my community, created change by building a coalition of interests.

My concern is that the approach from the Greens political party has left this tradition behind. The Greens political party did have their origin in that kind of movement. They had their origin in sit-ins and local protests. But the new party, the new Greens, have their roots in the moral absolutism of culture wars. The problem is that that's not taking us anywhere, because they've been going on for a long time. To create deep, lasting change we need deep and broad support, and the task is to build that support in the community. The Greens are not prepared to do that work, or at least they haven't been to date. They are usually committed to demonstrating their bona fides to a constituency that is already committed to effective action on climate change. That's a really important group of people—we need people who are passionate and committed to action—but what is missing is any sense from the Greens that they are committed to engaging with anyone else.

Just last week, former senator Bob Brown was quoted as describing the people in regional Queensland who opposed his pre-election climate convoy as an unruly mob—that's a quote—that was 'cranky, nasty, inhospitable'. Former senator Bob Brown said he was tired of being polite to planet killers. That's also a quote. Now, it might come as news to many involved in the climate change debate that the Greens were being 'polite' beforehand—that this is a new position—but the bigger problem is the attitude that was displayed. The alternative is to consider the possibility that, maybe, working people with legitimate concerns about their livelihood, the livelihood of their families and the future of their children may not be the real enemy here. That would be an alternative approach—to consider that one of the challenges for us is to create a movement in which people from all walks of life can see a place for themselves; to recognise that people have a right to be worried about their jobs and the future of their families, communities and way of life, and that it's our role to answer those fears. That is the approach that Labor brings to climate change policy.

I'm proud that on Friday the Leader of the Opposition announced that an Albanese Labor government will promise to make Australia carbon neutral by 2050. Labor is the only party capable of forming a government that is committed to real action on climate change. We know this, and anyone watching the shambles on the other side knows this. It is only a Labor government that will build an economy where, by 2050, the amount of pollution we release into the atmosphere will be no greater than the amount we absorb. This is the right thing to do. Strong climate action is needed not only to protect the prosperity of future generations of Australians but also to meet our international obligations. It's also an enormous opportunity. We have the opportunity to deliver prosperity by modernising our economy and adapting to inevitable climate impacts. All states and territories have already promised to be carbon neutral by 2050. Australian businesses are calling for this, including AGL, Amcor Wesfarmers, Telstra, Qantas and others. Seventy-three countries around the world, including the UK, Canada, France and Germany—many with conservative governments—have already adopted this as their goal. So it's time to move on. Real action, science based goals, bringing the country together—that is what we need. We do not need the same old Liberal and Greens playbook of dividing the nation for political gain.

This goal is a goal that the CSIRO says will deliver higher wages and incomes and lower power costs. It is a goal that the University of Melbourne says will deliver 20 times greater benefit to the economy than any costs. The Business Council of Australia says getting to net zero emissions by 2050 will mean $22 billion of new investment per year; that is $22 billion of new jobs, new infrastructure and new industries. That is an investment boom. It's an investment boom which, like all past investment booms, will grow incomes, will grow jobs and will grow Australia. More than that, it will put Australia in a strong position to argue for greater action internationally, because, in the end, only international action will deliver a safe climate. Crucially, our policies will be underpinned by commitments to ensure no workers or communities are left behind as well as to protect future generations from dangerous climate change that would see even worse emergencies than the ones we have seen over this last summer.

Action on climate is as important for regional Queensland as it is for Sydney and Melbourne. This is a shared challenge. We are in this together. We need a movement for change that has different voices—from the bush, from our cities, from our suburbs and from our towns. Labor is committed to building this coalition and committed to taking action.

Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (10:41): Senator McAllister says that this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2020, is not a workable strategy being put up by the Greens, who are into the moral absolutism of climate wars. This is something which makes great sense to me. We have a situation where we on this side of the parliament are criticised for the simple fact that it is perceived that we are broken. We are not broken. Every time I hear dysfunctional talk of a dysfunctional group, I think of the Otis group on coal and of the coal documents of 2016 which are in the media at the moment.

Certainly, as the Greens and the member for Warringah are aware but continually deny, we in the coalition are acting on climate change now. We don't just talk; we don't sit back and debate irrational triggers. We are well past that. I personally am strongly committed not only to acting on climate change but also to adapting to a hotter, drier climate. Both are important. Unlike the Greens and the member for Warringah, we put the focus on mitigating risk and adapting rather than on taking a closed-mind, ideological view and mouthing naive, uncosted, feel-good statements, backed up in certain circumstances by bullying and abuse.

Net zero emissions, mentioned by Senator McAllister, need to be justified and costed, not just mouthed. There is no economic case to do so, and the reduction in emissions, if it occurs, could have no impact on the world climate. Let's not forget that China has somewhere between 1,032 and 2,400 coal-fired power stations and is building 126 more. Japan has 90 coal-fired power stations and is building somewhere between 22 and 45 more, depending on the source.

At the last election the government took a clear plan to the Australian people to responsibly reduce Australia's carbon dioxide emissions, consistent with our international commitments. We as a government remain committed to this plan. I personally remain committed to this policy as a prudent policy and I know that reducing emissions will be accompanied by rock-solid policies to adapt to a hotter and a drier continent. This government led Australia to beat its first Kyoto target by 128 million tonnes. We're projected to beat our 2020 target by 411 million tonnes. Our 2030 Paris target reduces emissions by 26 to 28 per cent, on 2005 levels, by 2030. Over this period we will halve the amount of emissions per Australian. On a per capita basis, our emissions reductions will be greater than those of many comparable countries, including the European Union, Canada, Japan and Korea.

This is an ambitious but responsible emissions reduction target for 2030. We will meet it and we intend to beat it. The latest emission projections already show we are on track to do so. We do not need triggers. But, as you quite well know but are ignoring because it doesn't match certain ideologies, Australia cannot cut global emissions in isolation. The development and deployment of new technologies will be essential to reducing emissions, both here and around the world, while creating jobs. Our focus is on improving existing technologies and adopting new technologies, not taxes. We do not support the introduction of a carbon tax. We do not support driving up electricity prices and we do not support plans that will abandon the jobs of many regional Australians and make emissions reductions unsustainable.

That's why, working closely with industry, researchers and international partners, we are developing a technology investment road map, to focus our investment on driving down the cost of low-emissions technology, as recently forecast by Minister Taylor. It will also guide us as we seek to deploy new technology as rapidly as possible, to reduce emissions both at home and overseas. That road map will position Australia to contribute to and take advantage of global technologies. It will set a framework for our investment in emissions-reducing technologies over the short period, to 2022; the medium period, to 2030; and the long term, to 2050. This builds on what we're already doing to drive down emissions, including the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which brings down the cost of renewable energy; the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund, to promote investment in battery and pumped hydro renewable energy storage; our $500 million hydrogen strategy, to position us as a key player in the emerging green hydrogen economy; and our soon-to-be-released electric vehicles strategy, to accelerate the modernisation of our transport fleet.

Let me summarise by saying that Australia's emissions are coming down. In fact, Australia's emissions are lower now than when the coalition came to government in 2013. Australia's emissions are more than 12 per cent lower than in 2005. This compares to a two per cent reduction for Canada and a four per cent increase for New Zealand over the same period. Let's mitigate risk. Where risks cannot be mitigated, we must adapt. Those impacted by the recent bushfires want practical measures and not the mouthing of ideologies.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (10:47): Australia is at a point in its history where it needs to take decisive action on climate change and reduce its emissions. Disappointingly, the federal government is so far reluctant to do any heavy lifting in this area, so it's up to the rest of us to make some noise on this issue. The bill we are debating today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2020, was introduced only in the last sitting week and hasn't been sent for inquiry, so we have not had a chance to consider it in any great depth. However, there is certainly the kernel of a good idea here. At a high level, parts of what it proposes have merit and should very much be considered. It makes sense to require emissions to be factored into the environmental assessments of major activities such as mining, drilling, exploration or land clearing. We do need to consider the climate impact of major projects if we are to move Australia to a carbon-neutral future. As the saying goes, you can't manage what you don't measure.

However, this bill does take a heavy-handed approach. It is also a bit short on detail. It seeks to prohibit emissions-intensive actions as if they have, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, but the bill does not define what that threshold would be for emissions. More importantly, I'm concerned that simply banning these activities because they are high emitting is short-sighted, as it risks throwing out the good with the bad. There are other remedies. One approach might be instead to ensure there are plans in place to mitigate emissions before environmental approval is granted.

As I say, this bill would benefit from an inquiry, but my concern with imposing a blanket ban is that it will impact in unintended ways. For instance, you can't build mobile phones, rechargeable batteries or solar panels without mining for rare earth minerals such as cobalt and palladium. And what about geothermal energy? That is a potential source of renewable energy which is still in its infancy in Australia and requires exploratory drilling. But, at first glance, this bill may rule that out. And what about mining for everyday metals such as copper, aluminium, silver, iron, zinc or nickel? This is the stuff on which we have built our physical environment and which is contained in everything from household water pipes to electric guitar strings.

We absolutely need to bring down emissions, but we also need to be realistic and practical. We don't need to take an all-or-nothing approach, as this bill does. The more sensible approach for a major project which otherwise stacks up economically and environmentally is to look at what will be done to mitigate the emissions. We need to act on climate change, and what we need is a national plan that commits to a carbon-neutral future and provides a framework for ongoing mitigation and investment certainty. We need to work towards net zero emissions. We need to plan for how we transition Australia to a renewable and clean energy future. We need more than a piecemeal approach. The business community is largely on board, so you have to wonder why this government isn't.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:51): I commend the Greens for bringing forward some debate on these important issues, but, as the nation well understands, we need governments to be able to make decisions that change the nature of our economy, in terms of our energy-intensive nature. Labor certainly believes that strong action on climate change is needed to protect not only our environment but the prosperity of future generations and our international obligations. We know that we need to modernise our economy and adapt to inevitable climate impacts. Labor has always been deeply committed to these principles, and it was a privilege to be in this place as a member of the last Labor government, seriously working through these issues. We know, when we see the impact around our nation from this summer, what a devastating impact climate change can have on our nation. As a party, our core principles and our approach to climate change policy remain certain and unshakeable. It is, indeed, why we have committed Australia to being a carbon-neutral economy by 2050, and this is consistent with achieving the goals of the Paris accord.

We know that we can do this as a nation and we know that the sooner we start doing this the better. The Greens might say, 'Well, why not vote for this legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2020?' Actually, 'the sooner we start doing this' is not just about rapidly dreaming up a clause that comes down on the economy like a tonne of bricks, with the job impacts that go with it. We need to make step-by-step changes to transition our economy and to transition jobs—something that is sorely lacking from this government. What the Australian people should be listening for from this government is their plan for jobs in a carbon constrained future. Is this government going to continue pretending that a carbon constrained future is not on the cards? Where are the practical steps that you as a government will take to put us on this path? It's all very well to have a Prime Minister who now seems to be prepared to start talking about the need to adapt to climate change when, it seems to me, the words have only very recently started to come out of his mouth at all.

We need a nation that is committed to high wages, high incomes and lower power costs. We in the Labor Party truly believe that this is possible, because we can already see greater benefits to the national economy from being on this transition plan. That is what modelling shows us relative to continuing with business as usual, which will inevitably have some massively dislocating impact on the economy in the future. What's very clear is that the environmental impact is already having a massively dislocating impact on our society and on our economy.

We as a nation must not only do the right thing by future generations but also do the right thing by our economic interests today and tomorrow. We have a government that seems prepared to act to the detriment of the safety and prosperity of all Australians. This government refuses to adapt, even though every state and territory government—Labor and Liberal alike—have recognised these issues themselves. Australia has the potential to become an energy superpower, but only if we have the leadership to bring Australia together to seize the opportunities in front of us as a nation.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (10:56): I rise today to commend this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2020, to the Senate. I do so with the voices of thousands of my Victorian constituents ringing in my ears, calling for strong action on the climate crisis. This past weekend I joined thousands of people who gave up their usual weekend activities to rally together in solidarity as part of the national day of climate action. We put climate action first this weekend because we know what's at stake. People gathered in cities and towns across the country calling for a safe climate. It's our job as elected representatives to listen to those constituents and to act. The weekend before that I joined 2,000 people who were at the National Climate Emergency Summit at the Melbourne town hall. And this morning, on my bike ride to parliament, I met a couple and their young baby who were there, standing up for action, saying that young people, our kids, need a safe climate future.

We Greens are acting. We are listening to these constituents and we are acting. This bill is just one of the actions that this parliament needs to take to make sure that we take action, the speed and scale that is needed to tackle a requirement emergency. The Greens are the firefighters in our parliament. We are the ones who are ringing the alarm bells about the emergency and then finding a safe path through the emergency to the emergency exit. This safe path needs action now, not in 20 years time. The next decade is critical. Zero by 2050: it may be great or it may be too late. We need action in the next decade to find that safe path through. Part of that safe path is this legislation.

This bill focuses on our key national environment protection legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and seeks to bring it into the 21st century by closing the major loophole that exists in that act. The EPBC Act absolutely must take carbon pollution into account. We know that climate change is producing hotter conditions, more droughts, more floods, more extreme and intense bushfires, as we have all experienced this summer, and longer fire seasons. It is producing coral bleaching—the Great Barrier Reef is about to have another extensive bleaching event—sea level rise and warming oceans. It is a massive threat to our precious natural environments and our wildlife. So it makes no sense that activities that are actually causing climate change currently aren't assessed by our national environment laws. We must close this loophole. No, it's more than a loophole; it is a chasm. It's a chasm that's big enough to drive a fleet of coal loaders and bulldozers through. The Adani coalmine wasn't assessed for what impact it would have on global heating. The Beetaloo Basin, which Labor and Liberal alike want to open up, is a massive carbon bomb. Under our current environment legislation that will not be assessed for how much it is going to increase global heating.

Assessing the emissions of fossil fuel projects and tree-destroying developments is one of the easiest steps that this parliament can take to tackle pollution and its devastating impacts on us, our kids and our grandkids, who are staring down the barrel of a future filled with more fires, more floods, more heatwaves, droughts and crop failures. We have a choice, and I call upon the Senate to support this bill with a safe climate future firmly in mind.

This bill defines 'land clearing' as one of several emission-intensive actions. That is really appropriate, because we know that land clearing has got critical consequences when it comes to greenhouse gas pollution. I would like to read a summary from the Climate Council's 2018 report. It said:

In 2015 the land use sector in Queensland generated 19 million tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution, which was more pollution than the agriculture sector or around 20% of the pollution from the entire energy sector including electricity, stationary energy and transport.

If that isn't shocking enough, let's put it in an international perspective. That land clearing in Queensland in 2015-16 amounted to the equivalent of almost half of the vegetation cleared in the entire Brazilian Amazon rainforest. This report outlines key ways that land clearing contributes to increased carbon emissions in terms of our climate emergency. It outlines how clearing vegetation releases the significant carbon it contains, and that vegetation that's cleared can no longer store the carbon that's so necessary, which makes it harder for us to stay within our carbon budget. That's why this bill builds land clearing and other triggers relating to emissions generation into the legislation: so we can stop making the climate emergency worse.

We have got a whole lot of clearing up to do to tackle our climate emergency, and the first thing we can do is stop making the problem worse. Clearing of vegetation across huge areas of the Australian landscape has escalated in recent years. It's contributing to a massive increase in carbon pollution and a massive loss of habitat for threatened and critically endangered species as well. Adding a climate trigger to the EPBC Act means we can assess the double whammy of this clearing: both its impacts on habitat reduction and the emissions implications.

Let's consider the Great Barrier Reef. The reef just does not stand a chance with the enormous amounts of clearing into the catchments feeding into it. Climate change is wrecking the reef. As I said, we're about to face another massive coral bleaching. It might be the end of the Great Barrier Reef. We know that land clearing and run-off are wrecking the reef, and they are both reinforcing each other. Australians are mourning the loss of our magnificent Great Barrier Reef, and this government is doing nothing. This bill does something. This bill says that land clearing and its effects on the climate crisis cannot be swept under the carpet any longer.

I note here too that rampant deforestation occurs in areas of land across Australia that are not subject to consideration under the EPBC Act due to the outdated regional forest agreements. Yes, it's the 21st century, but we've got significant areas of native forest with clear felling of complex ecosystems and destruction of significant carbon sinks for low-value outputs like copy paper and pallets for cartons of beer.

The Greens are working to improve our federal environment laws here today, but we're also working to scrap those regional forest agreements, which were made last century and which don't meet the standards and needs of our current challenges, both environmentally and economically. Every other extractive industry has to meet the basic provisions of the EPBC Act, so why not logging? We're working here to strengthen the EPBC Act with this climate trigger bill, and we also have legislation to scrap our destructive logging laws. There is a very clear choice. Only the Greens have a plan to tackle our climate crisis and to protect nature. We're the only party that does not take donations from those coal, gas and oil industries, or donations from any large corporations. We are the only party that will hold the major parties to account. We must act if we want to prevent the climate emergency from destroying so much that is beautiful in our natural world. There is no time to waste if we're going to prevent further global heating, and assessing the pollution from fossil fuel projects and tree-destroying developments is one of the easiest steps that this parliament could take to ensure that humanity has a future. I call upon my fellow senators to support this bill. I now seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:05): I rise to speak to the Greens' Galilee Basin (Coal Prohibition) Bill 2018. This is a bill that would keep coal in the ground. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC—the international coalition of the vast majority of the world's scientists—have clearly said that we cannot afford new thermal coal in the system. We are already on a trajectory to three or possibly four degrees of global warming, and we've seen the havoc that our communities and our planet have experienced at just one degree of warming. We've seen the summer with millions of hectares of our nation burnt, with lives lost, with homes lost, with productivity lost and with people's lives ripped apart. That was just at one degree of warming, and this government's complete absence of climate policy has us on track for between three and four degrees of warming.

So this is why the IPCC—the world's climate scientists—are saying: 'No new coal.' But what do we have? We have approval for the Adani Carmichael coalmine issued many years ago—with bipartisan support, I might add—where the climate impacts of that mine were not even assessed by our so-called environmental laws. The bill that we've just been debating would fix that, and it would say that you can't approve a coalmine without looking at the impacts that it will have on our climate. But we heard some pretty bizarre contributions that somehow seemed to fail to grasp that fairly logical point.

We have bipartisan support for the Adani Carmichael coalmine to proceed, and the defence that the opposition gives is that it got its approvals. Well, it got its approvals under laws that don't require its climate impacts to be assessed. It got its approvals by extinguishing native title, which the state Labor government have done to the Wangan and Yagalingu people.

There is no saving grace for this carbon bomb. This bill would cancel Adani's approval, and it would say to folk like Clive Palmer: 'You can't buy your way into a new coalmine in the Galilee Basin. The Galilee Basin coal has to stay in the ground, where it belongs and where the science says that it needs to stay if we are to have any hope of constraining global warming so that there will be a liveable future for us all.'

This is a very simple bill. In fact, I introduced it back in 2018. So I was a bit perplexed that we heard from the opposition that they haven't had enough time to consider the bill, because it has been on the books since 2018. Methinks there's a bit of nervousness in taking a position on coal. We see this continued lack of spine. Sadly, we saw a somewhat positive announcement about a 2050 zero emissions target but no plan to get there in the interim. We saw the opposition leader espouse the need to still be exporting thermal coal by 2050. Are you serious? The science is saying that we can't handle any more thermal coal in the system now, let alone in 30 years time. This bill would keep that coal in the ground where it belongs. It would respect the rights of traditional owners in that basin area, including the Wangan and Yagalingu people. It would protect that groundwater from being polluted and overused whilst other farming operations are starved of water in that region which has been in drought for so very long.

The big parties don't want to vote on this bill. It's all very inconvenient for them to take a position on coal. One wonders whether the massive donations from big coal—and big oil and big gas for that matter—have something to do with their reticence to embrace the global transition to clean energy that is already underway. It's almost $10 million that big coal, oil and gas have donated to both sides of politics since 2012. I think it's $5.8 million, if my memory serves me correctly, to the Liberal and National parties, and $3½ million to the Labor Party. We don't think that the money should be allowed to be donated to political parties. We don't think that big coal should be able to buy off political parties' silence and their continued support for a fossil fuel that the rest of the world is already transitioning off.

Global thermal coal demand is down—it continues to be down—and renewable uptake is skyrocketing. Australia is best placed to service that global demand. We could be a renewable energy superpower, and we're now not the only ones saying that. But if we don't tackle our export of coal, we will never be able to act on the climate emergency we are in. We need to recognise that the global transition away from thermal coal is already happening, and we need to stand with those coal communities and transition them into what comes next. It's not rocket science, folks. We can have clean energy jobs that protect those communities. We can have mining jobs that mine for the minerals that are needed for renewable energy components. We can have mine rehabilitation that, sadly, is badly needed for the 50,000 abandoned mines that pockmark this nation.

There are so many jobs that those communities could be transitioned into, many of which won't require any retraining at all. Those skills will be directly transferrable. Those communities know that thermal coal's days are numbered, but they're not hearing any plans from either the government or the opposition on how to cope with this transition that's already happening. They're desperate for that conversation about what comes next for them, where their future prosperity is going to come from, whether their town will stay alive. We want those towns to stay alive. We want that conversation to happen with those communities, and those communities deserve those jobs. But they deserve real jobs, not lies from multinational companies that, on one hand, say there are going to be a stack of jobs but then, in court, admit that it's going to be a tenth of that and then, out of the other side of their mouth, say, 'Oh, but we want to automate from pit to port.'

These communities know when they're being lied to, and they can see the global transition that's already underway. It's just staggering, when conservative governments around the world—even Boris Johnson in the UK, for heaven's sake—are accepting the climate emergency and taking some small steps to tackle it, that there is still bipartisan support for new coal mines in this country. Well, I'm really proud that the Greens continue to be the voice to advocate against new thermal coal mines, to advocate for that transition to 100 per cent clean energy as quickly as we possibly can. We know we've got the technology to do it. We know it creates new jobs, that it doesn't make workers sick, that it doesn't kill workers on mine sites or give them black lung disease. We know we've got that technological capacity, but what's perfectly clear is that we lack the political will. And, again, people are asking questions about whether the big donations are buying the complicity of both of the major political parties. People can draw their own conclusions about that, but it seems pretty clear-cut to us.

Now, 50 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef is bleached—50 per cent of that coral cover has died permanently—after two successive bleaching events, in 2016 and 2017. And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA—that reputable and recognised international body—says there might be yet another mass bleaching that will cripple the reef this summer. That's 64,000 jobs that rely on the reef to remain healthy, to remain alive, to not be half-dead. Yet we see a defence from the government that somehow the 1,464 possible jobs with Adani outweigh the 64,000 actual—in real life, already existing—jobs that rely on the reef remaining healthy. Even in their own morally bankrupt jobs-and-economy-only frame of reference, the figures don't add up. And when you factor in the cost of the climate-fuelled natural disasters that we've just seen wreak havoc on this nation, it doesn't add up on that metric either.

Then, look at the cost to nature—a billion animals burnt, extinction at all-time highs and our very planet on the brink of collapse. It doesn't seem to matter much to this government. They've never really paid much attention to the climate science, and they're probably not going to start now. But we beg them to do just a little bit of reading. Rather than sacking those CSIRO scientists, why don't they listen to them and get some advice about the economic cost, if nothing else? They don't care so much about the cost to nature, but they could at least look at the economics of it.

We could be a renewable energy exporting superpower. We could have that prosperity. We could create those jobs. We could tackle the climate crisis all at once. That's part of what we call a 'green new deal'. This is exactly what many other countries are now talking about. It is gathering global momentum. We can have that prosperity in a way that looks after nature and supports workers. But what we need to do is keep that Galilee coal in the ground. It's not just Adani. Clive Palmer has his claws in there and I think Gina Rinehart has a few proposals, and there are a few other big multinational coal companies that want to open it up—there are about nine coalmine proposals. If we were to allow the basin to be opened up, it would be the seventh largest emitter in the world, if it were considered to be a country. That's how big this coal basin is.

There is a reason that a new coal basin has not been opened up for 50 years, and there is now a scientific imperative why we don't open one. But both this government and the opposition have waved through approvals for the Carmichael coalmine. They don't care about water impacts and certainly don't care about extinguishing native title. They don't care about the climate impacts and they don't care about the lies about job creation rather than the reality of the reef jobs that will go and agricultural jobs that will be threatened with the continuing change in the climate. They don't care about the potential for real renewable jobs for mining rehab, for mining minerals for renewable energy components. The solutions are there. But, sadly, the big parties in this nation are being blinded by the big dollars flowing from the big polluters. It's as simple as that, and it is heartbreaking, because money and power should not be wrecking the future for all of us. But that is precisely what's happening under this government's watch, with the complicity of the opposition.

So we commend the Galilee Basin (Coal Prohibition) Bill to the Senate. But we are not allowed to have a vote on it today, because, sadly, the opposition didn't have enough time to consider a bill that was drafted and introduced in 2018. We all know what that actually means. They just don't want to have to vote for coal and they don't want to have to vote against coal. They wish everybody would stop asking them about coal. Well, those coal communities actually deserve the truth. They deserve a decent answer and they deserve to be consulted on what happens next for them, for their families, for their region and for their community. The Greens are up for having that conversation. We had the Senate inquiry into regional jobs, which went to many of those coal communities last year. People know what's happening. They are not stupid. They actually can see that the world is turning away from our dirty coal. There is a reason that none of those private financiers are backing Galilee Basin coal. There is a reason that they can't get insurance. There is a reason that they have their hand out to get funding for the railway line. The private market does not want to touch new thermal coal.

Just last week, India announced that they want to stop coal imports in 2022, I think it was. They have said that before. They are holding fast to that position—2022 isn't here yet, former minister Canavan. The rest of the world is already making that transition. This government, sadly with the support of the opposition, is losing the chance for us to position ourselves as a world leader in renewable energy—to create those jobs, to help protect what's left of the reef from another bleaching episode, to protect the beautiful biodiversity on which life depends. And yes, we're not even allowed to vote on this bill today. But we Greens won't stop talking about global transitions off coal. We won't stop advocating for those coal communities to be consulted, to be protected, to be transitioned. We don't want that shock that will come overnight when those multinational coal companies just pull out of coal. We've already seen many of those large coal companies put an end date on their own coal extraction activities. The market gets it, folks. The community gets it. What will it take for the big political parties to get it? I'm incredulous that they are so in denial of the scientific and economic reality. There's a reason that the vote for the larger parties is the lowest it has ever been in history. They don't feel that you're listening to them. They want democracy back. They are sick of corporate donations getting outcomes for corporate profits. They want communities' interests to be put first and they want the planet protected.

The first step in doing that is to back this bill, to keep that Galilee coal in the ground, to respect the rights of the Wangan and Jagalingou and other traditional owners in that area, to stand with those coal communities and give them a future—a legitimate future, not lies about jobs that will never eventuate but real jobs—and to protect those real jobs that already exist around the reef and agriculture, which are massively climate exposed. We'll never know what the position of the big parties is on this bill, because they won't vote on it today and they probably won't let us bring it on again. But the community is watching. They want action on the climate emergency, they want justice for those coal communities and they want a future to share for us all.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (11:19): This bill demonstrates that the Greens are the John McEnroe of this parliament. They cannot cop an umpire's decision. They cannot cop the decision of the umpire when it comes to doing environmental assessments. They always like to call on the umpire's decision when it goes in their favour. When the umpire makes a decision to restrict a project or stop jobs being created under our environmental laws, the Greens will very quickly point to that and say, 'See, that demonstrates what we have been saying, and it should be adhered to.'

Whenever that same umpire—in this case, the departments of environment at state and federal levels—makes a decision that the Greens don't support or don't agree with, the Greens immediately come in and say, 'No, it's all wrong, and we've got to ban it anyway.' What is the point of having our environmental laws if you are only going to accept decisions when they go your way? We have very robust laws in this country that assess major projects in our nation, like those that are in question here, with this bill, like those in the Galilee Basin. They go through an incredibly rigorous environmental assessment process.

This morning I would like to briefly recap on the process that was gone through for Adani's Carmichael mine, which is one of the potential mines that are subject to this bill here today. We have very robust environmental laws. The saga of the Carmichael mine goes back to 2009, more than 10 years ago, when Adani first acquired a licence. It actually starts before then, I suppose. Linc Energy previously owned this area. They were looking for gas but eventually sold it to Adani when they found more coal than gas in the area.

For those that may not know, it does bear repeating exactly where this mine is. It's just under 400 kilometres from the coast of Queensland. It's west of Mackay, which is probably the major town, so a long way inland. The closest town is around 150 kilometres away at Clermont. It's a long way away. This is in a new coal basin but, really, it's in a new frontier for our nation. There hasn't been any major development in this part of Queensland to note. There are some cattle properties but not many people live in this area. The properties are largely run remotely or by staff that fly in, fly out. It is a long way away from other things that go on in this country. It is a very beautiful part of our country, though. It's an area that should be protected. I've been to the Carmichael site a number of times. I'm not sure if Senator Waters has been there, but I've been there a couple of times. There are some environmental assets in the region. I've been to the Doongmabulla Springs, which is one of the assets in question, and there are some threatened species as well.

All of these things have been assessed to death over the 10-year period that Adani has been looking at this mine. Take, for example, one of the threatened species: the black-throated finch. It is an important bird in our ecosystem that must be protected. Adani has spent around $1 million assessing the extent of the finch on its property, what can be done to protect it. Adani has spent more money on the finch than almost—well, we think—anyone else ever has before. In fact, one of the original conditions the Queensland government's coordinator-general imposed on the Adani project—back in, I think, 2015—was that the Queensland government should develop a black-throated finch management industry for the whole state. Guess what? Five years on, the Queensland government hasn't done that.

Adani were also obliged, under those conditions, to do a management strategy for their site—and they have done that. It's all mapped out in public and in great detail. They will reserve 30,000 hectares of land close to their Carmichael mine site, which will be turned into a finch habitat. We in fact know a lot more about the finch itself and how to protect it, thanks to the research Adani funded. We didn't know a lot about how the finch bred, how it ate and where it liked to nest, but, because of the work that was done through this project and funded by a commercial entity, we now know a lot more about that. And this area of 30,000 hectares that Adani will be protecting will be better for the finch thanks to that research and knowledge.

Something that the Greens will never admit—and will never actually admit here in this debate—is that it's often through these large projects and large investments that we're able to fund the environmental work that makes our country a better place. The governments aren't doing it. The Queensland state government aren't funding protection for the black-throated finch, despite their protestations over the last couple of years. The federal government doesn't have the money to do it all. We rely on people who have an incentive to protect their environment as well as to sustainably develop it to make these investments, and that is what has been done here.

Likewise, the Doongmabulla Springs, which was the scope of a lot of controversy, is an important permanent water source, especially for the cattle industry in the area. It is, I think, a state government listed environmental asset. It is not listed on any national registers, but it is an important permanent water source. It's about 12 kilometres from the mine site. Its exact location of renewal, where the water comes from, is the subject of some debate, as is often the case with things that happen underground—and a lot of science has to be done. Again, we know a lot more about the Doongmabulla Springs, the original springs, thanks to the work that Adani has done, which has been checked by the CSIRO and by Geoscience Australia. It all went through a rigorous process, showing what Adani has to do. Adani have to monitor water sites around the mine and make sure that the Doongmabulla Springs continues to be renewed and stays as a permanent water course for that area. All of that work has been assessed. All of that was assessed by experts like the state government Department of Environment and Science, the federal government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia. All of those assessments came back saying that this mine could occur and that we could meet our robust environmental laws.

But, again, I return to the point that, for the Greens, it's not about the local environment—it's not about the Doongmabulla Springs or the black-throated finch. If they cared for the finch they'd welcome the funding that Adani has put aside for this bird. For the Greens, it's all about ending the coal industry. That is what this bill is about. It's not about protecting the local environment. It's not even about protecting the global environment, which I will come to. It's about ending an industry that employs thousands of Australians, that provides billions of royalties to state governments to fund public services and that provides billions of taxes to our country. The Greens want to end the coal industry because it is their political platform. It's a political propaganda that they have engaged in that they see some kind of political benefit from. It's not about the global environment. If it were about the global environment, why do the Greens never mention the contribution of Australia's coalmining industry to the globe's production of coal?

Senator Waters: It's huge.

Senator CANAVAN: I'll take that interjection. Senator Waters is claiming in her interjections that the Australian coal industry has a huge impact on the world's coal production. These figures are not in debate; it is very easy to establish these—and Senator Waters is free to go and Google and find out this for herself. Australia's coal industry produces five per cent of the world's thermal coal—five per cent!

The Greens will come in here and say, 'We're a large exporter.' We are a large exporter. There's not a lot of coal traded exported across the sea, because it's heavy and it's costly to do so. Most coal is used close to where the electricity, heat or whatever is generated out of it is made. So, while we produce five per cent of the world's coal, China produces 50 per cent of the world's coal and uses almost all of their coal in their own country. India's coal production is more than double our coal production. The United States produces more coal than we do, and so does Russia. We are not a large coal producer when it comes to the world.

Why do we export our coal? Why are we a big exporter? As I said, coal is quite heavy, and it is costly to freight and transport. It has only been in the last 50 years or so that the world has established a seaborne coal trade. Before that, the world's industrial revolution all happened with domestic sources of coal. The reason we export our product to the world, the reason we bear all those costs, is that we have an extremely high-quality product. We have high-quality coal that is rich in energy and low in ash, nitrous oxide and sulphur oxides. That is good for the environment, and the reason people are willing to pay high prices for our coal is that environmental benefit as well as the energy content that is inherent in that coal. That's why we export that coal: because it has that high energy content, it means you produce fewer carbon emissions for the burning of the same amount of coal and generate the same amount of electricity.

So, if we as a parliament were to pass this bill, denying the world our efficient, productive, environmentally beneficial energy resources, it would be a bad thing for the world's development and for the world's environment, because if you take away the coal that comes from the Galilee Basin, which is roughly—it varies—5,500 kilocalories per kilogram, you would be left with Indian coal. Senator Waters seems to support the Indian government not buying Australian coal but using their own coal. India's coal is typically around 3,500 kilocalories per kilogram, so our coal is about 50 per cent more efficient than India's coal. So you'll be delivering 50 per cent higher carbon emissions to the world if you use Indian coal compared to Australian coal. Those are the facts that the Greens do not like to hear.

More important than that is that our coal and gas—our energy—help develop the world and help the world achieve better outcomes for poor people who do not have the luxury of the energy resources we have.

Senator Waters interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Senator Canavan, resume your seat. Senators on my left, standing order 197 makes it very clear that interjections, except to call a point of order, are disorderly. Please desist.

Senator CANAVAN: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. If I had the opportunity, I wouldn't be calling it disorderly, because they're helping me progress this argument.. The Greens seem to be claiming that there's an issue with trying to make poor people rich and trying to help those who are less fortunate than us. The fact is that we have over our generation, over the last 30 years, had this remarkable development where poverty in our region, the Asia-Pacific region, has gone from where it was 30 years ago, when two-thirds of people in the region lived on less than US$1.90, to today, when that figure is 2.3 per cent. In 30 years—or 35 years now—it has gone to 2.3 per cent. Over that period of time, fossil fuel use in our region has gone up to a level more than eight times as high, and coal use is more than six times as high, helping fuel that economic growth, that opportunity and that advancement that has helped poor people who are less fortunate than us have a better life. That is what our coal industry provides.

It's also the case that, while the Carmichael mine is the one proceeding in the basin, there are other proposals. There are five other mines that are in various stages of environmental approval. There are other mines that Senator Waters mentioned that aren't in that process yet. All of those six mines together, including the Carmichael mine, could deliver 16,000 jobs directly in our coalmining industry. The coalmining industry employs 50,000 people at the moment, and it powers the vast majority of the economic wealth of Central Queensland. Now we have an opportunity to increase that by, potentially, a third and deliver even better results and more opportunities for our people here as well as providing those benefits overseas. That's why we should be supporting this.

Before I end, I note that, as Senator Waters said, I don't think this bill is going to come to a vote today. I'd be happy to bring it a vote, because I'd like to see where the Australian Labor Party fall on this issue. Since the election, they have purported to somehow support the coalmining industry and the export of our coal, but then last week they said they're going to have net zero emissions by 2050. Over the weekend, we've been hearing we can have net zero emissions and still have coalmining as well. What a joke! What a fairytale that Anthony Albanese and the Labor Party are trying to tell the Australian people!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, remember to use the correct title for members of the other place.

Senator CANAVAN: Mr Albanese, the member for Grayndler, and the Australian Labor Party are trying to tell the Australian people a bedtime story about their policies here. You can't have all your cake and eat it too. If you want to have a coalmining industry, you can't say we're going to join radical countries around the world and try to cut carbon emissions to zero in 30 years. Then we have this magical concept that we're going to still keep coalmining but then we're just going to plant a whole lot of trees on farmland and take away farmers' right as compensation. That is the policy of the Labor Party. We have either one or the other. If we have net zero emissions, we've got to shut down the coalmining industry or take away property rights from farmers and put a lot of trees on their land, which would reduce our cotton, rice and sugar production, to pay some kind of penance or buy some kind of indulgence in order to have the continuing ability to produce cheap and affordable energy for the world that can help develop people who are less fortunate that us. That is, now, the once proud Australian Labor Party, which was established in Central Queensland, in Barcaldine, defending shearers' rights, and which purported to defend workers' rights throughout its very proud history of well over 100 years. It is now selling out workers on the global altar of purporting to say something—not do something—about the issue of climate change.

I don't think we should sell Australian workers out. I'm not going to sell our nation's workers out on this global altar. I will defend our right to have jobs here, to develop industry here and to keep our economic wealth here, and I will do so in a way which is realistic, which is up-front with the Australian people and which does not seek to hoodwink them into believing some kind of modern-day fairytale that we can all have our cake and eat it too. We have a choice. We can reduce our carbon emissions, but we can't do it in the radical way the Australian Labor Party is proposing.

Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (11:35): My, my! I feel like I should put my seatbelt on now, because here comes the mother of all scare campaigns from those opposite. They can't help themselves. But that's an argument for another day. I rise to speak against—I say that very clearly, Senator Canavan: against—the Galilee Basin (Coal Prohibition) Bill. I note this was introduced as a private senator's bill by Senator Waters on 5 December 2018, and it was sent into committee the next day. It lapsed due to the recent general election and has been placed back on the Notice Paper recently, hence the debate now. For the record, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee recommended that the Senate not pass this bill. On this side of the chamber we have our own reasons—I'm talking about the Australian Labor Party, not the little cabal in the corner there, but this side here, the main side—for opposing this attempted legislation.

Let's have a look at this. The prominent objective of this bill is contained in the title. It seeks to prohibit thermal coal mining in the Galilee Basin, which is a large Queensland coal resource which lies some 300-odd kilometres inland from Gladstone. The bill is quite specific about its prohibitions. One: it applies to constitutional corporations. Two: it applies to thermal coal which is used to generate electricity. Three: it even names the Adani Carmichael mine, which intends to mine around 10 million tonnes of coal per year for the Indian electricity sector. The bill also prohibits any proposal from a company owned by other Australians. The penalty for mining thermal coal from the Galilee Basin would be two years in prison or 1,000 penalty units. Any company that has already invested in the basin would be compensated on what Australians call 'just terms'. That's quite clear: no mining of the Galilee Basin; no coal; no Adani.

The rationale behind this bill, according to Senator Waters' speech in this place on 5 December of 2018, is to keep global emissions below a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius on pre-industrial levels. The senator claims that, if the entire Galilee Basin were to be developed as a mine, it would add some 700 million tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere each year, whereas Australia currently produces 400 million tonnes a year. According to Senator Waters and the Australian Greens, the only way to stop global warming rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius is to, in their words, 'keep coal in the ground'.

The Greens' rationale raises some factual issues. Firstly, the Greens' scenario entails the entire Galilee Basin being mined, which it is not. There is one project with an approval in that basin. We all know that's the Adani Carmichael mine. It intends, as I said earlier, to mine 10 million tonnes per year in phase 1 of its operation. Ten million tonnes is not a small coalmine, but it's not what you would call huge. Existing Australian coalmines such as Blackwater and Peak Downs produce around 12 million tonnes per year.

Another problem with the Greens' rationale for the bill is that they want to count emissions that are not created in Australia. Adani is exporting all of its coal to Indian power generators—a country where around 300 million people have no access to utility-scale power. I point out that the Paris climate agreement makes each signatory nation responsible for its own national emissions and responsible for its emission reduction commitments. The IPCC has a territorial emissions accounting system, which counts only the emissions produced within a country's borders. This is the system used to measure the Kyoto and Paris agreements. There is also the system that our own Department of the Environment and Energy uses to plot Australian greenhouse gas emissions. Australia can't be responsible for India's emissions any more than Australia can shirk its responsibilities for emissions created by imported gasoline and aviation fuel.

There are several other points to be made about the Galilee Basin bill, and the most obvious are economic. Our resources sector is an important industry. Resources made $290 billion worth of exports in the last financial year and account for more than 50 per cent of Australian exports by value. How does the resources sector do this? It takes a workforce of more than 240,000 people—around 1.1 million people when you factor in the associated resources businesses and the services sector. More than half of the resources sector's employees live in regional Australia, making it a cornerstone of many regional economies.

There are 52,000 Australians working in the coalmining industry. These are highly skilled people who earn more than the average wage. Resources employees earn, on average, $2,659 per week, which is 65 per cent higher than the national average wage. And 67 per cent of the minerals workforce hold a certificate III level qualification or higher, and apprentices and trainees make up four per cent of the national workforce.

The resources sector has a higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people working for it than any other industry. The mining sector employed 6,599 Indigenous Australians in 2016, which is 3.9 per cent of Indigenous employees. That's 2½ times the number that were employed in 2006. By comparison, non-Indigenous mining employment grew by 1½ times over the same period. More than 60 per cent of Australian minerals projects neighbour Indigenous communities.

There are broader economic benefits attributable to the mining industry. Deloitte Access Economics say that the mining industry paid $185 billion in federal company tax and state and territory royalties between 2006 and 2016. In the financial year ending 2017, the minerals sector paid $12.1 billion in company tax and $11.2 billion in royalties, making the resources sector the second-largest contributor to company tax revenue. Labor welcomes the royalties and taxes paid by mining companies. They fund our education and health sectors and make possible so much of our civil infrastructure.

Projects such as the Adani mine in the Galilee Basin also require a lot of investment in the form of capital expenditure. This is the investment you make upfront before you earn any revenue. Most of that investment is foreign direct investment, which is known as FDI. The mining sector relies on foreign direct investment. According to DFAT, there was $365.5 billion of FDI in Australian mining in 2018, which was 37.8 per cent of all FDI in Australia. The Queensland government has estimated that, for every $1 billion in FDI into Australia, 1,000 jobs are created.

Most senators would know that one of the many drivers of FDI in Australia is low sovereign risk. Indeed, CSIRO has nominated our favourable environment with 'social-economic and political stability, with supportive national policies and services' as a competitive advantage for Australia when attracting investment. Given this global advantage we should all be concerned with actions that put Australia's reputation at risk, such as with proposed laws that can nullify or expropriate significant capital investments. Labor is committed to maintaining a positive sovereign risk profile for Australian mining because, without foreign direct investment, we wouldn't have the resources sector as we know it.

Labor also acknowledges that the Galilee Basin (Coal Prohibition) Bill 2018 has the potential to be inconsistent with the Constitution, which prohibits expropriation without just compensation and therefore potentially leaves the Australian government liable for compensation payments. Labor does not support actions, policies or legislation which would have the effect of stripping investors of lawfully held assets, titles, tenements and/or approvals.

We should also recognise that Australia already has a high-quality system of approvals and oversight when it comes to unlocking our resources. These approvals are run by the state, territory and Commonwealth governments, and they are predominantly driven by independent, evidence based agencies and highly professional, experienced people. So, given the number of Queensland and Commonwealth hurdles that the Adani company has had to jump, not to mention the court challenges and ministerial decisions, we, meaning Labor, don't believe it's advantageous to this nation in the long term to have legislation that singles out companies and even people for prohibition.

The facts are these: Australia is a country that digs up minerals and extracts oil and gas, and we sell these products to the world. These products bring good jobs and make us a truly wealthy nation, with a capacity to fund the best in health care, education and public infrastructure. Adani has done nothing wrong. The company seems to have met all of our approvals criteria. The company says it will create around 1,500 jobs in central Queensland and will eventually inject no less than $21 billion into the Australian economy. It is building rail infrastructure, and the mine will have an operating life of up to 90 years. These are not inconsiderable benefits for regional Australians. Because this issue focuses so strongly on emissions, let's remember that the Adani company is also investing in renewables. It has a solar farm at Moranbah, which can power up to 23,000 homes. It is building an even larger solar facility in Whyalla, South Australia.

Why am I talking about renewables? It is because Labor is committed to renewable energy and greenhouse gas abatement strategies that keep Australia in line with the Paris climate agreement's attempt to keep global warming beneath two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. Labor will pursue policies that ensure Australia has net zero emissions by 2050—no surprise. However, Australian coal is exported to the Asia-Pacific market, both thermal and metallurgical coal, because of that region's need for cheap, reliable power generation and for steelmaking. The International Energy Agency, in its World energy outlook 2018, noted that, because of Asia-Pacific demand, Australian coal exports would grow by 20 per cent by 2040. Australia will continue to earn revenues by selling high-quality coal to the Asia-Pacific so that they can develop their economies.

Labor supports the development of renewables as part of Australia's future energy solutions. Unlike Senator Canavan, the former resources minister, who we just heard from, Labor does not see renewables as 'dole bludgers'. Large resources companies are already investing in renewables and future energy technologies. Shell's new commercial solar farm project in Queensland is a real example of how the resources sector is ensuring that it is part of the renewable energy future. The Gangarri solar project is a partnership with the local tradition owners, the Yiman people. The project will provide rewarding jobs and training opportunities, building capacity and support for local community groups. It will produce 120 megawatts, which is enough energy to power 50,000 homes and reduce emissions by 300,000 tonnes per year. This is a good thing.

Another renewable project in WA is the Agnew gold mine, which will be home to Australia's largest hybrid renewable energy microgrid and the first mine site to use wind generation. According to Agnew, the microgrid will have a total power generation capacity of 54 megawatts, including 19 megawatts of gas and diesel, 18 megawatts of wind, four megawatts of solar and 13 megawatts of battery storage—Adani's Whyalla and Moranbah renewables projects are in keeping with this investment. It's also striving to be a leading supplier of renewable energy in Australia. It's an example of how the resources sector is doing its bit to get the balance right in our future energy solutions.

Australia should be a leader in reducing emissions. Australia should be a leader in finding solutions for other countries who also want to reduce their emissions, even as Labor does not support providing public funding or concessional loans for the development of the Galilee Basin. If investments or developments are to occur, they must stack up financially without public assistance. However, Australia has a role to play in ensuring that countries who do not enjoy access to electricity are able to, due to our resources sector. The Greens don't have the right to pick and choose who will have access to reliable and affordable power, and they don't have the right to destabilise what is a successful and stable investment environment for resources and energy projects in our proud nation. Labor opposes the bill.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (11:50): This proposal by Greens Senator Larissa Waters to prohibit the mining of thermal coal in Queensland's Galilee Basin will financially ruin my home state of Queensland. Some 36,000 Queensland coalmining jobs rely on this industry, and you can safely say tens of thousands of additional jobs also trade off the back of the Queensland coal industry. This bill, the Galilee Basin (Coal Prohibition) Bill 2018, not only reflects the Greens' attitude towards coal and mine workers but it's also a carbon copy of Jackie Trad's and Labor's Palaszczuk government's approach to the industry. The Labor Party in Queensland have established a 'just transition' group which is designed to make baristas out of coalminers and take their salaries of $100,000 or more to just $24.29 an hour. Without mining in Queensland, we have zero chance of paying off the $90-plus billion debt the state government—a Labor government—has racked up. This Greens bill to prohibit the mining of thermal coal in Queensland's Galilee Basin will not only shut down 247,000 square kilometres of the Galilee Basin in Queensland but also kill many towns I have spent a lot of time in, like Rockhampton, Yeppoon, Cawarral, Sarina, Mackay, Moranbah, Nebo, Glenden, Dysart, Proserpine, Bowen, Ayr, Townsville and Belyando Crossing. These are just a few of the towns the Greens have sentenced to a slow but sure death, and I won't tolerate it.

In 2012, well before I was elected to the Senate, I watched property prices plummet by 62 per cent in Moranbah because there was a slump in mining. The downturn in coalmining sent countless hardworking families to the wall. These were families who were prepared to move out of the city and live in regional Queensland to make sure city slickers like Senator Waters and her Greens colleagues can live in their coal powered cities. These little mining towns lost countless businesses too. They'll never go back. The reality is the world is still embracing coal-fired power stations. Even The Australia Institute, who are no friends of coal, have conceded there are no fewer than 154 new coal-fired power stations under construction across the globe. Add to that more than 1,000 additional coal-fired power stations on the drawing boards of many other nations across the world. Some of these countries include Germany, Japan, Indonesia, India and the European Union. Most are signatories to the Paris Agreement.

The Galilee Basin will offer the whole of Australia and countries across the globe cheap, affordable base-load power, and there is no denying that. The Greens are completely reckless with their ill-conceived policies, and this bill should be sent to the shredder, never to be seen again. The Greens will stop at nothing to shut down coal. They continue to lie about the destruction of our Great Barrier Reef, using fake photos. They make out coal is killing our koalas and starting bushfires. The Greens are full of it, and the sooner Australians wake up to their rot the better. One Nation will not support the shutdown of the mining industry in Queensland and will, therefore, vote against the Greens bill to prohibit the mining of thermal coal in Queensland's Galilee Basin. But One Nation is pushing for a coal-fired power station at Collinsville where there used to be one.

We actually are supplying power across Queensland, and, when they run out of power in the southern states, they rely on Queensland to supply that power. A known fact is that solar panels are not the answer to delivering the power that we need in Queensland. They have 2,000 acres outside Collinsville with 453,000 panels. Those panels are not delivering the power that they need to because the rats are chewing the wires. It is a constant problem that they have. At Kogan Creek, the state and federal governments invested $110 million into solar panels. Not one milliamp of power was delivered to the power station beside them, yet now they're being dismantled. Look at South Australia and the $600 million invested in solar panels or the wind farms that are not even connected up because they can't deliver reliable power. What does Australia do when, just like over the last couple of weeks, it is overcast and there is rain? There was no power coming from the solar panels. So we do need a diversity of power, but in shutting down the power stations in Australia or across the world—because that's what you are doing by prohibiting coal—the fact is that we won't have that reliable, dispatchable, cheap power.

I've travelled across my state quite extensively and spoken to business owners. Because they have to have a mix and because of the escalating power prices in Australia, we are seeing our industries and manufacturing shutting down to go overseas. We will see a further loss of jobs. And I'm fed up with hearing the Greens—and much of it is said on the floor of this parliament—absolutely telling our younger generation about the threat that coal poses to our Great Barrier Reef. Professor Peter Ridd, who has worked on the reef for 35 years, has said, 'Coalmining has no effect on the reef.' Actually he has said, 'The reef is in great shape.' There's only about one per cent of it that has been subject to coral bleaching, and it's not from coalmining. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. With all the fearmongering that goes on in this place, the Greens have never debated and put their argument forward. And that's the problem within Australia: we have listened to the fearmongers and we have never had an actual debate and heard from the scientists about what global warming is about.

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in accordance with their charter, will actually only look at man-made climate change. They will not look at any other climate change whatsoever. It's not in their charter. So we have not been told the truth. Here we are making policies for our country for the future generations and our businesses, and we are not being told the truth. We need to debate this. We need to know the truth. Our kids' heads are being filled with rubbish by those who are pushing their own agenda. As I said last week about the indoctrination in the education system, climate change has definitely won. When Stewart Dimmock from the UK challenged the education system and his case was put before the courts, the judge was told by the IPCC that the Himalayas were actually melting. That wasn't the case. That was a farce by the media and some group of people who were pushing their own agenda.

We all have a right to a place in this parliament to express our views and concerns, and I don't deny anyone that. But when we are talking about the future generations and whether our pensioners can afford to turn on some heating or cool themselves down and when jobs are going to be lost, I think we need to know the truth. And, if we are wrong, then we admit to that, but we need to have a clear debate on this. The Greens' whole attitude to this is 'shut down coalmining', but there has never been a real debate to understand why. Even the Australian scientists said, 'If we shut down everything in Australia now, it would not make one bit of difference to the global temperature—not one bit.'

Our emissions are 1.3 per cent. Those are our emissions. And yet we seem to be intent on leading the world on shutting down to stop global warming when we have countries like China and India way above that percentage level—even Canada and New Zealand are. Like I said, this proposal, this bill, by Senator Larissa Waters needs to be shredded. It needs to be thrown into the bin. One Nation will definitely not be supporting it.

Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (12:00): I'm very pleased to rise in opposition to this Greens bill, the Galilee Basin (Coal Prohibition) Bill 2018. I start my contribution by saying that as a regionally based senator in Victoria I am incredibly concerned about what bills like this may do if they are ever passed—it doesn't look like there's any prospect of that for this bill—in terms of undermining jobs in our resources sector and in the mining sector, in particular.

In opposing coalmining in the Galilee Basin, the Greens are putting at risk around 1,500 direct jobs and almost 7,000 supporting jobs at the Adani Carmichael mine. These are real families and communities which depend on a strong and viable resources industry. As I say, this could well be the first of a number of bills from the Greens to totally shut down and abolish mining in Australia. This is an industry which generates $279 billion—these are the 2018-19 figures—with coal itself generating some $70 billion. The Greens policies will put at risk the jobs of nearly 14,000 people employed during construction of mines and associated rail projects, the jobs of more than 11,000 people employed in ongoing roles in the mines and supporting infrastructure and $34 billion invested in bringing the mines into production as well as new infrastructure, including rail infrastructure. The coal industry contributes more than $6 billion annually in royalties across Australia and accounts for over 50,000 direct jobs, with the majority of those jobs in regional areas.

This is quite ironic. It comes at a time when the Labor Party has announced its so-called plan for net zero emissions by 2050, which, as I have already said publicly this morning, is not a plan but a slogan. It's unfunded and uncosted, and I think Australians have every right to feel pretty confused about where Labor sits at the moment. On the one hand, it's talking about zero emissions, with no consideration for the economy-wide impact that that might have, particularly the impact that that might have on coal, steel, aluminium and other extractive industries. So there's no consideration of the broader ramifications. It is talking about this so-called plan—or, as I say, slogan—without any plan whatsoever. It's uncosted. It's unfunded. So, as I say, Australians have every right to be very confused about Labor's position.

Labor's reliance on, and alliance with, the Greens continues to threaten Australia's coal industry, which is a key pillar of our economy and which provides cheap and secure electricity and jobs and funds vital services. Labor talks about energy security, including through gas and coal, and yet we have a situation in Victoria where the Victorian Labor government is continuing its moratorium on onshore conventional gas. It says it's okay to extract the gas offshore—the same gas in the same basin—but not onshore. This is an extraction and exploration that does not require fracking. So that particular contention that some make needs to be put to rest. We have a situation where Labor is actively operating to destabilise the energy market in Victoria, including by encouraging the shutdown of Hazelwood.

Depending on who you talk to in the Labor Party, you hear a different story. There is a huge internal war going on in the Labor Party. The Otis group has one view and then there are others on the Left who have a very different view. For instance, Mr Fitzgibbon lauds the prospect of Australia's clean and efficient coal on the back of demand in China and India. And then other Labor MPs have repeatedly opposed or undermined the Adani project and the opening up of the Galilee Basin for coalmining.

We heard Senator Sterle speaking in very supportive terms about Adani, and yet that's in stark contrast to what was heard leading up to the election when many Labor MPs, including the former Leader of the Opposition Mr Shorten were condemning Adani. Then, of course, there's Mr Marles, the member for Corio, Labor's deputy leader, who argued that it was a good thing that the thermal coal market would collapse. So here we are: Mr Marles is continuing to ignore the continued demand for thermal coal, especially in the developing economies of Asia, and then we have another very, very different story here in the chamber today.

I also want to place on record that the member for Hindmarsh, Mr Butler, the shadow for climate change and energy said 'development of the Galilee Basin is not in Australia's national interest' and declared it would 'not be a positive thing for Australia for the Adani mine to go ahead.' I am not sure how that sits with the contribution that we have just heard from Senator Sterle, but it does reinforce the position that Labor is all at sea when it comes to its position on coal.

But I tell you what, the coalminers of Australia worked it out. They worked it out before the last election—55,000 of them. They worked it out. Whether they work in a coalmine, whether they work in industry, in heavy industries. or whether they work as a manufacturer, they worked out that Labor deserted them in the lead-up to the last election. Their policies were totally contrary to the needs of many blue-collar workers in Australia. They worked out that the only party standing up for them is the Liberal National Party. And it's a bit of a joke when you hear contributions from Senator Sterle after what we have heard in recent months. The Leader of the Opposition went to the north of Sydney and up to Brisbane, telling one story in the north of Queensland and then another very different story when he went down to Melbourne.

We very much condemn this bill. I want to also place on record that our government is working extremely hard to drive down emissions and is having substantial success, including—and this is the Energy Security Board—delivering renewable investment as a proportion of total energy of 40 per cent by 2030. Last year 16 per cent of supply came from renewables. By 2022 it will be 27 per cent. By 2030 it will be 40 per cent. So very, very substantial investment is going into renewables, driving our renewable energy industry, driving down emissions, but not in a way that will be economy wrecking and not in a way that will undermine our coal and gas industries, which are very important for our entire energy security. I thank the chamber for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I, again, reiterate our opposition to this bill.

Senator GREEN (Queensland) (12:09): I've said this before and I will say this again: I'm very proud to live in regional Queensland, an area that boasts rich resources and natural wonders. Despite the distance between towns and the diversity between each regional community, we are very proud of where we live and the contribution that regional Queenslanders make to Queensland and the national economy.

In North Queensland, you can drive from the Great Barrier Reef and the World Heritage listed rainforests that tourists from all over the world come to see through to cane farms and agricultural land. You can drive past sugar mills and manufacturing hubs, past ports and our marine industry and up to mines and processing refineries for every mineral and resource that we have to offer. Regional Queenslanders understand very deeply the connection between our lands, our environment and our jobs. Regional Queenslanders also understand the threats that climate change and the government's inability to implement genuine policies to combat climate change pose to our economic prosperity and to our livelihoods. Regional Queenslanders have experienced fires, floods, cyclones and higher water temperatures, increasing the costs of recovery and insurance for households.

The government's policy paralysis on energy has led to instability and uncertainty for jobs and businesses in regional Queensland. We know that climate change is impacting the health of the Great Barrier Reef, which supports thousands of jobs. In Far North Queensland, islands in the Torres Strait are bracing for rising sea levels. They may be Australia's first climate change refugees if predictions of sea level rises are accurate.

When we talk about climate change in this place, it's never lost on me that the Queenslanders least responsible for the emissions that cause the climate to change are the least equipped to defend against the effects that they will feel before any person in any city who waves a placard around in support of either side of this debate. This dichotomy that lives and breathes in regional Queensland every day is why, in my first speech, I said:

Job security for Queenslanders and the dangers of climate change are interlinked. Queenslanders want and deserve secure jobs.

…   …   …

The only way to win an outcome that ensures a prosperous and healthy future for our state is to listen to Queenslanders, not talk at them or speak about them in abstract terms. Every regional Queenslander deserves to be treated with respect.

This Galilee Basin (Coal Prohibition) Bill 2018 doesn't respect regional Queenslanders. It singles out regional Queensland. It doesn't talk about jobs or the future of jobs and it doesn't talk about the economic plan required for Australia to reach emission goals. It doesn't give regional Queenslanders a stake in their prosperity or recognise their right to have their voices heard. This bill singles out regional Queensland unfairly and unjustly for the sole purpose of wedging this parliament and the members of the Labor Party who care about climate change and care about jobs. It is wedge legislation at its very finest—another stunt from the Greens.

It was less than two minutes into Senator Waters's speech today before she attacked the Labor Party and before she attacked the Queensland state Labor government. So we know what the true purpose of this bill really is. It's about Maiwar; it's not about Moranbah. It's about South Brisbane; it's not about South Johnstone. This is a legislation version of the Greens' convoy to Clermont in the lead-up to the election. And didn't that go so well, as we all know. You would have thought that the Greens had learnt from their catastrophic failings at the last election, but, clearly, they haven't.

Former senator Bob Brown last week described regional Queenslanders who stood up to the convoy as 'cranky, nasty and inhospitable' and went on to call them an 'unruly mob fuelled by grog'. That's what the Greens think about regional Queenslanders. They haven't learnt their lessons. When there is so much at stake for our country if we don't get climate change settings right, stunts from the Greens are selfish and self-indulgent.

This bill does nothing to reduce Australians' climate emissions. While alternative sources of energy are being produced in places like regional Queensland, a switch to low emissions can't happen overnight, and this bill isn't actually proposing any plan to make that switch happen. It just wants to turn the switch off overnight. And when it comes to protecting local jobs, this bill is poorly thought out.

In her second reading speech, Senator Waters said that the Greens were prepared to consult with communities affected by market changes in the demand for thermal coal, but the explanatory memorandum to this bill says that the bill would have no financial impact. We know that that is not true. The truth is the Greens pretend to listen. They pretend to be interested. But I haven't heard them listening to people in Mackay or Townsville or workers who would be affected by a bill like this.

What bills like this do is give a platform to the climate change deniers in the government who claim that any action on climate change will result in job losses across places that can afford it the least. It gives them a platform to argue against more renewable energy and for less action on climate change. You will note that Senator Canavan took the opportunity to also attack the Queensland Labor government in his second reading contribution today. It's quite a common theme coming from that end of the chamber. These so-called defenders of coal workers have never stood up to labour hire. They have never stood up against automation. They want to make workplaces less safe, so more people die in coalmines across Queensland. They have never seen a manufacturing job they wouldn't privatise or casualise or send offshore. But they come in here saying they are standing up for coal workers. We know that is not the truth.

The truth is, because the government is being held back by climate change sceptics on their backbench, and even on their frontbench now, they have failed to take any meaningful action on emissions. We know that the latest emissions data confirms that the Morrison government's climate change policy is hopelessly inadequate. There was no reduction in emissions in the September quarter of 2019, and annual emissions have reduced by only a pitiful 0.3 per cent year to date. Australia will not meet its Kyoto commitment to cut emissions by five per cent in 2020. In fact, emissions reductions will amount to little more than a rounding error. The government's own data suggests that emissions will come down during the next years but only by less than five per cent. At that rate, it will take Australia 230 years to reach net zero emissions, rather than the 30 years scientists tell us is necessary. While the hard Right of the divided government party room continues to dictate climate policy, there will be no progress in tackling climate change.

Labor has been listening and understands that our economy and jobs are at risk if we do not address climate change. That is why Anthony Albanese announced last week that a future Labor government will commit to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. We are doing that in a practical way, with a long-term target, without singling out any community, region or industry. Labor is committing to net zero emissions by 2050 because that is what the science tells us we need to do, to avoid the worst outcomes of climate change. This is sensible and will bring us in step with other states and territories, and it is supported by the Business Council of Australia and energy companies because they want certainty. They want a long-term target. It is good policy.

It's interesting to note that this announcement has triggered the climate change deniers in the government and the Greens on this side of the chamber equally, which just shows you how sad and sorry sensible debate in this space has now become. Even though so-called moderate Liberals, like Trent Zimmerman, have called on the government to support net zero emissions by 2050, we've still got members of their government out there banging their pots and pans on their heads and making outlandish doomsday claims. The Greens have also attacked the target. If you have a look at the Twitter feeds of some of the Greens over the last couple of days, it's easy to see who they think the target is at the next election. It's not the conservatives over there, who are doing nothing about climate change; it's the Labor Party, who want to introduce a plan to help workers and prevent further changes in our climate. Regional Queenslanders deserve better than the nonsense coming from that end of the chamber, from both sides of the chamber, on this debate. We need to take action on climate change. We want to create jobs and protect jobs, and only the Australian Labor Party wants to do both.

Finally, I'll refer back to what I said in my first speech: there are regional Queenslanders, right now, who are desperate for jobs.

Debate interrupted.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Green. We are now at 12:20 pm, so we move to government business.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:20): I thank those senators whose have contributed to this debate. The government is acting to improve the integrity of the superannuation guarantee. With the introduction of near real-time reporting on superannuation guarantee obligations and payments, the ATO will be able to detect and act on non-payment of workers' entitlements much more effectively going forward. To address historical non-compliance, this bill offers a limited, one-off opportunity to employers to come forward and pay their workers what they are owed. Employers have from 24 May 2018 to six months after this bill receives royal assent to voluntarily come forward and disclose their historical non-compliance without being subjected to penalties.

Following the passage of the bill, the ATO will update the law administration practice statement that provides guidelines in relation to the remission of additional superannuation guarantee charge imposed under part 7 of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. The first step of the three-step penalty remission process is to determine the basic level of remission. When updating this practice guidance, it is the expectation of government that the basic level of remission for cases of prompted self-assessment and worse will attract a residual penalty equivalent to 100 per cent of the superannuation guarantee charge, with penalties increasing linearly as the offences become more egregious. The worst cases, where a default assessment has been issued with a severe disengagement and phoenixing arrangement on the part of the employer, should attract the full residual penalty, equivalent to 200 per cent of the superannuation guarantee charge. Only cases of unprompted self-assessment should attract an initial penalty of less than 100 per cent of the SGC. In these cases, where the employer has come forward of their own accord, the government deems it appropriate for the basic level of remission to result in a residual penalty equivalent to 20 per cent of the superannuation guarantee charge.

Let me be crystal clear. The government has absolutely no tolerance for superannuation theft. This is the very last chance that employers will have to come forward and receive concessional penalty treatment. After the amnesty concludes the ATO will take an extremely dim view of those employers that could have come forward but have failed to do so. Those employers will be subjected to penalties equal to at least 100 per cent of their non-compliance. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (12:23): Unless other senators indicate that they have general questions that they wish to direct to the minister, I am contemplating moving Labor's amendment now.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You can move your amendment. It doesn't close debate.

Senator McALLISTER: If Senator Patrick does wish to make a contribution before we get to that part of the discussion, I'm happy for him to do so.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:24): Thank you, Chair and thank you, Senator McAllister. This will only be relatively short. During my speech on the second reading I indicated that Centre Alliance wouldn't be supporting Labor's proposed amendment, on the basis that the government had made a commitment to us. I would just like to ask the minister to confirm that commitment to the chamber so that everyone has an understanding of what it is you're intending to do.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:24): You have a commitment from the government and from me personally in writing that we will consider the options that have been outlined in Labor's amendment. But we believed that there was a need for some considerable time and scrutiny to be given to the ideas that were put forward in that amendment that hadn't been outlined or hadn't been considered in the committee phases of this bill and when it's gone to the Senate economics committee, twice now.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:25): Can you give a time frame for the commitment that you are making to the Senate?

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:25): Yes. My commitment to you, Senator Patrick, was that we would look at that particular idea over the next six months and that we would give to you, and to anyone else that supported that, briefings throughout that period of time as we look at the implications of what those changes might be.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:25): Thank you. I have one more general question. If the bill passes today, I'm just wondering what your strategy is to advertise and to make companies aware of the fact that the amnesty exists. If you could outline that for me, Minister, I would be grateful.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:26): There is a considerable communications and advertising campaign that is going to be run by the ATO. The benefits of the amnesty have been publicly communicated already by the government, both as part of the original announcement and by the ATO through its broader communications activities. Once legislation passes and receives royal assent, it will be communicated publicly to employers by the government and by the ATO. The ATO has advised that there is a significant communications plan in place for the amnesty, which is planned to commence following royal assent. More importantly, the ATO web content will be updated and the SG amnesty form will be made available to employers for employers to apply. The ATO intends to have this published within 24 hours of royal assent.

In addition, external messaging is being finalised ready for release across multiple channels. That includes through ministerial media releases; the ATO's website, ato.gov.au; and the ATO media. A video will also be made available on the ATO website and shared via social media channels and through ATO newsrooms and public relations activities. There will be PR through third-party channels as well, including other government agencies, tax and BAS agents and industry associations. There are plans for an ATO public notice of formal announcement—so there's paid advertising; social media newsrooms; emails to stewardship groups; internal communications to ATO staff; and direct correspondence with those that have come forward previously. So it's quite a comprehensive program of communications.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (12:27): Minister, I think you have now indicated to Senator Patrick that, over the next six months, the government will examine the proposal contained in Labor's amendment, and that proposal in question is to include a right to superannuation within the National Employment Standards. Am I correct that that's the commitment that you have provided to crossbench senators?

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:28): I have provided a commitment to Senator Patrick that it is something that I would look at over the next six months, and that I would brief him throughout that process.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (12:28): And the matter that you'll look at is the right to superannuation in the National Employment Standards?

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:28): Yes.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (12:28): Minister, you indicated to Senator Patrick that you would be willing to provide briefings to him and, I think, to other crossbench members who are interested in this matter over the course of the next six months. Will those briefings be available to the opposition?

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:29): It was an understanding that those briefings would be given to those crossbench members that were interested in your amendment but weren't going to support it. So, if you would like to withdraw your amendment, potentially we could give you those briefings too.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (12:29): Just for clarity, Minister—and I wonder if you might want to reflect on that answer: we've proposed a constructive idea to the chamber, which actually received broad engagement and support. And I'm very grateful to the crossbench for the constructive way that they engaged in that proposal. Crossbench senators have, I think, granted the government time. As I understand it, they have said: 'This is an idea which is good in its essence. We are willing to grant the government time.' That's not our preferred approach—we think we can proceed immediately—but it's the view of the crossbench. You're willing to brief them about this constructive idea that we have presented to the chamber, but you're not willing to brief us about it. Is that correct?

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:30): Senator McAllister, this bill has gone to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee twice, and you and I were both members of that committee at the time. Not once has this issue been raised. It wasn't raised in the opposition's additional comments or dissenting reports on either occasion. This is a brand new idea, and we're just beginning to put our minds around it. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing for crossbenchers to say, 'Hey, I don't know anything about this but, if you can investigate it, come back to us and talk to us about it.' I think that we're approaching it with a reasonably open mind and in good faith. So I don't think this is a reasonable request.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (12:30): So are you saying you won't engage with the opposition about the idea that we developed? It seems a little petty.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:30): Senator McAllister, you've worked with me in the past. You know what I'm about, and I'm quite happy to work constructively with anyone who's happy to work constructively with us. We don't get a sense that this is an amendment that has been put forward in a constructive manner. In fact, we think it's an amendment put forward in order to scuttle this bill. If you would like to remove the amendment, we're quite happy to discuss with you, in good faith, the contents of it.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (12:31): I don't think that seems like a very good-faith approach to unscrambling a problem. We've got billions of dollars in superannuation not being paid to ordinary workers. We've put a constructive proposal on the table. I think making a discussion with the opposition about that proposal hostage to some procedural demand that you have today is petty and rather unfortunate. I've asked you to consider it or to reconsider your position. You've refused to do so, and there's probably no point in discussing it much further.

I will now move to the amendment. As I said, I appreciate that the crossbench engaged constructively with us. We think this is a constructive idea that, unlike the bill that is presently before this chamber, would actually do something about unpaid superannuation, which in some cases amounts to deliberate theft from hardworking people. For clarity, the amendment that we've circulated would include the right to superannuation within the National Employment Standards, and that would give all employees to the power to pursue their unpaid superannuation. Currently, unpaid or underpaid employer contributions are a debt that's owed by the employer to the tax office rather than the worker. Unless there is a clause in the award or the agreement that covers that worker, the worker can't chase that money as an individual because the debt technically isn't owed to them. This bill seeks to fix that, because it doesn't really work. If a worker is not paid their super, what happens then is that they submit a claim to the ATO. Workers who lodge claims with the ATO may not see action for months or years or ever at all, with very little information given to those people as to why. Actually, the ATO is restricted in the information it can provide to workers, so it doesn't share details of any payment plan that might have been arrived at with an employer, nor does it allow anyone to contest the employer's claim if they say that they do not have capacity to repay in a reasonable time.

This isn't a small problem. The amount of unpaid super, as I alluded to earlier, is staggering. A report from Industry Super Australia has found that 2.94 million workers, a big group of workers, lose $5.95 billion each year in unpaid super. It's outrageous, and blue-collar workers are the ones who are most likely to be ripped off. Machinery operators and drivers, labourers, technicians and trade workers make up more than one million workers whose super is underpaid. Just under one in three community and personal service workers have their super stolen, amounting to more than $468 million. These are some of the most poorly paid workers in our system, doing hard and important work in the community services sector. It is outrageous.

This does represent a fix. Placing super within the National Employment Standards and the Fair Work Act means all employees will be empowered to recoup unpaid super from employers through the Fair Work Commission or through the Federal Court. It would allow them to seek unpaid superannuation in the same way workers can seek unpaid wages. Workers and their unions should have the right to pursue unpaid superannuation as an industrial entitlement. They should have the ability to inspect records of payment. If the government were serious about unpaid super, it would actually support this amendment today and it would ensure that superannuation provisions in the National Employment Standards to allow workers to enforce their rights at work are put into place. I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8872 revised together.

Leave granted.

Senator McALLISTER: I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8872 revised:

(1) Clause 2 , page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

[commencement]

(2) Page 9 (after line 28) , at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Superannuation contributions in National Employment Standards

Fair Work Act 2009

1 After paragraph 61(2 )( h)

Insert:

(ha) superannuation contributions (Division 10A);

2 After Division 10 of Part 2-2 of Chapter 2

Insert:

Division 10A—Superannuation contributions

116A Superannuation contributions

Obligation in relation to contributions

(1) An employer must make contributions to a superannuation fund for the benefit of an employee so as to avoid liability to pay superannuation guarantee charge under the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 in relation to the employee.

Amount of contributions

(2) The amount of the contributions relating to the employee is to be worked out:

(a) in accordance with the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 ; or

(b) if a modern award or enterprise agreement applies to the employee and provides for an amount higher than the amount applicable under paragraph (a)—in accordance with the modern award or enterprise agreement (as the case requires).

Superannuation fund

(3) The superannuation fund to which the contributions relating to the employee are made must be:

(a) if a superannuation fund is a chosen fund (within the meaning of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 ) for the employee—that superannuation fund; or

(b) if there is no chosen fund (within the meaning of that Act) for the employee and a modern award or enterprise agreement applies to the employee—the superannuation fund specified in the modern award or enterprise agreement (as the case requires); or

(c) otherwise—a superannuation fund for which the choice of fund requirements in section 32C of that Act are satisfied in relation to the contributions to the fund.

Salary sacrifice arrangements

(4) A contribution made by an employer to a superannuation fund for the benefit of an employee under a salary sacrifice arrangement (within the meaning of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 ) with the employee does not satisfy the employer's obligation to make contributions under subsection (1).

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992

3 After subsection 37(1)

Insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Commissioner may amend an assessment if a court or tribunal has ordered the payment of superannuation contributions in relation to an employee and the order has been complied with.

[superannuation contributions in National Employment Standards]

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments, as moved as Senator McAllister, be agreed to.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:42): I should have put on the record the reason the government opposes this amendment, which is that, while it acknowledges that super theft is a disgrace, the government has worked tirelessly to ensure the integrity of the superannuation guarantee. Most importantly and most recently that was by extending Single Touch Payroll to businesses with fewer than 20 employees, ensuring the ATO has real-time reporting of contributions received by super funds and strengthening the commissioner's ability to collect superannuation guarantee charges.

I have always encouraged people across the parliament to come to me with their policy ideas, knowing I'll carefully examine them on their merits and in good faith. If you are genuinely serious about an idea and you think it's a good policy, you shouldn't be scared to come forward and have it stand up to considered scrutiny. This Treasury Laws Amendment (Recovering Unpaid Superannuation) Bill 2019, as I said, has been to committee twice already—in this parliament and in the last—and, despite it being mooted in testimony before the committee, this idea was not at all recommended by either the majority or the dissenting reports on the bill. Furthermore, it was within the terms of reference of the Senate Economics References Committee's inquiry into superannuation underpayment in the 45th Parliament, chaired by a Labor senator. Again, there was absolutely nothing on this included in its recommendations.

So, as a result, the amendment that was proposed had no opportunity for proper scrutiny. The only reason it should be put up now is as a bad-faith attempt to scuttle a very good bill. It would have been a legislative and regulatory quagmire. Furthermore, the Fair Work Act does not have 100 per cent coverage of Australian employees, with state and local government employees not covered, along with some private sector employees. We felt this policy on the run was policy underdone.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) (12:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a third time.

Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (12:52): Labor supports the passage of the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill. The bill's primary purpose is to allow Wine Australia to establish a label directory, which will include digital colour images of grape product labels and information in relation to the grape products and those exporting them, to enable Wine Australia to use the label directory as a part of its role in controlling the export of grape products under the act and regulations. According to the explanatory memorandum the purpose of the label directory is to deter exports of copycat wine from Australia. This is a good thing, as copycats of our great Australian wines have a massive impact on our wine producers. Copycats should not gain commercial benefit from the high-quality Australian brand that our wine producers have developed. It's their hard work that created the brand. This should be protected.

However, it is important to note that the bill does not give Wine Australia the power to protect the intellectual property rights of wine brand owners. The bill will only better facilitate wine brand owners to protect their own interests by being able to search the database to easily see whether other labels may be seeking to trade off their intellectual property so they can undertake appropriate civil action against copycat exporters.

The bill enables Wine Australia to take into account the behaviour of wine exporters using the label directory in administering licences to export grape products. That means that when exporters are trying to take advantage of the good name of Australian brands or using untruthful or non-compliant labels Wine Australia can suspend or cancel their licence to export.

However, whilst the bill before the parliament will assist wine producers to better protect their brand from copycat behaviour, many wine producers are concerned about the impact that climate change is having on their industry and Australia's wine industry's reputation. This is why I will be moving a second reading amendment condemning the government for its lack of understanding about the impact climate change is having on Australia's wine industry. The rapidly changing climate is having a significant impact on the agriculture sector, and viticulturists want the government to act meaningfully on climate change.

For many viticulturists, the recent fires have had a significant impact on their wine-producing regions. On 9 January 2020, the peak industry organisation, the grape and wine association, Australian Grape & Wine—known as AGW—provided an update on the impacts that the bushfires have had on various wine-producing regions. In terms of the effects on the Hunter Valley region and the 2020 vintage it really is still too early to tell. The update reads:

Smoke taint is a reasonably new and inexact body of science, and the region is currently working through all the options and procedures at their disposal to evaluate any perceived risk.

However, experienced wine producers, such as Bruce Tyrrell, have had to make difficult decisions to ensure the brand of their wines, stating:

… the company had decided most of its vineyards would not be harvested for wine production and it would have a severely reduced 2020 vintage. Overall the drought and smoke taint would bring a grape crush 80 per cent below normal.

Further adding:

Smoke taint gives grapes—especially reds—burnt, smoky, medicinal or "dirty ash tray" characters that are reproduced in the wines.

Much of south-eastern Victoria has been subject to fire. Gippsland has suffered severely, and Rutherglen, King Valley, Beechworth and the alpine regions are vulnerable in the next few weeks. This could bring up to 10,000 tonnes under threat. The update went on to say that in the Adelaide Hills:

To date, the fires have impacted more than 60 grapegrowers and wine producers and the flow-on effect within the region will be severe.

The devastation has hit close to home for growers, producers and wineries in the region with significant loses of vineyards, buildings, equipment, machinery and wine.

But it is not just the fires. Drought is also having a significant impact on wineries in our wine regions.

There are media reports that farmers in Stanthorpe are facing difficult decisions about whether future generations will be able to continue farming the region and they want real action from the Morrison government. Stanthorpe media are reporting 'dirt underfoot as dry as anyone can remember, Mike Hayes sees numbers everywhere as he walks through dusty rows of grapevines'. The article continues:

To say Hayes is unimpressed with news of a regional drought tour by federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and senior Coalition MPs this week would be an understatement.

Mr Littleproud and Mr Frydenberg visited Stanthorpe and Warwick in Queensland and Inverell in northern New South Wales before Christmas. Mr Hayes has seen it all before. I'll quote Mr Hayes. He says:

They'll come in their flash RM Williams and their Akubras and their imported polo shirts from France, thinking they're super cool.

I'd like to get them out in the vineyard and spend a couple of days working, tasting and eating the dust, facing extreme temperatures we haven't seen before. It might just wake a few of these politicians up.

Wine producers want real action, not drought tours, which at best usually deliver concessional loans with headline announcements such as '$8 billion in drought support.' The Morrison government is fooling no-one, and our farmers deserve better.

Climate change is forcing Australia's struggling winemakers to adapt. In August last year, Hunter Valley wine producers, Tulloch Wines, shared the challenges they were facing because of climate change. Mr Tulloch is quoted as claiming:

The extreme drought has affected the yields on some our vineyards—some dropping beneath 25 per cent of what they had previously yielded.

With climate change presenting an increasing threat, winemakers are being forced to adopt new measures to combat the challenges.

We've invested a lot of money in irrigation in our vineyards which previously weren't irrigated and that's been a response to more frequent and more intense droughts.

The article that quoted Mr Tulloch continues:

Climate scientists warn the increasing challenges to grape-growing reflect the vulnerabilities of the entire farming industry.

"[It] just reflects what's happening much more broadly across the agriculture sectors," said Professor Mark Howden, director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University.

"Climate change is already [having] an impact, not just based on the amount of product that they can grow, but also on the quality of product."

Whilst Australia's wine production is a high-value product known for its high quality, the future of the industry will require meaningful action on climate change to ensure that the industry can further adapt and build resilience and mitigate the impact of climate change. But, sadly, the Morrison government continue to be focused more on their own internal machinations than prioritising developing an effective climate change policy.

The department of agriculture has officially changed to its new structure as the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. The department also obtained two new ministers, albeit Minister Littleproud was given back his old job. Minister Pitt is the new water minister—and hopefully the working relationship between Minister Littleproud and Minister Pitt will be a better working relationship than what existed between Minister Littleproud and the former Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie—and Andrew Metcalf was reinstated as the secretary to the department of agriculture, after the Abbott government sacked him back in 2013. But these changes cannot be used as an excuse by the government to continue to not act on assisting farmers to build resilience and to adapt to the challenges that climate change presents. The Morrison government love to blame bureaucrats or the states for policy failings. However, the Public Service is there to serve the government of the day, and this can only be done if there is a clear mandate from the government of the day. Changing ministers and departmental secretaries, and moving portfolios, do nothing to assist our farmers dealing with the challenges of climate change.

Ironically, the former, former, former—sounds a bit like Monty Python!—agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, asserted that the water portfolio could not sit with the department of the environment because the latter was captured by the green movement. Yet now both agriculture and water can sit with the environment department. So the question is: why did the water portfolio need to be moved in the first place? It was purely for National Party optics. Remember that locating water in the agriculture department and under the responsibility of the then minister Barnaby Joyce was the deal done when former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was knifed in the back. Of course, leadership instability continues to plague the coalition, as the National Party almost—almost!—saw the return of Mr Joyce to the helm. Whilst Mr Joyce did not get across the line this time, it did expose the fractures that continue to exist in the Liberal and National parties with regard to climate change policies.

What happened in the first parliamentary sitting week for 2020 will give Australian wine producers absolutely no confidence that the Morrison government have their industry at front of mind. The recent rains around Australia, which are welcomed by all, should not be used as an excuse by the Morrison government to do nothing. The agriculture sector, including fisheries and forestry, want a coherent national strategy for agriculture. This plan will need to include meaningful action on climate change; otherwise their vision of reaching $100 billion by 2030 will be difficult to achieve.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (13:03): The Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019 enables Wine Australia to establish and maintain a publicly available directory of grape product labels intended for export. We know that Australia has a very significant wine industry and a very significant wine export industry. Based on the recent data in the Bills Digest, we produce around 1.7 million tonnes of wine grapes a year, we consume 492 million litres of wine a year, we export 866 million litres of wine and we imported 100 million litres of wine. Over time Australia's largest export markets have shifted from being predominantly the US and the UK to a greater volume going to China and South-East Asia.

In 2017 we had the reports that there were 14,000 bottles of fake Penfolds wine that'd been stopped from sale in Shanghai. This bill is intended to address situations like that situation. This bill enables Wine Australia to create a directory of labels as part of export controls—all very good. The Greens are going to be supporting this bill because, yes, it's a useful thing to be doing, but we do question the priorities of the government. We do question whether this is actually the most important thing to be tackling to support our wine industry. The coalition is being quick to protect Australia's wine industry when it comes to protecting the intellectual property of our major producers but there is a massive looming challenge. There is a massive elephant in the vineyard that the coalition is failing to act on and that is our climate emergency.

We have seen the impact that our climate emergency has had on wine growers this summer. With the fire emergency that we faced we need to look no further than right here around Canberra where we have Canberra wine growers who are basically saying, 'There's no vintage this year because of the fires around Canberra.' Tim Kirk is from a Clonakilla wines, who are based in Murrumbateman. They usually produce between 15,000 and 20,000 cases of wine each year. They made what they describe as the 'painful' decision to not have a 2020 vintage. 'It's been pretty devastating actually,' said Mr Kirk. He said:

We've had bushfires before, but this was something else. The fires all around us, we just seemed to cop all of smoke and it hung around for weeks and weeks.

What happens is it sits on the skins of the grapes and gets sucked into the grapes as they start to ripen. Once you crush the grapes and begin to ferment them, those smoke compounds are released into the wine.

He says with some understatement:

It is not what you want with a great Canberra district wine.

Mr Kirk also said:

The impact is going to be significant, there's no doubt about that, and it will be quite a heavy financial blow for us.

He estimates the loss to their winery in the millions of dollars. He said:

We're not going to make any wine from this vineyard at Murrumbateman, or indeed any of our vineyards from suppliers that we have in the Hilltop district or the Canberra district.

We've been in this game a long time, it's 50 years next year. We've never actually written off a whole vintage before.

There you go. This is the real emergency. This is the real issue that wine growers in Australia need to have this government addressing. If we don't address the climate emergency no amount of fiddling around the edges and providing registers of wine labels is going to mean the ongoing financial viability of our wine industry.

This summer we had the issue of smoke taint. It's not just in Canberra where it was felt. With our fires that we've had this year we know that fires of this extremity, fires of this intensity, the longer fire season, the smoke hanging around, are going to be signs of things to come unless we address our climate emergency.

Then you have got the issue of the hotter conditions—the rising temperatures that come with climate change. I would like to talk about a study that I have got a particular personal connection to, which my late wife, Dr Penny Whetton, was an author of in her role as being one of Australia's leading climate scientists. It was a paper entitled 'Observed trends in wine grape maturity in Australia' published nine years ago now in Global Change Biology in 2011. That research was based on studying data from vineyards around Australia over very long time frames. Some of it was from over 115 years of data. It showed very clearly the impact that a hotter climate was having on our wines. Over the 1993-2009 period the grapes matured, on average, 1.7 days earlier each year. Crucially, the paper summarises:

The trend to earlier maturity was associated with warming temperature trends for all of the blocks assessed in the study.

Again, this is what we need to be addressing. This is the urgent issue. This is where there needs to be urgent action from everybody in this place—the government, the Labor Party, the crossbench and certainly us Greens. You know that we want to see the urgent action, of the speed and scales that are required, in order to rapidly reduce our carbon pollution to zero. And it is not just about just leaving it until 2050—net zero carbon by 2050. Look, that may be great, but it also may be too late. We need urgent action now, not just fiddling around at the edges.

Putting aside the whole issue of the impact of our climate crisis on grapes and focusing on new wine labels: the experience of our wine growers with the increasing impact of our climate crisis shows that, tragically, it is being felt now. Just as the fires showed that we are in a climate crisis, there is no escaping it. The impact of those fires was felt, and so is the impact of a hotter climate being felt. Alisdair Tulloch, from Keith Tulloch Wine, stated:

You need to pull the camera back further than the bushfires themselves and the way they are influenced by climate change to look at the broader picture of grape growing in general. Grape growing has been showing the fingerprints of climate change since the 1980s when the harvesting dates began to move forward.

And of course we know that the climate crisis has affected not just the wine industry. It's affecting our agriculture sector more broadly. A recent report by ABARES estimated that climate-related losses are on average about $1.1 billion per year for the broadacre property industry.

If there was any other factor—whether it was invasive species, coalmining or another issue—that was costing farmers over $1 billion a year, surely this government would be acting to address that issue. Instead, we're being told: 'Don't worry. We've got it under control. We're going to meet our Paris targets, and everything's okay.' But it is blatantly clear to everybody—you cannot fool the community—that the action that is needed, that is required to reduce our carbon pollution, is needed much more urgently and at a much greater speed and scale than this government is doing. While we've got a government that continues to be spruiking coal, to be spruiking the opening up of the Beetaloo Basin, to be fracking gas, we are not addressing our climate emergency. We are not addressing the impacts of climate change on agriculture. We are not addressing the impacts of climate change on our wine industry.

This is what needs to happen if we are concerned about not just our environmental viability but also the economic viability of this country. On any other issue that was causing losses of $1.1 billion a year, this coalition government would be acting to address it. There'd be a special envoy, there'd be a series of summits and the minister would make announcements of multimillion-dollar government programs. There would be at least an attempt at action. But this government's not acting on the climate emergency. And do you know why? Because while they talk up big about supporting farmers, we know who is really pulling the strings. We know who they are listening to, and that is their fossil fuel donors—the coal dinosaurs who will not accept the truth or act on it, and a Prime Minister who still fondles lumps of coal and refuses to engage on the issue.

In 2007—if you want to go to the impact that climate change is having on our agricultural industry—the Howard government's drought package included exit packages worth $150,000 to farmers. This is what one scientist commented in 2007. Professor Peter Cullen, of the Wentworth group of scientists, said:

… this would enable farmers to exit the land with dignity.

Australia is going through a horrible transition as we adjust to climate change and there are places where farming isn't going to be able to be continued.

These are the issues. This is what this government needs to be focusing on, rather than just fiddling around the edges with small things like putting together a register of wine labels. Yes, a register of wine labels is all very good, but it is tiny in significance compared with what we need to be doing on our climate emergency. More recently, the National Farmers Federation called for exit packages as well. Fiona Simson, the head of the NFF, said of exit packages that they would:

… provide some support for those people making the difficult decision and enable them to establish themselves in a new location, with a new future in front of them.

The coalition government could be exploring exit packages as a way to make land sustainable and supporting farmers in the middle of our climate emergency. Instead, it's continuing to bury its head in the sand.

We need leadership from our government. That's what the community want. They want leadership. They want action, not just fiddling at the margin with export labels, to be meaningfully addressing our climate emergency. So the Greens will be supporting this bill. It's a bit of legislation that, yes, is going to go some way to improving things—to stop fake wine labels being used abroad, protecting our wine producers—but it is tiny in the larger scheme of what needs to be addressed to ensure a positive, robust and sustainable future for our wine industry, for our agricultural sector more generally and for all of us—for us, our children and our grandchildren.

Senator VAN (Victoria) (13:15): I rise today to speak in support of the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019. It's one that supports Australia's wine producers and the integrity of their product. Australia is the sixth-largest wine producer in the world and the fifth-largest wine exporter, with two-thirds of Australian wine exported, adding $2.89 billion to the economy annually and employing over 170,000 workers in the industry.

My great home state of Victoria has a fantastic wine industry, one of the best in the world. There are over 1,100 wine producers in Victoria, with over 740 vineyards spread right across the state. The people here and those listening at home might be familiar with some of these regions—the Yarra Valley, the Bellarine and Mornington peninsulas, Rutherglen, Pyrenees, Goulburn Valley and more. These predominantly small and medium businesses employ nearly 13,000 workers in both direct production and associated industries. Some of those industries include tourism. They contribute over $7.6 billion to Victoria's economy. They supply 19 per cent of Australia's wine production to a range of producers who export right across the world. Their hard work, innovation, experimentation and high-quality production has seen Victoria develop an enviable reputation as a producer of high-quality varietals of all types, some of which now challenge and beat the traditional exporters from Europe and North America.

It is this kind of hard work and success that the Morrison government want to support. We've boosted the Export Market Development Grants scheme by $60 million to back small and medium-sized Australian exporters, including our wine producers. We, the Morrison government, have delivered trade agreements with China, Japan, and Korea, all growing wine markets. We've signed the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, as well as agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong. As a result, Australia's exports increased to a record $438 billion in 2018, up from $307 billion in the financial year 2012-13. In 2018 Australia had a trade surplus of over $22 billion, compared to a deficit of $19.9 billion in financial year 2012-13.

Our wine industry will also benefit from the new Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is an agreement between 11 major economies in our region with a total worth of over $13.7 trillion. Through these initiatives, we have opened up new opportunities for all of our exporters, including our wine exporters. We will continue to help them grow and prosper.

However, this government hasn't just left support for small business at that. Other initiatives include reducing the tax rate for businesses with a turnover of less than $50 million from 30 per cent to 27.5 per cent, the lowest rate in 50 years. This will support some 230,000 small and medium-sized companies in my home state of Victoria alone. For unincorporated businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million, we have introduced a tax discount of eight per cent, capped at $1,000, and we have legislated a further increase to 16 per cent—a great boon for all small and medium-sized businesses. We have fast-tracked this tax relief so the full benefit is delivered in the financial year 2021-22. That is five years earlier than originally planned.

The Morrison government is also helping small and medium businesses invest and grow through the instant asset write-off. We expanded the instant asset write-off for small and medium businesses up to a turnover of less than $50 million until 30 June this year. This means those businesses can instantly deduct each and every asset under $30,000. You can imagine that for a small to medium primary producer, like a wine producer, this means everything. This gives them the help that they need in real and meaningful ways. These changes will benefit 3.4 million businesses employing over seven million Australians, helping them to invest, create more jobs and develop further export opportunities.

Success, however, can be impacted by a range of issues. Factors such as drought, bushfires and plant disease can impact on crops and the quality of the product. Factors such as low wholesale prices, oversupply or export controls can impact growers' profitability. That is why the Morrison government has also announced a range of initiatives to help agricultural producers and small businesses through the impacts of drought and natural disasters. These include more than $1 billion of drought loans, worth individually up to $2 million, with no repayments or interest for the first two years. This will make it possible for some agricultural producers to buy fodder, transport stock, build water infrastructure, agist animals, mend fences or refinance existing debt. There is also a new small business drought loan of up to $500,000 that will help support small regional businesses impacted by the drought.

Unfortunately, wine producers have experienced various nefarious activities by people seeking to pass off inferior products through copycat wine and other grape product exports. The wine industry regulator has seen products exported from across the country with labels that seek to mimic elements of Australian brands for commercial gain and unfairly benefit from the reputation of those brands. They are damaging the hard work of reputable wine brands and threatening the continued growth of the wine industry not only in my home state but right across Australia. That is why the regulatory work of Wine Australia is so important. The continuing success of Australian wine exports depends on the maintenance of our internationally recognised reputation for quality and integrity, and that is supported by Wine Australia's regulatory activities.

The Australian wine industry asked for stronger regulatory controls to deter the export of copycat wine from Australia. The passage of this bill will enable a label directory to be established as part of Wine Australia's export controls. The directory was proposed by industry as one way of assisting brand owners to protect their intellectual property rights and, by extension, the reputation of Australian wine. It will act as a deterrent to exporters of wine and other grape products who seek to damage Australia's wine industry and unfairly benefit from the reputation of Australian brands. The label directory will provide brand owners with a searchable database of images of labels that can be used to find labels that potentially infringe their intellectual property rights and enable them to undertake civil action against copycat exporters through the Australian legal system. The bill will also enable Wine Australia to use the label directory in administering licences to export wine under the Wine Australia Regulations 2018.

One of the great challenges of creating a regulatory regime is ensuring that it does not create an undue burden on those who seek to work within the regulations. This government has actively sought to reduce compliance costs for businesses, individuals and community groups and has removed over $6 billion of regulatory burden since coming to office in 2013. This includes simplified business activity statements for 2.7 million small businesses, doubling of ASIC financial reporting thresholds, reducing the burden on 2,200 companies, a small business superannuation clearing house and hundreds of other decisions that are making life easier for our small businesses, including our wine producers and exporters.

To help reduce state government red tape, the government will pay up to $300 million to states and territories that reduce the regulatory burden on small business, assuming they deliver on the promises that they have made. As part of that effort I acknowledge my colleague Senator Bridget McKenzie, former minister for agriculture, for her work on this policy piece. I also thank the Department of Agriculture, Wine Australia, IP Australia and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for their work on this bill that is now before us. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (13:25): I'm really pleased to speak on the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019 because I'm a big supporter of the wine industry in Australia, especially in South Australia. I'm always going to be pleased to support legislation that will make the work of this important industry easier and, credit where credit's due, this bill does do that.

To be clear, this bill aims to amend the Wine Australia Act 2013, to enable Wine Australia to establish and maintain a publically available directory of grape product labels intended for export. The purpose of the label directory is to deter exports of copycat wine from Australia. This bill does not give Wine Australia the power to protect the intellectual property rights of wine brand owners. However, it will better facilitate wine brand owners to protect their own interests by being able to search the database, to easily see whether other labels may be seeking to trade off their intellectual property, so they can undertake appropriate civil action against copycat exporters.

Anyone who is familiar or has a relationship with the wine industry would know that this is a significant issue for industry. The issue around copycats has certainly affected a lot of businesses in South Australia. So any work that seeks to address that is work that the Labor Party obviously would support, particularly for the industry in South Australia, where some of our best known brands globally and the most important wine exports for Australia are located. On that note, I draw attention to a fantastic winemaker in the chamber at the moment in Senator Farrell, who, I am sure, will be welcoming the provisions within the legislation.

But this bill isn't enough or sufficient to do all we know that we need to do to be supporting our wine industry, because we're at a critical juncture for this industry. This is particularly true in my home state of South Australia. The wine industry in South Australia suffered enormously in the recent bushfires, especially in the Adelaide Hills. The Cudlee Creek fire that tore through the Hills region claimed 25,000 hectares. I visited Cudlee Creek a few week ago and was able to see the impact of this firsthand—in particular, at Petaluma Wine, in Woodside, in the Adelaide Hills. Petaluma was one of dozens of affected wineries in this region, and the impact of the fire is clear to see, not just within Petaluma's property but in the surrounding properties.

I witnessed blackened soils from eerie patterns on the ground, showing the seemingly random path of the fire through the vines. I saw vines completely burnt, vines that had been spared and areas where the fire appeared to have jumped certain parts of the property and the vineyard. I saw vines shrivelled to ash and buildings gutted in its wake. Grand centuries-old gum trees adjacent to the cellar door are now blackened through sections of their trunks. Some of these will survive, with the scars a constant reminder, but others won't.

Petaluma estimates significant losses to production for the year. Yet this winery was relatively fortunate if we compare it to other wineries in the Adelaide Hills. Their cellar door is still intact, which means they can welcome visitors, they can still showcase their wines and they can still be part of that critical tourism infrastructure that is so important to the Adelaide Hills, and they still have some vines for future production. Others have absolutely nothing left. Vinteloper was completely engulfed, losing all of their vines, their cellar door and even the owner's home.

But across the Adelaide Hills, in true South Australian style, there is a widespread resolve to rebuild and regroup. It speaks volumes to the character of the wine industry that there is widespread determination to recover from this bushfire disaster. In listening to what some producers need, through recovery support, what I heard clearly was that the recovery is only just beginning and it will be a process that takes many, many years. The industry will require our significant and long-term support. All wineries are different, of course, and their recoveries will take different paths and they will have different needs. Some will need large distributors, like Coles and Woolworths, to be flexible with supply over the coming years, so that they can maintain important existing distribution agreements. Some will need weekend tourists to accept, for a while, some reduced amenity whilst they're visiting. What they will need is a continuing effort from consumers to buy local and to make a special effort to seek out local produce and local wines. What they need desperately is the support of our parliament.

Though there is a long and difficult process ahead, there are signs of positivity, there are signs that this recovery is already underway. Vines that shrivelled in the bushfire heat but stayed alive are now pushing out small green bunches of new grapes. On the backdrop of the black earth, vibrant green grass shoots provide a stunning reminder of nature's incredible capacity to renew and regrow. The winemakers are testing their fruit to assess the impact of the bushfire and the smoke aftermath on the quality of the fruit. The Australian Wine Research Institute will apply knowledge gained from previous bushfires to support producers through this disaster. I want to put on the record what producers have been telling me, which is that they have just absolute praise for the Australian Wine Research Institute and the work they have been doing to actively support them.

As a parliament we should be working to ensure practical support is provided to the right areas to help producers return to business as usual as quickly as possible. Bills such as this is an important way to support the industry. But there are, of course, bigger issues that we as a nation must be tackling to be able to say with confidence that we are doing everything we can to support our wine industry, an industry that substantially provides for our broader economy.

South Australia's five world-renowned wine regions in the Barossa Valley, McLaren Vale, Clare Valley, Coonawarra and the Adelaide Hills, as well as the other regions in our state that are producing top quality wine, account for almost 80 per cent of Australia's premium wine production. So protecting local South Australian wine brands is vital not just for my state of South Australia but also for our national wine industry. In 2017-18, South Australia's wine industry generated more than $2 billion in revenue, with $1.8 billion from exports to more than 100 countries. Australian wine exports have continued to grow in the 12 months to June 2019, increasing by four per cent in value to almost $3 billion. In 2017-18, Australia consumed over 400 million litres of wine but exported more than 800 million litres—double the amount consumed locally. Clearly this is a critical industry for our broader economy. South Australia is charging and fuelling that industry and its growth.

So especially at this time, a time when our South Australian industry has been devastated by these unprecedented bushfires, we need to be doing everything we can to support our wine industry, to support our producers and to support the people in South Australia whose jobs are dependent on the success of these businesses, on the exports of these businesses. That is absolutely critical. We need to do more than just provide monetary support and short-term support schemes. We need a long-term plan and we need to listen to people in this industry who are concerned about the broader changes ahead for their industry. I'm speaking specifically here about the challenges that climate change will present to this industry and to producers.

On 9 January 2020, the grape and wine peak industry organisation, AGW, provided an update on the impacts the bushfires have had on various wine-producing regions. To date, the fires have impacted more than 60 grapegrowers and wine producers in the Adelaide Hills. The flow-on effect within the region is going to be severe, clearly, with this level of impact. The devastation has hit close to home for growers, producers and wineries in the region, with significant losses of vineyards, buildings, equipment, machinery and wine. Equipment is an important part of the story, but, of course, insurance often covers the cost of equipment and we can rebuild. The damage to the wines, the damage to the other part of the infrastructure, the damage to the natural environment, the damage to the precious things that were also burnt cannot be replaced.

After a challenging season of the extreme heat that we have seen, of drought, of catastrophic bushfires, it is so clear that this industry is hurting. It is hurting deeply. We have to be clear when we're talking about this, if we're going to be meaningful and impactful in the ways we want to support this industry, that we acknowledge that the severity of this bushfire season and the extreme weather that exacerbated conditions has resulted from our changing climate. There's no stepping away from that. The science is very clear. Australia's wine industry is on the front line of climate change. They have an incredible amount to lose if we do not take action on climate change seriously. Climate scientists warn that the increasing challenges to grape growing reflect the vulnerabilities of the entire farming industry. As Professor Mark Howden, director of the Climate Change Institute at the ANU, recently stated, climate change is already having an impact not just on the amount of product they can grow but also the quality of product. Our rapidly changing climate is having significant impacts on the agriculture sector more broadly, but of course particularly on our winemakers, who want the government to act meaningfully on climate change.

South Australian wine growers have stated that the dramatic shift in harvest dates is just one of the things that are taking a toll on their businesses. In response to this they have invested significantly in irrigation, solar and other measures to combat these challenges. But it's not a fight our producers can win on their own. It's not a fight any industry which is at risk that climate change will fundamentally affect their bottom line, their business, can tackle on their own. We have had expert warnings, even a decade ago, just on the instance of these fires which have hit the industry, that these seasons would become longer and more intense, exacerbated by the forces of climate change.

The government's own official emissions data last month confirmed that Australia will not meet our Kyoto commitment to cut emissions by five per cent. We are clearly not doing enough. Industry is clearly looking to government to show leadership in this. Industry sees what's happening with climate change. They see the risks to their industry; they see the risks to production; they see the changing nature of production that climate change will have. This is so true for the wine industry, where grapes are completely dependent on climatic conditions. A change in the climate has a significant and direct impact on the wine industry and on our growers.

I do support these measures. I think they're practical and good steps. But if the government are serious about supporting our industry into the long term, beyond these measures, in addressing the serious challenges that are in front of the wine industry with respect to climate change, they need to do more. They need to join groups, old friends of theirs—BCA, BP, BHP, Telstra—and come onboard with net zero emissions by 2050. They need to come forward with a target, and then they need to develop a meaningful plan which will take on climate change. This is something business needs. It's something our wine industry needs. Our wine industry cannot fight this fight on their own. They need government. We need to be setting a strategic direction. Our wine industry and the wine we produce are high-value products. They are known worldwide and their quality is known worldwide. We need to protect this industry. We need to protect those products and we need to do everything we can to ensure that they can focus on fighting the fights they need to do. They need to focus on building their business and growing their business, and we need to take leadership on climate change. We need to take leadership on one of the biggest threats to their business going forward into the future.

Of course, as I have said throughout my speech, we also need to do so much more over the next few years to support this industry, especially in South Australia and especially in the Adelaide Hills, where the impact of the recent bushfires has been truly devastating. We need to support the industry there not just now, not just in the next few months, but in the years ahead, because for our wine industry that is when the impact is going to hit. That's the kind of lead time we're talking about in terms of the damage to their vines and their product getting out to market. We need to show them our support over the next few years. They need to see a plan from us for this. They need to see a plan long term on the critical issue of climate change, an issue which keeps them up at night in terms of how they're going to protect their businesses and products going forward. That is what they are looking for from us, so I am pleased to support this bill before us. I welcome it and I welcome the practical steps it's taking to support our wine industry, but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture and the bigger discussion we need to be having in this chamber on how to support our wine industry post the bushfire and on how we can support our wine industry by tackling the issue of climate change.

Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (13:40): I rise this afternoon to speak briefly in support of the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, and I do so as a proud South Australian. I would argue that my home state of South Australia produces not only the best wine in the country but also, arguably, the best wine in the world—

Senator Marielle Smith: Hear, hear!

Senator ANTIC: in the spirit of bipartisanship with my colleagues, Senator Marielle Smith.

During the recent bushfires, the world watched as some of our best wine regions in the country were ravaged. They devastated some of our communities; however, it also brought out some of the best parts of our country and our communities, such as the spirit of mateship and a sense of community. The fires saw something in the order of 30 per cent, or around a third, of Adelaide Hills' production destroyed and more than 60 growers and producers in the Adelaide Hills impacted. The region lost something in the order of $20 million worth of wine, which in broad terms translates to approximately 794,000 cases. It will take years for these grapegrowers and winemakers to recover, and that's why it's important that we continue to support these local economies and communities upon which those businesses rely. However, it's pleasing to say that despite all of this adversity, South Australia is back open for business.

We need to help these winemakers and grapegrowers in every way possible. I'm a passionate advocate for supporting South Australian produce and, of course, Australian produce as well. The Morrison coalition government is backing business and continuing to assist our wine regions with this bill, which is designed to stop copycat wine producers from taking advantage. The bill will go some way to combatting that very immediate and very present threat.

Australia is, of course, a world leader in the production of premium agriculture products generally. We're renowned for producing premium-level food and wine in this country, which is highly sought after by consumers the world over. The Australian wine sector contributes something in the order of $40 billion annually to the Australian economy itself. There are 65 wine regions in Australia and approximately 2,500 wineries with around 6,000 grape growers making up those numbers. The Australian wine growing areas broadly stretch from southern Queensland to Tasmania and from the Margaret River in the west to my home state of South Australia, with, as I have just described, the Adelaide Hills and the wonderful McLaren Vale and Barossa Valley growing regions as well.

Worldwide demand for Australian wine created a boom in vineyard plantings in the 1990s and that boom just continued. The short-term outlook, at least, for the wine sector is positive. However, there is competition from larger wine producing countries all over the globe, and that will continue to place pressure on domestic producers in this country. The success of Australian wine exports depends partly, at least, on the maintenance of our internationally-recognised reputation for quality and integrity, and that is supported by Wine Australia's regulatory activities. The good name of our wine brands is particularly important for showcasing the range of wines we have on offer and that secondary process of building trust with the consumer. It's true to say that although we often equate the issues of piracy and forgery with other industries, such as the movie industry and sometimes the pharmaceutical industry, unfortunately the incidence of counterfeit Australian wine being sold around the world is a very real issue and it is seemingly on the rise. In fact, the discovery of 14,000 bottles of fake Penfolds wine, a great South Australian winery, for sale in China in November 2018 highlighted the extent and the trajectory of that problem. These items, apparently, were discovered online at severely reduced prices, and that seemingly triggered the awakening to this issue, partly.

So the existence of the counterfeit trade reduces confidence in the genuine Australian article, and that confidence translates into the industry itself. The industry has approached government and asked for stronger regulatory controls to attempt to deter the export of copycat wine from Australia. Those copycat wines, of course, are products which are exported from this country with labels that seek to mimic elements of the brands that they represent for their commercial gain. Therefore, they unfairly benefit from the reputation of those brands and the good reputation of the Australian wine producers who produce them.

So a label directory was proposed by the industry as a useful way to assist brand owners to protect their intellectual property rights and, by extension, the reputation of the wine itself. The bill will establish a label directory as part of Wine Australia's export controls as a deterrent to exporters of wine and other grape products who seek to unfairly benefit from the reputation of Australian brands. It will provide brand owners with the use of a searchable database of images of labels that can be used to find labels potentially infringing on the intellectual property rights of the grapegrowers and the wineries who rely upon them. It will also enable them to undertake civil action against copycat exporters through the Australian legal system. The amendments to this act will enable Wine Australia to impose additional requirements on wine exporters as a condition of approval to export grape products from Australia, and the requirements will be part of Wine Australia's grape product registration process. Failure to comply with that process will mean that grape products, including wine, can't be exported, but there will be no impacts for importers of wine into Australia, who are not in that orbit.

With the framing of the recent bushfires and the issues affecting some of the wineries in this country, this bill is another important step and is of tremendous importance to the integrity of, and continuing confidence in, the wine industry in this country, including in my home state. It adds one more string to Wine Australia's export bow, if you like, representing yet another mechanism which the industry can use to properly control the trade of counterfeit and copycat wines. As a senator for South Australia, the home of the finest wines in the country, I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:47): I rise to add my remarks on this bill, the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, and to those other senators who have made their contributions I think it's fair to say we probably beg to differ here about which state is the best state in producing wines, but it's fair to say Australia produces the best wines in the world and I think we can all have a unity ticket on that point.

As a senator for the great state of Victoria and as someone with Italian heritage, I'm sure it won't come as any surprise that I'm very passionate about viticulture here in our country. My home state is the very proud producer of just over 17 per cent of Australia's total output of wines. No state has more individual wine regions, wineries and diversity of wine varieties than Victoria. Without trying to claim the best wines in the country—although I would hate not to make the point that I do believe that Victoria does offer the best wines in Australia, but my colleagues on my side and those opposite will probably beg to differ—I say it is just really good to see the number of varieties that Australia, since Federation, has been able to produce. We have some of the best wines in the world, and the viticulture industry is certainly one that we should be very proud of. It employs quite a number of people across our nation. Whether it be pinot noir from the Mornington Peninsula or chardonnay from the Yarra Valley—

Senator Dean Smith: Oh, that'd be right—chardonnay!

Senator CICCONE: These are some of Senator Smith's favourite wines, as he's interjecting, but there are a number of Italian varieties that you will find in the King Valley as well, Senator Smith. There can be no doubt that Victoria is the premier wine-making state in Australia.

Senator Hanson-Young: That is rubbish!

Senator CICCONE: Senator Hanson-Young, I say that not just to brag about it but to point out how serious the wine industry is to those I represent—and no doubt to those you represent as well. We are talking about an $8 billion industry which employs around 13,000 in my state of Victoria. Those 13,000 workers work hard every day to ensure that the product is of the highest possible standard in order to allow them to compete in the $460 billion global market.

Whilst we in this place may not be of much help in the vineyard—with the obvious exception of Senator Farrell, who is obviously from South Australia, Senator Hanson-Young; he knows a few things about turning grapes into something special and of great value—there are some things that we can do to help. One thing we can do to help our wine producers is to protect the integrity of their brands. That is the purpose of the bill that we are debating today. It will enable Wine Australia to establish and maintain a publicly accessible directory of all Australian wine labels that are subject to export. This is a rather straightforward proposal. The directory will feature digital images of wine labels and information about the wine and the producer.

It is unfortunate that these measures have become necessary. Owing to the high quality and high value of Australian wines, we've seen in recent years a growing number of counterfeit Australian wines. A number of my colleagues in this place have obviously touched on that point. I will give one example. In November 2017 it was reported that Chinese authorities had seized around 14,000 bottles of wine purporting to be Penfolds. These bottles are very popular amongst many of my colleagues. The wines that were found by Chinese authorities were cheap, readily accessible and looked just like the real thing. Whilst there may have been wine in those bottles, or at least a red liquid of some description, not a drop of it actually came from Penfolds.

I don't want to elaborate at length on the risks that exist to Australian wine brands in a market like China, which itself accounts for almost $1 billion of our export wine value, but when the standards to ensure integrity aren't stringent it does have an impact on the industry as a whole. As we can all imagine, if you had bought one of the bottles of Penfolds that I mentioned earlier, thinking it was the genuine thing, and naturally found the product to be lacking in body and character, you'd be unlikely to buy a second one. With this new directory, wine producers who seek to copy the branding of well-known Australian brands for their own commercial gain will be more easily identified and sanctioned by the regulator. This could also involve the suspension or cancellation of their licences to export.

But there are yet more things we can do to support our nation's wine producers. As has been foreshadowed, Labor will be moving a second reading amendment to this bill to highlight the importance of taking meaningful action to combat climate change and secure the sustainability of Australian viticulture. We know that our climate is changing and we hear from all those involved in agriculture about the impact that this is having on their produce. The recent fires across eastern Australia and in my home state of Victoria have had a profound effect on wine-producing regions.

Labor certainly welcome the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019 and the creation of this new directory. We welcome the opportunity to assist our nation's wine producers to safeguard the integrity of the product. It is great this afternoon to see us talking about the significance of the wine industry in Australia, the importance that it has to our economy and the number of job opportunities that it provides for many regions across Australia as well.

I want to finish by thanking everyone who's made a contribution, and I also want to make the point that it certainly is important that senators in this place stand up for an industry that employs quite a number of people and that has a value outside of Australia, globally. It is something that we should all be very proud of. People do identify with a number of Australian wines, especially those from many parts of our regions, and I'm very pleased that Victoria offers some of the best wines in this country.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (13:55): I rise to speak on the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019 and to follow on from other contributors. The Australian wine industry is one of our nation's great success stories. It's been built by pioneer families who recognised very early on that Australia's climate and terroir were building blocks for wine production of high quality. In my home state of Victoria, these pioneers include the Browns of Milawa, the Campbells and Morris families of Rutherglen and, more recently, Otto and Elena Dal Zotto in the King Valley, who make a fabulous Prosecco—and I hope we'll still be able to call it that post EU free trade agreement negotiations. These pioneering families have developed the industry and their household names and brands over many generations. This bill comes to the Senate designed to protect their blood, sweat and tears from unscrupulous operators who seek to cash in on their hard work.

Australia is the sixth-largest wine producer in the world and the fifth-largest wine exporter, with two-thirds of Australian wine exported, adding $2.89 billion to the economy annually. The continuing successes of Australian wine exports depend on the maintenance of our internationally recognised reputation for quality and integrity, which is supported by Wine Australia's regulatory activities. The Australian wine industry, represented by Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated, asked the government for stronger regulatory controls to deter the export of copycat wine from Australia. Copycat wine and other grape-product exports are products that are exported from Australia with labels that seek to mimic elements of Australian brands for commercial gain and to unfairly benefit from the reputation of those brands. A label directory was proposed by industry as a useful way to assist brand owners to protect their intellectual property rights and, by extension, the reputation of Australian wine.

Passage of the bill before the Senate today will enable a label directory to be established, as part of Australia's export controls, as a deterrent to exporters of wine and other grape products who seek to unfairly benefit from the reputation of Australian brands. The label directory will provide brand owners with a searchable database of images of labels, allowing them to find labels that potentially infringe their intellectual property rights and enabling them to undertake civil action against copycat exporters through the Australian legal system. The bill will also enable Wine Australia to use the label directory in administering licences to export wine under the Wine Australia Regulations 2018. For instance, Wine Australia can use the images of the labels submitted to it to confirm that wine exporters are complying their obligations under the Label Integrity Program, as set out in the act, or evidence of copycat labelling can be used in Wine Australia's ongoing assessment of whether a wine exporter can be considered a fit and proper person to hold a licence to export wine from Australia.

Public consultation on the proposal to develop the label directory was undertaken by the department of agriculture during September and October 2018, and the majority of submissions from the wine industry broadly supported the need and proposed model for the label directory. Following this consultation, the department further refined the proposal with Wine Australia and AGW. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and IP Australia were also consulted.

The amendments to the Wine Australia Act 2013 made by this bill will enable Wine Australia to impose additional requirements on exporters as a condition of approval to export grape products from Australia. This will support our internationally recognised wine industry to not just maintain the beautiful, high-quality product, which is on tables and in restaurants not just in Australia but around the world, but to underpin the significant regional tourism and job opportunities that are a result of our valuable viticulture industry. The bill will allow regulations to be made that would result in a requirement that digital colour images of labels be submitted and administered. There will be no impacts on importers of wine to Australia.

I hope the bill before us has the full support of the Australian Senate. It will underpin the integrity of our system of wine exports, and I think that's something everyone in this chamber can support.

Debate interrupted.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( 15:51): I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:55): I, and also on behalf of Senators Watt, Sheldon and Pratt, I move:

(1) That the Senate notes that:

(a) the report of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee into The role of Commonwealth, state and territory Governments in addressing the high rates of mental health conditions experienced by first responders, emergency service workers and volunteers, was tabled on 14 February 2019;

(b) in a resolution of 14 March 1973, the Senate declared its opinion that the Government should provide a response to committee reports within three months of tabling; and

(c) on 4 December 2019, Minister Cash tabled a letter from the Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations stating that the Government was still considering and consulting with stakeholders on the report's recommendations, and was therefore not in a position to table the response.

(2) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations, by no later than midday on 25 February 2020, the government response to the report of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee into The role of Commonwealth, state and territory Governments in addressing the high rates of mental health conditions experienced by first responders, emergency service workers and volunteers.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (15:55): I seek leave to make a very short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator DUNIAM: The health and wellbeing of Australia's first responders and emergency service workers is a high priority for the government. The government's formal response to the Senate inquiry report will be tabled in the usual manner in the very near future.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:17): The government has finally responded to the select committee report. The Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—a committee on which I was a very active participant—made 29 recommendations, and I want to highlight some of the important recommendations. Recommendation 1 is:

The committee recommends that any amendment to the scheme proceed on the principle of 'do no further harm' to the survivor, be subject to proper consultation with key survivor groups, and appropriately incorporate feedback from those consultations.

The government agrees with this recommendation. I certainly hope the government takes this to heart, because, at the moment, the implementation of the scheme is in fact causing distress to a lot of people. Although, I will acknowledge that there have been improvements in the application of the scheme, there are still some major issues—which I will go to in a second. Very strongly, the feedback is that it is still causing a great deal of distress to people. So there are still quite a lot of actions that need to be taken.

Recommendation 2 relates to institutions that haven't opted in yet. We all know that there are a number of institutions that have not opted in. The government agrees that the Commonwealth, states and territories need to maintain pressure on these institutions. This is getting absolutely critical, because June 2020—this year, in only a few months time—is the cut-off time for opting in for these institutions.

The next recommendation related to using a particular mechanism that could be used to apply pressure, and that relates to the powers under the Charities Act 2013 to penalise all relevant institutions that fail to join the scheme, including the suspension of all tax concessions for, and charitable status of, an institution that hasn't joined in. The government only notes this recommendation. It's absolutely essential that these institutions actually do opt in and that the government uses everything it can to cause these institutions to opt in.

That takes me to the next recommendation, recommendation 4, which talks about the funder of last resort. We had a significant debate in this chamber about the funder of last resort, and certainly the Greens made the point that we don't think the current provisions are adequate. This was highlighted to me last week when I was at a meeting with some First Nations people in Western Australia, my home state. One of the institutions there does not have a body that can be held accountable, from what I understood from our discussion. This brings up very strongly what happens to those 600 people, as I understand it, who went through that institution. Who is going to make sure that they get access to redress without having to go through the courts? This is why we were pursuing this issue so strongly. The government only notes this recommendation. It needs to take this very seriously. We know the deadline of June 2020 for institutions to opt in is coming up. The federal government and the state and territory governments need to be really seriously considering what they're going to do about the funding of last resort. There are many recommendations here—I know I'm going to run out of time—on which the government says, 'Oh, yeah, we have to go back to the states and territories.' I'm so sick of hearing that complaint in here. We expect some leadership from the Commonwealth on many of these absolutely critical issues.

In terms of the old thorny recommendation about the maximum payment, where the government only went with $150,000 rather than $200,000, we made a number of recommendations in the committee about that. The government only notes those recommendations. I strongly urge it to take that back to the states and territories, because, if there's one thing I hear constantly from survivors, it is that they feel diddled because the scheme did not go with the $200,000 recommendation.

Some of the other key recommendations relate to indexing and the fact that that's taken into account. People again feel diddled. Then, of course, we have the issue around non-sexual abuse, and the government notes that particular recommendation. That's one that's a really significant issue for people, because they have no redress if they had violence but not sexual abuse.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ): Your time has expired, Senator Siewert.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (17:25): I table responses for orders for the production of documents relating to (a) the Banking Code of Practice, (b) climate change reports and (c) an order for the production of responses to questions on notice relating to legal advice and Centrelink's compliance program. I also table the first report outlining the status of all orders for the production of documents made during the current parliament which have not been complied with in full.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:25): by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I always treat the people with respect and care, and that compels me to base statements on facts and solid empirical evidence. In cross-examination in 2017, the CSIRO admitted that today's temperatures are not unprecedented. Yet Senator Cormann relies broadly and without specifics on the UN's discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He cites two page numbers on which the UN IPCC makes claims without providing empirical, scientific data within a scientific framework that proves causation—useless! Senator Cormann gives us no proof of human carbon dioxide causing climate variability—none, nil, zip. He and his Liberal and Nats colleagues hide behind the UN smokescreen.

Fortunately I have the antidote: cold hard facts and data. Let me share just some. Each of the UN IPCC's five reports to media and governments is based on a lie. They're a litany of lies. The 1990 report was based on a false claim that reversed the scientist's conclusion that there was no evidence of global warming, and none due to human carbon dioxide. The 1995 report was more brazen. It was based on one scientist, Ben Santer, reversing the scientist's own report. The original 1995 report on the science said:

While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes.

None! Yet, without consulting the other authors, one of the chapter's lead authors, Ben Santer, reportedly falsified comments in chapter 8 by submitting this comment:

The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.

A lie!

In 2001 the next report from the UN was based on the infamous 'hockey stick' temperature graph, whose authors refused to release their data to public scrutiny. That should have meant that we discard it. Instead it was lionised by the UN and by Al Gore and entrenched in people's minds in headlines. In 2007 the UN based its report on unvalidated and erroneous computer models proven hopelessly wrong. The 2014 report, which Senator Cormann has referenced, was also based on unvalidated and erroneous computer models proven hopelessly wrong. The 2014 report's sole chapter claiming warming—that's chapter 10—in its opening sentence misrepresents reality by implying warming from 1951 to 2010, and similarly on page 878. Both are false. From 1958 to 1975 global atmospheric temperatures cooled; 1976 saw a sudden small rise due to the entirely natural Great Pacific Climate Shift over one year, followed, from 1995 through to 1998, by a very modest warming trend. From 1995 to 1998 temperature had been flat, and every year since 1998 was cooler than 1998. In 57 years of atmospheric temperature measurements, temperatures have shown no warming or have been cooling for 34 years. That's 60 per cent of the time with no warming. At the time of the report, in 2013-14, the trend was 16 years of ongoing lack of warming, despite ever-rising human carbon dioxide output due largely to China and India. Yet there is no warming trend, and that continues.

The report identifies no plausible, logical, scientific reasoning for attributing modest cyclical warming to carbon dioxide from human activity. That contradicts empirical scientific evidence and factors needed to claim causal relationships. The report contains no empirical scientific evidence and no logical scientific reasoning for claiming that human carbon dioxide causes warming. It fails to identify any difference between current temperature variability and past temperature variability. Comparisons revealed both previous cycles are similar in modest extent and rate of warming and cyclical stasis after each warming—just a natural cooling and warming.

In its latest report in 2014, confidence in UN IPCC projections was raised arbitrarily to 95 per cent. That implied statistical validity. If the 95 per cent is not statistically derived, it's politically fabricated—just pulled out of the air. To paraphrase and build on the words of Canadian statistician Ross McKitrick, in previous years the UN IPCC was wrong about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about atmospheric temperatures, wrong about the ground based surface temperature, wrong about ocean temperatures, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about sea levels, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And, on that basis, it raised its confidence to 95 per cent. Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre's early investigation of the UN's 2014 report reveals that the UN has cooked the figures to falsely show that, although there had been a lack of warming for 16 or 17 years at the time, the temperatures at the time fall within the range of its early predictions. They did not. Steve McIntyre said that earlier UN temperature projections:

… have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection …

The UN report tried to misleadingly hide the fact that, contrary to UN projections, ground based temperatures had not risen since its second report in 1995. If the UN IPCC that Senator Cormann relies upon were a corporation, an accountant or financial prospectus, it would be jailed.

A critique of the report by the internationally acclaimed independent climate scientist, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, found that the UN has retreated on at least 11 alarmist claims in prior reports. The new summary for policymakers in 2014 had at least 13 misleading or false statements, and another 11 statements are phrased to mislead the readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science. American climatologist Dr Judith Curry is a professor and chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. Reportedly, she's a scientist who initially believed that humans caused global warming. She now publicly questions that. Here are her views on the report that Senator Cormann and the wet Libs rely on:

Diagnosis:—

of the UN—

… paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface.

Her comments continue:

increasing levels of shrillness on both sides of the political debate, with the ‘warm side’—

that's the UN—

steeped in moral panic and hyperbole …

She further states:

after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans.

The UN IPCC contradicts empirical scientific evidence because it relies on projections from computerised numerical models whose core assumptions contradict Nature—

and reality. 'The discrepancy,' as Judith Curry says, 'between observational and climate model based estimates of climate sensitivity is substantial and of significant importance to policymakers.' But that's what the Liberal's policy is based on.

And here's the trick: instead of science, they use language. Word counts done on their chapter show that in 85 pages, the word 'model' appears 677 times. The word 'simul'—as part of 'simulations' and 'simulated'—appears 370 times. The word 'certain' appears 232 times, even though there's nothing certain. The word 'likely' appears 172 times. The word 'confidence' appears 127 times. The word 'may' appears 79 times. The word 'expect' appears 63 times. It's just a litany of propaganda. The repetition of key words is propaganda to conjure unfounded feelings of confidence and likelihood, and it fooled Senator Cormann. Yet there is a complete lack of empirical scientific evidence that human carbon dioxide causes climate change and needs to be cut. In the real world of science—proper science—propaganda is not science. In the politicised and ideological world of the UN and the Liberal Party though, it is a replacement for science. In the Liberal Party, it is a substitute for science and replaces integrity, and the Nats meekly tag along.

Senator Cormann has revealed the government's lack of understanding of climate and lack of scientific evidence for its ruinous climate policies and imposts on the people. Senator Cormann validates our conclusions and reinforces our determination to expose the gutless wet Liberals, afraid of confronting the facts and afraid of confronting the Greens, with the coward Nationals meekly tagging along. Senator Cormann and the government have failed to provide any scientific basis for their climate position.

I will return in coming months to discuss the State of the Climate report by the BOM and the CSIRO in 2018. I'm going to have a lot of fun in the next four months. We will free this country and every Australian from the clutches of ignorance and dishonesty. We will restore people's rights and save families and employers cash. Families know how to use this cash better. This issue goes to the heart of the Australian governments. This parliament should be ashamed. Senator Hanson and I will delight in restoring scientific integrity and restoring freedom. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (17:35): Notwithstanding its origins up the back with the tinfoil hat brigade, Labor was happy to support this order for production of documents, because it should be very easy to satisfy. The evidence for human induced climate change is vast, well substantiated and detailed. I believe in climate change, and so do my colleagues. We believe in it because tens of thousands of qualified scientists over decades have measured it and experimented and modelled it. Climate change is real. We should not have to say that in 2020, but there it is. Climate change is real. If there's not enough empirical evidence out there for you, the problem isn't with the evidence. Evidence doesn't stop being evidence and it doesn't stop being empirical just because you disagree with it or don't like what it tells you.

There is a climate conspiracy, but it is not a conspiracy by the tens of thousands of scientists who have contributed to our current understanding. It is a conspiracy by climate denialists to muddy the waters of what is now a very clear scientific consensus. Back in 1995 a Republican strategist, Frank Luntz, was encouraging Republican members to challenge the science. He suggested you do this 'by recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view'. Ten years later he was still at it, with a 2001 memo that said: 'The scientific debate is closing but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.' He's not the only one to attack the science for political reasons. The flood of misinformation has not abated in the years since. International organisations like the Heartland Institute actively promote false or misleading information about climate change.

We cannot allow the debate about climate change in this country to be derailed by misinformation in the way that it has been in the United States and elsewhere. We have known about the threat of climate change for decades, and the science has only got more certain over time. The truth is that Australians and Australia are uniquely vulnerable to climate change. It places us at risk of longer and deeper droughts, more destructive cyclones and other weather events and, as we saw over the summer, more horrific fire seasons. In 2018 a heatwave saw fruit bats drop dead from the sky. In 2019 heat and drought saw massive fish kills along Australia's waterways. 2020 started with fires that have destroyed up to 80 per cent of our koalas' natural habitats, destroyed thousands of homes and tragically seen too many lives lost. These fires were described as unusual, extraordinary and unprecedented.

This is not business as usual, and yet the government continues to behave as though it couldn't care less. One possible benefit of collating these documents for Senator Roberts may have been that the government would have had the opportunity to reacquaint itself with some of the basic facts. However, their performance over the last few days suggests that, like One Nation, they are full to the gills with climate deniers.

I have come to the sad conclusion that this government will never take significant action on climate change. They are divided down the middle with downright deniers of the science of climate change, and they seem to dictate the government agenda and there appears to be nothing capable of shifting them. Would the environmental burden change things, perhaps, after a summer in which 33 people lost their lives and 3,000 homes were destroyed? The government's policy remains non-existent. Would the economic burden change things?

According to recent research from the University of Melbourne, the cost to Australia of not delivering on the goal of the Paris Agreement, a goal that requires net zero emissions by 2050, is a staggering $2.7 trillion. Yet there's been nothing, no meaningful climate response, from government. Would calls from stakeholders shift this government? Everyone from the National Farmers Federation to the Business Council of Australia is calling for action. No. The truth is this: for a decade, a rump of conservatives in the coalition have blocked every attempt to move the country forward, and they still hold the whip hand—like newly-appointed Minister Keith Pitt, the new minister for resources, who claimed solar panels and lithium batteries could turn out to be this generation's asbestos; former deputy Nationals leader Senator Matt Canavan calling renewables the dole bludgers of the energy system, a phrase distasteful for more than one reason; or Senator Jim Molan, who recently told our national broadcaster that he's not relying on evidence in forming view about climate change. Is there any hope that this government will act? Sadly, I have concluded, no.

Labor will act. I was proud to see the opposition leader on Friday announce our commitment to a net zero target by 2050. Our target is what the world—Australia included—agreed to in Paris. Whether the Morrison government accepts this or not, this goal is fast becoming the reality. Australia has lost 10 years to baseless fear campaigns against climate action and we cannot afford to lose another 10.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Do you seek leave to continue your remarks later?

Senator McALLISTER: Yes, I do, thank you.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:42): In relation to the government's response to the order for production of documents that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, no later than 10 am today, responses to all questions placed on notice by Senators Siewert and O'Neill relating to legal advice and Centrelink's compliance program, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The government has tabled those responses. I will note that the government, in those responses, continues to say that the minister has made a public interest immunity claim with respect to any legal advice obtained in relation to the income compliance program—into the circumstances surrounding any legal advice obtained in relation to the income compliance program.

The community affairs committee rejected that claim for public interest immunity, saying that we didn't think it met the requirements of a public interest immunity claim, in that the government and the minister did not outline how it would hurt the public interest to produce that legal advice. The minister has now tabled answers to other questions that we asked, and in some instances they're useful; in others they're not. We still do not have an understanding of how many debts are affected by the government's suspension of the program of income averaging. We do not know how long the government has known that the robodebt process was illegal, which debts are illegal, when people will be compensated, how long it will take the government to review the debts and what the final process is.

When we had the hearing on 16 December we only heard about the first level of review that is being undertaken. We expected that that first review, and the department led us to believe that, would be undertaken or completed towards the end of January. Yet we still have not heard what the next phase of the process is and how many debts are involved.

Through the Senate inquiry process and the ongoing court case, we are learning more about the government's position. For example, the government don't think that they have a duty of care to the people who have been traumatised and demonised by robodebt. The government claim that they deny allegations of duress. Well, tell those people, who have had debt collectors turned up on their doorstep, that they don't think that they have been under duress. Tell people who are getting notices—and who got robodebt notices over the last three years—that they shouldn't feel duress that they got these notices for, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars, and now, as it turns out, a lot of them are illegal.

Part of the legal advice that we have been seeking is a further outline of the process of garnishing by the ATO. The government has ramped up their garnishing of people's tax returns. The first thing that people know about a robodebt is when their tax returns get garnished. For those people you can guarantee that most of those debts will have been done through income averaging because, if somebody doesn't know about it, they haven't responded to the letters. They have moved—quite a while ago, because some of these debts stretch back a large number of years. They have moved, so they have never had the contact from the department. The first thing they know is they get garnished. That will have been done by income averaging—income averaging that is illegal.

How long has the government been doing this? I was asking in the hearing on 16 December: 'Can't they stop? Are they able to stop some of this garnishing? Weren't they able to identify which ones were done by income averaging?' The ATO said, 'No, that's up to the department.' The department will know very well which of those debts are income averaged and which ones aren't. How many resources are now being put over to looking at these robodebts? How much time from the department now is being taken up looking at robodebts? We still don't know the answers to that.

But I want to go back to this duty of care and the government claiming they don't have a duty of care. To say I was gobsmacked that government claims it doesn't have a duty of care to Australians on our income support system is to put it mildly. It is unbelievable that the government is running that line in its court case trying to defend its illegal robodebt system.

As Bernard Keane—in a very interesting article, I will say—rightly points out, the idea that the government does not have a duty of care towards its citizens is at odds 'with the core principles' of our social security system. I couldn't agree more. He also then points out that the DSS Social Security Guide clearly states that duty of care means:

Australian government employees have a duty of care to the public when performing their duties. This advice extends to any advice given and any actions performed.

So the Public Service has a duty of care to those accessing our social safety net, but the Australian government doesn't have a duty of care?

It is clear that our government does not care about people on our social security system. It cannot escape the fact that our social security system is, in fact, built on a social contract that provides people with a minimum standard of living. That's the very basis of our social security legislation. That's the basis on which people trust our government. There is a contract with our government, a social contract, that they will provide a minimum standard of living for people. The fact that that's below the poverty line is something I have debated in here before and I'll continue to raise, but there is an expectation from our community that our government does take a duty of care to its citizens, and particularly those who have fallen on hard times and need support through our social security system.

More than 600,000 debts have been issued under robodebt. We still don't know how many of those are illegal, how many of those were done strictly by income averaging and how many of those had some income averaging, but we know that there are a lot. The community deserves answers, and we're not getting them from the government. We simply don't know how many of these debts are illegal. We don't know when the government intends to let people know. We don't know if Australians are going to be reimbursed and also compensated for the very real distress they suffer when they get a letter in the mail that says they owe money. The government likes to use semantics and say, 'That's not a debt notice.' As soon as somebody gets a letter indicating that the government thinks they owe money, whether it says they have to pay it now or not, they get nervous and think that they owe money—money that they don't have.

I've heard more and more in the community about the other thing people have done. If it is between $1,000 and $2,000, people, particularly if they are working—if the social security system has done its job and supported people while they looked for work and they found work—are just paying it. They don't fight it, because they don't want the hassle of interacting with the government. They just want to get it off the books. They don't want to be in trouble. They believe the government. Potentially, people haven't challenged thousands of debts that they didn't owe. Time and time again I'm being told that. Then you have people still on social security not being able to get advances in their payments because the government says that they owe money, so they're getting further and further into poverty. More than likely they're going to dodgy loan sharks and payday lenders and running up more bills. They are being driven further and further into poverty.

Robodebt is a mess. The government need to come clean. They need to tell us when they knew that this was illegal. How long have they known? How many debts are illegal? They need to come clean and say, 'Yes, we know we have a duty of care to our community.' Of course they do—they're the government. Of course they have a duty of care to the citizens of this country. It is completely objectionable that the government think they have caused no distress to and no duress for people and that they think they have no duty of care. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:53): 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 DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (17:53): 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—

The Student Identifiers Amendment (Higher Education) Bill 2019(Bill) gives effect to a key national education reform announced in the 2019-20 Budget to extend the Unique Student Identifier, known as the USI, from vocational education and training (VET) to higher education.

The Australian Government recognises the increasing need for individuals to access tertiary education to upskill and reskill throughout their life, in order to meet the evolving demands of the labour market.

To support this, the Bill seeks to extend the Student Identifiers Act 2014 to higher education, providing a single government-issued student identifier in the tertiary education sector.

For the first time, all tertiary education students, across VET and higher education, will use one number throughout their education journey that stays with them for life.

It will reduce the administrative burden placed on students and providers when applying for studies and entitlement.

It will also help students engage with their learning and contribute to the lifelong learning eco-system, encouraging Australians to up-skill and re-skill, building their careers to fulfil their goals and aspirations.

Starting in 2021, new higher education students can apply for a USI and by 2023, all graduating higher education students will need a USI before they can receive their award, unless an exemption applies. It is estimated 300,000 USIs will be issued to higher education students in 2020-21; 1.4 million USIs in 2021-22; and around 500,000 each year thereafter.

A national USI will record a student's entire tertiary education journey, enabling students to have greater autonomy and control over their education.

This will also strengthen the integrity and richness of data available, helping us to gain a better understanding of student pathways across tertiary education.

This robust evidence base will help inform future policy development and program delivery, and in doing so, further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Government's investment in tertiary education.

The USI will replace the existing Commonwealth Higher Education Student Support Number, also known as a CHESSN, reducing the number of student identifiers in tertiary education from two to one.

Since the turn of the century, the total number of students in higher education has grown dramatically—from 842,000 in 2001 to over 1.5 million in 2018.

We know that an investment in a post-school qualification is one of the best decisions an individual can make—whether it be through vocational education and training or higher education. Tertiary graduates enjoy consistently higher employment levels than those who complete secondary schooling.

The higher education sector has long supported the establishment of a USI.

In 2009, COAG recognised the importance of establishing a national USI to support a seamless transition between schooling, VET and higher education. Since that time, USIs were introduced to the VET system.

In 2018, the STEM Partnerships Forum, led by Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, recommended a lifelong unique student identifier be established and implemented across all education sectors by 2020. The forum summarised that the lack of a consistent national identifier was the largest barrier to understanding the impact of policy efforts to improve engagement in STEM education.

The final report of the Higher Education Standards Panel into improving retention, completion and success in higher education, released in 2018, included a recommendation to 'establish a common student identifier to better understand student pathways across tertiary education.'

With over 10 million VET USIs created and 6,000 students accessing the system every day, we are building on a system that works.

We have now reached the next phase of this evolution, as we introduce USIs to all higher education students.

Schedule 1 of the Bill outlines amendments to reflect consistency between vocational education and training and the higher education sector. This will ensure that both sectors are able to provide students with the best services possible to enrich their tertiary education journey.

For the first time, all students studying at a tertiary level, will have access to the same national system.

With almost all students in tertiary education using the USI, we will be able to monitor and collect unprecedented data to better inform education programs and policies. As with all information that is maintained by government, privacy is our number one priority. USIs are kept in a secure environment, with all necessary steps taken to protect identifiers from misuse, interference, unauthorised access and modification.

Through the USI, students will be able to move between VET and higher education in a manner that supports lifelong learning, personal development and career aspiration.

The amendments in this Bill were designed with innovation, fairness, and longevity at their core. They were informed by a collaborative approach between stakeholders and government agencies, with a focus on ensuring the students of today and tomorrow have access to the best quality tertiary education.

I commend the Bill.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (17:54): On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report on the provisions of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (17:54): I'm delighted to make a contribution on the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019. Before doing so, I'm grateful to see Senator Ciccone here, who, just before question time and some other business in the Senate today, was reflecting on the quality and the wonderful wines that are produced in his home state of Victoria. It's also great that Senators Duniam and Brockman are in the chamber as well, because they herald from great wine states also—Tasmania, in Senator Duniam's case, and Western Australia, my home state, in the case of Senator Brockman. I think what differentiates Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia is not just that they produce wine but that they produce premium quality wines, which really have been able to showcase the strength of Australian agriculture not just here in Australia but internationally. I'll come to these remarks in a moment.

It's interesting that, in the last few years, lots of attention has been given to the sale of Australian produce to China. Senator Birmingham, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, is today—this very day—and over the next few days in India supporting Australian trade opportunities. Of course, an important element of those is agriculture. An important subset of those agricultural opportunities is Australia's wine industry.

For the record, I think it's important, Senator Ciccone, that I let the Senate know what some of those great wine houses of Western Australia are. I see Senator Fawcett nodding in furious agreement. I know that he's a South Australian, but I'm sure he's tasted a few Western Australian wines in his time. I applaud the wonderful work that wine cellar doors like Vasse Felix in Western Australia, like Stormflower, like Voyager Estate, like Cullen Wines and like others do not just in providing employment opportunities for those working in the wine industry but in recognising just how important wine production is for the strength of regional economies in Western Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia. This is a point that, I think, is too often overlooked. When we think about the strength of the Margaret River region, the Peel region and other regions in our home state of Western Australia, we can't go past the fact that the strength of those regional economies is in part due to the consistency of the quality of wine production and the fact that these wine houses are so well managed.

In the debate that we had not such a long time ago, prior to the last election and in the term of the last government, there was quite an important debate that we had with regard to wine equalisation tax reform. Much of that was absolutely about the financial viability of wine producers in our country. Importantly, I think the element of the debate that informed and carried the government's position was when wine producers were able to talk about the importance of what the government does to assist wine production and, therefore, the importance that this brings to regional economies. That was a very, very important part of the debate that we had with regard to wine equalisation tax.

These are very interesting times for Australia's trade opportunities. Clearly the coronavirus is presenting some challenges, but at all times in this place we should be thinking about how we can continue to support those agricultural export industries that are doing well for our country, as well as thinking about what we can continue to do to continue to diversify those export opportunities for Australian producers.

To the substance of the matter, in 2017-18 Australia produced 1.7 million tonnes of wine grapes, consumed 492 million litres of wine and exported 866 million litres of wine. Australia's consumption of wine has been described as 19.7 litres per person in Australia, which equates to about 26 average bottles of wine per person per year. However, this is inclusive of the whole population, so the average for those of legal drinking age would be substantially larger.

Australia is the sixth-largest wine producer in the world and the fifth-largest wine exporter, with two-thirds of Australian wine exported, adding $2.89 billion to the Australian economy annually. The Morrison government is clearly committed to continuing to grow the Australian wine industry and all the benefits that accrue to this important part of our agricultural economy. We are delivering over $50 million worth of initiatives to grow Australia's wine exports and wine tourism in key markets, including targeted marketing campaigns in China and the United States of America and, importantly, capability development programs for our producers, wine export and international wine tourism grants, and a brand proposition and go-to-market strategy for Australian craft cider.

Australia's free trade agreements are delivering opportunities for Australian wine producers as well. An example of this is the recent Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the CPTPP. Prior to the CPTPP, Australian wines exported to Mexico suffered a tariff of 20 per cent, competing against European Union, United States and Chilean wines, which have no tariffs. Since the announcement of the CPTPP, tariffs for high-quality wine have already fallen to a 6.6 per cent tariff and will fall to zero this year. That speaks of opportunity layered upon opportunity layered upon opportunity for wine producers and the economy that supports them.

This will provide a better competitive arrangement for Australian wine exporters in one of Latin America's fastest-growing economies. And the Morrison government is supporting the growth of Australian-grown wines and encouraging wine tourism in the Australian market through our $10 million per year Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grants program, which provides an annual grant of up to $100,000 for eligible wine producers in addition to the $350,000 available under the wine equalisation tax rebate scheme. And because Senator Duniam, from Tasmania, is the Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism and other matters, I want to put in a big plug. Senator Duniam, I wrote to you very recently arguing for some further reforms to cellar door grants that will not only support the Australian wine industry but also, as I've said before, support the regional economies in states like Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia.

Senator Duniam: You are a very effective advocate, Senator.

Senator DEAN SMITH: I'll just amplify that. Senator Duniam just said that I'm a very effective advocate for Western Australia.

Senator Henderson interjecting—

Senator DEAN SMITH: Thank you, Senator Henderson. And if Senator Duniam had eyes at the back of his head he would have seen Senator Brockman sitting near me and would have added Senator Brockman's name as being a very strong and strident advocate for Western Australia's regional as well as broader interests.

I want to read into the record a statement that was made by the previous Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Anne Ruston—again, from South Australia—when she announced the important wine equalisation tax reforms that were shepherded through the parliament by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the Turnbull government. These are important, because it is a very powerful sign—both a symbolic sign and a very powerful financial incentive that continued to motivate wine producers so that they could continue to export to those big nations like India, China and the United States and to Latin America. Her statement demonstrates, again, that the coalition government is not just interested in sporadic initiatives to support Australia's wine industry but is working to a cohesive and comprehensive plan. In the statement of December 2016, commenting on the coalition government's soon to be introduced enhancements to the wine equalisation tax rebate, Senator Ruston said:

These reforms come on the back of extensive consultation with the wine industry. The reforms are the result of industry calling for action to support our great Australian wine industry by addressing distortions in the market through the misuse and exploitation of the WET Rebate scheme.

Following a national consultation program with the wine industry as announced in the 2016 Budget, and led by Ministers Kelly O'Dwyer and Anne Ruston, we are pleased to announce key changes to the Government’s eligibility criteria to protect the integrity of the WET Rebate scheme …

Those integrity measures had three elements. Firstly, eligible producers must own 85 per cent of the grapes that the crusher used to make the wine and maintain ownership throughout the winemaking process. Secondly, the rebate was to be limited to branded, packaged wine in a container not exceeding five litres and branded with a registered trademark for domestic retail sale. Finally, the rebate claims must be better linked to the WET being paid.

Those new eligibility criteria came into effect from 1 July 2018. The rebate cap was also reduced from $500,000 to $350,000 effective from 1 July 2018, which was a year later than the original plan, but a demonstration that the government was able to and did listen to consultation from the industry. It was a higher cap than the one announced in the 2016 budget. The December 2016 statement said:

To encourage more wine tourism up to a further $100,000 per annum will be made available to producers who exceed the rebate cap through a new Wine Tourism and Cellar Door grant. Again the Government wants to back producers who add value and vibrancy to regional communities by encouraging visitors to wine regions. The eligibility criteria to qualify for the new grant will be finalised following consultation with the industry.

They were very important reforms. As Senator Ruston said in that media statement, they were the product of quite detailed, intense consultation processes. I want to applaud the quality wine industry in Western Australia and certainly in our home state, Senator Brockman, wines of Western Australia for the diligent work they did in making sure that the evidence was there to support these reforms. They are to be commended for their continued great stewardship of the Western Australia wine industry.

Specifically, this bill addresses concerns raised directly by the Australian wine industry after a number of instances of counterfeit Australian wine showing up in export markets, including 14,000 of fake Penfolds wine that was seized by Chinese police in Shanghai in 2017.

An important element of this bill is that it is supported by the industry. Tony Battaglene, chief executive of the organisation Australian Grape and Wine, had this to say:

… as Australia's fine-wine reputation has grown, so has the risk of fraud through intellectual property theft or passing-off. Australian wine business owners have needed to take additional steps to protect their brands and intellectual property in overseas markets, and increasingly, to invest in protection in Australia as well. This protection is costly and time-consuming for businesses, but the potential for damage to Australia's wine brand overseas means this action is necessary.

We commend the Minister for Agriculture, Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie, for backing Australia's wine businesses. We are delighted the Bill has been introduced and expect bipartisan support for this critical piece of legislation.

Whether that bipartisan support has been delivered upon we will see in the very near future in this chamber. But just as this bill addresses the concerns of the industry, I look forward to the government continuing to address and listen to the industry's views on a wide range of matters. As I alluded to before, I'm particularly keen for the government to pay attention to the industry's views about cellar-door rebate reform. In small and medium businesses, reducing uncertainty, particularly around cash flow, is vital to ensure the business can operate and even more important when the business is looking to grow to take up domestic and, importantly, international export opportunities.

The way the current rebate is managed, individual wineries make an application to receive a grant, with the grant paid up to 12 months after the end of the financial year. These wineries, many of which are small to medium businesses, are required to pay the 29 per cent wine equalisation tax to the ATO within 30 days of the sale of the wine. Therefore, if the wine is sold in July it can be nearly two years before the rebate on the cellar-door sale is received by the business. As you can imagine, this is a significant cash flow issue that needs to be managed carefully, and I'm sure it is one that the government is sensitive to. This matter is exacerbated by the total grant rebates being limited to just $10 million. It is therefore impossible to be certain how much a winery business will receive back from the grant process. Indeed, in its first year of operation winery businesses only received approximately 63 per cent of the grants they were expecting to be reimbursed because of over-subscription.

Just as the government has improved small business cash flow with initiatives to ensure payment from the federal government faster, there's a significant opportunity here, in this space, to ensure that wineries can access their rebates faster, support the growth of their business, generate local employment opportunities and make the most of those very, very generous free trade agreements that the coalition government and the trade ministers have been shepherding through this parliament. Importantly, it will ensure that the scheme provides a guaranteed amount and a guaranteed time frame, so that business can produce their cash flow budgets— (Time expired)

Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (18:10): I'm very pleased to rise and speak on the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, and I want to commend the contribution of my good friend Senator Dean Smith and, of course, the government more generally on the many ways that we are supporting this very important industry across Australia. This bill concerns important measures to better protect the integrity of our wine exports so as so prevent copycat operators improperly using wine producers' intellectual property.

As we've heard and as we know, we have some of the very best wines in the world, and many of them are produced in my home state of Victoria. According to Wine Australia, Victoria is home to more regions and individual wineries than any other state in Australia. It also has the greatest diversity of regional and site climates, which allows for the production of virtually every imaginable wine style, from fine, sparkling wine, high-quality chardonnay and pinot noir, through to cabernet, shiraz and the fortified wines, which are particularly famous in the Rutherglen area. Of course, there are many famous winemaking regions in Victoria, including Beechworth, Mildura, the Pyrenees, the Yarra Valley and Gippsland—which is a fairly new area. In the home town where I am from, in the Geelong and Bellarine region, we have many wonderful vineyards, including Oakdean, Leura Park, Jack Rabbit, Clyde Park, Bannockburn, Austins, Terindah Estate—and the list goes on and on and on.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Senator Henderson: Senator Di Natalie, I will take the interjection. Do you want to add another winery that I've missed out?

Senator Di Natale: Blakes Estate.

Senator HENDERSON: Blakes Estate. There is a very, very long list. In fact, in Victoria, would you believe, we have 499 cellar doors and 747 wineries producing 223 million litres, which is 17 per cent of the national production. That makes a $7.6 billion direct economic contribution.

As Senator Dean Smith pointed out in his contribution, another essential point to note is the importance of our wine industry for regional communities—because, of course, it's not just about the growers; it's also about the supply chain. The supply chain includes the vineyards and the wineries but also the marketers, the brokers, the contract bottlers, freight and logistics operations, input suppliers in vineyard and winemaking, pruning and harvesting contractors, retailers and professional advisers—so right the whole way through, whether it is in agricultural production, viticulture, business management or tourism. So this is a really important industry.

I might just add that when I was a reporter with the ABC many years ago I had the great joy of working for a short time on a program called Holiday, where we would travel the country trying out different wines. I have to say that the Victorian wines are the best—but that might be a point that might be contended by some of my colleagues here in the chamber.

Australia is the sixth-largest wine producer in the world and the fifth-largest wine exporter. We now export two-thirds of all wine produced, which is an amazing figure in itself, adding $2.89 billion to the economy per year. As at September 2019, Australian wine exports to China, including Hong Kong and Macau, reached a record value of $1.25 billion, an increase of 18 per cent. That, to a large degree, has been underpinned by the work of our free trade agreements.

The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which came into effect in 2015, eliminated the existing tariffs on wine of 14 to 20 per cent. They are completely gone now. They went as of 1 January 2019. Our free trade agreements are playing a very significant role in the success of our wine industry, with the total value of Australian wine exports increasing by seven per cent in value to the $2.89 billion mark. The China market occupies a very large proportion of this export figure. This is incredible growth, which, of course, presents wonderful opportunities for our grapegrowers and our wine producers.

The continuing success of Australian wine exports depends on the maintenance of our internationally recognised reputation for quality and integrity, and that is supported by Wine Australia's regulatory activities. The Australian wine industry, represented by Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated, came to the government, asking for stronger regulatory controls to deter the export of copycat wine from Australia. Copycat wine and other grape product exports are products that are exported from Australia with labels which seek to mimic elements of Australian brands for commercial gain and unfairly benefit from the reputation of those brands. A label directory was proposed by the industry as a useful way to assist brand owners to protect their intellectual property rights and, of course, by extension, the reputation of Australian wine.

The really important element of the concerns raised by the industry is that our government listened. We listened to the industry, to the businesses right across this nation, and we are now taking action to better protect this important industry, to ensure that we back these businesses in—because it's tough yakka. If you consider what the wine growers in the bushfire impacted regions of South Australia, Victoria and NSW have had to deal with, their businesses have been hit for six. It is really tough, and it can be particularly tough and unpredictable in agriculture. So, whenever agricultural businesses reach out for support, we are there, the government is there, to listen and to ensure that our reputation as a pre-eminent exporter of agricultural produce is second to none.

This bill will enable a label directory to be established as part of Wine Australia's export controls. It's a very important deterrent to exporters of wine and other great products who seek to unfairly benefit from the reputation of Australian brands. The label directory will provide brand owners with a searchable database of images of labels that can be used to find labels that potentially infringe their intellectual property rights and enable them to undertake civil action against copycat exporters through the Australian legal system.

The bill will also enable Wine Australia to use the label directory in administering licences to export under the Wine Australia Regulations 2018. For instance, Wine Australia can use the images of the labels submitted to it to confirm that wine exporters are complying with their obligations under the Label Integrity Program, which is set out in the act. Of course, this could also be used as evidence of copycat labelling, and that will assist Wine Australia's ongoing assessment as to whether a wine exporter can be considered a fit and proper person who may hold a licence to export wine from Australia.

The other important aspect of the bill is that the amendments to the Wine Australia Act 2013 made by the bill will enable Wine Australia to impose additional requirements on wine exporters as a condition of approval to export grape products from Australia. The bill allows for regulations to be made that would result in a whole lot of additional protections. This is really important because our reputation as a clean and green producer of first-class agricultural produce is incredibly precious to us as a nation. This is a very important measure in protecting the integrity of a vitally important industry. The label directory will provide additional protection, but, as I say, it also demonstrates that our government is continuing to listen to small business and that is very, very important.

We want to make sure that when our businesses go out on the world stage they have every competitive advantage so that they can showcase their produce at its very, very best. I might say, as a former intellectual property lawyer myself, I recognise how important the protection of one's intellectual property is, whether it's designs, whether it's fashion, whether it's software or, in this case, whether it's the integrity of our wine that we produce in Australia. It is incredibly important to do everything we can to protect the integrity of our produce, including our agricultural produce. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism) (18:20): It's a pleasure to rise and conclude the debate on this bill, the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019. In doing so, I want to be bold: I'd like to say that every state and territory in Australia produces the best wine in Australia! We're going to spread the love around and acknowledge that this country produces the best wine. We have a resilient industry, one that works hard with all the challenges that are thrown up to it. I look forward to constructive discussions with all parties around the challenges that this industry faces.

I do want to acknowledge the efforts of the former minister for agriculture, Bridget McKenzie, in coming up with this bill and working with industry assiduously to ensure that its needs have been heard and met through this legislation.

Turning to the bill, the wine export label directory, as being debated at present, can be established by Wine Australia through the passing of this legislation to assist brand owners in this country to protect their intellectual property rights, which, as we've heard constantly throughout this debate, are incredibly important when it comes to the investment made by estate owners and those employed within the industry. By supporting brand owners to better protect their intellectual property rights this bill will ensure consumers can be confident that they will be getting a safe and quality product and that what it says on the label on the bottle is what they're actually going to get. This additional control will assist in safeguarding the reputation of Australia's growing wine export market that directly employs over 69,000 Australians and is worth nearly $3 billion—$2.91 billion—per year to the economy, which is a tremendous input, largely in regional economies across this country.

The label directory will be a public-facing, online database of all Australian wine labels for export that can be used by wine brand owners to search for copycat labels out there in the marketplace. Industry asked for a label directory to better protect their intellectual property rights from potential copycat exporters who seek to take advantage of the good name of Australian brands overseas—again, examples of which we have heard multiple times in this debate.

While Wine Australia's role doesn't extend to regulating intellectual property rights, this bill will assist wine brand owners to better protect their own interests, which, as already discussed, is exactly what industry have been asking for. With the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019 we are adding one more tool to Wine Australia's export controls toolkit. The bill will make maintaining the label directory part of Wine Australia's existing export controls to deter exporters of wine and other grape products who seek to mimic Australian brands for commercial gain. This bill is important to Australia's wine exporters as well as the wine industry more broadly. It ensures that Wine Australia is equipped with appropriate regulatory mechanisms for maintaining Australia's reputation for quality and integrity in a growing international market for Australian wine.

The matter of smoke taint and the impact on wine grapes was canvassed extensively, and it is safe to say that this industry, like many others in this country, did not escape the ravages of the bushfires. Fires across the country have impacted on vineyards, on wineries, on genetic stock and on plant equipment right throughout our wine regions. Around 1,500 hectares of vineyards have fallen within the current fire affected regions, which is roughly one per cent of Australia's vineyards. The Australian government is supporting those small cellar door businesses and winegrape growers to get back to business quickly with the grants of up to $50,000 and $75,000 respectively. These small business and primary producer grants are already paying out, helping to replace burnt trellising and melted irrigation pipes and helping with the heartbreaking cleanout of burnt vines, which we have heard about during this debate. What a terrible impact that has been.

Our Australian wine industry is a key drawcard for regional tourism—something that I'm very passionate about—which has also taken a hit over summer. A wine tour through our regional cellar doors is a highlight for both domestic and international tourists who come to taste our quality wines in our beautiful bush. We've of course got the Australian government's $76 million tourism marketing push—the money that's being invested in international marketing, partnering up with private entities, airlines, and our major hotel chains—and $20 million for our Holiday Here This Year campaign, where we are partnering with states and territories to encourage Australians to do just that: take a trip through our beautiful wine-growing districts and spend time and money to support these small to medium businesses and of course, keep these people employing locals in their community, which is so critically important to regional economies. Wine tourism is a critically important part of our regional tourism industry, and it is something that this bill and other measures being taken by this government go a long way to support.

With the reports of smoke reaching vines far from fire fronts, this season's bushfires have highlighted the real anxiety and threat smoke brings to Australian vineyards. Smoke from bushfires, prescribed burns and farm burn-offs carries a risk that winegrapes may be affected by the free volatile phenols that are produced when wood is burned. However, research has shown that, just because smoke may be visible or able to be smelt, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a high risk of smoke affecting the grapes. Grapes at a certain point of ripening which are exposed to smoke of a particular age and composition can produce aromas in wine which may be offensive to some wine consumers. This resulting smoke taint has long been an issue of concern for the industry, and it's a problem that's unique to the wine industry. Smoke taint can result in downgrades of fruit and the resultant wine and in losses and unharvested fruit, so it's important to the wine and winegrape industry to have the best means to measure, manage and mitigate smoke taint.

Since coming into government in 2013, the government has invested nearly $79 million in matched funding for the Australian wine industry's research and development priorities through Wine Australia. Additionally, for smoke taint specifically, the government has provided $1.466 million in funding for research projects through the Rural Research and Development for Profit program, matched by research partners in Victoria. This smoke research project has been generating knowledge, innovative technologies and processes that directly benefit grapegrowers and winemakers. Findings from the project are already being implemented through the Australian Wine Research Institute's extension services. The program includes face-to-face workshops and webinars for grapegrowers and winemakers on how to manage fire damage and smoke taint and is going to be delivered by the Australian Wine Research Institute in consultation with regional wine associations and major winemakers. Workshops have already been held in the Adelaide Hills and the Hunter Valley, Canberra, Orange, Mudgee, Milawa, Tumbarumba, Griffith, the Yarra Valley, Mornington Peninsula and the Barossa Valley, with more than 1,000 wine industry participants, funded by the government through Wine Australia.

Of course, we have a local example in Tasmania. Only a couple of weeks ago, I visited Hartzview vineyards which was impacted by the fires in the summer of 2018-19, just south of Hobart in the Huon Valley. I met with the proprietors there and talked with them about what they were doing to manage the smoke taint that impacted on their vineyard. They've been partnering with La Trobe University and looking at innovative ways to deal with fruit that was impacted by smoke, and they are sharing with others in the industry in that region the learnings they've taken from the work they've done with the La Trobe University. There are some very exciting things coming out of it. Obviously it's always better to avoid it, but these tools that they are going to be provided with for dealing with smoke taint, I think, give us cause for hope.

Of course, winemaking is a long process, and any smoke taint in this year's crop won't be in the wine coming onto the market in the near future. In the meantime, Australia's agriculture counsellors are working alongside Wine Australia to facilitate provision of accurate information in wine export markets about the impacts of the bushfires and to provide assurance of the continuing high quality of Australian wine.

Just going to the second reading amendment that's been proposed by the opposition and that was moved by Senator Sterle earlier on, I believe the Australian government has an extensive agenda and has made a significant investment in climate resilience and adaptation. Our resilience and adaptation investments produce practical actions that will keep Australians safe and prepared for the future. The government is taking the impacts of a changing climate on the wine industry seriously. The Australian government has provided more than $78.9 million, as I've already mentioned, in matched funding since November 2013 for the wine industry's R&D priorities through our entity Wine Australia.

Wine companies across Australia are implementing measures to mitigate the potential impact of the changing climate on their industry, because it's economic to do so. Examples exist in the area of water-saving techniques, the use of alternative packaging like glass and PET bottles, reducing refrigeration loads and, of course, extra planting of trees, which act as carbon sinks. The wine industry's use of nitrogen fertiliser, which can create the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide when added to soil, is very tactical and targeted and contributes very little to the overall nitrous oxide emissions levels. But the future impacts of climate change on the wine sector may not be as dramatic as has been described by some. A four-year study in shiraz vineyards around Mildura in 2018 suggests that, for that region at least, increased temperatures and levels of CO2 do not have a significant impact on grape yield or quality. This and many other research projects were completed with funding from the government.

The government, through Wine Australia, is investing $5.4 million over the next three years in climate change adaptation and mitigation research and development projects. Wine Australia has also successfully completed a number of research projects to improve the wine industry's climate resilience, such as developing irrigation strategies and understanding the impacts of elevated carbon dioxide on wine grapes.

Additionally, for smoke taint specifically, as I've already mentioned, the government has provided nearly $1½ million in funding to a research project through the Rural Research and Development for Profit program, matched by research partners in Victoria. This smoke research project has been generating knowledge and innovative technologies and processes to directly benefit grapegrowers and winemakers, and the findings of these projects are already being implemented right throughout the industry. Investing in this vital research will provide the wine industry with the tools they need to grapple with a changing and more variable climate and increasing severe weather events such as drought and bushfires. So we oppose the second reading amendment but do indeed commend this bill to the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Sterle be agreed to. A division has been called for. Considering the hour, that division will be deferred to later this evening.

Debate adjourned.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (18:33): I rise to contribute to this debate on behalf of the opposition. Labor won't oppose the Trade Support Loans Amendment (Improving Administration) Bill 2019. This bill will provide legislative footing for offsetting as a way of recovering trade support loan, or TSL, overpayment debts and increases the time period that a TSL recipient has to inform the department of changes to circumstances.

However, more broadly, this is just another tweak to a sector that requires a genuine reform package. On its watch, this government has trashed our vocational system. It has slashed funding to TAFE and training, let apprentice numbers fall and presided over a national shortage of tradies, apprentices and trainees. Those opposite simply refuse to deliver a genuine reform package that overhauls the vocational training sector. More than six years of Liberal government has left Australia facing a crisis in skills and vocational training. If the Liberals and Nationals don't do something serious to look at the skills crisis they've created, we could be looking at the extinction of the Australian tradie.

Under this third-term Liberal-National government there are 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees and a shortage of workers in critical services, including plumbing, carpentry, hairdressing and motor mechanics. The number of Australians doing an apprenticeship or traineeship is lower today than it was a decade ago. There are more people dropping out of apprenticeships and traineeships than finishing them. There is a nearly 10 per cent increase in the number of occupations facing skills shortages, and, in the face of that, the Liberals and Nationals have slashed $3 billion from TAFE and training. The Liberal-National government doesn't care enough or have the capacity to do the hard work that needs to be done to build a better post-school system. Fiddling at the edges of the current system will not address the profound problems that undermine vocational education and training and consequently the productive performance and international competitiveness of our economy. Unlike Labor, the government does not understand the critical role of TAFE as the public provider, the value in skills and apprenticeships, or the value of the hardworking and passionate public TAFE teachers.

The effect of overzealous application of competition policy and privatisation in the VET sector, coupled with chronic underfunding, has had devastating effects on the sector. Too often we have seen dodgy providers overload with students for a quick profit then go belly up leaving those students out of pocket and without the qualifications they need.

Why has it taken this government so long to act? Unlike those who sit opposite us, we value the role of an appropriately funded VET sector for the training, skills and apprenticeships they provide to so many Australians and its vital role in driving the economy and enhancing industry. So, while we won't oppose this bill, we do call on the government to stop ignoring the skills and vocational training crisis that we're experiencing in Australia and to deliver a genuine reform package that overhauls this important sector.