The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
BILLS
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:01): I rise today to speak to the marriage equality bill that is before us. This bill, the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, is the second marriage equality bill that I have spoken on in the past month. This is, of course, an issue that people are extremely passionate about in our Australian community. Here in this place we have taken quite some time to catch up with those out in the streets, around dinner tables at home, with friends, family and work colleagues who, across the country, have become far more passionate about this issue in the last decade. We know that other countries around the world have taken this step of removing discrimination in their marriage acts. They have shown a willingness to remove that discrimination and allow the institution of marriage to become inclusive, not exclusive, allowing same-sex couples the ability to have their love celebrated and their relationships accepted, understood and respected under their laws—countries like Catholic Spain, Belgium, Canada and various states in the United States. Recently there were celebrations on the streets of New York when New York allowed same-sex marriage and moved for marriage equality.
We also know that political leaders throughout the world have changed their views on this issue. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, despite being staunchly opposed in recent years to marriage equality, has now changed his view and become a key supporter because, as he put it, when his daughters asked him why such discrimination would exist and what difference it made to allow same-sex couples the same rights as everybody else, he found it difficult to explain that type of prejudice and discrimination to his own children. That is reminiscent of the change that many of us have seen, not just with political leaders but also, of course, in the way the general community has learnt that the time has come to remove discrimination, to allow equality and to push ahead for this important reform.
Here in this place we have had many debates about this particular issue. In 2009 in this place we debated my marriage equality bill for the first time. When that bill was finally put to a vote it was only the five Greens senators sitting right here in these seats that voted for that piece of legislation.
I think it is important for us to reflect on just how far we have come since then: to now see four bills for marriage equality across both houses, with a real willingness, passion and push from many people from all sides wanting to see this reform happen.
We know there are reforms happening in the states and territories across Australia because people are becoming sick and tired of waiting for the inevitable. Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, despite their personal views, remain steadfast in blocking true reform from happening. Tony Abbott, of course, is not letting his members have a free vote on this issue. I think that is shameful. I would like to think we could have this debate today and that, when this bill finally comes to a vote, every person in this house has the opportunity to vote for what they know is right. And, if that is indeed to remove this discrimination, people should have the opportunity to do that. I read in the papers this morning that it does not look as though Tony Abbott is going to change his mind, that he is going to keep his troops well and truly in their place.
But I am concerned too with the lack of leadership shown by Julia Gillard on this front. Despite continual insistence that she does not support marriage equality, she can never quite explain why. We will hear throughout this debate today, and in coming days, members in this place stand up and speak very passionately against removing this discrimination and they will base that on their long-held views of tradition and their religious convictions around marriage equality. I tend to disagree with their position, but I can understand the footing from which they have come to their views. Our own Prime Minister, however, is not able to articulate her opposition on this issue. I think it is disappointing to see the leader of our country unable to take this issue in both hands and drive the reform forward and because of that I believe Julia Gillard, like Tony Abbott, is standing in the way of this reform happening.
But it is inevitable; it will happen. The changes are inevitable. There are many, many Australians who want to see marriage equality become a reality. They want to see this discrimination removed. They do not want us to be left back in the dark ages where we thought that just because somebody was homosexual they deserved to be treated as a second-class citizen. This is modern Australia. This is 2012. It is time for us to rid our statute books of this type of discrimination.
I spoke several weeks ago on the marriage equality bill that is currently before this place in my name about how the institution of marriage should be embraced as an institution that is important not just to the state but to our communities; about how we understand the universal language of marriage and love and that we should be allowing this institution to be inclusive not exclusive. I spoke about how the institution and our understanding of it has changed over time. Back in the 1950s, before we had the federal Marriage Act, each of the states was responsible for governing the laws of the institution of marriage. Within some states there was active discrimination against people being able to marry because of their race. Some states had to sign off on the marriage between an Aboriginal man and a white woman or between an Aboriginal woman and a non-Aboriginal man. The institution was discriminatory based on whether somebody was indeed Aboriginal. When in this federal parliament it was decided to enact a federal marriage act, there was a big debate about how one of the best things about having a federal marriage act would be that it would overcome the discrimination embedded in some of the state jurisdictions on this issue. When the federal Marriage Act was established during the Menzies government, Menzies himself said that that type of discrimination had no place in what would become the new laws governing the institution of marriage and love. I think it was a pretty noble act to remove that discrimination and to accept that two people love each other and no-one else should have the right to say no simply because of who those people were.
So we got rid of that discrimination and we moved on, and we thought that was a fabulous and wonderful thing to do, except that this discrimination currently exists and it is time that we did something about it. Marriage as an institution has changed over time as our understanding as a community, as a people, as governments and as elected representatives has changed. Back in the 1950s, we thought it was wrong to discriminate against people because of their race, and it was; and it is wrong today, as it was wrong back then, to continue to discriminate against a couple simply because of their sexuality.
That is the point that so many Australians believe in so dearly: this institution is important and people should have the right to choose whether they want to marry, but it should not be the law itself that discriminates simply because it has always been that way. I have heard some opponents speaking about why they strongly believe that the Marriage Act should not be amended and that marriage equality should simply be brushed aside. They talk of not wanting to change the institution of marriage, that it cannot be changed, that it has always been like this and that, whether we like it or not, that discrimination exists and will continue to exist. Mr Deputy President, I put to you that, as society accepts that things must change, as we become wiser about the decisions we make in not discriminating against people based on their race, gender, ethnicity or sexuality, the laws that govern our country must change as well. Thankfully, the majority of Australians across all sectors agree—from the cities, to the suburbs, to the bush and to the regions there is an overwhelming feeling that, if people want to get married, who cares whether they are straight or gay?
I say that, remembering a T-shirt that I saw in a town I was visiting in rural Victoria during the election in 2010.
It was a young guy, and he was wearing a T-shirt that said: 'Some dudes love dudes. Get over it.' I thought: 'You know what? Well said.' It is true, Mr Deputy President. There are gay couples and lesbian couples in our community living in committed, loving, long-term relationships. They are couples who have families. They are somebody's daughter or son, sister or brother, and niece or nephew. They could also be somebody's mother or father, and these people deserve the same rights as everybody else. If they wish to get married, they should be able to.
The strongest support in this place that I have seen from marriage equality advocates over the last three years in particular has come overwhelmingly from the parents of gay and lesbian Australians. Organisations like PFLAG—Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays—have done a sterling job at bringing forward this issue into the light of the public realm. Right here in this place, the number of doors of parliamentarians they have knocked on has been phenomenal, and they do it because they love their sons and daughters. They want their now adult children to be accepted as equal and to see their relationships equally recognised. If their son or daughter wants to be able to marry the person that they love and are going to commit the rest of their life to, these parents believe they should. Why should parliamentarians in this place have the right to say no just because of the argument that this is the way the law has always been? It is a really hollow comeback. It is not a significant argument against why we would move to enable marriage and the institution of marriage to be more inclusive.
One of the other reasons, of course, that we hear from opponents on this issue is in relation to religious freedom. That is why, when the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010—which was subject to a debate here in this place only a couple of weeks ago—went through an extensive Senate inquiry, the most submissions ever received in a Senate inquiry were received on this piece of legislation. People believe that this is an important issue to debate. They want our parliamentarians to be talking about it. It became very clear that, while religious organisations already have the ability to make a decision about who they want to marry in their churches or by their particular celebrants and who they do not, they want it to be even clearer. That is why this piece of legislation that is currently before us makes it very clear: no-one is forcing anyone to be married, to marry somebody else or to oversee a marriage. It is all about removing the restrictions that say that people cannot if, indeed, they want to. It is an interesting point to make on that issue that actually the majority of weddings in Australia are conducted by civil celebrants. Over 60 per cent of Australian marriages are. People already make a choice about what type of ceremony, celebrant, wedding and marriage they are going to have. Those choices are there for celebrants, religious organisations and couples who are entering into that important institution.
As I have said several times here in this place, there is growing support in the Australian community for marriage equality, and it is only going to continue to grow.
I hope this legislation does pass in this place but I fear that, until there is true leadership from the political leaders of both the Labor Party and the coalition, it will not. This issue will not go away. It will continue to grow. When the legislation finally passed in New York last year there were celebrations in the streets that marriage equality was finally happening, but that vote on that piece of legislation did not finally get through until the third try. The issue did not go away. It kept coming back and, by the time political representatives and leaders in their parliament accepted that the change was inevitable and that the tide could not be stopped, it was on the third time that the legislation passed.
I believe that that is what will happen here too. This is important reform. Australians believe in it. It is part of our nature to give people a fair go, to not get hung up on the differences between us but to focus on the things that we all believe in dearly. If that means extending the institution of marriage, we should. (Time expired)
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:21): I want to turn to the arguments that Senator Hanson-Young has put forward in a moment but, before I do, I want to remind the chamber why it is that we have before us not merely a bill from Senator Sarah Hanson-Young but also a bill in the names of Senator Crossin, Senator Brown, Senator Pratt and Senator Marshall, four Labor Party senators, to substantially the same effect. The reason that is so, the reason that four Labor Party senators are jointly sponsoring a bill to change the definition of marriage, is that, once again, this Prime Minister and this Labor government shamelessly are in breach of an election promise.
At the 2010 election, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, made a clear and unambiguous commitment that, if the Labor Party were re-elected, there would be no move from the Labor Party to change the definition of marriage in this parliament. It was a commitment made by Julia Gillard on behalf of the Labor Party. It was a commitment made by Mr Tony Abbott on behalf of the coalition. And, as in so many things we have seen in the life of this parliament, Julia Gillard promised one thing and then manoeuvred to do the opposite. Infamously, Julia Gillard said in the week before the 2010 election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead.' Then, a matter of mere months later, she introduced the world's biggest carbon tax into the parliament.
Labor members of the House of Representatives were cheering and slapping each other on the back and kissing each other when that legislation went through the House of Representatives because they were so pleased with themselves that they had so flagrantly broken a solemn undertaking to the public. That will never be forgotten.
It is the same story with the private health insurance rebate and so it is with the definition of marriage. A solemn promise not to interfere with the definition of marriage has been violated by the Prime Minister in this instance facilitating, through the Labor Party's conference, a conscience vote. So this is a very important issue. Some say it is an issue about discrimination. It is certainly a question about the meaning of marriage. But let us not forget the context here. It is also a debate about dishonesty. It is a debate about whether or not it is acceptable or moral for a political leader to seek re-election by promising one thing and then, having secured re-election, doing the very opposite. As on so many otherwise unrelated issues, that is the difference between our side—my side—and the Labor Party. We made a promise at the 2010 election that the definition of marriage would not be revisited or altered in the life of this parliament. We intend to stick to that promise and that is why the coalition is opposing these bills.
Let me turn to the substance and merits of the argument. I listened to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young carefully. Senator Hanson-Young says her bill, the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, is about marriage equality as indeed the title says. Well, Senator Hanson-Young, your bill may be about marriage—no doubt about that—but in my view it is not a bill about equality. Equality, equal rights for same-sex people, insofar as the legislative reach of the Commonwealth parliament is concerned, was secured four years ago when the parliament passed the same-sex relationships, equal treatment in commonwealth laws, bill, which removed discriminatory provisions affecting same-sex couples. That bill was passed with the support of all parties in this Senate: your party, my party and the government. So, Senator Hanson-Young, I believe that was the point at which the proposition that people should not be discriminated against in their relationships because of their sexual preference was embraced by this Senate. You now seek, as others in the Labor Party seek, to take the position further and apply that principle to marriage and you commit, as it seems to me, a very elementary error. You think that by applying a word to an established institution you thereby change its character. Well, Senator Hanson-Young, through you, Mr Deputy President, it is true that marriage is defined by law but, equally and importantly, marriage is defined by custom. In the whole history of our civilisation there has never been a time at which marriage was understood to be other than a relationship between a man and a woman. I simply cannot grasp how you say that, with an institution which has always through the whole course of human history been understood to have a particular meaning, it is discriminatory not to alter that meaning.
I must say that I approach your argument, Senator Hanson-Young, with some cynicism, because people like you—people on the self-styled progressive Left—have for as long as I can remember, at least since the 1960s, mocked and derided the institution of marriage as being patriarchal, obsolete and illiberal. All of a sudden, within the last few years, this institution so derided by you has been rediscovered by you as the test of whether or not one cares about the issue of sexuality discrimination. Senator Hanson-Young, with all due respect, I have very, very great difficulty accepting your sincerity.
Equally, I refuse to accept the conceit that underlines your argument, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, that only your view of what a marriage ought to be—a view which would set aside the entire history of our civilisation up to this point, by the way—should be listened to in this debate, because while I freely acknowledge that there are many people in the Australian community who agree with you—
Senator Pratt: And who are married.
Senator BRANDIS: Many of whom are married—quite right, Senator Pratt. But equally there are many who do not, many of whom are unmarried. Everybody in this community is entitled to their view of what a marriage is. For you, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, to stand up and proclaim, 'My view of what a marriage is is the only legitimate view that should be listened to in this debate,' reeks of the posturing, conceited approach which the Greens and your fellow travellers have taken in this debate from the start. The fact is that if you change the definition of 'marriage' then that does affect people who have a more conservative view than your own. People who are married and for whom the marriage has a particular meaning have an interest in the way society defines 'marriage'. For you in your argument to eliminate their views—to say these views are not worthy of consideration because they are discriminatory against gay people—is a towering conceit.
I agree with Senator Hanson-Young that discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexuality is always wrong, but it does not follow from that proposition that every institution in society, for that reason, must be redefined. I might point out that, when it comes to taking the lead in eliminating sexuality based discrimination, my side of politics has at least as much to be proud of as the Labor Party or, for that matter, the Greens.
As I pointed out when the Senate considered the same-sex relationships equal treatment in Commonwealth laws bill in 2008, the very first measure to remove discrimination against gay people, or homosexual people—the term 'gay' had not then crept into the usage—was in fact initiated from within the Liberal Party in the South Australian parliament in 1972 by the late father of the former distinguished leader of the Liberal Party in this place, Mr Murray Hill, the first Australian parliamentarian who own behalf of the Liberal Party moved to decriminalise homosexuality. The first time the issue was raised in this parliament was on 18 October 1973, almost 40 years ago, when no less than a former Liberal Prime Minister of Australia, Sir John Gorton, proposed that homosexuality should be decriminalised in the ACT.
As I said before, the law which removed discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality from all Commonwealth laws was passed through this Senate during the time of the Rudd government with the support of all parties. I acknowledge that that legislation was initiated by the Rudd government. Both sides of politics, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, have been responsible for significant measures which have removed discrimination in this field. It is both uncharitable and historically ignorant to suggest that my party has not been to the forefront of many if not all of those measures.
In closing, let me merely say this. No decent person, in my view, would discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. To do so would be as wicked as to discriminate against a person because of their race or because of their religion. But one can hold that belief, as I do, without saying that an institution defined by law and by custom and, at least in many senses, by religion requires to be redefined. That is what you seek to do. It is not, in my view, a genuine antidiscrimination measure. It is, so far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned, a measure with which I know a lot of Labor politicians—like Senator Farrell, who I see sitting in the minister's chair at the moment—feel deeply uncomfortable. And it is a measure brought before this parliament by the Greens facilitated by the Labor Party, in flagrant breach of an election promise. Let me conclude where I began: my side of politics, the coalition, went into the 2010 election promising not to redefine marriage in the life of this parliament. We will stick to that commitment and oppose the bill.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (10:39): Today we are here to debate a bill which will remove the last remaining discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians from our federal law. This legislation, the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, has been a long time coming. I think it is ironic that this last piece of discrimination to be removed should be the most recently introduced. I, like thousands of other Australians, was hurt and dismayed when the federal parliament back in 2004 took steps to entrench discrimination into our nation's Marriage Act. I have always worked for fairness and equal treatment for all Australians. That principle is at the core of my commitment to politics, and it is and always will be a touchstone for me.
I would support the removal of discrimination from the Marriage Act whether or not the act as it currently stands discriminated against me personally. But it would be disingenuous of me not to put on record that in this case the act does discriminate against me. I am one of those hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens who know that the laws of our nation hold our capacity for love and for commitment to be lesser because of the gender of our partner, one of the hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens who know that the laws of our nation say we are less deserving of rights, of respect and of recognition. And we know that those ideas are not true, and that the laws that reinforce them are not right. So this debate has a personal impact for me, in addition to the commitment I have always felt to end legal discrimination against any Australian. I have grown weary over the years of making that case over and over again that, yes, I am a person like everyone else and, yes, I deserve the same treatment under the law as everyone else. But I must say I have been strengthened, over and over, by the growing support in the Australian community to end discrimination once and for all. We can see in the history of this debate that about 38 per cent support for marriage equality in 2004 grew to more than 65 per cent of the Australian community today. What is more, more than 75 per cent of Australians believe that marriage equality in this nation is inevitable. And that is hardly surprising. The gradual reform of laws at a state, territory and federal level throughout recent decades has been accompanied by a growing realisation in our community that being gay, lesbian, trans or intersex is not something to be ashamed of, or something to be hidden.
As someone who has seen the laws that denied my rights fall, one by one, in my lifetime, as someone who came of age in an Australia where being who I am was, if not universally accepted, at least no longer a shameful secret and a source of fear, I want to put on record today how incredibly grateful I am to those men and women who went before us, those men and women who were brave enough to be open about their life and open about their love in a time when doing so put them at real risk of danger, who fought for our rights regardless of what it cost them, both personally and, for many, professionally. Without them, we would not be debating this bill today. Without them, I would not be here in this parliament at all. And without them, it would not now be the norm, rather than the exception, for gays and lesbians to live openly, to be accepted by their families, their workmates and their communities. Because of that openness, because of that acceptance, for many Australians today the question of marriage equality is not an abstract one—it is about equal rights for their daughter, or their brother, or their dad or their workmates, their teammates, their friends. And if there is one thing about the Australian character that we have always been able to rely on, it is about the commitment of Australians to a fair go for the people around them.
Support for marriage equality is, in my view, about that fair go. But, more importantly, it is about support for marriage itself—recognition of the importance of lasting, committed, loving relationships and the public recognition and display of that commitment. Historically, gay, lesbian and transgender people have been denied the opportunity to make that commitment in a public ceremony recognised by the laws of our nation in the community. I think it is one of the bitterest ironies of this debate that, historically, gay people have been stigmatised as promiscuous and immoral while being denied by the law the right to demonstrate the importance and consistency of their relationships in the way that any other Australian can. Think about that. If marriage is important to our society, if mutual commitment to a shared life is important and if it is valuable in and of itself—and I think it is—and for the strength it lends our community then we should be encouraged by the desire of so many non-heterosexual couples to enter into that lifelong bond.
The simple fact is that thousands of lesbian and gay couples are married here and abroad, and I take issue with Senator Brandis when he says this bill is in breach of custom. Take a look at Australia today. Take a look at the customs of Australia today. There are thousands of lesbian and gay couples who are married, in marriages like anybody else's. They have the same characteristics as any other, bar the official recognition of the law of our country.
I understand that some senators may be concerned, as some who made submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee are concerned, that the removal of discrimination in the Marriage Act would force religious celebrants who feel same-sex marriage is against the principle of their religions to nonetheless preside over such marriages. But you only need to look at the facts of the Marriage Act today. The Marriage Act contains provisions that clearly and unequivocally protect ministers of religion from any obligation to conduct marriages that they believe do not accord with their religious beliefs.
So I will be voting for this bill, and I hope that all my Labor colleagues will be voting for this bill. I know the majority are. I believe that this bill fits with a sensible reform agenda and with the passion for fairness and equality that our party has always prized. I hope, too, that opposition senators on the other side of this chamber will be voting for this bill because they support the importance of marriage in our society. I believe that this bill fits with the Liberal Party's stated commitment to the rights and freedoms of equal opportunity for all Australians, and I remind National Party senators that a great many lesbian and gay Australians live in rural and regional Australia. They are your constituents too, and I ask you to recognise their rights.
I believe that this bill, as the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended, should be the subject of a conscience vote for all federal senators and members. This in in fact consistent with the way the Marriage Act has been treated in the past. Australians believe that coalition senators and members should have a conscience vote on this question. This is not an issue that should divide left and right. It is not a conservative-versus-progressive issue. It is not a left-wing issue. It is not a progressive issue.
It is about our recognition of the importance—to individuals and our community—of people making together a mutual commitment to a shared life. It is about the importance of marriage in our society—the importance of marriage not to the few but to the broad breadth and depth of the Australia community. If we want marriage to remain an important institution in Australia — and I certainly do — then we must make this change.
I believe this bill is good policy. It is in line with principles of equality and in line with today's community expectations. I would support this bill, as many in this chamber and in the other place support it and as many in the community support it, if it did not affect me. But, this is a bill that personally affects me, because marriage discrimination affects same-sex couples and also affects people with intersex and transgender partners. I am sure many of you do not know that under the current law we see married couples, with children, forced to divorce against their will when one partner realises they are transgender in order to have their gender legally recognised. It is a disgrace that those in functional families with children are required to divorce so that someone can have their gender recognised. Under the current law, there are also Australians who have the legal right to marry no-one because they are legally and by biological fact intersex — that is, they are both male and female — irrespective of how they identify. The discrimination in the Marriage Act directly affects me, as well as thousands and thousands of other lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians. But it also directly affects many, many more Australians than those because legal discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians hurts not just us but our parents, our children, our brothers and sisters, our friends. It hurts everyone who loves us, just because of who we love.
So in closing my remarks in this debate, I ask senators in this chamber to remember, when they are deciding how to vote, we exist, we already exist, our relationships exist, our children exist, our families exist, our marriages exist and our love exists. All we ask is that you stop pretending that we don't. Stop pretending that our relationships are not as real as yours, our love not as true, our children not as cherished, our families not as precious—because they are. Removing this last vestige of legal discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians from federal law now has the support of the majority of the Australian community. It is my sincere hope that it also has the support of the majority of senators in this place.
Senator BACK (Western Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:53): I rise in the chamber today as a very proud and lucky husband of some 38 years, a father of three remarkable children and a grandfather a little man who has become the absolute light of the life of our family to oppose the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 as introduced by Senators Crossin, Brown, Marshall and Pratt. The coalition supports the definition of marriage as prescribed in the Marriage Act 1961. It states that marriage is 'a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. These words of course go back to the earliest known writings. In fact, they go back almost to our first studies of human societies and a point in common way back from the beginning of human society is the concept of the union of the man and the woman.
The coalition went to the last election supporting the definition of marriage as I have just stated and it will go to the next election on that platform. I quote from the shadow Attorney-General in his contribution on 23 August in this place on this subject:
Let me very briefly state to the Senate the coalition's position on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010. The coalition made an undertaking to the Australian people at the 2010 election that we would support the existing definition of marriage and, having made that undertaking to the Australian people, we are not going to act at variance to it. The Labor Party has changed its position, because Julia Gillard gave a similar undertaking to the Australian people at the 2010 election but subsequently facilitated arrangements within the Labor Party to allow that undertaking to be vacated.
He concluded his comments by saying:
When we in the coalition give an undertaking to the public we stick by it, whether it be on the carbon tax, private health insurance, or any issue, and this is one such issue.
Let me distinguish between the terms discrimination, deprivation, disadvantage, difference and equality. The principle of equality requires treating all cases alike, so the judgement that same-sex and opposite sex unions are alike with respect to marriage and therefore should be treated alike by marriage law is of itself false.
It was in 2009 in this parliament that discrimination was removed in relation to same sex couples. There were four bills: the Same-sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008, the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 and Same-sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Act 2008. They went through the parliament with bipartisan support. They were designed to remove discrimination against same-sex couples from a raft of Commonwealth legislation, including veterans' affairs, social security and income tax. The first of them amended some 14 acts of parliament in order to increase the coverage of same-sex couples and their children in superannuation and related matters, allowing super trustees to make same-sex couples and their children eligible for superannuation reversionary benefits. The first three I mentioned all include provisions to treat same-sex relationships in a similar manner to married and de facto relationships. So when we come into this place and we hear this continual cry of discrimination, it is against the law to discriminate against same-sex couples and those who feel they are discriminated against have got the full opportunity of the law in which to prosecute cases.
Let me turn to some common-sense examples. Whilst the law against discrimination is universal in this country, we would know that there are some communities who as yet have not enjoyed the full protection of the law. I give the example of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. Let us imagine if for one minute in this place today we could with a wand wipe away all disadvantage and discrimination against the Aboriginal people. Would it then be the case that Caucasian Australians, Asian Australians and African Australians could call ourselves Aboriginal or Torres Strait? The answer logically is no, we could not. We know that there are genetic and other factors to be taken into account in describing Aboriginality. Yet there would be those who would say, 'I want to be called Aboriginal. I have a circumstance' for whatever reason. We know very well that there are differences within the different communities in Australia. We are not all equal, we are not all entitled to refer to ourselves as Aboriginal.
There are 76 people in this nation who should know what a nonsense of an argument is being put forward by those who propose this legislation, and that is 76 senators in this parliament.
We all know the meaning of the term senator and we all value the need for its historic protection. We know that the term senator in historic terms takes us back, for example, to the Roman forum, in which there were senators who governed Rome at that time. We know the US Senate context and the US State context and, indeed, we know the Australian context. We are different from others in this country, but are others in this country less equal than the 76 senators? Of course they are not. Are they discriminated against, Madam Acting Deputy President? Are they disadvantaged? Indeed, are they deprived? Maybe some of our spouses would think that they are probably deprived by virtue of our being in the Senate.
The point I want to make is that we all know it is a nonsense for the rest of Australia to say: 'I'm disadvantaged. I'm discriminated against. It's unequal that I'm not called senator therefore I want to call myself senator.' We know, as we know in the marriage debate, that there are criteria by which Australians can aspire should they wish to become senators. They must be 18 years of age or older. They must be Australian and eligible to vote. They must subject themselves to preselection and they must get elected. Therefore, there are criteria by which people can refer to themselves as senator. In the same way there are criteria by which people can refer to themselves as married people—that is, a man and a woman who are able, in the event that they do not have close family or other relationships, to publicly place themselves before the community in a public event with public witnesses and go through the marriage process.
I could take the example of airline captains, or judges, or lawyers. Why can't I call myself 'Judge Back'? It is because at this moment I do not qualify. I do not meet the criteria. In terms of pilots, as we would all know, why can't I call myself 'Captain Back'? There is a public good associated with that event, and that is that the rest of the people on an aircraft who might be subject to my being in the cockpit would of course say, 'You are not qualified; you do not meet the criteria.' In the same way that those who are not married do not meet the criteria at this moment that is not to say that they are not eligible to do so in the future. I could even give the example of a Victoria Cross winner. Why can't I be called 'Back VC', or my colleague Senator Williams be called 'Williams VC'? It is because we all know that that is a venerable status which, of course, is accorded only to those of the highest levels of bravery. Are they more equal than the rest of the community? Am I discriminated against because Roberts-Smith is a VC? Of course I am not. We look upon that person with awe, as indeed I look upon married persons in the same way and as I look upon those friends of mine in same-sex relationships. Obviously they are people who have committed themselves to themselves and, therefore, I applaud that circumstance, but they are under this law not the subject of discrimination.
In fact, as I have observed this debate over the last few months, it has occurred to me that we are starting to see some of the elements of propaganda coming into the debate. Let me remind you of what propaganda relates to: an effort to mobilise community attitudes and opinion; directed at extending power and influencing how people think; a movement of control to achieve selfish ends; a persuasion for us to believe in something or do something we would not normally believe or do. As I look through the various techniques that are those of propaganda, I unfortunately see many of those applied in this debate.
Firstly, there is attacking one's opponents as opposed to attacking their arguments. We have heard in this chamber and we have heard in the wider community statements like: 'Let us put the dark pages of history behind us.' Attacking those with a view rather than the argument. Secondly, we have the tireless repetition of an idea or a simple slogan.
How many of us have had thousands of emails of exactly the same wording, simply continually putting a repetitious argument or a simple slogan? They say things like: 'I support marriage equality and I urge you to do the same,' or 'Same sex partners should not be treated differently in the law from opposite sex partners.' I have just pointed out in this contribution the four pieces of legislation, going back to 2009, that ensured that that very thing did not take place.
Thirdly, they appeal to fear or seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic. Fourthly, they use loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition, such as the comment that has just been made in the last few minutes that opposition to the bill is a denial of human rights; that the coalition is acting to limit the capacity of members and senators of the coalition to a conscience vote; and the statement that marriage as an institution—which has been understood to mean one particular thing for the entire history of humanity—is fundamentally an unjust institution. These are the sorts of emotive and loaded terms used to try to motivate and change people's views for purposes which I would say are selfish.
Fifthly, as another propaganda tool they invite those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory, even, as in the contribution by Senator Pratt, stating some enormous percentage of the Australian community supporting the inevitability of gay marriage. Well, I have seen equal surveys supporting the opposite. I will quote again from the contribution of Senator Brandis on 23 August in this place:
After listening to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's speech I am bound to say that one would have thought there was only one available view. Senator Hanson-Young—
he said, in turning to her—
I have to tell you that yours is not the only view. Much as those who advocate your view do so, I am sure, in good faith, you will not win this argument by seeking to silence alternative views.
Another of the principles of propaganda is presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice. We have seen in this, have we not, that supporters of the bill state their views in such a way that those of us with opposing views are not entitled to have our views, which we also hold with equal vigour. Even if these opposing views reflect the entire understanding in the entire course of human history of what marriage is, the supporters of this bill will pay no respect to those who do not agree with it.
The seventh principle is making individuals from opposing viewpoints appear to be out of touch with the reality of today, with statements like this in one of the many emails we have had:
A majority of Australians support marriage equality. This includes a majority of Australian Christians, a majority of rural and regional Australians, Labor and coalition voters, a majority of Australians with young children.
Let me say that (a) I dispute that fact and (b) I do not want that being presented as a reason I should oppose this bill. I hold my view as strongly and, hopefully, as eloquently as those who support it.
The eighth principle is using euphemisms, increasing the perceived quality, credibility or credence of a particular idea. The ninth is using generalities which are deliberately vague with the intention of moving the audience by undefined phrases without analysing their validity. An example is from the Harvard journal on public policy: 'Supporters of the gay marriage bill are very happy to state what they think marriage is not … but they have not developed a cogent argument about what marriage is. They find it easy to criticise the traditional view of marriage but don't construct a complete alternative,' going for simplistic statements, and they are 'very keen to focus on who should be allowed to marry, but not what marriage actually is'.
As one whose professional background is that of a veterinarian, I often go back to the hierarchy of life. When we go back to life in its most basic form—single cell organisms, amoebae—we know the two roles and objectives are nutrition and reproduction. Then when we go a little bit further up the hierarchical tree we come to hermaphrodite species, in which both gametes are in the body. As we proceed up the complexity of the pyramid of social life we come to two more features and factors, and they are social order and longevity.
Of course, then we move up to the mammalian, the primate and the human hierarchy of existence and we move to the point at which I wish to conclude my contribution, the rights and needs of children. This legislation is very adult-centric and it is egocentric but we all know that there are complementary but different roles for males and females in a relationship. They do not assume an equality in relationship but a complementary relationship. We all know, with some humour, some are from Venus and some are from Mars and of secret women's business. Those husbands among us would know we are the boss of the house and we have our wife's permission to say so! But what is overlooked in this legislation is that children themselves are critically important to the overall relationship and they have a right and are entitled to know their biological parents. We speak of the term, phenotype, which is the set of observable characteristics of an individual being a combination of their genotype, or their genetic make-up, and the environment in which they are raised. So in the human sense it is not just about birth but also about the development of the individual through to and beyond their stage of independence. There is overwhelming research, if you want to go back to research as others do, that a child's best interests are served when born into and brought up in a home which is provided by a husband and his wife in a long-term and loving relationship. That is what we should aspire to.
I say again that I have many friends in gay or lesbian relationships bringing children up and those children are loved and they are lucky, but it does not depart from the fact that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Marriage is far older than any laws about marriage. It has been understood, as I said earlier, by every society about which we have knowledge. It has never been a same-sex union even in societies where same-sex arrangements have been known and accepted. Marriage is two halves of humanity, being male and female. It is the union of two reproductive systems found in life and found in humanity, the two systems that are essential for the generation of children and the continuation of our species. We know this legislation covers the whole gamut, as Senator Pratt has said: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual relationships. Madam Acting Deputy President, the European Court of Human Rights says that it is not a right that gay marriage should exist; it is the union of a man and a woman that should exist. I say to you that any bill that impacts on children or society's base unit must undergo far more scrutiny with a family and a cultural impact study before we move towards any decision to change. I am firmly of the view that the legislation in this country ensures that discrimination against same-sex couples has been legislated out of existence. If in practice such people are discriminated against, they have got the full use of the law in which to examine it. But what I can say to you is that the marriage definition is as it should be and for others let them use any other definition—perhaps a civil union—(Time expired)
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:13): I rise today to support marriage equality in Australia, to support an ending to the discrimination that currently exists and that has no place in modern Australia. We have heard a lot today about what the traditional view of marriage is and has been but no acknowledgment that over time communities have changed their views about what marriage may or may not be. As my colleague Senator Hanson-Young mentioned earlier, there was a time in Australia when marriage between Aboriginal people and others was not permitted and that was under state law. Fortunately that has changed. It was discrimination on the basis of race and it had no place in marriage law in Australia. And yet there is no doubt that at the time that change was made there would have been many who stood up in parliament around the country saying this would be the end of marriage as we know it, that this was contrary to what people had argued for many years and so on. In fact, as a reminder from history, in 1968, the year after the United States Supreme Court struck down Virginia's anti-segregation law in Loving v. Virginia, 72 per cent of Americans disapproved of marriage between whites and nonwhites and only about 20 per cent approved. The same could have been said even a decade after earlier about marriage between Protestants and Catholics. Eventually culture changes, people change, communities change, and we are now at the point in Australia where the overwhelming majority of people do not think it is appropriate to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, and that is what this is.
Senator Brandis and others stand up here and suggest that discrimination does not take place. The fact that it is not permitted, it is not legal, says that it does take place. People are being discriminated against in this country whereas in many others around the world they now have marriage equality. As we know, in New York earlier this year there was legislation for same-sex marriage but also 12 countries now have marriage equality. The first was the Netherlands in 2001. President Obama has now come to the point where he said in May 2012 that he would support same-sex marriage. In New Zealand there is a marriage equality bill before the parliament and it will be supported by the conservative prime minister, John Key. Scotland also has announced it will progress marriage equality later this year and it is likely to occur in France and Brazil as well. Even David Cameron, the Prime Minister in England, supports marriage equality, in his words, 'because he is a conservative'. In launching its consultation paper the government announced it will catch up with other countries—that is, in the UK. So we now have a situation where around the world there is a recognition that we need to get rid of discrimination, that we should not discriminate on the basis of sexuality and that marriage should be permitted between same-sex couples.
Let us go to the issue of why we have this continuing discrimination being proposed here in Australia by some members of the parliament. We have heard some examples of that this morning, one from Senator Back a moment ago in terms of male and female and ideal reproductive outcomes. It seems that Senator Back may not be aware of the last 30 years of massive technological changes in terms of reproductive technology. I have not heard Senator Back stand up in here and say that that should be illegal because it somehow is against the natural order of things in his view.
In terms of the rights of children and the needs of children, yes, it is true that children do have a right to know their genetic make-up, and there is nothing in the legislation that prohibits that from occurring. In fact, that is one of the furphies that is raised often in this debate. The fact of the matter is that at the age of 18 people will be entitled to know their genetic history and that is not to be precluded in terms of this legislation. The other furphy that often comes up is that religious proponents will not be able to refuse a marriage of same sex in their particular church or faith. That is untrue as well. There is no proposition whatsoever. In fact, in the Greens' bill of least it is specifically ruled out. So that is not true. Anyone of a particular religious faith or a proponent of that faith or someone who would conduct ceremonies in a particular religious faith will be in no way forced or required to recognise and conduct a same-sex marriage. That will be a choice of that particular faith or church. So let us get rid of that out of the way.
Why is it that we continue to have people proposing that in civil society non-religious ratings we would make a decision that people of same sex are not allowed to wed? We hear a lot about the rights of children and about their development as individuals; I ask, 'What about the rights and development of young gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender people? What about their rights as they are growing up?' Much has been said—and in a disgraceful way, I have to put forward here—in relation to the health of young gay and lesbian people. I find it extraordinary that there is so little acknowledgement of the mental health issues that occur because people are discriminated against. That is overwhelmingly the impact of one group of people saying to another group of people, 'You are to be excluded from something that the rest of society can access,' and that is marriage in Australia.
This is all part of the ongoing discrimination against people. That has a long-term emotional impact and that can translate into mental health issues and real self-esteem issues for young gay and lesbian people in Australia. I would like people to think about that pretty carefully. Young people growing up, and parents of young people growing up, want to believe that they or their children will have equal access and will not be discriminated against. For years it was women who were discriminated against, and that continues in some places; but we at least got to the point where we stopped discrimination on the basis of race. We should have stopped discrimination on the basis of religion, of gender and of sexuality. So let us get it straight: this is about antidiscrimination.
I want to go to the cynical reasons why we have this legislation being brought on by the government at this time. The Greens have had legislation in both houses of the federal parliament and around the country, and those debates go on. But why is it being brought forward now? The reason is very simple: this is an attempt by the government to get this issue off the agenda in the lead-up to the federal election next year. This is an attempt to bring it on, have the legislation defeated and then say, 'This is not an issue coming into the 2013 election'. I have to say that regardless of the outcome of this bill that the Greens bill will still stay on the books. It will continue to be an issue right into the 2013 election.
This goes to the heart of the Prime Minister's view on this issue. It has been a mystery to me for a long time as to why the Prime Minister takes the view that she does, especially since she has never articulated what philosophical view is behind her refusal to accept same-sex marriage. So I got very interested in the role of Joe de Bruyn, the national secretary and treasurer of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Union—a vice president of the ACTU and a person who is on the ALP national executive. I was particularly interested in his speech to the Australian Christian Lobby meeting on 16 October 2011, seven weeks before the Labor Party conference where it was expected that the Labor Party would not only embrace marriage equality but would actually see it out in this term, where the Greens are here to work with Labor to deliver it. What did Joe de Bruyn tell the Australian Christian Lobby? Let me tell you: 'If a free vote were given to delegates at the national conference, without any outside pressures placed upon them, my guess would be that 80 per cent would vote for such a change. This is a view of the key people in the Labor Party today, and the only way that this is not going to happen is if the Prime Minister makes it clear publicly that she will not accept it. She must put her authority on the line to say, "We are not going to do it." If she does this there is a reasonable chance that a sufficient number of delegates would say, "I would like to vote for it myself but the PM does not want it and we don't want to embarrass or overrule the Prime Minister, so we will go along with her view."' That was Joe de Bruyn, seven weeks before the Labor Party's conference.
He went on to say, 'The key thing to understand is that this issue is not one that is going to be won or lost in the Labor Party on the question of merit, because on an issue of merit we will go down 80-20. It's only going to be won in the Labor Party if it is perceived to be electoral suicide if they go ahead and change their policy, and this is where I think all of you really do have a role to play. The more we are out in the media'—'we' being Joe de Bruyn and the Australian Christian Lobby—'making the point that this is wrong and if any politician dares to express support for homosexual marriage they will wear the consequences at the next election.' He goes on to say to the Christian Lobby: 'There is a role for you in this ongoing battle that we can't afford to lose. We have to win it every single time. If we lose it once, we've lost it forever.' He went on to add: 'In the last couple of days I have seen evidence of people in the ALP who don't care about the issue or would be inclined to support gay marriage. Significant slabs of these 400 delegates, including some who have spoken publicly for it, are now saying behind closed doors they will vote against it because they can see the electoral consequence.'
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Senator MILNE: That is exactly what happened in the speech from Joe de Bruyn of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Vice President of the ACTU and on the ALP National Executive, before the ALP National Conference last year. That is exactly what happened. Out came the Prime Minister, just as Joe de Bruyn said would happen, making it clear that she would not accept it and that she wanted a conscience vote. What actually happened was, according to reports, that there were five delegates absent from the floor for the count on the MPs conscience vote motion. It is understood that a number of delegates shifted sides from their intended position to protect the Prime Minister from a humiliating defeat, and the count went the Prime Minister's way, 208 votes to 184. There we have it.
So let us not just pretend that this is a vote on the merits of marriage equality. As Joe de Bruyn has said here, if it were on the merits then 80 per cent to 20 per cent of the Labor Party would support marriage equality. What this is actually about is the power of Joe de Bruyn and the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association and the role of that union in the ALP National Executive in keeping the Prime Minister and the current structure in the Labor Party intact. That is what this is about. That is why it is being brought on now. That is why it has been pushed to a vote now: to try and get it off the agenda for the federal election year. That is the fact of the matter. It goes to the backroom faction, the boys in the Labor Party in the backroom, actually doing the numbers to defeat the overwhelming majority of delegates at the ALP national conference, who, without that kind of backroom manipulation going on, would have voted not only for the platform of marriage equality but not to support the conscience vote and to actually drive it through the parliament during this period when the ALP could have driven it through the parliament with the Greens. So therein lies the fact of the matter. You do not have to be a genius to see what has gone on here and to see a member of the ALP National Executive there working with the Christian Lobby to defeat the overwhelming majority of members at the—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Crossin ): Senator Macdonald, order! Senator Milne is being heard in silence, and I think that is fair.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, your members were heard in silence and I think it is only fair that we also hear Senator Milne in silence.
Senator MILNE: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. So there we have it. That is what actually has gone on here and what is really going on here in terms of the ALP position.
The tragedy of this is that, around the country, there are so many young people in the gay and lesbian community who were desperately hoping that this matter would be dealt with on its merits—that discrimination would end in this country and in this period of government. Clearly, if people were able to express their view in the way that they would like then we would actually be able to change it in this parliament such that, in years to come, people would look back and say: 'Oh, for goodness sake, what was that about? We have actually done what we needed to do. We had to get rid of that level of discrimination.' But, instead of that, young people around the country are scratching their heads, saying they cannot understand why the ALP has done what it has done on marriage equality: why they are pushing it to a vote; why they are trying to get it out of the public arena in the lead-up to the election. Well, all that should be pretty clear now. There is a very clear power-play going on in the ALP being led by this particular union leader from the National Executive. So that is the issue.
As to the leader of the coalition, Tony Abbott, he is also on the wrong side of history on this and he has to really answer the question why he will not allow his party members to express a conscience view on this matter. If other parties are allowed to express conscience views, why not the coalition parties? It was interesting to hear, from Senator Brandis in particular, talk about carbon pricing in the middle of a debate about marriage equality. What an odd thing that someone like Senator Brandis should focus on that in the middle of a marriage equality debate? I would have thought he may have quite strong views of his own in regard to this matter since he is often described as one of the more liberal members of the Liberal Party; although, to the extent that they have moved to the right of Genghis Khan, that is probably not a reference to liberalism in the way that people have understood liberalism in the past.
It is clear to me that the real debate that needs to be taking place in Australia is: why has the Labor Party tried to get this off the agenda before the federal election? That is the question. I think young people and the community around the country, parents, want to know what is going on and why we are not taking this opportunity to do the right thing by a whole lot of people in Australia who deserve to be able to access a marriage certificate in the same way as everybody else. They want to know why they are still discriminated against.
In Tasmania, when I moved for gay law reform in 1997, it was very hard argued and hard-fought issue, and the people who opposed it said all kinds of outrageous things about what would happen with levels of paedophilia and so on if this actually occurred in Tasmania. All that was a complete nonsense, and now people in Tasmania go, 'What was that about?' Tasmanians have changed their views to such an extent that we now have a piece of legislation brought in by the Greens and supported by Lara Giddings, the Labor Premier of Tasmania, to make marriage equality legal in Tasmania. That is a fantastic thing. I believe in South Australia there is also a bill before the parliament. Lynn MacLaren, a Greens member in Western Australia, has brought one into the Western Australian parliament. Because the Commonwealth will not move, we now have right around the country a number of efforts by state parliaments to deal with this issue. I am very proud of the fact that the legislation has passed the House of Assembly in Tasmania and, no doubt, there will now be quite a vigorous discussion in the Legislative Council. But, if you go back to 1997, there was a vigorous discussion then and the Tasmanian Legislative Council did pass it, with only one vote against it in the end in terms of being fair to people in Tasmania, where, at that time, you could be jailed for 21 years for being a homosexual. That was pretty disgraceful. We went from the worst to the best, and now it is Australia's opportunity as a nation to do the right thing by people who simply want to marry, who want to have the discrimination against them ended. In my view, it is absolutely time that we do this, and I think it is about time that Joe de Bruyn and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Union and the ALP national executive actually explained to people what their problem is with this and the extent to which working together with the Christian lobby is preventing this outcome. (Time expired)
Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (11:33): I had not originally intended to make a contribution to this debate, because my views are on the record. In fact there was a dissenting report by Labor senators published some months ago which arose out of a bill that had been referred to a committee. I was quite happy to sign up to that dissenting report so my views on this issue are known. One of my colleagues was unable to put off an appointment and he asked me to take his place, so I have come forward at relatively short notice.
Before I go to my more prepared comments, I must really respond to the argument led by Senator Milne, from the Greens, as to what she says is the inappropriate role led by Mr de Bruyn, in his own union, at the ACTU executive and at the national executive of the Australian Labor Party. I want to make one point for the public record and it really is indicative of the lack of truth in a lot of matters associated with this debate.
We know that Mr de Bruyn attended the Australian Christian conference because his speech was released, reported in the press and put on appropriate websites around Australia. We know of the deliberations of the ACTU interstate executive and we know of the deliberations of the ALP national executive. Indeed, we know in considerable detail of all of the deliberations of the national conference of the ALP because they are all reported in exquisite detail in very paper around Australia whenever those organisations or bodies meet. Indeed, it is all of the deliberations of those bodies, they being large public bodies that receive in some respects significant public funding. To every forum in every territory, state and national organisation of the Labor Party the press are invited to attend, they report on all debates, they mix freely with all delegates and they file ongoing reports as elected delegates to those conferences participate and make contributions to debate and eventually vote on proposed resolutions before the respective chairs.
We know all of that because, as I said, it is all reported in exquisite detail in the press. Compare that proper, open, democratic, public role pursued by the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement since their foundations in the late 19th century with this modernist rabble at the end of the chamber, the Greens—this modernist rabble growing post 1988 when they came to power and to force on the death of the most totalitarian regime and ideology in history and yet they are proud to stand in this place and say they never ever admit the press and the public to any of their conferences. Like some useless, ignorant, backward Stalinist sect, they meet in private in little halls in the middle of nowhere. So there are 10, 15 or 20 people meeting in secret, discussing in secret, voting in secret, never allowing the press in. Yet this little group of Stalinists down here have the temerity to come into the Australian parliament and criticise union leaders and longstanding politicians because they have a considered, thought-out perspective, go to public forums, stand before hundreds of thousands of people, are on the TV every night and say what they think in their heart, their mind and their brain! But these useless Stalinists down here hide away and run away like little children ashamed and scared of their views and terrified they might be reported fully and openly and accurately. Useless Stalinists passed away in 1988 in Europe and useless Stalinists are sitting here now and criticising others because they openly participate in debate. What a terrible situation.
Let me now turn to the matter before the chair. What I wanted to discuss when I was considering and preparing my remarks in my office was three issues. They are issues of importance and priority, issues of equity, social justice and discrimination, and issues that go to the heart, the very nature, of the marriage relationship. Somewhat unusually for a senator with a heavy committee workload, I do an inordinate amount of campaigning and constituency work when I am back in Perth. I am duty Labor senator for three electorates we do not hold, Swan, Tangney and Pearce. So one of my responsibilities is to show our flag and, particularly in one, lead the charge to win them back to Labor at the next election. Those three seats cover city developed and established suburbs, developing outer suburbs, near rural areas and country towns with arguably close to 400,000 or 500,000 people in those growth corridors of Perth.
I checked my diary this morning and since July I have attended or been the principal guest at over 100 community functions in Perth—BER openings, TAFE training centre openings, immigration ceremonies, school openings, community centres, legal centres, council chambers, representational activities and university type functions. My office would handle up to 20 complaints per week on the issues of concern to ordinary people: childcare access and equity, immigration, boat people, fishing issues, education funding, utility bills, road funding, airport access, road trains, dental plans, veteran entitlement issues—the sorts of issues that individuals or groups want to raise and bring to the attention of a member of parliament. But the incidence of lobbying, meeting requests and discussions at public forums on the issue of gay marriage or related to gay marriage is absolutely minimal. I do not say nonexistent, but absolutely minimal—it is hardly raised at all. It is not on the horizon amongst all of those people in those three seats in Perth. I have received little lobbying at all. I have had the odd request for a discussion on this issue. I do not say that lobbying or correspondence is nonexistent but it is not on any significant scale at all. Frankly, this lack of interest, this lack of lobbying, has puzzled me for some time.
Personally, I have always had a very, very open mind on the issue of gay marriage. I do see it, at its heart, as a personal issue. Like everyone, I have friends, family and colleagues some of whom are gay, most are not. I treat them the same and they treat me the same. There are varying degrees of courtesy, cooperation, friendship, professionalism, love and attachment.
When I first sought preselection in 1994 for the Labor Party in the Senate it was a very interesting affair. In those days we had an electoral college of 218 persons. I eventually gained preselection in a very heavy contest by a margin of one vote, so it was very close. After the vote was concluded and the emotion had died down, I took the trouble to ring around and I went to see of a number of individuals and groups to thank them and ask them why they had voted for me, because they were not traditionally lined up with the people I associate with in the Labor Party; indeed, they were mostly in trenchant opposition. This was the gay and lesbian lobby in the ALP which became the Rainbow Alliance, but they voted to me and got me over the barrier for a win by one vote. I said to them, 'Why did you do that? They said: 'Mark, it wasn't difficult. You're just a right-winger in the ALP, you're not homophobic. It didn't really matter to us.' They had had a meeting, they said plenty of other people were no good, but they said, 'You're not homophobic, you're just a right-winger, it wasn't a problem.' So I got here on the basis of that vote. I have never identified the individuals involved, but those in the know are those in the know.
It this context, former Attorney-General McClelland brought a bill into the House and the Senate some three or four years ago to amend about 80 pieces of legislation. The intent and purpose was to outlaw discrimination against gay men or gay women in relation to benefits, entitlements or whatever the case may be, and I think it is readily agreed around this place that effective discrimination against men and women on the basis of their sexual orientation is illegal in this country. They can dispose of their property as they think appropriate. They can dispose of assets as they think appropriate. They can enter whatever retail, entertainment, business or commercial venue they want to and be treated in all respects equally and in the same way as everyone else.
I am very, very proud that the Attorney at that time forced the matters through our party, through our conference, converted them into principles and into legislation, and brought them into this place and put them through. In fact, those sorts of antidiscrimination measures, non-discrimination measures to enable individuals to get on with their lives without hindrance by the law or legal forms in any respect, go to the heart and soul of a modern Labor Party trenchantly opposed to discrimination.
People supportive of this bill support equity as a ground for this bill. What they seek to do is to extend individual rights to a social group or a social construct. In doing so, necessarily the extension of that right to a new social group, a new social construct—that is, gay couples—impinges on the rights of another group of individuals: children. Children, as we all know, in their formative years are at their most vulnerable, impressionable and uninformed and most in need of assistance and guidance, primarily from their parents but from the wider institutions in society. So, for me, it is an issue about the right of natural-born individuals, the products of a lawful marriage or relationship, and the social group or construct which, for the first time in history, seeks to alter the fundamental nature of past received social, legal, civil or religious forms of marriage. That becomes the heart of the debate expressed in this bill before the chair today.
I am not under any pressure at all; I do not have any personal skin in this debate. I do not have any particular personal objectives. In fact, my own private, social view—which I have expressed to colleagues and friends over the years on issues such as this—is: 'live and let live'. On social relationships: live and let live. I have been hardly lobbied at all. It has been minimally raised with me in my responsible duty electorate. So, accordingly—and I say this without any degree of intensity at all—it is not a high or major priority for me, in respect of my private life, my personal circumstances, my family and friendship relationships, my work and my duties as an activist in the Australian Labor Party for over 40 years. It is not for me an issue of discrimination. It is not a major priority. But if the rights of children as individuals are going to be held by me as being superior to those of other groups, then I am honour bound to give consideration to what is still important in this debate as far as the rights of gay people or gay couples are concerned.
In a modern, democratic, progressive, evolving community or society, laws do need to reflect legitimate aspiration, changing values and emergent viewpoints. I never say that new forms should be just ignored or held down or done away with simply because they are new. A lot of the aspirations of persons who describe themselves as gay and want to enter into formalised gay relationships and want to have the respect of society and the support of the law are not merely aspirational; they are entirely proper—entirely legitimate.
On one hand, this is not an extant legalised form that has existed for thousands of years for heterosexual couples, but because the pressure is now on there is growing demand in society for proper, legal, lawful recognition of those modern aspirations. In those circumstances it should not be for those supporters of traditional marriage to deny those legitimate aspirations of gay people and gay couples who want to enter into voluntary relationships to the exclusion of all others for the lives of the partners.
It seems to me that we have too great a divide on that. Merely to take, or copy, something that has been in one form since recorded civilisation existed and extend it in the second decade of the 21st century is a bridge too far. But I support the extension of those groups who seek to have lawful protection and legal means for same-sex arrangements. I think it is worthwhile that they should have civil unions to give effect to their heartfelt personal relationships, not just take or copy the extant rites of other groups that have been recognised for thousands of years across countries, civilisations and cultures. If this is going to result in ongoing division in our community and our society, it needs to be properly resolved.
In this country in particular the law has high status. It is respected across the board. The way we resolve our disputes and social dissidence in this country is often, and generally, through parliament and the passage of laws. This is not so much the case in Europe and it is certainly not the case in the United States, which has a different system and a much more significant judicial activist space for changing social values. Here we do it in parliament, and members of parliament respond to lobbying, to community issues and to community concerns to bring laws generally of a topical nature. It is done in the open and in public and, if rejected, the reasons are on the public record, and everyone knows why.
My contribution is quite limited. I simply say: I have not been persuaded by those who are prosecuting this debate that the nature of the change sought is justified or warranted for the reasons I have outlined in my debate. Nonetheless, I have heard the arguments and the viewpoints. As I said earlier, it being live and let live, people have viewpoints, relationships and social groupings, and it is not for the law to say, 'No, no, no,' because we can say it. For the law to remain pertinent and relevant, and important to all groups, those aspirations can be achieved in the way to which I referred. They can be achieved in legislating for the right to civil unions done in a secular society. That is entirely proper, and I would not have a problem going down that path. (Time expired)
Senator BOSWELL (Queensland) (11:54): Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, I understand we are debating your bill today. I find it a very serious debate. In fact, to me it is one of the most serious debates that we have ever had to face in this parliament, because it will fundamentally affect the way Australia reacts as a society. In my party, one of the basic philosophies is that the family is the basic unit of society and without a family you do not have a society. I cannot imagine a more severe attack on the family than undermining marriage. It is what the whole of our society is based on. It is what the whole of society over centuries—probably from the start of man—has been based on: a man and a woman getting together to procreate children and for those children to stay together under the care of a mother and a father. Without that, what do you have? What is society? That all stands before us. Fortunately, the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 is not going to get through, but I have been around long enough to know that this is only the first attempt.
But what I want to say to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, is: yes, in the inner city suburbs of West End, South Brisbane and Redfern, there might be a bit of support for this, but there is certainly no support for it out in the western suburbs among the blue-collar workers, where the families are strong. Among the different communities, whether they be Catholic, Muslim or Jewish, it is an anathema. It is an anathema with my party. Senator Bishop said that he has not been lobbied very much. I can tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that I have not been lobbied at all except to say to me, 'You stand up strongly for the basic unit of society, which is marriage and the family.'
I believe we now stand at the brink. We have to make a decision. Do we as a society turn away from everything we know and everything that our society is based on—the ideal that the family has been based on for thousands of years—or do we go the other way? Do we say, 'Near enough is good enough, because it does not really hurt anyone, it does not cost anything and people want to do it; why not?' and allow gay marriage and just give up on the ideal that the family is the basic unit of society and it gets there through marriage? We know from experience that the whole of the family—a marriage between a man and a woman—allows children to live in a safe, protected environment where they are allowed to grow into adults and pass strong values on to their children. The family is a continuum. We know this from experience, and therefore we continue with that ideal and look to uphold it.
I believe people have not thought this through. I think people in Australia do not give a lot of thought to these important issues, and we as members of parliament have to. From a distance, the issue of gay marriage looks a lot like other issues for Australian voters. From the outside it looks like it does not harm anyone, does not affect any individual who does not engage in it and does not seem to harbour any cost to the taxpayer or any other organisations. It seems relatively harmless—a relaxation of laws and conventions. If it does not hurt me and it does not hurt them, who does it hurt? It hurts society—that is who it hurts—and people have not thought it through.
What happens when the conventions are relaxed? What happens after the conventions have been removed? Marriage is based on a man and a woman, for the reason of having children. Two men and two women cannot conceive without some outside assistance. Marriage is not just a convention or a mere formality; it is a mechanism that was created by society to bring two sexes together and create a foundation of moral, social and legal protection and stability. Without this foundation, we are risking the lot. Like all things that have a foundation, society has a foundation. What is it based on? What is society based on? A man and a woman getting together, having children and then, in a broader sphere, an outer family of cousins, uncles and aunties, all providing support for the family, and that family fighting like crazy to make sure their kids get a good way of living, a good education and sometimes even the parents backing them into a home—people standing up for their family. The family is what people give their children. They send them to expensive schools and make great sacrifices for them because they believe in the family.
People think, 'How does it affect me—a man marrying another man?' If it is made legal they think it will not have an impact on their lives. But they have not considered the real harm that homosexual marriage can bring about, and there are three big harms in legalising homosexual marriage. It abolishes a child's birthright to have both a mother and a father. Marriage includes the right to start a family. Under article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to marry comes with the right to start a family. If two men are legally able to marry, they obtain the absolute right to have a child via surrogacy. After gay marriage is legalised, a child can henceforth be brought into the world without ever having the right to a mother and father. Sometimes this happens inadvertently—through desertion or death—but it is not something we plan for; it is not something we want.
Same-sex marriage says that a mother or a father does not matter to a child—and it does. Two mothers or two fathers cannot raise a child properly. Who takes a boy to football? Who tells him what is right from wrong? What does he do—go along with the two mums? How does he go camping and fishing? Yes, there might be some attempt by one of the mothers to fill in as a father figure but it will not work. It is defying nature. And what about a young girl changing from a teenager into a young woman? Is it fair to say to her, 'You don't have a mother; your mother can't take you shopping' or to not be able to help her understand how her body is changing? What are we trying to do here? Why are we trying to defy what has been the right thing for hundreds of thousands of years? What suddenly gives us the inspiration to think that we can have gay marriage and it will not affect anyone?
I say to the people who very narrowly think this through or who do not think it through: it is more than saying, 'It doesn't hurt me; it doesn't cost anything.' It is a lot more than that. Once you have gay marriage in law, you have normalised the law, you have normalised homosexual marriage in law, which forces the normalisation of homosexual behaviour in the wider culture—
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Senator BOSWELL: I will not be drawn in, Senator—especially in the school curriculum. I ask the people of the Western Suburbs: if you have gay marriage and it is legal, how can a teacher discriminate between normal marriage and gay marriage? He has to explain both as part of the curriculum. How can a teacher explain one part of the law but not the other?
So I ask these people who think it does not hurt me: do they want their children to be taught about gay marriage?
Senator Hanson-Young: Why not?
Senator BOSWELL: That is the question—why not? You do not find it objectionable from your side of politics. My side of politics finds it abhorrent and does not want any part of it.
But that is what we have to face up to, because these things are like a salami slice. You start off thinking, 'It doesn't hurt anyone.' Then: 'Oh, little Freddy's got to go listen to why homosexual marriage has nothing wrong with it. Why is nothing wrong with it? Because it's legal. This parliament has made it legal.' I say to the people: do you want that for your children? Some of you will not object. Some will think it is a good thing. Certainly the progressive left will think it is wonderful. But I do not think they will think it wonderful in the western suburbs—the people who rely on the ALP to defend their jobs through the unions. That is why they are there. They are not there to have their kids taught about homosexual marriage versus traditional marriage. That is going to happen the very day this legislation gets in. Once you legalise something, you cannot discriminate against it. It is happening already in America, where homosexual marriage became law and the next thing in Massachusetts was the teachers teaching about homosexual marriage and traditional marriage.
I want to quote from the Australian Education Union. This is what the teachers said: 'If Australia normalises homosexual marriage, the Australian Education Union's 2006 gender identity policy would be implemented. Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and the intersexed need to be normalised. All curricula should be written in non-heterosexist language.' I suspect the Greens would not see any objection to that but I suspect the Labor people would go into meltdown, because this will be out there. This is what the teachers union have said—and why shouldn't they? If it is legal, they have to teach it. If it is legal, it has to be taught. You cannot just pick out what you want to teach and not teach.
If homosexual behaviour is legalised then schools will have to treat homosexual behaviour and marriage on the same basis as heterosexual behaviour and marriage. Parents will no longer have the right to object to these teachings. All conscientious objection to both gay marriage and the normalisation of homosexual behaviour in the school curriculum would be abolished. That is what those people who think, 'It doesn't hurt me, it doesn't cost me; if it doesn't, let's just let it go through' are opening up. Let's think a bit deeper because it is your society, your Australia that you are playing with.
I ask people, particularly from the Labor Party—and I admire the people who have had the courage to stand up over there: do you want your children to go into classrooms that give equal weight to heterosexuals and homosexuals? I do not think many of them do. There will be a few who support the Greens and think it is wonderful, but they are hugely in the minority. John Howard, whose views I admire and respect, said last year:
Changing the definition of marriage, which has lasted for time immemorial, is not an exercise in human rights and equality; it is an exercise in deauthorising the Judaeo-Christian influence in our society, and anybody who pretends otherwise is deluding themselves.
I agree with him. We are told there will be certain legislation that will respect churches and that, if they do not want to perform certain marriages, they will be excluded, but it does not take long for the antidiscrimination committee, instrumentalities, the Greens and GetUp! to start to wage a campaign.
If business or the churches object to hosting homosexual marriage or to blessing them, they will be hit. They will put up a defence, but it will only last for a certain time. They will be crushed by the anti-discrimination laws. We have already seen it happen in countries such as Denmark. The churches will have no choice but to facilitate homosexual marriage. We might push it out three years, four years or five years, but it will happen in the end. We have seen it happen with the abortion laws. You cannot walk away from them. You have to offer it or if you do not offer it then you have to find someone who will do the job. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that any church situated in a member state where same-sex marriage is legal must marry same-sex couples or be found guilty of discrimination. It will happen here.
Marriage is a social institution with a biological foundation. All society does with marriage is to reinforce this biological fact, to keep men with their mate and then help raise their children. Society merely recognises that marriage is the most important relationship in nature and works to reinforce it. It has no right to reinvent marriage. Politicians have no right to redefine marriage, only to reinforce the biological purpose of marriage. I recall when there was discrimination—when there was huge discrimination—that I had a phone call from a certain minister who said, 'We have just had a request for a gay doctor to bring his gay partner in and practice in a certain country community. We thought you would object, that you were the person most likely to object. If you let it go, it will go through.' I said, 'I could not possibly object to that, that would be discrimination.' I think it was in 2008 that Warren Entsch brought in, or agitated through the party, that all forms of discrimination be removed. There is absolutely no discrimination against gay people other than the discrimination between heterosexual and same-sex marriage. Frank Brennan, the former chair of the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, said:
I think we can ensure non-discrimination against same-sex couples while at the same time maintaining a commitment to children of future generations being born of and being reared by a father and a mother.
I want to talk about commitment now. This was a commitment given by both leaders before the last election: 'I won't have gay marriage'. Both leaders said they would not condone gay marriage. Tony Abbott has stuck to his word. He knows how important it is to many of those people out there—not only conservative people but also family people who believe in the family. They want to go fishing, they want to have a few beers and they do not want a carbon tax. They are in the Labor Party because they think the Labor Party will protect them in their job. (Time expired)
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:14): The Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 and this issue are about a universal understanding of marriage, which is about love, commitment and relationships. That should be available to everybody, not just one set of couples. We really demean marriage when we use it in this way to discriminate and act prejudicially towards some members of our community. I was quite shocked to hear Senator Bishop from my home state of Western Australia this morning say in this chamber that he has not heard much talk about this in the community. He must be mixing with a different community to the one I mix with and the one I get emails from. If there is one issue that I have had an overwhelming number of emails about, it is this issue. This is important to Western Australians. This is important when you go out and talk to community groups. I have lost count of the number of rallies that have been held in Western Australia calling for marriage equality. I have heard countless stories of couples who have been discriminated against and felt discriminated against because they cannot marry and cannot have their loved ones, their parents and their children at their marriage.
When a similar debate was brought on under the former Howard government when it moved to disallow the ACT's Civil Unions Act, I asked a simple question at the time: show me how changing this institution has been undermined in any of the states around the world where common sense has prevailed and won over prejudice and discrimination, and where in fact they do have marriage equality? Of course, no-one has been able to that and that is because it does not undermine marriage; in fact, it strengthens the concept of marriage when everybody, if they choose to, is able to avail themselves of that institution.
That was in June 2006. Six years later, the same opponents of marriage equality still rely on the same smokescreen of unsupported, vague claims and still say that the institution of marriage will be threatened by changes to allow marriage equality. They are nonsense arguments. They are out of date and do not express community sentiment. I maintain that the institution of marriage will be strengthened when everybody is able to be married.
Support for marriage equality is at a high level of 64 per cent. Many church groups are in fact recognising marriage equality. Internationally, 12 countries now have marriage equality as do eight states in the USA. We are even seeing the leaders of other nations standing up and voicing their support for marriage equality. Other nations such as New Zealand, Scotland, France and Brazil are also taking action in this area.
When I spoke all those years ago on the debate at the time, I told a story with permission of Graham and Damian Douglas-Meyer, who said at the time that they want to demonstrate their commitment to each other in the same way as their siblings had demonstrated their commitment to their respective partners, that the symbolic and ceremonial aspects of their siblings' marriages were important to their families and that they felt strongly that they wanted the same.
They held a commitment ceremony in Perth in 2004 with all of their family and friends, and had the union blessed at the time by an Anglican priest. Even though this had no legal standing, to them and their families it was their wedding ceremony. However, they actually wanted the recognition of the wider community. They told me that all their siblings were married and had a state sanctioned contract to that effect. They could not do the same in Australia; however they could in Canada because at that time the country had recently changed its laws. So they travelled to Toronto in Canada and were legally married under Canadian law. Their marriage was registered on the central register of the province of Ontario in the exact same manner as heterosexual couples. There was no difference. On returning to Australia, the marriage was not recognised and that has severely depressed them since that date. They remain married because they were married in Canada.
In Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and various states of the US couples are married because their jurisdictions recognise same-sex marriage.
In those other countries I mentioned, they may also soon be recognised. In the eyes of their families and their friends and, most importantly, in their hearts, they are married. However, in Australia they are not recognised as married. I told this story six years ago. I am very happy to report that Damian and Graham are still together and still enjoy a very loving, supportive, caring relationship—just the same as many of my heterosexual friends are married and enjoy that same relationship. The difference for my heterosexual friends is that their marriages are recognised. Graham and Damian's is not, yet their love is just as true and committed. Their support for each other is just as true and committed as that of my heterosexual married friends. Why are they being discriminated against?
Unfortunately, the MPs in both this place and the other place, I suspect, are not reflecting what the community wants and the support for marriage equality in the broader community. As I said, 64 per cent of people now support marriage equality. Unfortunately, I doubt that that is going to be reflected in this chamber. Relationships have evolved through the years and so should our legal definition of marriage. The ban on same-sex marriages sends out the message that same-sex relationships are second rate. It is used to justify discrimination against people. Discrimination on marriage sends young gay people the wrong message. It says that they are less valuable members of society and that they can hope in vain that their love can be celebrated formally in marriage. It is no wonder that gay young men and women have such a toll on the mental health. It is because as a society we are sending them a message saying they are not equal—that their relationships, their loving, caring partnerships, are not able to be celebrated like others.
Parents, family and friends are denied the joy of seeing their loved ones wed. Their children are denied the security and recognition that comes with marriage. Being able to celebrate your love for your partner in front of the people you care about and to have that love legally recognised by the state is a right that Australians expect—all Australians. Not just one section of our community but all Australians expect that. That right is being denied to same-sex couples. It is not good enough that in 2012 we are still denying people that right. Australians want marriage equality. They want people to be able to demonstrate their love and commitment to each other. This is an inevitable evolution of our laws. In the same way all laws evolve, so too must our marriage laws. Our community expects leadership from our members of parliament. Where is that leadership? It is not being shown.
I am really pleased to see that some states of Australia are starting to lead the way in modern democratic progress in our society. Our society does have changing values. They have evolved. We should be supporting changes to our marriage laws to recognise that evolution. I think that was demonstrated when Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 went to a Senate inquiry. There were 75,000 submissions recorded—the highest on record for a Senate inquiry, I believe. Surely that sends a clear message that marriage equality's time has arrived, that there is support in the community and that it is every Australian's right to choose to marry. But it is not if you are gay.
Don't worry about it if you are gay. You cannot expect that same recognition under the law.
We demean the institution of marriage by allowing it to be used as a tool of discrimination and prejudice. It demeans the very meaning of marriage to do that, because that is saying: 'Your love is not valued. Your commitment to each other is not valued. It is not as real as heterosexual couples.' It is saying that you should not have children and you should not be able to bring up children. What a load of nonsense. I cannot believe that in 2012 we are still hearing those demeaning arguments.
I have many friends are in same-sex couples who are raising children and who have raised children. I have met the most amazing young people who have been raised in same-sex relationships. They are gorgeous, loving, generous, good-natured human beings. I really get upset when I hear people imply that same-sex couples cannot and should not be raising children. That demeans the relationships of families. Apparently they are not families. Apparently, they should not be included in the definition of families. Is that what people are trying to say? That is outrageous.
The Greens have brought bills into this place around marriage equality four times, I think, now. Each time, unfortunately, we have not seen the support for same-sex couples and marriage equality that is in our community reflected in this place. It is time that we moved on. It is time that we had marriage equality in this country so that every member of our community feels valued in their relationships and have their relationships recognised under the law.
While I hope this bill gets through, I suspect the numbers are agin us. But we will not stop to bring marriage equality to this country. It is time that this place supported what the community wants: marriage equality. It has said it time and time again. Nobody is going to stop fighting for marriage equality until it is achieved. Otherwise, you are denying every member of this community the right to be married; denying them the right to say 'I love you' in front of their community, their friends and their relatives; and denying them the right to enjoy the same as rights as heterosexual couples in this country.
Why is it that we deny one group of people that right? Other countries around the world have recognised it and—do you know what?—those societies have not fallen apart, families have not fallen apart—in fact, I reckon you have brighter, happier communities, because you do not have that section of your community being discriminated against, that is being told, 'You are second rate'. You have a place where young people can grow up knowing that they can marry the person they choose to, regardless of their sex. If we are really a fair, tolerant, caring, democratic country, we will allow that to occur, because that is what the community wants. That is what the people who have emailed me, come to my office, spoken to me in the street and spoken to me at rallies want. They want to be able to marry the person they love. What is so wrong with that and why should we be judging them? Why?
An honourable senator: Homophobia.
Senator SIEWERT: Exactly. Is it because they are homophobic? Yes, it is. Get over it—because the broader Australian community has got over it. Allow people to marry who the love—to show that love and commitment to the rest of Australia, to their family and to their friends—and do not make them have to go overseas to do it and then not recognise their marriage when they come back. Treat them equally. All we are asking for is to treat same-sex couples equally. That is why it is called marriage equality.
We will be supporting this bill because it is what Australians want and, in particular, because it is the right thing to do, so that the very important institution of marriage does not discriminate, does not judge, does not show prejudice against one section of our community. I will certainly be supporting this bill. I believe that our older political parties also need to be showing that leadership and supporting this bill.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:31): I move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:31): The government comes in here seeking to deal with a bill on an urgent basis but does not give any reasons in support of its motion. What this government has done is indicative of the shambolic way that it treats every major policy issue and indeed minor policy issue that comes before it.
Only today a week ago, the science on matters relating to a fishing trawler that is to operate in Australian waters was 'robust' and was to be supported. Indeed, we had Minister Ludwig in this place fully supporting the science. But 24 hours later somehow the science had changed. It was the political science that had changed: the Greens had insisted on this legislation.
And make no mistake: the legislation that was introduced was exactly what the Green-Labor alliance would have wanted to inflict on the Australian people if they had had the opportunity. But, due to the coalition's opposition to that bill, it became apparent that this was such a big and wide a net that it would have put the Margiris's to shame. What they tried to do in casting their big net was to include every recreational fishery, every charter fishery and every commercial fishery. What the legislation said was that if the minister felt 'uncertainty' on social, environment or economic grounds he could shut a fishery for two years. What do you think that did overnight to the value of fishing licences? It absolutely decimated them. What do you think that did to the future of charter fishing in Australia waters? It decimated their value. And, of course, for those reliant on the recreational fishery, it also placed their businesses under great, great uncertainty.
But for the coalition's opposition to this legislation, those factors would not have been aired in the other place. So reduced was this shambolic government that they had to rely on the member for Dobell—the one of fishnets fame as opposed to fishing fame—Mr Craig Thomson, to move an amendment. That is how reduced the ALP-Green alliance has become.
Then they realised they had other problems, and so they had to move even more amendments. Do you know what? This is what this government does with every piece of legislation. Remember how they introduced the carbon tax? It was rock solid; it was going to stay. Now, they have been changing it, haven't they, bit by bit because they would not listen to the coalition.
This bill, which was introduced into the House less than a week ago, all of a sudden has great urgency. It has to be passed as a matter of urgency. I simply ask the question: why—when the two ministers concerned only a week ago were still arguing and advocating that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act was sufficient to look after the interests of our fishing stocks. So what changed? What was the issue that concerns the Labor Party? What it clearly is is a sign of a desperate government seeking to cling to any populist policy to try to regain support within the Australian community.
This legislation sets a very dangerous precedent and the reason that I want to air that precedent is that, if the government can do it to Seafish Tasmania, it can do it to anybody. Let me give you an example: you want to build a house. You approach the local council and say, 'Can I build a house on this block of land?' They say yes, so you go and buy the block of land. You buy all the building materials and then just on the day you are about to dig the first bit of the foundation, the council says, 'Guess what? We've changed the rules: you can no longer build your house.' Having committed your money to a block of land and all the building materials, and just as you were about to really start the project, the council says, 'Sorry; we've shifted the goalposts.'
This is exactly what the government has done to Seafish Tasmania. Indeed, it was no less than the minister for the environment, Mr Burke, who, whilst he was minister for fisheries signed off on the Commonwealth harvest strategy that specifically suggested that there be a trawler of this nature in the Australian waters to economically harvest this particular fishery. It was he who signed off on it. He was on TV over the weekend saying, 'Look, I didn't actually sign off on it.'
I used to be a fisheries minister. I know about the Commonwealth harvest strategy and I know that briefs go across your desk about these matters each and every day. He could have stopped this in 2009 if he had any uncertainty about the social, economic or environmental consequences. In 2009 he did not have any problems. He did not have any problems Monday last week. So when did the uncertainty finally hit him? Having been briefed by his department, having been given all the details, where has this uncertainty been created for this minister?
Senator Bernardi: Q&A.
Senator ABETZ: Senator Bernardi interjects: undoubtedly, the uncertainty arose on Q&A. One wonders where. In this debate about this particular fishing venture, I note that we have had a senator whose great intellectual input has been: 'I don't care about the science. I don't care about the economics; I'm just against it.' With great respect, how do you engage in public policy if you say to people, 'I'm not interested in the science. I'm not interested in the economics; I’m just against it'? You cannot really have a rational debate on that score.
And, of course, it was a Greens senator that said that. So when the minister in this Greens-ALP alliance is confronted with a Greens senator saying, 'I don't want to argue the science with you; I don't want to argue the economics with you,' the reason he could not argue is because there was no scientific or economic argument in his quiver to shoot in this debate. He had to say, 'It's the vibe; it was the heart flutters.' It was undoubtedly that which convinced him. Armed with that great intellectual argument he went to the minister, no doubt, and said, 'Please make a change.' As compliant as they are, this Greens-ALP government, they will always do that which the Greens insist upon.
Let us make no mistake: every single person who wants to invest in Australia or who is concerned about making a contribution to the growing wealth of our country will have to think twice under this Greens-ALP alliance because they have a fisheries minister who is signing off on a strategy to which you say, 'That's a good idea; I might adopt that—I'll invest on that basis.' Then that same minister, under a little bit of pressure from the Greens, says, 'Right, I know you've made all these investments; I know you've employed 45 unemployed people; we are now going to change the rules on you.' The reason: 'I feel uncertain about the science,' or 'I feel uncertain about the social implications,' or 'I feel uncertain about the environmental implications.' Excuse me, but should a minister not be required to provide some robust material which tells us why this minister has this uncertainty? Now the minister can just say, 'I'm sorry, I'm uncertain.'
Senator Payne: Socially uncertain!
Senator BERNARDI: Yes, Senator Payne, socially uncertain—that is all that is required. On what basis would anybody seek to make an investment in our country with this sort of shambolic government? You saw what they did with pink batts; you saw what they did with cash for clunkers; you saw what they did with solar panels; you saw what they did with green loans; and just when you think, 'Surely they can't have another muck-up of this nature'—oh yes, they can! They had the live cattle export issue, didn't they, where they changed the rules overnight. Instead of just providing holding pens and stun-guns for those particular abattoirs in Indonesia they cancelled the trade overnight and they have a $30 million-liability which the taxpayer will have to fund, not the Greens senators or the Labor ministers that made the change. It is the Australian taxpayer that has to fund the shambolic decisions of this government. Not having learnt from the live cattle export trade we are now having a repeat, yet again, in the fishing sector.
We can argue about whether or not you support the trawler; that is one issue. But there is a fundamental principle here and a fundamental precedent that we need to be very, very careful of. That is the precedent of a government luring somebody to Australia in partnership with an Australian company to harvest a particular fishery—according to everything that is required of them by government—only to change the rules at one minute to midnight just before the net is about to touch the water. That is not the way you do government in this country. This is not the way you administer good public policy—unless, of course, you are in the Greens-ALP alliance.
This has sent shock waves through every business that wants to invest in Australia. It is sending shock waves through Australian businesses that want to reinvest in Australia. Indeed, just recently I was at a mining conference where, on the back of the shambolic mining tax of this government, it was reported that due to Greens-ALP alliance policies on that tax Mozambique has less sovereign risk attached to its mining industry today than Australia. I trust those Greens-ALP senators are proud of that sort of record. That is what they have done: they have trashed our country's reputation.
We as a coalition are putting a stake in the ground here, saying: 'This is where we stand on these issues. It is for people to be able to understand that if we make a promise, if we give somebody an assurance that they can invest if they abide by certain rules and principles, we will allow them to go ahead.' But of course, when you do not have a moral compass, when you do not have a policy compass to guide you, you can go to the people six days before an election and say, 'There will be no carbon tax.' Remember the open hands which show honesty and integrity, and Ms Gillard on TV saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? Well, if you are willing to go back on such a fundamental promise, I suppose we should not be surprised that Ms Gillard and her government and the Green alliance partners pushing it are willing to go back on their promise, on their undertaking, on their assurance on this particular venture: that they should be allowed to fish in Australian waters. They held out the law, they held out the Commonwealth harvest strategy—that what you need is a big freezer vessel. That is what a company, a consortium, did, only to have this government now stop it.
The question is: why do we need to debate this today, immediately? What is the utter urgency here? None has been made out other than they want to stop this particular venture in the circumstances that I have already outlined. That sends, quite rightly, terrible shock waves through the investment community. You might ask: why should we be concerned about the investment community? I will tell you why. The investment community in Australia through this particular venture had employed 45 people to work on that vessel. Today, courtesy of the Green-ALP alliance, they are back on the dole queue in, as it happens, my home state of Tasmania. The only thing that Tasmania is on the leagues table with is the unemployment rate. We saw 100 jobs lost on King Island just recently in an abattoir; we saw 100 or more jobs lost in the fresh vegetable sector. There was a glimmer of hope on the horizon, a new venture and new jobs whilst sustainably harvesting our natural resources, only for it to be struck by this government.
I say especially to the Australian Greens: they now have a history of devastating the Tasmanian economy. I remember they started off with being opposed to a hydro dam and, at the time when they opposed the hydro-dam, do you know what they said on the front page of the local paper? Sure, it was some 30 years ago, but they said: 'A better alternative would be'—wait for it—'a coal-fired power station.' That was none other than that great environmentalist, Bob Brown. Why do the media not throw that back at him as an example from 30 years ago and as an example of the consequences of green policy? I might I add, because of that consequence, Tasmania now imports brown coal fired electricity into Tasmania. It is doing wonders for the economy! After that, they moved onto forestry and they virtually destroyed that, courtesy of a Green-Labor alliance government, not only in Canberra but also in Hobart. Part of the Green campaign is to spike the markets of timber companies in Tasmania who seek to market their products around the world. And do you know what they did through their policy? Ensured that Ta Ann in Tasmania could not sell their regrowth and plantation timber product to the London Olympics. It was boycotted because of the green issues surrounding it. Do you know who backfilled that? The Indonesian timber companies that are dropping rainforests at three million hectares per annum without any proper forestry plan. That is another example of the perverse outcome of green policy: you have regrowth plantation timber being displaced by virgin rainforest timber that will never be replanted in Indonesia.
So you can move on to this particular issue where this particular trawler will be harnessing the fruits of the ocean for a fish which is not very acceptable to the Australian palate but a vital source of fish protein to the people of Africa. That is going to be the destination of this product which will be harvested sustainably, according to world's best practice. Anybody else who wants to partake in this debate, I simply ask them the question, as I continually do about Tasmanian forestry: where do they forestry better than they do it in Tasmania and we will learn. The Greens have never told us who does forestry better than they do it in Tasmania. Why? Because they cannot.
Similarly, in relation to the Commonwealth harvest strategy for fisheries and the setting of our total allowable catches, as conservative as they are, I ask: is there any other country in the world that has such an exacting regime? Indeed, the vessel will have Australian fishery management authority personnel on it. There will be cameras monitoring the net as it is brought up so that anything untoward can be reported immediately. This is what we are talking about: very good, robust science and very good, robust economics, with a good social outcome with this fish product going to the people of Africa who need a cheap source of fish protein. And for cheap political purposes not only are those opposite going to stymie that social good they are also going to stymie the investment climate in Australia, and that is why the coalition is opposed to this motion.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (12:51): I too would like to add a few comments to the motion moved by Senator Collins. Just to follow on from the comments that were just made by my colleague Senator Abetz in respect of green policy and its impact on my home state of Tasmania in particular, I think as we start this discussion that it is very interesting to look at the comments on the Greens website on economic development in my home state of Tasmania. I note the front page of my local paper today says that the North West Coast of Tasmania is losing 50 jobs a week. That is the impact of this disastrous Labor-Greens government in my home state of Tasmania. Tim Morris, the Treasury spokesman for the Greens, talks about de-industrialisation—so code for closing down business. That is what de-industrialisation means. He talks about demographic change as opposed to growth—in other words, they do not want any growth in Tasmania. I would have to say on the back of Senator Abetz's comments that the Greens are doing a pretty good job. There are 50 jobs a week going down the drain on the North West Coast of Tasmania, where I live.
The Greens policies are actually working. They are de-industrialising my region of Tasmania. They are causing demographic change as opposed to growth. In fact, they are shrinking the economy in Australia. No wonder Tasmania is so reliant on revenues from the Commonwealth when the Greens, as cabinet ministers, are being given the imprimatur by the Labor Party—who is so weak in Tasmania that it cannot even fill a cabinet itself—to shrink the economy. That is effectively what is happening in Tasmania. And then, as Senator Abetz said, there is suddenly an urgent issue that the government wants to bring before the parliament today in relation to a change to the EPBC Act. What a complete and utter shambles this process has been right from the start.
I had a briefing with the minister's office last week, after the legislation was introduced. The minister's office, and Minister Ludwig's office, told us that this was prospective legislation and that it would have no effect on anyone who was currently operating in the industry—that it was all about new entrants to the fishing industry.
On reading the legislation, it was immediately obvious that it applied to everybody in the fishing industry. It did not matter whether you were a recreational fisher, it did not matter whether you were a charter boat operator, it did not matter whether you were a commercial fisher or whether you were involved in the aquaculture sector—everybody in the fishing industry from commercial right through to recreational was impacted by this piece of legislation. I wonder whether the minister had even read it? And if he had, did he comprehend it? Because the effect of the legislation was not as he said in his press conference, and it was not as briefed to the coalition by Minister Ludwig's office and the two respective departments. We were given a very different message to the one that was given publicly.
It comes back to the matter of trust that we have talked about on a number of occasions. Senator Abetz quite rightly reminds us that six days before the last election the Prime Minister said: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', and then went on to legislate for that. Minister Burke and Minister Ludwig said: 'This will only impact on this one vessel', and yet when the legislation is introduced into the House, it impacts on everybody.
There are a range of perspectives and a range of views around the supertrawler, but this has gone way beyond that. This now comes to a matter of ministerial competence. Quite frankly, this minister, Minister Burke in particular, is incompetent. There is no question about that.
We asked the minister's office to tell us what the minister had done to allay the concerns that he had about the current circumstance, particularly the social uncertainties that he was talking about in his press conference. We were greeted with a very blank look. So to help them out I asked: 'Has the minister spoken to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation?' That is a government and industry funded organisation that conducts research around our fishing industry—around sustainability, around all of the issues of bycatch, and around the issues of marine-mammal interaction which, we are told, is now Minister Burke's major concern. I asked if he had spoken to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation to allay his concerns? I am quite happy to accept that he may have had some concerns. That is quite understandable. But he also has a responsibility to inform himself on the issues around those concerns.
The advice to me was that he had not spoken to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. That is quite astounding. He was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry between 2007 and 2010. He would be well aware of their expertise, yet made no effort to talk to them.
I then asked if he had spoken to the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania? That institute has some world-renowned experts in the management of this fishery. In fact, one of their specialists had just spent two weeks lecturing at the United Nations FAO Committee on Fisheries about managing these fisheries—an acceptance of Australia's position of knowledge and world's best practice. An American company that is one of the largest seafood purchasers in the world has just contracted the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies to do some research. They have come to the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and said: 'We recognise your expertise. We know how good you are; your reputation is very strong. Will you do some research for us?' And they have contracted $900,000 worth of research from this organisation.
So did Minister Burke talk to the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies? No. So what did the minister do to inform himself? What did he do to relieve himself of the uncertainties and the concerns he had about marine-mammal interactions—something that he now calls bycatch? No-one else in the industry calls it bycatch, but Minister Burke has redefined the term bycatch from what it actually means—and what the fishing industry means by it—to something else. But what did he do?
He spoke to the department. The only thing that Minister Burke did to allay his concerns was to talk to the department. I think that is a complete failure of ministerial responsibility. It would be quite easy for him as minister to and ring the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and have a conversation. It would be quite easy for him to ring the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and have a conversation to allay his concerns. He could have rung SARDI in South Australia, another very, very fine organisation that looks after fisheries management in this country. But absolutely no effort was made. Why would he do that? If you do not know then you have a case to run. If you have not made any attempt to inform yourself then you can go out there and say, 'I'm uncertain,' because he was, but he had made absolutely no effort to find out what was going on.
We come back to the legislation that is now so important. After discovering it was all-encompassing—because the opposition found that it was, rather than just doing what the minister portrayed it as when he did a press conference last Tuesday, and it picked up the commercial, the recreational, the charter boat operators and the aquaculture sector who, I have to say, have real cause to be concerned given the Greens attacks on the aquaculture sector in Australia as they do not want to see it expanded and it is part of their rationale around de-industrialisation—what did he do? The first thing was to go to Craig Thomson and give him an amendment which seeks to take out from the bill recreational fishers. Unfortunately the government's lack of understanding of the recreational fishing sector means that they only half did the job, because charter boat operators are regarded as commercial operators and therefore the question was: when is a recreational fisher not a recreational fisher? When they are fishing on a charter boat. They stuffed up the first attempt at amending this bill to take out what they said was not there in the first place.
Then they came back with another amendment to define recreational fishing. It is another process and another demonstration of the failure of this minister and his incompetence in dealing with this matter. Then there is the concern of the broader community, including the recreational fishers who were worried about the first amendment and put out a press release asking why legislation was brought in that included them when the government had said it would not. There was another failure in interacting with the recreational sector. Why anybody would trust this minister, I really do not know. He told them he would not include them, yet he did. They had to put out a press release to say, 'Take us out,' before he reacted.
Then we come to the issue of social uncertainty. What does that actually mean? We asked the minister's office in the briefing what 'social uncertainty' meant, but they could not provide us with a definition. They did not know what it meant. Is social uncertainty something in the minister's mind? But we are here preparing to take away the activity of a business which has done everything that the government asked of it plus some, on the basis of social uncertainty. We still do not have a definition, and are not likely to get one, because it has been removed from the legislation. That is the process the government has undertaken.
Then we have the issues around the rest of the commercial fishing industry and aquaculture, and their existing activities which were also subject to the legislation. All of those issues remain. We have yet another amendment that came into the House of Representative to try and sort that problem out. It sorts out the issues for anyone in an existing activity, but anyone who wants to change their activities—for example, someone who might want to put a new net into the water, a new dolphin excluder onto their net—is now subject to this legislation. Senator Abetz commented about bank managers asking what statutory fishing rights were worth. That uncertainty remains under this legislation. In a demonstration of how bad this legislation is, they then came in with the sunset clause—'We'll kill it off after 12 months'. That's how bad this legislation is, and yet they want to rush it through the chamber today; it is urgent that it be brought on today. There is demonstration of their failure in the development of this legislation and of their failure in the consultation around this legislation from talking to the recreational sector, one of the sectors that had real concerns about this legislation, which said it was not consulted in the development of the bill. Yet now there is a huge rush and it has to be done urgently.
All of the failures of this government throughout this process, many of which have been canvassed in the debate on this bill and previously through the development of the management systems around the fisheries which I am sure will be canvassed during the debate as the bill comes on, have been shown and yet this is still an urgent piece of legislation. That is despite the recognised position of Australia's fisheries management. The other thing that really concerns me about this rush to legislate is that it actually significantly undermines confidence in Australia's fisheries management. Minister Burke appointed the AFMA commission directors; they are his appointments. Michael Egan, the former New South Wales Treasurer, who is chair of AFMA—
Senator Fifield: I wondered where he'd got to.
Senator COLBECK: These former treasurers turn up in strange places. Michael Egan was appointed by Minister Burke. He appointed the AFMA commission that is overseeing this entire process.
So is Minister Burke, in his rush to push this legislation through the parliament, expressing no confidence in his appointments on the AFMA commission? Perhaps.
Senator Collins might like to answer that question later on as to whether he was expressing no confidence, because Minister Burke tabled the management plan for the small pelagic fishery in this parliament. That plan incorporates the harbour strategy, which says that a large-scale freezer vessel may very well be the way to deal with this. Minister Burke's denials of his knowledge of or involvement in this process are completely unbelievable. He has absolutely no credibility in this debate, and this debate is now urgent and must be brought on because of his uncertainty, which he has made absolutely no effort to deal with. We now have to suspend debate on all other matters to bring this on.
It also trashes the reputation of our fisheries management system, which is globally benchmarked, as I have said in this place before, as the second best in the world for sustainability behind Germany. I do not think Germany is a huge fishing nation—needless to say, we give them credit for being there at the top of the tree—but we are at No. 2 on sustainability. That is what this argument is all about. Minister Burke, now the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities after presiding over the introduction of all the management systems as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, is now talking about his uncertainty about those systems. I wonder whether Minister Burke has any confidence in his own decisions. That is probably the key question: are Minister Burke's actions now in trying to rush this piece of legislation through the parliament a motion of no-confidence in himself? I think that is probably correct.
Senator Fifield: It'll get up, I think.
Senator COLBECK: I will take your interjection, Senator Fifield. I think Minister Burke's motion of no-confidence in himself will be passed. It was passed in the House of Representatives last week. The best thing this minister could do is resign, because he is a complete and utter failure. He claims no knowledge of decisions that were made during his time as fisheries minister—
Senator Bernardi: He's like Sergeant Schultz.
Senator COLBECK: I think that is an insult to Sergeant Schultz, Senator Bernardi. I think Minister Burke's activities and actions go way beyond Sergeant Schultz. I think that is an insult to Sergeant Schultz. I have a bit of time for a Sergeant Schultz, Senator Bernardi, much more than I have for the minister.
In fact, at the last election we saw this minister, after three years in the agriculture portfolio, did not even bring down an agriculture policy. A 1½-page statement was all he could manage. What a legacy! A legacy of failure! We often wondered what he did, and he is now wondering what he did, because he does not know. He has no recollection of his own actions, he has no recollection of the work that he did in conjunction with his fisheries department during the time he was in the ministerial chair, and he now wants to rush through this parliament a piece of legislation which is effectively a vote of no-confidence in his own decisions. I do not see why the opposition should support that.
Obviously, the legislation can come on in due course—that is fine—but why should we trash the reputation of the AFMA commissioners that he appointed to administer management systems that he put in place as fisheries minister, and at the same time trash the reputations of our world-leading fisheries management scientists? That is part of the process we are being asked to deal with here today, because it is now urgent. The minister says it is now urgent. I have to say that the only thing I think we can take out of this is that the minister is pushing for, and looks to succeed in passing, a motion of no-confidence in his own actions as fisheries minister.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stephens ): Minister Collins.
Senator Bernardi interjecting—
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (13:11): No, Senator Bernardi, I have not gagged any debate on this occasion. I am seeking to make some comments in closing.
Senator Abetz: After 125 I suppose you need some respite.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I have not been counting. Far from this being a motion of no confidence—and I remind Senator Abetz, as I interjected at the time—the statement of reasons for urgency was tabled when I gave notice of this motion last Thursday. I notice very little reference was made to the points made in that statement, so let me reiterate some of them.
There is significant community concern about the impact on Commonwealth fisheries of new fishing activities that are of a size and scale greater than have previously occurred in Australian waters. Further, there is not currently a general power available under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to suspend such new, large-scale operations from fishing pending—and I stress 'pending'—further scientific assessment by an expert panel.
An example of such a new, large-scale fishing operation is the FV Abel Tasman, which is about to commence fishing in the small pelagic fishery. Urgent passage of this bill will grant the minister power to suspend declared commercial fishing activities while an independent assessment is undertaken of the potential impacts of the new activity by an expert panel.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [13:18]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
BILLS
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012
Consideration of House of Representatives Message
Message has been received from the House of Representatives forwarding the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 for concurrence.
First Reading
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (13:21): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (13:22): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave not granted.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I table the document.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:22): The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 we are discussing today should be a concern to all Australians because of the very dangerous precedent that it sets. What is more, whilst I have not seen the minister's new second reading speech, you can bet your bottom dollar it is substantially different to the one that he gave to the House less than seven days ago on 11 September 2012. Make no mistake, this is a minister who claims no knowledge of the Commonwealth harvest strategy, which enticed a trawler to Australia for business purposes. Minister Burke was the minister who tabled a Commonwealth harvest strategy in both houses of parliament which included these important words:
there are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels—
These are the words of Minister Burke's own harvest strategy. That was in 2009. On 3 September this year, exactly a fortnight ago, Minister Burke accredited the relevant fishery under part 13 of the act for an interim two-week period and subject to conditions. On 10 September, a week later, the science was still robust.
On 11 September, we got a piece of legislation and, in the minister's second reading, we were told a number of things, and I seek to go through those because what it shows and highlights is the complete duplicity and dishonesty of this government and its shambolic approach to public policy. There he was in 2009 advocating a large-scale factory freezer vessel, and indeed 'vessels' plural, in the strategy—he was contemplating not only one such vessel but a multiplicity of such vessels.
On 11 September in his second reading speech, he talks about concern of a new style of large-scale fishing operation in Australia. Funny that. I wonder who made the suggestion of a large-scale fishing operation? It was the minister's own harvest strategy. And it is that big that we should all be concerned that the government's own Australian Fisheries Management Authority website stresses that the net to be used by this fishing vessel is by no means the largest that will be operating in Australia. If this is a new style of large-scale fishing, can the minister explain to us the bigger nets that are being used as we speak? Are they old? How can a new style of large-scale fishing be smaller than that which already exists? Oh what a tangled webs we weave when we set out to deceive.
Let us think of the background of this minister. Where did he cut his teeth politically? The Wilderness Society. Make no mistake as to what his antecedents are and that is why when he saw community concern against a big trawler he immediately said, 'Here's the opportunity in conjunction with our Greens alliance partners to get into every particular fishery that we can.' That is why on 11 September, just last week, he introduced legislation to deal with recreational, charter and commercial fisheries of our country, on the basis that if he felt a social uncertainty about the particular fishery he could ban it for two years. That was his agenda. That was the Greens agenda. This is the minister who says, 'I didn't sign off on the Commonwealth harvest strategy which invited these larger trawlers into Australia.' Oh, yes he did. He must have known or he was so incompetent that he does not deserve the big white car that he is driven around in let alone the ministerial stipend that he receives? Then he talked about the nature of this vessel. If this is a one-off, why did he want 'vessels' plural in his harvest strategy?
In that speech he gave on 11 September, he specifically said:
The amendments propose to incorporate—
and—
The provisions would only be activated if … there is uncertainty about the environmental, social or economic impacts of the identified fishing activity and that further assessment is required.
Is the minister denying that this was his second reading speech? Is the minister going to say the same as he did about the harvest strategy, that he had no knowledge of it, that he has no understanding of his ministerial portfolio? The government have come into this place today with a completely different second reading speech where social and economic impacts dealing with uncertainties the minister might have have been scrubbed out of the legislation.
So what does the minister claim? What does he know about his portfolio? What does he actually lay claim to? He dismisses the harvest strategy, he dismisses this speech which he gave to the parliament fewer than seven days ago, and now, on the back of the member for Dobell, Craig Thomson of Health Services Union fame, moving amendments for the government, the bill has been mucked up even further and requires further amendments. This is shambolic, written with capital letters. I am sure that one of these days the dictionary definition of Burke will be 'shambolic', because this is how he has gone about his ministerial duties.
The amazing thing about his second reading speech of 11 September—as is the wont of all those that cut their teeth in the Green movement; you have to clothe your deceit in morality—is that he finished by saying about that which he was proposing about the environmental, social and economic impacts that, if there were any uncertainty, he had to stop the fishery for two years. Do you know what his last few words were? They were, 'It is the only decent option.' Well, here we are, fewer than seven days later, and it is no longer the only decent option. He has ripped up two-thirds of that which he claimed was the only decent option. So much for morality. So much for the decency. So much for the options that were available.
But, of course, this is the same government that goes to the people six days before an election and says, 'There will be no carbon tax' and then, at the behest of the Greens and the green agitators within the ALP, imposes a carbon tax on the Australian people. This is the government that will also react to anything that it thinks is populous because it is so desperate to try to regain some traction with the Australian electorate. Sure, on this one, it may have tried to jump onto a populous issue. Remember, that is exactly what it did with the live cattle exports. Remember that? On the back of a TV program, it banned it overnight. And, slowly but surely, the policy unravelled. The Australian taxpayer is now facing a minimum of $30 million in compensation, and the sad thing is that when you have this shambolic public administration by Greens senators and hapless government ministers, it is not the Greens senators and the Labor ministers that pay the compensation bill—it is the Australian taxpayer.
As I said previously, when a government pulls the rug out from investors in circumstances where a harvest strategy three years earlier had invited a consortium to invest in a large-scale freezer vessel, when it tells them everything is okay and everything gets signed off, and then at one minute to midnight it cancels or moves the goalposts, it should send a shudder down everybody's back. If the government will do that to a fishery, why not to agriculture and mining? Indeed, the analogy I used before was: what is the difference between a local council saying to a person, 'You can build a house on this block of land', the person going out and buying the block of land and all the building materials, and, just when they are about to put the mattock into the ground to dig the foundations, the council saying, 'Sorry, we've changed our minds; you can no longer build'? Do you think that person would feel aggrieved? Absolutely. Would that person seek to sue for the cost of the block of land and all the building materials? Of course they would. Similarly, I have no doubt that this legislation will lead the government to a situation—like the live cattle exports—of huge compensation bills.
Why is this legislation being rushed through? It is because the government wants cheap popularity. I say to the recreational fishers and I say to the charter fishers: you know what this government's agenda is. Their real agenda was exposed in the original legislation. And it was not only a technical defect, because the minister specifically referred to it in his second reading speech. He said that the only decent option was to ensure that he had the power to stop a fishery on social, environmental and economic grounds if he, as minister, felt that there was any uncertainty. If they can do it now to the commercial fisheries, we know what they want to do. They want to have this across the totality of the fisheries and, as is the wont with the Greens, they will start and will slowly, slowly move across.
I say to the recreational fishing community, especially in my home state of Tasmania: see what they did to the forest industry—slowly, slowly. It was old growth forest, then it was regrowth forest and then it was plantations. And what are the Greens doing in Tasmania? They are campaigning against wild sea fisheries and the aquaculture industry. They celebrate when, through government manoeuvres, you cannot expand a fish farm in Tasmania. They are against the wild fisheries and against fish farming. That is unfortunately the result of a Greens-Labor alliance government, where the Labor Party, whilst being the majority in number, is the minority when it comes to backbone, when it comes to integrity and when it comes to sticking by their core consistency.
Make no mistake, if this legislation gets passed, 45 people who were unemployed and then got a job will, today, as a result of this legislation, which is predicted to go through this place, be unemployed again. That is the human face of this Greens-Labor alliance government. What is more, the science has been gone through. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority was appointed by this government and relies on the science of all the scientific bodies that deal in this area—be it the CSIRO, be it TAFI, be it the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation—that agree that the science is right.
All of them agree that this fishing should be able to take place. Indeed, the minister himself signed off in 2009 about the Commonwealth harvest strategy in this area.
But this product will actually be used for the feeding of Africans with fish protein. If we do not harvest it for them, on the sustainable and very modest basis that we will, who is going to provide them with cost-effective fish protein? I know who. It will be the countries that do not have proper harvest strategies. It will be countries that do not have the sorts of total allowable catches that we do; strategies and total allowable catches that are celebrated worldwide, because they are seen as the best strategies for a country with a substantial coastline. I understand from Senator Colbeck that, yes, Germany might be seen as different, but they are not exactly—with respect to the country of my birth—a fishing nation; they may have been somewhere in the dim, distant past but they are not at the moment. We are celebrated as the real trendsetters in strategies in total allowable catches—being exceptionally conservative.
In relation to this particular issue, the science is there. The government asked for large freezer vessels—and I stress 'vessels' plural not singular—and the government is now, at the last minute with their Greens alliance partners, passing special legislation to stop it. There will be a compensation bill. The losers will be the Australian taxpayers, funding that compensation bill. The losers will be the people who no longer have a job, courtesy of this. The losers will be the total Australian economy, because those who invest in Australia know that you cannot rely on this government.
This is a government that promises one thing, like no carbon tax, and then delivers the opposite. This is a government that announces cash for clunkers before an election so the motor vehicle industry gears up for it, but straight after the election they junk the policy. This is a government that is shambolic. This is a government that reacts on a knee-jerk basis. We had ministers standing in this House less than eight days ago claiming the science was robust and defendable. Now they are trashing their own appointed Australian Fisheries Management Authority. They are trashing the reputation of world renowned fisheries experts from all around Australia. All these people are having their reputations trashed, and we are having urgent legislation put in to stop one particular vessel with one particular quota.
Can I say, there will also be other losers in this: those fishing families that have leased or sold their licences to this particular company. Some people do not like the idea of big fishing ventures. Well, it is like one farmer buying the farm next door or leasing the property next door. It happens every day in Australia, and we should not be concerned about it. What we should be concerned about is the populism of people wanting to see this trawler stopped. The strategy was put in place years before; people were invited and required to jump through all sorts of hoops so that they could get all the required licences, which they did; and then the government says: 'Well, we can't attack you on the science. We can't attack you on the economics. But the Greens want us to oppose this; therefore, we will.' That sends a message to every single person who might seek to invest and create wealth in our country.
This is an important job security issue for 50 people in my home state of Tasmania, where jobs are being shed by about 100 or more every single week. The Greens-ALP alliance seeks to snuff out the one glimmer of hope on their horizon with an opportunistic populism.
Can I simply say to those recreational fishermen who are concerned about the coalition stance: be careful, because the precedent has been set. The minister can, and this government will, move on you if they think they can get away with it. That is why you were included in the first draft of the bill and that is why we oppose the bill—(Time expired)
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:43): We heard the scare campaign there at the end of Senator Abetz's speech: 'We are coming for you next, Recreational Fishers!' which is really a slap in the face for those recreational fishers who have run a very strong campaign. They are very rightly concerned about the impact that this supertrawler will have on the marine environment and on fish stocks. We have seen globally the impact that supertrawlers have had on our marine environment and that is why people are so worried about the impact that these supertrawlers will have on the Australian marine environment.
I have said in this place many times that Australia can be proud of its approach to fisheries management. But I have never said it is perfect. In fact I have been very clear to say that it is not perfect, because we have significant problems with sustainable management of fisheries in this country. In my home state of Western Australia you do not need to look any further than the rock lobster fishery which has gone through some very difficult times because we do not know all the science. When we were talking a decade ago about sustainable management of fisheries, we were told we knew everything about it. Well, we did not know everything about it, because now we have seen a significant crash in the stocks of that fishery, with some significant social and economic impacts. So nobody can say that we are perfect in this country. Yes, we are leading the world, but we are not perfect.
One of the reasons that we are doing so well is that we do not have and have not had supertrawlers in our fisheries. We have not been subjected to those fishing practices carried out by supertrawlers, as has been the case in European fisheries and in other fisheries. This very supertrawler has been operating off the west coast of Africa, to the point where it got banned, for example, from Senegal—the very continent that it is claimed that this supertrawler is going to sell fish back to. They have been in there fishing those waters, taking fishing out of those waters, and basically saying, 'That's okay; we'll sell them somewhere else and we'll make a profit out of that and then we'll go and fish in Australian waters and flog them back to you at a much higher price than you can fish those waters yourselves.' That is not learning from the mistakes of the past.
Yes, the Greens are pleased that we are seeing a bill to deal with this, because it has been mishandled, because mistakes have been made in the past, and because we do not know the science. Those opposite can claim all they like about having known the science and that all these fisheries scientists said that this was a well-managed fishery or the quota was sustainable. People will remember that just over three weeks ago we had a debate about the disallowance of the quota—and we voted a week ago—where we Greens clearly pointed out that the science was not there for doubling the quote and we raised very serious concerns about the process. And guess what? In fact, there are serious concerns about the quota and we are now hearing that the science is not there. Fortunately the government has discovered it in time and is acting—at, I will agree, one minute to midnight; but at least the government is acting—to ensure that this supertrawler cannot operate in the rapacious manner that it planned to in our Australian marine environment.
It has been made to sound as if all the marine scientists all agreed that the science was in to show the quota was okay, when in fact that is not the case. For example, Jessica Meeuwig, of the Oceans Institute at the University of Western Australia was very clearly saying that there were concerns there—and she is not the only one. The science on the fish stocks, the ecosystem function and the bycatch was not there. We need recent data, not old data. We need regional and species specific data. We need that data over a period of time—for at least two years, the scientists say. We need movement studies. We need to understand the role of the target species in the ecosystems and to understand the dynamics of those ecosystems—and we need new data, not old data. And that is just on the fish stocks.
Then of course we need the data on the bycatch species. We need robust data on those bycatch species. We need expert advice around those species that are going to be taken as bycatch—for example, the mammals. We need expert advice on their migration, on how effective mid-water trawl nets are and how they affect and interact with bycatch. We need to understand the comprehensive population dynamics and assess that. And we need to be looking not only at mammals but also at seabirds. The seabird management plans that have been put in place have not been proven yet. So we were about to sign off on this trawler when we did not know any of that—none of it.
I will say that it is unfortunate that we got to this point and that our motion to disallow the quota was not supported. Of course, since then, we have had the findings from the Ombudsman, which found that there were problems with the setting of the quota and the administrative process in setting the total allowable catch in the fishery. It was also found that the management advisory committee had failed to exclude the committee member, Mr Gerry Gene, from its meeting in February, where that total allowable catch was being discussed. They found that the committee did not follow the processes for excluding Mr Gene from that decision-making process. I will not read out the whole letter, but the letter does go on to say:
Other matters have come up in the course of our investigation. We are in the process of giving further consideration to these matters before we will be in a position to conclude our investigation.
In other words, there are other issues hanging over the decision on this quota. That is the decision-making process and then of course, as I have said, we need to come back to the science. So, clearly, this quota should not have been doubled. Clearly, there have been problems in the way that the decision-making process occurred and also about the information that was considered.
Then we get to the issue around the oft quoted small pelagic fishery harvest plan and the fact that the last dot point in the background says:
There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may—
and I underline the word 'may'—
include large scale factory freezer vessels.
I agree that it was a stupid thing to put in the harvest plan and I do not think it is appropriate for Australian waters—but it does say 'may'. So then the company goes, 'Oh, you beauty; we can bring in a factory ship. Don't worry about the science; we'll just try and use the political process.'
The fact is that the community knew nothing about this. The claim is that it has been on the books for seven years. How are those concerned recreational fishers, commercial fishers, the environmental movement, the broader community and local communities supposed to know that this is happening? They found out only a couple of months ago. If I had come into this place three or four years ago and said, 'Guess what? There's this huge 22,000 tonne vessel that is going to be coming to and trawling in our waters and it is going to take 18,000 tonnes of fish,' I would have been laughed out of this place. I would have been told that I was scaremongering. Nobody would have paid any attention.
It is only now that people are actually focused on what is happening. Public concern has been growing very substantially around the coast of Australia. It is a minute to midnight—as I said, it is very, very late—but at least we are taking action to protect the Australian marine environment. Having said that, the government should have put in place a much better, more robust, scientific process around the harvest management plan. But, just because the government got it wrong in the first place, does not justify them continuing to double the impact by going along with it without questioning that process.
AFMA has the precautionary principle built into its operating guidelines, and this would have probably given some people confidence that the government was taking the necessary care with this fishery. But it has become increasingly clear that the economic rather than the precautionary principle has been prevailing in the decision-making process.
I have just been talking about how the quota setting has been poorly managed. The doubling of the jack mackerel quota, which we understand was called for by Seafish Tasmania, happened while Seafish Tasmania sat on the fisheries management advisory committee. Of course, as I said, this has now attracted the interest of the Ombudsman. The minister for fisheries has publicly declared that he no longer has faith in AFMA to do its job in managing our fisheries and has announced a review, which I will come to in a minute.
I have touched on the science and the fact that we do not know a lot of things about this particular fishery and the oft quoted reports from the opposition around the science—and the government was quoting some of it too during the debate on the disallowance motion. A new report released today has further questioned the science behind the quota setting, and this report, Re-analysis of mean daily egg production in jack mackerel, is from the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, which Senator Colbeck not long ago was also talking about.
In the case of the small pelagic fishery, the harvest strategy dictates that the recommended biological catch or the RBC should not exceed a prescribed percentage of the best available spawning biomass estimate. The background of the report reads:
Given the level of interest in the jack mackerel … daily egg production method …
the institute
have undertaken a re-analysis of the reported egg density data using a range of alternative model fitting methods suggested in the literature.
And guess what? They found some serious differences arise from the choice of the egg model—differences that present seriously different end results about what constitutes a sustainable total catch.
While we have heard over and over again that the doubling of the jack mackerel quota on old egg data is within the precautionary principle of the harvest strategy, we now have clear proof that there is plenty of wriggle room within these facts—in other words, it casts serious doubt over what is the sustainable total catch. I have had scientists say to me that it could be as much as a third or even a fifth less than what they say. The bottom line has significant question marks around the sustainable total catch.
I quote again from the report:
A shortcoming of the current harvest strategy is that it does not explicitly consider the effect of differing uncertainties between studies and analytical methods.
Unfortunately, these results do not surprise me at all. If the minister had not already announced a serious review of the fisheries management legislation and its operation through AFMA, I think the broader community, including us, would have been calling for such a review. This review is going to be very important and it needs to be on the record that it will be independent, transparent and have opportunities for public submissions. The fact that the harvest strategy does not specifically and explicitly consider the effect of the different uncertainties between studies and analytical methods highlights the flaws in the harvest strategy yet again.
If the company had been in serious negotiation and thought about how it was going to bring that trawler to Australia, surely it would have been going through the harvest strategy and looking at the other scientists' comments. This is a case of picking out the science that you want and running with it.
Scientists have been raising serious concerns about the setting of the sustainable total catch and they have also been pointing out that the science of the life cycle of these species has not been agreed upon. As I said before, Dr Jessica Meeuwig, who is a renowned marine scientist from Western Australia, voiced her concerns during the public debate by explaining that the live-hard, dying-fast explanation of the life cycle of these fish and comparing it to the South American anchovy is simply wrong. The jack mackerel is significantly different to those particular fish and it lives up to 30 years. We simply cannot anticipate that it will rapidly repopulate without further scientific analysis—in other words, the assumptions that were made in some of the science, she very strongly questioned. She is one of Australia's leading marine scientists and has a much different opinion on some of the science underpinning the setting of the quota.
Dr Meeuwig and others have emphasised that, before we can allow a fishing activity on this scale to occur, we need to examine the population structures as well as finally conducting proper independent estimates of the biomass. We also need to review the dynamics of species recruitment and particularly understand how a warming ocean will impact on these species.
These species have almost been fished out in the past. They used to be so abundant in the waters around Tasmania, yet stocks have been decimated. We are now being told that efficiencies in this fishery can only be achieved through massive factory ships. We reject that claim. That sort of fishing is not appropriate in Australian waters. If we are to retain our leading status in terms of the quality of the way we manage our fisheries, we need to be looking at this science. We need to be reassessing how we manage our fish stocks.
This is not the first time there have been outrageous claims made around fishing and sustainable total catch in this country. We need to be getting this right. We need to be looking at the science a lot better and not just making decisions based on gross assumptions. We need to be giving real teeth to the precautionary principle and enacting it: what does it mean?
We believe that the onus of proof needs to be on proving something is sustainable rather than assuming that it is and fishing until there is no more left. We are deeply concerned with the approach that was taken during this harvest strategy and believe that we need to be relooking at the way we approach the setting. I will not go into a lot of detail around the amendments that the Greens propose, because I will discuss those in committee as a whole. But the Greens believe that there should not be supertrawlers in Australian waters—
Debate interrupted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Mustafa, Mr Taji
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Can the minister explain why, despite warnings from the opposition, the government decided to issue a visa to Mr Taji Mustafa, the United Kingdom leader of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir which has called—among other things—for the military destruction of Israel and condoned the killing of Australian troops in Afghanistan?
Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): I am just seeking a brief on that, Senator. I do not have a brief other than what I have read in the press. Sorry, Mr President—someone has a brief to assist the Senator. I understand that this gentleman has visited Australia before—
Senator Bob Carr: 2007.
Senator CHRIS EVANS: In 2007, under the previous government. I also understand that Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in Australia and is not proscribed in the United Kingdom or the USA. In 2007, the then Attorney General, Phillip Ruddock, said that this organisation has not done anything to warrant its banning in Australia. Obviously the government condemns any violence or exhortation to violence or extremism, and we are all particularly disturbed by the nature of the protests in Sydney the other day.
Can I also say, though, that all visa applicants in Australia must be assessed against the character requirements and public interest criteria of the Migration Act. Australia, as you know, has strong laws against urging violence and inciting terrorism, and any accusation of such behaviour will be investigated accordingly and taken into account. Anyone found guilty of inciting a terrorism offence can face up to 10 years imprisonment. But as I understand it this person has been considered before, and currently the organisation is not proscribed by the United Kingdom or the United States.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:02): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am aware that the organisation has not been proscribed; but is the minister not aware that Mr Taji Mustafa has in recent years—since 2007—been responsible for the exhortation of the very violence the minister condemns? Given that the grounds exist under the Migration Act for the refusal or cancellation of a visa on the basis that a person's presence is not in the national interest, how does the government justify the presence of this man in Australia now?
Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:03): I understand the interest in this issue. As I said, this is an organisation where the previous government made the decision that they ought not be a proscribed organisation—
Senator Brandis: I asked about the man!
Senator CHRIS EVANS: I accept that. The Howard government, at the time, made the point that it is a thin line between stupid, extravagant language and language which is deliberately designed to incite violence or to threaten the security of the country. It is a fine line; it is a judgement call. But in terms of the immigration department's consideration of the particular gentleman and the consideration that went into his application for a visa, I am happy to take that on notice and seek advice from the immigration minister as to what consideration was given to that application.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:04): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. In light of the disgraceful riots in Sydney at the weekend—incited by those who share with Taji Mustafa a view of exhortation to violence—does the government now regret its decision to issue a visa to this man? Will the visa now be rescinded?
Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:04): I will seek some advice on notice from the immigration minister and report back to the Senate about this particular individual, as I think I made clear in my first response. The government, all sides of this chamber and, I think, the great majority of Australians were appalled by the violence at the protest in Sydney. We all agree there is no place for that in Australian society. Some of the images, particularly of the young girl holding up that placard, were deeply disturbing and certainly not something we would want to see in Australia. But as to the individual and his contribution to any of this, I am happy to take that on notice and get some advice for the Senate.
Australian Securities and Investment Commission
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:05): My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. I draw the minister's attention to a report released today by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission warning that it is not sufficiently well funded to protect investors by conducting adequate surveillance of investment banks, insurers, financial planners and auditors. In the light of the global financial crisis, is the minister confident that ASIC has adequate funds and staffing resources to do the job the Australian people need it to do?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:06): Thank you, Senator Milne, for the question. The government made some decisions around the resourcing of ASIC, I think, in the last budget; but I will check—perhaps not in the course of this question but certainly afterwards—for some further detail on this. We are conscious of the importance of resourcing all our regulators appropriately, given the task that they are asked to undertake. I would also make this point, however: as the Senate would know, we make those decisions in terms of funding of all our financial system regulators in the context of a constrained fiscal environment, and one in which the government has had to deal with a very substantial write-down in revenues over a number of years. Our budget decisions are made in that context.
I would make this point: Australia's financial system did weather recent events well, in terms of the global financial crisis, and came through that crisis in much better shape than almost any other advanced economy. Obviously, that is a tribute to not only our institutions but also our regulators more broadly, as well as the cooperative culture that our regulators seek to have with our financial institutions.
In terms of particular requests of funding for different entities, obviously the government is faced always with a request for further resourcing for many institutions within government and we have to prioritise those. We have done so and we will continue to do so in terms of decisions to be made in the future.
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:08): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer and note her reference to the constrained fiscal environment. So I ask: when the government struggles to find funds to properly resource vital institutions like ASIC, is it appropriate for the Treasurer to use his economic note this weekend to boast that the government is collecting $24 billion less in tax revenue this year than the Howard government did in its final year?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:08): With respect to the senator, I am not sure that I would use the verb in the way she has. It is a matter of fact that we are a lower taxing government than the coalition. That is a matter of fact. The statistics bear that out. On this issue, we do part company with the Australian Greens. We think that you do have to be responsible in how you levy taxation and the way in which you construct your revenue base. Regardless of other policy decisions that people may discuss, the reality is that the global financial crisis has hit revenues across the world, in advanced economies and in developing economies as well. Obviously, when you have asset values taking the hit that they have taken globally and domestically, that is going to reflect on and flow through to your revenues; similarly, to other heads of revenue. The reality is that revenues have been hit in this country and in other countries by virtue of the GFC and subsequent global financial volatility. (Time expired)
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:09): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I note the minister's answer there, but, given the Prime Minister's warning that Premier Campbell Newman's devastating Public Service job cuts are just a curtain-raiser for what Tony Abbott would do as Prime Minister, can the minister commit to raising enough revenue to invest up-front in major positive social reforms like Denticare, lifting Newstart and funding schools? And will the government rule out similar cuts to the Public Service in the upcoming MYEFO?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:10): I would make a few points. Unlike some in this place, we take the responsibility, as a party of government, of finding the funds for socially progressive policy, and we have done so. This is the government which has introduced things like the Paid Parental Leave scheme, the government which is putting in place a tax cut for every Australian earning under $80,000 a year, a government which is implementing increased superannuation and a tax break for low-income Australians for their superannuation, and I could go on. And we have found, in very tight fiscal circumstances, $1 billion for the National Disability Insurance Scheme launch. These have all been done without the sorts of cuts that we see to frontline services in coalition states.
I should also perhaps just return to the first question. I refer the senator to Budget Paper No. 2 where she can see the increased funding of ASIC for advanced market— (Time expired)
Muslim Protest
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (14:11): My question today is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr. Can the minister advise what his response is to the violent protests in Sydney on the weekend following the release of the film, Innocence of Moslems?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:12): Attended by an estimated 100 people, the demonstration was repellent to Australians and repellent to just about all Australians of Islamic faith. One hundred people is a fraction of the estimated half a million Muslim Australians. Yesterday I branded the demonstration the work of provocateurs who want hatred and extremism in the air. They want to grab attention, they want broken bones, they want a clash of culture, they want a clash of civilisations. Their goal is to push us to the edge. They seek to blame the United States, President Obama and his ambassadors for a lousy propaganda film, the work of a lone nutter.
Yesterday I said 99.9 per cent of Australian Muslims were chilled to the bone by the grotesque images and rhetoric of this demonstration and they have spoken out and condemned it. Ms Shereen Hassan, spokeswoman of the Islamic Council of Victoria, said:
While it is abhorrent that individuals should disrespect Prophet Mohammed, it is even more abhorrent that Muslims should defile his peaceful teachings by acting in such a vile manner.
Signs at the protest invoked beheading. Frankly, if you believe in be heading, then you will probably never be happy living in Australia. As the minister for immigration said today, people convicted for violence at this demonstration who fail the character test should be deported from this country. Invoking beheading and putting such signs in the hands of children is a condemnation on its own. I have spoken to Islamic leaders today and congratulated them for their forthright utterances condemning this. This is a conflict within the world of Islam, and we have an interest in encouraging the moderates in this country—Islamic Australians, proud of their faith and proud of their heritage—to be committed to this Australia and its future and reject such repellent extremism. (Time expired)
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (14:14): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Could I ask the minister to update the Senate on the Obama administration's commitment to religious tolerance and engagement with the Muslim world?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:14): In his 2009—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator BOB CARR: You might mock the President but we are admirers of President Obama.
In his 2009 Cairo speech, President Obama called for 'a new beginning' between the United States and the Muslim world. He acknowledged that no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust. Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League, said that Obama's speech 'offered a new vision of rapprochement'. For Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama defined a clear strategy for transition to civilian rule. In Turkey, he said that he wanted to build a model partnership between a majority Christian and a majority Muslim country. He has visited Pakistan and Indonesia. America is working with the Organization of Islamic Conference to eradicate polio and has provided $150 million to assist Egypt's transition. The Obama administration has done more to reach out to the Muslim world than any previous US government. As Secretary Clinton said boldly and emphatically, 'This video has nothing to do with us.' (Time expired)
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (14:15): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I thank the minister for his response and ask: can he update the Senate on recent protest movements in the Islamic world, and what are the implications for the government's commitment to promoting an overlap of cultures in Australian foreign policy?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:15): Senator Brandis, should not be taking sides on the US presidential election, because in doing that he is only following what Prime Minister John Howard did so infamously. Governments in transition countries such as Libya and Egypt will, I am sure, respond vigorously to extremists and protect diplomats in their countries. President Morsi of Egypt told me earlier this month that Egypt was neither a military nor a religious state; it is a civil state. Australia's posts overseas already contribute to several cross-cultural programs both in the Middle East and in the Asia Pacific. In Indonesia, for example, we support student exchanges between Australian and Indonesian schools. The program has connected more than 90,000 Australian and Indonesian students and thousands of teachers since it commenced in 2008. The Australia-Indonesia Institute— (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:17): Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Ludwig. I refer the minister to the government's decision to link its carbon tax to the European emissions trading scheme after 2015. Has the government formally assessed the impact of that decision on the international competitiveness of Australian businesses? For example, how many European businesses with a direct carbon liability will have to actually purchase carbon permits to cover their whole liability under the European emissions trading scheme? And how many Australian businesses will be required to buy all their carbon permits from day one under Labor's scheme?
Senator LUDWIG ( Queensland — Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery ) ( 14:1 7 ): I thank Senator Cormann for his continued interest in the price of carbon. The EU—and I think this is worth reminding those opposite—was the first international carbon market in the world and is now one of the largest. It has operated for nearly a decade and, quite frankly, it has delivered on cost-effective emissions reductions and its trading with other credible trading systems, such as Australia, is in our national interest because it will help reduce emissions at the lowest cost. So it is the trading of those credits that will then drive lower cost outcomes. So it will benefit industry. It will be available for industry to pick up on. In fact, if you look at the EU as a block, it is one of our largest trading partners and accounts for over $90 billion in two-way trade. From 2015 that trade relationship will include carbon as well. Australia will have the same carbon price then as 30 other countries with a combined population of 530 million. The start of the linked emissions trading scheme is still over 2½ years away, and the assumptions in the Treasury modelling about linked carbon markets and international action have not changed. The Leader of the Opposition, though, would like you to believe that the carbon price will increase at an unimaginable rate but also drop to below the price floor and impact the budget. The Treasury was proved right on the $3.30 per week impact of the carbon price on electricity, and a large number of other reports which have made the front pages— (Time expired)
Senator CORMANN ( Western Australia ) ( 14:1 9 ): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that not a single European business with a direct carbon liability under their scheme will be required to actually purchase carbon permits covering their whole liability while, in contrast, hundreds of Australian businesses will be required to buy all their permits from day one of Labor's scheme? In fact, can the minister confirm that as far away as 2026 not a single European business, whether trade exposed or not, will be required to purchase permits covering their whole carbon liability?
Senator LUDWIG ( Queensland — Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery ) ( 14: 20 ): What I can do is speak on what Australia is doing. These linking arrangements do not change the overall access that Australian firms have to international units—that is, Australian liable entities remain able to meet up to 50 per cent of their liabilities through international units. The EU ETS, being the longest running emissions trading system, is highly credible. What you put at doubt is the EU emissions trading scheme. It has always been our policy to work towards linking with Europe and other developing emissions trading schemes globally, and any potential price difference with Kyoto units will also increase the competitiveness of our emissions intensive trade exposed industries. These industries could see effective assistance rates from 1 July 2015 go from 90.9 per cent to 97 per cent if Kyoto units can be sourced on the market for half of the cost of European allowances. (Time expired)
Senator CORMANN ( Western Australia ) ( 14: 21 ): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Why does the Gillard government think it is fair to Australian businesses that they will be required to buy 100 per cent of their carbon permits for 15 years before their European competitors may be required to do so? Why has the Gillard government introduced not only the world's biggest carbon tax but also one that severely disadvantages Australian industries compared with their European competitors when the two schemes are linked in 2015?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:22): Let me reject some of the premises of the questions that have been put.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator LUDWIG: Coming from those opposite, I doubt that very much! Nevertheless, if you look at the potential that is available the industries could in fact see the effective rate from 1 July go from 90.9 per cent to 97 per cent. It seems to me, Mr President, that those opposite are arguing that that is somehow a negative outcome for industries in Australia; it is a positive outcome. EU linking will effectively mean that we will be able to reduce the liability for those industries, in fact, to half the costs of European allowances. It is a positive move to link, and many industries that I am aware of have been arguing for EU linking for some time. It seems that those opposite not only oppose the carbon price but also want to punish business whilst continuing to oppose the carbon price— (Time expired)
Alcohol Abuse
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (14:23): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Ludwig. I draw the minister's attention to the Salvation Army's Alcohol Awareness Week initiative and to the report released today that shows over 4 million people know families whose children are not being properly cared for because of alcohol abuse; and there are millions more who have experienced disruption in their own families. When it comes to tobacco control, this government has a good record and has successfully pursued classical public health strategies like pricing and regulation. What is this government doing in the areas of pricing and regulation to limit the $30 billion worth of harm caused by alcohol abuse in Australia each year?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:24): I thank Senator Di Natale for his continuing interest in health warning labels on alcoholic beverages. As I understand it, he was referring to the Foundation for Alcohol Research & Education, FARE, which released a report recently. If he was, then he could nod; if he was not, and it was more broadly, maybe that is question number two!
The issue of alcohol-related harm continues to be of great concern to this government. That is why the government is committed to changing the drinking culture of Australia and why it is spending $103.5 million on the National Binge Drinking Strategy. The government is also working with non-government organisations, health providers and industry to support women to make healthy lifestyle choices during pregnancy and to promote awareness of the risks of consuming alcohol during pregnancy.
There are challenges though, and I am sure they are recognised by those opposite and by the Greens because it is one of those areas where it will be a challenge before industry is to honour its commitments to implementation of the voluntary initiative. I look forward to seeing the evidence from industry of better updating of warning labels as the initiative progresses. These are early days in this area but it is one of those areas where the government remains committed. It will take a concerted effort from all those who have a continuing interest in these issues.
The COAG forum on food regulation reiterated in June that there should be mandatory labelling on alcohol about the risks of drinking whilst pregnant, and confirmed its agreement to allow industry two years to adopt voluntary initiatives before regulating— (Time expired)
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (14:26): Mr President, my supplementary question is this: millions of Australians are subjected to alcohol advertising every week while watching sporting events, thanks to a loophole that allows alcohol companies to advertise during, for example, afternoon sports programs. Does the government agree with the Greens that this loophole should be closed?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:26): That does step well outside the health portfolio. It does appear to be a question that should be properly directed to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, but I will take on notice that part of the question in relation to what the regulations are specifically for advertising. But as I was saying, it is important that we continue to do the work that we can to make sure that we meet the challenge, at least so far as health warning labels on alcoholic beverages are concerned—an area which falls within this portfolio. It is also important that we continue to look at regulation which will follow the establishment of standards to develop procedures and which will include extensive public consultation. One of the areas of how you combat this is through public consultation, through the discussion in the media— (Time expired)
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (14:27): Mr President, I have a further supplementary question: does the minister agree with the recommendation from the tax summit and from the Henry tax review that alcohol taxation should be implemented in such a way that alcohol is taxed according to the harm that it produces?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:28): I thank Senator Di Natale for his question. It is an area that appears to canvass tax related issues outside the health portfolio. I can take that part of the question on notice and refer it to either the Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer to deal with the matter, because it is really a question about taxation.
I will not reiterate the issues about public health warnings and about how under the health portfolio we are spending money to ensure that we can combat some of the real challenges around making sure people do take heed of these warnings. They do have devastating effects in the community, particularly for people who suffer from those problems. It is a matter where— (Time expired)
Vocational Education and Training
Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Chris Evans. Can the minister advise the Senate on how the Gillard government's record investment in skills and training is being put at risk by the cuts announced by coalition state governments?
Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:29): I thank Senator Marshall for his ongoing interest in vocational education in Victoria. It is well known that the federal government has made a record investment in skills and training in this country in order to support the states in providing educational opportunity for young people and to meet the skills needs of industry. It is a vital time for the development of skills in our economy, and that is why we have invested.
But recent announcements by the Victorian and New South Wales Liberal-National governments put that effort at risk. Despite their signing up to a COAG agreement in April which is designed to lift the effort, to lift the number of training places and the quality of those places, they have made savage cuts to the TAFE budgets in their states. As a result of that we are seeing a full-on assault on the capacity of the TAFE systems in those states to provide opportunities for their young people. We have seen the loss of jobs for trainers, we have seen the loss of opportunity to attend campuses. Campuses are closing, courses are closing and there is great damage being done to our capacity to support education in this country.
Those governments committed to lift their efforts, but what we are seeing is savage cuts which are destroying the capacity to train in those states, reducing opportunities, seeing staff thrown out of work. Fundamentally, we rely on that training effort to meet the skills needs of employers. They will increasingly look to overseas labour if they cannot get the skills. If kids cannot get a chance at a trade or vocational training then we will see employers looking elsewhere. We need to continue to make that investment in the skills of young people if we are to prosper as a country. (Time expired)
Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (14:31): Mr President, I thank the minister for that answer and I have a supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate on how the Baillieu government's cuts to TAFE funding are impacting on my home state of Victoria?
Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:32): It is true that the Victorian situation is the most dire. What we have seen in Victoria is that the government have removed $300 million from the system, an absolute savaging of the TAFE system. At a time when they say they are committed to training and skilling, they rip $300 million out. Leaked Victorian Liberal-National cabinet documents—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is a debate going on which makes it difficult to hear the answer. Senator Marshall is entitled to hear the answer.
Senator CHRIS EVANS: Leaked cabinet documents on the weekend showed the impacts of those cuts by the Liberal-National government. We are seeing campuses threatened to be closed around Victoria. We are seeing courses closed. We are seeing increases in student fees of 100 per cent and more, complete devastation of a range of TAFEs. This will impact on those students and their capacity to get a chance. The Victorian government must rethink this terrible attack on the TAFE system. (Time expired)
Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (14:33): Mr President, I thank the minister for that answer and I have a second supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the impacts on students of the Baillieu government's cuts?
Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:33): What we know is that students will get less opportunity, they will be charged higher fees and they will have to travel, many of them, a long way to get access to a TAFE. The hits on the rural and regional parts of Victoria are devastating. We see a range of closures in regional Victoria which will mean students in those communities will not get access to TAFEs. They are the only training providers of any substance in many of those communities.
In addition to that, many of the TAFEs, according to a leaked cabinet document, are looking at fee increases of 100 per cent. TAFEs traditionally have provided opportunities to working-class kids and rural and regional kids that otherwise would be denied them. These cuts will mean those opportunities are not there. This Victorian Liberal-National government has forgotten people in rural and regional Australia and is going to really undermine the effort to provide the highly skilled workforce of the future.
Carbon Pricing
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (14:34): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Ludwig. I refer the minister to the government's recent advice to Australia's small businesses through one of its propaganda pamphlets which tells small businesses that to cope with an expected 10 per cent increase in electricity prices as a result of the carbon tax they should 'fix any leaky taps promptly, clean lights and close doors'. Given that electricity prices have actually risen by more than 14 per cent as a direct result of a carbon tax, when will the government stop insulting Australia's 2.7 million small businesses with patronising and badly written brochures and instead admit that it has not paid and it will never pay a single dollar of compensation to small businesses for the increases in their costs due to the carbon tax?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The time for debating this is after question time on both sides.
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:35): I do not accept the premise of that question. Clearly the opposition opposed the tax cuts to small business. The opposition are in fact completely at odds with how they can help small business. But let us start with the facts for small business. There are no forms to fill out, no new regulations to comply with and most will not be significantly affected as they are not heavy consumers of gas or electricity. The price paid for electricity by a typical small business has risen by around 10 per cent. Electricity makes up two per cent or less of costs.
Those opposite would in fact inflate it to something like the cheeky little argument they ran about the carbon price when it came into effect on 1 July. That was not true and they are now saying the same for small business—that small business will somehow be destroyed as a consequence of the carbon price. It will not. You are now running again a mischievous false argument.
If you look at the scare campaign in recent question times we have seen the opposition waving around electricity accounts. I am surprised the opposition did not have an electricity account to wave around this time other than a broad smear campaign that it is now operating under.
What the opposition fail to mention is that most of the increase in electricity prices faced by small business have been driven by investment in network infrastructure, the majority of which is state owned. They also appear blissfully unaware of seasonal variations in electricity use, unlike the rest of us. There are seasonal variations in electricity prices, and if you look at what we are doing for small business— (Time expired)
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (14:37): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the government really think the best response to a small business dealing with the impact of its carbon tax is to 'close their doors'? How many small businesses will have to close their doors before Labor recognises that the carbon tax it promised we would not get is bad for our economy and does nothing for the environment?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:38): I thank the opposition for their interest in the carbon price. The largest single-cost impact for small business, though, as identified by the opposition, will be electricity. This was analysed by both COSBOA and AIG, but they suggest the majority of small business owners spend around two per cent. It is a very small component of their overall costs.
What is more astonishing is that, if you look at the opposition's position on this, in case you missed it those opposite opposed assistance to small business. I found this extraordinary given the amount of those opposite put into telling the chamber that they support small business. They opposed: tripling the tax-free threshold; tax cuts for more than seven million people; a company tax cut; the seniors and pensioners tax offset; the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds; early start for the company tax cuts for small business; an increase in the instant asset write-off— (Time expired)
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (14:39): Mr President, I ask a second supplementary question. Despite all the evidence, why is the government persisting with the world's biggest carbon tax when it pushes up the cost of electricity, the cost of living and the cost of doing business, and weakens our economy without doing a single thing to reduce global emissions?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:40): One of the most disappointing things for me is that back in 2001 the Howard government first started talking to ABARES about an emissions trading scheme. Why? Because those opposite saw the need to reduce our emissions of carbon. And we agree. Now that we have implemented it those opposite have back-flipped—they have changed their minds completely. The opposition, like I, want to ensure that we can drive down our emissions in carbon. Why? Because it is a benefit to the environment, it is a benefit to the economy and it will ensure that we can have a clean energy future. Those opposite want to continue to decry— (Time expired)
Economy
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (14:41): My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. She has been a bit neglected today.
Senator Cormann: That's because she did a runner from climate change.
Senator MOORE: Maybe Senator Cormann can ask the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There will be no debate. When there is silence we will proceed.
Senator MOORE: Can the minister outline to the Senate what the impact on the Commonwealth budget of lower tax receipts in recent years has been and how the government has responded to this?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:42): I thank Senator Moore for the question. It is the case that governments at all levels have had to adjust to lower tax receipts in recent years. This government has responded by putting in place responsible savings measures and by prioritising the targeting of resources to where they are most needed. We have delivered more than $130 billion in savings over five budgets and we have done so by focusing both on responsibility and fairness. We have achieved $13 billion in public sector savings that focused on efficiency rather than job cuts.
I understand we have asked this parliament and the members of it to agree to some responsible savings measures. For example, we found over $2 billion in savings from more efficient and effective management of ICT; we have cut recruitment advertising by around $30 million a year since 2009-10; and we are spending $100 million a year less for four years in a row than the Howard government spent on campaign advertising in the year 2007. We are saving around $240 million from travel spending.
We also found savings through measures like means-testing the private health insurance rebate—opposed by those opposite. We found savings by reducing super concessions for individuals on high incomes—also opposed by those opposite—and by removing the ability for millionaires to access Commonwealth dental funding—also opposed by those opposite. If you want to see the priorities of those opposite you need to look no further than the state of Queensland, Senator Moore's own state, where we see savage cuts to nurses, doctors, firefighters, roads, transport, palliative care and even Vinnie's, with 14,000 jobs to go under a Liberal Premier who said that the Public Service had nothing to fear. (Time expired)
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (14:44): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister outline any alternative approaches to tackling the challenges of tough fiscal conditions. Will our government be following these alternative approaches?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:44): We will continue to focus on bringing the budget to surplus responsibly and carefully, focusing on getting our priorities right and focusing on fairness. The contrast with the alternative approach by those opposite could not be clearer. The coalition always cuts too much and they always cut the wrong things. We cut health insurance rebates for millionaires; they cut funding for breast screening. We cut campaign advertising and they cut spending on flood recovery in Queensland. We cut Tony Abbott's millionaire's dental scheme; they sack ambulance officers. This is, we know, a curtain raiser for Mr Abbott should he ever win government. If you want to know whether or not I am telling the truth on this you have to look no further than Senator Joyce, who himself said, when asked if the Newman government was a curtain raiser, 'Well, she is absolutely correct—' (Time expired)
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (14:45): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister advise how the government's commitment to the Charter of Budget Honesty underlines its constructive approach to finding savings and how this contrasts with alternative approaches?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:45): The reason Mr Costello introduced the Charter of Budget Honesty was to ensure the public knew what they were voting for. It was to ensure the public knew what the policies of the government of the day would be; but to date the only party in this parliament that has promised to adhere to Peter Costello's Charter of Budget Honesty is the Labor Party, because we know those opposite do not want people to know what is in the firing line for the $70 billion worth of cuts to frontline services. But to get some understanding of it you have to look no further than the coalition state governments—to the governments of Mr Newman and to the governments in Victoria and New South Wales—and you have to look no further than out of the mouth of Senator Joyce, the great coalition economic expert here. When he was asked today if Ms Gillard was correct when she said Mr Newman's budget was an Abbott government curtain raiser, Senator Joyce told ABC radio, 'Well, she's absolutely—' (Time expired)
Defence: Budget
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:47): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Bob Carr. I refer the minister to this year's budget, which saw a cut to Defence spending in real terms of around 10 per cent, taking government spending on Defence as a proportion of GDP down to 1.56 per cent, the lowest level since 1938. There is now widespread concern about the impact these cuts will have to fund Defence Force 2030, outlined in the 2009 Defence white paper, or even to sustain the existing force. Is the minister aware that the government is in the process of hollowing out Australia's Defence Force and does he understand why the Secretary of the Department of Defence said in a recent speech to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute that the 'maxim about matching dollars to strategy must perpetually ring in our ears'? Can the minister explain to the Senate why this government has been unable to retain the service of Major General Duncan Lewis—one of the most competent individuals ever to hold the appointment—who has resigned today after only one year in the role?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:48): What a research capacity they have got on the other side of the House. The speech that is the core of the question, the speech being unveiled to the Senate today, was given on 23 August. The speech by Duncan Lewis was presented to ASPI on 23 August. In the speech he said explicitly that Australia's Defence spending was appropriate and that our recent budget decisions on Defence were made in the context of governments around the world, including those of the US and the UK, cutting defence spending more than Australia had done. In any case—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, I raise a point of order similar to the one I raised last week. Do you rule that it is in order for speakers to turn their backs directly to you in your role as President? Is that within standing orders?
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.
Senator BOB CARR: The speech was entirely consistent with government policy. Indeed, it elaborated on government policy. The speech was entirely an expression of government policy. As a result of the recent budget and the commitment—
Senator Abetz: Would you expect it to be anything else?
Senator BOB CARR: Well, it was presented here as a revelation. A speech given on 23 August was presented as a revelation. It is the first time it has been raised in the Senate. The fact is that most savings being made in the Defence portfolio are being achieved by deferring Defence acquisitions and adjusting the Defence capital equipment program, but also by delivering further operating efficiencies. There will be no adverse impact on operations—they are all fully funded. There will be no adverse impact on military numbers in the navy, army or air force. There will be no adverse important implications for kit for forces about to be deployed or in deployment. There will be no reductions in conditions or entitlements for servers— (Time expired)
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:51): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to the fact that during the recent keel-laying ceremony of the air warfare destroyer, the Labor government announced further cuts to Defence spending under the guise of smoothing work for industry. Does the minister recognise that the Gillard government in fact has created gaps in workflow through their recent budget decisions and deferrals? Does he understand that the one-year extension will not even come close to bridging the gap in ship-building work, given the government's procrastination over the last three years in making a decision on the future submarine project?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:52): On the contrary, projects to be progressed in 2012-13 include the replacement of Caribou transport aircraft; the approval of the Growler airborne electronic attack capability, which only we and the United States will have, that is how advanced it is; the acquisition of medium and heavy trucks; and upgrades to Orion maritime patrol aircraft, C130J aircraft and Anzac class ships. A number of projects will be progressed to enhance the availability and capability of the current Collins class submarines. The government have also approved $214 million for further detailed studies and analysis to inform the government's decision on the design of Australia's next submarine. Continuing to approve new projects to enhance ADF's capability will remain an important focus for government over the upcoming financial year.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:53): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that a Collins class submarine is out of the water in South Australia at the moment, with work not able to be conducted for months to come due to a lack of funds? Can the minister explain how this represents a smoothing of industry workflow? How does it represent support for industry to retain a skilled workforce? How can the Australian people trust Labor to fulfil any of their commitments to provide adequate funding to retain the critical capabilities and people needed for Australia's national security?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:53): We are proud that Australia is constructing three air warfare destroyers—based on a proven design from the Spanish navy. When complete, the destroyers will be amongst the world's most capable warships. The air warfare destroyer project has just passed a significant milestone—the keel laying ceremony for Hobart, the first of the destroyers—marking the start of the consolidation phase of the project. Two keel blocks are now joined on the hard stand at the common-user facility in Adelaide. From this point on—
Senator Fawcett: Mr President, my point of order goes to relevance. I asked the minister to confirm that a Collins class boat is currently out of the water with no funding to actually complete the work, not about the air warfare destroyer.
The PRESIDENT: The minister has 24 seconds. I draw the minister's attention to the question.
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:54): All I would say about the Collins class submarines—
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Senator BOB CARR: Mr President, I will seek advice on whether a Collins class submarine is out of the water. Let me put the question in context. The government have no intention of allowing a gap in any capability as important to Australia's security. (Time expired)
Queensland Floods
Senator FURNER (Queensland) (14:55): My question is to the Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery, Senator Ludwig. Can the minister provide an update to the Senate on the Gillard government's investment and action to assist Queensland to rebuild after the 2010-11 flood and cyclone?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:55): I thank Senator Furner for his continued interest in repairing and rebuilding Queensland after those devastating floods. One hundred per cent of the state was declared a disaster area. All can remember the terrible loss suffered at Grantham, where devastating floods caused much devastation and loss of life. In Far North Queensland, within a very short while of the floods, Cyclone Yasi struck, impacting Cardwell and Mission Beach along the Cassowary Coast.
The Gillard government are spending close to $6 billion rebuilding Queensland. Most of the funds are for the reconstruction of essential public and community infrastructure such as roads. In fact, we took the unprecedented step to advance $4 million so Queensland could get on with the job of rebuilding the state. This meant that local councils could start the rebuild with their costs being able to be covered quickly, not waiting for reimbursements. It meant that councils like Brisbane, then headed by Mayor Campbell Newman, could get on with the job of rebuilding their communities.
The reconstruction in Queensland is progressing. All 418 affected schools have been fully repaired and $47 million has been provided through personal hardship assistance. And there has been a range of work carried out through the help of both individuals and small businesses, who pitched in to do the clean-up work. State roads have been repaired—7,300 kilometres of damaged roads. But only 25 per cent have been fully reconstructed; a further 40 per cent need to be constructed. Much more work still needs to be done. When it comes to the work, former Premier Anna Bligh stepped up— (Time expired)
Senator FURNER (Queensland) (14:57): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As a Queensland senator, I know many people were affected by the flooding and the cyclone, particularly Imogen and Alyssa in Townsville. Can the minister inform the Senate how important it is to have close cooperation with the Queensland government during the reconstruction phase and how important national partnership agreements are in delivering the best results for Queenslanders?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:58): I thank Senator Furner for his interest, and it seems from the interjections that those opposite appear less caring. When it comes to rebuilding a state, politics should not matter. In response to the disaster events of 2010-11, the Queensland government—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator LUDWIG: Their interjections really highlight what I said, quite frankly. The Queensland government established the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, the QRA, and that was the right thing to do, to ensure that the work that could be coordinated across departments continued. The QRA was charged with reconnecting, rebuilding and improving Queensland communities and the economy after the natural disasters. It was work at all levels of government. The reconstruction of Queensland required a significant coordination between local councils, state government and the federal government. (Time expired)
Senator FURNER (Queensland) (14:59): Mr President, I ask a final supplementary question—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Ignore the interjections, Senator Furner.
Senator FURNER: I will ignore those interjections.
The PRESIDENT: They are disorderly. You need to address your question to the chair.
Senator FURNER: Can the minister inform the Senate on the reports that the Queensland government will abolish funding to the Queensland Reconstruction Authority and how this will put at risk the continued reconstruction efforts and future preparedness?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (15:00): I thank Senator Furner for raising this issue because, as a proud Queenslander, I can say that I was distressed to read this morning that the Newman government has plans to abolish the Queensland Reconstruction Authority. I would expect those opposite, including Senator Macdonald, to fight for the retention of the Queensland Reconstruction Authority while there is still $3.4 billion worth of reconstruction projects in the pipeline. Just as Local Government Association of Queensland president, Paul Bell, said, councils cannot afford to put up with the lies and confusion if the QRA is scrapped. The choice of the Newman budget now means projects across the state have been put at risk, quite frankly. Premier Newman has turned his back on Brisbane once before. Now he is letting them down again.
The Gillard government has always wanted to rebuild Queensland as quickly as possible— (Time expired)
Senator Chris Evans: Mr President, I ask that further questions be put on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:01): I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.
Leave granted.
Senator JOYCE: During question time Minister Wong stated that I had said, 'Newman's budget razor is Abbott's curtain raiser' and then she said that I said of the Prime Minister:
Well, she is absolutely correct.
That was not the actual quote; she has misquoted me. She cannot even read the interview transcript. The whole thing was:
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So is the Prime Minister correct when she says Newman's budget razor is Abbott's curtain raiser?
BARNABY JOYCE: Well she's absolutely correct that the Labor Party which she is a part of has brought about the biggest deficits, our biggest debt, they've borrowed $10 billion in the last month, $2 billion in the last week.
If the Minister for Finance and Deregulation is not even capable of reading a transcript, what on earth is she doing as the finance minister?
QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
Conduct of Senators
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (15:02): Mr Deputy President, unfortunately the President has left before I could raise this issue, but could you please ask the President if he could give a ruling on senators addressing the chair? The President has ruled that there is no point of order, but I would like him to come back to the Senate and advise senators whether he expects them to face him when they address him or whether they should turn their backs deliberately to him. What I am asking you to do, Mr Deputy President, is to refer the matter to the President and to ask him to come back with a deliberative statement on the conduct of senators in this chamber insofar as facing the chair.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. The President, if he wishes to, will make any further comment. He has already made some comments about that.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Mustafa, Mr Taji
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (15:03): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Brandis today relating to Mr Taji Mustafa and Muslim protests in Sydney, New South Wales.
Australians have been unanimous in their condemnation of what occurred in Sydney, New South Wales, on Saturday. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for the violence that occurred and it must be and has been rightly condemned by so many across society. No-one wants to see violence on our streets perpetrated by anyone—by anyone of any colour or of any creed—and I support the comments by some of the Labor ministers, who have rightly condemned this unacceptable behaviour.
However, in supporting the condemnation of this behaviour, I also observe that, in particular in relation to the answers given in question time today, those ministers failed to admit that their earlier actions were a contributing factor and, as such, it is hypocritical after the event to act in a way which seeks to avoid mention of the government's earlier actions. It is for that reason that, in condemning this grotesque violence, the government and the minister must now explain to the people of Australia why, despite repeated warnings from the opposition, they decided to issue a visa to Taji Mustafa, the UK leader of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, who has on occasions in the recent past called for the military destruction of Israel and, further, condoned the killing of Australian troops in Afghanistan.
The government needs to explain to the Australian people why, despite this evidence, it knowingly gave a visa to the leader of this extremist group so that he could come to Australia and address Australian Muslims. In the address that he gave yesterday, which was at the annual conference of Hizb ut-Tahrir at Bankstown in Sydney's south-west, Mr Mustafa urged his brothers and sisters to go forward and offer Islamic solutions to a world that is struggling in the aftermath of the Arab Spring uprisings. He also said that Muslims needed a louder voice, especially in the Western world. I also note that an eight-year-old girl fronted the congress of Islamic fundamentalists yesterday, and she herself urged the crowd and Muslim youth to fight for the restoration of the Islamic caliphate, a single global government for all Muslims established under strict Sharia law.
It should also be noted in relation to Mr Mustafa's particular group that, unlike other Muslim groups who have loudly and properly gone on the record and condemned the actions of those involved in Saturday's riots, Mr Mustafa's group has failed to do this. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, I do not believe that the people on the streets of Sydney yesterday were truly representative of Islam. I do not believe that the ugliness we saw on the streets of Sydney yesterday fairly reflects the Islamic people of our country, and that is why their actions should be condemned.
There are very clear public interest criteria for the granting of visas in this country.
Ministers have the full authority to refuse visas to people such as Mr Mustafa who hold extremist views such as belief in the use of violence as a legitimate means of political expression. It cannot be disputed that Hizb ut-Tahrir believes in and promotes violence. As I have stated, they have openly called for the destruction of Israel, and last year at one of their conferences in Sydney their leaders condoned the killing of Australian troops in Afghanistan.
The coalition has long had concerns about this extremist group. We said prior to the last election that we would examine the legal options available to us for closing this group down in Australia. The government, in being aware of the coalition's concerns, had all the more reason to not grant Mr Mustafa a visa to come into this country.
As the Leader of the Opposition has stated, the Australian government should be saying clearly and unambiguously that we do not need preachers of hate in this country and we certainly should not be giving visas to people who are preachers of hate. It is the position of the coalition that the government should not have given a visa to Mr Mustafa and that the visa should be immediately withdrawn. It is wrong that in the tolerant country of Australia we should have people like this preaching this kind of bile. Again, we call on the government to revoke this visa and to get this man out of the country. Newcomers to this country are not expected to surrender their heritage but they are expected to surrender their hatreds. Those hatreds have no place in Australia society. (Time expired)
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (15:08): I too rise to take note of the answers to questions today, particularly relating the disgraceful performance on the weekend. The protests in Sydney were sparked by an anti-Islamist video, which is a grubby piece of rubbish that adds no value to the sum of human experience. It triggered an extraordinary level of violence not just here in Sydney but also around the world. It has led to injury and even to death, the death of US ambassador Mr Stephens. It was Mr Stephens who did so much for our own Australian who was caught up in Libya; he did much of the negotiating that led to her release.
While I agree so much with what Senator Cash has had to say this afternoon, I think that it is only fair to acknowledge that the notion that Mr Abbott has asked for the government to withdraw the visa for Taji Mustafa is an issue that needs to be dealt with quite carefully. Mr Mustafa is, as we all know, a member of the Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation, which in fact, despite its offensive manner and despite its offensive agenda, is not proscribed as a terrorist organisation in Australia; nor is it proscribed in the UK or the USA. So one of the things we do need to be very careful about is the way in which we set precedents around terrorist organisations. There is a process for assessing and doing that.
As the minister explained today, when this organisation was brought to the attention of the previous government, in 2007, the Attorney-General was Mr Philip Ruddock, and he said at the time that that organisation had not done anything to warrant its banning in Australia. So we do need to be very mindful of the criteria we use as a government through our intelligence services to determine the international status of organisations like this and we need to be mindful that it is a big decision that we make when we proscribe an organisation. The Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security reports to the parliament justifying reasons for proscribing organisations. The assessment of this organisation remains the assessment of the Gillard government.
The New South Wales Premier called for that organisation to be banned, but he was not able to make the case that would have the Attorney-General at the time, Mr Ruddock, agree. He said at the time—and I believe this is certainly true—that this is an organisation that basically says that it wants to declare war on Australia, on our values and on our people. It is an offensive organisation. But, until we can justify its proscription here in Australia, we are not able to take that step.
Minister Ruddock made that assessment and made the statement that the organisation had not done anything to warrant its banning in Australia. Then the Prime Minister of the day said that the federal government would not ban the Hizb ut-Tahrir unless it breached antiterror laws. That is the threshold test.
What has happened over the last few days—the escalation of violence, which was absolutely abhorrent and condemned by everybody on all sides of politics—provides an opportunity for ASIO and our intelligence services to now determine, through due process, whether or not Mr Mustafa deserves to remain in the country. Until that time, we have to abide by the rule of law, because that is the strength of our democracy. We do not do things— (Time expired)
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (15:14): Following Senator Stephens in this debate on the motion to take note of the answers given by Senator Evans today, I would like to say that there are some shared concerns on most sides of the political debate on this. I would make the point to Senator Stephens, though, that it has not been condemned by everybody. Indeed, there was an article published in Green Left Weeklyblaming the police for the riots on the weekend—which beggars belief, even for an extreme green organisation and outfit.
It would be of no surprise to people in this chamber and anyone listening that I have been concerned about the impact and the progress of fundamentalist Islam in this country for many years. I have sounded many warnings, and I have been pilloried, attacked, condemned and criticised. I have been told that I am not telling the truth. When I produced the evidence, when I showed that the government was facilitating the demands of some of the extremists in respect to sharia compliant finance, I was told that I was making it up—until I gave them the press releases that Senator Sherry had put out and the booklets that they had launched. This necessitated changing our laws with regard to insolvency and Corporations Law. It would have established a sharia compliant tribunal.
The point that I am making—not to attack the government, because I think they have condemned these riots, like everything else—is that every single appeasement of sharia or Islamic law in this country is a step enhancing and emboldening the fundamentalists who want it. Every time they say, 'We want polygamy,' and it goes unchallenged, it advances their cause and emboldens them. Every time they say they want legal plurality, as the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils did in a submission to a joint committee, it undermines our critical values and the pillars of Western democracy, which are, firstly, the rule of law—one rule applying equally to everybody—and, secondly, the Judeo Christian values, which, whether you are a person of faith or not, have built the bedrock of how we treat each other in this society.
So we need to reject at every single turn the demands of the fundamentalists, no matter how minute, small or petty they may seem to be. Until they are denounced and until they are condemned and rejected out of hand, we will continue to see the progress of their agenda. And their agenda is a dangerous one. What happened on the weekend, including the signs of 'Behead those who insult the prophet', or 'Behead those who insult Islam', is exactly the same signature and signage of the same small group of dissident extremists who started this campaign in England and in parts of Western Europe. If you want to see the demonstration of that 10, 20 or 30 years on, go there now and have a look and you will see that there is isolation, there is a separatist culture and there is fear. We cannot be scared to stand up for the values of the right of peaceful protest and the right to have freedom of religion in this country. But that does not give anyone the right to undermine and destroy the essential pillars that have united us through generations of migration.
I welcome the fact that many people and leaders in the Muslim community have condemned these attacks, but some of them would be more genuine if they did not have a history of pushing for sharia or accommodations of Islamic laws themselves. That is what worries me. It worries me that they completely change their course to appear reasonable in the face of public sentiment, when perhaps they are doing something else behind the scenes. I say that because I genuinely fear for the future of our country if we allow these extremists to continue along their way of making demands—whether those demands are about not showing their face to a police officer and then running to the press and saying that the police officer is a racist because they wanted someone to unveil themselves or whether it is about making all sorts of hysterical outbursts every time there is any examination of the agenda of the sharia advocates—and we are going to stifle public debate.
It worries me that people like Senator Conroy are critical of Google for having the YouTube video up—which is just a ridiculous movie, might I add. I have watched it and it is just ridiculous, pathetic and hopeless. One person made that movie—one person—and four people have died and dozens of people around the world have been injured. This is an outrage. It is a disgrace. Rather than condemn Google, we need to condemn the perpetrators of these terrible acts and we need to denounce their agenda fulsomely. I look forward to bipartisan support for that. (Time expired)
Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (15:19): I do not disagree with much of what Senator Cash said in terms of condemning the violence. I think everyone in this chamber would and should condemn that sort of behaviour. There is no excuse for violent protests—none at all—in our country. We do not support it and I know no-one on the opposition side supports it. As far as the comments of Senator Cash were linked to that issue, she gets no objection from me.
I do not personally have any information about Mr Mustafa. I do not know what he stands for. But there is no place for hate speeches in this country, either, and we certainly do not support that. What I do know is that we have a very strong security and intelligence community in this country. For some time I was actually on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I am very much aware of the very thorough process that our security and intelligence agencies go through to keep our country safe and to also screen people who have agendas that do not fit with the expectations of the Australian community. Whether or not they have gone to the step of saying that this person should not have a visa is not something I am aware of. But what I am aware of is that there are proper processes for the granting of visas. It is not something that the government should get themselves involved in every time there is the potential for some issue. It is something the government should take very serious advice on. We have professionals who are skilled in giving this advice to government—and, as someone who has been on the security and intelligence committee, let me tell you that they do not waste any time in giving that advice to government if they think there is a problem.
As Minister Carr pointed out, this individual has been to Australia before. He was granted a visa at that time under what I understand are the same conditions that are in place now, but that visa was granted under the previous government. So it was somewhat disappointing—and I certainly disagree with some of the things Senator Bernardi said—to hear a hint in his speech that, while we abhor any violence and do not support any violence, somehow the government should take some responsibility for that violence. If that was what was being suggested, we absolutely reject that. We have condemned the violence, as people should.
I do want to take exception with one of the things that Senator Bernardi said. He talked about Muslim leaders being genuine and saying that they would be more genuine if some of their actions reflected that and they called on everyone to actually condemn the violence. The Muslim leaders in this country did condemn the violence. It is not appropriate for Senator Bernardi to come in and question the sincerity of that condemnation. They publicly went out and did so. They did so very quickly. They did not have to do so, and I think it was inappropriate for Senator Bernardi to question the sincerity of that condemnation.
I saw some of the condemnation on TV. I certainly thought it was sincere. I thought they spoke very eloquently on behalf of their community, of which we know the vast majority, like all communities in this country, are honest, law-abiding citizens who want to get on with making a prosperous and viable life here in Australia.
I know many Muslims who are active contributors to society and who would be—not that I have spoken to them since this violence—appalled by this and the signs that children were asked to hold. I know these are not actions that are supported by the mainstream Muslim community. We know that there were about 100 people at that protest, whether they were all there in order to do what was ultimately done in the first place is something I do not know. We know that, even if they all were, it is still a tiny number and we ought not condemn a whole community simply because of the actions of a few. It is something that we would not tolerate anywhere else. We would not tolerate it with other communities. We do not condemn whole countries or nationalities on the basis of the actions of a few. If they acted unlawfully, the law will and should deal with those people.
Taking note on this issue, it is fine to condemn the violence but to suggest that people are insincere in their condemnation is not an appropriate thing to do. (Time expired)
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (15:24): I also rise to take note of answers. In my maiden speech on 14 June 2005, I spoke of having lived my life across the diversity that is Australia. I spoke of cultural diversity having brought us many advantages but also challenges. I spoke of when my parents and millions like them experienced prejudice when they first came to Australia. It was a fact of life. They got on with it. They assimilated. They shared their culture, traditions, values and beliefs. They accepted and became accepted. Through this, they and many others helped forge the unique Australian way of life that we have today.
I then spoke of divisions in our society and I want to restate those today: while some seek to gloss over divisions in our society by affirming a desire for harmonious coexistence and religious tolerance, divisions do exist. We need to address them before the rifts become so deep that our society's very existence is threatened. Australia is a tolerant and compassionate society founded on understanding and respecting social and religious differences. Our success as a culturally diverse society comes from putting our commitment to Australia first.
Last Saturday in Sydney we saw the ugly side of multiculturalism in our community drastically rearing its horrid face—this is what I mean about the divisions in society. Some commentators are suggesting that the elephant in the room within our Australian community has reminded us of its presence. Firstly, this film has more than once been officially condemned by the US government with the White House even taking the extraordinary, albeit unsuccessful, step of asking Google to pull the video down. Therefore one must ask the question: what was the justification for marching and protesting against the US consulate?
One must also ask why the level of unwarranted vitriolic chants like 'Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell'? As Waleed Aly correctly asked in the Sydney Morning Herald today:
Pardon? Which dead? Weren't we talking about a movie?
This can only be interpreted as a reference to their holy soldiers that are rewarded in paradise and must therefore be a comparison to our, in their eyes, not so holy soldiers. Therefore one can only conclude that the dead that they are referring to are our diggers, our ANZACs, the brave men and women, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. They fought to defend our basic freedom—the freedoms that afford those very people chanting offensive slogans on Saturday the right to protest. What was the justification for the level of violence?
The scariest and perhaps the most offensive part of Saturday's disgraceful events was seeing children holding placards above their heads calling for people to be beheaded—signs that they were not even old enough to read, let alone understand. Worse still, their parents were proudly taking photos on their phones for the family album.
Contrast this behaviour to the Christian response to the deplorable and intentionally offensive films such as Hail Mary in 1985 and The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988 to name a few. As a lawyer with the Australian Government Solicitor, I acted on behalf of the Chief Censor in proceedings related to the entry and classification of The Last Temptation of Christ. In both cases the Catholic Church appropriately invoked legal argument to argue that the films were blasphemous. The Christians who were offended did march in the streets. They did not riot. They respected the law and argued their case in a measured manner through the appropriate avenues—namely, through the office of film classification and the courts.
I commend the Muslim organisations lining up to condemn the violence. There are thousands of Muslims who, like my parents, have come here to build a better life for themselves and for their children. Many have been very successful. Only this week we saw the election of Councillor Ned Mannoun, Liberal mayor of Liverpool, in one of my patron seats of Werriwa.
I say this to those in the community who have come out here with little or no intention of integrating themselves, who have no desire to assimilate, who preach hatred and violence: you are not welcome. As the daughter of migrants to this country, I say to you: 'Accept our laws. Respect them and make the most of the opportunities that this country can give you. If you do not want to do this, it is time to go back to where you came from.' This is the view that millions of Australians, the silent majority in this country, think about every day, and it is time that we should not be afraid to say it publicly and openly.
Question agreed to.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:29): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to finance and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
In today's Australian Financial Review, the head of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission has come out and made it very clear that the regulator is struggling to do its job. The report that has been released today says that ASIC has just 26 staff to cover 25 investment banks, which means that they are reviewed every 1.3 years while the 220 hedge funds may be looked at once every 6.6 years. While the big four banks are reviewed every year, the 135 insurers are only reviewed once every seven years. The top 20 financial planners are reviewed once every 1.7 years while the next 30 are reviewed only once every 3.8 years. The big four audit firms are reviewed once every 1.5 years and the remaining 72 audit firms are reviewed less than once a decade.
Quoting from Mr Greg Medcraft, the chairman of ASIC:
It will be clear to any reader of our surveillance chart that we do not conduct an in-depth surveillance of all the entities we regulate each year. Further, we do not necessarily review all aspects of an entity’s business when we do conduct surveillance.
He has also stated:
I think it is important that people know we aren't on every street corner. We would like to be but we are not.
This is a really critical issue because people around Australia were horrified about what happened in the global financial crisis. People want to make sure that all of our financial institutions are properly regulated and that the regulations that relate to them are properly looked at, overseen, monitored appropriately and so on. To now discover that ASIC has said, 'We can't do the job with the resources we've got' is a matter of real concern to the Greens. For some time we have also expressed concern about, and put up a number of proposals to raise, revenue. I was pretty appalled to see the Treasurer come out at the weekend and boast about the fact that Labor is raising less than $24 billion of what the Howard government raised in tax revenue—and that is on the tax-to-GDP ratio.
The Greens have negotiated Denticare with Labor, which is a fantastic new innovation. It is the start of universal access to dental care. We want to see more money going into public education. We think that is critical and we do not want it left until 2020. I do not want to see public servants losing their jobs and organisations like ASIC unable to do the job that Australians really want to have done. That is why the Greens have said, 'Let's raise the revenue; let's actually get out there and do it.'
What I asked Senator Wong today, as the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, was whether she is positioning the government for the mid-year economic forecast to impose more efficiency dividends, which will mean greater losses of public servants and less ability to oversee ASIC and other essential services.
The Australian people have had enough of losing critical public sector jobs. Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, is out there saying that if it were up to him he would be slashing even more jobs in the public service than the Labor Party intends to do with new imposed efficiency dividends. We have already seen it in Queensland, with Campbell Newman slashing 14,000 jobs—four thousand in health, for example; but I honestly think that if Australians start to sit down and wake up to where these jobs are being taken from, and the fact that the efficiency dividends to date have bitten so hard that organisations like ASIC cannot do the job that they are expected to do, then people are going to be angry. If some of these institutions are shown to have mismanaged their responsibilities or failed, people are going to ask questions as to how that is possible. You are going to have the head of ASIC, Greg Medcraft, out saying, 'Well, I told you it was entirely possible because we can't do the job that Australians expect us to do.'
I would like the Senate to rethink its total focus here on continuing to cut public service jobs, which means cutting the services that we need to regulate things like our financial system. Surely, after so many people lost so much in the global financial crisis—particularly through superannuation losses—they would like to be confident that ASIC can do the job. I call on the government and the coalition to change course on this one.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Marshall: to move:
That the time for the presentation of reports of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee be extended to the first sitting day in March 2013, as follows:
(a) provisions of the Protecting Local Jobs (Regulating Enterprise Migration Agreements) Bill 2012; and
(b) Fair Work Amendment (Small Business—Penalty Rates Exemption) Bill 2012.
Senator Wright : to move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on detention of minors be extended to 4 October 2012.
Senator Ludlam: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) from 15 October 2012, the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) will visit India and will likely advance a bilateral uranium framework agreement while there,
(ii) the growing mass movement in India peacefully protesting nuclear reactors on grounds of health, safety and loss of livelihood due to radiation risks, and
(iii) brutal repression by the police and navy of the tens of thousands of peaceful protestors at the Koodankulam reactor, including two deaths due to police shootings, the latest being Mr Anthony Samy on 11 September 2012, and at least five related deaths over struggles against Koodankulam, Jaitapur (Maharashtra) and Gorakhpur (Haryana) nuclear power plants since 2010; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) make representations to Indian authorities on the democratic right to peaceful protest,
(ii) recognise that, in the case of Koodankulam, nuclear reactors are being forced on local residents at gunpoint, and that uranium fuel loading is imminent despite 10 safety guidelines having not been met,
(iii) promote the independence of India’s nuclear regulators from industry and government as best international practice,
(iv) not sell uranium to countries that stand outside the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its associated safeguards system, and
(v) implement recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on bilateral uranium agreements.
Senator Waters: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the intention of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) to transfer responsibility for protecting our nationally threatened species and wilderness places to state governments by March 2013, and
(ii) that the New South Wales Premier (Mr O’Farrell) is ready to sacrifice the iconic Australian koala for mining and development; and
(b) calls on the Government to retain responsibility for all major decisions on environmentally damaging projects that affect our nationally threatened species and wilderness places.
Senator Wright: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that:
(i) torture is a gross violation of human rights,
(ii) Australian, Mr David Hicks, experienced torture and cruel and degrading treatment during his detention in Guantanamo Bay, and
(iii) recent reports indicate that while incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay Mr Hicks was forcibly administered drugs such as mefloquine for non-therapeutic purposes, when it is known to cause psychotic side effects and brain damage; and
(b) calls on the Government to conduct an independent inquiry into Mr Hicks’ detention, treatment and unfair trial, including the role of the former Australian Government.
Senator Mason: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) supports the rights of Australians to peacefully protest and condemns violent protests;
(b) deplores the violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists during protests on 15 September 2012 in Sydney that led to the injury of police officers; and
(c) condemns Green Left Weekly for its publication of articles blaming police for the confrontation that was instigated by violent protestors.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:34): by leave—I move:
That Senator Sinodinos be granted a leave of absence for the period 17 September 2012 on account of parliamentary reasons; that Senator Bushby be granted a leave of absence for the period 17 September 2012 to 18 September 2012 inclusive for personal reasons; that Senator Johnston be granted a leave of absence for the period 17 September 2012 to 18 September 2012 on account of parliamentary business; that Senator Bernardi be granted a leave of absence for the period of 19 September 2012 and 20 September 2012 on account of parliamentary business; and that Senator Ruston be granted a leave of absence for the period of 20 September 2012 for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The following items of business were postponed:
General business notice of motion nos. 1 to 5, relating to disallowance of certain legislative instruments made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, postponed to 10 October 2012.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (15:36): I move:
That the government business orders of the day relating to the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2011 and two related bills, and the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 3) 2012 may be taken together for their remaining stages.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012 (No. 2)
First Reading
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:36): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A bill for an act to amend the law relating to competition and consumers, and for related purposes, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012.
Question agreed to.
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:37): I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:37): I present the explanatory memoranda and I move:
That these bills 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—
COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN FOOD LABELLING) BILL 2012
Whenever the question is asked, overwhelmingly Australians tell us that they want to be able to easily identify and buy Australian-grown food. Yet the truth is that current food labelling thwarts this simple request.
A walk in any supermarket soon reveals the difficulty. Pick up a packet of bacon for example, and it may well tell you that it's "Made in Australia". Any reasonable customer would interpret that to mean that meat is Australian. A packet of glace cherries tells you they are "Australian owned and made". Similarly, a packet of rice crackers has a cheerful rice-cracker shaped map of Australia on its front plus the words 'Made in Australia'. Flip it over and it asks you to see a website for more details.
Surely the rice in the crackers is Australian grown? But visit the website you've been referred to by the packet and there's not one mention of where the rice comes from. The cherries aren't Australian grown but were glaced here; and as for the bacon, the meat was actually imported from another country but sliced, cured and prepared in Australia.
In all three instances, because the food in the packet was 'substantially transformed' as defined in legislation, and 50% or more of those transformation costs were incurred in Australia, the food can be legally labelled 'Made in Australia' or 'Australian Made'.
Little wonder then, that people are confused and frustrated by our current labelling laws. What Australians want to know is "was this food or the ingredients in it grown here?" Current labelling leaves them none the wiser.
When consumer advocacy organisation CHOICE surveyed their members, they found that only half of them actually understood what the current terms 'Australian Made' and 'Made in Australia' mean, and 90% said that country of origin labelling needs to be clearer.
Under current labelling laws packaged food is treated like any other good or service, so these terms — 'Australian' Made', 'Made in Australia' and the much higher standard for 'Product of Australia' — can be found on virtually any other item you might purchase. But this is the heart of the problem: food is not the same as just any other good or service, and should not be lumped in with it for labelling purposes.
As the 2011 Blewett Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy states:
Food is ingested and taken into ourselves, unlike most other consumer goods that are just used, [so] naturally consumers are primarily focussed on the components and ingredients of foods and not with their substantial transformation, packaging or value adding.
Food is not like any other good. By conflating the processing of food with the origin of ingredients, we are stopping Australians from making an informed choice. The language is unnecessarily confusing. We can have clear labelling that lets Australians know if they are buying Australian-grown food, and if that product has been processed in Australia.
Some will no doubt point to the fact that while over 80% of Australians consistently tell us they want to be able to easily identify and buy Australian food, when it comes to actual purchases, this number drops to between 50 and 60% percent of people actually choosing to buy local over other, possibly cheaper options. In short, the argument goes that price ultimately trumps country of origin for Australians when it comes to food, and therefore it's not worth the bother to sort out this labelling confusion.
But there are a number of counters to this argument. Over half of Australians are very clear that they do make food purchasing decisions based on whether the food is local. There is emphatic evidence that the current labelling regime is confusing and misleading Australians. Isn't this sufficient reason alone for reform?
The Blewett Review's findings regarding the values associated with food labelling are particularly important. They tell us that the origin of food is being used by Australians as a surrogate for other issues they care very much about including food miles, animal welfare and other environmental and health concerns. In essence, Australians are looking to identify local produce as a way of ensuring the quality of food they seek, and rewarding the high standards our growers and producers meet.
But perhaps most important is to ask why we would persist with a food labelling regime that is arguably giving imported foods a competitive advantage over comparable Australian products. We know Australians clearly want to be able to identify and prefer Australian food. Therefore surely persisting with a labelling regime where imported ingredients can be labelled as 'Made in Australia', suggesting to most people that it is grown here, is allowing imported food to masquerade as something it is not, and compete unfairly.
This argument was also taken up by the Blewett Review, which stated:
There are mutual market benefits (to buyer and seller) of promoting food with positive/aspirational origins (e.g., chocolate from Switzerland), yet non-reciprocal benefits from withholding such information when it relates to origins with perceived negative connotations (e.g., food products from countries with poor human rights records). This situation constitutes market failure and the reason for government intervention on the issue of country of origin labelling.
If, as some contend, Australians predominantly choose what food to buy based on price there is even less reason to allow imported food to be passed off as Australian. Let Australian and imported food compete on equal footing, supported by accurate and transparent labelling requirements. For that to happen, current labelling requirements must change.
Clearly the arguments against reform don't stack up. It is little wonder then that the Blewett Review concluded that there is a strong case for reforming our country of origin labelling laws for food.
What is inexplicable is why this government, the same that commissioned the Blewett Review, has failed to implement these key recommendations to reform country of origin labelling for food. The review unambiguously confirmed that the widespread and ongoing dissatisfaction and confusion across Australia regarding country of origin labelling is justified. It confirmed that markets cannot deliver it and the government must.
In the absence of the government taking up this reform, the Greens have acted. With solid evidence to support the reform, and impatience from Australian growers and the community for change, we are proud to table this bill.
There are two key parts to the amendments put forward in this bill. The first enacts Recommendation 41 of the Blewett Review, by creating a specific section in the Competition and Consumer Act that will deal solely with country or origin claims with regard to food.
The purpose of this is two-fold: to cease the treatment of food as just any other good; and to create a single regulatory regime, retaining mandatory labelling requirements but superseding country of origin labelling from the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act.
The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act is focussed on dealing with matters relating primarily to food health and safety. As country of origin labelling is centrally concerned with accurate information for consumers and preventing misleading claims, regulation of the matter rests more logically in the Competition and Consumer Act.
The second part of this bill enacts Recommendation 42 of the Blewett Review, that country of origin labelling for food should be based on the ingoing weight of the ingredients and components, excluding water. This codifies the desire of Australians to know the origin of the food they are buying first and foremost, not where any processing and packaging took place.
The bill removes the ability to make the stand-alone claim 'Made in Australia' about food, and provides unambiguous language and benchmarks. Food grown in Australia, as it can now, will be able to state exactly that on labelling. Processed food comprising 90% or more Australian ingredients by dry weight will be labelled "Made of Australian ingredients". This will establish an easy to understand transparent premium claim that will allow Australians to finally make informed purchasing decisions.
There is often discussion in this country about how to bring the city and the bush closer together. It's a logical and necessary conversation, one that recognises that with the majority of Australians living in cities but heavily reliant on the work of rural Australians, especially for food, it important to foster understanding and respect. However, much of the commentary on the issue is couched in terms of a divide, and other negativity.
The desire of Australians to be able to make a clear choice and buy locally grown food shows that people living in our cities do understand and value the work of Australian farmers, and they want to demonstrate that tangibly.
The arguments for clear country of origin labelling to enable this are logical and long-standing, and should be honoured and enacted. This bill seeks to do just that.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Minerals Resource Rent Tax
Senator CORMANN ( Western Australia ) ( 15:37 ): I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, no later than noon on Wednesday, 19 September 2012, information for each of the financial years 2012‑13, 2013‑14, 2014‑15 and 2015‑16 regarding:
(a) the cost to the Budget of the various state government royalty increases announced after 2 May 2010 on coal and iron ore that are creditable against any Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) liability, broken down by state and commodity; and
(b) the cost to the Budget of the upfront tax deductions able to be claimed by existing mining projects that are subject to the MRRT on the basis of the market valuation method.
Question agreed to.
Nauru
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:38): I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, no later than 21 September 2012, the contact between the Commonwealth Government and:
(a) Transfield Services for the service provision on Nauru for offshore processing of asylum seekers;
(b) International Health and Medical Services for the service provision on Nauru for offshore processing of asylum seekers; and
(c) the Salvation Army for the service provision on Nauru for offshore processing of asylum seekers.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Parramatta Heritage Precinct
Postponement
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:38): by leave—I move:
That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 932 standing in my name for today, relating to the Parramatta Heritage Precinct, be postponed till the next day of sitting.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Threatened Species and Wilderness
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:39): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the intention of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) to transfer responsibility for protecting our nationally threatened species and wilderness places to state governments by March 2013, and
(ii) that the Tasmanian Premier (Ms Giddings) is ready to sacrifice the Tarkine wilderness for mining and development; and
(b) calls on the Government to retain responsibility for all major decisions on environmentally damaging projects that affect our nationally threatened species and wilderness places.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:44]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Aged Care
Senator PARRY (Tasmania—Deputy President of the Senate and Chairman of Committees) (15:46): A letter has been received from Senator Fifield:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The crisis in the aged care sector and the impact of the Government's recent funding changes
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Senator PARRY: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (15:47): In the 2011-12 federal budget submission the Aged Care Industry Council stated:
A snapshot of the industry at the start of 2011 does not depict a sustainable system: only 40% of residential aged care services are operating in the black ...
Regrettably, in recent years this has been the story of ageing and the aged care sector—a sector that is well and truly in crisis. This is a sector that, despite five years of reviews and inquiries into it, has had broken promises from those on the opposite side. Not only has Labor failed on some of its promises; but it has also failed to take the hard decisions. It has not undertaken the vital structural reform that is necessary for the aged care sector to ensure its sustainability and viability in the future.
I would like to focus my comments today on the Productivity Commission report entitled Caring for older Australians. This is a report that the government sought. This is a report that received 500 submissions and then, when the draft came out, another 500 submissions were provided to the Productivity Commission. Indeed, it was very much awaited with great anticipation by the sector in the hope that the government would actually undertake some reform. We welcome this report. At the time of its referral, we were critical not because of the Productivity Commission but because so many reviews of the sector had already been undertaken, and the sector was very much suffering from review fatigue.
The coalition have been calling for reform in the sector for a long, long time, and we did so at the last federal election. Indeed, we set out our framework for real reform through the first ever four-year aged care provider agreement with the sector, including consideration of the Productivity Commission's report. After the Productivity Commission released its report, it took the government some eight months before it made its announcements. And when those announcements came, they were made with typical fanfare—yes, the spin doctors were well and truly hard at work. Whilst the announcements on 20 April this year, with the headline figure of the $3.7 billion, sounded impressive, the net spend was only $577 million. There were major gaps in the government's response—notably, the huge administrative burden under which the aged care sector currently suffers. Nothing has been done to address the vital changes that are necessary in that area.
But like many of Labor's announcements, the devil is in the detail. Our response has been cautious because we knew that, when we looked at the fine print, that would be where the real problems would be. And of course, there they were—$1.6 billion will be ripped out of the Aged Care Funding Instrument over the next four years. We also have the establishment of another bureaucracy, more bureaucracy, in a sector that is already wallowing in red tape and bureaucracy. We have Labor ignoring the bulk of the Productivity Commission's recommendations. Indeed, we will be lucky if five to eight per cent of what the Productivity Commission recommended will be picked up by the government. There is also the $1.2 billion workforce compact. And, of course, I have traversed the issue of the ACFI changes that are supposedly being made because of allegations of rorting.
We still have not seen those assertions about the sector substantiated by the minister. Only 40 per cent of residential aged-care providers are operating in the black, and now the world's biggest carbon tax providers are justifiably feeling that they have been kicked further. This was a problem of the government's own making. The government, as usual, failed to properly consult with the sector. The minister is hiding behind this confidential process, allegedly saying that these changes were discussed as part of the ACFI monitoring process—but of course that is a confidential process and, as this came out of the blue, aged-care providers were caught very much on the hop.
Taking $1.6 billion out of aged-care funding is going to have a massive impact. This was seen in the report by Leading Aged Services Australia, which says that aged-care providers will face a $750 million revenue shortfall over the next 2½ years, with statistics such as 89 per cent of aged-care facilities facing unrecoverable losses, the average reduction in care funding from between $20,000 and $23,000 per resident and average loss to facilities of around $125,000.
Then we have the establishment of the Aged Care Funding Authority—another bureaucracy which is going to dictate prices, bonds and a whole range of measures which are totally inconsistent with what the Productivity Commission was indicating, although typical of this government: trying to infer that providers were charging the big $2 million bonds. There is only one $2 million bond in this country, and we know because we have been informed about that by the sector in Western Australia.
I would like to make some comments on this workforce compact. The minister says that $1.6 billion will be taken out of ACFI but $1.2 billion is going to be redirected to a so-called workforce compact. Despite the protestations of the minister, these two things are inextricably linked. Currently, providers receive a conditional adjustment payment of 8.75 per cent of their subsidy to meet certain workforce obligations. Under the proposed compact, unless providers have an enterprise-bargaining agreement with their workers they cannot access the funding under the compact.
The providers will still be required to meet the same workforce obligations, but unless they enter into an EBA they will be unable to access the funds. And who, or what, is the default agent for aged-care workers? It is the union. There are three key unions in aged care: United Voice, the Australian Nursing Federation and—of course—the HSU. As a result of the Thomson scandal and the problems with the HSU union membership has clearly suffered considerably, with a dramatic reduction in membership numbers.
Therefore, we are seeing that forcing providers to enter into enterprise-bargaining agreements means that more aged-care workers will be forced to join the union. To me, this looks very much like a dirty little backdoor deal at the expense of aged-care workers to get more people to join the HSU—another backroom deal.
I call on the minister to respond. I have said this publicly on a number of occasions, and Minister Butler has still not said anything. He has not responded to this. It is obvious what he is doing. This is supporting the non-Kathy Jackson side of the HSU equation. For Minister Butler, who obviously has his own ambitions, this is what it is all about.
I say to the minister: this is at the expense of aged-care workers who have already gone through the scandal and who have already seen their precious contributions abused in the way that Mr Thomson, Mr Williamson and others have used them. Now they have you cynically using this as a backdoor way of propping up the union and basically saying to providers: 'If you don't get your workers into the union, then you are not going to access funds.' If the minister really wants to help the sector, why doesn't he give them back the money as a conditional adjustment subsidy like under the system that is already established? No! He is putting conditions on it because that is the real object of this compact. It has nothing to do helping providers; it has everything to do with helping the HSU. It is little wonder that the aged-care sector has absolutely no faith whatsoever in this government and in this minister.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:57): I have to say, I give it to Senator Fierravanti-Wells. I said to Senator Collins that I did not think she would be able to tie Craig Thomson to this one, but I was wrong! She drew a bow so long—to think that the workforce compact is there to support workers in the aged-care sector, and all Senator Fierravanti-Wells wants to talk about is some conspiracy theory that she has concocted in her own little world. So what we will see—
Senator Fierravanti-Wells interjecting—
Senator CAROL BROWN: I went—supported by the HACSU actually—and did a Walk A Day in My Shoes day down at an aged-care facility in Tasmania. It is a facility that is very well run; Tasmania has some of the best facilities in Australia, in my view, and I am sure the Deputy President would agree with me. I did a Walk A Day in My Shoes day down there, and it was clear that what the workers really needed was support in terms of their wages and in terms of their conditions. They were on quite low wages, which you often see in this sector—particularly with carers, the majority of whom are female. Sectors that are worked in by a majority of women tend to be on the lower side of the wages equation. As I said, I did not think Senator Fierravanti-Wells would be able to do it, but I take my hat off to her! Conspiracy theories at large!
I rise proudly in today's MPI debate to put on record the Gillard Labor government's strong commitment to aged care. Earlier in the year the Gillard Labor government announced landmark changes to the aged care system which will mean that more people will be able to keep their home, and more people will be able to stay in their home as they receive aged care support. The $3.7 billion Living Longer Living Better aged care package will provide more choice, easier access and better care for older Australians.
Before I go into detail about the Living Longer Living Better package, I want to go back to where this reform agenda for the aged care sector began. The Gillard Labor government knew that after 11 long years of neglect under a coalition government the aged care sector needed reform. That is why in 2010 the government asked the Productivity Commission to develop detailed options for redesigning Australia's aged care system. The government released the final Productivity Commission report Caring for older Australians in August 2011 and since that time, through the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mr Mark Butler, we have been consulting and meeting with the community, with consumer organisations and with the aged care sector. The minister met with over 4,000 older Australians, their families and their carers as well as with industry stakeholders through their peak organisations, the National Aged Care Alliance and the Ageing Consultative Committee. I had the pleasure of hosting a consultation forum in Hobart with Minister Butler. It was extremely well attended, with over 100 people in attendance. They were very impressed by the minister's commitment to reforming the aged care sector.
The consultations found that after 11 years of neglect from those opposite the aged care sector was in need of urgent reform. So, after the Productivity Commission report and the consultation process, we set about building a sustainable aged care system that would stand the test of time. In putting together an aged care package it is vitally important that the sector, unions, carers, consumers and importantly the opposition all jump aboard and support the push for reform. Prior to the Productivity Commission report, there was an inquiry by the Community Affairs References Committee that supported the need for reform, and out of that inquiry came evidence that the sector was under severe pressure and had enormous challenges to meet in the long term. This had come about during the coalition's term in government.
The only way we will deliver long-term, lasting aged care reform is through political goodwill and everyone working together; that is why it is so disappointing to be presented with this motion today. The last thing anyone in the aged care sector wants is for this issue to become a political football—the aged care sector wants its elected representatives to work together and deliver sustainable long-term aged care reform. I would urge those opposite to put away their attempts to score cheap political points and join with the government on working to deliver a sustainable aged care sector. That is what the sector wants. As I said, consumers expect this and providers expect this; they do not want to see their elected representatives playing politics with such a vitally important issue. But that is what the opposition are doing today with their MPI on aged care.
To go to the crux of the opposition's MPI, I am happy to report that since the introduction of the Aged Care Funding Instrument—ACFI—in 2008, government funding per resident has been growing at a rate that is significantly higher than occurred under the previous funding classification scale. Let us look at some of the figures that back up that statement. Between 2006-07 and 2011-12 the growth in aged care subsidies was an average 6.5 per cent per annum above indexation compared with being 2.8 per cent above indexation per annum between 2002-3 and 2006-07 under the previous classification scale. The ACFI changes that came into effect on 1 July 2012 were made to bring the rate of future growth in funding back to the long term trend rate, and it is also worth noting that these changes were made after a period of intense consultation. These changes are not designed to reduce funding for aged care subsidies; in fact, average daily subsidies will increase from $131 to $149 per resident in today's dollars between 2011-12 and 2016-17.
This is such an important issue because our population is ageing. Over the next 40 years the number of Australians over 65 will increase from one in six to one in four and the over-85 population will grow from one in 200 to about one in 20. This will obviously result in increased demand and pressure on our aged care system—that is why we need to ensure the reforms we put in place now are well considered and are sustainable in the long term. That means, whilst it is important we address the challenges currently facing the aged care system, it is also important that the changes be sustainable for the next 20 years. That is why earlier this year the Gillard Labor government announced the $3.7 billion Living Longer Living Better aged care plan to deliver more choice, easier access and better care for older Australians and their families. Our landmark reforms to Australia's aged care system will begin to reshape the system from 1 July this year, and these changes will begin to lay the foundation for longer term reform—the first such reforms in 30 years.
A major part of our aged care reform package is to make it easier for Australians to stay in their homes longer through a major expansion in home care packages. This will be delivered through a $955 million funding investment to expand the number of home care packages from 59,000 to almost 100,000. There will be two new types of home care packages—one for people with intermediate care needs and one for those with more basic care needs, allowing for a flexible response as an individual's needs change. We will also implement new fee arrangements for home care packages to ensure a consistent approach to the way older Australians contribute to the cost of care they receive in their own home.
We want to deliver a long-term sustainable aged care system that can best support our ageing population, so I urge those opposite to stop trying to score political points on the issue of aged care and support the government on the implementation of the Living Longer Living Better package. (Time expired)
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:07): The provision of aged-care services in Australia has been in a steadily expanding crisis in that it has been getting worse for a significant period of time. That is nowhere more so than in my home state of Western Australia, where we have been at the leading edge of that crisis, with plain evidence of the consistent failure of providers to take up the beds offered in the aged-care approvals rounds over the last couple of financial years. The providers in Western Australia are also probably the most vocal around Australia about their concerns with the changes to the Aged Care Financial Instrument.
Along with a number of other people, the Greens cautiously welcomed the reforms that were announced on 20 April this year, I think it was, and we supported them in principle. However, the devil is of course in the detail, and once you start looking through them you see that there are some issues. While changes to the ACFI were mooted at the time, I really do disagree with Senator Brown that there was a lot of consultation around the changes. There was not. They came as a shock. The actual changes were announced very shortly before the beginning of the current financial year, which is one of the many things that providers are very critical of.
I have heard from a number of my constituents in Western Australia who work in aged care and—because I also hold the aged-care portfolio for the Greens—from providers all around Australia, expressing their concerns. They are particularly concerned about the potential impacts on the providers of services for supported and concessional places, Indigenous services, regional services and services to members of the CALD community.
We have asked a series of questions on notice about the ACFI changes, because at the moment we simply do not know. While I can sort of understand where Senator Fierravanti-Wells is coming from on this, it is too early to know, and that is the point. We know there are a lot of changes being made as part of aged-care reform. They are very necessary changes but, in my opinion, they do not go far enough, and we are going to have to go further if we want to have a system that provides high-quality, affordable care. However, today I will focus on the Aged Care Financial Instrument changes.
What the government have said but are not able to significantly back up is that there has been a lot of rorting of the system, with lots of fallacious claims, and the funding for the Aged Care Financial Instrument is being spent too quickly. When the changes to the ACFI were made, the number of claims went up considerably. One of the questions I asked was: what evidence is there of the increase in claims? The government came back with the response that in 2010-11, of the services that were reviewed—because there is an ACFI review program—66 per cent were subject to one or more downgrades of their ACFI claims under section 29-1 of the Aged Care Act; and, in the financial year 2011-12, which had not yet ended when I asked the question, 61 per cent of the program had been subject to one or more downgrades. In that instance, the government are not claiming that there was rorting but that there may have been mistakes made in calculations and so on. When I asked how much those downgrades were worth in terms of savings, the government were not able to tell me. They said:
Residential aged care subsidy funding is calculated on a daily basis and this rate can change a number of times. Attempts to calculate savings would place an unreasonably high demand on resources.
They are saying that there is overclaiming going on under ACFI, so what I want to know is how much they are saving from having addressed that process. If they did the assessment process properly, do they actually need to change the instrument or simply make sure that the claims are accurate? Because that money is being used to provide care to people.
The bottom line here is the standard of care that is being provided in our aged-care facilities—and we know that our aged-care providers are not being paid enough to look after their residents. Talk to any provider in this country; they will all tell you that there needs to more funding provided to support those receiving care, particularly at the high-care end. What is happening because of the changes that were made by the previous government is that people are no longer going into low care but staying in their own homes, which is in fact what they prefer, and only going into high care at the end-of-care stage. That means they are there for shorter periods but the demands on the high-care services are much higher. So it seems to me that we are in the situation where the government cannot say how much is being saved following the downgrading of those claims. What we need to know is: are the items that are being claimed in fact the items that the government changed?
I understand that the government, in response to concerns raised by providers, have said that they are monitoring this. Isn't that the key point? That is why I am saying that this debate has been brought on too early: we do not know what impact the changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument items are going to have on the provision of care. I know there is a lot of concern that one effect will be less time spent with people on day-to-day living activities. One of the criticisms you constantly hear from providers is that they just do not have enough resources or time to put into helping residents with day-to-day living activities, when those activities are what give their days meaning and joy.
We believe there are a number of principles by which we should be measuring the funding model and for which the government needs to have regard when it is monitoring the changes to ACFI: that is, the time staff can spend with an older person under their care has to be maintained—it cannot go down; that support for daily living activities is retained to enable a life of dignity and maximum independence; and, that the changes which target inefficiencies or rorting—and there is a difference there, a very clear difference—are consistent with the original intent of the ACFI tool and in fact do not create new barriers to delivery of quality care. We also need to make sure that the changes balance up saving for long-term reform against the risk of sustainability of services during the reform transition process.
Some providers are saying that we are in danger of going under because these changes are having such an impact on our services. I understand quite tight monitoring is going on and it needs to be happening rapidly because there is a potential that we will start losing some of the providers out of the system, the very thing the government has acted to address, so that residents in our ageing population are getting high-quality and accessible care. Also, one of the major criticisms of the system is that providers are not building beds and are becoming increasingly non-viable. We need to make sure that aged care providers have confidence in the minimum level of funding they are going to get, so that they can plan properly and participate in the reform process. Also, if they are not confident, they are not going to participate in subsequent rounds of ACAR funding.
It is absolutely critical that we get this process right. The Greens are watching this process very carefully, in particular the changes to ACFI. If the government have made a mistake and have not finessed the ACFI carefully enough, they will need to be big enough to acknowledge that adjustments will need to be made or people will be missing out on care and providers will be going out the back door. My state will be leading that withdrawal because Western Australian providers are the most likely to be non-viable in the near future. This needs to be fixed and careful monitoring needs to be in place so that we will have an aged care system into the future. (Time expired)
Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:17): I rise to speak on this important matter, the crisis in the aged care sector and the impact of the government's recent funding changes, largely because many people in Victoria have raised it with me. Not only is it a matter of concern in Western Australia, as Senator Siewert has just pointed out, but also it is significant in Victoria. I know millions in Australia are focused on the aged care sector and on how they are going to be affected by what is available for their families over the coming years. I would like to support and endorse the comments of Senator Fierravanti-Wells, who has been representing most effectively and speaking out on behalf of the coalition. Also, I would like to acknowledge the despair we feel on this side of the chamber when we know that the aged care sector requires such a big injection of capital funding yet we see such significant financial incompetence and mismanagement of the Treasury coffers. Only in the last few weeks, and indeed over the last couple of months, we have seen the Prime Minister hell-bent on going on a spending spree, knowing full well that she has no capacity to a fulfil her promises.
We know that facts do not get in the way of this Prime Minister, so long as she can influence her own electoral support on the basis of pledges which she knows in her heart she cannot deliver. We have seen her promise billions, for instance in the disability sector with the NDIS, which has bipartisan support. We all support the need for an NDIS, yet we know that the government has not demonstrated how they are going to fund that program.
Likewise, more recently we have seen big statements made about commitments over the next three years and about education funding which will not start until 2014. We know that this government has no capacity to deliver on that education funding. That is why it is with great despair that I rise to talk about the aged care sector today—because so much money has been thrown up against the wall, money which could have been invested more wisely, certainly in the aged care sector.
We know this sector is going to require greater resources because most of us visit aged care residential facilities. We know that, with the ageing of the population and improved medical procedures, technology and advances, we are all living longer and this ultimately will strain the aged care sector.
I note Senator Brown's observations about the reprioritising of the aged-care sector, with greater emphasis on home care packages, which are also important. But there is one fact that you cannot get away from, and that is, when people finally go into aged-care residential service facilities, they require a greater level of support. It is that greater level of support that is of critical concern to those in the aged-care sector.
Only a couple of weeks ago, I was visited by and had a meeting with Ms Kate Hough, who is the Victorian CEO of Leading Age Services Australia. In that discussion, she clearly demonstrated why they have such concerns with this new funding model, because it will lead, without doubt, to a $750 million black hole in the provision of aged-care services. This is not me using this as a political football. This is me referring to independent financial analysis that clearly demonstrates this. The financial analysis of the federal government's Aged Care Funding Instrument, ACFI, shows that losses associated with these changes will rise to over $350 million by the year 2014. Whilst it is reasonable to say, 'Crikey, that sounds a lot,' what does that mean for every resident? What does it equate to on an individual basis? When you work out the numbers, it works out to between $20,000 and $23,000 per year per resident, which amounts to some $56 to $63 per day per resident. So we are talking about a significant amount of money that will affect the on-the-ground delivery of service and support to these people.
This really points out just how out of touch the Prime Minister is in thinking that this will not effectively hurt those on the ground. According to this independent analysis, the average loss per aged-care facility will amount to some $125,000 per year. Some facilities in Melbourne could face losses of up to $560,000 per year. Those facilities that are on a smaller scale, which do not have the opportunity to explore and exploit economies of scale, where they may not be a provider of more than one residential facility, will face greater losses, particularly those in rural and regional Australia.
Noting the time, I will just quote one thing from a media release that was issued by Mr Gerard Mansour, of Leading Age Services Australia:
To ensure a viable aged care industry, we’re strongly advocating a move away from a funding model which is artificially constrained by the Federal Government’s budgetary limitations, to one which genuinely matches care funds to people’s needs.
(Time expired)
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (16:26): I rise to make a contribution in this matter of public importance discussion about aged care. When my dad was alive and was living here in Canberra, he was able to live in his home because of the dedication and care of the staff at Goodwin Aged Care Services. They supported him through an aged-care package. I was a bit concerned, when Senator Kroger was just speaking, that there seemed to be a presumption that people inevitably will have to move into an aged-care facility. That is not true. The dilemma facing most of us baby boomers is how we ensure responsible, compassionate, even reliable care for our ageing parents at home. Our expectation—and I think it is a growing expectation—is that our aged-care providers will work to improve the quality of life of our elderly folk who, just like Paddy Clarke, want to remain living in their homes, even though they require some assistance.
The community aged-care packages are a great way to do professional assessment of our elderly, who may require just simple services, or they may require a quite complex range of services and levels of support to be living independently, or they may need to have some respite care. But those kinds of issues are so important for the dignity of our ageing population. All of us will confront this, some of us sooner than others. We are a growing ageing population who will be much healthier in our old age than our parents or grandparents ever were. We are also living longer, meaning we will be challenged by a range of illnesses that affect the elderly much more.
The fundamental problem that we have is the fundamental problem that the Productivity Commission addressed in its report released in 2011, and that is that the major components of aged care need to have very separate policy settings—community aged-care packages; support for our carers; support for our aged-care providers, to make sure that there is an investment in the aged-care industry; and support for our aged-care workers, who are caring for the most frail and the most vulnerable in our society and being paid a pittance. There is a huge commitment to increasing the training and support and remuneration for our aged-care workers.
It was a little bit disingenuous for Senator Fierravanti-Wells to come in today and suggest that the changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument were all about trying to support union numbers. It seemed a little beneath Senator Fierravanti-Wells, who, as the shadow spokesperson for ageing, knows much more than that. But we in the government are very aware of the issues and we have all heard the stories. Senator Siewert and Senator Kroger mentioned that aged-care providers have raised concerns about the Aged Care Funding Instrument, ACFI.
Those changes that were announced in June 2012 were quite important but there were two specific issues, ones that had been raised with many of us, that really needed to be addressed. The first one is about the issue of returning the ACFI subsidy growth to long-term trends and the second is the ACFI redirection changes that are being made as part of the Living Longer. Living Better aged-care reform package. If you have not actually had the opportunity to read this document, which I am holding, and to read about the comprehensive nature and approach that is provided in this response to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, then I really do commend it to you because it lays out in black and white — and in colour — what the challenges are for us all and the way in which we, as responsible governments over a 10-year period, can actually build a robust and sustainable aged-care system.
Going to the real issues that Senator Fierravanti-Wells and Senator Kroger raised, first of all there is a bit of a myth about the fact that aged-care funding has been cut. That in itself is a nonsense. In late 2011 the government actually increased its residential care estimates by $2.3 billion for the period between 2011-12 and 2014-15 and that was actually reflecting the anticipated growth in aged-care services demand. Since that time the department has actually been working with the aged-care sector very closely on options about how to bring that future growth back to trend. So the notion that there should be exponential growth of investment in the system, which would then be absolutely unsustainable, is being moderated by a conversation with the aged-care industry that asks: how best do we manage the aged-care industry to manage the growth that is confronting us? I think that is a very important issue. In fact, the ACFI monitoring group has been meeting quite regularly. That group comprises representatives of the aged-care sector as well as consumer representatives, gerontologists and clinicians working in this space, and peak bodies being challenged by the practicalities of our ageing population. So the changes that were announced in June are addressing that fundamental issue of trying to bring the rate of future growth in funding back to the long-term trend rate and to redirect funding into other aged-care reforms. Those reforms are not intended to reduce funding for aged-care subsidies. They are being used to fund the shifting nature of comprehensive aged-care reform.
I was a bit perplexed about some concerns that have been raised here, that some people in aged care might lose some services that they currently have and that some people in the same circumstances might be treated differently. That would be a horrific scenario, one that we would not want people to believe could actually be happening, so let me put this on the record very clearly. Under this very comprehensive package—and, as I said, this document is amazing and a great read and outlines the challenges and the policy responses with great case studies that help to actually articulate what is going on—different people in aged-care services definitely are not going to be treated differently and the changes will not reduce the services or care for those residents. Providers are actually going to be required to continue to deliver services based on the care needs of the residents and they will need to maintain a standard of care which is expected under the aged-care standards.
Much, much more can be said about what is going on. This changing environment is very challenging. It is quite difficult to navigate the aged-care system and that is one of the challenges for people who are trying to organise the best aged-care packages for their elderly relatives or family. But let me say about the issue that we have here, about what is included in ACFI—and I know that is something that has been raised with me—that ACFI funding is provided to support the care needs of residents. It is not the only source of funding that aged-care providers have, and let us not forget that. Providers also receive revenue for accommodation from the resident, either as a bond or through charges, and from the government accommodation supplement and from revenue from hostel services, which go to the basic daily fee. The government is not reducing funding for residential care. In fact, the government is increasing funding for residential care from $8.86 billion in 2011-12 to $10.9 billion in 2015-16. Under those reforms aged-care subsidies are projected to grow by 2.7 per cent, which is above indexation.
Let us consider the issue of the changes in our aged-care sector. I acknowledge what Senator Siewert said: aged-care providers, particularly those smaller aged-care providers who cannot deliver economies of scale, will be quite challenged in the overall environment of caring for our elderly in our community. But that is not to do with the ACFI formula; it is to do with economies of scale. It is the communities that are going to have to respond. If we want our elderly to age in our communities, then we have to find the ways to support them. It is not a result of the ACFI formula.
Senator SMITH (Western Australia) (16:36): I rise this afternoon to also make a contribution to the very strong suggestions that we have heard here today that Australia's aged--care system is in fact undergoing—and I would like to quote Senator Siewert—a steadily increasing state of crisis. From one of the earlier speakers we heard the suggestion that what this government is seeking to correct is 11 years of neglect under the former Howard coalition government. That is a comment that is simply not true. As many senators would know, I was fortunate to work in this specific policy area during the Howard government and I know its record is a proud one. The Howard government provided more money, more beds and a much greater degree of transparency in relation to aged--care services. The Howard government introduced legislative standards to make sure elderly Australians were receiving quality care.
It is all very well for the Labor Party to pick and sneer, but the fact remains that enshrining standards of care in legislation was something John Howard did. It did not occur to Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke or Paul Keating. Future reform will not take place under the Julia Gillard Labor government.
I would also like to reflect on the comments made by my Western Australian colleague Senator Siewert, who was quite correct in saying that the devil is in fact in the detail in regard to this government's aged care reforms. She went on to say that the aged care industry has been in a steadily rising state of crisis, and that is a fact that has been shared with me by many Western Australian aged care providers. She also quite revealingly made the suggestion that the earlier cautious endorsement by the Australian Greens of the government's aged care package may well have been misplaced. I do, however, disagree with Senator Siewert when she suggests that this debate taking place today may be happening too prematurely. That is simply not the case. Providers are telling me and other coalition senators that action must be taken now, that they want the focus of this government to be on ensuring that a high quality standard of care is provided to older Australians.
We are agreed, though, as a Senate on a number of important things—the importance of aged care in our country as the population ages. We are agreed that we need to have a sustainable system for delivering aged care. We also agree that the opportunity to provide care for older Australians in their homes is a good one. We also agree that dignity of ageing people should be at the centre of all of our policy considerations. We also agree that aged care should be above politics. But on each of these points I am afraid to say that Labor is failing us and failing older Australians.
This government's aged care reforms are among the most cynical actions this government has taken to date. This is really quite a statement given its performance across many other policy areas. I have spoken in this place before about the sneaky way that the Living Longer, Living Better packages were sold to aged care providers and to older Australians. The government simply hoped that everyone would be fooled by the press releases and glossy brochures, laid out in black and white and in colour, and not notice what the Gillard government was doing: taking $500 million out of an industry that takes care of some of our most vulnerable fellow Australians. Those working in the aged care sector, I am confident, were probably too busy emptying bedpans, helping elderly patients shower and preparing meals to read and pay attention to the fine print. That is something this Labor government wilfully and shamefully took full advantage of. The knowledge that this is the case simply compounds the feeling of betrayal that many aged care providers with whom I have spoken feel about what this government has done and continues to do.
It is worth noting the comments of the Aged Care Industry Council in its 2011-12 budget submission. It is a quite revealing and unfortunately accurate statement. It said:
A snapshot of the industry at the start of 2011 does not depict a sustainable system: only 40% of residential aged care services are operating in the black …
What a powerful and accurate assessment of the state of Australia's aged care industry.
The nature of Australia's ageing population means that demand for aged care services will grow exponentially in the coming decades. Over one million older Australians currently receive aged care services, so it is already a significant challenge. However, according to the Productivity Commission, come 2050 over 3.5 million Australians are expected to require aged care services each year. The means we need to be building more facilities and attracting greater numbers of aged care staff. This is a time when we need to be doing more, not less, to support ageing Australians. Yet what the government has announced it will do is just the opposite. It will stall investment so that new facilities are not built and do nothing to remove disincentives for people to work in aged care.
Ten days ago I visited Craigcare, an aged care facility in Albany, Western Australia. I went there with the shadow minister for seniors, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, and the hardworking Rick Wilson, the Liberal Party candidate in the seat of O'Connor. We went there because Craigcare, its management and staff are deeply concerned about what the government's funding cuts will mean for them. Let me use this opportunity to pay tribute to John Gillett and the fantastic staff that I met at the Craigcare aged care home. It was great to see young people choosing a career in aged care and great to see the dedication and professionalism of people working in the aged care system.
Albany is not a wealthy community. The residents at Craigcare, a facility which contains a mix of low- and high-level care residents along with a secure dementia facility, are not wealthy. They demand nothing more than that which all Australians have a right to expect: the chance to live out their autumn years in relative comfort and with dignity. Yet at a time of life when people need more certainty than ever, the Gillard government is giving them the opposite. Residents are concerned about being able to pay their way and the cuts now being imposed are making aged care unviable. The Labor senator who spoke before me is quite right: the viability of small regional aged care homes is at risk because of the government's policy.
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (16:43): I think there is a degree of unanimity among all participants in this debate, and that is that the longevity tsunami that was referred to earlier is coming towards the Australian community. We are all living longer. We all live much longer in retirement. In fact, some of us will live as long in retirement as we do in the workforce. So it is very, very clear that there is an issue. It is also very clear that whilst we may be living a lot longer there is no real evidence that we are living any longer without disability. In fact we are probably living a lot longer with disability than we have in the past.
I really need to take issue with Senator Fierravanti-Wells's comment that it could all be solved if we did not have an EBA. The reality is that this is a growing sector of the economy. It employs many thousands of short-term casual employees and will employ many thousands more. They do incredibly difficult work in circumstances where they may visit people in a house and work for two hours giving a shower or they may work casual hours in a nursing home on a weekend delivering showers or critical needs for someone in that facility.
It is absolutely disgraceful to say that they should not have the minimum protections of the industrial relations regime that we operate under. What sort of an employer seeks to have short-term casual employees on less than the minimum award provisions? I think Senator Fierravanti-Wells's ideological bent was well to the fore in her diatribe about Minister Butler attempting to put in place some sort of protective regime for unions. The simple fact is that workers in Australia are best suited to collective bargaining and best protected by an EBA. Most reputable employers recognise that and pursue that as a fundamentally efficient way of delivering the outcomes that they seek—that is, good quality care by committed, caring people delivering an excellent result for the recipients, our aged care people.
The reality is that a number of changes have been made. As Senator Stephen said, that is not to diminish the amount of funding in the area but it is actually to return the rate of growth of funding to trend. It is important to realise that research by the leading body for aged care services, Aged and Community Services Australia, shows that providers are facing a revenue reduction of several million dollars over the next 2½ years. Points made in rebuttal of that by the minister's office are: (1) this research is based on some assumptions which are disputable in that residents would be replaced by others with exactly the same needs whereas data consistently shows that new residents may have different needs; (2) the small sample is representative of the entire sector which is questionable; and (3) nearly 25 per cent of residents will be reappraised each year whereas the figure is under two per cent. There is some dispute about the report which has been widely quoted by members of the opposition to say Labor is doing a terrible thing in respect of this sector.
The reality is that we are about putting in place a stronger aged care system with a $3.7 billion package entitled Living Longer. Living Better to look at more choice, easier access and better care for older Australians and their families. What aged care recipient would not want that? I finish on the issue with which I started. The opposition always goes back to industrial relations. But if one in 20 are going to work in aged care then why wouldn't those one in 20 Australian workers be entitled to a fair and reasonable return on their investment in looking after some of the most valuable people in our community, aged care recipients?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Mark Bishop ) (16:48): Order! The time for the discussion has expired.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Mustafa, Mr Taji
Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:48): by leave—I correct an answer I gave at question time. In answer to a question by Senator Brandis today regarding a visit to Australia by Mr Taji Mustafa, I answered incorrectly. I sought assistance by getting a brief from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and in giving my answer I confused two questions. There was a discussion in 2007 by the then Howard government that they did not intend to proscribe the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. But I confused that with a question of a visit to Australia by Mr Taji Mustafa. I incorrectly said the gentleman had visited Australia before, in 2007. I do not have any information as to whether he has visited Australia before. I have taken on notice the question by Senator Brandis to see if the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship can provide more detail and that may well include such information. But I want to be clear in correcting the record I did say he had visited Australia and that was not in my brief. That was incorrect, but I will confirm whether he has or has not as I am just not sure. When I saw the draft Hansard it was clear to me that I had conveyed an impression which is at this stage untested.
COMMITTEES
Economics Legislation Committee
Report
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:50): On behalf of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Bishop, I present the report of the committee on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012, and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Report
Senator FURNER (Queensland) (16:50): I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on the review of the Defence annual report 2010-11 and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Senator FURNER: On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I have pleasure in presenting the committee's report entitled Review of the Defence annual report 2010-11 and in doing so may I acknowledge Captain Chris Smallhorne, Australian Defence Force exchange program participant who is with me in the chamber today.
The review of the Defence annual report is an important task and an opportunity for the Defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to inquire into a broad range of Defence issues as part of the process of accountability of government agencies to parliament. The subcommittee takes this responsibility very seriously.
The subcommittee took evidence from senior Department of Defence officials at a public hearing held in Canberra on 16 March 2012.
The committee also took evidence from a range of other organisations as part of its review. The subcommittee selected a broad range of issues for examination during this review. In broad terms, the focus areas were: the strategic reform program; personnel; operations; sustainment; the Joint Strike Fighter; and reviews of Defence culture.
When it tabled the Review of the Defence annual report 2009-2010 the committee commented on the lack of preparation of some Defence personnel, and delays in receiving responses to questions on notice. I am pleased to say that this was not an issue in the conduct of this review, with Defence officials being well prepared and the responses to questions on notice being received in a timely manner.
The committee has previously commented on the difficulties of obtaining an overall picture of the progress of the strategic reform program within Defence. During the course of its review, the committee again noted this fact, particularly given the current Defence annual report format. Therefore, the committee has recommended that a summary chapter on the strategic reform program be added to the Defence annual report to provide greater transparency of this program, including whether it is achieving targeted savings.
The committee noted that Defence is still reporting difficulties in increasing its Indigenous, gender and multicultural diversity in line with planned targets, and is continuing to employ strategies to increase these numbers. The committee will continue to monitor progress in this area.
The committee noted Defence's continued engagement with operations across the world, including in Afghanistan, and I pause to express my condolences to the families and friends of the Australian Defence Force personnel who were killed in the service of our country on 29 and 30 August this year—Private Nathaniel Gallagher, Sapper James Martin, Lance Corporal Mervyn McDonald, Lance Corporal Stjepan 'Rick' Milosevic, and Private Robert Poate. These soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women of our Defence forces continue to serve their country in dangerous locations with professionalism and distinction.
As part of its review, the committee spent significant time on the issue of sustainment. The committee welcomes indications that Australia will have a greater say in the future structure of foreign military sales arrangements between Australia and the US, and encourages continued progress in this area. However, the committee also believes that Defence should work collaboratively with industry to develop compromises on how elements, such as intellectual property clauses, are included in sustainment and procurement contracts. The committee will continue to monitor progress on this issue.
The Joint Strike Fighter program was extensively reviewed and the committee received evidence not only from Defence but also from a range of organisations and individuals with views on this program. The committee notes that some submitters to the review were fundamentally opposed in their views to the cost, schedule and capability of the Joint Strike Fighter. In light of the conflicting perspectives presented, the committee resolves to maintain a focus on the Joint Strike Fighter in order to ensure it provides Australia with regional air supremacy. Recent decisions to bring the next Defence white paper forward to 2013 and delay Australia's purchase of these aircraft will provide an opportunity for further scrutiny.
Finally, the committee received an update on a number of cultural reviews being conducted within Defence, and will monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from these reviews. I commend the report to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: Documents are tabled pursuant to statute. Details will be recorded in the Journals of the Senate and on the Dynamic Red. Documents are also tabled in accordance with the continuing orders on departmental and agency files and contracts.
Details of the documents also appear at the end of today’s Hansard.
BILLS
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012
Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Reporting Panel) Bill 2012
Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Health Insurance Amendment (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Bill 2012
Higher Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill 2012
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012
Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012
Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012
Navigation Bill 2012
Navigation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012
Tax Laws Amendment (Investment Manager Regime) Bill 2012
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the Senate of assent to the bills.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), before Chapter 5B, insert:
Chapter 5AA—Oversize Fishing Vessels
Part 15AA—Oversize Fishing Vessels
Division 1 Prohibition
390SAA Civil penalty—fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel
A person must not engage in fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel in a Commonwealth marine area.
Civil penalty:
(a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units;
(b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.
Note: If a body corporate is found to have contravened this section, an executive officer of the body may be found to have contravened section 494.
390SAB Offence—fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person takes an action; and
(b) the action is taken in a Commonwealth marine area; and
(c) the action is a fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both.
Note 1: If a body corporate is found to have committed an offence against this section, an executive officer of the body may be found to have committed an offence against section 495.
Note 2: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b).
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
390SAC What is a fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel ?
(1) A fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel is a fishing activity using a vessel capable of processing and storing more than 2,000 tonnes of biomass.
(2) A fishing activity means an activity that constitutes fishing.
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 4 to 11), omit paragraph 390SF(3)(b), substitute:
(b) remains in force until a revocation of the declaration comes into force.
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 390SF(4).
(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 12 (line 10), before item 11, insert:
10A Section 528
Insert:
fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel has the meaning given by subsection 390SAC(1).
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:57): To begin where I left off, I take this opportunity to quickly go through the amendments that the Greens have circulated. One, as I touched on before we finished, was to put in place a ban on super trawlers based on a size of 2,000 tonnes. We believe that super trawlers have no place in this day and age in modern fisheries management and do not believe they should be operating in our waters.
We also have an amendment which essentially reverses the onus of proof. Instead of the declaration lasting only two years we believe there needs to be a process in place where the declaration remains in place until that declaration is revoked based on the science. In other words, there is no automatic assumption that it lasts for only 24 months.
We are also seeking to put back the issues around social and economic factors. Quite frankly, I am fascinated that Mr Oakeshott seems to have supported this removal of consideration of social and economic factors. The plain fact here is that a super trawler and this particular type of fishing activity could have a devastating impact on local communities, and it certainly has a social impact on recreational fishers. The consideration of social and economic factors is a very important issue, and I would have thought it was an issue that Mr Oakeshott would have supported given that members in his electorate have in the past spoken out quite strongly on issues related to recreational fishing and, in particular, impacts on recreational fishing and fish stocks. We seek to put that particular provision back.
We also seek to remove the sunset clause. What that effectively does is say it is for this particular activity and for no others. What happens into the future if there are other activities that adversely impact, or are likely to adversely impact, on the marine environment and fish stocks? We believe it is an important new provision that is going into the legislation, and one that we do not believe should have a sunset clause on it.
This is about the future of our fisheries management and of our fish stocks and, as I have articulated in the rest of my speech, the science is not clear. That is why we need to have this. That is why it is important that we have put this issue of uncertainty into the legislation, because if there is one thing that has become clear from this debate it is that the science is not clear. We need more work and we need some rigorous analysis of the science and the fish stocks. I articulated previously all those things that go into a proper assessment, none of which has been done or done enough, because we were using old data for the previous assessment. New data needs to be collected; it needs to be a very rigorous process and, as the scientists said, it is likely to take the full two years if we do it properly.
Senator THORP (Tasmania) (17:00): I am pleased to be able to speak to this urgent legislation to toughen up environmental controls on vessels like the supertrawler, now known as the Abel Tasman, and to have been involved in its development. This legislation will give the minister for the environment, working with the minister for fisheries, the power to establish an expert panel to conduct an assessment of all the potential impacts of this supertrawler before it can be given approval to fish in Commonwealth waters. The amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 will provide the community and the industry with a process to establish the high level of certainty that is needed for vessels like the FV Abel Tasman to operate in Australian waters.
I do not believe that existing concerns around bycatch of other fish, birds and marine mammals, particularly dolphins and seals, have been adequately addressed. Indeed, the present legislative framework did not provide the necessary safeguards, and it is in this context that the EPBC is being amended and updated to allow the minister to deal with issues not envisioned when the act was created.
The community needs to be assured that the environmental controls in place are reflective of the expectations of the community and that the expert panel will be able to assess the science to answer those very important questions. Importantly, this process will be undertaken over a period of up to two years, during which this vessel will not be allowed to trawl in Commonwealth waters. This time frame is required in order to collect much of the seasonally-specific data necessary to ensure the science is fully robust.
The major concern with the operation of this vessel for recreational fishers in my home state of Tasmania—and right around Australia—has been the potential for localised depletion of fish stocks. On this matter I have not been convinced that the existing science has been as robust as some have claimed, with some of the research around localised depletion and on-flow consequences to other fish stocks being several years out of date. I am also pleased that, separate to this bill, the minister for fisheries has announced a major review into Australia's fisheries management. The review is the first of its kind in 20 years, and will be a root-and-branch assessment to maintain our fisheries' world-leading status.
I first attended a rally against the supertrawler at the Derwent Entertainment Centre in Hobart in late July. Over the last six to eight weeks I have been contacted by recreational fishers from all over Tasmania and have spoken with stakeholders and community members across the spectrum. It has been my role as a senator for Tasmania to convey the concerns of the Tasmanian community to our federal ministers and lobby on behalf of the people of my state in this place. I am very pleased that through the efforts of Labor members of parliament to approach this issue sensibly and to speak directly with our colleagues and responsible ministers we have been able to achieve this outcome.
In his contribution earlier, another senator from my home state of Tasmania, Senator Colbeck, actually berated many of the people who were supportive of lobbying the ministers to try to effect some change around this issue. I think Senator Colbeck really needs to rethink some of the comments he is making, given that he is a senator for Tasmania—it is quite important, and one of our primary roles, to make sure that we are representing the interests of our electorate. I am not on my own in thinking that, and wish to quote from an article that was printed in a newspaper from the northern part of the state, the Examiner, last Tuesday, in which the author Barry Prismall said under the headline, 'Liberals surrender field of battle to ALP':
The Tasmanian Liberal party is being outfoxed and toppled from its fortress comfort zone.
The party that once prided itself as the paragon of states' rights has surrendered its fortress to Labor.
The Liberals were warriors for their state but now they appear like soldiers of fortune, with no apparent purpose.
Mere flotsam, hoping to drift to shore with a king tide, given their federal party's current supremacy in the polls.
… … …
They don't oppose the super trawler. The rest of Australia does.
They won't take on Tony Abbott over the threat of population-based GST funding.
… … …
The GST, a successful Howard government reform, is a dream issue to run with in terms of the threat to our share, and yet federal Labor MPs are the ones making flawless baton changes.
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association is having a meltdown over the disease threat of New Zealand potato imports, but barely a peep out of the Libs.
… … …
Our Liberal senators are taking the luxury of a year's fact-finding tour to produce election policies based on feedback while federal Labor MPs, who should be on the defensive, are on the attack; …
… … …
Now is the time for these Liberal bravehearts to be seen standing up for their state, but, they have meekly squandered the battle ground to Labor.
I also congratulate the Tasmanian community members who lobbied so strongly and raised awareness around this issue. To them, I say, 'This victory belongs to you.'
Above all, this government wants to see a sustainable fishery with appropriate management to ensure that fish stocks remain robust for future generations and that our marine environment continues to thrive. I wholeheartedly support this legislation.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (17:06): It is quite fitting to note that the best Senator Thorp can do is read an editorial from last week's Examiner rather than arguing her case regarding the supertrawler, rather than making a broader contribution in relation to where we are at the moment. It probably signifies the embarrassment that the government have about the way that it has managed this issue. Up until Monday last week, Senator Ludwig was actually defending the process—defending AFMA and defending the scientists. Yet through the introduction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012, we effectively have a motion of no confidence in AFMA and in the science.
It might be worth looking at Minister Burke's role in this entire process given he appointed the AFMA commission; he appointed the former New South Wales Treasurer as chairman of AFMA commissioners. Now he has effectively moved a motion of no confidence in the whole process. It might be worth working through Minister Burke's role in this process because last week in the media he claimed that he had no knowledge of the harvest strategy that supports the management of the small pelagic fishery.
When you look over a chronology of events, particularly between 2007 when Minister Burke was appointed Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and 2010 when the election occurred, there was a lot of action in this particular space with respect to how the small pelagic fishery would be managed. I will start in December 2004 when the AFMA board—as it was then, not a commission—agreed to develop the fisheries management plan. In October 2005 there was the first independent advisory panel report on quota allocation.
Between 2006 and 2008 there were a number of scientific studies on fish stocks and ecological risk assessments. The small pelagic fishery management advisory committee developed a draft management plan and the harvest strategy. It is at that point in 2008 when the harvest strategy was released that the concept of a large-scale freezer vessel came into being. The introductory comments to that document canvassed the use of a large-scale freezer vessel as perhaps the most economical way to work in the fishery. So already Minister Burke's comments in relation to his role do not have any credibility. In September 2009, a small pelagic fishery management advisory committee recommended the draft management plan to AFMA. In 2009, the harvest strategy was also reviewed. So not for the first time but for the second time a large-scale factory freezer vessel was foreshadowed as part of the management of this fishery.
In October 2009, then Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, wrote to AFMA endorsing the management plan, including the harvest strategy. Not only do we have Minister Burke involved in this process; but then environment minister Peter Garrett wrote to AMFA and specifically endorsed the Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan and harvest strategy, and he agreed to accredit it under the EPBC Act. If Minister Burke did not look at it, Minister Garrett certainly did and he agreed to accredit it in accordance with the EPBC Act—the act that Minister Burke now administers. For Minister Burke to say that he had no idea what was going on perhaps reflects his interest in his portfolio at the time. As I said this morning, a lot of us wondered what he was doing while he was in that portfolio—and his 1½ page ministerial statement at the 2010 election indicates probably not much.
In December 2009, the Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan was accepted by Minister Burke. Of course that management plan also refers to the harvest strategy, the document that Minister Burke says he does not have any ownership of. On 6 January 2010, Minister Garrett issued a wildlife trade operation certificate. For those who are not aware, any native wildlife fish species exported out of Australia needs a certificate to indicate that the fishery is sustainable under the EPBC Act. It is a very wise system and provides a second check that the fishery is sustainable.
In February 2010, the Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan was tabled in the parliament by Minister Burke. That management plan refers to and incorporates the harvest strategy. So Minister Burke actually tabled this document in parliament, yet last week he denied any knowledge of it. Senator Bernardi earlier today referred to a Sergeant Schultz's response, but I think that does a disservice to Sergeant Schultz. The small pelagic fishery strategic assessment under the EPBC Act was tabled at the same time.
Over a period of time, particularly during the period that Minister Burke was the responsible fisheries minister, we can see significant involvement in the development of the management of this fishery. For Minister Burke now to be saying, 'I didn't know about any of this' and that he had no involvement in this completely lacks credibility. He was a part of the development of the process—or if he was not, he should have been and he should have been across it, particularly given he tabled documents in the parliament. If you are going to table something in the parliament, you should have some sense of what it is. But then again, given the way this piece of legislation has been managed, you have to wonder.
In his press conference last week when he announced he was going to introduce this piece of legislation—legislation that today has had its name changed; another element in the whole sorry saga of this bill—he said that it would only apply to prospective events in the commercial fishery.
That is what he told the broader community when he announced this at the press conference with Minister Ludwig last week, and I think that those who were watching and listening were entitled to believe him. That is what a minister says; that is what a minister should do. But, then again, we have the example of the Prime Minister who said, six days before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. It did not take any more than a few hours for Minister Burke to break his commitment that this would only be around commercial fisheries and in relation to prospective events.
On reading the legislation, which the opposition did not receive until after it was tabled—we received a briefing on the legislation after it was tabled and the legislation after it was tabled—it became quite apparent that it related to everybody. So, yet again, Minister Burke's word cannot be trusted. The recreational fishing sector know that he cannot be trusted on marine parks, because the consultation that occurred under marine parks was siloed, separated from everybody else in the process and people were played off against each other. They are very reticent to believe Minister Burke about his promises in relation to marine parks. They learned very quickly that they should be concerned about his promises in relation to this bill too.
Before question time the day after the bill was presented, of course, we have the situation where Craig Thomson comes in with an amendment to try and sort out the mess that has been created in relation to recreational fishers. True to form, that amendment does not actually do the job. It takes out recreational fishers but leaves charter fishermen in, given that charter operators are regarded as commercial. This gives a clear demonstration that neither Mr Thomson nor the government have a real understanding of the recreational fishing sector. Of course, the opposition made this quite evident. In fact, we advised the recreational fishers of the situation that was going on, and then of course the government had to walk away from Mr Thomson's amendment and bring in its own.
The other thing about this piece of legislation—and I note Senator Siewert saying that she wants the social element back in—is that it provides an entree for GetUp! and like organisations who want to run social campaigns against industry in Australia to do that. Anyone else who is involved in any form of resource based industry ought to be really worried about this legislation, because it sets a very nasty precedent. If you can raise a social campaign, if you can get enough emails on Twitter, if you can get enough emails on GetUp!, this government will flip, particularly given the influence that there is on this government from the Greens. That is a real concern.
We have seen it in Tasmania. We have seen the effective de-industrialisation of Tasmania. We are seeing that Tasmania has negative growth, which is the ambition of the Greens. It is the stated ambition of the Greens; they do not want to see growth. Tim Morris, their Treasury spokesman, has said they do not want to see any growth. They want to see transitions rather than growth. So they are effectively going about their policy of de-industrialising Tasmania. We ought to be concerned that they have the same policies here and they are having that influence on the government, particularly the Labor Party.
Having got through that, the government moves amendments itself to take out social and economic. The Greens want to put that in. We will not be supporting that amendment. Then, to deal with the prospective issues—or, what they thought were the prospective issues—that are in the legislation, the government put a start date into the legislation of 11 September. So anyone who is doing something at the moment is protected, but if they want to change anything that they are doing in their fishery they have the risk of these provisions being enacted. Again, there is a problem in the drafting and the design of the bill, something that the minister promised just the day before would not occur, still exists. Then, in trying to get their votes across the line, to get Mr Oakeshott to agree to the bill and in the acknowledgement that this bill was just so bad, they had to put a sunset clause in it.
I acknowledge that what Mr Ludwig is going to do in having a review of the Fisheries Management Act—which was initially enacted in 1991, although I think we ought to be very aware that it has been amended a number of times since that period of time; you only have to look at the website to see that it has—to improve Australia's fisheries management. We are quite comfortable with the review of the Fisheries Management Act, but I am concerned that the Greens will use this as a way to insert into the Fisheries Management Act things that they are trying to deal with now. We will be watching very, very closely for that.
Next, we have here today the last amendment: to try and change the name of the act to give the impression that it is only about commercials. But we all understand that what the Greens want is what the government usually gives them. We have seen with changes to the carbon tax legislation how the whacky ideas that the Greens impose on the government as part of their legislative design process end up not working. Then, of course, what they have to do afterwards is come back and change those things because they do not work in the real world. I expect that that is exactly what we have seen here, with Minister Burke, as Senator Abetz quite rightly said earlier, who has his campaigning foundations in the Wilderness Society, effectively reverting to type and designing a very poor piece of legislation which has had to be amended five or six times before it got here, including changing its name so that we can get to a reasonable situation. Yet, any fisher who is still in any fishery and wants to change their method of practice is subject to his signature. I can tell you, there are a number of people in the commercial sector who are very concerned about this.
In fact the Tasmanian Labor senators ought to be very concerned about the attitude of the aquaculture sector; they are absolutely devastated at this legislation. They are really worried, particularly given the influence of the Greens in Tasmania, who are opposing the expansion of the aquaculture sector. When we talk about global food security and the importance of seafood in the global protein task—25 per cent of the globe's protein comes from seafood—aquaculture is going to be a very important part of that. But the Greens don't think so, because their policy is deindustrialisation.
A well-managed wild fishery will have less impact on the environment than almost any other form of growth of protein. Something that has been talked about a number of times during this debate is the strength of Australia's fisheries management. It is a real tragedy that what has happened as a part of this debate is that the reputation of Australia's fisheries management has been tarnished. It is a real tragedy. If you consider this particular fishery, and the way we manage it in the context of global fisheries, we are very conservative in the way we establish our quotas.
I refer to—and I think I have mentioned it in this place before—the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, which reported back in April on the way that we manage our fisheries. Their document says that, if you have a high level of science, your fishing harvest rate should not exceed 75 per cent. You can take out up to 75 per cent of the biomass. With an intermediate level of science, you can take up to 50 per cent of the biomass. With a low level of science, you can take out up to 20 per cent. The harvest strategy for Australia's small pelagic fishery says the maximum you can take is 20 per cent. So we are more conservative than even the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force. That is how conservatively we manage our fishery. I think it is important that we actually understand that.
Can I just address one final thing. It has cropped up in Senator Siewert's speech. I have only just received a copy of the document that Senator Siewert referred to that came out of IMAS a day or so ago. It is an important piece of the puzzle and an important point for discussion. I have referred to the way this was managed in a public sense in some previous statements. I do not walk away from those. Science is about discovery and it is about a contest of ideas. Professor Andrew Wadsley—who is very much a competent and well-regarded scientist in his field, particularly in risk management, something that I am also interested in—made some comments about calculations in respect of the science a few weeks ago. The thing that really disturbed me about it was that, rather than talking to the scientists who were involved in doing the work in the first place, he went to media, which immediately places a question on their standards and their efficacy.
Nobody questions the issue of the contestability of the science. I wrote to the vice-chancellor of the university on 3 September and said:
I am therefore concerned at the recent criticism by Dr Andrew Wadsley of IMAS and the calculation of the biomass and therefore the quota for the small pelagic fishery. I would appreciate any relevant information the university has on this topic to enable me to better understand the issues raised by Dr Wadsley.
My understanding is that this document is it. Unfortunately, I have not had it transmitted to me yet. I received it today by looking on the Tasmanian Times website. I will have a look at it and I will study it. But it is very disappointing that I have to go through that process to get that information. It is an important part of the equation, and I acknowledge that.
I also acknowledge the concerns of the recreational fishers—they cannot be left aside—particularly in respect of localised depletion. I have supported their concerns about that all the way through this process.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
"but the Senate calls on the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to:
(1) explain:
(a) the reasons for his decision to reverse the policy that he introduced as Fisheries Minister in October 2009 which stated: 'There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels';
(b) why he effectively invited the Margiris into Australia by promoting 'large scale factory freezer vessels'; and
(c) what actions he will take to compensate the 50 Australian workers who are losing their jobs as a consequence of this legislation; and
(2) introduce amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to expand the powers for greater spatial management provisions'."
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (17:27): I am glad Senator Colbeck got to the heart of the issue in the last four seconds of his speech.
Senator Colbeck: What, my amendment?
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Just prior to your amendment, Senator, where you talked about local depletion and the concerns of recreational fishers. Perhaps I can set the record straight from my perspective. I have had several discussions with Dr Wadsley about sharing his information with scientists at AFMA. I have even tried to facilitate that process. He did not go straight to the media. He put his report up on a blog—
Senator Colbeck: A blog on the Tasmanian Times? Give me a break!
Senator WHISH-WILSON: to get comment on a community blog, and it was picked up by the media. He has been very happy to talk to scientists.
Senator Colbeck: A complete lack of respect.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Senator Colbeck, I listened to you your speech with a respectful silence; I would expect you to do the same. As far as picking on Dr Wadsley, I think you are out of line.
We have discussed the science here in the chamber for three weeks. The Greens have had a very consistent position in the supertrawler debate and that is we want to see the quota disallowed. The key reason for that is that the doubling of the quota, from our point of view, was not based on necessarily science itself, but there were issues that were not addressed in that science. So, while there has been a lot of scientific work done by AFMA and other agencies on this fishery, we also believe that key risks were not addressed. We broke the science down into two parts. Before I get into that I will read some new information that has come to light in the last two days. Also the report there that Senator Colbeck was holding up I will go into in a little bit more detail on—and I also only received it this afternoon. It is quite telling in terms of the science on the setting of the quota, and it certainly raises more questions than it answers.
The letter from the Commonwealth Ombudsman to MP Andrew Wilkie last Friday, clearly stating—while its investigation has not been concluded because other matters are under investigation:
In the course of our investigation, AFMA has admitted that the SEMAC—
the South East Management Advisory Committee; part of AFMA—
failed to comply with s.64C of the Act in this regard. By allowing Mr Geen to remain in the meeting while the TAC matter was deliberated, after noting his conflict of interest as the holder of statutory fishing rights for the fishery, the SEMAC chairperson failed to follow the process set out under s.64C of the Act.
That is the first piece of information. It has been out in the media. It has been a point of public interest and public concern that perhaps the fisheries act was not followed and that there may have been a level of illegality in the setting of this quota, and we now have confirmation from an investigation that it does look like there is some smoke there in the fire. We will wait to see what further information comes from that investigation.
The second bit of information which we received this afternoon was on a report downloaded on the AFMA website called, Re-analysis of mean daily egg production in jack mackerel. This was posted to the AFMA website incorrectly—I understand, from speaking to Dr Wadsley. It was posted under their August databank rather than in their September databank, but it was picked up by Dr Wadsley. Essentially, to cut a long story short, 'After peeling away the scientific jargon'—and these are Dr Wadsley's own words—'the lowest plausible biomass estimates should have been used to set the jack mackerel quota.' Following through on this analysis, Dr Wadsley—and he has had this verified by another mathematician in the country about whom he speaks very highly—the TAC should have been set between 1,500 and 1,800 tonnes for jack mackerel, versus the 10,800 tonnes that was set under the existing analysis.
I have avoided using Dr Wadsley at all in any of the media that I have done on the supertrawler debate or in any of the forums I have spoken to and I have avoided bringing up his name in the Senate, because I have not seen it as being useful pitting one scientist against another. I have always tried to respect the AFMA scientists involved in the debate. But this is new information, and I think it has got to the point where Dr Wadsley has done so much work in this area that it does beg some specific answers from AFMA. The questions that Dr Wadsley has now put to AFMA include:
1. Why didn’t they have such a simple re-analysis carried out BEFORE they used the Neira (2011) report to set such an absurdly high and irresponsible TAC? Surely they have in place such checks?
2. Why didn’t they immediately inform their own Minister, the Hon Joe Ludwig, about the implications of the report for the jack mackerel quota, given that the report was lodged on the evening of Wednesday 12 September at the height of the 'supertrawler' debate?
I would also like to make it clear that, in all of my analysis and all my talking as a Greens senator on this issue, I have never focused on the setting of the quota for red bait or jack mackerel. The issue that I have been most interested in is not so much the quota itself but how the quota is going to be fished by a giant, industrial-scale vessel.
I have mentioned this before, but I would like to mention it again. A couple of months ago, a peak recreational fishing group, TARFish, along with conservation groups and other fishery groups, walked away from a working group with the Labor government. They put out a media release saying that they entered the negotiations in good faith and were prepared to see a trawler operate in Australian waters subject to their concerns being addressed. I will quote from their media release:
Following detailed discussions and a review of all the scientific information, provided to the Working Group—
presumably by AFMA and the Labor government—
TARFish has come to the conclusion that there is a lack of detailed scientific knowledge surrounding:
1. the extent and rates of movement of each species of small pelagic fish
2. the amount of time it would take for local populations of small pelagic fish to recover from intensive localized fishing, and
3. the size of the resident population of Jack Mackerel on the East Coast of Tasmania.
They posed a question: 'What would happen if a boat, a large trawler, was to take 2,500, 5,000 or 10,000 tonnes of fish from one area?' They also asked what impact this would have on their local fishing spot or on local ecosystems.
The lack of answers to those specific questions is the reason that we are here today debating this. Based on my discussions with these groups—and with Senator Colbeck, by the way—if those questions had been answered, if the data had been in place, and if a management plan had been put in place based on science that addressed these issues, I think we would have a situation where perhaps conservation groups would still have issues with bycatch but probably the fishing groups across this country would have walked away from their campaign.
It is disappointing to see again today the typical Green bashing that we got from Senator Colbeck. I missed Senator Abetz's discussion earlier but, based on previous—
Senator Carol Brown: You didn't miss a lot.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: So I did not miss a lot? Based on previous speeches I have heard, I am sure it was there. This is not just a Greens issue or a conservation issue, and I really do believe that they have missed the point. Saying that, I do acknowledge that it was mentioned in the last three seconds of Senator Colbeck's speech that there are concerns from local fishers. This is an issue that they have run very hard on, and they have been in discussions and negotiations since at least March. They were part of the resource assessment group at AFMA and part of previous campaigns against supertrawlers in this country.
On the issue of localised depletion, I would like to read a few select quotes from The Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery: General background to the scientific issues—a report tabled in the Senate the day before our disallowance motion and a report which Senator Colbeck said he commissioned the scientists at AFMA to write. It is the only research we had on local depletion. Even in that report, although they said that the overall risks to local depletion across the entire fishery were low, they said:
- fishing should be spread out so as to avoid localised depletions, especially in relation to any local ecological ‘hotspots’ where there is particularly strong local dependency between predators and prey (e.g. in the vicinity of some seabird rookeries).
Another quote from the final section says:
However given uncertainties about detailed movement patterns of several of the species targeted in the SPF—
small pelagic fishery—
it would be prudent to distribute catches to minimise the chance of local depletion. This is consistent with global scientific advice on best practice for managing such species.
The message is very clear as it was to TARfish and rec fisher groups when they walked away from negotiations. There is no specific research on fish stock movements in Australia's small pelagic fisheries. I do not blame AFMA or the scientists for this. If the research had been in place then we would have the answers. The issue here is funding, which raises the issue of it having been seven years since we began planning to bring an industrial-scale vessel to Australian waters—and this was brought up by Commonwealth Fisheries Association in their recent advertising campaign.
We have on record Senator Abetz saying that they have been working for three years since 2009 to bring this vessel here. I would like to piece together the time line at some point to work out exactly what has happened behind the scenes. Who are 'we'? We have been planning to bring out a supertrawler to Australia for seven years. Who are we exactly: is it AFMA; is it the scientists; is it the Liberal Party; or is it the fisheries minister? Who are we? If we have been planning for seven years, why hasn't the issue of local depletion been addressed and answered?
Senator Colbeck talked about the last harvest strategy released in 2008. We are now overdue for another harvest strategy; in fact, we were expecting it four or five months ago, but it has not been completed. I would have expected, given the planning for the last seven years to bring this vessel here, that we would have a harvest strategy in place and these risks would have been addressed.
This brings me to a critical point in this piece of legislation. The Greens wanted a disallowance motion. It would have allowed the government—whom we have now found out have the same concerns; they have come round to our way of thinking on the supertrawler—to stand back, cancel the quota, address the risks and get it right. In this new piece of legislation, it is very concerning to us that the words 'social' and 'economic' have been taken out of a clause, so we are only dealing with environmental impacts. From our perspective, sometimes it is very hard to separate environmental, social and economic. Think about a fisheries management plan that might be required to satisfy stakeholders.
I have sought some scientific advice on this from one of the country's leading fisheries experts, and he said a spatial management plan—apart from marine protected areas which are designed to be a spatial management plan—to protect ecological hot spots, would require a target catch for a geographical area and move-on clauses for a boat. In other words, a boat would only be able to catch a certain tonnage of fish from any given area before it was required to move on. It may also include—and this is from my discussions with the CEO of Seafish, the proponent—the fact that the vessel cannot go anywhere near existing ecological hot spots such as seal colonies or bird rookeries or, for that matter, anywhere near the coastline where it can be seen. The exact words from the CEO of Seafish in my office were: 'We are quite happy to stay out of mind, out of sight.'
So a fisheries management plan, if it were going to satisfy stakeholders and it was legislated and enforceable, which is what the rec fishing groups have been asking for, would have to be based on social and economic considerations. Rob Pennicott, who runs one of Tasmania's leading tourism businesses and employs 58 people, is very concerned about depletion of fish stocks in the areas where he takes tourists out every day to look at dolphins and seals. If his feedback was not incorporated in a fisheries management plan, which, by the way, will be required if the public is going to accept this trawler in two years time, what is the point? If it is just an ecological based assessment by scientists, it is ignoring why we are here today debating this.
This is a big social issue across the country and it has been a huge learning curve for me. I met fishers right across the east coast of Tasmania. I must admit: I had no idea how important fishing is to the culture of my state. Being a surfer, I have always focused on my community but I had no idea just how important fishing is. I have been misquoted by the Liberal Party and by journalists such as Greg Barns in the Mercurysaying that I am antiscience and antieconomics because I said at a forum and on ABC Radio that the feedback I have received from the community is that they do not want to hear about science. They do not want to hear about economics. They have made up their minds. All the transcripts show that I was surprised and I had learnt something from these people. I believe in science and I believe in economics to some extent, but people make their decisions based on a number of reasons, not the least being that they do not trust the science of the economics in this matter.
Sometimes it is little things that tip you in your path in life. I have shared this with Senator Colbeck face to face. When I met with AFMA for the very first time, I specifically asked them: did you double the quota of jack mackerel to facilitate the arrival of this boat, the supertrawler? Their answer was:' No, it was based on science.' We found out just weeks later under freedom of information that Seafish had written to AFMA specifically asking them to double the quota to allow them to bring the supertrawler. That might just be a coincidence, but you would think when a senator was asking you questions, you might at least say, 'Yes, we did get a request to double the quota to allow a boat but it was based purely on science.'
I lost trust in the process after that and I have shared that with Senator Colbeck. If I cannot trust AFMA when I meet with them to give me a straight answer, it is not surprising that other people in community cannot either. We are looking forward to talking to the fisheries minister a little later about what he is going to do with the restructuring with his root-and-branch approach to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
On the economics, very quickly: I also believe that one of the issues underlying the big reaction to this supertrawler is the fact that a lot of people cannot see what is in it for them. When you explain to them that the quotas were set several years ago and given to commercial fishermen—who used to operate in these fisheries and who have invested their money, time and equipment but the majority of whom have not been using the quotas; most of them are not being utilised—the next question you get is, 'So if they are not buying the quotas off us what do we get as taxpayers?' My response is, 'If Seafish makes a profit, we can tax that profit—a federal tax; you may get some dividend through the company if it makes a profit.' A lot of people are very surprised that there is no resource rent on these fisheries. There is no direct return to the taxpayer. Yes, there are jobs—and I do not at all belittle the fact that we need jobs, especially in Tasmania—but our job as parliamentarians is to weigh up all the costs and potential risks against the benefits. We need to get that right before we proceed any way down the track of allowing supertrawlers to operate in Australian waters.
Lastly, on social media: it is here to stay whether you like it or not. You are not going to get rid of it. Campaigns run by GetUp! and other organisations are here to stay. The issue for a much bigger debate at some time is how policy can be set effectively with direct marketing campaigns to politicians. I used to teach my economics students at university about the special interest model: how companies who could afford lobbyists used to get in the ears of politicians and get what they wanted. The world has changed now. Individuals can go directly to politicians and companies and set up online communities. This is something we need to wake up to and understand is a new reality. In finishing, I am hoping something positive will come out of this and that we look at how we can better manage and fund fisheries and have a sustainable fishery for the future.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:47): I rise today to add my contribution to the debate on the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012.
We are all aware that, while this bill will do a number of things, its main purpose is to ensure that the supertrawler, the Abel Tasman—formerly known as the FV Margiris—is not able to fish in Australian waters. It is a 140-metre trawler with an onboard-processing facility capable of storing over 6,000 tonnes. This has been a long-running issue that has generated great debate and high levels of community concern. The Gillard Labor government acted to stop the supertrawler because we believe that new environmental issues are raised by this ship that had not been contemplated when the science was last undertaken.
I believe that this legislative course of action is the only course of action that can stop the trawler. This is because only a long-term legislative outcome can deliver the result of stopping the supertrawler and that is what the Gillard Labor government has done. Last week the minister for the environment, Tony Burke MP, announced plans to legislate to extend his legal powers over the supertrawler to prevent the vessel from fishing in Australian waters. Minister Burke announced that he would make amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—the EPBC—to prevent vessels like the supertrawler from fishing so that further assessment can be undertaken and the science can be reviewed.
As I have said, we have never seen a ship of this size operate in Australian waters so it raises a number of questions regarding the science. When the science was done, it did not take into account that a vessel of this size would be fishing the quota and, particularly, it did not take into account the large storage capacity which allows it to stay in the same area of the ocean for an extended period of time. Before the introduction of this legislation, Minister Burke had put in place an interim two-week period with conditions that would have imposed strict requirements on the fishing operations of the vessel. Minister Burke found that he did not have the legislative powers under the act to suspend the fishing activity because of the uncertainty around the potential impacts of the vessel. The only power available to Minister Burke was the power to place extra restrictions on the vessel and so Minister Burke, reflecting community concern, recognised that new legislation was required to ensure that we continue good management of our fisheries and the environment. That is why the Labor government has taken action to legislate for the minister for the environment, working with the minister for fisheries, to have the power to establish an expert panel to conduct an assessment of all the potential impacts before a vessel like the supertrawler can be given approval to fish in Commonwealth waters.
The minister for fisheries, Minister Ludwig, has also announced the first major review of Australian fisheries policy and legislation in over 20 years. The review of Australia's world-leading fisheries system will identify what, if any, improvements are needed to ensure community and industry expectations can be met into the future. The review will look at the entire fisheries management regime. Australia has some of the best and most well-managed fisheries in the world so it is important that we maintain responsible management of this resource, ensure that it is sustainable now and into the future and is meeting expectations.
While the announcements made by Minister Burke and Minister Ludwig last Tuesday were extremely positive and welcome, I would like to go back to where the campaign began and how we reached this position. A couple of months ago recreational fishers and the Tasmanian community began to object to proposals by Seafish Tasmania to bring the supertrawler to fish in Australian waters, and as part of this campaign rallies were held around Tasmania against the supertrawler. Those rallies were first held in July this year. I attended community rallies, as I know many other members of parliament did, and held meetings with key stakeholders raising numerous concerns about the impact the supertrawler would have on our fisheries and ecosystems. Together with the member for Franklin, Julie Collins, and Senator Lin Thorp, I raised these issues with the federal parliament, ministers, MPs and senators; and we were pleased to gain support from our caucus colleagues against this supertrawler. There was a lot of concern on the part of caucus members, because this is not just an issue that affects Tasmania; it affects the whole of Australia. The proposed area that the supertrawler would fish in would have extended all the way from the Western Australian coast across to Queensland.
The nationwide campaign played a key role in highlighting the high level of community concern, particularly in Tasmania where the campaign began. So I want to commend and congratulate a number of people from the Tasmanian recreational fishing community who played a key and active role in the excellent grassroots campaign to stop the supertrawler: Neil 'Nobby' Clarke, Kellie-Ann Brown, Martin Haley, Brett Cleary, Mark Nikolai and Tyson Clements—all who worked tirelessly to raise awareness and gain strong public support amongst the Tasmanian community to fight to stop the supertrawler from fishing in Australian waters.
However, as it appears, this concern has not reached the Liberal Party who have voted against this bill in the House of Representatives. The Liberal Party are not listening and are not hearing the community concern. As part of this community campaign, there have been petitions with over 78,000 signatures from around the nation tabled in this chamber and I have received many hundreds of emails, letters and representations. I was recently contacted by a Tasmanian constituent—one of many hundreds—a self-described life-long Liberal voter. In his correspondence he asks Tasmanian Liberal senators to support this legislation and oppose the supertrawler. I want to quote part of that correspondence. He said:
I am also a self confessed fishing nut and in the same breath conservationist. I have always exercised catch and release fishing, taught my children the same practices who all fish.
This week I sat and watch the federal Labor party introduce legislation to protect Australia's precious fish stocks from plunder from a foreign owned monster trawler. While passing this stage of the process I find it so disappointing that the party—
he means the Liberal Party—
cannot do the right thing for this generation and for generations to come by supporting the bill.
Now the legislation comes to the senate and an opportunity for you all to show some common sense. Pass the legislation and in doing so show the true value of our marine resources.
These sustainable assets and resource can then be with us long after the mineral resource boom is forgotten. That cannot be mined more than once, our fish stocks could be with us for generations.
Please pass the legislation.
He makes a good point, because we do have well-managed fishing stocks and they are a sustainable resource that can be very valuable to us, so it is our job to ensure that the appropriate protections are in place to ensure that our fishing stocks are around for generations to come. He simply asks the Liberal Party, his Tasmanian Liberal senators, to show some common sense, to understand and acknowledge the community concern, to understand and acknowledge the concerns of our recreational fishers, to understand and acknowledge the uncertainly that surrounds the impact of the supertrawler, and to protect our fisheries from uncertainty.
What we have seen is that the act currently does not have sufficient powers to suspend a fishing activity where there is uncertainty to the impacts and where those impacts need further assessment, and so legislation is required. As Minister Burke said:
Marine environments once wrecked take generations to recover, if they ever do. A precautionary approach is not only good policy; it is the only decent option.
It is because the Labor government took the action it did to protect Australian ecosystems and fishing stocks that we are here today debating this legislation. Whilst there continues to be uncertainty about the impacts of a fishing vessel of this size, it is only appropriate that we stop the supertrawler from fishing in Commonwealth waters while further assessment is undertaken. The bill before us allows that to happen. This is the only responsible course of action to ensure the future of Australia's fisheries. I commend the bill to the chamber and urge all senators to support it.
Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:57): This is a rather peculiar time. I approach this noting that the whole approach of the Australian Labor Party during the Cubbie decision was that I was a populist and a sovereign risk. You can get no better example of populism and sovereign risk than what they did the next week, yet we have not heard boo from Craig Emerson—the righteous guardian angel of everything in the free market—and we have not heard boo from any of them. They are a total pack of hypocrites.
I want to go through what the minister said, because tonight is Monday. I want to go through what he said last Monday—that is the Monday before last Tuesday. On that Monday night, on Q&A, Tony Burke said this:
On the super trawler I was to have a media conference tomorrow—
that is, Tuesday—
morning but I have signed off on it over the last hour and a half … before I came here.
So he was going to have a media conference on Tuesday—we worked that out—but he was actually having a media conference to say everything is fine. That is what he said on Monday night. He went on to say:
The advice that I received is this: first of all, under national environmental law I don't have the legal power to block it altogether.
Apparently, 12 hours later, he did. He then said:
What I do have is the legal power to impose a number of restrictions on it based on the impact that it can have not on the fish that it’s targeting but on the by-catch: the seals, the dolphins—
et cetera. He then said:
Well, whether it’s economical or not after they see the conditions, that’s a decision for them, not a decision for me.
Not a decision for him, until the next day when it was a decision for him. The following is a classic statement. This is the minister the night before he made the decision to stop the supertrawler. Tony Burke said:
The catch limit had already been imposed on the fishery. So the catch limit exists. The company that has bought the boat already owned the right to catch a particular volume of fish. So in terms of the fish that thank [sic] you’re targeting, that part of it has already been measured as sustainable.
This was the minister less than 24 hours before he made a decision to stop the boat. The question, though, with this one is that, instead of 20 boats going out to all the different parts of this huge fishery, which goes all the way around Queensland and under South Australia, you get a different impact on your dolphins, seals and sea lions if you catch in a very localised area. So for the total catch that they are targeting there is no change.
Why did Minister Burke do it? How could this possibly be the same person within 24 hours? What happened after he left Q&A? Now there is a job for Inspector Clouseau. Where did he go? What happened? What was happening that the wheels of government were turning decidedly at one o'clock in the morning? Where was this meeting that he confirmed the night before? He was going to have a press conference to say that the super trawler was going to go ahead. What happened? Who is running the place these days? Who was there? It is quite surprising. The next day both ministers stood earnestly before the podium, stating that this was a deliberate decision. What were people to think? Apparently, they were being very competent: I saw earnest Minister Tony Burke and earnest Minister Joe Ludwig standing there, telling us that this was a logical decision. Apparently, they now have more competency than these people: the Hon. Michael Egan, FAID chairman; Dr James Findlay, CEO; Mr Richard Stevens, OAM and deputy chairman; Mr Ian Cartwright; Dr John Glaister; Ms Jennifer Goddard; Ms Elizabeth Montano; Ms Denise North and Professor Keith Sainsbury. These people are actually the AFMA commission who approved the decision. They are the people who actually gave it the tick-off, which was then endorsed by the minister. Even the night before the minister had agreed with their decision and was going forward with it, but apparently they must not know what they are doing. What is the minister going to do with the board now? Is he going to sack them? He obviously does not have any confidence in them. Is he putting them off? Did he contact them? Did he leave Q&A that night and go round to see the AFMA board and say: 'Sorry, guys, I was just pulling your leg on that show tonight. I really have no confidence in you and now I'm going to take a decision tomorrow morning that is completely at odds with the decision that you took'? How does it work?
Could this decision possibly be a sovereign risk? I wonder. Where was the op ed from Dr Craig Emerson? He should have been straight onto the Australian to write an op ed about it. He should have written a big op ed about the risk of Minister Tony Burke and Minister Joe Ludwig. Craig Emerson should have written a superlative piece on it, but he did not. I looked at the list and thought: maybe Dr Craig Emerson will give a speech about it, because he is a brave individual—a very brave person, with a very fine hair style. I thought: well, maybe he will give a speech on it. I have looked at the list and Dr Craig Emerson has never given a speech on it—not boo. Nothing. That is interesting. He was probably sick, or there was probably something on. Maybe there was something on telly—Play School. It is a very interesting world that we live in these days. The person who was the patron saint for protecting all against sovereign risk and populism went silent, and the government that had derided me made the most populist and peculiar decision in less than 24 hours from the time that they said they would do it.
We have had the problem in the past where we cannot trust what the government say before an election. 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' There is a carbon tax under their government. But now we have the situation where we cannot trust what they say, even for 24 hours. Twenty-four hours means nothing. Nothing they say has any worth anymore. So where did this decision come from? Was it really something about the seals and the dolphins? Minister Burke gave a very good explanation about what would happen if the super trawler caught a seal or a dolphin. It would have to move on for 50 nautical miles. He gave a very good explanation about it, but obviously he must have forgotten it the next day.
So I am thinking the decision has something to do with the left wing of the Labor Party being rather upset about the Nauru decision—the issue about another boat—and they are trying to balance up the scales. They are trying to balance things up a bit. They lost on the refugee thing so they thought they would claim a big win on the fishing thing. That might have had something to do with it. It might have had something to do with the internal dynamics of the Labor Party and absolutely nothing to do with environmental science and absolutely nothing to do with an agreement which had been on foot for about seven years. I think the government's decision had a lot to do with politics—and politics that was hard on foot between the end of Q&A and one press conference conducted by two senior ministers in the press room at Parliament House less than 24 hours later.
I do not know. What other decisions are on the board at the moment? Is that enough? Does that square up the account? Is everyone clear now? Are all debts paid? Can we move on? Or is there another decision that is about to be reversed? The issue about this decision is that it had been on foot for ages. There has been the capacity at any point in time for further investigations, but that never happened. In fact, we find that even the process of affirming the decision was made within 24 hours of the government basically rejecting the decision. It could not have got any stranger.
Every time you think the government are about as strange as they can possibly get, they outdo themselves. All of sudden, from nowhere, guess who popped back up? We thought he had disappeared, that he had become invisible. Guess who popped back up to help the Labor Party out of their predicament?
Who would you look to if you were in a complete and utter pickle? Who would you go to for a safe set of hands? Who would you go to as a reliable and honourable source? Who would you go to as a person who would obviously be endowed with virtue and who would try and pick this situation up from the malaise and, with a flash of the magic credit card, have it all fixed up? None other than the member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson. He is back! Of course he is the person you would to go to!
You may think it cannot get any stranger. Others might suggest that you could probably get, I do not know, maybe the minister for the environment to move the amendments, but no—it was Mr Craig Thomson, MP, formerly of the Labor Party—and sort of still with the Labor Party, but they just do not want to talk about it too much. So he pops up, and now we have a complete and utter circus. What the government had almost done there for a while in the rush of this legislation was to shut down everybody—which goes to show you how mindless it was. We were basically putting a caveat on any person who was fishing. And then the government made the decision that they would go back to applying it to commercial fishing, and they thought that would fix it all up.
Try to dig down through the arguments to find out what was so offensive about a boat that had been signed off on by an independent environmental board; a boat that the minister was fully aware of and that he had given his support to, right up to merely hours before he withdrew his support. We had a party—the Labor Party—who had been so virtuous. We had Mr Swan the Treasurer and brave Mr Craig Emerson standing on their soapboxes preaching about sovereign risk and populism, writing op-eds—so what went wrong? Where did these people go?
Anyway, if you peeled it all back and tried to get to the absolute essence of this, apparently the boat is too big. That is it. It is too big. So now we have a quandary: when is big too big and when is big not quite big enough? This is something that has been on the minds of many people since that night. This is something that has obviously been occupying Minister Burke. And I am worried. I am worried about when tractors might be too big, because I do not want to get into a contract to buy a tractor and find out later on that the tractor was too big.
Senator Ludlam: A supertractor!
Senator JOYCE: A supertractor—we do not want a supertractor! I am worried about garages—we do not want garages that are too big. And we certainly do not want, I don't know, tinnies that are too big. We have to make sure that we know, and I think it is now the responsibility of the minister to clearly explain to us, when big is too big—because that is the only thing that we can find wrong with this ship.
So, why is it big? It is big because what is usually located on the shore—that is, the freezing works and the processing works—is now located on the ship. By doing that, they have the capacity to get greater efficiencies. And who else thought that? Well, the scientific department that signed off on it thought that.
So what exactly are we going to do now? What, exactly, does the government have to do? After Q&A, the government has reversed a decision on something that they had formerly approved, because the left wing of the Labor Party had their noses out of joint about the Nauru decision and this was the way they squared the accounts.
With something like that where we cannot get a logical decision, the other party is going to trot off to court. And who will pay for this debacle? Well, of course, it is the taxpayer. The Commonwealth will get sued by the owners of the ship and the Australian taxpayer will have to cough up. That is where the money for this one is going to come from. So you can add to your $246 billion in gross debt, you can add to the $2 billion that they borrowed last week, and you can add to the $10 billion they borrowed in the last month just another little addition; that is, the money—the liability that will now have to be paid out to these people.
The Dutch government have been on the phone to us saying: 'What are you up to? What is going on in Australia? What has happened down there?' I do not know what the answer is. I really cannot explain it. They cannot explain it. So, what is the next step?
Another issue has been brought up, which is that for the quantity of catch that this boat would have taken, the environmental effect on seals and dolphins would actually have been less than that for a multiplicity of ships, or a multiplicity of trawlers. But that does not matter anymore. If it was all just purely about seals and dolphins, then you would go with the process that prevented the unnecessary bycatch—but it is not about that. It is not about seals and dolphins. If it were just about seals and dolphins—and merely days before this, we could not even get the Treasurer go out and properly explain his position on the sale of Cubbie Station; the only thing we could get out of him was a Twitter account, and that somehow it was a sovereign risk and populist—then maybe we should have straightaway somehow got some seals and dolphins into a dam at Cubbie Station so we could get the government's attention! But no luck, because we find it is not about seals and dolphins. This ship, this supertrawler, this floating iniquity—apparently—was actually going to catch fewer seals and dolphins than the same catch plied by a number of other trawlers. The only thing that we can get out of this is that this ship was too big. And the only defence we can get for it from within the government is nothing: mute. It is hopeless.
What this shows, yet again, is the sense of complete chaos and the complete hypocrisy of everything that comes out of this government from Treasury to trade. You cannot rely on them. Every time you pick up their opining in their opinion pieces, just disregard it. It is just babble. It has no meaning. It has no substance. They do not stand by what they say on anything. The only thing that is changing is that they used to change their position over a longer time frame; now they are changing it overnight.
We had another decision like this—and this was also associated with Minister Ludwig—and that was the live cattle trade debacle.
That was another one that happened overnight. We went to our nearest neighbour, our most important neighbour with 250 million people off our coast, a country with which we were trying to establish a distinctive and hard-earned trade relationship, but overnight they shut down the live cattle trade. Why? It was an emotional decision. It was like the X-Factor of politics. It was like Dial-a-Decision and what we have there has been completely and utterly replicated in what we have here. It is Dial-a-Decision, Twitter politics, Facebook friend politics. But it is also a total and utter insanity. You could not run a house like this. No mother running a house would run a house like this. No school principal running a school would have a school run like this. No farmer running a farm would have a farm run like this. No businessperson in the business world would have his business run like this. But we are running the nation like this, and it has to stop because it is looking absurd.
Senator Ronaldson: Making it up as they go along!
Senator JOYCE: That's dead right, they're making it up as they go along. They do not even make it up. If they made it up it would sound all right, there would be some sort of story. It is just utter chaos. It is chaos at the podium with a flag behind you. Every day there is a bizarre new adventure, but every result is the same. There is a scorecard for this bizarre result and the place you always have to go is the Australian Office of Financial Management, AOFM, website—google it and look at Australian government securities outstanding. There you will see the scorecard for chaos. Today it is $246 billion in gross debt. It went up by $2 billion last week and $10 billion in the last month. That is because the common sense that should be running the country is not present. When we carry on like this, the business that is called Australia goes out the back door.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (18:16): I rise speak on Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 as a Queensland senator concerned that the Margiris, now insultingly renamed the Abel Tasman although I will continue to call it the Margiris, is now licensed and flagged in my home port of Brisbane. Queenslanders, like many Australians, have been outraged at the potential for the Margiris to denude Australian waters of fish. My inbox has been overflowing with such concern and with good reason. The massive 9,500 tonne, 142-metre supertrawler is twice the size of the largest trawler that has ever fished in Australian waters. This boat has the capacity to catch more than 90,000 tonnes of fish every single year. Australia's oceans have never been subjected to an onslaught like this.
Supertrawlers around the world have trashed the local marine environments, destroyed vital food chains by clearing the local environment of tonnes of baitfish and left a wake of dead dolphins, seals and turtles in addition to untold volumes of other bycatch species. Fishing communities, some marine scientists and a whole host of community organisations have asked to see more work done on the science backing supertrawlers, especially in the area of potential local depletion of fish stocks from this huge fish vacuum cleaner. So in the view of the Greens, the onus of proof must be reversed—supertrawlers must be banned until the best possible science has proven that supertrawlers are not causing the untold damage the community is so concerned about.
The Australian Greens put forward amendments to this bill in the House which sadly did not get up. These amendments would have made it an offence for ships capable of processing and storing more than 2,000 tonnes of biomass to fish in Australian waters. As the Magiris is the only ship with a storage capacity of 2,000 tonne or more this was an effective permanent ban on the supertrawler. All other fishing vessels currently operating in Australian waters would not have been affected by this ban. The minister's bill before the Senate allows a ban of up to two years, but sadly this means that our oceans only get a brief relief from the Margiris—whereas the solution put forward by the Greens would give our oceans permanent protection from mammoth fishing operations like this.
I want to talk now about the selective application of the precautionary principle by this government. Our national environmental laws say that major decisions which involve a high risk of causing irreversible harm to our precious species and wild places should be made in accordance with the precautionary principle. It is commendable that in this instance this principle seems to be guiding the government's approach. In announcing these changes last Tuesday, Minister Burke said he was seeking to amend the national environmental laws to give him the powers he had hoped to have to 'be able to apply a much more precautionary approach to the supertrawler'. He set out that the purpose of this amendment was to ensure that the federal government could intervene to better protect our fisheries when there is uncertainty about the impact of a particular fishing activity. When this uncertainty is identified, the process allows the environment and fisheries departments to jointly undertake the scientific work and seek out the expert advice which the government believes is lacking. Most importantly, while that work is being undertaken the relevant fishing activity cannot take place within Australian waters for a period of up to two years. That is, you press pause while you do the science. You do not let the activity roll out and you do not issue any new approvals while you are doing the science. Yet unfortunately this is the exception rather than the rule.
Coal seam gas is a perfect example. Today the House has debated setting up an advisory committee on coal seam gas to do the science on coal seam gas as regards groundwater impacts. But approvals will not cease while that five-year research program is being done. This is despite the science that we do have around the impacts of coal seam gas saying that we lack understanding of long-term impacts on groundwater. For example, the National Water Commission says:
… potential impacts of Coal Seam Gas developments, particularly the cumulative effects of multiple projects, are not well understood.
The commission goes on to say:
… the Commission strongly argues for the careful, transparent and integrated consideration of water-related impacts in all approval processes.
Likewise CSIRO says:
Predicting long-term impacts of CSG production can be difficult due to potential cumulative and region-specific impacts of multiple developments.
CSIRO also says:
Prediction of specific impacts of CSG developments requires ongoing research because groundwater responses may take decades or even centuries to move through aquifers, especially when groundwater flow velocities are slow.
Yet, despite 68 per cent of Australians wanting a moratorium until we have a better understanding of the long-term impacts of coal seam gas, the government has continually failed to take a precautionary approach, which I have moved for in several motions in this place as well as in my amendments to that bill, which unfortunately got no support. It appears a precautionary approach is a political tool to be used when pushed, rather than a principle to guide good, sensible decision making in the face of huge threats to land and water.
Unfortunately, it is the same with the Great Barrier Reef. UNESCO expressed grave concern for the survival of the reef given the plans for six new and expanded coal and coal seam gas ports, and have said that unless we change direction—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Furner ): Order! Senator Waters, I have been listening carefully to your debate on this bill, and remind you that we are debating the bill related to the super trawler. Can I bring you back to that issue, please?
Senator WATERS: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that is precisely what I am doing. I am talking about the selective application of the precautionary principle, which has been applied for the super trawler but not in countless other instances.
As I was saying, UNESCO have said that unless we change direction on the reef it will put the reef on the World Heritage 'in danger' list by March. The government's response was to commit to a strategic assessment which they say promises to ensure development proceeds in a way that our reef can survive, but it has holes so big you can drive a coal ship through it. The strategic assessment will not be able to affect whether current developments, including those six ports, are approved. Project assessments and approvals will continue business as usual.
Time and time again the Greens have called for a moratorium on reef port development until a decent strategic assessment is done and we actually know what the reef and its delicate ecosystems can handle. The government claims it cannot put a moratorium on because it does not have the power. We disagree, but if the government is correct, why is it not moving to give itself powers like it has done with the Margiris? Why does the reef not deserve a precautionary approach, as has been taken with the Margiris? The uncertainties and the risks of irreversible harm are without question—
Senator Ronaldson: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think the honourable senator is defying your ruling.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.
Senator WATERS: The government continues to react in an ad hoc, populist way, drawing on the precautionary principle when it suits it. Frankly, the reef has been hung out to dry, as have all those rural communities facing coal seam gas.
I return now to fisheries. For all the talk of stepping up to assure the sustainability of our fisheries, we are on the brink of a federal handover of national environmental responsibilities to AFMA, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. As part of its upcoming EPBC reforms, the government appears committed to amending our national environment laws so that, rather than having the final approval of strategic assessments of fisheries, the minister will simply accredit the systems of AFMA to allow them and not the environment minister to assess and approve fisheries. This will mean the government's and COAG's approach to offload the environment minister's approvals to the states is now going to be reflected with fisheries management in offloading that to AFMA.
This is a tragic development, and it will see major decisions that have the potential to trash our most value national environmental assets being made by state governments and fisheries agencies, not our national environment minister. This undermines three decades of work to build stronger environment protection in this country. Anyone asking about the implementation risks and the risks to our environment of this handover would know from looking at the atrocious record of the states and territories of late that this is a high-risk, totally non-precautionary approach taken by our government.
I return now to the bill before the Senate. Although our amendments would have made this bill stronger had they not been rejected, we will be supporting this bill. This bill demonstrates that when the political risks are low, and when it is forced to by circumstance, the government can step up and act in a sensible way and apply the precautionary principle.
The tragedy is that across Australia our ecosystems, threatened species and irreplaceable wilderness are facing a fight for their lives. Yet where is the government responsible for protecting the values that we have agreed are of national importance? They are not seeking to be informed by the best science, they are not prepared to press pause despite enormous threats involved in barrelling ahead blindly, and they are not prepared to give our scientists and experts the time to do the work that is needed to make sure our biggest decisions are well informed about what is really at risk, and Australia's environment and our communities are suffering as a result.
In short, on too many of the key issues the government is shirking its responsibilities. It is not stepping up and it is not showing the leadership that is needed—not on the reef, not on coal seam gas and not on the protection of threatened species and ecosystems. I call upon the government to apply the precautionary principle with consistency and to govern like the environment matters.
Proceedin gs suspended from 18:27 to 19 : 30
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:30): I rise tonight to make a contribution to the debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012.
I think it is about time we looked at the big picture when it comes to sustaining our natural resources and our international responsibilities. The latter is something that has seemed to be missing from the current debate. The FV Margiris, now bizarrely called the FV Abel Tasman, dwarfs anything and everything in the Australian fishing fleet. At 142 metres long and with a cargo capacity of approximately 6,200 tonnes, it is a stark example of modern fisheries. This is far removed from the romantic 'John West' image of the family fishing boat setting out to sea at sunrise to catch the family's meal that we have so often seen on our televisions. This is not a cute fishing boat. The vessel is so large that it must catch somewhere over 16,000 tonnes of fish in the small pelagic fisheries just to cover its costs. This is almost half of the entire current total allowable catch for the small pelagic fisheries. I will return to the dramatic increase in the Eastern Zone jack mackerel quota—it increased from 4,000 tonnes in 2011-12 to 10,000 tonnes in 2012-13—as just one aspect of the so-called underlying science.
As a recreational fisher I know there has been considerable concern about the potential impact on local ecosystems, smaller fishing fleets and recreational fishing. A real issue, which has received little coverage, is the sheer capacity of the vessel and its global impact. The vessel symbolises all that is wrong with global fisheries and the failure of the global community to reduce the size of the global fishing fleet. For decades, the global fishing community has known that there are simply too many vessels catching too few fish. In the 1990s, the United Nations negotiated an International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity to progressively reduce the size of the fishing fleets to more sustainable levels. This has been a dismal failure that has had no real impact.
In 2012, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations—FAO—reported that 'global marine catches are in decline, with increased percentages of global fish stocks identified as overexploited'. The FAO found that the state of the world's marine fisheries was worsening and that this was leading to an impending, certain crisis for global marine fisheries. Like climate change, this is not deniable—although I am sure there will be the usual flat-earthers who again try.
For much of the last 20 years, Australian delegations from both sides of politics have been strong proponents for global action to reduce the overcapacity of the global fishing fleet and the implementation of strong conservation measures. Australia actively worked inside the United Nations and with regional institutions to develop strong management frameworks and to pressure distant-water fishing nations to reduce their capacity. We have been telling the world to get their fishing 'house in order', to be sustainable and to look to the future. Then along comes the FV Margiris, now the Abel Tasman: just another example of the European Union's solution to overcapacity—swept under the rug in the guise of a foreign joint venture. Does Australia support subsidized commercial fishing? No. Do European nations support subsidized commercial fishing? Yes. Australian conservation initiatives on the global stage are now being tested. Fortunately, it now looks as though that standing might be maintained. Australia has commitments to the International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity. Given current levels of overfishing around the world, conservation measures are required that reduce catches. Such measures will distribute a burden of conservation reductions on all international states. The reality is that these measures will impact directly and indirectly on different participants—reducing benefits for some, limiting opportunities for others and protecting or even increasing benefits for others.
Unfortunately, international fisheries agreements do not openly and fairly study the likely distribution of the conservation burden that would arise from each potential management option. These frameworks have become politicized as member countries favour scientific assessments for measures that best protect their own interests and refute scientific assessments for measures that compromise their interests. There certainly appears to have been elements within Australia that precisely reflect this. Until there is a fair and open international plan to reduce the size of the global fishing fleet, the world's fisheries will continue to decline and be trawled into oblivion by supertrawlers such as the Abel Tasman.
Why isn't this trawler still fishing off the west coast of Africa? The behaviour of vessels like this has led to West Africans not being able to catch their own fish. It is laudable that the coalition are happy to send protein back to a country in which fish supplies have been devastated by overfishing by supertrawlers. This is the woolly reasoning of the backward-looking coalition: short-term, political self-interest.
I would just like to mention the scientific justification for the enlarged quota. The Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force is quoted widely in the introduction to this report. However, if you actually look at the link to this evidence, Australia was not one of the sites surveyed or included in the analysis. The calculation to verify the increased quota cannot be replicated. Scientific findings that cannot be replicated suggest this is not real science. I do not believe all scientists endorse the increased quota. Maybe we should be looking more widely to people such as Quentin Hanich, who leads the Fisheries Governance Program at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security at the University of Wollongong, and looking at honouring our international commitments and not looking for short-term gain to the detriment of the globe on which we live and are a part. But, as I said, it is typical of those opposite to deny any real scientific evidence. I commend this bill and I commend both ministers for endeavouring to maintain Australia's standing in accepting our international obligations and allowing Australia to keep its own house in order.
(Quorum formed)
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (19:40): When we had a brief debate about this bill last week in taking note of answers after question time, I said that this was the worst piece of legislation from a drafting point of view that I had ever seen in 30 years as a legal practitioner and as a senator. I note that the government have made a number of amendments to the bill in its original form, evidently with a view to attempting to meet some of the criticisms that have been made of it and in particular to narrow the circumstances in which the ministerial discretion is exercisable. Nevertheless, although the definition has been narrowed somewhat, the vice remains that this is an extremely poorly drafted piece of legislation. It provides an extraordinary width of arbitrary ministerial power, the like of which I have never seen. Regardless of the policy merits of the issue which my colleagues have addressed, regardless of the history of confusion, hypocrisy and doublespeak that have come from the government which have got us to this point and regardless of the political circumstances which have seen the most pusillanimous backdown to the Greens which is the real reason that this legislation is before us tonight, I want to address the bill from the point of view of the breadth of the arbitrary ministerial power which it confers.
The purpose of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 is to provide for certain commercial fishing activities to be declared to be unlawful so that engagement in them is prohibited on an interim and then potentially on a more permanent basis. We look to the definition of the activity which the legislation seeks to prohibit and we see that it is defined as a declared commercial fishing activity. Proposed clause 390SC states that a declared fishing activity is a fishing activity that is engaged in for a commercial purpose and to avoid doubt does not include an activity that constitutes recreational fishing, and states:
(2) A fishing activity means an activity that constitutes fishing.
That is very illuminating: a fishing activity is an activity that constitutes fishing and a commercial purpose is a purpose that is commercial. That tells us almost precisely nothing.
But what is particularly invidious about this bill are the criteria on the basis of which the power of the minister to make a declaration are exercisable. If one goes to section 390SD, which would be inserted into the act were this bill to be passed, we read that the minister must not make an interim declaration unless the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry agree that there is uncertainty about the environmental impacts of the commercial fishing activity. This is, I will concede, a slight improvement on the original form of the bill. In the original form of the bill, the condition for the exercise of the minister's jurisdiction was that there was uncertainty about the social, economic or environmental impacts of the fishing activity. The criteria 'social' and 'economic' have been removed from the bill in its current iteration, so the criterion is now that the minister for fisheries and the minister for the environment agree that there is uncertainty about the environmental impact of the commercial fishing activity. If the ministers agree that there is uncertainty about the environmental impact of the commercial fishing activity, they can prohibit it.
Let me make two points about that definition. First of all, the word 'uncertainty' is not a legal term. It is a term with no legal meaning. It is, so far as my research takes me, a term which appears as the basis for the exercise of a ministerial power in no other Commonwealth statute. So the word 'uncertainty' in this act has the layman's meaning—that is, somebody is uncertain about something, somebody does not understand something, somebody cannot get their mind around something. That is what uncertainty is for the purposes of this bill. Secondly, because the bill actually identifies who must be uncertain—that is, the minister for the environment and the minister for fishing—the test of uncertainty is a subjective test. In other words, it does not matter how clear as day it might be to the ordinary reasonable man or woman in the street; if two ministers are uncertain and they agree they are uncertain, the statutory basis for the jurisdiction to prohibit any commercial fishing activity as defined by the bill exists.
What an extraordinary proposition. We are lectured in this parliament day after day—in particular by the Greens, who propose to support this bill—about the importance of limiting the arbitrary power of the executive government. We are lectured, day after day, about the importance of legislative oversight of the executive. And yet here we have a bill which confers upon a minister the most draconian power—to actually prohibit any commercial fishing activity in Australia—and the only condition upon which the exercise of that power depends is that two ministers agree they are uncertain about something. Just think about it, Madam Acting Deputy President. In order to confer upon themselves this draconian, vast, arbitrary power, two ministers—two Labor Party politicians—have to decide they are uncertain about something. They have to decide they do not understand something. They have to decide, 'Well, we're ignorant about this.' They have to decide, 'Well, it's a bit too much for us'—and thereby they satisfy the statutory test.
As I said last week, this must bill must be the crescendo of the Rudd-Gillard government. The basis upon which ministers are vested with a vast statutory power is that they do not understand something. It is no secret to anyone in this country that the range of things that ministers in the Rudd and Gillard government have got wrong—from pink batts to school halls to the live export trade to any one of a multitude of individual mistakes and miscarriages of public policy—
Senator Edwards interjecting—
Senator BRANDIS: GroceryWatch—thank you, Senator Edwards—Fuelwatch—the list goes on and on and on. The list of mistakes, of things that ministers of this government have failed to understand, is almost endless. It is one thing to say, 'Your ministers have made a mistake.' It is one thing to say that a government is too incompetent, that it is too uncomprehending, that the intellectual powers of its ministers are so poor that they cannot understand the public policy implications of their decisions.
That is bad enough. The bizarre aspect of this bill is that it says that the incomprehension, the ignorance, the stupidity, the uncertainty, of a minister is itself the basis of their capacity to exercise a ministerial power. This bill says: the more stupid the minister is, the more uncertain he or she is, the less ability they have to comprehend what their advisers are telling them, the more powerful they are. This is Labor Party nirvana. This is Labor Party heaven.
We know—if I may say so, with all due respect, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin—that there are very few ministers in this government who are very intellectually gifted. There are many ministers in this Labor Party government who, to be blunt, are very stupid. But the effect of this bill is to say: the more stupid you are, the more powerful you are; the more stupid you are, the wider your ministerial power; and your inability to understand something is itself the very jurisdictional ground for the exercise of that power. This is, as I said a moment ago, Labor Party heaven.
The opposition of course opposes this bill. Most of my coalition colleagues—and I see my friend Senator Ian Macdonald in the chamber; he is a a former fisheries minister who, I dare say, understands this area better than anybody else in the Senate—will address the public policy merits of this issue. Most of them will address the devastation this will cause to the commercial fishing industry in country. But I as a mere lawyer want to contribute to this debate to make a different point. I want to draw attention to the towering absurdity of saying that the basis on which a minister's power sits is how stupid they are; absurd, but nevertheless, a fitting testament to this Labor government.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (19:55): It is always a pleasure to be in the chamber when my very learned colleague Senator Brandis looks at the law involved in issues before this chamber. I think the chamber and parliament indeed is well served that we have someone of Senator Brandis's legal expertise here. I know he will make an excellent Attorney-General, a competent Attorney-General, should we be successful in the next election.
I love Senator Brandis's description that the more stupid you are the more power you are given. In the instance of this particular exercise, I can only say to Senator Brandis that Mr Burke and Senator Ludwig will be the most powerful people that Australia has ever known, because they are certainly the most stupid, and this bill says it all.
I guess I should start by retracting a little of my condemnation of Mr Burke and Senator Ludwig. They only brought this in because of Kevin Rudd. It is Kevin Rudd's fault yet again that we have this type of on-the-run legislation. It has nothing to do with fisheries management, nothing to do with the law and certainly nothing to do with science. It is all about some people on the very Left of the Labor Party who were concerned, as are the Greens, with proper fishing techniques in Australia. These people in the Labor Party had threatened to and had prepared to bring in a private member's bill, which Mr Rudd—bless his soul—had indicated he was going to support. There was a bit of support in the Labor Party for this. It looked like the bases of a challenge for the leadership of the Australian Labor Party.
What does Ms Gillard do to stem the challenge? She immediately adopts this populist bill, notwithstanding that the hapless environment minister, Mr Burke, a couple of months beforehand in his then position as the fisheries minister, had actually encouraged ships of the type of the supertrawler, like the MV Abel Tasman, to come to Australian waters. So you have the hapless Mr Burke on record encouraging this ship, or ships like it, to come into Australian waters. Then he was left to pick up the political problem that Ms Gillard had that her leadership was in doubt. So it was poor old hapless Mr Ludwig who then had to do a complete backflip and be the one to announce that he was not going to let the ship in.
Senator Edwards: Gymnast Joe.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: You call him 'Gymnast Joe'; some, like me, would call him 'Jellyback Joe'. This is the second time a hapless minister for agriculture has—against what I know is his better judgement—had to change his first decision, which, in the two instances I talk about, was a reasonable decision. He has had to change his decision within a matter of days to accommodate the Left wing of the Labor Party and the Greens political party that keeps Ms Gillard in power as Prime Minister.
As I say, I withdraw some of my criticism of Mr Burke, for the reasons I mentioned, and some of my criticism of Senator Ludwig for the same reasons. I know Senator Ludwig totally disagreed with the live cattle export ban. I also know that he totally disagreed with this decision on the MV Abel Tasman. But in both instances he was done over, so to speak, because of internal ructions within the Labor Party and the fact that Mr Kevin Rudd would use this whole populist issue as a grounds for a challenge to Ms Gillard for the prime ministership of Australia.
Madam Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to an answer to a question asked—very poorly, I might say, given that he got all his facts wrong—by Senator Whish-Wilson in this chamber last Monday. When Senator Whish-Wilson first raised this issue, this time, in the chamber by asking Senator Ludwig about this incident, what did Senator Ludwig do? He went to extreme lengths to justify his decision, and the decision of Mr Burke when he was the fisheries minister, to welcome this big trawler into Australian waters. Senator Ludwig, in answering Senator Whish-Wilson, said:
Rather than go through the long history, I will just say that the rules were changed after that by Senator Macdonald—
when I was then fisheries minister—
with the direction to AFMA—and it was a very sound direction.
Senator Ludwig, you criticised Senator Whish-Wilson for being inaccurate and not having done his homework, but you actually fell into that trap a bit as well, because the facts show that there was no direction by me but in fact advice to me by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority—but, never mind. Senator Ludwig went on to say:
It moved the situation to a circumstance where we would concentrate on output controls versus what would commonly be described as input controls. Output controls meant that we would look at issues around the total allowable catch rather than at the type of gear or effort that went into fishing.
Senator Ludwig again went on to defend this big trawler coming into Australia by saying:
I note the recent report from eminent fishery scientists that states that factors in play in the fishery, taken together, 'give confidence that food-web impacts of the small pelagic fishery on predators and the small pelagic fishery species themselves, including through localised depletion, are unlikely'.
So there was Senator Ludwig on Monday defending Mr Burke's position of welcoming this trawler in and on Tuesday—not 24 hours later—he was banning this trawler that he had been protecting and applauding the day before.
Senator Whish-Wilson's second supplementary question was in fact accurate. Senator Which-Wilson asked:
Can the minister comment on remarks made to the media by members of the Labor caucus, including ex-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, over the weekend, concerning a private member's bill to ban supertrawlers from operating in Australian waters?
Senator Whish-Wilson, you got that bit right. Your intelligence on the ALP caucus was pretty good! You did know that this was the first step towards a challenge to Ms Gillard for the leadership of the Labor Party. That is the bit of your three questions that day that you got absolutely 100 per cent correct. I refer the Senate to Senator Ludwig's answer to the second supplementary, in which he said:
But can I say one of the important parts that is missed in this debate is that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is an independent authority responsible for the sustainable management of Commonwealth fisheries.
Senator Williams: Sustainable management.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: That is exactly it, Senator Williams—sustainable management of our fisheries. I will perhaps take the opportunity of this debate to turn back the clock some eight years—eight years almost to the day—when there was another supertrawler going to come into Australian waters. I just want to set the record straight. I refer any senator who might be interested to my press release of 14 September 2004. I suppose you can quote yourself if it is that long ago. In that press release I said:
Further to that approach, I—
Ian Macdonald—
have been advised by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) this evening that it has frozen boat nominations to fishing permits in the Commonwealth's small pelagic fishery.
Towards the end of that press release I said:
I am pleased that AFMA by its decision today has reconfirmed its commitment to precautionary principles in the sustainable management of the fish stock and the interests of Australian commercial and recreational fishermen and conservationists.
I only raise that to show that AFMA had some concerns back in 2004—concerns that caused them to extend this temporary ban until June 2005. In that time they got all the scientists and all the best experts together and they had a look at the small pelagic fishery. They then brought out a fisheries management plan for the small pelagic fishery.
That plan was in place from that day until last Monday. That was a plan that had science behind it and expertise behind it. It was not a plan that was run by the rabble in the Greens political party—seeing a populist issue with which they could put pressure on this government yet again.
Back in 2004-05, it was the Greens with their determination to shut down yet another Australian resource industry, the fishing industry, that raised this issue but it was dealt with by the scientists and the experts at the time. At the time the Greens were smarting because their attempts to shut down the Tasmanian forestry industry had been thwarted at the 2004 election by not only the science but by the workers, the CFMEU and ultimately the voters of Australia who returned the Howard government, I suggest, on the back of John Howard's principled stand on the Tasmanian forests. The Greens had lost the day, and Australia could have looked forward to a bright future in sustainable forestry.
Unfortunately, I regret to say—and this will tell you what it is all about with the Greens—they have continued their campaign against the forestry. They are in alliance with a weak Labor Party who no longer has any interest in the jobs of the timber industry in Australia. I am afraid that the victory for Tasmanian forests that all Australians thought was there has been whittled away by a weak government dependent upon Greens support in this chamber. At the time they had lost that battle so they were going to try and shut down the fishing industry. They failed there but, fast-forward eight years, and again we have this weak government dependent upon Greens support for their very existence. Ms Gillard depends on Greens support to stave off the challenge from Mr Rudd, and we have this sort of policy before us.
I will talk to those few commercial fishermen who expressed some concern at the incident of the supertrawler and gratification that this backflipping, jelly-backed government had flip-flopped yet again. I say to those fishermen: this is the small pelagic fishery today; tomorrow it could well be you. If you want some support for that, go and ask the fishermen up my way out of Cairns, out of Mooloolaba, who used to obtain a living from fishing in the Coral Sea. I suggest to the recreational fishermen who think—there are only a few of them—they have had a victory in stopping this supertrawler that they have a talk to the marlin boat fishermen out of Cairns and see what happens when you have a weak, jelly-backed government like we have now in charge of Australia's marine policy.
I say to any fishermen, recreational or commercial: this is the death knell for what you want to do. Here you have a government and, as Senator Brandis says—and I love this—with two ultrastupid ministers who are given the most power of any minister. They are ultrastupid, because if they do not know what they want to do or the Greens put a bit of pressure on them or Kevin comes with his challenge to Ms Gillard, these two ministers can shut down recreational fishing tomorrow. They can shut down every form of commercial fishing.
Madam Acting Deputy President, tell me what is commercial about the marlin boats—is that commercial fishing? The people that go out to catch marlin, the wealthy Americans who bring hundreds of thousands of dollars to Cairns and create jobs, pay the charter boat operator to take them out. Does that make the charter boat operator a commercial fishing activity? I do not know. I would take Senator Brandis's advice on that and I know what the advice will be. It is a recreational fishing activity. They catch the marlin, tag them—and it is the only science you get on marlin—throw them back; and yet this is the sort of activity that the Greens political party aided and abetted by a weak lily-livered, jelly-backed government that is running Australia at the present time wants to shut down.
I conclude—and I wish I had a lot more time on this—by again going to proper governance of Australia. You cannot have politicians running fishing policy. You cannot have politicians getting involved in technical matters that they know nothing about. What you do—and what the Labor Party used to do and what certainly our government did—is you say, 'Let's get some scientists. Let's get some people who are trained in this area, who understand it and who can do the research. Let's get the experts. Let's talk to the fishermen and get their views.' You then get this independent statutory authority, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, to make a determination on the best science available to them. That is the way you run fisheries in this country; you do not run it because you have a Greens political party that is determined to sell Australia out to foreign planation owners who rape and pillage forests overseas and to foreign fishing entities who grow fish in who knows what sort of conditions without any of the controls that Australian fishermen have. You do not want those sorts of thoughts from a populist party which is rapidly losing its political clout—you have only got to have a look at the Queensland elections and the New South Wales local government elections to see that the Greens have reached their zenith and are now on the way out and rapidly so. They will grab at any populist policy to try and retain some political relevance.
My only despair—and as an Australian I am emotional about this—is that we have a government that is so awful, so incompetent, so inept and so unable to make a decision and keep to it that they will roll over to the Greens every time.
May I conclude by again reminding senators that on Monday last week Senator Ludwig stood in this chamber, directly opposite me, and protected and applauded the MV Abel Tasmanfor what it was doing; on Tuesday he suddenly found that his decision the day before was not the politically correct one. So I despair for Australia under this government. (Time expired)
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (20:15): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. May I congratulate my colleague Senator Macdonald, who covered so many issues in his presentation to this chamber just then. The amazing thing, as Senator Macdonald said, is that last Monday all was sweet. Then, of course, emails came in from the GetUp! crew, the lefties crew and the Greens crew; and this government, instead of having any ticker and sticking up for the jobs and the provision of high-protein food for human beings in Africa, took the populist road again. This is live exports mark II. That is what this is.
In 2009, Minister Burke invited these large supertrawlers to our waters and is quoted as saying:
There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.
So I ask what has changed? What has changed since 2009 when Minister Burke made that quote? Now Minister Burke and Senator Ludwig are all at sea and could not get this legislation right without amendment after amendment. It is just farcical. When they got the legislation to the other place, they made five amendments. They had to call on their ex-colleague, Mr Craig Thomson, the member for Dobell. Now Minister Burke and Senator Ludwig have formed a stereo, monumental mess between them.
The coalition opposes this legislation because it is bad policy. It is flawed; it undermines rigorous science. The Greens are always on about the science: 'We've got to stick with the science'—until it comes to the science of AFMA, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, that has done the science on this whole fishing project. But of course the science is out the door now. This is more about populism and gaining more votes, so forget the science now.
This is heading the same way as that disgraceful total ban on live cattle trade exports. I had people in my office just a few weeks ago from the Top End, up there in the cattle industry on big properties where they work hard, and now they are in serious financial trouble. What pressure does that put on them? What pressure does that put on their families? What pressure do they face every month when their bills roll in and there is no money to pay those bills? Why did this government put a wholesale ban on live exports? We know, and you know, that the activities in those abattoirs shown on Four Corners were unacceptable to anyone in Australia and we supported the government in immediately stopping the supply of cattle to those abattoirs doing the wrong thing. We all know how Minister Ludwig caved in to the green groups on the live export trade, shutting down a massive operation overnight, putting family operations into a financial mess and causing great hardship. You wonder why, in the Northern Territory election, those people out in the station country deserted Labor. It is because of what you have done to them.
Those live cattle had to be exported at 350 kilos or less. When this government shut down the live exports what happened? Those cattle were held on the properties, overstocked. They should have been gone. Once you overstock any property—sheep, cattle, goats, whatever you are running—there is less feed for the rest of the stock on that property. So as time went on those cattle exceeded 350 kilos. Then they could not, when this government made some effort to restore the live cattle trade to Indonesia, go on the ship; the cattle were overweight. Those people lost their incomes. Those helicopter pilots who do the mustering, and the truckies that this government says it so proudly supports, were out of work.
I notice today, thanks to Mr Windsor, that they have slammed another 2.4 cents a litre diesel tax on our truckies. When a disallowance was put up today in the House of Representatives, where the vote was 65 all, Mr Windsor voted with the government not to allow the disallowance and to allow higher fuel tax on our truckies. Is it any wonder that Tony Sheldon, boss of the Transport Workers Union, says the carbon tax is a death tax? Here is more tax on our truckies' fuel and another almost seven cents due on 1 July 2014. Two cents today; then seven cents—that is nine cents by eight billion litres of fuel, or $720 million dollars of tax each year that the member for New England has voted to add for our truckies. As I said on radio and in the papers, when it comes to the next election there will not be a truckie in Australia that supports this government—not one. You think that raising their fuel tax is going to cool the planet and now, today, you add more to them. You have your figures wrong. You are going on 2008 registrations for the amount of trucks on the road, not 2012. Mr Windsor will certainly be reminded of that come the next election if he is game enough to run in New England.
Indonesia has never forgiven Australia. Senator Ludwig should have got on a plane and gone straight over to Indonesia, met his counterpart, showed him the DVD and told Indonesia, 'We have a problem; let's work together to solve that problem.' In fact it was not long after that that Senator Ludwig went over there with Mr Emerson, the trade minister, and in a desperate state of begging handed out $20 million to the Indonesian government to increase the production of beef in their country. What about the beef producers in Australia that have gone broke because of this government's decision? What did you give them? Next to nothing. Do Australians not mean anything to this government?
I talked about the job losses and the trucks standing in the yards—how they could not pay their lease payments when they could not cart a load of cattle. There are the helicopter pilots, the jackaroos on the stations during the mustering and the local bloke selling fuel to the truckies—how is his business? It has dwindled to very little. It goes right through the whole economy. Of course, this government, this Labor Party that was founded to represent workers, does not care about the 50 jobs lost on the Abel Tasman, where more Australian jobs are gone. Other countries must be looking at Australia and asking themselves why they would do business with Australia. Australia under this government cannot be trusted. They make an agreement and then, without notice, the Gillard-Greens government says, 'We don't like this arrangement any more, so off you go.'
Minister Burke is jumping at shadows. He consulted no-one before making this decision to ban the trawler from Australian waters for two years. The trawler's catch size is no larger than the quota already set for fishers domestically. It has been able to fish to that quota only because it bought the right to do so from Sea Fish Tasmania, buying others out from doing the same. They have bought the leases; they have bought the quota. Who is going to compensate the Abel Tasman and its owners? As surely as I speak here now, the owners will serve a writ on this government for their backflip for simply going back on their word and for the huge cost to the trawler.
The trawler is 142 metres long, but only one-third of it is actually a fishing boat—the rest is freezer and processing facilities. Sea Fish Tasmania, which contracted the Abel Tasman, has complied with every rule and regulation laid down by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. In fact, AFMA says there are no size restrictions on vessels on a statutory management plan and, if it became Australian flagged, it would be treated the same as any other Australian fishing boat.
AFMA say that in those fishing waters, from Western Australia, through the Great Australian Bight, around Tasmania and up to New South Wales, there are approximately 300,000 tonnes of mackerel. They said you could take 18,000 tonnes—six per cent. And what was that mackerel going to be used for? As we all know, it is an oily fish that goes off quickly when you catch them. They need refrigerating very quickly. There is little or no demand in Australia for human consumption. That 18,000 tonnes of mackerel, which was approved by the science, approved by AFMA and approved by this government until last Tuesday, will no longer go to Africa for high-protein human consumption. It is just like the people in Indonesia who wanted to eat beef, but, no, you had to bring that industry to a stop and now you are doing the same with the fishing industry. What is wrong with feeding people around the world?
The local smaller boats cannot go out as far, of course, but they can catch 18,000 tonnes. The Greens ought to be well aware that the 80,000 tonnes can still be taken with no alteration to the fish stocks. It has been approved; it is just that it cannot be taken for human consumption now. It will go into fishmeal. I am very familiar with fishmeal. It is a high-protein additive that we have used in our piggery for many years for the younger weaner pigs where you need high-protein, high-energy food to grow them. That is where the fish will go, not to human consumption. There has been no alteration to the volume of fish that will be taken from the oceans. Instead, it cannot be used for human consumption. Why not? Because it is not popular and the emails started coming in.
The Greens saw this as some way to defend their reputation and say, 'Look at me! Shut down the forests, lock everything up, form all these national parks and don't allow grazing in them to lower the fuel levels. Just let the grass and the twigs build up to the stage of 150 tonnes of fuel on the ground per hectare,' and then the lightning will strike. If it is a hot windy day, you will have no hope in the world of controlling the fire. The hot fire gets up to the crowns of the trees and destroys the trees. The fire travels at such a pace that animals cannot get away from it. So what do we do? We lock up land for national parks where we kill animals and destroy forests and trees, and the Greens call it conservation. I call stupidity. Until you learn to manage the country, sadly, just like the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, savage fires will continue. Fifty per cent of the country burnt there was national park land. There was 90 million tonnes of carbon dioxide produced. And here we are with this crazy carbon tax that is going to allow Australia's emissions to go from 578 million tonnes a year to 621 million tonnes a year—we are going to increase it by 43 million tonnes a year—but that does not matter. Ninety million tonnes of carbon dioxide was estimated to have been produced by the Black Saturday bushfires because of Greens policy: lock it up and leave it.
In the last few years we have had a lot of rain and some good seasons. The red gum forest at Deniliquin will be next, and red gum will not stand fire. It will not regenerate; fire destroys it. I have been through the 900 hectares that has been burnt near Deniliquin. When the fire went through, the local miller said, 'Can we cut it down for timber? Can we process it? If we don't do it quickly, within 12 months the timber will crack and it will be destroyed.' The National Parks Association said, 'Oh no, you can't cut that resource down and use that. You must leave it standing.' A couple of years later they said, 'Can we cut it down for firewood and let another forest grow?' and the National Parks Association said, 'No, you can't do that. You can't cut down the destroyed timber and use it for firewood.' So we have 900 hectares of just dead trees. Some of you Greens ought to go and have a look at the red gum forest and see what fire does to it. When Forestry managed it, there was grazing. For over 100 years that forest was managed well and sustainably, and the millers did the right thing. You watch it get destroyed. I hope I do not stand up in this place next February and say, 'I told you so.'
We have the same situation with this whole fishing fiasco now facing the Senate. Government staff confirm no scientific authorities or individuals have been consulted in formulating the legislation before the Senate. This legislation is about giving the ultimate power to the minister. When the legislation went before the House of Representatives it covered all fishing, including recreational fishers. Well, what a fiasco! You would lose a heap of votes there if the minister can say: 'You cannot hang that line over that jetty. I am the minister. I have the whole say about who fishes where.' The laughable thing is that those opposite had to run to their ex-colleague, Mr Craig Thomson, the member for Dobell, to move the amendment. That is how much of a laughing stock they have become.
Last week there was an interesting exchange on Sunrise when shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey asked Minister Burke whether Seafish Tasmania had complied with the law up until then. Minister Burke said:
Up until now, yeah. They have.
Seafish Tasmania has complied by the law. This has been going on for years. They have done everything right. Shadow Treasurer Mr Hockey then said:
And now you change the law when the boat arrives.
Minister Burke said:
That's right, because I believe the law fell short of what we need to do.
So, in two sentences, the government completely reversed its position. Talk about a sovereign risk! This company must have spent hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to go through a contract to get permission, the approval of AFMA, to fish. And what happens now? Because of this backflipping government, because of emails, because of the Greens, because of Getup!, because of the lefties and because the boat happens to be bigger than any other boat—two-thirds of the boat is actually for processing, refrigeration and freezing—this boat now has to be shut down.
I will come to the point again about compensation. Seafish Tasmania could sue the government for lost income—and I have no doubt that they will. I have no doubt that they have every right to do exactly that. Because you cannot break your word with people in business. For years Seafish Tasmania have worked through the science with AFMA to develop a program to take 18,000 tonne of high protein feed to another continent. For what? To actually feed human beings. But, as I said last week in this place, it appears that human beings do not matter to many in this chamber. I gave you the example: I get all these emails to ban live exports or to ban the super trawler, but when we have women being stoned to death—a brutal inhumane act—in some country for supposedly committing adultery, I do not get any emails about that. Are people more concerned about fish than they are about the life of a human being? What is this world coming to? This is what we are getting at. And GetUp! and all their leftie associations fire off the emails. It is just amazing: I get 100 emails. And guess what? They are the same, word for word. There have the same exclamation mark, the same comma, the same a full stop. You would think they had been copied and pasted. Or is it just a big network sending them out to their happy gang of lefties, saying: 'Here. Send this off to the politicians.' I have said to my staff, 'When you get those emails, don't reply to them.' If people have not got the time to write their own email, I do not see why my staff have to put in their time to reply to some of these gang emails that are sent out by the hundreds and even thousands because of some leftist group who is actually forcing Australia to go back on our word, to go back on our commitment, to become a sovereign risk and to get the taxpayers to cough up the compensation.
It should be Minister Ludwig and Minister Burke who pay the compensation out of their own pockets if this all comes to grief in the court. They are the ones who have caused it all. They should get the money off their buddies over there who have supported them, the Greens, those Independents who supported them and their Labor colleagues. They should hand the hat around. They should pay for it. They made the mess. They should fix it. Why should the hardworking mums and dads of Australia pay for their mistakes. What Labor have done here is absolutely crazy.
This legislation makes a mockery of the whole Australian Fisheries Management Authority, which the government relies on for scientific advice. AFMA have done the hard work. They have done the hard yards. They have brought in the facts. Around six per cent of the mackerel would have been fished for human consumption, and now it will not. As I said, if the summons comes on, then I do not blame the people involved if it does. The people on that side, the Labor senators, and the Greens as well as the same lot in the other place, who have brought in this disgraceful legislation are destroying our name and making us go back on our word, should hand the hat around. As my father always used to say: your word is your word and it is worth more than any piece of paper you can ever sign. Those opposite are giving us a disgraceful reputation by going back on their word and pandering to the Greens and the do-gooders.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (20:35): I am afraid I am going to have disappoint Senator Williams tonight by being one of those so-called do-gooders that he refers to. I have genuinely enormous regard for Senator Williams and the contribution that he makes in this place, but I would have to disagree with him on this matter. And I do not think it is fair to categorise this debate as being that on the left of politics and that activist groups such as GetUp! are simply behind this. I think there are many other groups involved here. In my home town in South Australia there is one talkback radio host, Leon Byner on radio 5AA, who has been outspoken in his concern about the super trawler, and I do not think anyone could reasonably consider Mr Byner to be part of the left of politics. He has reflected his views and he has reflected the views of many of his listeners in relation to this matter. So I think we need to take that into account. But I think Senator Williams does make a number of points that deserve to be reflected on carefully and respectfully in relation to issues of compensation, which I will refer to shortly.
I can indicate that I will support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. I support this bill with some reservations in the sense that it is important that issues of compensation are appropriately dealt with. I think Senator Williams alluded to the fact that there will potentially be a legal action by the proponents of the Margiris. I am not sure whether the government has sought advice in relation to any potential claims for compensation, as to whether this would invoke the constitutional safeguard in relation to compensation for the acquisition of property on just terms. So that is a matter that needs to be considered.
This bill, if passed, will enable the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, with the agreement of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, to make an interim declaration that a fishing activity is a prohibited declared commercial fishing activity, while an expert panel assesses the potential environmental impacts of the activity. The minister will be able to make a final declaration for a period of no longer than 24 months that a fishing activity is a prohibited declared commercial fishing activity. Clearly, this does not affect recreational fishers.
It is interesting that this issue—a bit like the coal seam gas issue—has brought together quite disparate groups; groups that you would not normally see on the same platform—recreational fishers and the Australian Greens, for instance. Senator Whish-Wilson is in the chamber, and I do not know whether you could say that recreational fishers are the natural constituency of the Greens, but it appears that they have been brought together by a common concern in relation to this, much in the same way as the unlikely alliance on coal seam gas mining, when we saw Bob Brown, Bob Katter and Alan Jones on the same stage. That is when you know something is brewing and something big is happening, in that it is not politics as usual.
While I recognise and support the reasoning behind this bill, it is also important to reflect on what has led to this juncture and to the government making an eleventh-hour decision. The Dutch supertrawler the Margiris has been shrouded in controversy since it arrived in Australian waters and, in fact, well before that. I know that there are a number of African nations that have expressed concerns about the Margiris'sactivities. It is a big boat. It is capable of catching 250 tonnes of fish per day and of storing over 6,000 tonnes, or 545 busloads, of frozen fish.
The presence of this trawler, and the science that it had apparently relied on, were cause for great concern in the town of Port Lincoln in my home state of South Australia although, of course, there were some proponents for the Margiris there who spoke in favour of the Margiris. I am interested to hear the contribution of Senator Scullion, who has been involved in commercial fishing and who knows a thing or two about catching fish.
I think it is fair to reflect on the processes involved here. Those processes give me some real concern in terms of how the fishing quota was set. The Margiris's main proponents argued that the trawler's quota was sustainable, that it would be policed, and that the venture would create jobs. Detractors suggested that the supertrawler would damage local tourism industries and impede the rights of recreational fishers. They suggested that the environmental impacts had not been fully realised and that the data that was used to establish the Margiris's quota was not sound.
This was raised by Graham Pike, a member of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, in a letter to the editor in the AustralianFinancial Review just last week. I think it is worth reading into Hansard what Mr Pike said. It is not a long letter, but I think it is very important that it be put on the record. This is what Mr Pike wrote to the editor of the Financial Review:
I am a member of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) committee, which paved the way for the super trawler Margiris/ Abel Tasman.
I must express my deep personal concern about the inadequacy of the research used to double the jack mackerel eastern quota to commercially justify the super trawler (a decision suggested by the Margiris proponent, also a member of the same committee, which raised the conflict of interest situation currently under investigation by the commonwealth ombudsman).
The data on which the quota decision relied were 10 years old and the stocks of fish sampled had long since gone, to be replaced by stocks that remain unresearched. The scientist who conducted the research warns in his report that the data are largely imprecise and hence need to be treated with caution. There is also a complete absence of research into stocks of small pelagic fish, such as jack mackerel and redbait, in waters off Western Australia, South Australia and in the Great Australian Bight–exactly where the super trawler plans to fish.
The federal Environment Minister's proposed changes to the EPBC Act are sensible; they will allow time for comprehensive research into fish stocks and are essential to protect the small pelagic fishery from overfishing.
Studies show that small pelagic fish in other parts of the world have been fished to near extinction by the Margiris and her kind. These stocks had not been researched enough.
Bringing the Margiris to Australia without any apparent prior approval or formal undertakings from AMSA or AFMA was misguided, and at worst an arrogant assumption by Seafish Tasmania and the Margiris's Dutch operating company, Seafish Tasmania Pelagics.
That is what Graham Pike said as a member of AFMA, the committee which was part of the decision-making process.
I think it is fair to say that his concerns need to be heeded. His concerns appear to be considered, and they are matters that ought to have been the subject of forensic investigation; in my view, they have not been. This bill gives us some breathing space in relation to this. I share Graham Pike's concerns, which is one of the reasons I will be supporting this bill.
I believe we must take every step to ensure we are acting on the best available science and the most comprehensive data when making a decision that could irreversibly impact the environment and the communities that rely on it. You need not look past the difficulty the federal government is having in implementing the Murray-Darling Basin plan to realise that it pays to think about the long-term environmental and social repercussions before making a decision of this nature, not after the horse has bolted. We need to get the science right. We need to get the information right.
Members of the coalition have raised concerns about the government's decision to introduce this bill and those concerns have been well articulated. I know that the member for Cook, Scott Morrison, lambasted the government, accusing it of:
… making up policy on the run, oblivious to or regardless of the sovereign risk they have created for this nation.
I think that we need to consider the issue of sovereign risk. I find it a bit curious that the Treasurer has attacked the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator Barnaby Joyce, for raising the sovereign risk spectre over the Cubbie Station decision. I thought that attack was not reasonable because it was all about transparency and accountability in the context of a decision made by the Foreign Investment Review Board. Similarly, I think that sovereign risk as it relates to this decision needs to be considered in the context of broader community concerns and with respect to flaws in the decision-making process. Any valid arguments about sovereign risk in respect of this decision need to be considered in the context of any potential claim for compensation the proponents may have—and I am not suggesting they do—at law with respect to the decision that has been made.
But if the government is doing the right thing by the science, by the marine environment—given the concerns expressed by Graham Pike and others—then that needs to be considered. It may well be that this decision will be reversed after the appropriate science in relation to this has been investigated. I think we need to put any arguments about sovereign risk in context. Just as I thought the Treasurer was not fair in characterising Senator Barnaby Joyce's comments about Cubby Station as invoking issues of sovereign risk—I do not think they were valid arguments—I similarly have concerns about the coalition saying that this is a sovereign risk issue in this context.
Senator Boyce: I'm not saying there is a sovereign risk in dealing with this government.
Senator XENOPHON: Senator Boyce, they are not the same thing—I agree with that. I think it is fair to say that whilst they are different issues it is worth considering more closely arguments in relation to sovereign risk. In these circumstances we also need to reflect on what the Commonwealth Ombudsman has said. I have a letter from the Commonwealth Ombudsman that is on the website of member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie. The letter is dated 14 September and it is about the complaint. Whilst the Commonwealth Ombudsman has not dealt with the complaint and has not concluded investigating the complaint there are some issues in relation to the South East Management Advisory Committee's compliance with section 64C of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991. The letter raises issues of potential conflicts of interest and whether that made the decision-making process defective in any way. The Ombudsman has not concluded his views in relation to this matter, but in the third to last paragraph of the letter to Mr Wilkie he states:
Please note the admission by AFMA regarding the defective procedure at the SEMAC meeting of 26 March 2012, and information from AFMA that the dissenting SPFRAG members' views were included, in due course, in the SEMAC meeting papers of 26 March 2012.
Other matters have come up in the course of our investigation. We are in the process of giving further consideration to these matters before we will be in a position to conclude our investigation.
This is an ongoing matter by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, so I think we need to take that into account as well and proceed with caution. The government has taken a cautious approach in relation to this.
I note the comments of leading scientific opponent Jessica Meeuwig, the director of the Centre for Marine Futures Oceans Institute at the University of Western Australia who argues that nobody can say what is a 'conservative' catch if they do not know how many fish are out there in the first place. She said:
That's pretty clever math when you don't know what the total biomass is. There are lots of caveats about modelling and out-of-date data.
I think that reflects some of the concerns of Graham Pike.
This is a difficult issue. It is an issue that has quite rightly raised controversy, given the way it has been dealt with. But despite the concerns that I have I believe that this is, on balance, the right decision to make. I support this bill. I support the federal government's decision to start taking the necessary steps to ensure that there is a robust scientific process in place that can assess the environmental impacts of such commercial fishing activities. I think we need to get this right, and it is important that we do not go down a path that is irreversible and may lead to damage that cannot be remedied in future years. It is also fair to say that the Margiris has been a controversial vessel in some of the areas where it has fished. That is why there has been some community suspicion about this vessel. Having said that, I am most guided by the comments of Mr Pike and the fact that there is an ongoing investigation by the Ombudsman in relation to this matter. I can indicate I will be supporting the bill, but I would like to hear from the government what they say about the assertions of what jobs may be affected by this and whether the government consider that they have a liability at law in respect of those jobs that may be affected.
Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (20:50): I am disappointed to hear that Senator Xenophon is not going to be supporting the coalition's opposition to this bill. I would hate to point out that breathing space is the last thing that has happened here. We have had Minister Burke at breakneck speed amending amendment after amendment. It might be the complete lack of breathing that has been the problem—perhaps he got lightheaded and came up with this very thinly veiled attempt to stop the Abel Tasman and only the Abel Tasman.
Australia's fisheries have been consistently ranked as amongst the healthiest and best managed in the world. In fact, we are ranked fourth in the world behind Norway, the USA and Canada, according to the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. International experts have also ranked Australia's fisheries as amongst the best in the world, and they are amongst the best in the world because of the green credentials of our fishers and the efficient and professional way that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority has managed our waters. Unfortunately 'efficient' and 'professional' are not words that one could use in a million years to describe the behaviour of Minister Burke in relation to this matter.
Just imagine a department doing an excellent job and the boss—that is, Minister Burke—coming in and trashing the efforts simply because of populism. You have a minister saying, 'I'm not interested in rigorous scientific analysis; I'm only interested in trying to secure as many votes as possible, so I'm going to cave in to the backlash against the Abel Tasman.' How weak is that behaviour? As I said, perhaps he is lacking oxygen to the brain because of the speed at which he has back-flipped on this.
No wonder Australians are saying they are feeling a deepening sense of anxiety and unease. They cannot depend on the government to do the right thing, even if it is unpopular. What a great way for a minister who has responsibility for an entire department to engender loyalty and confidence in that department! Not only has he been disloyal to his department, which leads the world in fisheries management and sustainability, but he has also done the Australian people a great disservice and undermined even further the public's confidence in this government to try to do anything other than stay in government.
Minister Burke and this government are tearing down decades of sound decision making that has built up Australia's structures, processes and system of government which have given us all such a sense of security. This certainly develops into far wider issues and far wider concerns than those simply related to a supertrawler in Australia. It comes to every aspect of how this government goes about—I suppose I should say 'conducting business', although it is a travesty of a statement to talk about this government having even a clue what business is or how to conduct it. The motto of this Labor government is 'government at any cost'.
It is a bit hard to believe, or indeed stomach, but initially the voice of reason from the government on this was that of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Joe Ludwig, who on 26 July backed AFMA when questioned about the Margiris on ABC radio. Minister Ludwig said:
To be clear about this, the Government does not make decisions about our fisheries. It is a sensible place to leave it to the science-based decision making of an independent regulator. Otherwise you get yourself into a place of where politicians would be making decisions, not based on science, not based on what the facts demonstrate but on political decisions.
I am sorry, Minister Ludwig, you have failed on that one.
Of course, that is not how Minister Burke goes about carrying out his portfolio duties. He has dragged the sycophants of the Labor government along with him and has caved in to public pressure. Not content with undermining Australia's structures, Minister Burke also wants to lock us out of a valuable food source in Australia—that is, our seafood. I am talking, of course, about Minister Burke's proposal to create the world's largest marine reserves, which will close off millions of square kilometres of the ocean to fishing. The Gillard government wants to increase the number of marine reserves around Australia's coast from 27 to 60, much of which would be in my home state of Queensland. If this extension of marine parks proposal goes ahead, 989,842 square kilometres of the Coral Sea will become a no-go zone. Almost 78 per cent of east coast Queensland waters will be in marine parks, and that is almost eight times the international benchmark of 10 per cent. In an attempt to give you some perspective on what 989,000 square kilometres looks like, it is more than half the size of the land mass of Queensland.
The saddest thing about this proposal is that it will harm our fisheries rather than protect them, because Australian fishers will be largely taken out of the equation. Overseas fishers from countries which do not require the same environmental credentials will get free rein where our fishermen cannot go. Other countries will be permitted to fish in their parts of the Coral Sea—Korea, China, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, the US and Japan are being gifted the world's biggest fishery, and the Australian government is locking Australia out of that same fishery.
Even though we have the third-biggest fishing zone in the world, we rank only 61st in fish production. That is, we are No. 3 for the number of fish we have but we are No. 61 for the volume of fish we catch. Once this proposal goes through it is quite likely that we will fall down that ranking to 100 or 120. In Australia we already import between 72 and 75 per cent of our seafood, and that percentage will increase if Minister Burke's proposal on the Coral Sea goes ahead. His proposal will diminish our oceans, wipe out many businesses relating to the fishing industry, affect tourism, impact on Australia's food supply and deny Australians the option of fresh, wild-caught Australian seafood as the cost becomes prohibitive.
Australian families are already struggling with the cost of living under this government, and this proposal will only increase the cost of local fish, if they are able to source them at all. The option for most Australians will become frozen, imported fish from waters that are not as clean as ours, caught by fishing industries that are not as environmentally friendly as ours, and those imported fish will simply replace anything else we have.
Queenslanders are starting to realise how this proposal will affect them. I am getting more and more calls from people who cannot fathom how this government could go about setting up a situation that decreases the ability of commercial and recreational fishers to use our own waters.
One Queenslander, Paul Kelly, ccd my office today with an email he sent to Minister Burke. Mr Kelly said: Minister, I am appalled that you could even consider closing the bulk of the Coral Sea to Australian commercial fishermen and still expect Australians to support you. You are forcing Australians who wish to eat seafood as part of a healthy diet to buy imported goods. These imports are fished or farmed in waters unknown for the health conditions as opposed to the clean and clear waters abounding on the Queensland coast. Our waters have for decades supplied countless quantities of basic fish stocks and they are a renewable source of food supply.
Your government has an appalling record on ecopolicies and has failed on every project or plan instigated since Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007.
You appear to be beholden to the wishes and whims of the Greens party without consideration of the impact caused on fellow, everyday Australians down the chain. Fishing fleets up and down the coast of Queensland will have their livelihoods ripped out by your plan to close down such a huge area of the Coral Sea. The domino effect will fall to suppliers to these fleets and suppliers to those suppliers, and so on.
Mr Kelly continued:
I do not believe you are honestly foolish enough to trust that overseas fishermen won't come and harvest our waters just because you decided, for obvious political reasoning, to close it off to Australian men and women. How do you plan to police these policies and what cost are you budgeting for this security?
I trust you will understand that the legacy you so much want to leave Australia for you time in office will, in time, cause more pain and angst than any possible short-term gain for your benefit.
Mr Kelly concluded:
I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal.
I believe the current bill before the chamber and the proposal to extend the marine parks will have far more negative, unintended consequences than we can ever imagine. It is just beyond belief that Minister Burke came up with four different amendments to this bill over four days. Apparently it had not occurred to him that to declare it closed for all fishing activities for social reasons, as well as others, was an issue. Apparently that had not occurred to him. Certainly, this was concocted in such haste that the first comparison that one thinks of is Minister Ludwig's apocryphal, appalling attempts in terms of the live cattle trade. It is based on the fact that their understanding of how business operates, what might attract a business to Australia or how to give a business the options of going elsewhere is completely unknown—it is outside their ken. They have not worked in business. They do not understand business and it would appear they do not particularly care, although quite where they think they are going to get their money from when the mining industry decreases is of course a very large question.
It is not just the fishing industry or a particular company—Seafish Tasmania—that should be concerned about this legislation, it is every resource-based industry. What this bill does to commercial fishers could one day—any day that this government chooses, with the support of their friends in the Greens party—happen to any other business that is reliant on access to natural resources: 'Oops, we don't like the law because we think it might make us unpopular. All right, let's just come up with a new law.' And they did this seven years down the track from when negotiations for this started.
All of Australia's leading marine experts have said that the science in relation to the small pelagic fisheries stacks up for the supertrawler project to go ahead. But Minister Burke spoke to no-one, except perhaps some of his closer allies in the leadership group of the Labor Party I suppose, in developing this bill—not the FRDC, not the scientists, not AFMA, not the recreational fishers. He spoke to no-one, absolutely no-one. It just goes on. For seven years Seafish Tasmania was attempting to negotiate, and being encouraged by Minister Burke to come along. Time after time, as I quoted earlier, we have examples of both Minister Burke and Minister Ludwig, until the GetUp! campaign got them, supporting the development and the ongoing negotiations that had been carefully organised by Seafish Tasmania.
I suppose at least that Minister Burke's decision in this matter is consistent with his performance to date. There is no science at all behind Minister Burke's decision to lock up the Coral Sea, and many businesses in Queensland that are related to the fishing industry are now being questioned by their banks about the ongoing valuation of their businesses and the level of their loans. Uncertainty in any industry is going to cause serious problems in terms of the value of the businesses of these poor people, who are victims of this government. As the potential valuation of businesses falls, so does the banks' interest in whether they are going to call in loans. This applies not just to fishing businesses, it applies to dozens of other businesses that are also reliant on the fishing industry, whether they be commercial, recreational or tourist-based. There are hundreds of them. So there is no science in Minister Burke's effort to lock up the Coral Sea and there is absolutely no science behind Minister Burke's bungle, bungle, backflip on the Magiris/Abel Tasman legislation.
The Dutch government is demanding answers from Australia on behalf of the joint venture partners, as they well might. There are not too many countries, and I do not think Holland would be one, where you simply change the law if you do not like the result you are getting in terms of whether you are going to win Greens vote at the next election. There is no science whatsoever behind Minister Burke's efforts on this one either. He is being consistent. The Dutch government is demanding answers. We not only have the Australian banks asking questions about Minister Burke's unacceptable and erratic behaviour in relation to the Coral Sea; we also now have governments and hundreds of international corporations very concerned about the level of sovereign risk in trying to deal with Australia and this unprofessional, erratic government.
Senator Xenophon might very well speak of breathing space, but this government is not going to have much more breathing space. It is beyond belief that these changes could have been brought in as they have been. Of course, Minister Burke now has himself stuck in the situation where he needs to get this legislation passed today or else—quite why that provides breathing space for anybody I do not know. I continue to be very, very bothered by the unprofessional, erratic behaviour of this government. It is not reasonable for this legislation to be brought in. It is not just the fishing industries that should be frightened by this; it is everybody trying to do business in Australia now and everybody who might want to do business here in the future. How on earth this can be persevered with I have no idea. Despite the lack of patriotism for this, I hope that Seafish Tasmania does seek compensation and is successful in getting that.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (21:10): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. The amendments to the bill have been rushed through to this place. Over four days, Minister Tony Burke has issued four amendments. This is a knee-jerk reaction from the Labor government. This legislation is seriously flawed, undermines rigorous science and is another tool for the Greens and environmental groups to campaign against our fishing industry. Labor have spent three years trying to attract the supertrawler to Australian waters. When he was Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke invited these types of vessels as part of his 2009 Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, which said:
there are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels—
Now, 50 Australians are out of a job. Seafish Tasmania also intended on filling jobs in cold storage and freight, to let contracts for pallets and to provide places for students from the Australian Maritime College. The Labor government again appear chaotic and dysfunctional, all because the minister is uncertain. Yet he did not attempt to find answers to the problems for which he was uncertain. Instead he chose to just shut down the business.
I want to briefly mention some history, because when we consider these issues they need to be seen in context. Prime Minister Bruce invited the states and the CSIRO to attend a national fisheries conference in 1927, organised by the commission to discuss the development of Australian fisheries and the implication of the health report. Herbert Gepp chaired the meeting and the secretary was Stanley Fowler, and the aim was to provide a plan to foster development of a fishing industry in Australia. It found:
… investigations in Britain led … to the conclusion that the high cost of living in Australia was the principal impediment to the development of 'a great fishing industry.' Thus it would be necessary to adopt the most up to date fishing but with labour saving devices - such as the 'new super trawler'—
which back in 1927 did not look like the current one we are discussing today.
The main issue I have with the minister's decision or backdown or backflip is that he turned his back on the very good scientific evidence, which is the basis for the way our fisheries are managed in this country and underpins the way we construct all the regulations around these fisheries, and he threw it out the window. The Nationals understand and appreciate the importance of science. Earl Page, one of our early leaders, set up the CSIRO—a Country Party initiative. So we believe in the science on this one.
All fishers need to be concerned, even with the amendments made to exclude recreational fishers and charter vessels. If the minister's concern was based on the capacity of the supertrawler to fish in one place for a considerable amount of time then why not amend the legislation to address these issues, to deal with the fact that the boat would be in one place for a long period of time and to include some geographic mechanism, if you like, to regulate how long it could stay and in what places for its catch?
Now we have seen another backflip from an increasingly limber Labor government—again, further proof the government do not have a grip on their own legislative agenda. Rather, all it really wants to do is please the Greens with votes in mind. This policy is policy on the run if ever we saw it, and the decision can be added to a long list of government U-turns. In late August and earlier this month, Labor performed two carbon tax backflips in as many weeks. First, it removed a $15 a tonne floor price, and then it decided not to compensate big polluters under the contracts for closure scheme.
I must admit, though, it seems a number of issues for the Rudd and Gillard-Greens government can be traced to their decision to not consult with industry and to reject science. What about last year's abrupt decision to cancel live cattle exports? It did not help the animal welfare cause, and it placed unnecessary pressures on cattle producers, businesses and communities, particularly in the Top End, that are still being played out to this day. One month later, the decision was overturned. The government did not seek advice from industry when it shut the cattle export trade down and it has not sought advice in this matter either.
But there was a similarity in both these examples that I have mentioned—that is, a highly effective email campaign from urban Australia to Labor politicians, particularly in this instance to Minister Joe Ludwig. It is judgements like these that have and will continue to weaken confidence in overseas investment in Australia. When people cannot invest with certainty, they simply will not. The Dutch government are demanding answers from Australia, and I do not blame them. The coalition has issued a policy paper around ensuring that when foreign businesses seek to invest in our nation we encourage that investment and we make it a place that they can invest in with confidence.
We want Australians to be properly informed when it comes to how our fisheries are regulated so that they can see with confidence that we are world-class in the way we regulate our fishing industry. I agree with Seafish Tasmania's director, Gerry Geen. He told the Australian that the situation had become 'embarrassing'. I have an email from fisherman Ross Haldane in Port Lincoln, South Australia, which says:
… this is the worst piece of fisheries management I have seen in 40 years.
The Haldanes have been fishing down South Australia way for going on three generations, so they know what they are talking about.
As I have said, Tony Burke spent three years trying to bring the supertrawler here, only to turn it around. When will this government's indecision end? Seafish Tasmania did all that it was required to do to ensure it met every condition placed on it to catch these fish that live near the surface of the water or in a water column, not at the bottom of the ocean. We hear concerns about the supertrawler, for want of a better word, taking fish from the middle of the ocean. That is because that is where the fish they are seeking, that they are allowed to catch under our regulations, actually are. They are nomadic, swimming continuously through open water.
The supertrawler intended on catching the small pelagic fish: two species of jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait—all high protein fish bound for the coast of Africa to feed their people and assist with their protein issues. Australia expects to increase support to Africa and the Middle East food programs from $465 million in 2012-13 to $625 million in 2015. Had the supertrawler been able to complete its catch and deliver its protein to that market, maybe that cost to the Australian government could have been spent elsewhere on the African continent. What about Africa's protein intake? What will happen to those people, who are depending on that food being delivered to them? Now it is just being turned into fertiliser or pig food, hardly what we want coming from our highly sustainable fisheries in Australia.
Commonwealth fisheries catch about 52,000 tonnes of product, generating $300 million. Australia's commercial fishing and aquaculture ventures inject more than $2 billion a year into the economy. As a result, 9,7000 people are employed directly and 6,200 people are employed indirectly in the industry. Meanwhile, the ABS suggests fisheries products are ranked as the sixth most valuable rural product to our nation. Like farming, fishing is historically a generational industry. It is something that families do. They have a licence and they pass the skill and the business through the generations, so it has to be, by definition, a sustainable industry. Fishers understand, like farmers, that there is no use trashing the very resource that generates your family's wealth, something that I think policy makers around both farming and fishing need to understand.
It is difficult to narrow down how many small businesses are involved in the fishing industry, but they mostly consist of small operators, averaging about 1.5 people per boat. Fishermen want to look after their own industry by ensuring they do not overfish it. Otherwise, their very jobs and the jobs of the next generation of their family are at risk. The total allowable catch for each species in each zone of the fishery is set annually by AFMA, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, in accordance with the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy.
Mr Acting Deputy President, you would not believe where I have just been. I have just come into the chamber from a delightful event, Science Meets Parliament, and you will not believe who I was sitting next to: the scientist who actually helped develop the strategy. I could not believe it. I went around the room, as a good host of the table, asking what everyone did. There was the battery scientist, there was a young woman working on research on child cancer, and Beth, who worked on ensuring that there is evidence based science in how we regulate our Australian fisheries. I asked her from a scientific perspective, with no politicisation at all, what she thought. She said, from a scientific perspective, that our fisheries are world leading:
The science behind fisheries and the process of making decisions is world leading. This is a place where such a vessel can be sustainable. Models of the whole system have addressed bycatch. It is sustainable on those fronts too. It has been considered.
Straight from the scientist's mouth, not half an hour ago—actually, she wrote it out; Minister Evans was speaking at the time.
When we go to the science of how our fisheries are managed, we are talking about a catch of 7½ per cent of the available biomass. That is under the 20 per cent that Australia actually regulates it at, compared with elsewhere in the world. I have heard all evening other senators telling us how this boat has stripped other nations of their fish; that is because other nations do not regulate their fisheries like we do. It is as simple as that. It does not have a personality; it is a boat. It operates within the law on the seas in which it fishes. It is as simple as that. I thought that was interesting and worth sharing with the chamber.
This is a safe, sustainable, highly regulated fishery informed by science. I think that is important to note. AFMA must be informed of all catch landed. They verify this information, as strict penalties apply to people who are found to have caught more than their quota. I am not a fan of overregulation but maybe—just maybe—we have got it right? Not according to the government.
Furthermore, the harvest strategy is more precautionary than the Marine Stewardship Council's global best practice and compares favourably with the recommendations of the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force. Also, keep in mind that the Abel Tasman'scatch will be within the quota already set by Seafish Tasmania. They have already made the decision on what is a sustainable catch. That is all that this boat is allowed to catch. There are so many checks and balances in our system—they have somebody on the boat watching—to ensure the sustainability of our fishery. It is ridiculous that we have made this decision. The coalition has great confidence in these practices, but the government's decision highlights that it has lost faith with the industry—and, it seems, with the science.
There is extensive control of the fishery industry through licensing, ensuring that it is not overfished. Just briefly on licensing: the supertrawler purchased the licence from locals because the locals could not make a buck out of it—again, like farming. If they could make a buck, they would. The better investment for the people who held these licences was for them to be used by somebody else in a more efficient way—and I refer to my earlier quote from 1927 about needing a highly innovative and efficient fishing industry for it to actually be sustainable, because we are not going to catch everything and fish it out; this is not Newfoundland.
A commercial fishing licence is a valuable commodity. People invest in such licences, the same way they might invest in a family home or run a business. People mortgage their homes for an opportunity to purchase a commercial licence, because it is a licence to fish in a sustainable, regulated environment. They know that if they buy an Australian commercial fishing licence it will deliver fish and fortune to their family over decades, over generations; it is worth something.
Despite these amendments, sovereign risk concerns remain, especially for existing fishers who hold licences to fish in Australian waters, because the government has just rendered it useless with the stroke of a pen. That somebody can email somebody a lot and that will make your investment and your family's investment worthless is an absolutely ridiculous state of affairs for our communities.
Australia's commercial fishing industry will not have the confidence to invest in any quota or licence, because they can be overturned on a whim. What about a boat that someone puts a bigger motor on, making it potentially able to catch more than it could before? Will it be affected by this legislation? There is too much uncertainty when there should not be.
On 26 July this year, fisheries minister, Joe Ludwig said:
To be clear about this, the government does not make decisions about our fisheries.
Okay, good. So far, so good.
It is a sensible place to leave it to the science-based decision making of an independent regulator.
Fantastic so far. Sounds good.
Otherwise you get yourself into a place of where politicians would be making decisions, not based on science, not based on what the facts demonstrate but on political decisions.
Those three or four sentences lay it out. That is exactly how we should be managing our fisheries. Absolutely. The minister thought it in July. The scientist who designed it thought it tonight. Our industry thinks it. In fact the world looks to us on what is the best practice in how to manage fisheries sustainably. But what happened? Now it is a political decision, because Labor is in crisis in urban areas. They are concerned about losing votes to people who do not appreciate science and do not understand fishing and farming.
In this instance, reliable science has been thrown overboard by a misinformed government. The harvest strategy I spoke of earlier is based around science, and it is sound. It requires that research be undertaken into the stock biomass, and that is achieved through conducting egg surveys. There is additional continual monitoring of fishery dependent data to support this egg survey data. Commonwealth fishery observers are to be on the vessel to ensure these operations are monitored and carried out. It is expensive. It is highly regulated. But it works. It delivers a sustainable industry, which this government through this amendment is trashing. As for diminished stock numbers, the harvest strategy restricts the total catch of each species to a maximum of 20 per cent, which in this case was going to be a lot less. Independent observers checking have also found the amount of bycatch by this vessel to be less than one per cent of the total catch.
These amendments were rushed through the House of Representatives in an effort to fix a legislative stuff-up as highlighted by the coalition. The science stacks up. The Greens are simply running a scare campaign about fish stocks. Minister Burke failed to consult anyone when developing this bill; hardly surprising when we consider his track record on consultation—talk to the Murray-Darling Basin communities. This is disappointing leadership from a government that has let the Australian public down at every turn, proving it cannot be trusted on its word. It cannot be trusted to follow the science. It cannot be trusted.
Senator BACK (Western Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (21:30): Here we go yet again. As if almost on cue, we have another failed government, another failed act, another exercise of government by GetUp and, of course, we see the end result being, as usual—because they do not know and they do not care—the trashing internationally of Australia's reputation as a safe place in which to invest and do business. You would not believe, Senator Joyce, would you, that we are actually an exporting country, that we depend on our reputation internationally? And who has got their fingers all over it? Of course I go to none other than Greenpeace. I refer to an article entitled 'Greenpeace trashes Australian GM wheat trial'. Do you remember that one, when Greenpeace protesters destroyed a genetically modified wheat growing trial exercise being carried out by CSIRO—one of our most prestigious scientific and research organisations? But do not worry about them; Greenpeace protesters claimed that the GM crops were unsafe for human consumption so therefore they illegally trashed it and destroyed it.
So whose fingers do we see all over this exercise? We see the hands, the footprints and the fingerprints of Greenpeace yet again—this time trashing not only CSIRO's reputation for its scientific excellence but also the reputation of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the state authorities. We are not exactly a banana republic, contrary to the words of a previous Treasurer of this country. We are not a banana republic; we happen to lead the world when it comes to fisheries research. But you would not think that after the events of the last few days.
Let me at the outset of this contribution make the very strong point that we in the coalition hold very, very strongly and dearly sustainable management of our agriculture, fisheries and forestry resources. Indeed, who was it that introduced and brought to this parliament the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act? It was none other than a Liberal minister, Robert Hill. He brought that legislation into the parliament—legislation which has been not only the cornerstone of environmental conservation and biodiversity security in this security but also the model for many other countries. And it is the failed amendment to that legislation that the failed Minister Burke is trying to amend. We do not quite know which of the latest iterations of the amendment that he is up to, but it is that which he is trying to amend to bring about this tawdry solution to a problem of his own creation.
I refer to the document put out yesterday by the chair of the Australian Fisheries Management authority, Mr Michael Egan, in which he defended the organisation against unreasonable and unsustained attacks. We would expect that from Mr Wilkie, the member for Denison, but we certainly would not have expected it from the Ombudsman of this country. Nevertheless, it fell to Mr Egan to say that the catch limits set by the commission for the small pelagic fishery small were legally set. He was responding to an update letter from the Ombudsman to Mr Wilkie. Mr Egan went on to say that 'neither Mr Wilkie, nor the Ombudsman’s office, seemed to understand'—not surprising for Mr Wilkie but I would have thought the Ombudsman might have had a go—'that the total allowable catches for this fishery were not set by the South East Management Advisory Committee, nor were they set by AFMA management or staff.'
Mr Egan went on to say that the limits were set by the 'AFMA commission, a completely non-partisan, independent statutory authority' and that the AFMA commission had the responsibility 'to set the total allowable catches for Commonwealth fisheries'. Perhaps you should have engaged their services to assist in the pool in London, Senator Lundy. We might have come home with a greater catch. Mr Egan said:
In setting these catch limits the Commission considers the advice of AFMA staff, together with scientific advice from our relevant resource assessment group and the advice of the relevant management advisory committee, which is set up to gather the opinions of various interest groups …
He makes the point that the views are not always unanimous, that the commission takes on board all this information and that it is the commission that sets these limits. As Mr Egan says:
Ensuring that all interests are heard is the very purpose of the laws that require these groups to be established.
Mr Egan went on to draw attention to the embarrassment of the Ombudsman's office and the subsequent falling on his sword of the Ombudsman last year, with the controversy over that office preparing questions for Senator Hanson-Young during estimates. He said:
I would have expected it—
the Ombudsman's office—
to be exceedingly careful not to behave in any way which raised the slightest concerns about its impartiality and objectivity.
What a sad reflection on the otherwise eminent office of the Ombudsman to have that written by the chairman of one of our most prestigious fisheries authorities.
I have been somewhat bemused and amused at the comment of recreational fishers over the last few days. As we know, in one of the earliest iterations of the failed Minister Burke's efforts at amending this legislation, he actually included recreational fishing and he made the point that should there ever be an occasion in which there might be environment, economical or social reasons for him to act against any of those interests, he would have no hesitation and would have the legal capacity to do so.
Of course in iteration No. 2, recreational fishers were excluded and they for some reason have now taken it upon themselves to support this legislation very, very closely in the failed belief that they will never be the subject of it.
Let me share with the chamber a conversation I had on a cattle station north of Carnarvon in the Gascoyne region of WA last year. A station manager and his wife told me they had several kilometres of coastline in Shark Bay where with their family they had fished, swum, dived and snorkelled. But, with the legislation being proposed to create what became the Shark Bay World Heritage Area, they thought they were engaging in consultation at that time with the then minister of the day only to be told, by agency of that minister turning up at Exmouth at the airport at Learmonth and not even bothering to turn the engine off—and I believe I am fairly accurate—'I've got more votes in the western suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney than I have got here in Shark Bay, so I'm going to ignore and overlook your concerns and your considerations and I am going to bring in this legislation.'
The nonsensical and the ridiculous sequel to all of that is that this station manager and his family can no longer even dip their toe in the water, let alone have a swim, put a fishing line in the water, go snorkelling, spearfishing or whatever in that area. If recreational fishing people who are listening this evening think for one minute that they can take any comfort out of the latest iteration of the amendment by this failed Minister Burke, I assure them, they need not rest comfortably in their beds this evening.
Part of the discussion that we have heard in this particular context has been that one or two states—I think Victoria is an example—have actually said, 'We don't want a vessel of this size and scale et cetera in our waters therefore we are going to ban it.' Of course the states only have responsibility out three nautical miles at which time, as we all know, the Commonwealth takes over responsibility out to the 200-kilometre or whatever limit of our maritime responsibilities and surveillance. It is totally logical that any one of the state governments might take this position but it affects in no way the failure of the amendment as it is now being proposed.
Anybody in this chamber would know that I have been intimately associated with what became the live export debacle during 2011—and I do not want to dwell on it for too long. It has its parallels and they are these—let us cut to the chase with what this is all about with the Margiris or the Abel Tasman: approval was given and then subsequently withdrawn for this vessel to fish in mid ocean well out from the coast, well out from the areas where recreational fishermen in the main fish or where many of our smaller commercial trawlers fish. It had permission to catch 18,000 tonnes of a product—as my colleague Senator McKenzie said—not a fish product that we consume or indeed is of any great opportunity for our fishermen. It has the capacity for 18,000 tonnes, so the alternative then, as we know, is that smaller vessels without the capacity to process on board can go out into those waters and between them, how many tonnes do we think they can catch, Madam Acting Deputy President? You would not believe it: it is 18,000—it is the same amount of fish. The only difference is that the smaller vessels, because they cannot process on board, can only use that fish for fishmeal. Where do you think it ends up? It ends up as a high-protein supplement in pig feed. But of course with this vessel, the Margiris, the Abel Tasman, because it had the capacity to be able to process, chill and freeze on board, that particular product would have gone not for pig feed but for human consumption—high-protein human consumption to low-socioeconomic communities in Africa. Where is the parallel between that and low-socioeconomic communities in Indonesia getting much needed protein? We can all see the direct relationship.
It is nothing more and nothing less. It had approval for 18,000 tonnes. It had conditions placed on it that would never be imposed on our domestic, commercial fishermen: numbers of observers on board; cameras underneath the vessel et cetera. Once again, as we now see, in the cattle exercise, live cattle and sheep, we have conditions imposed on our exporters vastly greater than those on our domestic suppliers.
What has this government actually achieved? As we know, in 2011—it is a shame the now foreign minister has gone because it would have been good for him to hear it—they trashed the Indonesian relationship and, along with it, the relationship with many of Indonesia's Asian neighbours. As I have said in this place so often, the Asian communities are always looking to see whether we have learnt anything from the European arrogance of the past. The exercises and the actions of Senator Ludwig last year merely reaffirmed in the minds of most Asian communities that we have learnt nothing in terms of the arrogant approach with which he dealt with the Indonesians.
We know that many Middle Eastern countries now find themselves in the same position with the SCAS legislation to which they are supposed to be subject. Naturally, many Middle Eastern countries—Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, probably Egypt and Turkey—have turned around politely but, nevertheless, firmly and said, 'We're not interested in dealing with Australia on those terms and conditions.'
What was amusing with regard to the Abel Tasman or the Margirisis that we have now extended our arrogance and our rudeness towards Asia and the Middle East further into Europe. Isn't it ironic? It was only in the last two or three weeks that the failed exercise of the failed Labor government to try and comes to terms with the carbon tax, the ridiculously high $23 a tonne, was rejigged. They came along and said, 'We're going to link it with that trading partner of ours with whom we spend so much time, so much money and share so much business'—none other of course than the European Union.
And yet, weeks later, we now see the Dutch government going to the EU and querying—if not complaining about—the actions of the Australian government in relation to the Margiris or, now, the Abel Tasman.
So, along with those three regions of the world which now see Australia as a laughing stock, we can only ask the question, 'Whose turn is it next?' Is it Japan's? Is it China's? We know, of course, that having boosted our fishing organisations for so long we have trashed the reputation of AFMA, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority; we have trashed the reputations of those academics around Australia; and we have trashed the reputations of our state departments of fisheries—all on the altar of convenience to an organisation led by GetUp!
Let me reflect on this failed Minister Burke, if I may, for a few minutes. On coming into this place, the first contact I had with this gentleman was when he was the minister for agriculture and fisheries; that was in the time of the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. I think the then trade minister was Mr Crean. It was in regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE—mad cow disease. It was the intention of this holy trinity over there on the blue carpet to open our borders to accept meat from those countries that have had BSE. It was a coalition-led attack by Senator Heffernan and me, with assistance from others, that over the space of five or six months pointed out the stupidity and the inappropriateness of allowing this to take place without Minister Burke requiring what is called an import risk analysis. In October 2009 we said to him, 'Demand an IRA, Minister.' 'No' through the months of November, December, February and into March until a cow in Canada—a seven-year-old Angus cow—contracted bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Only then did Minister Burke eventually come back and said, 'What do I have to do to get this monkey off my back?' and the answer was, 'What we told you last October.' That was the first inkling I had of the incompetence of this particular man.
We see it now, as Senator McKenzie has said, in his misguided and leaderless efforts to try to bring the Murray-Darling Basin disputation to some degree of resolution; and he is so far away from it that I think he is further away than when he started. Within his environmental portfolio we know of his incompetence. It is there for everybody to see. On the one hand he has invited those participants associated with the Margiris to come to this country. He is quoted, as Senator Colbeck and others have said, as having said that larger-scale fishing vessels with their own processing capacity and able to work independently offshore, are desirable for Australia—but in the light of the opposition that he has faced in recent days he has folded. He does not have the courage of his convictions and as we know he has now rolled over on this one.
I go to the marine reserves, if I may, around Australia—those that are going to impact adversely on my own state, as they will in many other areas. As a scientist I am one very, very strongly in favour of the science. I am also in favour of consultation. But we know what consultation is by this government and this minister—consultation is a process in which you can all gather around and I am going to tell you what is going to happen. That is exactly what we have seen with the marine reserves. There has been no consultation. The decisions on those areas which are to be tied up as marine reserves have not been subjected to rigorous science. They certainly have not been subjected to a process that will allow, for example, reconsideration so that, on the basis of more and better science, better decisions can be made.
It is really in this final point—in the trashing and the total and utter disregard of the science of those associated with this area—that his greatest guilt lies. Time does not permit me to speak of those facts that have been given but if there is one message to take away, it is the fact that your government, Senator Lundy—the Labor government—has to get back to the stage of not being governed by GetUp! Govern yourselves. Do not be governed by GetUp!
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (21:50): I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.
Leave granted.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (21:50): In the past week Senator Sinodinos has misrepresented my position on the 9-11 terrorist attack and has falsely associated me with anti-Semitism. I believe I have been vilified and I completely reject these implications which have been repeated and expanded upon by Christian Kerr in the Australian. The attempts to link me to the views of the 9-11 'truthers' who deny al-Qaeda's role in the terrorist attack are guilt-by-association smear tactics reminiscent of McCarthyism. I do not support the ideas of the 9-11 'truthers'.
I meet regularly with a wide range of constituents. Meeting with a constituent does not mean that I support their views. I have met with members of Truth Action; I do not support their ideas. I completely reject the false implication of anti-Semitism made by Senator Sinodinos and reported in the Australian. I condemn all forms of bigotry and racism. False accusations of anti-Semitism are a gutter tactic.
The attempt by Christian Kerr to link me with Nazi sympathisers because a 9-11 'truther' I had met, in an unrelated meeting, may have met with Australia First leader, Jim Salem, is ludicrous. It is vilification on the part of Mr Kerr.
ADJOURNMENT
Bravehearts
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (21:51): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (21:51): I recently attended and had the pleasure of representing the Honourable Julie Collins MP, the Minister for Community Services, at Bravehearts' White Balloon Day Ball in Launceston, Tasmania—an exhilarating and successful event. Bravehearts was established in very sad circumstances. Hetty Johnson founded White Balloon Day in Brisbane during Child Protection Week in September 1997. White Balloon Day was created in response to the revelation that a family member was a paedophile. A brave disclosure by a seven-year-old led to the realisation that this much loved family elder had preyed on innocent children and their trusting parents for 40 years. Compounding this strategy was the fact that this 40-year reign of terror had never been disclosed, let alone reported. Whilst this sounds difficult to believe, this is a very common pattern.
Australian government statistics suggest that one in five children is sexually assaulted at some time before they are 18—that is 59,000 per year. If we look at Facts and stats compiled by Bravehearts, we get information that would lead you to believe that the comments of Dr Bill Glaser are undeniably true. He wrote Paedophilia: the public health problem of the decadeand said:
Imagine a society afflicted by a scourge which struck down a quarter of its daughters and up to one in eight of its sons. Imagine also that this plague, while not immediately fatal, lurked in the bodies and minds of these young children for decades, making them up to sixteen times more likely to experience its disastrous long-term effects. Finally, imagine the nature of these effects: life-threatening starvation, suicide, persistent nightmares, drug and alcohol abuse and a whole host of intractable psychiatric disorders requiring life-long treatment. What should that society’s response be?
I will cite a few statistics of the frequency of this abuse. Children are most vulnerable between ages of eight and 12. The average age for first abuse is 9.9 years for boys and 9.6 years for girls. For every child who does report to authorities, three to five cases are not being reported. The most common age for sexual abuse to begin is at age nine. Most sexual abuse is reported by teenagers, but they have usually been victimised for many years before finally reporting the abuse. Most sexual abuse, particularly that involving a continuing relationship or incest, starts before the child reaches puberty.
Children rarely lie about or imagine sexual assault. In 98 per cent of cases their statements are found to be true. However, at the other end of the spectrum are these research findings from 2010: one in three Australians would not believe children if they disclosed they were being abused; one in five lacked the confidence to know what to do if they suspected that a child was being abused or neglected; and 90 per cent of adults surveyed believed that the community needs to be better informed about the problem of child abuse in Australia. Unless they come face-to-face with the issue, collectively Australians rate petrol prices, public transport and roads as issues of greater concern than child abuse. Eighty-six per cent of Australians believed that Commonwealth and state governments should invest more money in protecting children from abuse and neglect.
If we look at just one case, we can see the extent and impact one paedophile can have. Queensland children's commission reported in1997:
Brisbane Court and Hansard reporter Clarence Henry Osborne who gassed himself in his car on September 12, 1979, was found to have committed sexual assaults against 2,500 under age boys–not one of them had reported him to the police.
Although Bravehearts is a relatively young organisation, their achievements are considerable. I will list just a few. In 1999, White Balloon Day was launched as a national event at Parliament House, Canberra. In that year the Queensland Police Service reported a 514 per cent increase in disclosures as a result. In 2000, Bravehearts advocated for survivors' rights to speak publicly, resulting in inclusion of section 189 in Queensland's Child Protection Act 1999. In 2001, Bravehearts launched the Sexual Assault Disclosure Scheme in Queensland. In 2002, Bravehearts successfully lobbied for children's rights to civil compensation in Queensland. In 2003, Ditto's Keep Safe Adventure child protection CD-ROM was launched. In 2004, Bravehearts expanded into Western Australia. In 2005, they launched the Ditto's Keep Safe Adventure school based personal safety program. In 2005, Bravehearts received an Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Award from the Australian Institute of Criminology.
In 2006, Bravehearts launched Supporting Hands workshops for people working with children. In 2007, they officially opened an office in Sydney, New South Wales. In 2008, they received funding through the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services, in the Indigenous Law and Justice Branch of the federal Attorney-General's Department, to establish an education branch in Cairns, Queensland. Further, in 2009, Bravehearts participated in the development of the National Child Protection Framework, endorsed by COAG on 30 April 2009. This ensured that child sexual assault would be understood and dealt with separately to other forms of child abuse and neglect.
In 2010, Bravehearts was provided with a funding grant through the Launceston City Council, in my home state, to provide free professional development training to psychologists, counsellors and other mental health practitioners in Tasmania, and training and information workshops to child protection workers and those working with children generally. In 2011, Ditto's education program launched in Tasmania. In March this year, the 200,000th child saw Ditto's Keep Safe Adventure show.
Bravehearts has now released The 3 Piers to Prevention—a strategic plan that aims to halve the number of Australian children sexually assaulted by 2020. The three piers—educate, empower and protect—are solid foundations identified by Bravehearts to fulfil its pledge to make Australia the safest place in the world to raise a child by 2020. The three piers are: educate—all children to receive effective personal safety education; empower —all adults are trained, aware and motivated; and protect—all systems of community and government.
It is the culmination of 16 years of intensive research into how to reduce the incidence and, ultimately, prevent the occurrence of child sexual assault across Australia. This is a fully researched and budgeted strategic business plan, which has been developed by Bravehearts in consultation with thousands of schools, child protection agencies and police in each state and territory. Bravehearts estimates that it will cost $8million per year to deliver on its pledge, while saving $5.22 billion each year and preventing around 28,000 children from enduring sexual harm.
Other than the vigour, enthusiasm and effectiveness of this organisation, I am particularly impressed by the fact that only 13.2 per cent of their income is spent on fundraising and 81.4 per cent is spent on their direct service delivery. That so much of the funds are spent on fulfilling their aims and objectives is truly impressive. Clearly Bravehearts is dedicated to the prevention of child sexual assault, and I congratulate them on their impressive work. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the team leaders in Tasmania on the excellent work that they are doing by bringing this issue to the fore in our community, and I commend their work.
Member for Gilmore
Parliamentary Friendship Group for Early Literacy
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) (22:01): I am going to speak in the main this evening about the launch of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for Early Literacy, which was held in the parliament last week. However, first I want to address the highly personal attack on a hardworking coalition member of the other place, which was made in this chamber by a Labor senator last Thursday. I found the remarks of Senator Thistlethwaite on that occasion very disappointing, attacking my colleague Joanna Gash MP.
Mrs Gash was elected to the position of Mayor of Shoalhaven City Council in the previous weekend's local government elections. Mrs Gash is a popular, energetic and hardworking local member of the federal parliament, and Senator Thistlethwaite's description of her constituents as 'the forgotten people of Gilmore' is so far from reality as to verge on the farcical. I expect that Mrs Gash will execute her duties as mayor with the same enthusiasm and drive as she has for many years as the member for Gilmore while she continues to be the member for Gilmore until the next election.
As a member of former Prime Minister John Howard's class of 1996, Mrs Gash has provided a strong voice for her constituents and, as many will attest, she is certainly not afraid to rattle some cages to get her local residents the services she promised them during the term of the previous government. The 'forgotten people', to use Senator Thistlethwaite's description, who reside on the south coast of New South Wales in Gilmore surely must not have felt too neglected when they voted to elect Mrs Gash to the position of mayor of Shoalhaven City Council. The inconvenient facts which were left out of Senator Thistlethwaite's remarks last week included the fact that Mrs Gash secured 63 per cent of the mayoral vote and was hardly operating on a secret that she was also the member for Gilmore.
Senator Thistlethwaite was not on particularly strong ground when he called for Mrs Gash to move on. She is the Shoalhaven's first female mayor—perhaps a long overdue event; but, nevertheless, a very important role for Mrs Gash to fill. She appears to have taken at least six other spots on the council with her team. So, whilst it might be convenient to spray around the political invective, I think ignoring the democratic wishes of the people of Gilmore—in this case their vote in the local government elections in New South Wales—whilst convenient to Senator Thistlethwaite does not accurately represent the situation in Gilmore.
Further on the subject of my remarks this evening, last week I had the great privilege of launching the Parliamentary Friendship Group on Early Literacy, along with the federal member for Lindsay, the Hon. David Bradbury MP, Assistant Treasurer, and also a fascinating group of energetic Australians from Paint the Town REaD. It was also encouraging to see the many members from both sides of the political divide and from both the Senate and the House of Representatives attend the launch last week. Their support of this initiative highlights just how important it is for us all to work together to improve the early literacy of our children and to give our children the best possible start in life.
I particularly want to thank the organisers of Paint the Town REaD. It is a wonderful early literacy capacity building program that has been doing absolutely fantastic work in the community since it was launched in 1996 in Parkes, in regional New South Wales. If you had been there last week, Mr President, you could have been forgiven for thinking that the town crier of Parkes was planning to take over the parliament itself, along with the Mayor of Parkes. I particularly want to thank two individuals from Paint the Town REaD for the contribution they make to the community, in particular, and to this exceptionally important cause.
I want to thank Rhonda Brain from Parkes. She is an extraordinary woman. She has an energy like I have never seen. She is unstoppable. She wears her white overalls with her red reading splotches all over them, almost wherever she goes. In fact, I do not think I have ever seen Rhonda without something red on to signify Paint the Town REaD. The most wonderful thing about her energy and her commitment to this cause is that it is contagious. You cannot help when you are in her company for 60 seconds but to decide that the most important thing you need to do as well is to address the challenges of early literacy in this country. I also want to thank Barbie Bates, who is another indefatigable organiser for Paint the Town REaD and who has the assisted enormously in spreading its message, particularly across Western Sydney, which, as my colleagues will know, is very important to me. They were unstoppable in getting politicians of all stripes on board to support this particular initiative last week.
Mr President, you were probably the recipient of an enthusiastic letter from Rhonda Brain where she could see a vision of the children of Canberra appearing here in the Senate chamber to have stories read to them by members of the Senate. I am not sure that the standing orders extended quite that far. I do not think it was possible on the occasion, but I loved her mental picture, and I loved the idea that we might be able to do something like that in this place at some stage. We came to an excellent compromise. It was a beautiful day last Wednesday, and after the formal launch in one of the committee rooms upstairs and the cutting of a very red Paint the Town REaD cake, many of us went outside to meet with children from the child-care centre here in the building and from other child-care facilities around Canberra to read stories to them, with many of the animal patrons, if you like, of early literacy and Paint the Town REaD.
The success of Paint the Town REaD is evident in its expansion since the very early days of the initiative into Western Sydney, into western Queensland and also into regional Victoria. I hope that together we can all build on this foundation and work towards improving early literacy for our children and giving them the best possible start in life.
We had an extraordinary time when we were reading to the children; however, it might be said we were overshadowed by Rooby Roo, who is the very popular kangaroo mascot of Paint the Town REaD and who absolutely entranced the children who were sitting outside in the sun with us. They were fascinated with wanting to get her to read their books to them. She is not able to read, so that was a small technical difficulty, but we mere mortals—mere senators and members—filled in as best we could in those moments where it was clear that Rooby Roo may well have caused some of the children to cry if they did not get a story read to them at the time.
This particular launch followed National Literacy and Numeracy Week 2012 which was held just recently and comes under the umbrella of the National Year of Reading 2012. The National Year of Reading 2012 is a collaborative project. It links public libraries, government and community groups, and commercial partners and the public. It is an initiative that comes in response to the very startling figure that almost 46 per cent of Australians cannot read effectively at a basic level.
The National Year of Reading 2012 has three aims: to ensure that all Australians understand the benefits of reading as a life skill and a catalyst for wellbeing, to promote a reading culture in every home and to establish an aspirational goal for families of parents and caregivers sharing books with their children every day. I think we would all agree that they are extremely worthwhile goals. The launch event was also significant because it kicked off the Paint the Town REaD's third annual conference, which went from 12 to 14 September.
I love Paint the Town REaD. It is a fantastic grassroots organisation that involves local groups organising their own year-round events as well as an annual Reading Day which focuses on the message, 'Read, talk, sing and rhyme with your child from birth'. I have seen Rhonda Brain persuade fully-grown adults dressed in corporate suits and work gear to do the most extraordinary things in large rooms in front of other people—things that you might think they would normally be embarrassed to do. But for this cause of early literacy, everyone is willing to have a go.
The Reading Day held every year engages the whole community: young children are read to in their local shops by shop staff and celebrities, by high school students and by volunteers. The NRL is involved. Local politicians are involved. Any organisation you can think of that wants to support children and support their development is welcome and happy to become involved. The groups are locally owned and locally run by community leaders such as school principals, councils, NGOs, community health workers and early childhood educators.
I think the piece de resistance for me was seeing Ransley Street in Penrith, which runs between Centrebet Stadium and the Penrith Paceway, acquire a new street sign not so long ago. It now has a bright red sign above Ransley Street that says 'Reading Street'. I would hope the ambition of Paint the Town REaD and the other excellent early literacy groups that abound in this country is to have at least one street in every community renamed Reading Street.
Nuclear Energy
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (22:11): In the context of what is happening around the world this week in the nuclear industry, I would like to dedicate this speech to an Indian gentleman called Antony Samy, who was 40 years old and not somebody that I have ever met before.
This week just gone is being hailed as the worst ever for the nuclear industry. I suspect that is contestable; there is obviously a lot of competition. The worst week might have been when Soviet engineers blew the Chernobyl plant apart and showered much of Western Europe, and then the Northern Hemisphere, with radiation. You could say the worst week might have been in March last year, when the ongoing disaster at Fukushima Daiichi began. Of course the worst week in the nuclear industry really depends on where you stand. The worst week for the Aboriginal mob living around Maralinga was probably sometime in the 1950s when the British were lighting up that mob's country with the light of a thousand suns, and showering their traditional home grounds with fission products from nuclear weapons.
But last week was a real shocker, which brings me to the story of Mr Antony Samy. He was shot dead in Tamil Nadu in India, by Indian police, for being part of the demonstration against the Koodankulum nuclear reactor. He was part of demonstrations that are tens of thousands strong across India, not just in the southern part, in Tamil Nadu, but across the country, where nuclear plants are being forced on people literally at gun point.
This is a part of the world where our own Prime Minister will visit in mid-October and if she is continuing to do the bidding of Minister Martin Ferguson, who really only sees the dollar signs when he contemplates uranium, she will be there, presumably, to advance the pouring of Australian uranium into reactors that have some of the worst health and safety records in a state that is armed with nuclear weapons, in a state that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and in a state where nuclear technology is desperately unpopular, particularly with the people close to the plants.
This is linked to the fortunes of the nuclear industry worldwide. These demonstrations are part of a much larger, global campaign to bring the nuclear age to a close that is now into its third generation. Last week the Japanese government made a decision to phase out nuclear power by the 2030s. That, I suspect, will anger some of my Japanese colleagues and many of the tens of millions of people who are campaigning not simply for a closure at some time in the future but for the reactors never to be restarted again in this small, seismically active country.
It is highly significant for us here in Australia—it is certainly very significant for those who live in Japan—that one of the countries in the world, a very high-tech, technologically sophisticated country but one of those most invested in nuclear energy, has finally listened to its population and said, 'Enough is enough'. Having lost a large part of Fukushima Prefecture, they know just how much worse that situation could have been and now they are moving for a total phase-out. It is the same with the governments of Germany, Italy and Switzerland, where full phase-outs of this technology are now underway.
In Japan the struggle of fishing communities and the community around Kaminoseki celebrated their work, which is now in its fourth decade, to prevent their livelihoods being destroyed by a proposed nuclear plant. Their fight was an extraordinary show of endurance and I am happy to pay it tribute. When the company would come to dig, the community would thread their boats together effectively blocking access to the port. This community resisted for 40 years. This week they won.
Last week two reactors were indefinitely shut down in Belgium due to cracks found in the reactor vessels. Last week Spain decided not to renew a plant's licence to operate in Carona in July next year. In Canada the government agreed to close the Gentilly-2 reactor on safety grounds. The President of France—another country that some Australian pro-nuclear advocates look to as being technologically sophisticated and also a nuclear weapons state which relies to a large part on this technology so it is much more vulnerable to this technology than even the people of Japan for energy supply—announced that the oldest reactor there will be decommissioned. In fact, the ruling party wants to reduce nuclear's share from 75 to 50 per cent of energy by 2025. This is another country that demonstrates that if this technology is so great, why is it backing away as rapidly as alternative sources of supply will allow? Not surprisingly, last week the uranium spot price fell to below US$48 per pound, the lowest level since December 2010 and down from $73 a pound just before the disaster in Tohoku in March last year.
Against this backdrop Australia comes in. What did the Australian Uranium Association do during this most dismal week for the nuclear industry with its wave of closures and proposed closures around the world? The AUA was up in Queensland with the Queensland Resources Council pushing for the Queensland government to lift the ban on uranium mining. Premier Newman was pretty tight-lipped and presented quite an ambiguous position to the people of Queensland before the last state election which was disappointing, but his government has not lifted the ban as yet. The Queensland Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Mr Andrew Cripps—who obviously has not been keeping up with world developments in the nuclear fuel market—joined the predictable call for 'discussion' in Queensland. Well, discuss away, Mr. Cripps, as long as you are doing so in possession of the facts about what is occurring in this industry. Our uranium customer base—the people we rely on as a market to sell this material to—is drying up because the technology is disastrous.
BHP Billiton boss Marius Kloppers attributed the Olympic Dam postponement not to the carbon price, as Mr Abbott would have known if he had bothered to the read the statement on the night that BHP announced this but what he said was:
What has changed is the capital cost of construction. What has changed also is that post-Fukushima there is a different and still developing outlook on uranium.
Let us talk a little more about that developing outlook.
It is very interesting and a bit sad, because I have a lot of regard for Senator Williams of the National Party who took a shot at my colleague Senator Rhiannon for having in his words 'investments in ERA,' a uranium-mining company that takes uranium from Kakadu and sells it all over the world. Senator Williams used the word 'investments'. This is a single share held by Senator Rhiannon for the purpose of going to AGMs and being able to ask hard questions as a shareholder of the company. Senator Rhiannon is not hoping to make a handy profit out of her $8 ERA share. In fact, if she were I would advise her to sell it because in a couple of years it is going to be worthless. For Senator Williams to take a shot at Senator Rhiannon and say she is somehow voting against her principles by buying a single share in a uranium-mining company makes me think of two words: shareholder activism. Perhaps that is something the National Party would consider. I would advise Senator Rhiannon to sell that share if she were in it for the money, but of course she is not. Having attended a number of uranium company AGMs over time, I know they are not pleasant experiences but they are extremely worthwhile.
Likewise I would be advising investors in the Toro project to sell up their stake before their shares become completely worthless which will happen if Toro goes ahead, against market advice, with a capital raising to build its mill. This would dilute the value of its existing shareholders. Toro has sponsored a number of speaking tours, including by Dr Doug Boreham who promoted radiation as 'anti-carcinogenic' at the Paydirt uranium conference in Adelaide. This is a bit like the tobacco industry promoting doctors who say that cigarettes are anti-carcinogenic—if you could find such a doctor—and then getting this doctor on TV. That is the kind of behaviour that the uranium industry is conducting, and its peak body, the Australian Uranium Association, did it not call the industry out. That is the kind of ethical practice or malpractice that we are dealing with. Toro is in quite a desperate situation. It has a small geologically intractable calcrete deposit which it proposes to mine across a lake bed. It has no experience in mining, no cash reserves, no joint venture partner, and parent company Oz Minerals calls Toro a non-core assets. Toro is in serious trouble. If you are holding an investment in this company now is probably a very good time to get out.
As we speak, a group of extremely determined people are walking to protest this uranium mine on a lake bed at Lake Way. The Walkatjurra Walkabout is being led by a friend and colleague of mine Kado Muir, a traditional owner from the Yeelirrie area of the goldfields. These people are walking for country to reconnect people with land and culture. He says in his invitation to join the walk, 'This pilgrimage across Wangkatja country in the spirit of ancestors is being held together, so that we as present custodians can protect our land and our culture for future generations.' Kado is linked with Mr Samy and with the child put in hospital by being hit on the head by a teargas canister. He and his friends and allies around Australia are working to an end of this insidious, poisonous and obsolete industry. They are linked with the 25,000 in Tamil Nadu demonstrating against the construction of a nuclear reactor in their backyard that no right-minded person in Australia would want to live next to. I call on the Prime Minister to hear these voices.
Tigers Oxfam Trailwalker Team
Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales) (22:21): I have previously spoken in the Senate about the Tigers Oxfam Trailwalker Team. This year the Tigers team set a new goal to become the first team in Australia to participate in all three Australian trailwalks: Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. I remind the Senate that the event is not a relay—all team members are required to walk the full 100 kilometres. I am pleased to report to the Senate that the Tigers's successfully achieved their goal.
I and Max Bryant, who is here in the chamber, now with 19 successful trailwalks between us, were joined by other Tigers to chalk up three more 100-kilometre non-stop trailwalks to help raise money for Oxfam Australia.
In the Melbourne trailwalk in April the Tigers continued our tradition of guiding a totally blind team member. Our team comprised Max Bryant, Daniel White, Ben Phillips, who is totally blind, and yours truly. Ben set himself the goal of completing the fastest ever trailwalk by a blind trail walker anywhere in the world. It was some ambition—put simply, Ben wanted a world record! And he got it. Ben completed his second Oxfam Trailwalker in the amazing time of 28 hours and 59 minutes.
Oxfam have assisted us by providing information relating to blind walkers in trailwalks from around the world, and this puts Ben's achievement into some perspective. In the Oxfam Germany Trailwalkers there have never been any blind participants. In Oxfam India—never any blind participants. So, too, for the Oxfam Trailwalker in France—no blind participants. As far as Oxfam Great Britain is concerned, their records over the last five years, which are all that are available, show there have been no blind participants on either the Oxfam Trailwalker or Trailtrekker. Oxfam Japan had one blind participant in their 2010 event. That team retired during the event. In the Oxfam Belgium event they had one blind participant in 2010—again, that team retired during the event. But, in the Sydney trailwalk, from 2003 to 2007 Charlie McConnell competed with great distinction, with a fastest time of 37 hours in his 2006 trailwalk. In the Oxfam Melbourne Trailwalker of 2010 the Tigers' own Nick Gleeson completed the 100 kilometres in 34 hours and 42 minutes. He is totally blind. In the Oxfam Melbourne Trailwalker of 2011 our own Benny Phillips made it over the line in 37 hours and two minutes. But in this year's Melbourne Oxfam Trailwalker Ben Phillips came home in 28 hours and 59 minutes—that is a world record. Sincere congratulations go to Ben. This was a truly courageous effort from him.
As I have before, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our support crew in Melbourne. These events really are a team effort, and the team extends well beyond the four blokes on the track. My caucus colleague Anthony Byrne MP, the member for Holt, and his staff were once again simply magnificent in their support for our Tigers team. Led by the ever reliable Alex Stalder and her mum, Helen—who let us say has seen more than her fair share of Tigers trailwalks—Nick McClennan, who is also here in the chamber tonight, Mel Demirova, Faik Demirova, Dina McMillan and, of course, Anthony himself all came along and gave tremendous support to help the Tigers walkers with whatever was required at the check points and before and after the event. As always, we sincerely appreciate their help. The team could not have done this without our support crew and Ben Phillips would not have been able to achieve that magnificent world record without the efforts of our support crew, so my sincere thanks to them.
In June this year Greg Bell, who made his debut Oxfam Trailwalker in Sydney last year, returned to the Tigers team for the Brisbane event along with first-time walker Andrew Churchill. They joined Max and me in a tremendous battle in some incredibly difficult conditions, which I think you would appreciate about Brisbane, Mr President. The odds were against us: the weather was hot, the hills steep, the track unrelenting, and some unfortunate circumstances and injuries meant that the Tigers team did it extra tough. After a real struggle, Andrew was forced to retire after 74 kilometres, but the rest of the team got home in what I could only describe as a torturous 37 hours and 17 minutes.
Recently, Kieran Gilbert from the Fourth Estate joined Greg, Max and me for the final instalment of our Oxfam Trailwalker trifecta—the Sydney event last month. The rugged Sydney trail is well known to our Tigers team after half a dozen trailwalks there and plenty of practice walks. One thing is for sure: the Sydney Oxfam Trailwalker is never easy, and we were relieved when our full team crossed the line in 31 hours and three minutes.
As I speak tonight, after 12 trailwalks—six in Sydney, five in Melbourne and one in Brisbane—our fundraising for Oxfam totals $284,512.41. In Melbourne this year we raised $18,430 for Oxfam, in Brisbane $16,041, and for the Sydney event we raised $11, 620, with a fundraising function still to come. We know that this money makes a real difference to many needy people around the world and we sincerely thank the Balmain Tigers for all they do for our team. We also sincerely thank all our support crews—in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane—and, of course, all of our donors who have so generously contributed to the great work of Oxfam.
Senate adjourned 22:30
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) number. An explanatory statement is tabled with an instrument unless otherwise indicated by an asterisk.]
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 220—ATSIC (Regional Councils – Election of Officeholders) Repeal Regulation 2012 [F2012L01874].
Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—
Civil Aviation Order 100.5 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No. 3) [F2012L01872].
Instrument No. CASA 301/12—Instructions – RNP APCH LNAV and RNP APCH LNAV/VNAV on National Jet Systems, trading as Cobham Aviation Services Australia – Airline Services, B717-200 aircraft [F2012L01868].
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 217—Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Regulation 2012 [F2012L01873].
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—Amendment of list of exempt native specimens—EPBC303DC/SFS/2012/52 [F2012L01867].
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act—Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code—Standard 1.4.2 – Maximum Residue Limits Amendment Instrument No. APVMA 9, 2012 [F2012L01869].
Higher Education Support Act—VET Provider Approvals Nos—
18 of 2012—Milneworth Pty. Ltd. [F2012L01865].
19 of 2012—La Trobe International Galleries Pty. Ltd. [F2012L01866].
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936—Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 222—Income Tax Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 4) [F2012L01871].
Schools Assistance Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 223—Schools Assistance Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 1) [F2012L01875].
Telecommunications Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 216—Telecommunications Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 1) [F2012L01876].
Work Health and Safety Act and Fair Work Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 218—Work Health and Safety Legislation Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 1) [F2012L01870].
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
The following answers to questions were circulated:
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(Question No. 1873)
Senator Ludlam asked the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, upon notice, on 7 June 2012:
In regard to isotope production at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) reactor:
(1) Does ANSTO routinely supply all of Australia’s Molybdenum 99 (Mo-99) requirements.
(2) Does ANSTO export Mo-99.
(3) Why has the cost of Mo-99 based generators for Australian patients increased since OPAL was commissioned.
(4) Does ANSTO import Iodine-123 (I-123), Thallium 201 (TI-201) and Gallium-67 (Ga-67); if so, is this because the National Medical Cyclotron was decommissioned in 2009.
(5) Will any of the collaborations entered into by ANSTO be capable of producing I-123, TI-201 and Ga-67.
(6) How much does ANSTO charge for a dose of I-123, used for scanning patients with thyroid cancer, and how much of this is covered by the Medicare rebate.
(7) Does ANSTO’s sale price include a profit margin on the imported price.
(8) Could the cost impost lead to patients having a less effective diagnosis.
(9) Does the OPAL reactor produce Lutetium 177 (Lu-177).
(10) Why is the ANSTO import of Lu-177 more expensive than the international suppliers’ direct charge.
(11) How much does ANSTO charge for Iodine 133 (I 133), used in the treatment of patients with overactive thyroids and the most lethal forms of thyroid cancer.
(12) Is the maximum Medicare rebate for I 133 $417, and the cost of the material to the administering hospital between $688 and $870.
(13) Is there a Medicare rebate for I 133 MIBG, used in the treatment of children with incurable neuroblastoma and some adults with similarly incurable tumours, produced by ANSTO at a cost to the administering hospital of between $4 862 and $7 893.
(14) Can the Minister confirm that patients with metastatic skeletal cancer that is refractory to all other treatments who are treated with Samarium 153 (Sm) Lexidronam produced at ANSTO are charged a minimum of $3 255, with a Medicare rebate of $2 323.
Senator Chris Evans: The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
(1) Yes.
(2) Yes.
(3) In order to comply with competitive neutrality principles.
(4) ANSTO imports Iodine-123 and Gallium-67. The unreliability of the National Medical Cyclotron (NMC) in the period leading up to its closure in 2009 meant that imports were periodically required even before that date. The implementation of a reliable importation strategy has improved the reliability of supply to hospitals and patients.
(5) No.
(6) I-123 mIBG comes in two doses, depending on the specific procedure being undertaken. The price for 200MBq is $1045 and the price for 400MBq is $1984. Questions regarding rates of Medicare reimbursement should be raised with the Department of Health and Ageing.
(7) ANSTO’s pricing complies with competitive neutrality principles, which include a requirement of an adequate rate of return.
(8) This is a clinical question that should be discussed with a Nuclear Medicine specialist.
(9) No.
(10) ANSTO’s pricing complies with competitive neutrality principles.
(11) Iodine-131 (not iodine-133) is used for the treatment of thyroid cancer. It comes in a variety of forms and doses, depending on the specific procedure being undertaken. Prices range from $505 to $870 per dose.
(12) As noted in the response to part (10), the price for I-131 (not I-133) ranges from $505 to $870 per dose. Questions regarding rates of Medicare reimbursement should be raised with the Department of Health and Ageing.
(13) I-131 mIBG is only produced as needed for the treatment of particular patients under the TGA Special Access Scheme. Each production run in the OPAL reactor only delivers one dose, and as such is very costly. ANSTO’s pricing complies with competitive neutrality principles. Questions regarding rates of Medicare reimbursement should be raised with the Department of Health and Ageing.
(14) Yes, the price of Samarium 153 (Sm) Lexidronam produced at ANSTO is $3,255. Questions regarding rates of Medicare reimbursement should be raised with the Department of Health and Ageing.
Fair Work Australia
(Question No. 1991)
Senator Abetz asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 6 August 2012:
(1) For the 2010 11 financial year, how many cases were brought to Fair Work Australia and, in each case, what was its classification i.e. unfair dismissal, adverse action etc.
(2) For each category, how many cases were:
(a) finalised by a decision;
(b) settled;
(c) withdrawn; and
(d) are ongoing.
Senator Ludwig – The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
(1) The following are the number of matters lodged with Fair Work Australia in the 2010-11 Financial Year, as reported in the 2010-11 Annual Report:
Nature of proceedings |
No. |
Fair Work Act 2009 |
|
Award grievance procedure |
2 |
Request for a Board of Reference |
221 |
s.120—Application to vary redundancy pay for other employment or incapacity to pay |
39 |
s.157—FWA may vary etc. modern awards if necessary to achieve modern awards objective |
1 |
s.158—Application to vary or revoke a modern award |
145 |
s.160—Application to vary a modern award to remove ambiguity or uncertainty or correct error |
50 |
s.185—Application for approval of a greenfields agreement |
534 |
s.185—Application for approval of a multi-enterprise agreement |
54 |
s.185—Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement |
6493 |
s.210—Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement |
93 |
s.217—Application to vary an agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty |
50 |
s.217A—Application to deal with a dispute about variations |
1 |
s.222—Application for approval of a termination of an enterprise agreement |
19 |
s.225—Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date |
64 |
s.229—Application for a bargaining order |
96 |
s.236—Application for a majority support determination |
93 |
s.238—Application for a scope order |
31 |
s.240—Application to deal with a bargaining dispute |
221 |
s.242—Application for a low-paid authorisation |
1 |
s.248—Application for a single-interest employer authorisation |
22 |
s.285—Annual wage review |
1 |
s.318—Application for an order relating to instruments covering new employer and transferring employees in agreements |
59 |
s.318—Application for an order relating to instruments covering new employer and transferring employees in awards |
2 |
s.319—Application for an order re instruments covering new employer and non- transferring employees in agreements |
9 |
s.320—Application to vary a transferable instrument an agreement |
8 |
s.365—Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal |
1871 |
s.372—Application to deal with other contravention disputes |
504 |
s.394—Application for unfair dismissal remedy |
12840 |
s.418—Application for an order that industrial action by employees or employers stop etc. |
175 |
s.423—Application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action significant economic harm etc |
8 |
s.424—Application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action endangering life etc. |
17 |
s.425—Application to suspend protected industrial action, cooling off |
11 |
s.426—Application to suspend protected industrial action, significant harm to a third party |
3 |
s.437—Application for a protected action ballot order |
759 |
s.447—Application for variation of protected action ballot order |
9 |
s.448—Application for revocation of protected action ballot order |
61 |
s.459—Application to extend the 30-day period in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot |
97 |
s.472—Application for an order relating to certain partial work bans |
4 |
s.483AA—Application for an order to access non-member records |
7 |
s.505—Application to deal with a right of entry dispute |
40 |
s.507—Application for action to be taken against permit holder |
4 |
s.508—Application to restrict rights if organisation or official has misused permit rights |
1 |
s.510—Upon referral, revoke or suspend an entry permit |
8 |
s.512—Application for a right of entry permit |
1257 |
s.519—Application for an exemption certificate |
3 |
s.526—Application to deal with a dispute involving stand down |
15 |
s.576(2)(ca)—Proceeding referred to Fair Work Australia for mediation |
3 |
s.602—Application to correct obvious error(s) etc. in relation to Fair Work Australia's decision |
3 |
s.603—Application for varying and revoking Fair Work Australia decisions |
1 |
s.604—Appeal of decisions |
168 |
s.699—Application to FWA to have a dispute resolution process conducted (Div 3) |
25 |
s.709—Application to FWA to have a dispute resolution process conducted (Div 5) |
468 |
s.739—Application to deal with a dispute |
902 |
s.739—Application to deal with a dispute in relation to flexible working arrangements |
33 |
s.740(1)—Application for permit to enter premises and inspect records |
1 |
s.773—Application to deal with an unlawful termination dispute |
174 |
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 |
|
s.158(1) (FW (RO) Act)—Application for alteration of eligibility rules |
|
s.158(1)(FW (RO) Act) —Application for change of name of organisation |
2 |
Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 |
|
Sch. 3, Item 10—Application to vary transitional instrument to remove ambiguity (agreement) |
32 |
Sch. 3, Item 10—Application to vary transitional instrument to remove ambiguity (award) |
5 |
Sch. 3, Item 12—Application to vary pre-reform or transitional award 53 |
|
Sch. 3, Item 15—Application by agreement to terminate collective agreement-based transitional instrument |
33 |
Sch. 3, Item 16—Application to terminate collective agreement-based transitional instrument |
77 |
Sch. 3, Item 17—Application by agreement to terminate individual agreement-based transitional instrument |
5393 |
Sch. 3, Item 18—Application for conditional termination of individual agreement based transitional instrument |
16 |
Sch. 3, Item 19—Declaration for unilateral termination with Fair Work Australia approval to terminate individual agreement |
1027 |
Sch. 3, Item 26—Application to resolve an issue between a transitional instrument and the National Employment Standard (agreement) |
3 |
Sch. 3, Item 26—Application to resolve an issue between a transitional instrument and the National Employment Standard (award) |
1 |
Sch. 3A, Items 29 & 30—Fair Work Australia to consider varying modern awards etc. |
8 |
Sch. 5, Item 3—Variation & termination of certain transitional instruments etc. to take account of Part10A award modern process |
1331 |
Sch. 5, Item 9—Application for an order remedying reduction in take-home pay resulting from a modern award |
57 |
Sch. 6, Item 4—Application to make a modern award to replace an enterprise instrument. |
1 |
Sch. 6, Item 5—Application to terminate an enterprise instrument a preserved collective State agreement |
1 |
Sch. 6, Item 5—Application to terminate an enterprise instrument an award |
9 |
Sch. 7, Item 7—Application for determination of designated award for purpose of no-disadvantage test |
1 |
Pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996
|
|
s.170LW—Application for settlement of dispute (certified agreement) |
342 |
s.170MH—Application to terminate agreement (public interest) |
1 |
Workplace Relations Act 1996 |
|
s.120—Appeal to full bench |
7 |
s.643—Application for relief re (harsh, unjust or unreasonable) termination of employment |
4 |
s.643—Application for relief re (unlawful and harsh, unjust or unreasonable) termination of employment |
4 |
s.643—Application for relief re (unlawful) termination of employment |
4 |
(2) The majority of matters lodged with Fair Work Australia broadly fall within the categories of termination of employment and agreement approval, for which a results framework exists that allows reporting on the outcome of these types of applications.
Fair Work Australia does not have a results framework that makes it possible to readily or accurately report for other matter types, how many cases were finalised by a decision, settled, withdrawn or are ongoing.
It is possible to draw from the 2010-11 Annual Report, the Quarterly report to the Minister, and the case management system CMS+ the following information in respect of the termination of employment categories and agreements.
Termination of Employment
Type of Matter |
No of cases lodged in 2010-11 |
No finalised by a decision in 2010-11 |
No. Settled in 2010-11
|
No. Withdrawn in 2010-11 |
No. ongoing from 2010-11 |
s.643 Workplace Relations Act 1996 |
16 |
10 |
80 |
Not available1 |
0 |
s. 394 Fair Work Act 2009—Unfair Dismissal |
12840 |
517 |
7649 |
2220 |
18 |
ss. 365 & 773 Fair Work Act 2009 |
2045 |
Not applicable2 |
1944 |
Not available3 |
1 |
p. 12 Fair Work Australia Annual Report 2010-11
Agreements
Type of Agreement |
No. lodged in 2010-11 |
No. finalised in 2010-11 |
No. ongoing from 2010-11 |
s.185 Single Enterprise |
6493 |
7174 |
1 |
s.185 Greenfields |
534 |
549 |
0 |
s. Multi-enterprise |
54 |
59 |
0 |
p. 12 Fair Work Australia Annual Report 2010-11
1 Fair Work Australia does not have a database framework to accurately capture this information
2 Fair Work Australia does not have determinative powers over these types of applications. Unresolved applications are determined by the Federal Court
3 Fair Work Australia does not have a database framework to accurately capture this information
Fair Work Australia
(Question No. 2007)
Senator Abetz asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 9 August 2012 :
With reference to the decision [2010] FWA 4030 CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Customs Service) (C2009/10664), was this decision made in relation to a dispute referred to Fair Work Australia (FWA) under a dispute resolution procedure in a workplace agreement made under the 'Work Choices' version of the Workplace Relations Act (the WR Act); if so: (a) does the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 provide for the continued operation of the WR Act in relation to such disputes, including the dispute in the decision above, and including the privacy restrictions in section 712 of the WR Act; and (b) why were the privacy restrictions in section 712 of the WR Act not applied to the decision as it is posted on the FWA website.
Senator Ludwig The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
In relation to the first question above, the Government understands that the decision was made in relation to a dispute referred to FWA under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The decision dealt with the interpretation of the Australian Customs Service Collective Agreement 2007 – 2010, an agreement made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WR Act)as amended by the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. The agreement became an agreement-based transitional instrument under the FW Act from 1 July 2009.
In relation to question (a) above, Schedule 19 to the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 provides for the continued application of the WR Act on or after 1 July 2009 for the purpose of dealing with disputes in relation to matters arising under an agreement-based transitional instrument.
In relation to question (b) above, the Government is not aware of the particular facts and circumstances of the matter.
Budget Estimates: Question No. EW0174_13
(Question No. 2097)
Senator Abetz asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 23 August 2012:
With reference to the answer provided to question no. EW0174_13, taken on notice during the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee: Which registered organisations attended the event.
Senator Ludwig: The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
A ceremonial sitting to welcome Justice Ross was held on Friday, 23 March 2012. Fair Work Australia issued an open invitation to all organisations registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, a complete list of which is available on the Fair Work Australia website: http://www.fwa.gov.au/index.cfm?pagename=regorgslist
Not all registered organisations sent an RSVP in respect of the invitation, therefore it is not possible to determine which registered organisations attended the event.
An invitation to speak at the Ceremonial Sitting was also sent to the ACTU, with then secretary Jeff Lawrence addressing the sitting on the day.
Budget Estimates: Question No. EW0041_13
(Question No. 2144)
Senator Abetz asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 7 September 2012:
With reference to the answer provided to question no. EW0041_13, taken on notice during the 2012–13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee:
(1) Can a full and relevant answer to the question be provided.
(2) What policies have union bosses advocated to the Minister.
(3) Are any of these policies currently under active consideration by the Government.
(4) Why is a full list of policies unable to be provided.
Senator Wong: The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
The answer provided in response to EW0041_13 was full and relevant in the context of the speech that the Honourable Senator referred to in his question.
The union movement advocates a large number of policies across a range of economic and social issues. Policies advocated by the union movement are publicly available on the websites of the ACTU and its affiliated unions and in submissions by the ACTU and its affiliated unions to various Government reviews and Parliamentary Committee inquiries. My Department does not maintain a list of these policies.
The Government is currently considering the report of the independent Fair Work Review. I will not comment on what policies may, or may not, be under active consideration by the Government.