The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute. The list is available from the Table Office or chamber attendants. Details will be recorded in the Journals of the Senate and on the Dynamic Red.
Details of the documents also appear at the end of today ' s Hansard.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals have been lodged for committees to meet as follows:
Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement to meet on 21 June 2017.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to meet today.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee to meet today.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories to meet today and 22 June 2017.
Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia to meet today.
The PRESIDENT (09:31): Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those proposals? There being none, I call Senator Hinch.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (09:31): I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Burston.
Leave granted.
Senator HINCH: Yesterday, Senator Burston blocked leave for an amendment to my motion for a joint committee to oversee the national Redress Scheme. He also dissented when I then sought leave to move the original motion. The One Nation senator has since defamed me by telling other senators in this chamber that he dissented because 'the only reason Senator Hinch is insisting on sharing the planned committee is because it comes with a $21,000 allowance, and that's greedy'. I want to put on record that I was totally unaware that there was any cash emolument with that position, and if there is I will donate it to the Wintringham project for homeless people over 50 in Melbourne, because all I want to do is establish a watchdog committee so that child victims of institutionalised abuse get the proper redress that has been, for so long, so cruelly and so shamefully overdue.
BILLS
Banking and Financial Services Commission of Inquiry Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator BACK (Western Australia) (09:32): I open my comments with a reflection to all colleagues, following the statement that was just made by Senator Hinch, that there needs to be mutual respect across this chamber, all for each other. We can come in here with spirited and different views, but the simple fact of the matter is that, when mutual respect for colleagues is lost, this Senate, which is the senior chamber of the Australian parliament and the Australian people, is the poorer for it.
It is my pleasure to speak to the Banking and Financial Services Commission of Inquiry Bill 2017, which has been moved by several in this place. I want to make the point, firstly, about the work the government is doing, has done and will do into the future in relation to regulation and control of the banking sector to the extent that it is the role of the federal parliament to so do. Let me spell out, if I may, just a summary of the key contacts for people who believe they have a case against the banking sector—in other words, misconduct in the banking and financial services sector.
I refer firstly to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. That particular person's role is to assist operators of small businesses, family enterprises, who may be in dispute with parties such as clients, other businesses or Commonwealth government agencies, and this includes banks. That provides tailored facilitating discussions between disputing parties.
The second is the financial ombudsman: a person who provides free, independent dispute resolution for consumers unable to resolve their complaints with a member of the financial services sector. Businesses with an Australian financial services licence must be a member of either the FOS, Financial Ombudsman Service, or the Credit and Investments Ombudsman agency for external dispute resolution purposes—a service which is available to small claimants particularly.
The third area where alleged misconduct by the banks can be brought to the fore is the Credit and Investments Ombudsman, which again provides free, independent dispute resolution for consumers unable to resolve their complaints with a member of the financial services sector. The fourth is the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. I have certainly had constituents who have availed themselves of this service. Again, it provides free, independent dispute resolution for complainants who believe they have been unfairly dealt with by regulated superannuation funds, annuities, deferred annuities and retirement savings accounts.
Each of these is free and each of these is independent—I keep going. In this country we also have ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which regulates financial markets, including alleged illegal conduct by credit providers, by insolvency practitioners, through share market misconduct and by financial service providers. ASIC also examines and investigates scams involving financial products. It is a very powerful organisation that is well funded and increasingly well funded now by the federal government.
I now come to APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. Regulated institutions under APRA include, firstly, banks and, secondly, credit unions, building societies, general insurance and reinsurance companies, life insurance companies, the private health insurance sector, friendly societies and most if not all within the superannuation industry.
As a result of the allocation of funds in the 2017 budget—and I certainly hope the measures will be passed in this place in the next sitting period before the end of the financial year—a new unit within the ACCC is to be established to undertake regular inquiries into specific financial system competition issues. It is vitally important that we have a strong, robust and reputable banking system filled with integrity. It is equally important that all of Australia's consumers, where they believe they have a complaint as a result of misconduct of a person in the banking sector, have redress available to them without cost, where they can have their complaint heard, have it adjudicated and receive satisfaction.
I, like many others in this place, have received complaints from constituents. Senator Dastyari, who is sitting opposite, and I notice Senator Whish-Wilson is also in the chamber—we have participated in the managed investment scheme inquiries, and we have all heard about the most terrible activities undertaken by some in the banking sector and by those who supported them in what was a very, very poorly designed and implemented scheme, particularly as it related to aspects of agricultural and horticultural production. I, for one, am certainly of the view that we need strong regulation and strong oversight of the banking system. What this government has done and will be able to do in the future with the concurrence of those in this chamber across the divide is to continue to exercise strong control over the banking sector and particularly give complainants—especially those who would otherwise not have the financial wherewithal—the ability to register their complaints and have them heard and adjudicated.
Let me explore further, if I may, some of those measures. First of all there is the concept of a one-stop shop to be established 12 months from now, by 1 July 2018. I say 'by 1 July 2018', but I would hope that it will be legislated and in place before then. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority will be an industry-funded—not funded by the taxpayer—one-stop-shop dispute-resolution body that will provide free, fast and—listen to this—binding determination for consumers. This, of course, is as a result of recent work undertaken to investigate the banking system. It will be able to award fair compensation when it has determined that consumers have wrongfully suffered a loss as a result of the conduct of a financial services provider, and it will provide real and immediate outcomes for consumers. It was part of a recommendation of the recently completed Ramsay review. The Turnbull government, as we know, is focusing on delivering genuine outcomes for Australian consumers, and we want to try and remove the politics from this whole process so that we can get to the stage of doing what we need to do for Australian consumers, and that is to protect them.
The second element I am about to canvass to the chamber is long overdue: a banking executive accountability regime. This is an incredibly powerful tool. The government will introduce a new banking executive accountability regime, with enhanced powers for APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, to remove and to disqualify a banking executive, to direct adjustments to the bank's remunerations policies and to enforce new expectations on bank conducts, with penalties of up to $200 million where they are not met. It will be a requirement that senior bank executives will be registered with APRA, and the banks will be required to advise APRA prior to making a senior appointment.
There will be penalties imposed on banks that do not monitor the suitability of their executives to hold senior positions. Can you imagine what the career prospects would be for a banking executive who was found to be in default under these new guidelines? What chance would they have of a future career in the banking industry or related credit industries? The answer is nil. This is a powerful weapon to be able to ensure that bank executives meet the expectations of the community and, indeed, one would hope, to meet the expectations of their own vision and mission statements in terms of integrity and probity, not only for themselves but for those who are subordinate to them and who report to them. They will have nowhere to hide. They will be registered with APRA and there will be transparency. I go back to that level of penalties on the banks: if their conduct falls short, there is a capacity for penalties of up to $200 million. This new regime will require a proportion of senior executives' variable remuneration—the bonuses—to be deferred for a period of at least four years, to focus any decision-making on what might be long-term outcomes. It will not be possible for somebody who knows the heat is about to be applied to them to grab their bonus and take off, because it will have to be withheld for a period of up to four years.
I turn now to credit card reforms. I think it is fair to say in this community that credit cards, in many ways, are a scourge. I go back, if I may, to the early 1970s. Some of us in this room will remember when Bankcard first came in. It was widely circulated. There were people who had died who got Bankcards; there were children who got Bankcards. My father, not long before he died, was a bank manager. He had come from very humble circumstances—he lived in Fremantle and got a job on the wharf when he could during the Depression, and eventually he got a job in the banking world. He said to me one day: 'Chris, credit cards will be the absolute death of many families in Australia.' I said to him, 'Why?'
He said: 'You have to have been abjectly poor to know how badly you want what someone else has got but you can't have. But what this jolly Bankcard is going to do is that it is going to make people think they can afford what they can't have. They will buy it, and they will be forever in financial stress.' He said, 'It's going to lead to domestic violence.' He said: 'It's going to lead to marital break-up. It's going to lead to all of those arguments within families as the Bankcard bills come in and can't be met, with the levels of interest that are charged.' My father died in 1974, and I often reflect on his words when I see the stress that is on households now as a result of massive credit card debts and when I hear the stories of people in all socioeconomic sectors who max out—I think that is the term used—their credit cards every month. Indeed, they use another form of finance to pay the interest on credit card debt. I often reflect on how true those words that my father said to me in the early 1970s were because his warning has come home to roost.
With regard to credit card reform, the government will crack down on poor practices in the credit card market by putting into place new rules for how credit is provided and credit card interest is calculated and make it easier for consumers to cancel cards or reduce credit limits. Based on the comments I just made, my urge is surely that, before a person is given a credit card with the limits they are allowed to spend up to, there should be greater scrutiny and counselling of that person. I am including young people, but I am also including people who themselves might not have the wherewithal to be able to make those decisions for themselves, because it sounds easy, doesn't it: 'I've got a credit card. I've got $20,000 credit. I want that particular product. I'll put it on the card. I'll put it on the never-never.' And 'the never-never' is right because it never, never gets paid, and in many instances it is the cause of so much stress.
I want to go to the new bank levy. As we know, the government, subject to legislation being passed in this place, will be introducing a major bank levy for the authorised deposit-taking institutions, banks, with liabilities of at least $100 billion, and it will raise $1.5 billion per year. I make these comments, if I may, in relation to the levy. The banks, of course, have been actively lobbying against this. They have been saying, 'Well, either the costs have to be borne by consumers or they have to be borne by shareholders.' Let me remind the banks of a couple of elements going back to the global financial crisis.
Mr Wayne Swan was the Treasurer at the time. Mr Rudd was the Prime Minister. In the face of the global financial crisis, the now Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, recommended to Mr Swan that there should be put into place a protection of deposits of consumers, customers, up to $100,000, possibly with some financial impost and penalties in place. Regrettably, despite Mr Turnbull's long experience in the banking industry, Mr Swan chose to ignore that advice. He regarded it as being ridiculous. Within days, he not only went that way but extended it beyond $100,000 of protection for depositors through to an unlimited level of protection for depositors. Of course, there was to be a financial impost on the banks in consideration of this. One bank—without using the name, I guess I could ask the question, 'Which bank?'—did not avail itself of that facility, and of course it did not incur the financial burden.
But what happened as a result of that? We had the major banks with the protection of the Australian government, the Australian taxpayer, so we saw a flow of funds, as I understand it, from smaller lenders, from smaller home mortgage operators, into the major banks. An enormous amount of money, an enormous amount of deposits and an enormous number of home mortgages transferred into the big banks, and they enjoyed the benefit of that at the expense of other, smaller lenders in the banking world. Of course we know that, with the global financial crisis then diminishing, those mortgages remained with the big banks. So for the big banks today to be saying they are being unfairly targeted as a result of this levy is a little bit cheeky.
The second point I would like to make in relation to this is to do with the current circumstance with the cash rate. We know it sits at 1.5 per cent and has not moved now for some extended period of time, and yet what have we seen with home mortgage interest rates? They have continued to go up. The cash rate has stayed the same—that cost impost has remained the same—and interest rates have gone up. To whose benefit? Yes, it has had an impact on housing prices in Melbourne and Sydney, but I can tell you that the Australian housing market is not just Melbourne and Sydney; the rest of Australia exists also. But I can also say to you that that surplus profit occasioned by the fact that home mortgage interest rates have gone up but the cash rate has remained the same has gone straight into the pockets of those four major banks. If they now are in a position to be able to make a contribution to assist in reducing the debt and the deficit, which we know are unacceptably high as a result of what we inherited from the last government, then it is up to the banks to be part of that process.
The question has been asked: why should other, international banks not participate in the scheme? The answers, I suspect, are obvious from the comments I have made. First of all, they were not the lucky recipients of the umbrella of protection back in the global financial crisis. Secondly, they are not major participants in the home mortgage interest program. But of course, should any of those banks get to the stage where their authorised deposits have liabilities exceeding $100 billion, then they too would have the opportunity to assist the rest of the Australian community in the budget by raising that $1½ billion a year. The level is very low. It is 0.6 of one per cent. That is the level at which it is being struck. By comparison, debt funding costs for the major banks are estimated to have fallen by 0.35 per cent in recent times. That is six times the figure that is being sought in this sector.
I conclude by saying we have a strongly regulated banking sector. We will improve the regulation; we will improve the strength, and I simply say: those are the levers that are required by this country to ensure consumers are protected and the banks meet their financial obligations.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (09:53): I rise to speak on the Banking and Financial Services Commission of Inquiry Bill 2017, which was coordinated by the Greens. I agreed to co-sponsor this bill because I am sick of hearing stories from my constituents of heartbreak and financial ruin. A royal commission into the banking and financial sector has been put off and put off by the government. I think it is important to ask ourselves: why is the Liberal government opposed to taking a magnifying glass to this sector? It cannot be the cost, because the government did not think twice about spending around $46 million on the trade union royal commission, as reported by The Australian in 2015. It cannot be politics, because a poll run by think tank The Australia Institute last year found that 68 per cent of respondents supported a royal commission into the banks. Instead, the Liberal government has proposed inquiry after inquiry after inquiry, has supposedly improved the powers of ASIC and has improved access to the Financial Ombudsman Service—small, insignificant changes in the grand scheme of things, compared to the collateral damage left behind by the endless search for a greater profit.
No, the Liberal government's small changes are not adequate. Australia needs to see a cultural shift before the industry can restore its reputation. Banks are a vital part of our lives and they should view themselves that way, as a part of our community, instead of worrying only about their bottom line, their shareholders and the amount that they pay their executives.
For the crossbench, this is not about a political witch-hunt. A commission of inquiry into the banks is not about getting even for the government's trade union royal commission. That would be absolute rubbish. It is simply about rooting out any wrongdoing or unethical behaviour by lending organisations and other financial services. There have been enough scandals in recent years to warrant a commission of inquiry. My office has been flooded with complaints relating to the banks and other financial services.
When the Greens approached me to co-sponsor this bill, my response was a wholehearted yes, on the condition that the bill also take a close look at the insurance sector and payday lenders. A number of small businesses were absolutely devastated by the Tasmanian floods last year, and many of them struggled with their insurance claims. Some were misled by their insurance company or their insurance broker. Others had their first claim rejected. These businesses, who had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock, building damage, vehicles and more, had to fight for months to get what was owed to them. We fork out tens of thousands of dollars for insurance to guarantee that, when the unthinkable happens, we can tap back into that investment to save ourselves from going under. So it is particular horrendous when insurance companies or their brokers compound that tragedy and disaster, making people's lives absolutely miserable and forcing them into the ground further during a time when insurance is supposed to ease the pain and suffering.
Payday lenders acting as predators—and I am putting it politely—are taking advantage of everyday Australians, pushing them into loans they cannot afford, and they know it, just as I do, yet they are still getting away with it. I have spoken to people who were hounded into taking out a loan with payday lenders, glossing over the requirements and resulting in my constituents and many other Australians drowning in debt. The commission of inquiry is exactly what these sectors need to clean house and have a fresh start.
Ultimately this comes down to leadership. If our banks and financial sector had absolutely nothing to hide, they would be leading the way to a royal commission or a commission of inquiry. A business with nothing to hide would have thrown open its doors and welcomed the opportunity to brag about a bill of clean health to prove its community-mindedness. But, more than for the banks, this was an opportunity for the Liberal government to show leadership. Instead, they have skirted around the issue, with one toothless inquiry after another after another, and they are still doing it.
There is a clear imbalance of power here, and the banks' 'too big to fail' attitude needs to be reined in. They are not untouchable. We are in this place today to even the playing field, to restore the balance of power and to restore public confidence in our banking and financial sectors in this country. I will tell you what: it is a long time overdue.
Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (09:58): My apologies; I was enthralled by the comments that were made by Senator Lambie, and I did not realise she was just coming to an end. I want to begin by touching more broadly on the context of why the Banking and Financial Services Commission of Inquiry Bill 2017 has come about, and I want to begin by congratulating Senator Whish-Wilson. I think this is a very fine bill. I think the intention of this bill is very good. I believe it is unfortunate that this bill is needed at all.
There is no point in pussyfooting around this: this is a second-best option to the option that I think a lot of us in this chamber would prefer and on which I believe the chamber has expressed its will, and that is a royal commission. What Senator Whish-Wilson has tried to do is say: considering that the government has made a clear decision and that royal commissions are a matter for the government, what is the next-best option that would be available to those who want to pursue a royal commission? I think, unfortunately, it is always a misfit to try to create a piece of legislation to achieve what a royal commission would otherwise be able to achieve. That being said, I believe that Senator Whish-Wilson has certainly done his best in this bill to achieve that. I believe it is a good bill. I believe it is a bill that is worthy of support, but I do believe it demonstrates the limitations on what is available to us when we do not have a government that will support a royal commission into Australian banking.
What we have really seen is a government that has floundered on this issue, that has danced around this issue and that is trying to pick and choose parts of the issue. But the reality is we need a royal commission into Australian banking. We need to have the powers of a royal commission. We need to have the scope of a royal commission. What Senator Whish-Wilson has put together here is essentially a legislative fix to try and achieve those types of powers in the context of a government that does not want to have a royal commission.
A royal commission is the only way to get to the bottom of the rip-offs, the scandals and the misconduct that we have seen in the sector over recent years. In the absence of any leadership from the government to establish one, I think this is a good bill. I believe it is a bill that should be broadly supported. But I have to say I do not believe, unfortunately, that the process we are going through here, aside from doing the important role of this chamber—which is highlighting issues—is going to be able to go anywhere when the government obviously has the majority in the other place.
In that light, I want to acknowledge the work that Senator Whish-Wilson and certainly the Senate Economics References Committee have done over a long period of time, and the work of the parliamentary joint committee between the House and the Senate on these matters, to highlight and bring out these issues. We have had the unfortunate situation where Senate and joint committees between the Senate and the House have had to be used as a vehicle to have whistleblowers be able to tell their stories and expose some of the worst behaviour and some of the worst conduct that has gone on in Australian banking. While I am a big advocate of the power of Senate committees, unfortunately their powers are limited and their ability to expose issues is limited. What we use these committees for—I think quite effectively—is to highlight issues and bring to attention issues that need further scrutiny. The reality is that what we have seen in banking is story after story and victim after victim. It is something more than just the processes that we have seen. Every time we look, we find something new. Every time we investigate a different matter, we find something new. And at the heart of it all has been a culture in Australian banking that is at odds with what the Australian public want and expect.
Senator Back made some comments earlier that I was largely supportive of. Senator Back firstly pointed out a whole series of measures the government has taken. I believe they are mostly good measures. I believe they are measures that are aimed to achieve good outcomes, but I do not believe they go anywhere near far enough on what is warranted and needed to get to the bottom of a lot of what has happened. I believe the measures from the government have been piecemeal; they have been weak and they have come kicking and screaming. While most of the measures that he has cited individually have had bipartisan and tripartisan support, some of us who have been dealing with these issues have felt they have not gone far enough into what is actually needed.
The argument that I really want to dispute is this notion that says: 'Look, with the Australian banks—that is, big private companies operating in the private sphere—frankly there really isn't a role for government. What would be the role of a royal commission, or in this case the second-best option, which would be a kind of commission of inquiry done by legislation?' The broad argument rests around this idea that somehow, because banks are businesses, they are private. I want to remind everybody that, when the banks were in trouble, the Australian public went out there and committed to securing deposits. The Australian public guaranteed the Australian banking sector. That protection the banks have been given is a difficult one to monetarily quantify, but at that time it meant a lot.
There is a social contract between Australian banking and the Australian people. We all want profitable banks. Our issue is not that the banks are profitable. I hope the Australian banking sector remains strong and profitable. We recently had another quarter of economic growth—our longest run of economic growth in history. A large part of that has been because of an efficient banking sector.
The fact that the four large banks have made somewhere around $30 billion of profit in the past couple of years consistently should not be looked upon as necessarily a bad thing. I think it is a good thing. I think their profitability is a good thing. But sometimes I think the banks and the institutions forget that there is a social contract that is part of that. To have the types of guarantees that the Australian public is prepared to give them, they have a responsibility as well. Their responsibility is to actually be there for the Australian community and to give back. Some of the cultural behaviour that we have seen has been reprehensible.
This is not a matter that has really been for one side of politics alone. I note that senators like Senator Whish-Wilson—obviously, the Greens have moved this bill—and 'Wacka' Williams from the Nats have been quite involved. I note that the One Nation party—and I think Senator Roberts is going to say a few words about this later—has been incredibly active on this issue, as well, as have many members of the Liberal Party, including Senator Fawcett. The issue around Australian banking is one where there is a large amount of agreement in this chamber—if not unanimous agreement—that there has been a problem with behaviour, a problem with culture and a problem with conduct. Where I believe the political disagreement rests is in: how is the best way of addressing that problem?
There are those on the opposite side of the chamber—and I do not want to pre-empt their arguments for them—who have made the argument outside this place many times: 'What would a royal commission achieve? What would a commission of inquiry actually achieve? We already know what the problems are. Instead of looking at exposing more problems, just try and legislate and fix the problems that we know are there.' I believe that is the wrong way of approaching this because we do not know what is there. We know what we know. We know about CommInsure. We know about NAB. We know, to differing degrees, about the bill bank swap rate. We know about some of the matters at the ANZ. We know about some of them at the NAB. We know about discrete matters. We know a lot of individual cases of people who have been taken advantage of, especially in the rural sectors. We know bits and pieces around the CBA. But the depth and the scope of it, I do not believe, can really be adequately addressed until we really get to the bottom of what has gone on and what has happened.
I did want to use this opportunity to speak on this bill today to put on the record a view that I have had for a period of time as to what would be the types of solutions that we should be looking at for these types of problems that I believe a commission of inquiry or a royal commission would really be able to look at. The one that I really want to stress is this idea of a scheme of last resort. The Senate Economics References Committee—Senator Whish-Wilson is quite familiar with this—spent quite a bit of time looking at this in different shapes and forms. It spoke to a few people about it. The idea is this: there has to be a safety net for the victims, in particular the victims of financial advice. Through no fault of their own, they have gone through a process in good faith and, at the end of it, have been left destitute.
A scheme of last resort—there are similar schemes in places like the UK. There are ways of handling these issues where you are able to adequately deal with matters that are at times legitimate, like moral hazard. You can have a prospective scheme. You can have a retrospective scheme, if you want. You can have a scheme that caps it to individuals. You can have a scheme that caps it to a certain amount. There are practical solutions that can address the horror stories of the victims. Frankly, my argument has been—and I am not saying anything in this chamber that I have not said to bank executives in the opportunities that we had through the Senate committee processes to discuss this with them: a system that leaves victims and people behind undermines the entire confidence in the system as a whole. And that is in nobody's interests. That is not in the interests of the Australian banking sector. That is not in the interests of these larger corporations and these larger banks.
I welcome this bill. I congratulate Senator Whish-Wilson for being able to get so much cross-party support for it. I think it is a fine piece of legislation. I do not believe, Senator Whish-Wilson, that this bill goes far enough. I do not believe this bill achieves what we really need, which is a royal commission. This a bill that has been created in the context where the will of this chamber, which is to have a royal commission, is not shared by the other place. As a result, this is the best thing that we can do.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:10): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I am very, very pleased to support the Banking and Financial Services Commission of Inquiry Bill 2017 from the Greens and Senator Whish-Wilson. We have been supportive of this from the start and we commend them for raising it and for seeing it through, and we look forward to it being implemented. The banks do provide a vital service to our country and to people right across Australia—that is fundamental. But as Chair of the Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers, we are now seeing the inflow of submissions from people who are being devastated by banks and who are being devastated by the unconscionable conduct of banks on some occasions. I am told, and I have not checked the figures, that this is the 18th such inquiry in recent times—possibly since the global financial crisis. That tells us that something is not being fixed and that this is endemic and systemic.
We are very dedicated to making sure that this inquiry succeeds. We are being very open. We have already listened to the banks—without formal inquiry; the banks have approached me—and we have also listened to and tried to support people who have been hurt by the banks right across Australia. Having said that and intending to do a fine job on holding the banks accountable and to inquire into primary production customers and the lending to them, we still see the need to go beyond and to support Senator Whish-Wilson's bill.
We know that the public are aware of the need for this commission of inquiry. We cannot understand why the government is so reluctant to have a royal commission. Regardless of whether this is second best or better, it does not matter because this looks to have the teeth to be able to get into it. But I would like to go back to basics for a minute. I am not a finance expert; I am, however, a graduate from the University of Chicago graduate school of business where I did an MBA. That has given me a little touch in finance. I do note that the University of Chicago is arguably the No. 1 financial university in the world. Even there they did not teach us some basic fundamentals, so let us discuss some of them—things that I only became aware of relatively recently.
Another word for money is currency. It enables flow and currency enables the exchange of goods and services in any economy. So the banking sector which influences that is very, very important to the fluid and efficient exchange of goods and services—the efficient economy. Exchange is important. Currency is important. In our society, though, in Australia, and in the major western democracies, currency is almost entirely created out of thin air. It is something that I did not know about just five or six years ago until I started reading in depth. I call upon the works of Murray Rothbard, the acclaimed Austrian School economist—a fine economist, the late Murray Rothbard. He showed how it is created out of thin air. This is very, very important to understand, because that then determines what flows from that creation out of thin air. When this is constrained, as it is in our country and in major western democracies, those who control currency creation control everything and it is that fundamental.
The Bank of England, to my knowledge, was the world's first central bank and it was created in 1694 and was a privately owned bank. In looking to create the United States constitution, the forefathers of the United States constitution looked at Europe and saw that that continent had been devastated, despite being civilised, by war after war after war. They pointed the blame at two things: central government and private central banks. They made sure in the constitution of America that there would be no dominant central government, and that is why they had a federation of sovereign independent states—the first 13 states.
They also made sure that only the congress could issue currency. Within 20 years of the formation of the United States of America, contrary to the constitution, the first privately-owned central bank was created. I think it was the first bank of America. That lasted only 20 years and the charter was not renewed, because it had been so destructive to the economy. It was not long, however, before the major international banks formed the second central bank of America, and that was ended in 1832 by a speech by Andrew Jackson—which I commend to all senators—to the American congress in which he itemised the destruction caused by the central banks—the all-powerful, privately-owned central banks. He ended that in 1832. Thereafter, the major banks, not just American but also European banks, embarked on their crusade to form the third privately-owned central bank, and that is the current United States Reserve Bank. It controls interest rates, it controls money supply and, therefore, it controls just about everything indirectly. That is very important to understand. We also see the major multinational banks such as Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Rothschild Australia having in their clutches carbon dioxide trading—a scheme they have created to make money out of thin air. It gives them enormous power. These banks rule over so much of our lives, our economies and our nations.
So I checked this bill to make sure that the terms of reference would encompass the creation of currency and the behaviour of the central bank and also the behaviour of the major banks. I commend Senator Whish-Wilson for making sure that the terms of reference were sufficiently broad to capture all entities in the financial services sector. The banks, as Senator Dastyari said, seem to be a law unto themselves. We note that in the global financial crisis the banks actually socialised the losses, yet they retained the profits. In times of profit, profits are privatised; in times of losses, losses tend to be socialised, because the banks are too big to fail. We see journalists in our society like Robert Gottliebsen and Terry McCrann being outspoken in highlighting some of the things that the banks are doing that are at times destroying our economy or limiting our economic efficiency. Robert Gottliebsen recently wrote a series of articles in which he said that the banks are a law unto themselves—and that must end.
I make further reference to the terms of reference in Senator Whish-Wilson's bill that ensure the systems that drive behaviour are understood and investigated, because systems drive behaviour and behaviour shapes attitude. The combination of behaviour and attitude is culture, and that goes to the heart of any industry or sector. I again commend Senator Whish-Wilson for recognising this fact and the need to investigate the culture of Australia's financial system and the culture of Australia's banking system.
Finally, as chair of the Senate select committee into lending to primary production customers, I want to reassure people across Australia, especially in the rural sector—farming, fishing and forestry—that we are onto their plight at the moment. We are doing everything in our power to do a thorough job of investigating that, inquiring into it and making clear recommendations to the government. We are also turning our attention to supporting Senator Whish-Wilson's commission. In the meantime, we urge all senators to vote in favour of this bill.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:19): I move:
That the question be now put.
Senator Smith: Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Is Senator Siewert denying me my opportunity to make a contribution to this debate now?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Leyonhjelm ): I think that is what is occurring, yes.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the question be now put.
The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The Senate divided. [10:24]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The PRESIDENT (10:27): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:27): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (10:28): With the jubilation of us succeeding in having a Greens bill passed, you will forgive us for the short delay. I rise with pleasure to speak on the Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017, which has been introduced by the Greens, which hopefully passes like the last bill did. This bill is an important bill because it does two things. It would insert into the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility Act a test that says that we need to check a person's corporate environmental history to see if they are in fact a fit and proper person to be receiving taxpayer money. You might think that, for a $5 billion slush fund, there would already be such a test in the act and that we would already check whether someone was a fit and proper corporate person to receive free concessional mates rates loans using taxpayer money, but, unbelievably, there is no such test in the NAIF Act at the moment. So this bill would insert such a test.
The second aspect of this bill would be to require, under our environmental laws, a review of the approvals already given to the Adani group of companies for their Carmichael mine. The reason for this is the appalling track record of environmental breaches and also of allegations of fraud, corruption, money laundering and the use of tax havens which has come to light since those approvals have been issued. This bill would not only clarify that the environmental history of someone who wants to get environmental approval needs to be looked at before approval is given; it would also specifically trigger a review of the Adani approvals already issued, supported by both sides of politics, to take into account the litany of dodgy practices that has come to light since those approvals have been issued. So this bill would make sure that the Australian government cannot simply hand out $1 billion to Adani without actually checking whether they are a suitable person—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Nobody checked if you're a suitable person for the Senate.
Senator WATERS: and ensure that investigations against members of the Adani corporate group for fraud, for money laundering, for tax minimisation and for corruption would be undertaken and that there would be mandatory consultation with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, and with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. This is a crucial bill because it goes to the integrity of our approval system and it goes to the level of scrutiny that the government undertakes when giving out taxpayer dollars.
This bill is also an important next step in the campaign to stop Adani opening up the world's largest coalmine right when we have just lost half of the coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef, in the largest bleaching, with the highest mortality, that the reef has ever seen in its ancient history. It is really clear to us, on examination by many other experts, including lawyers from Environment Justice Australia, that this company is a dodgy company pushing an environmentally and economically destructive project. The Adani mine is the best example of the way in which the big parties—both of them, sadly—are working for big corporations rather than for citizens.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Senator WATERS: Australians know that our political system is broken and that our economic system is rigged against everyday people, and that same system lets greedy bankers rip off everyday people with the full protection of politicians.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Senator WATERS: Mr Acting Deputy President, I am so over the interjections by Senator Ian Macdonald, who does this routinely when I am on my feet and when other female senators are on their feet. I ask you to call him to order and, if he will not desist, I ask you to eject him from the chamber. I have had six years of Senator Macdonald and I have had enough.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Leyonhjelm ): I remind senators that interjections are disorderly. Please allow speakers to be heard in silence.
Senator WATERS: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, this is the same system that is stacked against everyday citizens and it has seen Adani receive unlimited groundwater from the Queensland state Labor government. Ninety per cent of our state is in drought and this multinational company is now allowed to have free unlimited groundwater thanks to—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, I ask you to withdraw.
Senator Ian Macdonald: I thought the senator stopped to allow me to make my contribution.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: She stopped because of you, Senator Macdonald. The word 'lie' is unparliamentary. I invite you to withdraw it.
Senator Ian Macdonald: I withdraw.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, I note that you are next on the speaking list. Perhaps you could reserve your comments until your turn arises and allow Senator Waters to continue.
Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Acting Deputy President, I know you will give me the same protection—it is never afforded me, but it does not matter. I am big enough to be able to handle it.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: While I am in the chair, you can rely on my support.
Senator WATERS: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for enforcing the rules. As we know, this system that lets property developers steamroll over local residents is the same system where it looks like $1 billion in public money will be handed over to this multinational mining company. This, of course, is the same system that lets political donations influence policy outcomes and locks out the community. Adani, the banks, the insurance companies and the big end of town, who have made the donations and got the well-paid lobbyists and well-connected former politicians, are all part of this system.
On the other side, we have people power and this growing and broadening campaign to stop the world's largest coalmine being facilitated with public money, handouts, free groundwater and a royalties holiday of almost one-quarter of a billion dollars. The people power against this perfect example of how the system works for vested corporate interests is growing, and I am confident that we will succeed because not only is the global coal market diminishing—we have seen the price now in such decline that economic commentators are calling it structural decline—but we have just seen the death of half of the Great Barrier Reef. So it is clear that the economics of this project will not stack up. That is why the company has got its hand out for a $1 billion mates rates loan from the federal taxpayer.
It is clear that the environmentals of this project would be absolutely disastrous not only for our reef but for our broader environment and for our very way of life. We have already seen the havoc that extreme weather events wreak upon all of our states, and in particular Queensland with more intense cyclones. We have seen the ravage of bushfires become more intense and more frequent around the country. We cannot go sleepwalking into climate change any longer. We know the impacts that it is having. We know what is coming down the line if we continue to fuel this dangerous and systemic problem.
Yet we have both sides of politics, who have received $3.7 million in donations from fossil fuel companies over the last 10 years—including from the Adani group of companies—championing this enormous coalmine right when the rest of the world is taking climate change seriously, pledging to cut emissions and making that transition to clean renewable energy, which not only keeps the lights on but actually generates more jobs. This is why I fail to see the logic of both big parties backing this project when we have so many more clean, long-lasting, job-creating opportunities in clean energy not just nationally but in Queensland, and not just in Queensland but in the very region where this mine is proposed. In the pipeline of projects that are funded already, and are rolling out as we speak, are 3,200 jobs. They are in large-scale wind and solar in the region where the big parties would support Adani opening up the largest coalmine. This coalmine will not generate the 10,000 jobs that the company initially bragged about. They had to eat their own words and say, 'In fact, no, it will only be 1,464 jobs.' So double the number of jobs can be created in clean energy projects in that very same region of Queensland that actually have funding and that are going to happen and are going to proceed. So why are both of the big parties still wanting to throw federal taxpayer money behind such a destructive project? Well, it is the donations, isn't it? There is no other reason for it. The $3.7 million of donations from the fossil fuel sector, including from the Adani companies, to both sides of politics must be what is driving this decision—because there is no other good reason that they would back this project.
It is a climate-destroying project that does not generate anywhere near the number of jobs that clean energy does and it has black lung disease associated with the jobs that it may or may not generate. We have seen in Queensland in the last couple of years the resurgence of pneumoconiosis, black lung disease, which is an extremely dangerous disease. I was at a briefing by the Lung Foundation Australia that perhaps Senator Macdonald, rather than chortling, should have been at to increase his awareness of this pernicious disease. It is atrocious that we are abrogating our occupational health and safety duties to our workers—our right to keep these workers safe at work—and sending them into coalmines without appropriate protection and dust suppression techniques. These are toxic, dirty jobs that are hurting the health of workers. They are jobs that are already being shed as the industry transforms and as global economics puts coal in the waste bin of history and transitions to clean, green, sustainable and long-lasting energy. Again, there can be no reason why this project is receiving the support that it is from both of the big parties except for the donations and a system that lets vested interests pay money and get the outcomes that they want.
But what I want to particularly focus on today is the reason that this bill is so important. This bill would say, 'Let's have a look at the corporate environmental history and the corporate tax history of companies before we give them public money.' This is an eminently reasonable position and it is one that I hope will receive support from both sides of this chamber. What I will do now is go through the litany of examples of highly inappropriate corporate conduct by the Adani Group of companies and ask both sides of politics: do you really want to give this company a billion dollars in a mates rates concessional loan, after the Queensland government has just given them free groundwater and a quarter of a billion dollars of a royalty holiday on the coal that they will dig out which, when burned, will worsen the climate for all of us and probably write the death warrant of the Great Barrier Reef?
The list is long, so I will use my time to read it into the record. In August 2016, the Adani Group was fined nearly $1 million in India's specialised environment court for its role in chartering an unseaworthy ship to transport coal. That was the sinking of a coal ship in Indian waters, for which they were fined. The Indian government's Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, or DRI, is currently investigating a number of the Adani Group entities, including Adani Enterprises Ltd, which is the ultimate holding company of the Adani Mining group—the proponents of the Carmichael mine—for illegally overvaluing imports of coal and capital equipment in order to siphon funds offshore, a practice that creates what is called 'black money'. There are now investigations into fraud and trade based money-laundering. There are two separate investigations into allegations of trade based money-laundering by the Adani companies. The first investigation is into the fraudulent invoicing of coal imports and the other is into a scam involving false invoicing for capital equipment imports.
The list goes on. In January 2016, the National Green Tribunal fined Adani Hazira Port Private Ltd, which is a subsidiary of one of the Adani companies, almost $5 million for undertaking development works at a port in Hajira without an environmental permit. The tribunal found that those works destroyed mangroves and impeded the fishing activities of local communities by interfering with their access to the river and the ocean. So they were fined for not following environmental guidelines in building a port, and we have just given them operation of the limb of the North Queensland Bulk Ports at Abbot Point, to do, potentially, exactly the same thing, with no guarantee that they will respect the conditions that our government have put on that permission.
In 2011, after a three-year investigation, the ombudsman of the Indian state of Karnataka found AEL to have been actively involved in large‐scale illegal export of iron ore. In 2015, in considering whether to approve the Carmichael mine, the federal environment department asked Adani Mining for the environmental history of its executive officers, and, in its response, Adani Mining failed to disclose that one of its directors and the CEO of the Adani Group's operations in Australia was previously an executive officer of an unrelated company when that company caused serious water pollution in Zambia. That company later pleaded guilty to criminal charges for the pollution and for its failure to report the incident. But Adani did not think that was worth telling the environment department, even though they had asked.
On tax-dodging, an analysis of company filings shows that up to $3 billion from Adani's planned Carmichael coalmine would be shifted to a subsidiary owned in the Cayman Islands, if the controversial project goes ahead. An overarching royalty deed gives a shell company the rights to receive a payment of $2 a tonne, rising yearly by the inflation rate, beyond the 400,000 tonnes mined each production year for two decades. The company with this entitlement is ultimately owned by an entity registered in the Caymans, controlled by the Adani family. In plain English, the upshot is that if the mine goes ahead they receive a $2-a-tonne payment—so, up to $3 billion—via a company they own in the Cayman Islands, a tax haven.
These are just some of the revelations that have come to light after some fairly basic research was undertaken by a variety of organisations, including Environmental Justice Australia, in Victoria—just a few examples of the allegations of tax fraud, bribery, corruption and clear environmental breaches by Adani and various companies in the group.
Why do we still not have a test in our laws that says we will consider the history of someone that is putting their hand up for a mates rates concessional loan? Why would this government and the opposition willingly turn a blind eye to the suitability of the recipient of a very large concessional loan—$1 billion of public, or taxpayer, money?
Why would they not want to look and see this? And this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. This is what has been uncovered by some basic research. There are whole departments here that could, if their powers were clarified, be looking into these issues.
That is why this bill is so important. Not only does it say we have to look at these issues under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the $5 billion that Adani wants a billion of; but in our environmental laws we should look properly at this. We should look at the corporate environmental history and look behind that corporate veil to see the real record of the people involved in these companies and the companies themselves before we decide if we are going to give them environmental permission to build the world's largest coalmine and to ship it through the Great Barrier Reef. We have had so many near-misses in the reef and we have already had some very big accidents, including with coal ships. Do we really want a company that has shown a disrespect for environmental laws in other jurisdictions trusted with the future of the Great Barrier Reef and, not only that, to build the world's largest coalmine that, when its coal is burnt, will see the end of the reef? That is what the scientists are saying.
Senator O'Sullivan: That's what it's all about.
Senator WATERS: That is what it is all about. I will take that interjection because that is exactly what the scientists are saying. I do not know why this side cannot accept the scientific evidence. It is because they are blinded by the coal donations. That must be the only reason. I have a science degree. It is not rocket scientist, and the scientists are speaking in plain English.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Smith ): Order! Senators are entitled to be heard in silence. Senator Waters.
Senator WATERS: Thanks very much. We are used to the interjections from the elderly gentlemen on this side who perhaps need to reflect on their own conduct in this chamber.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Senator WATERS: Oh, are you going to object to being called elderly? It could have been a lot worse.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, do you have a point of order?
Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Acting Deputy President, if you mention something about Senator Waters being a woman, you have all hell break loose in this chamber. She feels that she can insult people—or thinks she is. I am proud to be old and I have lived a long time that you will not, Senator. I have been in this place a long time that you will not. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to moderate her language, and while I am at it—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, what is your point of order?
Senator Ian Macdonald: My point of order is this senator is accusing me and my colleagues of bribery and corruption, which she knows is not correct. She spent her whole speech doing this, and yet she goes unchallenged.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Resume your seat. Senator Waters, you have the call.
Senator WATERS: Thanks. It is pretty clear they have not been listening to what I am saying, but I am used to that, so it does not bother me. Unfortunately, they are not listening to the scientists either. If they were then we might see a different outcome.
Anyway, as I was saying, the litany of corporate environmental breaches and financial law breaches of this company should be raising red flags to anyone in this chamber irrespective of whether they have been receiving donations from that company or other in the fossil fuels sector. This should not simply be a tick and flick for a billion-dollar mates-rates concessional loan to a company with such a concerning history.
It is very interesting that the senators on my left are so intent on protecting this multinational coal company. It is very interesting indeed because, again, we have lost half of the reef, coal is on the decline globally, coal workers black lung disease is on the rise and there are more jobs in clean, renewable energy in Australia and in particular in this region of Queensland that stand to be made. So I ask the senators to reflect on the changing nature of world economics and on the amazing technological developments that have happened in the last 10 years in renewable energy. I ask them to desist with their ideological war against climate scientists and reef scientists and to see that this could be economically beneficial as well as beneficial for our environment and for our own very safety and way of life. But we will see who has more patience in that regard.
The other important aspect of this Adani campaign is, of course, the rights of traditional owners, and I was exceedingly dismayed this week when their native title rights were in part restricted with the passage of laws that will retrospectively validate an ILUA. The Wangan and Jagalingou people oppose this mine. They are concerned at the environmental history of the company that would propose to build a large coalmine on their land. I am proud to stand with them and to voice their concerns. They are of course before the Federal Court, and I imagine that they will be successful. Whilst this government has tried to fix the native title issues, as the Prime Minister promised Mr Adani on his visit to India that he would do, it is really clear that there are multiple limbs to this litigation, and that the Wangan and Jagalingou people will not be subjugated and are proud advocates for the integrity of their ancestral land.
In summary, I look forward to the support for this bill because, really, who could argue against simply checking the corporate environmental record of a company before giving them a billion-dollar mate's rate loan? No-one could argue against that so I really look forward to the contributions from my fellow colleagues supporting this sensible and rational bill, which would also have the outcome of stopping Adani getting public money and stopping this coalmine from going ahead.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (10:50): In my 27 years in the Senate, I have heard a lot of speeches. I have heard a lot of speeches from the Greens political party senators and I know a great many of them are based on deliberate mistruths. But never have I heard a speech like the one I have just been subjected to that is so full of misstatements, so full of deliberate wrongs that I am almost speechless.
Many people up my way would say that was a speech full of lies, absolute lies and distortions of fact. I will not say that, because the senator who just spoke would take any sort of point of order to stop me refuting the deliberate misstatements of fact she has just spent 20 minutes wasting this Senate's time in propagating and in so doing abused corporate companies that have done a hell of a lot of good around the world—and I will come to that later—and abused her political opponents with allegations of bribery and corruption, all of which she knows is simply not true.
I say to the previous speaker, if you have any evidence of this wrongdoing, which you have just spent 20 minutes alleging, please take it to the authorities. Please take it to the police or to the corporate agencies and have it properly tested. You cannot just get up in this chamber and have a list of mistruths about particular individuals and companies and try and pass that off as fact. If the senator had any skerrick of evidence, even a remote skerrick of evidence, she would report it and give the evidence to the police and the corporate authorities but of course she will not because that speech was just a litany of deliberate mistruths set out to appease the few people left who support her political party.
The former speaker talked about people power. I happened to be in Townsville when Adani announced that it would create its headquarters there and immediately employ up to 600 people, which, in a town like Townsville with 11 per cent unemployed, is a huge boost to the employment opportunities in that town. As I went in to that very well publicised opening of the office, the regional headquarters of Adani, by the Queensland Premier, by the Townsville mayor—both Labor people—and by Senator Canavan—a federal minister—there was a huge people power protest outside. When I went in, there were five people there from Townsvilles population of almost 200,000. There were five people opposing it. This is the 'people power' that the previous senator spoke about. But I have to concede, by the time we left that event after about an hour later, the number had swelled; it had gone up to nine in the hour that we were there.
Senator O'Sullivan: That is a 100 per cent increase.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Yes, a 100 per cent increase. So this is the people power that Senator Waters talked about. I want to read from the local paper, the Townsville Bulletin.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Griff ): Order! Senator Macdonald.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I am just reading from the newspaper. This newspaper indicates—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, the use of props is always disorderly. Please refrain from using that.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I am just reading from it. It is the front page of the Townsville Bulletin—the newspaper that serves North Queensland and northern Australia. It is totally supportive of this project, as is everybody in Townsville, North Queensland and northern Australia, because it will bring wealth to the north and it will create jobs for the 11 per cent unemployed in Townsville that, clearly, Senator Waters has absolutely no interest in at all. It will help the small businesses in North Queensland who are struggling to keep their doors open with the mining downturn. Those small businesses are mums and dads who have put their life savings into small business to see them going out the door. This project will help those people.
Adani contribute three per cent of their global profits every year to community projects. This is the company that Senator Waters is berating—three per cent of its global profits go to community projects around the world. Adani is also paying for school for 10,000 underprivileged kids in India. They have paid for infrastructure for 128 schools. Senator Waters claims to be looking after the poor people around the world and those less advantaged than ourselves. Here is a company that is doing it. What can Senator Waters do in this coward's castle of protection? Senator Waters is misleading, and deliberately maligning a company that has done so much around the world for others and the underprivileged.
When I put my name down to speak on this, I had a lot of things that I wanted to raise. But, after hearing that speech from—I am embarrassed to say—a senator from my own state of Queensland, I am afraid I will again have to spend most of my time pointing out, point by point, the deliberate misinformation that was contained in that speech. It was one of the most misleading and deliberately false speeches I have ever heard in my long period in this chamber.
First of all, Senator Waters keeps talking about giving out taxpayers' money. She knows that is wrong. She knows that if Adani apply to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, and if the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility do provide funding after due diligence which will, in their normal way, be lengthy and detailed, it will be a loan. It will be a loan that will have to be repaid. The continual reference to giving away taxpayers' money is simply part of the Greens political party's ongoing campaign to do and say anything as long as they can get to a result that they think is right at the end.
The senator continues in this speech, and every speech, to tell the world that the Barrier Reef is dying. Everybody who lives up there knows that is false. I ask you to go and ask any one of the ambassadors to Australia from around the world that the foreign minister took to Cairns a couple of weeks ago—they have been out onto the Barrier Reef, they have seen it and they are amazed at its beauty, resilience and ongoing growth off the Queensland coast. The reef has, over the years, had ups and downs. It is very well managed by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. Its flourishing coral is growing in certain areas. Ask anyone up on the reef, any of the ambassadors or any tourist that goes there—the reef is magnificent and will stay there. I do not know who Senator Waters is being paid by, but, clearly, she is trying to say to tourists from Germany and North America, 'Don't come to Australia and spend your money. Go and spend your money somewhere else in the world.' That is the message that she is giving and deliberately giving.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Resume your seat, Senator Macdonald. Senator Waters, on a point of order.
Senator Waters: It is not my normal course to raise points of order, but obviously Senator Macdonald likes to raise spurious points of order all the time. However, he has just inferred that I am in receipt of monies for holding a position to protect the reef. I would ask him to withdraw that, because not only is it entirely false but I get paid to do my job; I do not accept corporate donations. These guys take the money from the big mining companies, not me. I would ask him to withdraw that.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, on the point of order?
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I raised the question: who is paying Senator Waters? But after a speech of 20 minutes, where she accused me of being bribed by international coal companies, the hypocrisy of the point of order is typical of the Greens political party.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, on the point of order?
Senator Waters: That was not a withdrawal, Acting Deputy President, as you had asked Senator Macdonald to do.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, if you are insinuating that Senator Waters did accept the money under corrupt pretences, I would ask you to withdraw that.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr Acting Deputy President, you take what I said however you like. Senator Waters can—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, my question to you—
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I did not say that, and it is exactly the same that she has said about me. Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter, I would ask you to refer this to the President for a ruling, but I do not intend to apologise to Senator Waters for anything I have said.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, the request was to withdraw the comment if you were insinuating that—Senator O'Sullivan, on the point of order?
Senator O'Sullivan: It is not a point of order. I heard it clearly: a question was posed. No assertion was made; a question was posed. If we have come to a point where we have to withdraw questions that are posed, we will not be able to function in this place.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Waters?
Senator Waters: It is an imputation, which is not permitted under the standing orders. These guys quarrel about having been here for 27 years. They should know what the standing orders say.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr Acting Deputy President—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, resume your seat for a moment. We will just consider this point. Senator Waters, Senator Macdonald has indicated that he did not make that imputation, so there is nothing to withdraw.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Always, when I making a point that hurts the Greens, they make these spurious points of order. Can I just remind those who might be listening that we were talking about the health and the beauty of the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Waters, in her speech, said that the Adani coalmine is going to cause the death of the Great Barrier Reef—those are her words, not mine.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I refer you to the chief scientist of Australia, Dr Finkel, at estimates just two weeks ago. After I said to Dr Finkel:
… we emit less than 1.3 per cent of the world's carbon emissions.
I asked Dr Finkel:
If we were to reduce the world's emissions of carbon by 1.3 per cent, what impact would that make on the changing climate of the world?
Dr Finkel replied 'virtually nothing'. If anyone wants to see that exchange, it is on my Facebook. It is the actual video recording of me asking Dr Finkel those questions and his response.
Even if you shut Australia down completely and stopped every emission from Australia—the 1.3 per cent of the world's carbon emissions that Australia emits—according to the Chief Scientist, that would have virtually no impact whatsoever on the changing climate of the world. Yet the previous speaker would have any gullible listeners believe that Adani building a railway line and opening a coalmine 500 kilometres west of the Great Barrier Reef is somehow going to destroy the Great Barrier Reef.
The hypocrisy and the absolute deliberate mistruth of those statements just leaves me almost speechless. I cannot believe that a colleague in this chamber could so deliberately misstate facts that she tries to infer to the gullible listeners are truths. I cannot understand how Senate colleagues can be a part of that. Listen to Dr Finkel: any reduction in Australia's emissions will have virtually no impact on the changing climate of the world. That is the truth, that is the fact and that is the scientific opinion. But would you have Senator Waters and her mates in the Greens political party ever conceding that? Yet she talks about science and scientists. There is science! There is an opinion from the Chief Scientist of Australia, and that should be taken as fact. Senator Waters said, 'We have more cyclones and bushfires now because Adani is going to build a railway line 500 kilometres away from the Barrier Reef.' Who could possibly believe that? But the Greens go around convincing themselves that it is right and convincing the ever-dwindling band of fanatics who follow the Greens political party of those misstatements and outright lies.
The jobs to be created from this project mean so much to my state of Queensland—particularly to Townsville, where I am based. I know that Senator O'Sullivan has more detailed statistics on this and he will inform the Senate of these later, but I can tell you that this is the biggest thing that has ever happened to Central and North Queensland. That is why the Labor mayor, the Labor Premier and all of the Liberal-National Party state and federal members who represent those areas are totally and unanimously in support of this project. I do not have the statistics—I am sure Senator O'Sullivan will—but there are about 300 conditions placed upon Adani by Queensland and Commonwealth environmental authorities on the things they have to do in the construction and the development of the coalmine. They are some of the most stringent conditions I have seen imposed on any development application in Australia. Adani have accepted them and will follow them. As a result, according to the experts—Senator Waters claims that she is the expert—the scientists in the department of the environment in Queensland and the department of the environment federally, who have been through the conditions, if these conditions are met then the environment is perfectly safe. The suggestion that we will have bushfires and cyclones because Adani is building a coalmine 500 kilometres inland is just absolutely ludicrous and typical of the Greens political party.
We have heard the allegations about donations to the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. I do not know whether that is true or not; I have never seen them and I am not part of it. But I do know that the Greens political party received the biggest donation in Australia's political history from a businessman donor. Then, coincidentally, would you believe, a couple of weeks after that—I am one of the few Senators who was here for this—the then leader of the Greens political party moved that offline or community newspapers should be tax exempt. And guess who was proposing to open such a newspaper? None other than Mr Graeme Wood: the guy who gave $1.6 million, the biggest donation ever in Australia's political history, to the Greens political party.
Senator Waters went on to say that coal is destroying the world. We know, as a matter of fact, that China opens one new coal fired power station every week and we know that India—and these are the two biggest, most populous countries in the world—continues to build coal fired power stations. We know that even Germany, the epitome of goodness and light environmentally these days, has just completed a coal fired power station.
We also know that the poor people of India and China are as much entitled to electricity as Senator Waters is, sitting in her ivory tower in Brisbane or the Gold Coast. She can have air conditioning, she can have electricity and she can turn on the stove and get instant heat. But she does not want the people of India or China to do that. No, no, no! It is okay for her and her Greens mates but no good for the poor people—the destitute people—of India and China. The clean energy projects that create the jobs that Senator Waters continues to talk about—most of those jobs are created overseas, and those that are created in Australia are hugely subsidised by the Australian taxpayer.
Time is running out for me, unfortunately, but can I just again highlight the unfortunate misinformation that was contained in the speech that was delivered to the Senate just before mine? It was on broadcast day, of course. Greens senators always make sure they make these outrageous claims on broadcast day. No decision has been made, as far as I am aware—unless it has happened in the last five minutes, and I do not even know whether Adani have applied for it—about any money that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility might give to Adani. Senator Waters said that taxpayers are going to give Adani $1 million. Clearly, if—and I emphasise that if—the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility gives them anything, it will be a loan repayable with interest on commercial terms.
I also re-emphasise that nothing that Adani will do will in any way have any impact on the Great Barrier Reef. Again, I refer people to Hansard—it is there; look at it yourself, do not believe me. Look at Hansard and look at the video clip, where I said to Dr Finkel:
… if we reduce the world's carbon emissions by 1.3 per cent--
Which is what Australia emits—
what impact would that have on the changing climate of the world?
Dr Finkel: Virtually nothing.
Virtually none! And so Senator Waters claims that Adani are going to kill the reef, bring cyclones and bring bushfires are just so much scaremongering. As I said, I am speechless to find the term for my disgust of for colleague in this chamber telling such deliberate and outright untruths in a debate such as this.
Thank you, Adani, for what you are doing for the unemployed people in Townsville and Central Queensland, who I care about. Clearly, Senator Waters does not care about them but I care about them. Thank you, Adani, on behalf of all the small businesses, the mums and dads who were struggling to stay open, for what your project will mean for Townsville and North and Central Queensland. Thank you for that. Thank you for what you have done around the world—helping schools and helping children; helping the poor to get electricity. And thank you for being a good corporate citizen for Australia. Long may you reign! All the very best, and I speak on behalf of everyone in Queensland in saying all the best for your project. (Time expired)
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:13): The Labor Party notes that the Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017 proposes to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act to expand the suitable persons test in the EBPC Act to make it mandatory rather than discretionary and to introduce similar tests in the NAIF Act. However, it is Labor's view that these are not the solutions to the problems within the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.
There are, indeed, significant problems with NAIF that need to be addressed. I note the good work done by Senator Watt at estimates. He discovered that NAIF board member Karla Way-McPhail is indeed a personal friend of the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, that the minister put her forward for a position on the board and that Ms Way-McPhail regularly attends LNP fundraisers and is a donor to the LNP. She is also the CEO of two companies and the director of a third that could benefit directly or indirectly from NAIF board decisions.
This is of great concern to the ALP. It is a clear conflict of interest, about which the minister was questioned in estimates. We asked the minister whether Ms Way-McPhail had excused herself from discussions involving projects in which she had a conflict of interest and, sadly, we did not get any answers. The minister went as far as making a public interest claim. So the question before us is: what public interest is served by the minister refusing to answer questions about how decisions are being made on $5 billion worth of taxpayers' money?
We heard during consideration in detail in the House just yesterday the shadow minister ask the minister representing the minister for northern Australia if he would answer the questions that Senator Canavan, unfortunately, refused to—again, nothing. In Labor's view this bill before us today does not address the governance and transparency issues that have been uncovered in relation to NAIF. The board of NAIF has been paid $600,000 and was established some two years ago. We find that not a single job-generating infrastructure project for northern Australia has been funded—not a single one.
This bill will not improve NAIF's assessment processes so that they are able to start providing the funds that will allow us to capture the great opportunities that exist in northern Australia right across the country, but indeed they do need to be improved. That is why the Labor opposition want to take a constructive and deep look at NAIF through this Senate inquiry process. There are big opportunities in northern Australia, but NAIF as it currently stands is not helping to deliver on them. We want to know why and how it is possible to improve NAIF so that the community can have confidence in its governance processes and we can get on with the big task before us of developing economic opportunities in northern Australia. As a senator for Western Australia I find that the lack of attention and discussion around our opportunities, for example, in the Kimberley to be highly problematic.
This bill also completely unnecessarily expands, in Labor's view, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. I note that the bill introduces a new suitable persons test; however, the EPBC Act as it currently stands sets out considerations that the minister must take into account when deciding whether or not to grant an approval under the EPBC Act and what conditions to attach to such an approval. Section 136(4) of the EPBC Act currently provides the minister with the discretion to consider a person's or a company's environmental history. I note that the bill before us seeks to make that test mandatory.
The test would be applied by the minister in relation to decisions on projects undertaken under the EPBC Act and by the board of NAIF in relation to decisions regarding financing of projects by the facility. I note that there is already a range of state and territory legislation that contain an analogous fit-and-proper-person test. In environmental legislation across the country this often includes consideration of a person's or a company's environmental record; however, unlike the EPBC Act and the proposed bill, some of this legislation provides further guidance and criteria, which should be the case.
It is also worth noting that ministerial decisions under the EPBC Act are subject to judicial review under Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, including by conservation organisations under the extended standing provisions of section 487 of the EPBC Act. I note that the bill amends the EPBC Act to cause the secretary of the department of the environment to review decisions on the Carmichael mine—that is, the Adani project—with regard to such a suitable persons test. These decisions related to Adani's projects: the Carmichael coal mine and rail project, the Abbot Point coal terminal and the north Galilee Basin rail project. Indeed, what you see from this in relation to how this bill is constructed, and indeed named, is that it is not about transparent reform of the EPBC Act; it is simply singling out one project—that is, the Adani project. Reviewing projects of one company, in Labor's view, has no policy basis and would raise retrospective sovereign risk issues that could have a negative impact on business investment in our country.
I note that no such suitable persons test currently exists for other Commonwealth government financing facilities, such as the CEFC or Efic; therefore, it is of concern to the Labor Party that this bill seems to be about a single project—that is, Adani. It is about the Greens' unrelenting opposition to Adani without consideration for broader issues like job creation in our nation. It is yet another demonstration of the Greens using Adani as a football to further their own agenda. They have used Adani as a political tool, as we have recently seen in the native title bill that we have just been debating in this place, turning a debate about land rights and self-determination for Indigenous people into one about mining rights simply because it suits their own political agenda. And I note Marcia Langton, who is a leader in our Indigenous communities and on native title, last week spoke of the Greens and other anti-Adani protest groups, saying that they had used 'deception' and 'deliberately thwarted' the aspirations of a 'majority of Indigenous people'. It is of concern that they are again doing that with this bill.
It is important in this place that we have clear in our minds the relationship between Indigenous self-determination, native title, environmental regulation and jobs. We cannot and should not combine together the accountability that we must have in each of those areas to suit just an environmental objective. It is not the proper thing to do. But, again, that appears to be what the Greens are doing with this bill.
It is time for this place to have a discussion about jobs. We need a facility such as the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, but it must be properly and transparently managed, because we know people in our regions and across the country are telling us they are worried about jobs. Right now they are worried about jobs and their children's future. I know that this is the case in northern Queensland. It is certainly the case in my home state of WA. We can make sure we are creating jobs of the future without compromising our environment, and we have a long history of acting to protect our nation's environment. It was Labor who initiated the protection of the Great Barrier Reef during the Whitlam government. It was the Hawke-Keating governments that protected the Franklin and the Daintree, Antarctica and extended Kakadu. The most recent Labor government ended 30 years of conflict over Tasmania's forests, 120 years of disagreement over the Murray-Darling Basin, and put in place the world's largest network of marine reserves. So Labor takes its environmental responsibility seriously and will continue to act. We will not back down on protecting our environment, but we also recognise that conventional fuels will be part of our energy mix into the future. But, importantly, renewable energy will have a growing share of the total energy mix given it is now the cheapest form of new generation.
Our transition to clean energy is already happening, and we want to encourage and support this transition through our commitment to 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. As we did in government, Labor will ensure that any proposed mining projects meet the highest environmental standards, so we will be closely monitoring whether conditions are being met in relation to those standards. We note that the Adani project received Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—EPBC Act—approval by the Abbott-Turnbull government back in 2015 and that the conditions of approval are still being addressed by the company.
We also note that, despite claims by the Greens that Labor's position on these matters has not been clear, we have been absolutely clear in saying time and time again that we are very concerned about the prospect of taxpayers' money being spent on the Adani project. Taxpayers should not be expected to pay $1 billion for a project. We have said very clearly that the project should only go ahead if it stacks up environmentally and commercially; if it does then those jobs are most welcome in Central Queensland. We are concerned that this bill is a stunt by the Greens aimed at a single project and not a genuine attempt at improving the way the system operates. Labor support jobs for Central and North Queensland, but we have always said the Adani project has to stack up both commercially and environmentally.
We have serious concerns about the operation of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which is yet another example of Malcolm Turnbull's incompetent leadership. Indeed, it is yet another example of a dysfunctional government. Despite the NAIF being set up months ago, not a single cent has been spent on better infrastructure for Northern Australia. It shows how out of touch the government is in not understanding these issues. The government needs to get on with it and start investing in Northern Australia, in Western Australia and in other regions right across the country to build infrastructure and create the jobs that our regions desperately need. We would be very concerned if the federal government were considering spending a fifth of the NAIF fund on just one project, taking money away from other important job-generating projects. Labor does not think Australian taxpayers should be coughing up $1 billion for a single project. We believe that most Australians would rightly be scratching their heads, wondering why they have to give a mining billionaire $1 billion of taxpayer's money, particularly if such subsidies then go on to displace the viability of existing projects and jobs in other regions around the country. This bill does not have our support, because it does not fix any of the problems with NAIF. It is about time the government and the Greens stopped talking about this single project and started talking seriously about jobs right around the country.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:28): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to speak to the Greens tiresome Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017. Senator Waters admits in her earlier comments that this is yet another step in stopping this project. This bill seeks to prevent the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, NAIF, lending funds to Adani to construct a railway to ship coal mined in the Galilee Basin by introducing a so-called suitable person test. As Senator Macdonald said, the Greens would not pass such a test.
In addition, this bill yet again seeks to strengthen Australia’s already ridiculously strict and unfounded environment and biodiversity laws. Here we go again—another day and another farrago of green rubbish. Both the bogus suitable person test and the environmental babble are just more cloaks to hide the Greens real anti-jobs, anti-prosperity Luddite agenda. Don't other senators tire of their endless bleating? Unlike the Greens, informed and responsible senators would be aware of the real facts. They know that the Adani Carmichael coalmine to be built by the Adani Group in the north of the Galilee Basin in Central Queensland represents a $16.5 billion investment. It opens the Galilee Basin to supply clean coal, which is in huge and growing demand globally. It is expected to produce 2.3 billion tonnes of coal over a projected 60-year life span. This wonderful project will generate thousands of jobs and many hundreds of millions of dollars of export earnings for our nation. How great is that for our state of Queensland and for our Australian nation?
As the first of a number of large mines expected to be built in the Galilee Basin, the infrastructure to be built for the Carmichael mine will greatly facilitate the development of subsequent mines, which in turn will generate yet more jobs and yet more earnings for Australia. This is the reason, of course, that the northern Australia infrastructure fund—NAIF—plans to spend the $1 billion to which this ridiculous bill refers, because this will not only facilitate the development of the Carmichael mine but will also assist the development of numerous other subsequent mines by other companies in the future.
I make it very clear to the whole of the Senate that we have, in One Nation, some serious questions about the loan, but this bill is not the way to do that. This bill aims to stop the Galilee Basin. We aim to open it up responsibly. For the Greens to claim that the NAIF loan to build vital infrastructure somehow means the government is 'working for billionaires' is simply, logically, incoherent. It is false. It is working with us, for us, with Queensland jobs. We compliment Senator Canavan for his effort to get this project up, finally, despite all the obstacles. Also, note that I said 'lend', because, contrary to what the Greens claimed in their MPI the other day, no-one is giving Adani anything.
The northern Australia infrastructure fund was set up to lend money to assist in development—of railways, port and airport facilities, roads, water, communication facilities et cetera—that specifically assists in the development of northern Australia. Our One Nation party, through our leader, Pauline Hanson, will be ensuring the government does its due diligence. She will be asking the Prime Minister, personally, about Adani's use of funds and the risks in that project to make sure that we are not held responsible for anything that falters with Adani's project. We specifically note the rail line: we want that to be for the use of all Australians.
The NAIF loan and the Carmichael mine will open up the Galilee Basin to the world, creating untold thousands of jobs and a treasure trove of government revenue and export earnings. We note that the Queensland government got into surplus just as a result of billions of dollars from the coal industry, thanks to the state of Queensland. Much of the coal mined in this region will go to India to power Prime Minister Modi's amazing industrial revolution in addition to fuelling power generation that will help to transform much of India and provide the lighting, heating and cooling that we take for granted. This coal will also directly provide many with fuel for domestic cooking. Instead of facing the severe adverse health effects of burning animal dung or scarce wood, millions of Indians will benefit from being able to burn clean coal. As any rational person knows, cheap power drives industrial development, creating jobs, prosperity and progress. Australian coal will help to lift the poorest in India out of poverty.
As someone who was born in India myself, and who visited India just three years ago, I know firsthand the grinding poverty and disease which has afflicted the subcontinent. I am proudly a citizen only of Australia, but I am also an inhabitant of the world. I am a part of the human race, and I am very, very proud to be that. We need to help our fellow humans around the world.
The real truth is that the last 170 years has seen billions of people lifted out of poverty and removed from the vagaries of nature's weather extremes of drought, flood and famine. We have enjoyed vastly lengthened lifespans, greatly increased comfort, safety, ease and security. This has occurred hand in hand with the miracle of coal and hydrocarbon fuels—gas and oil—that, until recent government interventions fuelled by the Greens' nonsense, used to be ever falling in real prices. The key to sustaining human development and sustainable economies is decreasing energy prices. The Greens reverse this trend.
Now Prime Minister Modi in India wants to bring this kind of development and prosperity to India, and I congratulate him and his Bharatiya Janata Party in the strongest terms. Prior to the election of this visionary Indian prime minister and his progressive BJP, much of the country was locked in its own time warp by the socialist policies of the Indian congress party. Like a fly in amber, prior to the BJP government, India seemed lost in a heat haze of ramshackle colonial infrastructure, meandering polluted rivers, reverse engineered old British cars, sprawling slums, chirping cicadas and spreading banyan trees, forever trapped in 1946.
Prior to the BJP, basic necessities like power, clean water and sewerage, which we and the Greens in Australia take for granted, were the luxuries of the wealthy elite in major towns in India. Like One Nation, the BJP is a nationalist workers party that seeks to drastically improve the material situation of everyday, decent people, along with seeking the restoration of traditional national values. The BJP seeks to do this, not through socialism, but through enhancing the marketplace to serve the nation; not through control, but rather through free markets. The BJP is struggling to drag India into the 21st century and to embrace the greatness that could be theirs as a major world power. Adani is part of that movement for a new, modern India and is not just helping to give India cheap power and affordable, low-polluting fuel for cooking and lighting; it is also committed to delivering fresh water and sewerage to many parts of the country that have never known this. It is therefore of great concern to us in One Nation that a tax by the odious Greens and the extreme left faction of the Labor Party on Galilee Basin coal mining has been not just on the Carmichael mine project but on the Adani company itself. This bourgeois hubris that makes the Greens and their ilk imagine that their undergraduate obsessions with carbon dioxide are more important than the lives of Indian workers and families is sickening.
What this ridiculous bill and the Greens' endless attacks on Adani and coal and coal miners demonstrates is not just that the Greens could not care less about creating jobs or generating export incomes here in Australia but that they care even less about lifting much of India and the world out of poverty, out of the Third World. For all their feigned concern about impoverished, underdeveloped countries and despite all these Greens crocodile tears, when it comes to selling India something that will actually help lift its people out of poverty, the Greens are not interested. They are not interested if it does not fit in with their fairies at the bottom of the garden fantasy of windmills and solar cells. This is actually racism of the worst kind—not the self-conscious racism of the determined bigot, but the unconscious racism of elites, who are simply oblivious to the suffering of those beyond their own smugly superior social circle. I can genuinely imagine that when told Indians have no bread, the Greens might actually suggest that they eat cake. Everywhere they go and in everything they do, the Greens do all in their power to close down productive industry and rob honest working Australians of their employment from logging, mining, power generation and manufacturing—the list goes on and on—and add to that farming. Now with Adani, we see the Greens trying to do the same to India.
Fundamentally, while the Greens think they are pro-environment, in fact they are anti-human. They do not care about people's livelihoods, like the Australian workers they seek to throw out of work or the struggling Indians they want to prevent ever being lifting out of poverty and avoiding disease. And the Greens have the nerve to try to call One Nation racist. The truth is that the Greens are the worst kind of racist of all. They are human-racists.
I will now take a few minutes to address Senator Waters' claims in regard to the environment. And I make note to everyone in this chamber that three times I have invited Senator Waters to a debate; three times she has refused. Let us just talk about the fact that the Greens never present science. You will notice that they refer to the word 'science', but they never present any science. Instead, they use pictures of cuddly little animals and pictures of beautiful green turtles or diving dolphins—but never the science, never the evidence. So let me give you some of the evidence right now.
First of all, global temperatures are not rising unusually. Global temperatures are doing what they have done for the last thousands of years. They are going up and down cyclically: warming, cooling, warming, cooling. We have now had 22 years of atmospheric temperatures being flat—no warming at all. The largest and longest temperature trend in the last 160 years was 40 years of cooling from the 1930s to 1976, at a time when the human production of carbon dioxide dramatically increased. The temperatures in this country, in our country of Australia, were higher in the 1880s than they are today. That is fact.
Dr John Reid, formerly with the CSIRO, recently released a paper statistically analysing the temperatures, and there is no trend at all, none at all. If you look at rainfall; if you look at snowfall; if you look at floods' severity, frequency, duration; if you look at droughts' severity, duration, frequency; or if you look at storms' severity and frequency—if you look at all these factors—there is no change going on. It is just natural variation. That is why the Greens will not debate me and that is why the Greens will not actually quote the science: there is nothing to support them.
Second, not only is there no temperature increase but we know that their claim that the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere drives the temperature is in fact the reverse of the reality. The reality is—and it is in the data, the hard data, the measured data—that temperature changes lead to changes in the level of carbon dioxide. The level of carbon dioxide is not the cause of temperature; it is the result of temperature.
The third fact that is inconvenient to the Greens is that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is independent of what we produce. It does not matter how much carbon dioxide humans produce from our activity, because we do not control, do not even affect, the level in the atmosphere. That is determined by the oceans, which respond to cooling or warming by releasing or absorbing large amounts of carbon dioxide that dwarf our production. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature, and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is determined entirely by nature alone. It has nothing to do with our production of carbon dioxide.
What I also want to point out is that the Greens go on and on about bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Waters claimed that half the Barrier Reef has been bleached. That is sheer nonsense. Alkalinity is the measure of ocean acidity. The oceans are currently alkaline. They are not acid. They have a pH of 8.3 to 8.4, and that pH varies entirely naturally. There is no trend going on, and it remains alkaline. It is not even heading for acidity.
When we talk about bleaching, no-one seems to mention that since 1928 there have been 16 major bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef. No-one seems to mention that the part of the Reef subject to the bleaching that occurred at Great Keppel Island just four years ago has already largely recovered.
Then Senator Larissa Waters says 'ancient history of the Great Barrier Reef'. The Great Barrier Reef around the Keppel islands, in our state, is 6,000 years old. The Great Barrier Reef in the northern parts of Queensland is 8,000 years old. Sea levels 20,000 years ago were 120 metres below where there are now. Where does that put today's Reef?
These claims by the Greens are nonsense, and that is why we claim them as not only antihuman but antiscience. Photos of cuddly animals are no substitute for empirical evidence. False claims like toxic jobs are no substitute for the facts.
They talk about black lung. They take money from the CFMEU that represents coalminers. I worked underground for three years at the coalface, and black lung is a threat to anyone who does not manage his or her workplace properly. But black lung is no longer a problem where coalmines have ventilated properly. The answer to black lung is the regulations in Queensland not being enforced, the CFMEU not doing its job and some coal operators not fulfilling their responsibilities. Black lung is not an inherent problem when it is managed properly. Thousands upon thousands of people around the world manage to work in coalmines safely and harmoniously without any fear of black lung, because they comply with basic standards.
Thirdly, coal is the main driver of environmental improvements on our planet. About 170 years ago, people were burning forests in London for fuel. People were using whale oil for lighting. In fact, in 1826 in Sydney, we celebrated the first street lamp network in our country. It was powered by whale oil. What caused that to change? Very simple: coal—coal being burnt in modern power stations cleaned up the skies over Europe and London. The pollution in London afflicted people from the 1400s through to 1960s until the advent of modern electricity in coal-fired power stations. That is when Londoners first started to see the stars at night. That is when people no longer got lung diseases, thanks to clean coal. Not only do the whales thank coal, not only do the forests thank coal but humanity itself thanks coal, because only by the remarkable benefits of hydrocarbon fuels are humans decreasing in birth rate as we increase our prosperity.
In finishing, I want to say a few words about the fact that the Greens bill is a destroyer of Australia. I call on the Senate to reject the Greens and all their works. Let us reject these irrational, racist, Luddite policies of the Greens and consign this human racist bill to the legislative garbage bin, along with the enemies of the wheel that created it. Do we really want to develop north Queensland? Yes, we do, and yes we can. Thank you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, you have got about five minutes.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (11:48): If I seem disappointed and a bit flat, Madam Deputy President, it is because I feel robbed. I thought I was going to have 20 minutes to respond to our colleagues the Greens, and to be reduced to just four minutes is going to make my effort difficult. In doing that, we need to be crystal clear on what we are being asked to consider here by the Greens in this bill.
This bill is not about some new found interest in the Greens about the integrity and profile of foreign companies who invest in our nation. If that were true, one would suspect that they would have been in this place with bills previously on the hundreds and hundreds of occasions that foreign investment occurs in this nation. They were in coalition with our friends in the Labor Party for six years, and not once did they introduce legislation when they had the power to do so, to influence a decision about investment in this nation by a foreign company.
That being the case, I do not think it is unreasonable for us to draw the only inference that can be drawn—that is, this is not about Adani, this is not about the integrity of Adani and this is not about the profile of Adani. This is about killing any future development in the coal industry—in this case in particular—in my home state of Queensland. This is about denying thousands of young men and women who are currently unemployed. Some of the figures around Townsville and some of the areas in Central Queensland are up to nine per cent. This is about killing the prospects of their jobs. This is about denying the 14,000 workers who did work in the coal industry and all the allied support industries at one stage the opportunity to return to the dignity of full employment. This is about stifling the ongoing investment that comes with transformational, generational opportunities like this to develop the economy of a region and a state and then, indeed, all the benefits that flow from that to the nation. This is about stopping people—owners of empty homes in their thousands in Central Queensland—having the opportunity to have them tenanted once more by people coming to develop this wonderful opportunity.
This was a sleight of hand, this bill. This bill is fraudulent. The presentation by the senator earlier was in itself fraudulent. You can take offence to that if you like. You wrote—
Senator Waters: Moron.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: Madam Deputy President, she just referred to me as a moron. I ask that she withdraw it.
Senator McKim: On the point of order: Senator O'Sullivan has just finished twice referring to Senator Waters and her behaviour as fraudulent. If it is good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander here. This matter was commenced by Senator O'Sullivan in alleging fraudulence on Senator Waters's part, and he should withdraw that.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. I remind all senators that people need to be respected in this place. Whilst I did not hear any remarks, Senator O'Sullivan, I would ask Senator Waters, if she made those comments, to please withdraw them.
Senator Waters: Thank you. The reason I called him a moron was because he said I was a fraud. If he withdraws the allegation that I am a fraud, he needn't be called a moron in this instance.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please resume your seat.
Senator McGrath: Just say it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator McGrath. Order!
Senator McGrath interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McGrath, are you dis—
Senator McGrath interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have called you to order. I expect you to be quiet. Thank you. Senator Waters, it is not all right to then repeat the imputation that you made. We have had that discussion in this place. I am simply asking you to withdraw that imputation.
Senator Waters: If the senator withdraws his calling of me a fraud, which he did twice, I shall withdraw mine.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, I have asked you to withdraw the imputation.
Senator Waters: I will do so and I will take a further point of order—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are not negotiating, Senator Waters.
Senator Waters: I take a further point of order asking Senator O'Sullivan to withdraw the allegations that I am somehow a fraud.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Senator O'Sullivan, I invite you now to make the same withdraw.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: Thank you. I did not assert that the senator was a fraud. I asserted that the presentation she made to this chamber was fraudulent. I will be guided by the chair. The spirit was that some of the allegations made were in conflict with public information.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. Yes, Senator Williams?
Senator Williams: Madam Deputy President, you have asked Senator Waters to withdraw her comments. She said on condition.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: She has withdrawn. Please resume your seat.
Senator Williams: As long as you are satisfied it is withdrawn, I am satisfied. Thank you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. If your comments were made in the broad context of debate and were not personal, Senator O'Sullivan, they do not need to be withdrawn. Please continue.
Senator Waters: I would ask that the record be checked. It was clearly a reference to my bill and a personal reflection. I think the record will show that beyond any confusion.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am happy to look at the Hansard, and if there is a personal imputation then we will come back to the chamber. Senator O'Sullivan, please continue. You have got about a minute and 58 seconds, I think.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: What we had today was a trojan horse. This bill was rolled in as a trojan horse. When you look inside, what is the motive? The motive is to stop this development in my home state of Queensland. It is astonishing that the attack was led by a Queensland senator. That will prove, I suspect, in the fullness of time to have been a grave political error, and I intend to make what contribution I can to ensure that your political error is well known across the state.
In the short time that I have left, I will yield to Senator Waters to answer my question. I will make a week at your convenience—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, I remind you that you must address your marks to the Chair.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: Through you, Deputy President, I extend an invitation to Senator Waters to join me on a one-week tour of Central Queensland. I will meet all of the expenses and everybody is welcome. I will arrange general public meetings, all over Central Queensland.
An opposition senator interjecting—
Senator O'SULLIVAN: Look, if you have not been a success in life you do not need to reflect upon my successes!
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, you cannot direct your comments to the Chair and then be personal. You must be broad and not personal. Please continue your remarks.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: I have some difficulty in this space, Madam Deputy President. But the invitation stands. A week of your diary and I will take you into Central Queensland. You can arrange the meetings if you like. I will arrange some meetings. We will get the chambers and local government to bring the people together and we will see whether your efforts reflect the intention of the grassroots people who live in this great part of our state.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! The time for this debate has expired. You will be in continuation when debate resumes.
Debate adjourned.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Hinch to move:
(1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse be established following the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon:
(a) the Australian Government policy, program and legal response to the redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission, including the establishment and operation of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme and ongoing support of survivors; and
(b) any matter in relation to the Royal Commission's recommendations referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament.
(2) That the committee present its final report on the final sitting day of November 2018.
(3) That the committee consist of 8 members – 4 senators, and 4 members of the House of Representatives, as follows:
(a) 2 members of the House of the Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips;
(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips;
(c) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(d) 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(e) 1 senator to be nominated by any minority party or independent senator; and
(f) the Leader of Derryn Hinch's Justice Party (Senator Hinch).
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; and
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(5) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(6) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.
(7) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(8) That Senator Hinch be appointed as chair of the committee and the committee elect as deputy chair a member or senator nominated by the Opposition.
(9) That the deputy chair shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.
(10) That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President and the Speaker.
(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
(13) That the committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(14) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
(15) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.
Senator Singh to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that 20 June 2017 is World Refugee Day,
(ii) the theme for 2017 is #withrefugees,
(iii) that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that there are 65.3 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, and 21.3 million refugees,
(iv) that Australia has an obligation under international law to support refugees and to make a fair contribution to the international efforts to aid refugees, and
(v) the extremely significant social and economic contribution refugees have made and continue to make to all aspects of Australian life; and
(b) calls for:
(i) a reasoned, principled and facts–based approach to the issue of asylum seekers and refugees,
(ii) Australia to continue to work with other nations and the United Nations (UN) to address the complex global and regional challenges associated with displaced people worldwide that cannot be addressed by countries acting on their own,
(iii) the Turnbull Government to match Labor's policy of increasing Australia's refugee intake to 27 000 by 2025, and
(iv) Australia to actively participate in the UN High Level Meeting on Refugees and Migrants, scheduled for 19 September in New York.
Senators Leyonhjelm and Roberts to move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to make provision in relation to vaporised nicotine products and to distinguish vaping from smoking, and for related purposes. Vaporised Nicotine Products Bill 2017.
Senator Polley to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the release of the Australian Law Reform Commission Report on elder abuse which coincided with World Elder Abuse Awareness Day on 15 June 2017,
(ii) that World Elder Abuse Awareness Day is a global awareness day which promotes dignity and respect for older people, and recognises the contribution older people make socially and economically,
(iii) that elder abuse is a form of domestic violence and can be physical, sexual, financial, psychological, social or neglectful, and usually occurs at the hands of someone trusted, such as family or friends, and
(iv) that the Law Reform Commission Report on elder abuse focusses on financial exploitation, which continues to be the most common form of abuse experienced by elderly people;
(b) urges federal, state, territory and local governments to raise awareness of and take action against the mistreatment of older people in Australia; and
(c) urges the Turnbull Government to respond immediately to the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission Report on elder abuse.
Senator Waters to move:
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to:
(a) stop the $1 billion loan to Adani by adding a 'suitable person' test on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility;
(b) strengthen the environmental history test under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and
(c) review Adani's approvals for the Carmichael mine under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, on the basis of revelations about their environmental and corporate history.
Senator Siewert to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) two extra trial sites of the cashless welfare card were funded in the 2017-18 Budget,
(ii) the locations being considered to date for these additional trial sites are Port Hedland, East Pilbara, Kalgoorlie, Laverton, Leonora, Broome, Redlands, Bundaberg, Fraser Coast and somewhere in Tasmania, and
(iii) the Government has claimed to be consulting with the community in these areas but has not consulted with those who will be directly affected by the card;
(b) acknowledges that evaluations of the NT Intervention, including compulsory income management, show it met none of its objectives; and
(c) calls on the Government to abandon the additional two trial sites and halt further expansion of the current cashless welfare card sites.
Withdrawal
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (11:57): Pursuant to notice given on 14 June 2017, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 19 June 2017; proposing the disallowance of the Jervis Bay Territory Marine Safety Ordinance 2016, and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 15 August 2017, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Social Services Measures No. 4) Regulation 2016
Presentation
Senator Siewert to move:
A motion in relation to the cashless welfare cards.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:57): I will provide the wording for this motion to the Clerk as soon as possible.
COMMITTEES
Selection of Bills Committee
Report
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (11:58): I present Report No. 6 of 2017 and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 6 OF 2017
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 7.21 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the provisions of the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 August 2017 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2017 (see appendices 2 and 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending Carbon Tax Compensation) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 August 2017 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 August 2017 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017
Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017
Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017
Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017
Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Fee Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017
Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017
Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017
Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017
Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017
Major Bank Levy Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Major Bank Levy) Bill 2017
Medicare Guarantee Bill 2017
Medicare Guarantee (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017
Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Queensland Commission Income Management Regime) Bill 2017
Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 2) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Accelerated Depreciation For Small Business Entities) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Resident Capital Gains Withholding Payments) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Integrity) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017
Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage) Bill 2017
Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017
End Cruel Cosmetics Bill 2014
Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017
Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017
International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2017
Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2017
Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017
Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017
Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017
Safe Work Australia Amendment (Role and Functions) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 3) Bill 2017.
5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2017.
(David Bushby)
Chair
15 June 2017
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Interaction of the bill with new Commonwealth Procurement Rules and other consequences of allowing judicial review.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Dr Pat Ronald (Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network)
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
17 July 2017
Possible reporting date:
4 August 2017
(signed)
Senator Kakoschke-Moore
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Implications for the NDIS and people with disability
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Disabled People's Organisations Australia, People with Disability Australia, Mental Health Australia, Community mental Health Australia, Summer Foundation, Anglicare Australia, UnitingCare Australia, Catholic Social Services
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
5 September 2017
(signed)
Senator Siewert
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Proper scrutiny of the Bill;
Understand how the NDIS quality and safeguards Commission will work effectively. Understand the issues that have been raised by stakeholders and state and territory governments.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
National Disability Services
Women with Disability Australia
AFDO
Children and Young People with Disability Australia
Young People in Nursing Homes
Department of Social Services
National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA)
Carers Australia
Orygen
ASU
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
5 September 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending Carbon Tax Compensation) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Proper scrutiny of the Bill;
Understand the impact of abolishing the Energy Supplement on pensioners, DSP recipients, carers and people on Newstart.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
ACOSS
Social Security Rights Network
Department of Social Services
National Seniors
St Vincent de Paul Society
National Council of Single Mothers and their Children
Anglicare
COTA
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
9 August 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill and their implications.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Relevant government departments, industry and community stakeholders
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
8 August 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
Senator BUSHBY: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (11:58): I move:
That—
(a) government business orders of the day as shown on today’s order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
Non-controversial government business—
No. 4 Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017
No. 5 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017
International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2017
No. 6 ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2017
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017
No. 7 Treasury Laws Amendment (Accelerated Depreciation For Small Business Entities) Bill 2017
No. 8 Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017
No. 9 Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017
Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Resident Capital Gains Withholding Payments) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 2) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Integrity) Bill 2017
Question agreed to.
Rearrangement
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (11:59): I move:
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows—
(a) general business notice of motion no. 350 standing in the name of Senator Xenophon relating to Australia’s energy crisis; and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
Question agreed to.
Rearrangement
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (11:59): I move:
That general business order of the day no. 49 (Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017) be considered on Thursday, 22 June 2017 under consideration of private senators’ bills.
Question agreed to
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and related bills—extended from 19 June to 8 August 2017.
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Fair Work Amendment (Pay Protection) Bill 2017—extended from today to 4 September 2017.
MOTIONS
National Volunteering Strategy
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (12:00): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) volunteering is a core part of our community,
(ii) 5.8 million Australians over the age of 15 formally volunteered in 2014 with many more people volunteering informally,
(iii) according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there has been a decline in formal volunteering activities over the past five years – this decline comes at a cost to community wellbeing,
(iv) in South Australia, the state government, Business SA, the Local Government Association of South Australia and the peak body Volunteering SA&NT collaborated to develop a state-wide strategy which is providing a coordinated approach to addressing the diverse needs of volunteers and their communities, and
(v) given the tremendous benefits of volunteering, a national, sector-driven volunteering strategy would help increase participation, create new opportunities and ensure volunteering remains vibrant and strong; and
(b) calls on the Government to follow South Australia's lead and partner with the volunteering sector to develop a national volunteering strategy.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:01): I move:
That on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 consideration of the business before the Senate shall be interrupted at 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable valedictory statements to be made relating to Senator Back.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Economics References Committee
Reference
Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:01): I move:
I move:
That the following matters be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 August 2017:
Operations of existing and proposed toll roads in Australia, including:
(a) financial arrangements of existing and proposed private toll roads, and transparency, accountability and equity aspects of these arrangements;
(b) interaction of commercial considerations of private toll road operators with federal and state transport and infrastructure policy; and
(c) any other related matters.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Interference by Foreign Powers
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:02): At the request of Senator Farrell, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the:
(i) ongoing reports about foreign powers seeking to interfere in the domestic political and electoral affairs of Australia and other sovereign nations, including the revelations reported by the Four Corners program on 5 June 2017, and
(ii) highly concerning nature of any attempt by a foreign power to interfere in the domestic political and electoral affairs of sovereign nations such as Australia, especially where it involves direct or indirect interference in the electoral process;
(b) calls on the Prime Minister to support a bipartisan reference to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) to inquire into and report on possible measures to address the risk posed by foreign governments and their agents seeking to improperly interfere in Australia's domestic political and electoral affairs; and
(c) acknowledges:
(i) the current threat posed by foreign governments and their agents seeking to interfere in the domestic political and electoral affairs of sovereign nations, both in Australia and abroad,
(ii) the source of that threat, including direct interference by foreign governments, such as through foreign intelligence and security services, and indirect interference through proxies, such as lobbyists, business representatives and other agents,
(iii) existing measures to address foreign interference in domestic political and electoral affairs currently in place in comparable overseas jurisdictions, such as the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand,
(iv) existing measures currently in place under Australian law which may be adapted or expanded to defend against interference by foreign governments or their agents in Australia's domestic political and electoral affairs, and
(v) all direct and indirect influence by foreign intelligence agencies, including through traditional and social media, as well as cyber security attacks.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government acknowledges that the threat of political interference by foreign intelligence services is a problem of the highest order and that it is getting worse. In early May this year, the Prime Minister initiated a comprehensive review of Australia's espionage and foreign interference laws, and the Attorney-General is leading this review. Following the completion of this review, a tranche of legislative reforms will be introduced into the parliament which, as per standard practice, will be immediately referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review. The committee will then have the chance to review these important matters in the usual way. A premature referral will only duplicate, if not delay, efforts already underway to review these matters.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:03): I seek leave to move an amendment to this motion.
Leave granted.
Senator LUDLAM: I move the amendments, as circulated in Senator Di Natale's name in the chamber:
Paragraph (b), omit “bipartisan”, substitute “multi-partisan”.
At the end of the motion, add:
(vi) that the Australian Greens and other minority groups and independent senators are unrepresented on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and that it would be highly inappropriate for only members of the Liberal and Labor parties to be represented on an inquiry into this matter, considering that members of these parties would be subjects of the inquiry; and
(d) calls for 1 member of the Australian Greens and 1 member of a minority group or independent to be appointed to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for the purpose of any inquiry into the risk of interference of foreign powers or their agents in Australian domestic political and electoral affairs.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment to general business item No. 345 moved by Senator Ludlam, in the name of Senator Di Natale, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:08]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Urquhart be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:16]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Live Animal Exports
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (12:19): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 342 standing in my name.
Leave granted.
Senator RHIANNON: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that:
(i) on 24 March 2017, following trade talks between the Prime Minister and the Chinese Premier, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Honourable Barnaby Joyce, MP was widely reported as stating that if people want edible donkey skins, Australia is going to provide them,
(ii) the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources ("the Department") confirmed in hearings of the Budget estimates held in May 2017 it is working on Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) arrangements for horses, ponies and donkeys for the purposes of slaughter in the event an application for live export is lodged,
(iii) the Department has provided animal welfare groups with an exposure draft of the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Equine Animals) Order 2017 for comment, and
(iv) the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, the peak body of Australia's current livestock export industry, has stated that it and its members do not support the commencement of any trade in the live export of horses and donkeys from Australia for slaughter; and
(b) calls on the Government to heed community expectations and definitively ban the export of live horses, ponies and donkeys for slaughter.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:20): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The coalition government is a supporter of the live export trade and agriculture exports overall and maintains international animal welfare for horse exports. The government notes that the Australian Livestock Exporters Council does not support commencement in export of live horses and donkeys for slaughter.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:22]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines
BILLS
Corporations Amendment (Modernisation of Members Registration) Bill 2017
First Reading
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (12:24): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Corporations Act 2001, and for related purposes. Corporations Amendment (Modernisation of Members Registration) Bill 2017.
Question agreed to.
Senator XENOPHON: 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 XENOPHON (South Australia) (12:25): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator XENOPHON: I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
The speech read as follows—
The Corporations Amendment (Modernisation of Members Registration) Bill 2017 (the bill) presents a simple solution to a simple problem.
Section 168 of the Corporations Act 2001 requires a company or registered scheme to set up and maintain a register of members.
The Members Register is a relevant record of members which details when they joined, where they live and how to contact them.
Subsection 169(1) sets out the general requirements of the register. As it is currently drafted, the register must contain:
a) the member's name and address; and
b) the date on which the entry of the member's name in the register is made.
Section 173 of the Corporations Act 2001 allows anyone to inspect the register. There are important protections and safeguards that exist within section 177 of the Corporations Act 2001 which deter from improper use and disclosure of the information contained on the register.
You can't simply access the register to get in contact with other members and send them unsolicited material. But what about when someone exercises their right to inspect the register in order to obtain the contact details of members about important issues relevant to them as members?
That person can pay a fee and get the name and address of the members. This sounds simple but what about if this person needs to contact a large number of members? The only option is to send a letter via traditional mail. Not only is this inefficient it is expensive. Contacting a large number of members could cost thousands of dollars when it could be done for free if email addresses were to be included on the register.
In a sense, the rationale and the public policy imperative for this bill can be encapsulated by the efforts of Mr Brett Stevenson.
Mr Stevenson is a NSW CPA accountant based in Armidale. As a member of CPA Australia, one of the two peak accounting bodies in this nation with some 155,000 members, Mr Stevenson has for months been agitating for greater transparency and openness on the way CPA Australia is run.
This request for transparency and openness includes details of the governance, remuneration and the strategic direction of CPA Australia.
Mr Stevenson's actions, along with many other like-minded members, have to date forced CPA Australia to provide disclosure of the remuneration of the management personnel, something that is
required for publicly listed companies.
2
This sort of conduct has resulted in the membership and the community losing confidence in the CPA as an organisation that is meant to be setting the standards for professional accounting bodies.
The bill will ensure email addresses are required to be included in the Members Register along with the members name, address and date of joining. This is a reasonable amendment to enable cost effective communication with members. There are already sufficient protections in the Act to prevent any vexatious and improper uses of the Members Register and, importantly, the bill does not affect the operation of the existing protections that apply to the inspection and use of information on registers.
It will remain a criminal offence to misuse the information contained on the register. A person will not be able to, for example, use an email address contained on the register to subscribe them to a mailing list.
This amendment is needed to take into account that most communication between companies and members is via email. It brings this particular provision of the Corporations Act 2001 into line with modern communication methods, but more importantly it enhances basic democratic principles which can empower members.
The bill makes a minor, but important change. It is straightforward and uncontroversial, and I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support it.
Senator XENOPHON: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Chechnya
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (12:26): I, and also on behalf of Senator Wong, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the concern expressed by the Australian Government at reports of mass arrests and torture of individuals in the Republic of Chechnya in the Russian Federation due to their perceived or actual sexual orientation;
(b) welcomes that these concerns have been raised by the Australian Government on six separate occasions directly with the Russian Government;
(c) calls on the Government to:
(i) work with other nations to highlight the deplorable treatment of LGBTI persons in Chechnya through the United Nations (UN) and other international human rights forums,
(ii) publicly back the UN's Free and Equal Campaign, a global public education campaign which raises awareness of homophobic and transphobic violence and discrimination, and promotes greater respect for the rights of LGBTI people globally, and
(iii) raise awareness of Smart Traveller advice on Chechnya and the Russian Federation in light of these reports; and
(d) notes that Australia has joined with Albania, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America and Uruguay in endorsing the Equal Rights Coalition Statement of 26 April 2017 which states:
The undersigned Equal Rights Coalition members urgently call on Russian federal authorities to conduct an independent and credible investigation into reports of arbitrary detention, torture and killing of gay men by security services and other government authorities in the Republic of Chechnya. If these reports prove credible, we call on the Russian government to take steps to ensure the release of anyone wrongfully detained and hold accountable anyone found responsible. These steps are in-line with international human rights obligations and commitments made by the Russian government to respect the human rights of all individuals.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:26): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RICE: The Greens will be supporting this motion but want to point out that a very similar motion, which I attempted to move in this place a month ago, was denied formality because it was covering an issue of complex foreign policy. This motion, similarly, is covering complex foreign policy but interestingly has not been denied formality. The Greens will be supporting this, but there was one significant difference between our motion and the one Senator Smith is moving today, and that was calling upon the government to accept gay and bisexual refugees from Chechnya given the persecution they are facing. We would have very much liked to have added that to this motion, and we call upon the government to accept that. But, regardless, we will be supporting this motion today.
Question agreed to.
Homelessness
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (12:27): I, and also on behalf of Senator Cameron, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the most recent statistics from 2015-16 show that 275 requests for homelessness assistance were unable to be met each day, and
(ii) the Government has failed to raise real levels of federal funding for homelessness services and social housing in the 2017-18 Budget; and
(b) calls on the Government to provide real support for people who are homeless by increasing the real level of funding for homelessness services and social housing.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:28): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The previous Labor-Greens alliance left not a single dollar in the budget for the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. The coalition allocated funding when it came to government, and in this budget we announced that funding for the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness would be increased, indexed and rolled into a new $1.5 billion housing agreement. This provides homelessness providers with ongoing funding security for the first time.
Question agreed to.
National Cycling Strategy
Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:29): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) this week marks 200 years since inventor Karl Drais rode the first two-wheeled 'laufmachine' in Germany, considered to be the first bicycle ever invented,
(ii) now, in the 21st century, more than half of all Australian households have at least one bicycle in working order, and
(iii) the 2015 National Cycling Participation survey shows that around 4 million people in Australia ride a bicycle for recreation or transport in a typical week; and
(b) calls on the Government to ensure everyone in Australia has the freedom to ride safely and invest in cycling infrastructure to support the objective of the National Cycling Strategy to double cycling participation by Australians.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Reference
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:29): At the request of Senator O'Sullivan, I move:
That—
(a) in accordance with standing order 25(2) (a), the performance of Airservices Australia be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report; and
(b) in conducting its inquiry, the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee appointed in the previous Parliament.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the bill.
Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:30): I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017. This bill will have a significant impact on Australian retailers and consumers alike, as well as broader implications for how the Commonwealth will levy taxes and collect revenue well into the future. It is for these reasons that Labor has been applying sustained and considered scrutiny to this proposal since the government first announced, more than 12 months ago, its intention to legislate changes to how the GST will be applied to low-value imported goods. This scrutiny has proven to be warranted, as the government's implementation of this measure has certainly been less than ideal—a matter I will return to a little bit later.
The key objective at the heart of this bill is an attempt to achieve tax neutrality—that is, ensuring that offshore businesses do not enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over domestic firms with regard to the levying of the GST on Australian consumers. This is an objective that Labor have been supportive of for some time. We agree that there is merit in ensuring that Australian retailers, who employ significant numbers of Australian workers, are not disadvantaged vis-a-vis offshore retailers due to flaws in the design of our tax system.
In fact, it was Bill Shorten in 2011, as the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation in the Gillard government, that directed the Productivity Commission to conduct an inquiry into the implications of globalisation on Australia's retail sector. These changes included that the growth of online retailing across international borders was radically transforming the consumption patterns of Australians and that the number of low-value goods exempt from the GST being imported into Australia was growing dramatically. The 2012 Productivity Commission review was also tasked with examining issues surrounding the imposition of GST on low-value goods coming to Australia.
In the end the Productivity Commission review was unequivocal in its findings. It found that levelling the playing field for Australian retailers was a public policy objective worth pursuing; however—and there was an important caveat—it should be pursued only once key issues surrounding the collection of the tax were resolved. Specifically, the Productivity Commission determined that the low-value threshold should be lowered only if it could be demonstrated that it is cost-effective to do so and that the costs of raising additional revenue by lowering the LVT are at least broadly comparable to the costs of raising other taxes.
Labor's shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, has consistently indicated throughout our time in opposition that, if these obstacles could be addressed and an efficient and manageable LVT GST collection framework could be implemented, then the Labor Party will provide its support. So what does the bill before us do and does it meet these tests? At present goods with a value of less than $1,000 are exempt from the goods and services tax when imported directly by consumers into Australia. This bill would see GST applied to all those goods starting in just two weeks time, on 1 July 2017. The aim of this, all things being equal, is to bring the tax treatment of low-value imported goods into line with goods sold locally by Australian retailers.
The government has chosen, from among a number of alternative models, to implement a vendor registration framework to collect and remit this GST. This would require the suppliers of those goods, including vendors, freight forwarders and electronic distribution platforms, to register for GST and to remit the appropriate tax to the Australian tax office. This will raise, on the government figures provided, a modest $300 million across the forward estimates. While we certainly support this proposal in principle, we remain guided by the desire to see the government implement a model of collection and compliance that is genuinely viable and which does not penalise consumers.
Since the release of the government's exposure draft legislation, I do not believe there has been a stakeholder group—ranging from the biggest international ecommerce platforms all the way down to domestic microbusinesses—that has not sought out members of the opposition to raise their concerns about this proposal. I have certainly had some raised with me in my role as shadow minister for small business.
Noting these concerns from stakeholders and having received inadequate assurances or any further clarity on how the measure will operate following additional Senate estimates, Labor chose to refer the bill to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry. Again, this has been an invaluable process. It was useful, certainly, to flush out the concerns from stakeholders but also to be able to test some of these concerns with the public service advising the government.
The principle concerns raised were that the government's proposed model will be complex and costly to administer; that there would be unfavourable impacts on consumers with the cost of implementation being passed on; and that there will be issues surrounding compliance. In fact in evidence to the inquiry by Treasury officials, they revealed that they anticipate a very high rate of noncompliance of between 70 to 75 per cent even by this measures third year of operation. That means Treasury anticipates that less than one-third of liable firms will be compliant by July 2019. Treasury evidence also revealed that, even after half a decade of operation, they expect the compliance level will hit maturity at just over 50 per cent in 2022-23.
As my colleague Chris Bowen noted in his contribution to the debate on this bill, how a compliance rate of just over half can be expected to level the playing field for local retailers, as the government has been suggesting, is genuinely baffling. Additionally, on the compliance issue, the Senate inquiry's findings were clear that, under the government's preferred model, compliance is largely reliant on the goodwill of overseas operators and, currently, there is no effective mechanism to compel liable firms to enforce the measure on the ATO's behalf.
In further concerns in evidence to the committee, major ecommerce platforms, including eBay and Alibaba, were critical of being held liable for the GST collection on goods for which they are in fact only intermediaries in the sale and distribution of. These platforms noted their business model is to connect what are otherwise independent buyers and sellers, and this legislation would see them liable for collecting GST on products they never owned or had any role in distributing or handled funds for.
Effective stakeholders also made it clear in their submissions that they believe the government's model was especially unwieldy and would be expensive to administer. Ultimately, they argued that any additional compliance costs they incur would simply be borne by Australian consumers through higher prices.
Proprietary online retailers, such as ASOS, pointed to the fact that the measure's complexity and the low levels of estimated compliance would provide disreputable firms, including those who might potentially levy but not remit the GST, with an unfair price advantage over both complying offshore and local retailers. Similarly, the inquiry found that Australian consumers can be expected to bear the cost for the government's ill-conceived design with the Senate inquiry coming to the view that the measure is likely to lead to increased prices. There were even suggestions that, due to the model's complexity and the additional costs of compliance, some operators might cease serving the Australian market, leading to less competition, less choice and higher prices for Australian consumers.
Finally, on the issue of the implementation, the committee reported that many key exporters of low-value goods to Australia will struggle with the complexity of implementation, including the 1 July 2017 start date. Submissions to the committee were in fact almost uniform in their critique of the 1 July 2017 start date. That is hard to dispute, given we are now debating this legislation more than a year after it was announced and only two weeks before the government is assumedly expecting compliance.
Taking these varied and justified concerns from stakeholders into account, it was the view of the Senate committee, including the government's own members of that committee, that the start date for this legislation ought to be delayed until 1 July 2018. This delay was recommended to facilitate further consideration of the key issues of design, complexity and implementation. To this end, Labor agrees with the committee and those government senators who indeed proposed a 12-month delay.
On behalf of the Labor Party, in the committee stage of this debate I will be moving amendments to delay by one year the start date of the legislation until 1July 2018. We believe that this additional time will provide the necessary space for the government to get the model right. In a genuine sprit of bipartisanship we are willing to work with the government to make that happen. We have not subjected this measure to various methods of scrutiny with the hopes of derailing the legislation; rather, we have done so in good faith as we are broadly supportive of the proposal, legitimately seeking the best policy outcome for Australian consumers and business.
With that as our primary objective, in addition to the 12-month delay we will be proposing in our amendments that there be a requirement that the government vendor registration model, along with alternative models, be subjected to an inquiry by the independent Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission will be required to provide its findings to the parliament well in advance of the 1 July start date in 2018, with a focus on recommending legislative amendments that could improve the legislation overall.
We believe these amendments are the responsible thing to do. They are in the interests of all stakeholders, and also, frankly, in the government's interest. It means that we continue to have a path forward on achieving greater tax neutrality whilst also strengthening the Commonwealth revenue base. I call on the government to recognise that there is broad in-principle support across the parliament for giving Australian retailers the level playing field they deserve, but to also recognise that parliamentary scrutiny undertaken in a cooperative spirit has revealed legitimate issues with the framework put forward in this bill. I hope I can call on other senators to support the amendments we will be moving later during this debate.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:41): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017. My particular interest relates to the tampon tax. This bill is the first opportunity we have had in a few years to finally review the unfair and, frankly, sexist tax on women's bodies. We have circulated amendments that would remove the GST on sanitary items—hopefully all senators have that before them.
What might be of particular interest is new costings from the PBO which show that the removal of the tampon tax would cost approximately $115 million. The revenue that would be raised by this bill, should it pass the parliament, is about $300 million. Previously, the states have said, 'We can't afford to take this unfair, sexist tax off women's bodies because where's the revenue going to come from?' This bill provides the revenue—about $300 million. If the states were to agree along with this chamber to take the tampon tax off, they would still be almost $200 million ahead. They would be $185 million ahead. So there is no revenue excuse anymore for anyone in this chamber or for the last remaining states to say that they cannot afford to take this sexist, discriminatory tax off women's bodies.
The tampon tax is a tax on women's bodies. It is a biological function. The GST is meant to be on luxury goods. It is no luxury to have periods every month, and why we should be taxed for a necessary item—it is certainly not an optional item—when other things like condoms, lubricants or even sunscreens, for that matter, are GST-free. This is clearly a sexist tax that has a disproportionate impact on women. Only we have to pay for these items, yet condoms and lubricants are GST-free.
This is a great opportunity to build on the work that has been done on this issue over many decades. In fact, this is Labor Party policy, and I am looking forward to the Labor Party supporting these amendments and, I hope, to the government supporting these sensible amendments as well. Joe Hockey said on Q&A in 2015 in a response to a question from a young woman, Subeta Vimalarajah, that he would look at removing the GST from tampons. Of course, it then went to COAG and, in fact, half the states and territories said: 'Great! We think this is a good idea to get rid of this sexist, discriminatory tax.' There are a few states and territories holding out. I have again written to them and asked them to reconsider in light of the fact that this bill would provide them the revenue to cover any shortfall.
We actually have a chance at reform here. It has been Greens policy for many decades to abolish this sexist tax and to make sure that women are not being penalised for the sanitary items we have to purchase every month. Apparently, this is Labor Party policy. We have seen some willingness from government members in the past to say that they too think this is unfair and that they are happy to look at it. Now is our opportunity to do so. Now is our opportunity to finally say that women should not be punished for our biology and we should not be unfairly taxed on items that are a necessity.
We already have a huge wealth inequality gap, we are already behind on superannuation and we are already behind in terms of the gender pay gap. The facts are really clear: we do not need yet another tax on our biology to further worsen that financial inequality. So I would urge all members in the chamber to support these Greens amendments to abolish the tampon tax and to finally remove that vestige of sexist discriminatory policy from our tax laws.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): It being 12.45 pm we will now move to noncontroversial bills. Senator Waters, if you want to, you may be in continuation when debate resumes.
Debate interrupted.
Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (12:45): I was previously speaking on the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017, about unique content.
As the 'Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market' states:
Press publishers are facing difficulties in licensing their publications online and obtaining a fair share of the value they generate. This could ultimately affect citizens' access to information.
In his State of the European Union speech last year, the President of the European Commission said:
I want journalists, publishers and authors to be paid fairly for their work, whether it is made in studios or living rooms, whether it is disseminated offline or online, whether it is published via a copying machine or commercially hyperlinked on the web.
This should be the goal of Australia's copyright laws too. We have started the process; let's not drop the ball when so much of what underpins us as a democratic society is at stake—that we value creative endeavour and fairness.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (12:47): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (12:47): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:48): I rise to speak briefly on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017.
Labor will support this bill: we will not deny pensioners the very modest one-off payment outlined in this bill. However, Labor will not let the Turnbull government off the hook, because in every single budget the Liberals have handed down they have proposed cuts to the pension. The energy assistance payment in this bill is merely an attempt to distract Australian pensioners from the fact that this Liberal government wants to abolish the energy supplement. The Turnbull government is offering a one-off energy assistance payment of $75 to single pensioners, or less than $1.50 a week, while attempting to take $365 each and every year from single pensioners by removing the energy supplement to new pensioners.
We should also remember the origins of this one-off payment: it suddenly appeared on the day the Turnbull government did a deal with the Senate crossbench to get company tax cuts through the Senate. Let's be very clear about this: the Turnbull government is not making this one-off payment by choice, it is because they are paying off a deal. They are not doing it because they care about energy prices or pensioners. Labor will again oppose the government's attempt to remove the energy supplement from the most vulnerable when that measure is brought before the Senate.
The 2017 budget confirms that the Liberals and Nationals still want to abolish the energy supplement for pensioners. Axing the energy supplement will mean a cut of $14.10 per fortnight to single pensioners or $365 a year. Couple pensioners will be $21.20 a fortnight worse off or around $550 a year worse off. It is also worth noting that Newstart recipients will not get this one-off $75 payment. Australians struggling on Newstart will not get a cent as a result of this bill. However, Australians on Newstart face a cut as a result of the abolition of the energy supplement, with a single person on Newstart losing $8.80 per fortnight or around $220 a year.
Another schedule in this bill is the restoration of the pension concession card to around 90,000 pensioners who lost their pension on 1 January this year as a result of this government's changes to the pension assets test. This is an embarrassing backflip for the coalition. It was a double blow for pensioners to lose their pension as well as their pensioner card and all the concessions and discounts that came with it. Just a few months ago, the Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, said the issue of pensioner concessions was a matter for state, territory and local governments. All of a sudden, the Minister for Human Services has realised the federal government can restore pensioner concessions to these seniors. Labor does welcome the government's backflip but they have only done this because the Labor Party pressured them into it.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:51): I rise to make a short contribution on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017. Schedule 1 of the bill provides for a one-off energy assistance payment to those receiving the age pension, the disability support pension and parenting payment single as well as recipients of a number of veterans' payments if they are residing in Australia on 20 June this year. Individuals who have made a claim for one of these payments on or before the test date and their claim is subsequently successful will also be paid the one-off payment in 2017-18. The payment is exempt from tax and will not be considered income for the purposes of social security.
Schedule 2 of the bill provides a pensioner concession card to pensioners and veterans who lost the card on 1 January 2017 as a consequence of rebalancing the assets tests. I should say here that the Greens will be supporting this bill. However, we do have concerns. The energy assistance payment, which, as I have just articulated, will be targeted at those receiving the age pension, the disability support pension and the parenting payment single. We have no objection whatsoever to that; in fact, we will support the bill so that they get this one-off payment because people still struggle to make ends meet on those payments. However, what I am deeply concerned about is these payments will not go to those Newstart or youth allowance. They will not be eligible for this payment.
When you consider that at least pensions are better indexed than Newstart payments and youth allowance, when you consider that both of those payments ensure that people live below the poverty line and when you consider that those payments are significantly lower than the payments received under the age pension, under the disability support pension and under the parenting payment single, I cannot for the life of me think why the government and the Nick Xenophon Team think that those on Newstart and those on youth allowance do not deserve this one-off payment as well, when they are the people that are living significantly below the poverty line.
As I said, I think those on parenting payment single should be getting this payment. But if we think that single parents should be getting this one-off payment, why are we not paying the single parents that are trying to exist bringing up a family on Newstart once their youngest child turns eight? Why are we not making sure that they get a payment? Because I tell you what, they certainly need an extra one-off payment for energy assistance, which will help them meet their bottom line because they are living in poverty. Why are we not acknowledging that these people are living in poverty? We have been campaigning for years to try and get Newstart increased. Everybody—except, apparently, most of the people in this place—realises that Newstart and youth allowance recipients need an increase and they have for years and years. They certainly need assistance to pay their energy bills.
I know the government is going to say, 'Yes, but they're only on there short term.' Let's acknowledge the reality that people now have to exist on Newstart for much longer because they cannot find a job. The latest stats are still basically the same for every—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Adani will fix that in Queensland.
Senator SIEWERT: Could you please ask Senator Macdonald to stop interjecting?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Just ignore the interjections.
Senator SIEWERT: I find it very hard to ignore it when he is saying it so loudly.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Order! Senator Siewert.
Senator SIEWERT: For every job, there are six people trying to exist on income support in some areas. In those areas of most disadvantage, where there are fewer jobs, it is one in 10. That is the reality for people trying to exist on income support allowances—not pensions but allowances. Those people need this payment just as much as those that are going to receive it.
As I said, we will be supporting this bill, but we do need to recognise that there is a significant proportion of people that are trying to exist on income support, that are doing it really tough out there and who will not be receiving this additional money. These are also the people that the government keeps trying to vilify. Just this week Minister Tudge was out there vilifying certain suburbs in this country, trying to demonise those people again. In my home state of Western Australia he was trying to do it the same as he was doing it in New South Wales, in Queensland and in Victoria. He was continuing that campaign of denigrating people that are trying to get by on Newstart or on youth allowance.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, resume your seat. Senator Macdonald on a point of order?
Senator Ian Macdonald: As Senator Siewert is so keen to uphold the standing orders, could I ask you to have her desist from casting imputations against the minister in the way she has just done? She knows that is totally wrong and she should be restrained from doing it in the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Senator Siewert.
Senator SIEWERT: Thank you for your ruling. There is no point of order because this is exactly germane to—
Senator Ian Macdonald: One rule for you, another rule for everyone else!
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator SIEWERT: This is exactly germane to the nature of the discussion that we are having, where we are talking about providing a small increase to a group of people on income support and not to another group on income support: those on Newstart and youth allowance. It is part of a pattern that can be clearly demonstrated and I have been demonstrating over the years, and the latest is Minister Tudge releasing to the media—the usual media sources, I might add—lists of the numbers of people in particular suburbs. Quite clearly the way it is being portrayed in the media and the way the government intended for that to happen is for those suburbs to become a focus. The effect of what he is doing is to demean those people in those suburbs, and that is exactly how people have taken it. In our home state there is a significant backlash about it.
I will not mention the community again, but one example is a community in the southern metropolitan area in our home state of Western Australia. It had exactly the effect that the minister intended, which is to focus on those suburbs, but there has been a backlash because people are sick of it. They are sick of being treated the way they are being treated by this government.
Leaving out people on Newstart and youth allowance is perpetrating yet again more denigration and difficulties for people on income support and allowances rather than pensions. As I said, I am glad the aged pensioners and people on the disability support pension and parenting payment single will be receiving this payment. It should have been extended to all people receiving income support so that they would get a little bit of a fill-up when they need it most and in particular when they are trying to meet their energy payments. It would have helped their total bottom line. We will support this bill. We urge the government to look further into providing those struggling on Newstart and youth allowance the same sort of payment.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (12:59): I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (13:00): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:00): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:01): 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 RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Today, I introduce a Bill to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to bring into force in Australia a renewal of the bilateral Loan Agreement between Australia and the International Monetary Fund signed in October 2012.
The amendments to the International Monetary Agreements Act will ensure that the standing appropriation that allows the Government to make payments to the IMF under the current bilateral loan agreement, continue for the renewed bilateral loan agreement.
The renewal of Australia's bilateral loan agreement forms part of a broader global effort to maintain the current level of IMF resourcing, to ensure that it has sufficient financial resources available to effectively fulfil its global role in economic crisis prevention and resolution.
As a successful open trading economy, Australia's prosperity relies on strong and stable growth in the world economy.
Importantly, ensuring that the IMF has sufficient lending resources in place provides confidence to markets and other economic actors that the IMF has the resources it needs to continue to play its role effectively, which is an important factor that underpins ongoing confidence to trade and invest.
Further, the experience of the global financial crisis indicates that it is important that the IMF has financial resources in place before they are needed, rather than hurriedly having to seek new funding commitments in the midst of the crisis response.
The bilateral loan agreement, signed by Australia in 2012, provides a line of credit to the IMF of around $8 billion in Australian dollars. It is one of 35 agreements the IMF signed with member countries and institutions between 2012 and 2016 to provide a third component to the IMF's lending resources, after quota resources and resources available to the IMF through the New Arrangements to Borrow. To date, these agreements have not been called upon.
On 19 December 2016, Australia signed a new agreement with the IMF to extend Australia's $8 billion funding commitment to 31 December 2019, with the possibility of a one-year extension to 31 December 2020 with Australia's consent. This agreement remains subject to the completion of domestic processes.
The IMF is seeking to renew all 35 agreements with member countries or institutions and undertake new agreements where possible. The broad terms and conditions of these agreements remain largely unchanged, with the addition of a new multilateral voting requirement for the activation of the agreements. This amendment will improve the governance and oversight of these agreements by participating countries.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (13:01): I rise to speak in support of the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2017. This bill gives force of law in Australia to the loan agreement between Australia and the International Monetary Fund signed in Canberra on 19 December 2016 and in Washington, DC on 4 January 2017. In 2012, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer signed the 2012 loan agreement between Australia and the IMF. The agreement was for Australia to provide a contingent bilateral loan to the IMF as part of a broad global effort to increase the resources available to the IMF for crisis prevention and resolution. The 2012 loan agreement expires on 17 July 2017, so the 2016 loan agreement is to continue Australia's commitment to increasing the IMF's available resources for those purposes.
The 2012 loan agreement provided a line of credit to the IMF of around A$8 billion. It was one of 35 agreements the IMF signed with member countries and institutions to provide a third component to the IMF's lending resources after quota resources and the resources available to the IMF through the new arrangements to borrow. The IMF is seeking to renew all 35 agreements with member countries or institutions and to undertake new agreements where possible. Labor supports bringing into force Australia's renewal of the loan agreement and this bill.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:02): I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) ( 13:03 ): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:03): I thank senators for their understanding and I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2017
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (13:03): I am aware of the Senate's desire to get to the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017, so I seek leave to have my speech incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Labor will support these bills. We are supportive of the ASIC Industry Funding Model and the principle that ASIC's regulatory costs should be borne by those entities that benefit from or cause the need for this activity.
This is a principle that already applies in relation to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), and we support its extension to ASIC.
We note the complexity in the way this ASIC mechanism has been designed.
ASIC's regulatory costs will be apportioned, each year, between subsectors according to the amount of ASIC's regulatory activity that they account for. Regulations will provide methods and formulas for how ASIC's regulatory costs are to be apportioned across the various sectors and sub-sectors that it regulates. There are about 50 different formulas to be included in the regulations.
There is a lot of complexity in how this measure is implemented and a lot of the heavy lifting of this model is left to the regulations. We will be watching implementation closely.
This Government and ASIC
If you read the Minister's second reading speech to this bill in the other place, there is a lot of rhetoric about 'tough cops on the beat' and 'encouraging regulatory compliance'.
This rhetoric sits at odds with the history of this government. In the 2014 budget, this government slashed ASIC's funding by $120 million. This was a massive cut to the capability of our corporate regulator, and it was a massive free pass to corporate and financial sector misconduct.
The Government only backflipped on these cuts once Labor began calling for a Royal Commission into the banking and financial services sector. But the damage these cuts caused in terms of loss of experienced staff and loss of capability for the regulator cannot be undone so easily.
Financial Counselling
We note that as part of the Government's process in developing this bill there were submissions calling for additional funding for financial counselling services, including from Financial Counselling Australia, and consumer group CHOICE.
Financial counsellors provide information, support and advocacy to assist people in financial difficulty, including assistance with consumer credit law and debt enforcement practices. They provide a valuable support to those who, whether through life circumstances or poor lending practices, find themselves in financial hardship. The advice they provide is free and independent.
The Consumer Action Law Centre has reported that around half of the people who approach them for help have credit card debt of over $10,000. They recently told the Senate Inquiry into Financial Sector Consumer Protections that every week their financial counsellors receive at least one call from a person with credit card debt exceeding $100,000.
These numbers are also a reminder of the need for the government to deliver their promised reforms to credit cards including a ban on unsolicited credit increase offers, and the tightening of responsible lending requirements. These were changes recommended by Labor in a senate inquiry back in 2015, and something the government agreed to progress in May 2016 — but it's been over a year and we are still waiting for draft legislation.
These numbers about credit card debt also point to the importance of financial counselling services. Financial counselling services are often the only help available to those in serious financial hardship.
Although credit providers may not always admit it, financial counselling services also provide a benefit to them. Financial Counsellors deal with the fallout of poor lending practices by helping those in financial hardship get back on track. In doing so, they contribute to a more just and well-functioning financial sector.
These services are relatively underfunded and many consumers who need assistance are turned away or put on waiting lists for help.
What we have heard from the financial counselling sector are concerns about a lack of funding to meet the need for their services, and a lack of support from the financial sector that benefits from the work they do.
Given the importance of financial counsellors to those in financial trouble, and their importance to the functioning of the financial sector, we think that these issues warrant further consideration from the Government.
The need for a Royal Commission
Lastly I wanted to speak about the need for a Royal Commission.
Just like when they tried to gut FOFA, just like they did when they cut ASIC, those opposite are once again turning a blind eye to financial sector misconduct in their opposition to a Royal Commission.
There is no substitute for properly getting to the bottom of what's gone on in the banking sector and in the financial services sector more broadly. And you have to ask the question, why is the government struggling so hard to avoid a royal commission?
Every other week this Government seems to come up with a new plan to distract attention away from the need for a royal commission.
Since Labor first called for a Royal Commission in April 2016, the Government has instituted at least 12 Government reviews and measures relating to the banks, scrambling to deflect attention away from the need for a Royal Commission.
Labor will consider the half-measures in the budget with regard to banking but there is nothing in there that obviates the need for a Royal Commission into the Banking and Financial Services Sector.
We know that only a Royal Commission into the banks will deliver the systematic, structural and cultural change that the banking and financial services sector needs.
Those opposite keep trying to look tough, while shielding the banks from real scrutiny.
A Royal Commission into Australia's banking and financial services sector is the only way to get to the bottom of the rip-offs, scandals and misconduct that we have seen in the sector over recent years.
They promise new laws. They act as if a rebadging of existing financial ombudsman schemes is some sort of radical change, some sort of panacea to all of the cultural problems in the sector.
They talk tough about a new banking executive accountability regime, but now we know that it will only deal with prudential matters. It will not deal with customer outcomes more broadly. And plenty of scandals that we have seen have been terrible for the customers, without necessarily raising prudential issues.
Those opposite act as if a few hours with the bank CEOs in front of a government dominated committee can provide scrutiny.
The inability of this committee to provide adequate scrutiny was recently brought into sharp relief. We heard reports recently that one of our biggest banks took a whole 6 months to report false witnessing by financial advisers to ASIC. This was the same bank that had assured the committee only in March that they were reporting breaches to ASIC immediately.
The truth is, only a Royal Commission will get to the bottom of the cultural and systemic issues in the sector that have led to thousands of Australians being ripped off and having their lives ruined.
There is no more powerful body to address systemic problems and misconduct than a Royal Commission.
If anything, since Labor has called for a Royal Commission, the more issues have come to light including:
banks putting intense pressure on the regulator to dial down media releases;
the widespread sale of junk add-on insurance,
unconscionable treatment of small business borrowers, and
concerns about the responsible lending practices with respect to interest only loans; and
the 200 million dollar fees for no service scandal.
So while we will support this bill, we will note the hollowness of the rhetoric of those opposite.
They were wrong on their cuts to ASIC. They were wrong on FOFA and the opt in requirement.
You have to ask, what will it take for this Prime Minister to admit that he is wrong on the need for a royal commissior2What will it take for him to stop running interference for the big end of town, and stand up for ordinary Australians?
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:04): I thank senators for their understanding and commend the bills to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (13:04): As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:05): I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Accelerated Depreciation For Small Business Entities) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (13:05): As with the previous bill, I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate my comments into Hansard, mindful of the desire to get to the next piece of legislation.
Leave granted.
The incorporated speech read as follows—
I rise to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Accelerated Depreciation For Small Business Entities) Bill 2017.
In the interest of time, I will keep my remarks on this legislation brief - however, for a broader canvassing of Labor's view on issues confronting small business and our initiatives in this space, I would refer Senators to the contributions of my Labor
colleagues Andrew Leigh and Julie Owens to the debate on this Bill in the House of Representatives.
On the substance of the Bill, Labor will be supporting the Government's extension to the period in which small business entities can temporarily access expanded accelerated depreciation rules by an additional 12 months to 30 June 2018.
Indeed, it is worth noting that it was Labor that first identified the policy merit in increasing the immediate deductible threshold for small businesses. It was the former Labor Government in 2012 reformed the rules to enshrine an increase to the deductibility threshold to $6,500.
We did so because after careful consideration we believe this was a fiscally responsible level that could be sustained over the longer term, while also encouraging stimulatory investment by small firms.
Following the 2013 election, and in one of the more short-sighted decisions from its horror 2014-15 Budget, the Abbott Government chose to abruptly axe Labor's reforms and reduce the immediate deductibility threshold to just $1,000.
Of course, history records that just 12 months later the Abbott Government radically reversed its position - reinstating and extending the measure at $20,000 for two years, while steadfastly neglecting to acknowledge Labor's advocacy on behalf of small business.
And while Labor is offering its support to extend the time in which small businesses can access the immediate deductibility threshold at $20,000, it is imperative that we highlight some concerns we have with the Government's handling of this measure.
Principally, that the Government's endless chopping and changing of this measure over its time in government has created significant uncertainty in the small business sector.
By continuously shifting the threshold values and legislating sudden termination dates, the Government has unwisely created investment cliffs while also making it virtually impossible for small business to plan for the long and even medium term.
We also note that this measure is estimated by Treasury to see the Commonwealth forgo $950 million in revenue over the course of the next financial year.
This is clearly not an insubstantial cost to the Budget, and expenditure of this nature ought to be justified.
This measure in its current iteration, with its $20,000 threshold, will have been operating for two full years on 1 July 2017. This is an appropriate time to now run a critical eye over its effectiveness and value for taxpayer money.
Labor will do so, seeking to validate that the economic benefits of the current threshold limit claimed by Government are actually delivering for small business and for the taxpayer.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:05): Again I thank senators for their understanding and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (13:06): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:06): I rise today to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017. This bill is the result of a campaign by the mother of Carly Ryan, Sonya Ryan, whose daughter was brutally raped and murdered by an online predator. There have been multiple versions of this bill, which will enable the police to intervene earlier in circumstances where an adult has misrepresented their age to a minor. The bill before us today has the intent of ensuring that our laws are adequate to keep children safe online. This bill goes further than previous versions of the bill. It addresses any conduct that is undertaken using a carriage service with the intention to prepare or plan to cause harm to, engage in sexual activity with or procure for sexual activity a person under the age of 16. This bill also goes further than the existing procurement and grooming offences in the Criminal Code because it captures a broader range of preparatory conduct. It captures preparing or planning to cause harm where there is no sexual intent. It does not require communication with a specific recipient, which will enable the offence to capture individuals broadcasting information to a large audience.
The evolving nature of the internet means that we must continuously update our laws to keep pace with the rate of change. There are new ways that people are using technology to cause harm, particularly to children, and it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to keep children safe. Carly Ryan was the first Australian girl to be murdered by an online predator, in 2007. She thought she was chatting to a boy her age when it was actually a 50-year-old, Garry Newman, an online sexual predator who had a complex web of online identities used to groom underage girls. Since then, the online presence of predators has increased, as has their ability to do harm to children online. Since the tragic death of Carly Ryan, her mother, who is in the chamber today, has fought to change the law to ensure that no other Australian children meet the same fate. Sonya Ryan should be commended for her efforts, and the bill before us today is a tribute to her advocacy. Although it has a long name—the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017—it is known as 'Carly's law' because it has been brought to the parliament in her memory.
Making new laws that aim to regulate the internet or how it is used is inherently difficult. Nevertheless, it is important that our laws evolve to reflect new online threats, and this is what Carly's law is driven by. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, of which Senator Pratt is the deputy chair, has recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. This is after a number of hearings in which the committee heard from multiple submitters about the operation of this bill, including the Law Council of Australia, the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Federal Police and Sonya Ryan of the Carly Ryan Foundation.
Labor have always been clear that we support the intent of this bill, and I am pleased that the bill is now finally in a form that can be passed by this parliament. We will always ensure that our laws work to keep children safe, and that our police and prosecutors have the powers and the resources they need to prevent harm occurring in the first place.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (13:10): As chairman of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that inquired into the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill—not just into this iteration, but also into previous iterations of the bill—can I say the committee fully supports the legislation, as is demonstrated in the unanimous committee report to the parliament on the legislation.
I just want to take this opportunity to thank all of the submitters, including Sonya Ryan, who gave very compelling evidence. I also thank other submitters. I want to particularly thank the Law Council of Australia, who made a very serious and considered submission to the committee, some of which the committee was inclined to accept; however, in the end we thought that the bill as it stood had covered most of the issues that had been raised. I should also mention that this is an issue that Senator Xenophon has been working on, including in the last parliament, and, with a lot of negotiation and consultation with the Attorney-General, has reached agreement on this bill, which I think satisfies the concerns that all of us have. It is an appropriate bill for adoption by the parliament. I commend it.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (13:12): I also rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017. As I outlined in my contribution to a previous iteration of this bill, brought to the Senate by Senator Kakoschke-Moore late last year, the Australian Greens are very sympathetic to the intent of this legislation. This legislation is obviously slightly different to the legislation that was previously debated, and it is essential to acknowledge the work of Senator Xenophon—in the previous parliament, and in the current parliament—and his colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore and the work that they have done, including offering a briefing to the Australian Greens in our party room, which is very much appreciated by all of my colleagues.
I also want to acknowledge that this year is the 10th anniversary of Carly's death. Once again, I share in this forum the condolences of the Australian Greens to everyone who knew Carly and obviously to her close family members. We offer our genuine sympathies for the tragedy that has brought about a number of things, including this legislation.
In broad terms, the Greens are very supportive of legislative measures that address protecting children online. I do want to go to a couple of points raised in the recent inquiry into this bill by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, a committee on which I sit. Firstly, I note the submission of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, which said:
Preparatory acts for crimes against children are already criminalised … It is thus unclear what the proposed provisions would add in terms of protecting children from harm. The need for this amendment has not been elucidated in the Explanatory Memorandum or second reading speech.
I will end that quote there.
The Law Council of Australia also made a submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to the effect that the conduct which this bill seeks to address may already be captured by offences under section 474.26 of the Criminal Code, which are the provisions relating to using a carriage service to procure persons under 16 years of age, and section 474.27 of the Criminal Code, which relate to using a carriage service to groom persons under 16 years of age. The Law Council submitted further comments, and I will quote now from their submission:
… the Criminal Code need not proceed into this new territory. To do so would risk penalising a person for broad intentions which they may never have acted upon, or worse, risks exposing entirely innocent activity to ruinous prosecution.
I do want to place on the record today that the Australian Greens share those concerns raised by the Law Council of Australia and also by the Australian Lawyers Alliance through the inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. In broad terms, those concerns include concerns that the breadth of the offence contained in this legislation is wide, imposes liability very early in a process that may ultimately lead to criminal acts and also criminalises activities that at least potentially have no potential to cause harm. I also want to place on the record our concerns that communication with a young person is not required under the offence which this act would create. The person under 16 referred to in this bill does not need to be a specific individual, and the offence may in fact be able to be proved where a child is not even communicated with or even identified.
As I said, whilst we are incredibly sympathetic to the circumstances which have brought about the legislation that we are debating today and are very sympathetic to the intent of this legislation, the concerns that we have about this bill—concerns that have been raised with the Senate by the Law Council of Australia and by the Australian Lawyers Alliance, through the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry—remain of deep concern to the Australian Greens.
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (13:18): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017, and I commend the government for working with the Nick Xenophon Team to bring this bill before the parliament. I also thank my Senate colleagues from the ALP, the Greens and the crossbench that this bill is being able to be dealt with today as part of non-controversial government business.
This bill proposes to introduce a new criminal offence relating to the use a carriage service to prepare or plan to cause harm to, engage in sexual activity with, or procure for sexual activity, children under the age of 16. Crucially, the act of preparing or planning includes an adult lying about their age over the internet to a child under the age of 16 as part of that plan to harm that child. I cannot envisage a legitimate purpose for somebody over the age of 18 to ever lie about their age online to a child. Having a law that reflects the unacceptability of that behaviour is an important thing to have on our statute books. The significance of this proposed legislation cannot be overstated. The new law will make it easier for police to intervene sooner and for online predators to be prosecuted. This fills the gap in the current Criminal Code and allows police to intervene earlier when a predator is planning or preparing to cause harm to a child, including when they are lying about their age.
But let us not forget why this bill is so necessary: we are here today debating this bill because of Carly Ryan who lost her life 10 years ago to an insidious online predator. Since then, her mother Sonya has advocated tirelessly for this bill to come to fruition and has pioneered education and awareness of online safety for children, to protect children and prevent what happened to Carly happening to any other child.
Sonya is here in the Senate chamber today to witness the passage of this bill. I pay the highest respect to you, Sonya, for your advocacy, working alongside the Nick Xenophon Team, to achieve this outcome today and for your advocacy in protecting children.
Sonya has been an outstanding voice, representing children who are unable to speak for themselves. Her aim is to give every child the opportunity to have a positive experience online, and to have good connections and relationships and stay safe from those intending to cause them harm.
Sonya has worked with police in all states and specialised task forces to protect children from predators, especially in the online space. Sonya has said repeatedly that law enforcement officers have told her that they could be using the proposed legislation right now to prevent harm against children by predators, and this bill will mean they finally can.
Finally, I say this to you Sonya: thank you. Thank you for turning your unspeakable pain and loss into such a powerful and life-changing campaign. You are an inspiration in the true sense of the word. Thank you.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:21): I echo and share the remarks of my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore who has worked so hard on this with me. Since Carly's murder on 20 February 2007 by an online predator, the very first murder of this type in this country, Sonya Ryan could have been consumed by grief and then hatred. However, she has turned a most terrible event into a testament of love to her daughter.
Sonya has campaigned relentlessly to keep children safe. She has spoken to tens of thousands of schoolchildren around the country—school after school after school—to warn them of the dangers of online predators. I have seen the videos of Sonya speaking to schools, and you could hear a pin drop such is her story. It is so compelling, and such is her moral authority that it cannot be ignored.
This bill has come about because, essentially, this parliament got together, even those who disagreed with this bill—the Australian Greens. We have all done it with a good heart and in good faith. The fact that the Australian Greens have said, 'We don't want to hold up this bill. Let it go through as non-controversial business,' I think speaks to their goodwill and their good heart on this.
The government and the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, whom I pestered on many occasions about this, have been gracious, and the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, similarly has been gracious in the way he has dealt with this. This is the parliament working at its best. This is what happens when we get together on a common cause for what I believe is, overwhelmingly, to the community benefit. This will make it more difficult for predators to do their evil. This will make it easier for the police to intervene. There is no excuse in my view for an adult to lie about their age to a child online and then attempt to meet that child. That does not pass any reasonable standard, any test, in the community.
I say this: it has been a long time coming. This is testament to the love of Sonya Ryan for her daughter, and this act of love, this relentless campaign, this passion of Sonya's, will undoubtedly lead to many lives being saved in the future and many children being protected from harm. So I thank everyone in this chamber from all parties for their goodwill and their good heart for what we have achieved today.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:24): I would like to begin by acknowledging Sonya Ryan in the chamber for all the work she has done in the shadow of such a tragedy that has been outlined by my colleagues in this chamber today. This is every parent's nightmare scenario. Those of us who have become parents recently probably think about these things more than we did a decade ago. It also reflects the changing world we live in—a world where our children have access to or can be accessed by services and can access things that simply were not available when people even my age, in their early 40s, were children. Home is not always the place where most children—never all, of course—could be protected, because it can be a place where bullying, isolation and even these tragic sorts of events happen. On behalf of the government I acknowledge the work you have done, Sonya, as I said, in the shadow of an unimaginable, horrific tragedy. I would also like to thank my Senate colleagues and members in the other place for their contributions to the debate on this bill.
This bill introduces a tough new offence for adults who use a carriage service to prepare or plan to cause harm to a child, engage in sexual activity with a child or procure a child to engage in sexual activity. Importantly, the new offence will cover adults who misrepresent their age online as part of a plan to harm a child. As Senator Xenophon has said, there is really no excuse for that; it is impossible to imagine one. This offence will complement existing online child sex offences for preparatory conduct, including grooming or procuring a child. The bill takes this protection one step further, ensuring that those who use a carriage service to plan or prepare to harm children are also captured by the criminal justice system. Evolving technology and the anonymity of the internet provide unprecedented opportunities for online predators to harm and exploit children. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years of imprisonment. This will hopefully serve as a significant deterrent to predators who would seek to harm children. This offence will allow law enforcement to take action against online predators sooner and with greater consequence, thereby improving our capacity as a society and as a government to protect our children.
This bill continues the government's proactive approach to legislative amendment in light of rapid technological change. Following its introduction on 30 March this year, the bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The committee handed down its report earlier this month, on 13 June, with one recommendation: that the bill be passed by the Senate. On behalf of the government and, I am sure, on behalf of all senators, I would like to extend our thanks to the committee for its concise and fast work. I would like to thank all those who have made contributions to the inquiry and to this debate in the parliament, and, of course, most of all, Sonya Ryan for her tireless work in seeing the passage of this important step in better protecting our children.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ) (13:27): Minister, I call you for the third reading as there is no committee stage.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:27): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (13:28): I rise to support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017. This bill contains three schedules which seek to undertake the legislative reform which underpins three elements of the 2017-18 Department of Veterans' Affairs budget.
The first schedule amends the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 to provide Australian participants in the British nuclear tests, British Commonwealth Occupation Force, pastoralists, civilians and Indigenous people with full health coverage for all conditions. Currently, the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 only provides Australian BNT participants with testing and treatment for malignant cancers. Under these changes, a broader class of civilians and BCOF veterans will be eligible to receive treatment for all conditions. This coverage will enable these individuals to access DVA funding for all clinically necessary healthcare needs and all health conditions.
These changes are the result of a long and hard-fought campaign for recognition by the BNT and BCOF participants. Both military and civilian personnel participated in the tests, with a nominal role established listing a total of 16,716 persons, comprising 8,126 service personnel and 8,590 civilians. The impact of the detonations spread far and wide, affecting pastoralists, civilians and Indigenous people. These amendments will ensure that anyone who was present in the areas during the relevant period will be covered. In addition to BNT participants and civilians, BCOF veterans will also be able to access full health coverage.
The impact for those who served as part of our BCOF was significant, with some having been allocated to the severely devastated prefecture of Hiroshima. In 2010, the then Labor government sought to provide additional assistance to BNT participants who were also members of the Australian Defence Force by reclassifying their service as non-warlike or hazardous peacekeeping. This change enabled BNT ADF members to access some assistance under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, including access to the disability pension. The amendments in schedule 1 build on these changes and Labor welcomes the expansion to full health coverage for BNT participants, BCOF veterans and civilians, which will enable them to receive the treatment they need and acknowledges the ongoing impact this exposure has had on the individuals who were present at the test sites.
The second schedule seeks to amend the current outdated work history restrictions for the special and intermediate rates of disability pensions provided in the VEA to better reflect modern working arrangements. Under these changes the work history will only require a period of 10 years continuous work in any field or vocation prior to applying. This amendment acknowledges that the nature of work has changed. It is now far less common for a person to remain employed by a single employer for 10 years or remain in the same vocational field in the case of the self-employed. Labor is supportive of this change, which reflects the reality of the modern work environment.
The final schedule seeks to insert instrument-making powers into the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, enabling the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a class of persons eligible to participate in an early access to rehabilitation pilot program. Under current arrangements, the SRCA and MRCA clients are required to wait for their claim to be finalised before they are able to access rehabilitation services. This can take around four months to be completed and, if the cases are complex, even longer. Early intervention in relation to rehabilitation has proven benefits and Labor is supportive of conducting a trial to investigate the best way to provide services to veterans as soon as possible. Under these amendments, a six-month pilot program will be established by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This will involve 100 people whose claims are viewed as likely to be approved. The program will be entirely voluntary with the option of opting out and, if liability is later rejected, individuals will be transitioned to community providers and costs not recovered. While the trial is initially limited to 100 veterans, we are hopeful that this is just the beginning and that it will identify good results for participants, enabling it to be extended to more veterans. This bill seeks to deliver the legislative changes required to provide the full health coverage to BNT participants, BCOF veterans and civilians. It also removes outdated work requirements for the special and intermediate rate pension and, finally, will enable the department to undertake a trial which aims to improve outcomes for veterans who require rehabilitation. We support these measures and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:33): I join in strongly supporting the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017. This is something I negotiated in good faith with the government as a constructive measure that needed to be implemented. Successive governments have done a great wrong to those Australians exposed to nuclear tests, and this bill will help to rectify that to some degree for those surviving nuclear test veterans. Fewer than 2,000 are still alive today. We are fast running out of time to exercise our duty of care to these brave Australians and this goes some considerable way to at least acknowledging the wrong that was done. What has frustrated the nuclear veterans that I have spoken to is that they have, for such a long time, felt that governments have not properly or adequately recognised their adverse health outcomes and provided them with adequate assistance. This gold card goes some considerable way to acknowledging that. The fact is there are veterans who were clad in just T-shirts and shorts when exposed to nuclear blasts, while the scientists wore protective clothing. The contrast could not have been greater.
I commend the government and I thank the government for the constructive way in which we worked together on this issue. This goes some way to rectifying a terrible wrong and I commend this government for making a breakthrough in relation to this piece of legislation. It is a fair piece of legislation. We are, at last, doing the right thing by our nuclear test veterans.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:34): I want to acknowledge that you announced your retirement this week, Mr Acting Deputy President Back. It has been a pleasure to work with you. You will be missed.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ): Thank you, Senator Ludlam.
Senator LUDLAM: I told Senator Williams on the way in that I would come in here this afternoon and say something nice about the government, and I was not bluffing. It is rare but I am in here to acknowledge that the government is, with this bill, doing what it could do to right a very longstanding historical injustice. I also want to acknowledge Senator Xenophon's longstanding interest and the work that he has put in to bring this about. It is something that I have had carriage of since I arrived in here nearly nine years ago. It is an extraordinary day that we here today acknowledge those ADF service personnel who were neglected by governments of both stripes for far too long. I want to acknowledge Minister Dan Tehan, who has done what he could do in this budget to do something about this historic injustice. I think it is a measure of the fact that previous governments have neglected these personnel and those Aboriginal people who were dispossessed without warning from their country down range of Maralinga, Emu Field and the Montebello Islands. It is 2017. It is such a long time after the atomic bombings of our country that we are finally standing here today passing a measure that will at least provide reparation for those survivors of this long-ago historic injustice.
The bill does a little more than that, so I will just come to some of the other measures, which are also welcomed. The decision to expand free and immediate mental health care support to current and former ADF members is one that is, again, long overdue. I acknowledge that the minister has a long way to go within this portfolio, but this is an important start. This chamber, through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, has recently been hearing devastating testimony from hundreds of former and serving ADF members with mental health conditions through the veterans suicide inquiry. It is a shame Senator Lambie is not here because she has done a lot of work on highlighting the issue of current and former service personnel who were damaged in the line of serving their country.
Senator Siewert, who has had carriage of this for us and who is our mental health spokesperson, has been travelling around the country with this committee. I was pleased to be able to participate in the hearing that happened in Perth. We heard extraordinary testimony from people for whom the trauma that they might have experienced in their line of service was really only the beginning. The trauma did not really come home to them until they crashed into the bureaucracy that was set up at taxpayers' expense to help these individuals resolve the issues that occurred to them and harmed them in the line of service, and they then found themselves enmeshed in this web of bureaucracy and spat out the other end, sometimes—many times—worse than when they had come in.
The fact that the government has moved on the liability healthcare program to expand it so that it is available now for any mental health condition is extremely welcome. Removing the onus of proof from ADF members and veterans means less stress, less contact with bureaucracy and no waiting times. All those things are critical in paving the way for better mental health outcomes for the people who we send into harm's way.
We also welcome the measure in the bill to provide nearly $10 million to pilot new approaches to suicide prevention. I would also acknowledge that this has to be just the beginning. There is a long way to go. Anybody who has participated in the veteran suicide inquiry would be well aware of that. But it is a beginning. We are pleased to see investments to upgrade DVA's services and systems—that was a bill that we dealt with in the session before the last—working with paper chains dating back to the 1950s and '60s. We hope that that is going to lead to much shorter waiting times for things like reimbursements. It will allow DVA staff to concentrate on human contact rather than try to manage an obsolete system.
Now, I would like to move in a little more detail to the matter very close to my heart and which is contained in schedule 1 of the bill. It provides full medical treatment and support for Australian participants in the British nuclear tests and Australian veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force—a cohort of individuals of whom we have actually heard substantially less. Also, and which was actually quite unexpected for me, it acknowledges and compensates those Aboriginal people who were downwind of the nuclear tests.
It means that the veterans who were forced as a condition of their service to participate in and witness the nuclear bombings off Montebello Islands and at Emu Plains and Maralinga by our ally the British government will get automatic, as a right, access to the gold card. It means also that Aboriginal people in the deserts around Maralinga and elsewhere who were exposed will have free access to medical treatment for all conditions and it means that those Australians involved in the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan after the war will also be eligible for the gold card.
I am trying to imagine the mindset of people who signed up to serve their country in the early years of the Cold War, after the shattering experience of World War II, only to be told that what their country needed of them was to be used as human guinea pigs in nuclear weapons tests by our imperial ally. These people, whether in uniform or not, were exposed to neutron radiation, fission products, fallout and other contamination and have suffered a lifetime of health conditions. Cancer is obviously the most commonly understood condition that can arise years or even decades after exposure to ionising radiation, but there are medical conditions attendant on this kind of assault on your immune system and body that do not even have a name. Cancer may be the most common, but there are many others. They have been cursed with long-term intergenerational health and genetic effects, cancer, blood diseases, eye problems, skin problems and blindness. I would argue that this is one of the darkest chapters of Australia's postwar history.
There were many of these tests. Maybe they have faded in the memory of this parliament and the Australian community. The first test, code named Hurricane, occurred in 1952 on the Montebello Islands in the north-west of my home state of Western Australia. Significant tests also occurred at Emu Plains in 1953 and began at Maralinga in 1955. Trials continued in annual campaigns until May 1963. The British government had a lot of nuclear technology that they wanted to test.
I have been working with campaigners on this issue now for nearly a decade. In that time I have heard so many stories about the injustices that they have suffered. I would like to reflect, if I may, just on a couple of those, as I have done previously. Mr Ray Whitby, a fellow Western Australian, is a nuclear veteran in the 1958 tests at Montebello. He said:
More than half a century ago, I was a young man eager to serve his country. As a result I have suffered a lifetime of medical issues that have impacted my enjoyment of life. All I now ask for is fair and just compensation.
Mr Geoffrey Gates, one of the 290 veterans who took their case to the Australian Human Rights Commission, said:
To not be recognised by the government as having participated in non-warlike hazardous activities is an insult to me, to my family and to all other veterans and civilians whose lives changed forever because we simply weren't told the truth.
Around Maralinga and the other test sites the detonations led to widespread dispersion of radioactive material into the local environment. The Anangu Aboriginal people, who lived in the area, called it puyu or black mist. Downwind of Hiroshima and Nagasaki they called it black rain. This is dust, ground and earth stirred up with fallout, with fission products, from the atomic detonations. It is poisonous.
The utter tragedy obviously is that successive governments of both stripes turned a blind eye on a lifetime of health conditions because these people were bombed by an ally, not an enemy. If they had been bombed by Imperial Japan or by Nazi Germany, they would have automatically as a right have been entitled to this form of health care, but they were bombed by an ally at the invitation of the Australian government. What a dark chapter in our history.
The findings of the 1984 and 1985 Royal Commission into the British Nuclear Tests in Australia support the claim that the Menzies government knew that Australians would be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Let that sink in for a bit. They did not invite these people out there to witness the tests for any kind of combat readiness; they invited them there to study the impact of ionising radiation, of being that close to atomic detonations, on Australian service personnel, and they did not tell them why they were being sent there. They deliberately put Australians into harm's way and they showed absolutely zero regard for the Aboriginal people living in the area.
Until now successive governments have been content to avoid eye contact with the dwindling number of people. Obviously there are fewer of these individuals with us than there were when I started to take an interest in this issue. I want to sincerely thank and congratulate Minister Tehan and his staff for addressing the issue at long last and providing the roughly 2,800 people still alive with free health care. DVA have also indicated that they will be flexible in their approach to free healthcare provisions, particularly for Aboriginal people, who are not going to have the kind of documentary backup that some of the ADF personnel will be able to have to prove their exact whereabouts during the time of the tests. One issue that I have raised—and I do not how to resolve it, quite frankly—is that the bill does not provide for the well-known effects of radiation on successive generations. This is not some hippie theory; this has been well established. Exposure to ionising radiation damages your generic inheritance and can have absolutely catastrophic impacts if you are in utero at the time or you are a child born of personnel or people exposed to even quite low levels of ionising radiation. The bill does not provide for that automatic entitlement to health care for successive generations. If there is unfinished business from this matter today, I suspect it is going to be that, whether we like it or not, the impacts of these tests will live on in the children and the grandchildren of those who were exposed. They are the kind of risks that you take.
Given that the Turnbull government, in this welcome measure, now recognises the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons on human beings, why would we be sitting out international negotiations that are the best opportunity in our lifetime—certainly since I have been engaged in these issues—to ban these horrific weapons once and for all? With what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the hibakusha have a saying: never again. The people who were exposed to those tests—never again. They have become some of the most outspoken campaigners for the abolition of nuclear weapons. With respect, I would have thought that today marked an appropriate moment to suggest to the government—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—that you reconsider your decision to boycott those negotiations where more than 130 governments of goodwill have met with civil society organisations, including the Red Cross, ICAN and other civil society groups operating around the world to work in good faith to ban these weapons so that nobody ever again has to go through the experiences of the personnel that we are acknowledging today.
Australia's own experience with the British atomic tests shows the wide-reaching consequences of nuclear weapons even when they are used in peace time in carefully controlled, relatively remote areas of low population density. Try and imagine, if you will, waking up to work out why everybody is glued to the television to find that some city with a familiar name has been reduced to ash overnight and more than 100,000 people are dead. These are the kinds of weapons that we are dicing with. There is a historical legacy here that I think is a call that I want to refresh and renew today for a world free of these weapons.
In proposing the bill, the government has recognised the dangers of these weapons and the intergenerational costs that are borne by people who were not asked whether they wanted to be exposed to this kind of radiation. Now I urge it to take the next step and work towards outlawing these weapons for good. I want to acknowledge, in particular, those veterans, the Aboriginal people and their families who have suffered so much and yet made the effort to get out and advocate and make their case.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:47): I would like to thank senators for their contribution and acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for the veteran community demonstrated by the opposition and the crossbench's active engagement in this bill. As outlined, this bill gives effect to three of the veterans' affairs 2017 budget measures, which will all benefit the Defence and ex-service community. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ) (13:48): As no amendments to the bill has been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:49): 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 RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:49): I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I am pleased to introduce the Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017.
The Comcare scheme is established by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the 'SRC Act').It provides workers' compensation coverage for Australian and ACT government employees, and the employees of 34 licensed corporations. The SRC Act also covers members of the Australian Defence Force whose injuries are attributable to certain defence service before 1 July 2004.
The Seacare scheme is established by the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (the 'seafarers act') and provides workers' compensation coverage for a small, defined segment of the Australian maritime industry.
The bill will make minor but important amendments to the SRC Act and the seafarers act. The changes will align these two acts with the age pension qualifying age in the Social Security Act and the minimum benchmarks in the National Injury Insurance Scheme (the 'NIIS') for supporting catastrophically injured employees.
The changes contained in this bill are also contained in the Seafarers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, but are now being progressed separately due to their time critical nature.
Currently, income replacement payments under the SRC and seafarers acts generally cease at 65 years of age. This means the cut-off age will no longer align with the qualifying age for the age pension, when it increases incrementally, from 1 July 2017.
The increase in the age pension to age 67, legislated by the previous government in 2008, recognises that Australians are now living longer and seeks to improve the long-term sustainability of the pension system.
The changes to pension age begin in July, when eligibility increases to 65½. Eligibility then increases by six months every two years, until it reaches 67 in 2023.
This bill will ensure that injured employees covered by the Comcare and Seacare schemes will not be disadvantaged when moving from incapacity payments to the age pension by aligning eligibility for income replacement to the increasing age pension age.
In other words, it ensures that those on income replacement payments will continue to get those payments until they reach the age when they can qualify for the age pension.
Further to this, the bill will amend the SRC and seafarers acts to align with the minimum benchmarks recommended for the NIIS.
The NIIS is a federated model of separate no-fault schemes that provide lifetime care and support for persons who sustain catastrophic injuries in certain situations, including workplace accidents. This bill will also ensure that employees who are catastrophically injured are able to receive the level of benefits under the Comcare and Seacare schemes recommended by the NIIS.
The Comcare and Seacare schemes provide, and will continue to provide, generous income replacement payments until age pension age as well as rehabilitation support and reasonable lifetime medical payments.
This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to ensuring that injured employees covered by the Comcare and Seacare schemes will not be left without financial support prior to the employee reaching his or her age pension age, and that those employees who are catastrophically injured are able to maintain their independence and receive the care they need.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (13:49): I rise to speak briefly on the Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017. Labor will support this bill. This bill amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to ensure injured employees in receipt of weekly compensation payments for incapacity can continue to receive those payments until they reach pension age, as defined in the Social Security Act. The qualifying age for the age pension under the Social Security Act 1991 will begin to increase on 1 July this year. By linking compensation for incapacity with the pension age, rather than age 65, these amendments will result in no gap between the cessation of compensation for incapacity and eligibility for receipt of the age pension.
This bill also amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the seafarers act to align these acts with minimum benchmarks for catastrophic workplace injuries in the National Injury Insurance Scheme. The bill removes the cap on weekly compensation payable for household services and attendant care services for employees with catastrophic injury. An employee with a catastrophic injury will also be eligible to receive compensation for household services from the day of the injury without the current 28-day waiting period.
While we support the bill and the measures it takes to align the payments to the pension age, it is worth noting the Turnbull government's policy to increase the pension age to 70, and Labor certainly does not support that. We do support the bill, because we are removing the gap that exists currently. However, we do accept that there are people who want to work beyond the current pension age, and there is no problem with that, but we do not accept the idea that you cannot get a pension until you reach the age of 70.
I would also just like to remind the Senate that the Turnbull government is still pursuing two other bills to amend the Comcare scheme, and these are related. They are incidental to the bill before us. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015, with its Orwellian title, will exclude workers from the Comcare scheme and significantly reduce the compensation available for those who remain eligible. This bill attempts to reduce the liabilities of the Comcare scheme at the expense of injured people at work. There is also the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, which, if enacted, will directly and indirectly risk the workplace health and safety of Australian workers. It will also remove the rights of Australian workers to fair and reasonable cover when they suffer the misfortune of a work-related illness or injury. To sum up, we do support this bill. This is fixing something that needs to be fixed, and, for that reason, we will support it.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:52): I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ) (13:52): As there are no amendments to the bill yet circulated, I call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires the bill to be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:52): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:53): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:53): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This bill provides certainty that low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low‑income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners.
Australians place great faith in a government's range of essential services.
Our essential services give Australians the security and confidence they need to seize opportunities when they arise.
In this year's budget the government is protecting the essential services that Australians rely on, especially our most vulnerable Australians.
We are guaranteeing Medicare so that all Australians can be assured Medicare is not only here to stay, but will be strengthened into the future.
By law, we will establish a Medicare Guarantee Fund from 1 July this year to pay for all expenses on the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Proceeds from the Medicare levy will be paid into the fund.
An additional contribution from income tax revenue will also be paid into the Fund to make up the difference. This will provide transparency about the costs of Medicare and a clear guarantee on how we pay for it.
We are also closing the funding gap for our National Disability Insurance Scheme once and for all.
The government will fully fund the NDIS by increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point from 1 July 2019.
Every single cent of the additional money raised from the increase in the Medicare levy will go to fully funding the NDIS.
The increase in the levy doesn't occur until the extra NDIS bills start coming in, in 2019-2020.
We are facing a $55.7 billion gap in the funding of the NDIS over the medium term and that hole needs to be filled.
We all have a responsibility to pay our bit for this. If you're on a higher income, you'll pay more under our plan. If you're on a lower income, you'll pay less.
Someone earning $80,000 currently pays $1,699 a year in Medicare levy. From 1 July 2019, their contribution will increase by $400 a year—around a dollar a day—to ensure the Commonwealth's share of the NDIS is fully funded.
Those on higher income will pay more. Someone on $250,000 a year already pays $4,800 in Medicare levy, and they will contribute an extra $1,200 a year to secure funding of the NDIS.
And—appropriately—those on lower incomes will pay less. A single mother on $37,000 a year pays no Medicare levy. And a pensioner on $34,000 pays no Medicare levy. This is fair. And the government is ensuring that this fairness remains central to the Medicare levy.
But all of us will share in the responsibility of helping our mates who are living with a disability and giving an assurance to them that this vital service will be there for them into the future.
I implore those opposite to come to the middle here, join with the government and together give a commitment to everyone who is counting on this scheme that it will be 100 per cent fully funded.
Let me turn to the detail of this bill.
This bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge – Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families and seniors and pensioners, in line with increases in the consumer price index.
These changes will ensure that low-income households who did not pay the Medicare levy in the 2015-16 income year will generally continue to be exempt in the 2016-17 income year if their incomes have risen in line with, or by less than, the consumer price index.
In addition to providing a concession to low-income households, the Medicare levy low-income thresholds ensure that people who pay no personal income tax due to their eligibility for structural offsets—such as the low-income tax offset or the seniors and pensioners tax offset—do not incur the Medicare levy.
Increasing the low income thresholds in line with the consumer price index ensures that the thresholds 'keep pace' with growth in consumer prices.
The Medicare levy phases in at 10 cents for each dollar in excess of the relevant low-income thresholds, until it is paid in full.
The changes to the thresholds mean that no Medicare levy will be payable for individual taxpayers with income under $21,655 in 2016-17 (increased from $21,335).
For single individuals with no dependents, the full Medicare levy rate would apply if their income is above $27,068 (increased from $26,668).
Couples and families will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $36,541 (increased from $36,001).
Couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $47,670 (increased from $46,966).
The thresholds for couples and families go up by $3,356 for each dependent child (increased from $3,306).
For example, if a couple has three children and is not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset, they would not need to pay any Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $46,609.
Around an estimated 1 million individuals will benefit from this bill from the increase in the low income thresholds, including individuals who receive a concession as part of a family.
The increase in the low income thresholds means that some low income individuals will be relieved from paying the Medicare levy. Other low income individuals will also now pay less Medicare levy than they would if the thresholds were not increased.
In 2016-17, around 10 million individuals are estimated to pay some Medicare levy after accounting for the increase in the thresholds. This means that just over one in every two adults are contributing to Medicare and the NDIS through the Medicare levy.
The increase in Medicare levy low income thresholds will apply to the 2016-17 income year.
This measure is estimated to have a cost to revenue of $180 million over the forward estimates.
Existing exemptions from the Medicare levy also remain in place, including for blind pensioners and sickness allowance recipients.
Full details of the measure in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (13:53): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017. We support the indexation of the income thresholds below which Australians do not pay the Medicare levy or the Medicare levy surcharge. This bill will increase the Medicare levy low-income threshold for singles, families, seniors and pensioners in line with increases in the consumer price index. We will support the bill. However, we do want to note that this bill does not end the government's attack on Medicare. In this budget the government has continued its Medicare freeze for another three years, despite many Australians being concerned about the impact on bulk-billing rates and paying more to see the doctor. Since the government imposed the freeze in the 2014 midyear economic forecast, out-of-pocket costs are now at an all-time high. Non-referred GP attendances are now $37, up $7. Specialist attendants are now $82, up $14 in just three months. We know that 600,000 Australians delay seeing a specialist because of the cost. The government needs to alleviate the pressure that these Australians face when having to decide whether they pay a bill or visit the doctor.
We were told in the delivery of the 2017 budget that Australians would be given a choice, but this does not feel like a choice.
In this budget, the government also announced its intention to increase the Medicare levy; however, Labor does not think it is fair to increase taxes on lower-income earners while also allowing those who earn more than $180,000 per year to pay less tax next year than they did this year. Labor has said it will support the government's 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy, but only for Australians in the top two brackets.
Under Labor's plan, 80 per cent of Australians and 10 million working Australians would be protected from a tax increase. We want those who are financially stretched because they are supporting their families, have lost their jobs or are unable to work to be taxed fairly. Labor supports the indexation of the income thresholds for the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge, and that is why we will support the bill this afternoon.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:55): I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ) (13:55): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:56): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Resident Capital Gains Withholding Payments) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:56): 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 RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:56): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill continues the Government's agenda to crack down on tax avoidance.
The Bill reforms the foreign resident capital gains tax withholding regime from 1 July 2017.
By clamping down on tax avoidance by foreign investors in real estate, the Government is ensuring home ownership is more achievable for ordinary Australians, and that they have access to secure and affordable housing.
The existing foreign resident capital gains tax withholding regime, which the current Government legislated and came into effect on 1 July 2016, was designed to assist with the collection of capital gains tax liabilities owed by foreign residents, and address low levels of compliance by foreign residents with their Australian tax obligations.
This Bill will give effect to changes to the existing regime for foreign residents who sell Australian property, as announced as part of the 2017-18 Budget.
These changes involve increasing the withholding rate from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent; as well as increasing the number of foreign residents caught by the regime, by reducing the threshold from property with a market value of $2 million or more, to property with a market value of $750,000 or more.
This will mean that from 1 July 2017, a purchaser of certain Australian property that has a market value of $750,000 (reduced from $2 million) or more must withhold 12.5 per cent (increased from 10 per cent) of the purchase price and pay it to the Tax Commissioner if they purchase the asset from a foreign resident.
These changes will improve the integrity of the existing regime by capturing more property transactions and encouraging greater compliance with Australia's tax rules
Combined with other changes announced in the 2017‑18 Budget, which will ensure only Australian tax residents can access the main residence capital gains tax exemption, and will improve the integrity of the capital gains tax rules for foreign residents, the estimated gain to revenue over the forward estimates period is $570 million.
This reflects the revenue gain expected, following a small change to one of these associated changes as a result of initial targeted consultations. These other capital gains tax changes will be introduced later as part of a separate Bill, to enable consultation to occur.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will be provided with an additional $19 million to assist with administering the regime. The ATO is undertaking an education campaign to help raise awareness of the changes, including presentations in major Australian cities, an online webinar and collaboration with stakeholders that assisted to raise awareness when the regime was first introduced, including the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the Australian Institute of Conveyancers, law societies, and various State and Territory regulators.
This Bill represents an important step for Australia in improving housing affordability and strengthening the integrity of Australia's tax system.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (13:57): Labor will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Resident Capital Gains Withholding Payments) Bill 2017. The bill gives effect to changes that are proposed by the government to the foreign resident capital gains tax regime, announced in the 2017-18 budget. The bill introduces a measure to change the foreign resident CGT withholding regime, which involves a purchaser withholding an amount of the purchase price if they purchase property from a foreign tax resident.
The government states that this measure is a part of their package to reduce pressure on housing affordability. We think it is stretching things considerably to call a measure like this a housing affordability measure. Badging tax integrity measures like this as housing affordability reform reflects the lack of any real reform from this government on housing affordability. They continue to fail to take meaningful action on negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, as home ownership falls out of reach for everyday Australians.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:57): I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:58): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 2) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:58): 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 RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:58): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Today, I introduce a Bill to amend the legislation implementing the Government's Superannuation Taxation Reform Package. These changes support the integrity of the Superannuation Taxation Reform Package and ensure that it functions as intended.
The Bill also includes refinements to changes to personal and corporate insolvency law made by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016. These refinements will reduce legal complexity, increase certainty for insolvency practitioners and remove unnecessary costs from insolvency proceedings. The amendments also assist the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Recovery Program in its work reclaiming funds paid out under the program.
Let me take you through the contents of this Bill in some detail.
Schedule 1 of the Bill makes changes to measures in the Superannuation Taxation Reform Package announced in the 2016-17 Budget that were enacted through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Superannuation Act) 2016. The changes support the integrity of the Superannuation Taxation Reform Package and ensure that the law operates as intended.
The Turnbull Government's Superannuation Taxation Reform Package delivered the most comprehensive suite of superannuation taxation reforms in a decade, improving the fairness, sustainability, flexibility and integrity of the superannuation system.
As our population ages and fiscal pressures increase, it is important that our superannuation system is used for its core purpose of providing income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension and not for tax minimisation or estate planning purposes.
The Superannuation Taxation Reform Package made sure that the superannuation system is fair and more sustainable by ensuring superannuation tax concessions are well targeted and affordable. It also introduces important flexibility measures that will provide more Australians will the opportunity to become self-sufficient in retirement.
In the process of implementing these reforms, concerns were identified about the ability of self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) members to circumvent the new cap on tax-free retirement phase assets through the use of limited recourse borrowing arrangements (known as LRBAs).
The integrity concern being addressed in Schedule 1 of this Bill will ensure that SMSF members are not able to use an LRBA to facilitate the payment of retirement phase liabilities from accumulation phase income.
This measure will ensure that LRBA repayments that have the effect of shifting value into the tax-free retirement phase will be captured by the transfer balance cap.
The measures will only apply to LRBAs that are entered into on or after 1 July 2017. They do not apply to LRBAs that were in place before 1 July 2017, refinancing of the outstanding balance of these LRBAs or contracts entered into before 1 July 2017.
This integrity measure supports the Government's Superannuation Taxation Reform Package by ensuring that tax concessions are better targeted and sustainable. These measures are not about banning borrowing by SMSFs, but about ensuring that borrowing is used appropriately.
Schedule 1 also introduces a number of minor and technical amendments that will ensure that the Superannuation Taxation Reform Package operates as intended.
Amendments in the Schedule ensure that pooled superannuation trusts, which are wholesale investment vehicles for a complying superannuation fund, can access the capital gains tax relief provided to other superannuation funds. This relief supports superannuation providers in rebalancing their asset pools as individuals adjust their affairs to comply with the transfer balance cap or the transition to retirement income changes (or both). This ensures that member outcomes are protected.
Importantly, the Schedule also introduces changes to the treatment of structured settlements and personal injury orders under the transfer balance cap to ensure people who receive compensation orders of this nature as a result of suffering a serious or catastrophic injury are exempted from the transfer balance cap as intended. This will ensure those who need access to large amounts of funds to meet their daily healthcare and living needs, will not face a faster depletion of their lump sum. Following these amendments, an individual with an existing structured settlement or personal injury order will now receive a debit equal to the value of their income streams on 30 June 2017. This ensures that these vulnerable individuals never breach their cap, and that earnings on a structured settlement or personal injury order are not counted against an individual's transfer balance cap, regardless of when the contribution is made.
The Schedule also clarifies that earnings on income streams for individuals who have satisfied a nil condition of release, generally by retiring or reaching age 65, are to remain tax free. Consequently, where the superannuation provider is satisfied that a member has reached a nil condition of release, transition to retirement income streams will now be eligible for an earnings tax exemption. A superannuation provider will generally be satisfied when the member notifies them that they have satisfied a nil condition of release, or when the provider knows the member has reached 65. And the eligibility is prospective – it only applies when the provider is satisfied the condition of release is reached, regardless of when it was actually reached.
The Schedule also introduces a new regulation making power to support the operation of the transfer balance cap. With this regulation making power, the Government will be able to define new credits and debits that apply against a person's transfer balance cap. This will ensure that the transfer balance cap continues to operate as intended as superannuation products evolve and change. In the near term, this provision will enable regulations to be made to ensure that innovative income streams are treated appropriately under the transfer balance cap.
During the course of consultation, concerns were raised that reserves could be used to circumvent changes in the Superannuation Taxation Reform Package, the Schedule does not make changes to the current treatment of reserves. The Australian Tax Office will continue to monitor the use of reserves to ensure that they are not being used to circumvent the law.
Finally, the Schedule also contains a number of minor and technical amendments that address some minor and technical errors in the law.
Schedule 2 of this Bill refines changes made to personal and corporate insolvency law by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016. These refinements will reduce legal complexity, increasing certainty for insolvency practitioners and removing unnecessary costs from insolvency proceedings. The amendments also assist the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Recovery Program in its work reclaiming funds paid out under the program.
To increase confidence in insolvency practitioners, the Insolvency Law Reform Act introduced a prohibition against an insolvency practitioner deriving a profit from an administration, except as approved by the Corporations Act 2001 or the Bankruptcy Act 1966. As drafted, the prohibition may create unnecessarily high compliance costs. This Schedule clarifies the operation of the prohibition and removes the requirement for creditors to approve a single profit or advantage each time it is on-paid to a related entity of the practitioner including, for example, payments made to the practitioner's employees in the ordinary course of their employment. These amendments will reduce costs without weakening the prohibition's intended protective purpose.
This Schedule also repeals a provision inserted by the Insolvency Law Reform Act which prevents public access to reports made by controllers appointed by creditors to manage their assets during liquidation. The Fair Entitlements Guarantee Recovery Program relies on information contained in these reports to verify a controller's compliance with their obligation to pay employees of the company out of the assets under their control. Repealing the provision ensures that the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Recovery Program can access the information it needs to reclaim funds paid out under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee.
This Schedule contains other minor refinements that will increase legislative certainty and create clarity for both insolvency practitioners and regulators.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (13:58): Labor will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 2) Bill 2017. I am conscious of time, so the only comment I would like to make is that this is tidying up some of the consequential amendments from the legislation superannuation reforms that passed this chamber last year, reflecting the rushed process and internal dissent that came from the government as they brought their legislative program towards us. This is why we are here today, but we will be supporting it, acknowledging it is a tidy-up piece of legislation that should not have needed to be brought here.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:59): I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (13:59): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Energy
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. The chief executive of the Business Council of Australia said in relation to the Finkel review:
Australia hasn't a moment to lose now that we have a comprehensive, independent blueprint to restore the security, reliability and affordability of our electricity system.
Can the minister confirm that, despite support from business and the Prime Minister promising 'decisive action', the Prime Minister has still not been able to get his own party room to agree on any action?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): The answer to the first part of the question is, yes, I do agree with that statement. The answer to the second part of your question is that statement is wrong.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill on a supplementary question.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:01): Energy Australia's head of energy, Mark Collette, said about Australia's energy market: 'Doing nothing means higher prices and less reliable energy for all customers.' Why can the Turnbull government not put the interests of energy customers ahead of its internal climate wars?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:01): I agree with Mr Collette, and putting the interests of energy customers ahead of other interests is precisely what we are doing.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill on a final supplementary question.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:01): Yesterday coalition MP George Christensen declared in relation to the Finkel review: 'I am out. I won't support that.' Is it not clear that the Turnbull government's policy paralysis will continue given that he is rapidly losing the support of the coalition party room?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:01): No, it is not because it isn't.
Leader of the Opposition
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:02): My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. I am interested to follow up issues we were discussing in question time yesterday. Can the minister further update the Senate about recent reports concerning donations to registered organisations which appear to show a conflict of interest.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:02): I thank Senator Paterson for his question. Yesterday in question time, I raised questions about the clear conflict of interest that the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, had when the superannuation fund for which he was a director—AustralianSuper—paid tens of thousands of dollars to the union he controlled, the AWU, coincidentally in the year that Mr Shorten was running for election to the federal parliament.
Today we see further reports and further questions raised about these dealings. At the eleventh hour, and 10 years after the fact, the AWU has now expressed an intention to amend the description of this payment. However, no matter how it is described, the opposition leader has failed to explain just how he managed what are clear conflicts of interest in this situation.
I know yesterday that Mr Shorten told the House, 'No rules broken. No conflict existed.' A conflict of interest clearly exists when a person wears three hats, when he has duties to both the hardworking Australians whose retirement savings were held by AustralianSuper and to the union members at the AWU and, at the same time, money is changing hands. What Mr Shorten has failed to explain is exactly how he dealt with this conflict. Did he remove himself from the deliberations by AustralianSuper about such payments? As head of the AWU, did he disclose his interest on receiving it? Did he request the payment personally himself or did someone do it on his behalf? Mr Shorten needs to explain.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson on a supplementary question.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:04): Can the minister inform the Senate why it is important that we have greater transparency in how money flows into and out of registered organisations?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:04): AustralianSuper holds the retirement savings of hardworking Australians on trust. Its directors have a special duty to put the interests of working Australians above all other interests. Australians need to have confidence that their superannuation savings are being held for their retirement, not paid to unions for partisan purposes.
As I mentioned yesterday, over $53 million has been paid by industry superannuation funds to unions over the past 10 years. Over the same period nearly $65 million has been paid by unions to the Australian Labor Party. So payments from industry superannuation funds account for an amount equivalent to 82 per cent of the funds paid by unions to the Labor Party. We need to ensure Australians have faith in their super funds.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question?
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:05): Can the minister inform the Senate how the government is proposing to address the problem of a lack of transparency?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:05): People's life savings should not be bankrolling political movements. This government's registered organisations legislation is a significant step in ensuring that registered organisations are transparent in the same way as companies are transparent. We also have critical legislation in the parliament to prevent corrupting and secret payments between registered organisations and employers and provide full disclosure of legitimate payments that are made.
The AWU's decade-long delay in properly disclosing and now, at the eleventh hour, trying to reclassify a payment from AustralianSuper to Mr Shorten's union, and Mr Shorten's refusal to acknowledge the clear conflict of interest that arises in this context, quite frankly, only raises further questions. Mr Shorten needs to explain how he dealt with these clear conflicts.
Energy
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (14:06): My question is to Senator Brandis, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Yesterday the minister told the Senate how entranced he was by Minister Frydenberg's presentation on the energy crisis to the coalition party room. The presentation slide headed 'Gas prices are pushing up electricity prices' says, 'Every dollar/gigajoule increase in gas prices leads to an increase of around $10/megawatt-hours in the cost of gas-fired electricity generation.' Given you were so entranced by this presentation, can you explain to the Senate what this means for Australian industry?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:07): I will tell you the conclusion that I derived from Mr Frydenberg's masterly presentation. It was in fact a sentiment quoted by your colleague Senator O'Neill in the first question today: that doing nothing is not an answer. And that is why the government, informed by the study that Dr Alan Finkel has conducted, is moving in this area in order to achieve the three objectives of putting downward pressure on electricity prices, ensuring reliability of supply and ensuring that Australia meets its international commitments to reduce emissions. That is what we are going to do, and it is no secret that this has been an area in which governments of both sides have sought to try and get the right policy outcome, but the Turnbull government is delivering the right policy outcome—affordable energy, affordable electricity, reliable supply and adherence to our international obligations to reduce emissions—by the decisions we will be making in the near future.
The PRESIDENT: A supplementary question, Senator Carr?
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (14:08): In this morning's Herald Sun it was reported:
Household bills are now higher than ever, having soared more than 119 per cent over the past decade. Families are now paying $1837 a year on average.
Page 9 of Minister Frydenberg's presentation clearly shows that this rise has entirely occurred within Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership. Is that the case?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): No, it is not. Obviously you have only a few pages of the presentation leaked, because—
Senator Kim Carr: No, I have not. I've got the whole lot here.
The PRESIDENT: Order! You have asked your question, Senator Carr.
Senator BRANDIS: what the graphs you are not referring to show is that there was actually a doubling of electricity prices during the period of the Labor government—the longest sustained increase in electricity prices in the recent past.
Senator Ian Macdonald: Own goal!
Senator BRANDIS: Yes, Senator Macdonald, another own goal by Senator Carr from North Korea over there. I withdraw that, Mr President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator BRANDIS: So, Senator Carr, we are not going to have Soviet style economics, as you would wish us to have. We are not going to be driven by ideology, as you have been. We are going to be driven by economics and we are going to be driven by engineering. And we are going to rely upon the best advice we can, including the advice of Dr Alan Finkel, to deliver lower, affordable electricity prices; reliable supply; and commitment to international agreements. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: A final supplementary question, Senator Carr.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (14:10): I would ask the minister: can you confirm that on page 10 of Minister Frydenberg's presentation it makes it clear that under the Turnbull government's current policies electricity prices will continue to rise?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:10): Senator Carr, that is not the case. What we are talking about, Senator Carr, are the consequences of inaction and the need for action. Senator Carr, you may refer to a document that demonstrates what would be the consequences of inaction. That is the very reason why we are taking action. It is the very reason why this is an important issue to be dealt with now, so we can ensure that Australians have affordable electricity prices—unlike the period of the Labor government, when electricity prices doubled—and they can have reliable supply, unlike their experience under the Labor government, in particular in South Australia. That entire state was blacked out as a result of a policy driven by ideology rather than engineering. And it is also to ensure that we adhere to our international commitments to reduce carbon emissions.
Donations to Political Parties
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:11): Mr President, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis. Can the Attorney inform the Senate which event occurred first: the Director-General of Security in ASIO instructing the major parties not to take donations from billionaires with close connections to the Chinese Communist Party, or a member of the Prime Minister's team approaching Mr Chau Chak Wing for donations to be used in the 2016 election?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): Senator Ludlam, both of the propositions you have put to me are wrong.
The PRESIDENT: A supplementary question, Senator Ludlam.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:12): It is just vintage Brandis. Does the Attorney-General have any advice that wealthy donors with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party, such as Mr Huang Xiangmo and Mr Chau Chak Wing, are effectively agents of Beijing? If so, can he advise the chamber if any politicians have been compromised?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): Senator Ludlam, from time to time the Prime Minister and I do receive advice from ASIO, and we will not be sharing it with you.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Attorney-General. Senator Ludlam, a final supplementary question.
Senator Ian Macdonald: If you were leader, you wouldn't allow this question.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:13): Interesting when the security risk is you. Has the government sought or received fresh advice from ASIO on Ms Helen Liu, who ASIO assessed in 2009?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:13): As I said in answer to your first supplementary question, Senator Ludlam: from time to time we do receive advice from ASIO, and we will not be sharing it with you.
Energy
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:13): Mr President, my question this afternoon is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. In the first year of the Liberal government, renewable energy investment fell in this country by almost 90 per cent. Can the minister please confirm that under the Abbott-Turnbull government, one in three renewable energy jobs have been lost?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:14): No, Senator Pratt, I cannot confirm that. But I will tell you what I can confirm, and that is: this government is about to make some very important decisions on the national energy market. The result of those decisions will be to ensure that Australians have affordable energy, unlike the doubling of electricity prices that occurred during the period of the Labor government; that they have reliable supply, unlike the experience of South Australians in particular, whose entire state was blacked out by a policy adopted by the Weatherill Labor government that was driven all by ideology.
The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. I will take the leader, Senator Pratt. Senator Farrell.
Senator Farrell: On a point of order: will the leader please stop picking on South Australia? It was a storm that caused the blackout—please.
The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order, Senator Farrell. Senator Pratt, do you also wish to raise a point of order?
Senator Pratt: My question was about jobs, and Senator Brandis has not referenced them at all as yet.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, your question directly was: can the minister confirm? The minister said he could not confirm and the minister is now enhancing his answer, which ministers do.
Senator BRANDIS: Thank you very much indeed, Mr President. Where was I? In the state of South Australia, which I love, Senator Farrell—I love the state of South Australia and I am very fond of individual South Australians, including you, Senator Farrell. We are not picking on South Australia; we are coming to the rescue of the people of South Australia by protecting them from a state Labor government which has been a case study of how not to do policy in this area—because, if you build your energy policy, if you decide your energy policy, on the basis of your ideological obsessions and your fear of our Green friends over there in the corner, then you—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Point of order, Senator Farrell.
Senator Farrell: On a point of order, the leader is misleading this house.
The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.
Senator Farrell: It was the sale of ETSA that caused the current set of problems.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, there is no point of order. I remind senators that points of order must relate to the standing orders and cannot be used as debating points or points to score. Attorney-General, you have the call.
Senator BRANDIS: Thank you very much, Mr President. So when you let ideology drive your policy and when you let your fear of the Greens drive your policy, as you people in the Labor Party do, that is what happens. But we will not be doing that. The decisions that we will be making shortly, informed by the Finkel report and informed by the very good discussion we had the other day in our party room, will ensure affordable electricity, reliable supply and our commitment to international— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a supplementary question.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:17): Members of the government are reported to be unhappy that the Finkel report projects 42 per cent renewable energy generation under a clean energy target by 2030. Does the government support a 42 per cent renewable energy target by 2030?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:17): Senator Pratt, you should not believe everything you read in the newspapers, because, if you start believing everything you read in the newspapers, you will end up asking silly questions like that. What the government will be doing, Senator Pratt—as I have said before, but perhaps you might care to listen—is we will be making some decisions in the near future in relation to energy supply in this country, an area of policy which has bedevilled, I think it is fair to say, both sides of politics for many years now. We will be making a series of decisions, informed by science, informed by engineering, informed by economics but not informed by ideology. The result of those decisions will be to ensure that Australia resolves the trilemma of affordable electricity and reliable supply while at the same time remaining faithful to our international commitments to reduce emissions. That it what we will be doing. It is something you singularly failed to do when you were in government.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:18): Given that we have yet again seen that the coalition is more interested in its internal party room brawls than driving policy in the national interest, how can Australians have confidence that the Prime Minister will not just again roll over to the hard right of his party room?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:19): Senator Pratt, without accepting any of the more lurid premises of that question, I will tell you how the Australian people can have confidence that the Prime Minister and this government will make the right policy choices. We will make the right policy choices, because they will be informed by science. We will make the right policy choices, because they will be the informed by engineering. We will make the right policy choices, because we are led by a Prime Minister who understands this issue, working hand in hand with a minister with a deep understanding of this issue. We will not be driven by ideology; we will not be driven by our own political obsessions, as you are; we will not be driven by our fear of the Greens; we will be driven by the pragmatic choices needed to protect the interests of the Australian people in affordable electricity, reliable supply and lower emissions. That is what we will do, and that is how we will do it.
Media
Senator GEORGIOU ( Western Australia ) ( 14:20 ): This is not my maiden speech. My question is to the Minister for Communications. Minister, earlier this month you sent a letter to the chairman of the board of West Television in Perth advising that the TV station must transition to an online-only service after 30 June 2017. How many applications has the Australian Communications and Media Authority received to test the new compression technology?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (14:20): I thank Senator Georgiou for his question. Colleagues may be aware that around the nation there have been a number of community TV stations such as Channel 31 in my home state of Victoria and that referenced by Senator Georgiou.
In late 2014, the previous communications minister wrote to the community TV stations advising them that there would be a conclusion to their access to the spectrum that they use. The previous communications minister also gave funding to those community TV stations to assist them in transitioning to online platforms. That money was accepted by those community TV stations on the basis that they would make that transition.
Subsequent to that, community TV stations around Australia asked for a one-year extension of access to spectrum, which I granted. That was due to conclude at the end of last year, but the community TV stations asked for a further extension of six months, which, again, I granted. Both the first and second extensions, as well as the money which was provided to community TV stations, were granted on the understanding that community TV stations would shift to online platforms. So the access to spectrum is scheduled to come to a conclusion at the end of this month, and part of the rationale is that there are other potential uses for that spectrum, Specifically, in answer to the question, I understand that there are some propositions to utilise that spectrum.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Georgiou, do you have a supplementary question?
Senator GEORGIOU (Western Australia) (14:22): What other uses does the government have in mind for this public resource, and have they been made public?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (14:22): I think there are a number of different potential uses for that spectrum. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, which manages the spectrum, would have received propositions as well. I am very happy to arrange a briefing for Senator Georgiou as to the nature and type of propositions which have come forward and for which that spectrum could potentially be used.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Georgiou, a final supplementary question.
Senator GEORGIOU (Western Australia) (14:23): Given that Perth is known to have the worst internet speeds in the country and that more than 50 per cent of households do not have access to NBN services with only 19.6 per cent having an active connection, what action will the minister take to ensure that West Television can continue to provide a service to its 80,000 viewers per day?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (14:23): I have some positive news for colleagues in relation to the NBN: it is now available nationwide to around 4.8 million premises. By 30 June, it will be available to 5.4 million premises nationwide, which represents 50 per cent of the nation. The state-by-state breakdowns are similar for each jurisdiction. There are over two million people who can currently access the NBN. One of the reasons why this government has put such a focus on the NBN is because of what we inherited from our predecessors, which was what was essentially a failed project. But Senator Georgiou is right: the NBN is important and it will be providing important new opportunities online.
Combined Maritime Forces
Senator BACK (Western Australia) (14:25): I think I have learned all too late what you have to do to get questions on successive days, Mr President! My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. I ask if the minister can advise the Senate how Australia's contribution to the Combined Maritime Forces in the Middle East is disrupting the funding streams of terrorist organisations?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:25): I thank Senator Back for his long interest in this particular policy area. Australia is making a very significant contribution to maritime security in the Middle East through our contribution to the Combined Maritime Forces. Currently, the Anzac class frigate HMAS Aruntais deployed to the region as part of Operation Manitou and is helping to stem the flow of drugs and contraband through the waters of the region.
I can advise the Senate that the ship's company has so far in this deployment seized over 1.3 tonnes of drugs during this time. On 7 June, just last week, the crew seized 260 kilograms of heroin in the north Indian Ocean that was concealed inside a suspicious dhow. This is the third successful intercept of drugs during Arunta's current deployment. The ship's company made a 250 kilogram seizure of heroin in May and an 800 kilogram seizure of hashish in March. In April, I actually joined HMAS Aruntaduring her transit of the Strait of Hormuz. I was able to meet and thank the ship's company for their efforts.
The interception of these narcotics is very important to help deny the financial pathway that terrorists use to fund their activities in the Middle East and beyond. By preventing those drugs from reaching their destination, not only are we destroying their ability to raise funds and helping to create a more stable region while fostering trade and commerce but we are also protecting destination countries from the potential harmful impacts of these drugs. This isArunta's fourth deployment to the region. It is Australia's 64th rotation of a Royal Australian Navy vessel in the gulf since the first Gulf War in 1990. The men and women of the ship's company of HMAS Aruntaare extraordinarily proud of the work that they do—and so they should be.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Back, a supplementary question.
Senator BACK (Western Australia) (14:27): I had the privilege of farewelling Aruntafrom Stirling on behalf of Minister Payne on 13 November last year. I ask: can the minister advise the Senate how Navy personnel are contributing to the success of this important mission?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:27): In fact, the success of these missions is due in no small part to the skill and the professionalism of the men and women who are embarked on our ships. When I met with the commander of the Combined Maritime Forces, United States Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan, in Bahrain in April, he described the skill of our boarding parties as amongst the most rigorous and meticulous of all of the nations contributing to the mission. During the most recent seizure that I alluded to in my previous response, the Royal Australian Navy personnel worked right throughout the night and in very difficult conditions to complete that seizure. The people who are running these drugs go to extraordinary lengths to conceal them. It is a great testament to the proficiency of the men and women of our Navy that they are able to identify these suspicious fishing dhows and then conduct an absolutely meticulous search in very tough conditions to find these significant hauls of drugs.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Back, a final supplementary question.
Senator BACK (Western Australia) (14:28): Can the minister update the Senate on how else Australia is contributing to maritime security in the Middle East region?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:29): We are very strongly committed to the maritime security of the Middle East region, which is home, of course, to some of the world's most important shipping lanes. As I said,Arunta's deployment is the 64th rotation of a Royal Australian Navy vessel since 1990. It is actually the first time that we have deployed a ship to the Middle East on a nine-month rotation, which allows for a greater time on task. Aruntawill soon be relieved by HMAS Newcastle, which departed Sydney on Sunday to continue that longstanding support to maritime security in the Middle East.
As well as conducting counterterrorism operations, Australian vessels also contribute to countering piracy and to other security operations in the gulf. We also have Australian personnel embedded in the Combined Maritime Forces headquarters. Australia's contribution to the CMF, which is made up of 31 nations, supports that international community effort to promote stability and security across the Middle East. I want to acknowledge and thank the men and women of the ADF and their families for their efforts and for their service.
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (14:30): My question is to Senator Ryan, the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. The NDIS, which commenced operations in 2013 across three trial sites, has never consistently provided information, forms or plans in accessible formats. According to Vision Australia, currently it varies between 'difficult' and 'impossible' for a participant or potential participant in the NDIS to access information about the NDIS in braille or in an alternative form of their choice. Does the minister concede that this inaccessibility is in fundamental conflict with the principles of choice and control that underpin the NDIS?
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (14:30): I thank Senator Kakoschke-Moore for her question. The National Disability Insurance Agency and the government acknowledge that the NDIS is a big change for people with disability, their families and carers, and it is important that they are well informed about how the NDIS works and that they can easily navigate the system, including making an access request. The NDIA is working very hard with stakeholders to ensure forms, platforms and information are in an accessible format for the blind and vision impaired and accessible to the widest possible audience. The NDIA has had the NDIS access request form available in braille since December 2016. The NDIS access request form can also be filled out electronically using screen reading assistive technology used by people who are vision impaired. Large text versions of core communication products such as My NDIS Pathway and 'How the NDIS can help your child' have been available since January 2017 to NDIA staff and partners in the community to distribute and print on a case-by-case basis. The NDIA is continuing to review its communication products based on feedback received from participants, their families and carers and advocacy groups through internal processes, new roll-out regions and the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kakoschke-Moore, a supplementary question.
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (14:32): How did the government create the NDIS without accessible material for the blind or vision impaired?
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (14:32): I think it is fair to describe that, while there is substantial disagreement over whether or not the previous government provided funding for the NDIS, the NDIS has always been a bipartisan or, in fact, cross-partisan project in terms of delivering these particular services and ensuring that we care for the vulnerable and, in many cases, people who have been forgotten or have fallen through the cracks of our federal system or the provision of services inconsistently across states. I do not think, given the information I have got at hand and given the sheer scale of the rollout that has been in place, that is a fair characterisation of what the government has done. There are measures in place in line with this—for example, the NDIA is ensuring that core participant information products are WCAG2.0 AA compliant to ensure they are most up to date with screen reading technology. I think this is an ongoing effort, given the scale of the project involved.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kakoschke-Moore, a final supplementary question.
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (14:33): Vision Australia is the largest provider of services to Australians who are blind, deaf-blind or have low vision and is therefore well placed to provide the government with advice about the challenges these people face. What consultation has the government undertaken with Vision Australia to ensure that the NDIS has appropriate, accessible information formats?
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (14:33): I think you will understand, Senator Kakoschke-Moore, I am not briefed on the scale of the consultation processes. In my first answer to your question I went through a number of processes in place, but I will seek advice from the minister and come back to the Senate.
Economy
Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that, after a debt issuance expected tomorrow worth $800 million, gross national debt will exceed $500 billion? Can the minister also confirm that he will set a new record, taking up the mantle for being the first Australian finance minister to rack up half a trillion dollars in gross debt?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:34): Of course, the level of gross debt is openly and transparently published on a regular basis through the Australian Office of Financial Management. What I would say to Senator Marshall is what I have said before: gross debt is lower than what it would have been if Labor had been in government. We are in a better position now because of the decisions the government has been able to implement.
Just since the election we have been able to pass another $25 billion worth of budget improvement measures. Over the current medium term, because of the net effect of the spending decisions the government have made and implemented, the budget will be better off to the tune of about $250 billion. That is $250 billion that we do not have to borrow or that will be available to pay down debt once we are back in to surplus. Of course, under our government, we are on a credible path back to surplus—not because of any help from the Labor Party, I would hasten to add. Having left behind an unaffordable, unfunded and unsustainable spending growth trajectory, having created the mess that we are still dealing with and having left behind the chaos that we are having to fix they have, of course, tried to stop us at every step of the way to getting the budget back into the strongest possible position.
Indeed, in the lead-up to the last election, by their own admission and based on their own pre-election costings, Labor went to that election with bigger deficits, to the tune of about $16.5 billion. So on this side of the chamber we do not take any lessons from the Labor Party. I think that people across Australia understand well that it is always the Labor Party that makes a mess of our budget and it is always comes down to a Liberal and National Party government to fix their mess.
The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Cameron?
Senator Cameron: Thanks, Mr President. It is on relevance. The minister was asked if he could confirm that we were on track for a record debt. He has not gone near that.
The PRESIDENT: I disagree. He has gone near it by indicating that the information is publicly available. The minister has indicated that and I presume that he has confirmed that by indicating it is publically available. Minister, you have 20 seconds remaining.
Senator CORMANN: Just to reconfirm it very concisely: firstly, the number is openly and transparently published by this government—obviously, through the relevant website. And let me say it again: the gross debt level is less than what it would have been if Labor had been re-elected to government—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: By your own admission, you went to the last election with bigger deficits. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Marshall, a supplementary question.
Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (14:37): Given that the $600 billion cap on national debt, signed off by the Treasurer on 9 May, will not even cover the $606 billion in gross debt expected by the end of the forward estimates, let alone the $725 billion projected by the 2027-28 year, when will the Turnbull government again be forced to increase the cap on borrowings to cover the explosion of debt?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:37): These matters were dealt with in some detail during Senate estimates. Of course, what the government—
Senator Kim Carr: What are you going to do about them?
Senator CORMANN: The projections are published in the budget, and I am sure that Senator Marshall is well aware of what the projections are. What I can assure the Senate is that the government will continue to make the necessary administrative decisions to ensure that the operations of government are maintained appropriately and that financial markets and other markets have appropriate certainty.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Marshall, a final supplementary question.
Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (14:38): Given that the Turnbull government has failed its own test to pay down debt, why is the government choosing to hand a $65 billion tax cut to big business and a $16,400-a-year tax cut to millionaires?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:38): Something that Senator Marshall clearly does not understand is that Australia is an open trading economy which competes for capital around the world. What we are doing by bringing down the business tax rate and making sure that it is more internationally competitive is to protect our economy and to protect jobs. We compete for capital internationally and we compete for investment internationally. If we want to strengthen our economy, if we want to create more jobs and if we want to better opportunities for people to get ahead then we need to ensure that the businesses across Australia who employ Australians have the best possible opportunity to be successful.
That is precisely what we are doing. The Australian business tax rate is high by international standards at 30 per cent. Other jurisdictions have already moved to bring it down—like the United Kingdom to 19 per cent. The US is looking at reducing it to 15 per cent. If we do not make our business tax rate more internationally competitive, we will lose investment and we will lose job growth opportunities. (Time expired)
Science
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Sinodinos. Can the minister outline to the Senate how the Turnbull government is collaborating with the government of Sri Lanka to assist life-threatening diseases with Australia's world-leading nuclear medicine capabilities?
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (14:39): I thank the honourable senator for his question and his great interest in all matters scientific and technical. ANSTO—the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—is playing a key role in exploring the causes and solutions for serious diseases around the world. In particular, chronic kidney disease of unknown aetiology is a serious public health issue in Sri Lanka, disproportionately affecting rice farmers in the north of the country.
Last month ANSTO entered into an MOU with the Sri Lankan Presidential Task Force on Prevention of Chronic Kidney Disease. I had the pleasure of taking the President of Sri Lanka to ANSTO's Lucas Heights reactor, where ANSTO's CEO, the indefatigable Dr Adi Paterson, showed him the world-leading capacity we have for groundbreaking research in nuclear medicine. The Sri Lankan deputy foreign minister visited the Australian Synchrotron at the end of March this year and opened discussions with Dr Paterson on this collaboration. This is very exciting. It sets the framework for some critical work to be done. Much of ANSTO's landmark and national research infrastructure could be employed to investigate this particular matter.
According to WHO—the World Health Organization—one possible cause of this chronic kidney disease matter is heavy metals in drinking water. ANSTO's groundwater research team can conduct elemental analysis of groundwater from hotspots for chronic disease to determine the heavy metals present in the water supply. The WHO has also suggested the use of agrochemicals as a potential cause of kidney disease. It is possible the facilities at either the Synchrotron or the Australian Centre for Neutron Scattering could investigate this link. Researchers from the University of Queensland and Monash University have previously used the X-ray fluorescence microscopy at the Australian Synchrotron to examine renal biopsies for CKDu patients from Sri Lanka.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a supplementary question.
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:42): Can the minister advise how this collaboration with Sri Lanka to combat chronic kidney disease will complement ANSTO's other vital work in the nuclear medicine field?
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (14:42): The $168 million ANSTO Nuclear Medicine Project continues to make good progress with the construction of the facility now essentially complete. It is now in the final fit-out and testing stage. ANSTO expects the facility to commence operations by the end of the year. Once it reaches full production, it will supply up to 25 per cent of the world's nuclear medicines.
The government's announcement last year of a 10-year $520 million investment in sustainable funding for the Synchrotron has secured the future of this landmark research facility. The proposed ANSTO innovation precinct to be located at Lucas Heights campus will also break new ground in the nuclear medicine space. It will crowd high-tech companies and STEM graduates around Australia's centre of nuclear expertise. It will include the first nuclear science and technology incubator in the world. This will become the home of collaboration and entrepreneurship at ANSTO.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:43): Can the minister update the Senate on further ways in which the Turnbull government is taking advantage of our science infrastructure to engage in global collaboration?
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (14:43): The Turnbull government believes in big science, and big science requires global collaboration. We are actively engaging with countries that have mutually beneficial science, innovation, research and development agendas.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left!
Senator SINODINOS: We signed a memorandum of cooperation on innovation with Japan. In February, we signed a science research innovation agreement with New Zealand, and an agreement to cooperate on technological innovation and R&D with Israel. We are taking a strategic approach through our Global Innovation Strategy, a key international collaboration element of our National Innovation and Science Agenda, which provides an overarching framework to guide the government's work in the science and innovation space. Its program provides industry links and funding to encourage Australian researchers to form international partnerships with a focus on our own Asia-Pacific region. It complements our support for regional collaboration through the Australia-China Science and Research Fund and the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund.
Broadband
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. On 6 June 2017, Charles Clinic Heart Care in Tasmania wrote to you outlining the disparity in internet quality between their main clinic in Launceston and their outreach clinic in Burnie. The clinic needs upload speeds of at least 10 megabits per second, but NBN Co will not guarantee these speeds over fibre to the node. As a result, the clinic may close and patients may be forced to travel to Launceston for appointments. Minister, why have you continued to roll out fibre to the node when it cannot guarantee even basic upload speeds?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (14:45): I thank Senator Urquhart for the question. Obviously, I cannot comment in relation to a particular business or premises, but I should make the point, as I did earlier in answer to a question from Senator Georgiou, that the NBN was a failed project under our predecessors where barely 50,000 people nationwide had an active NBN service; contractors had downed tools in four states; and the best part of $6 billion had been spent over four years for that suboptimal outcome. Since that time—because of the good work that my predecessor did in this portfolio—the NBN will very shortly, by 30 June, be available to 50 per cent of Australians.
The NBN is going to be complete by 2020—and that is a good six to eight years sooner than would have been the case under those opposite and at about $30 billion less cost. One of the main reasons why that is the case is that this government has given the mandate to NBN for a multitechnology mix. That means that the NBN has the capacity to choose the technology that makes sense in a given area that will see the NBN rolled out fastest and at the lowest cost.
The NBN is one of the great corporate turnaround stories in Australia compared to what it was when we inherited it. There are a range of options available to NBN customers. There are a range of speed tiers available from the retail service providers. (Time expired).
The PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart, a supplementary question.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:47): The current connection for the clinic is a node 1.7 kilometres from the hospital, which is across the road from another node. NBN Co have committed to moving the node to within 500 metres of the hospital. Why would NBN Co move a node 1.2 kilometres closer to a hospital but not right to the hospital?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (14:47): I do not have total knowledge of each premises in Australia, obviously, or of the tens of thousands of individual nodes nationwide, so I cannot speak to the specific circumstance of the particular institution to which Senator Urquhart has alluded.
This is one of the most significant infrastructure projects that has ever been undertaken in Australia. Effectively, NBN is seeking to do, over the course of six or so years, that which took the PMG and Telecom the best part of 80 or 90 years. This is a mammoth venture: it is on track and it is on budget.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart, a final supplementary question.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:48): NBN Co are hosting renowned demographer Bernard Salt at a breakfast in Launceston next week on Launceston's 'lifestylepreneur' movement. Minister, can you commit to the NBN fixing the digital divide between fibre-to-the-premises cities, like Launceston, and those like Burnie that have been left behind on fibre to the node?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (14:49): This gives me an opportunity to draw the attention of colleagues to the fact that, at the last election, the Australian Labor Party abandoned their policy of fibre to the premises for pretty much every residence and business in Australia. The Australian Labor Party walked away from that. The Australian Labor Party at the last election adopted a modified multi-technology mix approach—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Pause the clock. Senator Gallagher, a point of order?
Senator Gallagher: Mr President, the question was not about Labor policy; it was around whether the minister will commit to fixing the digital divide between two cities in Tasmania. He has 26 seconds left to answer that.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Gallagher. I will remind the minister of the question.
Senator FIFIELD: I do not think it is a digital divide to have a policy that sees the NBN rolled out nationwide to every premises six to eight years sooner than would have been the case under those opposite when they were in government. I do think it is relevant for me to point out, Mr President, that if you pick up the Australian Labor Party policy from the last election you will not find in there a commitment to have— (Time expired)
Northern Australia: Employment
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Can the minister please update the Senate on any recent developments that are delivering jobs and opportunities to northern Australia?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:50): I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question and his keen interest in the economic fortunes of North Queensland. I was able to join another senator in North Queensland, Senator Macdonald, in Townsville last week on what was a banner day for North Queensland and a historic day for North Queensland when Adani announced that it had made the final investment decision for the Carmichael mine and was proceeding with it.
We were also there to open the headquarters of Adani in Townsville. It is great news for regional Queensland that a large company making what will be the largest investment from an Indian company in Australia has decided to headquarter in a regional town, in Townsville, creating hundreds of administrative jobs and an economic ecosystem for the people of North Queensland and Townsville as well.
Of course, I want to recognise the great efforts of Senator Macdonald in promoting North Queensland, standing behind projects like this one and supporting those people in North Queensland who just want to work hard, have a job and provide for their family. That is what this project offers. This project offers the people of North Queensland who are desperate to have a job, to have a go in life, to be able to provide for themselves, the ability to do that for their families by getting a decent, hardworking job in our coal sector, which we fully support.
We have seen the unemployment figures come out today from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They show that unemployment in Queensland remains elevated at 6.1 per cent. It has dropped marginally but is still well above the national average of 5.5 per cent. We need these jobs in Queensland. That is why this announcement last week was so important.
It is not just about the Carmichael mine, which itself will employ 1,400 people and up to 3,800 people over time, according to the Queensland government. It is also about opening up a new coal basin in Australia—the first coal basin that would be opened up for nearly 50 years in Australia. Altogether, according to the Queensland government Coordinator-General, mines in the Galilee Basin that are on the books right now could produce over 16,000 jobs in the sector. It is an enormous prospect for our nation and particularly important for the economic future of North Queensland.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:53): I hereby decree: it was magnificent, Matty; that was a great answer. My next question is: can the minister advise the Senate if there are any other potential projects that could deliver further jobs and development in regional Queensland?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:53): The senator is also right that there is enormous opportunity across northern Australia as well, despite depressed economic opportunity in some areas at the moment. The resources of northern Australia have already produced enormous amounts of economic wealth for our country. It accounts for more than 50 per cent of our exports. More than 50 per cent of our exports leave from northern Australia because of mainly the mineral resources and energy resources of northern Australia.
There are enormous water resources in northern Australia as well. More than 60 per cent of our rainfall falls on the 40 per cent of our land mass that is northern Australia. Those resources are largely untapped, particularly in my area of Central Queensland, where the country's second-largest river catchment, the Fitzroy Basin, exists. There is only one major dam there, but we want to change that. We want to build the Rookwood Weir, which could create 2,100 jobs, double agricultural production in the Fitzroy Basin and droughtproof the towns of Rockhampton and Gladstone as well. But we are being held up by a Queensland Labor government that wants to talk and talk, do more studies and invest in projects in inner-city Brisbane but not back a dam in Central Queensland.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (14:54): Can the minister advise the Senate what barriers exist, sadly, in unlocking the potential of northern Australia?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:54): There are some in this place who do not share the interests of those people in North Queensland. There are some who do not live there but want to tell the people of North Queensland how they should do things and what they should invest in. I talk particularly of the Greens. Last time I checked, the Greens at the federal election received the support of about three per cent of North Queensland, so you could say that there is a 97 per cent consensus among the people of North Queensland that the Greens do not have a plan for the people of North Queensland. They do not.
I welcome the fact that Senator Chisholm today was calling out the extremism of this party. I welcomed Senator Chisholm's reports in the media today that the Greens are extremists who are against the economic development of North Queensland. Unfortunately, sometimes his party is conflicted, though, because yesterday, despite his comments today, Senator Gallacher was in this place calling into question the Adani project and saying that it has to stack up environmentally, even though it has got all its environmental approvals. It is probably the most assessed project in our history, but still we see the Labor Party trying to walk both sides of the street on this. They have to get on this train. They are either for jobs or against them.
Assistant Minister to the Treasurer
Minister for Health and Minister for Sport
Minister for Human Services
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (14:55): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Final questions, Senator Brandis. I refer to reports that the Supreme Court of Victoria has ordered Ministers Hunt and Tudge and Assistant Minister Sukkar to make submissions as to why they should not be referred for prosecution for contempt. When did the Attorney-General first become aware of the Supreme Court order?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:56): It is, strictly speaking, not an order, but I became aware of the matter yesterday.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Moore, a supplementary question.
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (14:56): Thank you for the clarification, Attorney. Can the Attorney-General confirm reports that the Solicitor-General will represent Ministers Hunt and Tudge and Assistant Minister Sukkar tomorrow in the Supreme Court of Victoria? If so, did the Attorney-General authorise the Solicitor-General acting in this matter?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:56): I can confirm that, and yes, I did, in accordance with ordinary procedure and protocols.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Moore, a final supplementary question.
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (14:56): Thank you again for the clarification, Attorney. Given that the Attorney-General is the first law officer of the nation, what action have you taken to explain to your colleagues the importance of the independence of the judiciary and the impartial application of the role of law?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:57): Senator Moore, my colleagues are well aware of the importance of the independence of the judiciary. They are well aware of the importance of the independence of the judiciary, but I remind you, Senator Moore, that the independence of the judiciary has never been understood by the judiciary themselves to be a prohibition against criticism. As a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria—Crown v Witt—found last year, the common law upholds the right of any person to freedom of speech and expression. Such rights of course extend to criticism of judicial decision-making. The courts cannot be and are not immune from criticism which may extend to robust observations of a particular decision or penalty.
Indigenous Rangers
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:58): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. Can the minister update the Senate on the government's support for Indigenous rangers and how this government's Indigenous Rangers Program is supporting jobs in regional and remote Australia?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:58): I thank Senator Bushby for the question and his longstanding interest in the outcomes for our First Australians. We are very proud of investment in Indigenous rangers. Our Indigenous Rangers Program not only provides really good work for our First Australians but also allows them to do what they have always been doing, which is looking after both their land and sea country. I am pleased to update the Senate that now more than 2,500 of our First Australians are employed as Indigenous rangers as a consequence of our investment of now more than $500 million to 2020, and that includes the Indigenous Protected Areas Program.
We have been a strong supporter of Indigenous rangers since 2007, when the coalition introduced the Indigenous Rangers Program. They have enjoyed record levels of funding since we entered government in 2013. Funding for Indigenous rangers is now at $70 million. This is a program that is committed to by all in this place. It is terrific that everyone in this place supports it. I would like to acknowledge the commitment from not only the other side but the Greens, the Nick Xenophon Team and the other members of the crossbench. Indigenous rangers are just like police and health workers. They are part of the environment forever. There is always a little scuttlebutt that suddenly we are going to cancel the funding. This is an important part of our essential frontline services. I would like to also indicate that we have committed $15 million for the new IPAs.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate each and every ranger right across Australia who are doing a wonderful job of looking after our environment and their land and country.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (15:00): Can the minister advise how the government's investment in training and education programs for Indigenous rangers creates long-term change for rangers across Australia?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:00): This is an issue that has irked me and many in this area for some time. We have invested, I have indicated, since 2017 in Indigenous rangers, but it became apparent after a number of years, for whatever the reasons are, that the rangers were never going to get the similar powers of enforcement that the non-Indigenous rangers have. So we have made an investment of $30 million that is going to provide Indigenous rangers the same level of enforcement in fisheries, in wildlife, in border protection and in biosecurity protection that is enjoyed by any other notional manger in the mainstream area. This is going to close the divide, if you like, to ensure that Indigenous rangers have exactly the same rights to inquire why you have a rhinoceros in your glovebox, as any other mainstream ranger.
I had a fantastic time with the Dhimurru rangers in Nhulunbuy. I have to commend again the remarkable work that they are doing in this area.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question.
Senator BUSHBY ( Tasmania — Chief Government Whip in the Senate ) ( 15:01 ): Can the minister advise what other measures the government is investing in to support Indigenous rangers?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:01): Before we move forward with a $30 million investment, we wanted to ensure that this was the right way. We needed to find an appropriate way of bringing rangers up to the capacity to do that. So we had a $2 million specialised ranger program. I am pleased to announce that 28 rangers, particularly in North Queensland, are now working with Fisheries, with Biodiversity and with GBRMPA as equals doing exactly the same roles as other rangers have done. We are moving particularly into the biodiversity space, which is a very important space in border security. If you match the cultural knowledge and that deep-seated knowledge of country, then who would be better placed to ensure that they are the frontline of our biosecurity protection for north Australia? This $2 million investment in a specialised Indigenous ranger program will deliver that.
I am working right across portfolios to ensure that with any tasks that are done across the north of Australia or by Indigenous rangers we allow them to continue that work. (Time expired)
Senator Brandis: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Broadband
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (15:03): I wish to add to an answer to a question from Senator Urquhart. I have been advised that contrary to the newspaper report today in the Burnie Advocate, NBN has been working cooperatively with the north-west heart care clinic to provide a suitable internet service which meets their particular needs. When the issue was raised last week with NBN, they immediately visited the site to assist the business. NBN has tested the speeds at the private health clinic and has undertaken to augment the NBN network in this area as a priority. NBN has also committed to installing an additional node closer to the health precinct to meet the needs of the healthcare campus, including north-west healthcare. The work on the new node has already commenced. It is planned to be available by August.
STATEMENTS
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (15:03): I seek leave to make a statement to the chamber congratulating Senator Farrell on his calm, professional and exemplary leadership he has shown as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate this week.
The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?
Senator Farrell: A point of order—
The PRESIDENT: No. Is leave granted? That is the question.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted, Senator Macdonald.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Energy
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (15:04): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators O’Neill and Carr today relating to the final report of the Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market.
I want to make some opening remarks and then will go to the detail of the questions that I asked, but I think I would have to characterise the senator's responses today as the sound of silence, an attempt to try to shut down debate to try to get out of this space as quickly as possible. They were the shortest answers that I can recall for a very long time. Matters of energy for Australia are not the focus of this government. They are focused entirely on themselves and they do not want Australians to pay attention. They do not want anybody to know that they are out of control and they are certainly not doing anything good for the electricity prices of Australians in business and in their residential properties across this country.
Indeed, they must be completely out of touch with reality. Have any of them over there paid an electricity bill recently? The fact is that, as every Australian knows—and people listening to this would absolutely be able to verify this from their own experience—power prices have doubled in the four years of this government. They have been going through the roof while this government has been on watch. Sadly, I can all too well remember the campaign where this government said that they were going to fix everybody's electricity prices. They were going to change the taxation of the country, and everybody would get $550 back. That is silence there. We are still waiting. Cheques must be in the mail, because Australians across this nation have not got any respite from increasing electricity prices.
While they have been doing this terrible job engaging in a paralysis of policy on the nature of energy in Australia, in addition to their policy failure they have absolutely deliberately gone out to target very vulnerable people with the cost of energy, most recently cutting the energy supplement of $360 per year so that any new person who goes on a pension is not going to get that. So here we are. They stand there and say: 'Oh, we've got it all in control. We will take decisive action.' That is the claim that Malcolm Turnbull is making. The decisive action we are seeing is action of no benefit to the Australian population; in fact, it is action that is devastating people's experiences of access to energy for their businesses and for their homes.
This week we saw the Finkel report come out, and this was supposed to be the line in the sand, the moment when we were actually able to start to see some redress of this policy vacuum that they have generated. With the arrival of the Finkel report, instead we have seen the chaos emerging at an extraordinary level within the government ranks. The Energy Council and other experts are all on the record as saying the greatest cause of increasing prices and threats to supply of electricity in Australia right now is policy paralysis. Indeed, the day before yesterday in their party room I understand Minister Frydenberg even admitted that that is the case.
My three questions today were to Senator Brandis. He did not answer any of them. When the Business Council of Australia, usually a pretty good friend, says:
Australia hasn't a moment to lose now that we have a comprehensive, independent blueprint to restore the security, reliability and affordability of our electricity system.
the decisive action and the fulsome report that we got from the Leader of the Government in the Senate was, I think, one or two words and a quick sit down. That was it. That was their version of decisive action. It was the shortest response that I have ever seen from the Attorney-General.
Then we had the question about Mark Collette, who said:
Doing nothing means higher prices and less reliable energy for all customers.
He could not answer a question about why the government cannot actually respond to this call from the energy sector itself. The head of Energy Australia is saying, 'It's time to sort it out, guys,' and the reason we did not get an answer is that the truth is this government is so internally divided, so out of touch that they are unable to have a conversation.
Senator Farrell: Dysfunctional.
Senator O'NEILL: Dysfunctional. Thank you, Senator Farrell, for that wonderful word which is a very apt description of this government.
My last question went to the reality of how broken the internals of the government are, with George Christensen declaring he is out and he will not support the Finkel report. It is a disaster. Policy paralysis continues. Prices are going up. They have doubled in four years, and under this government it can only get worse.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, I will just remind you, when referring to members of the other place, to use their titles.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:09): You hear everything in this place, don't you? You hear everything. The carbon tax we were never going to have, which we abolished, actually brought the prices down substantially when it was abolished.
Senator Farrell: You don't believe that.
Senator WILLIAMS: Have a look at the graphs of the wholesale prices. You do not believe the prices and you do not believe the facts.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator WILLIAMS: Well, the first thing you learn, love, is that you cannot educate idiots. That is a fact. But I am surprised that Senator O'Neill did not say, 'Let's come straight on the answers to the questions of Senator Cash.' You know, the one about the $27,000 donation of AustralianSuper to the AWU? Who was involved in AustralianSuper? One Mr Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition. Who was tied up with the AWU? One Mr Bill Shorten, the AWU boss at the time. He was very involved with Paul Howes as well. Of course, who was the candidate running for parliament? Mr Bill Shorten. Where did the money flow? Ten years later, we change the reason for the donation. Give us a break.
We will not harp on that. We will go back to the energy situation. I do not mind renewable energy; I am a supporter of renewable energy. That is one condition: it stands on its own. Senator Farrell is here from South Australia, where I grew up. I spent my first 25 years there in South Australia.
Senator Farrell: You should have stayed.
Senator WILLIAMS: No, I enjoy electricity. I like to turn the switch and the light stays on, and it does not go into darkness. I am not regretting leaving the dark state 25 years ago. In fact, there was a sign at Broken Hill, up there at Cockburn, when you went across the border: 'Last one out, please turn off the lights.' That was a sign when you left South Australia. You do not have to worry about turning off lights; they just went off automatically with the lack of electricity.
Here are the wind turbines. You put a wind turbine. It produces three megawatt hours. So what is the subsidy? Well, one megawatt hour is a renewable energy certificate, making $70 or $80. A three megawatt wind turbine means three certificates an hour, eight hours a day, 365 days a year. Multiply that by $70 or $80 and what have you got? You have got a $7,000-a-year subsidy to the wind turbine. That is for one. Of course, they are all over where I grew up at Jamestown. It was everywhere. A $7,000 subsidy for each tower.
But who pays for it? I will tell you who pays for it: the poor widow who is living on her own as a pensioner. It goes onto her power bill, because the coal fired generators have to buy the renewable energy certificates. What happens? Then the wind turbines can sell electricity cheap because they are getting so much subsidy. I am sure that Senator Farrell would be aware of a place call Port Augusta, 200 miles north of Adelaide. You ever been there?
Senator Farrell: I know it well. I have got some relatives there.
Senator WILLIAMS: Yes. What happened to the coal fired generator there? It was shut down. It was going broke. Why was going broke? It was because of the subsidies we throw at the wind turbines. Of course, we then see South Australia become not only the driest state in the driest continent but the darkest state in Australia as well. That is because the lights are going out, and aren't the people annoyed about it? I was in South Australia last Monday and they are very annoyed. When you talk to businesses down there, they are very annoyed. They want to go into the manufacture of our submarines—$50 billion worth. They won the award. I hope you have enough electricity to actually make the submarines. That would be a big worry.
What we are doing is having a debate because of the Finkel report. We are allowed to debate that. Over on your side, you do as you are told. I wonder if Senator Farrell supports same-sex marriage. Well, he will say publicly that he does. I wonder if Senator O'Neill does? Knowing their background and their beliefs, I doubt if they would. They are doing as they are told. They are in the party of dictatorship. You do as you are told or you get kicked out. You cannot cross the floor over there. Even Senator Sahaad Dastyari—that is his name, Senator Sahaad—
Senator Dastyari: Sahand.
Senator WILLIAMS: I had a quiz the other day that said to me, 'Can you give us a question for a quiz round night?' I said, 'The question is: what is the Christian name of Senator Dastyari? The answer: Sahand.' I do not know if they got the quiz right that night, but anyway. Thanks for confirming if I have pronounced it right or wrong.
So those from the party of dictatorship, where you do as you are told, you just do as you are told and keep going. On our side of the politics, in the Liberal-National party, we are actually having a debate. We are having a discussion. We have got a report. We are sorting out what is the best. We have been in the party room for hours, working out what is the best situation to guarantee supply, to reduce costs and to do the right thing. That is because the situation we face is simple: if we do not have cheap, reliable electricity, we will not have manufacturing and we will not have jobs. We will not have anything. Everything will be moved overseas. That is the situation, and we will stick by it.
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (15:14): How many groups does it take? We have had the energy groups, the business groups, the unions and ACOSS ask this government to give the Finkel report its full and fair consideration before rushing in and rigging the definition of 'clean energy'. But no, that cannot happen within this Turnbull Liberal government, because they are so divided when it comes to what clean energy even means. That is why, four years later, we are still in a situation of policy paralysis on clean energy, on the cost of electricity prices and on a way forward for investment in our country. So many groups have urged you, as a government, to stop this paralysis and to take some action to resolve this crisis. Labor have made it very clear that we are open to a clean energy target, and that is a big shift for Labor.
Despite all of that good will, despite all of the encouragement from all of those groups, including the opposition, this government simply cannot get their house in order; instead, they leave this country in a state of absolute paralysis when it comes to investment. What is the outcome? We have lost thousands of jobs that could have gone into that growth in renewable energy over the last four years. After all of the work that has been done by the Chief Scientist, we leave ourselves in a situation where we just do not know where this government is going to land. What we do know is that there is a situation of the tail wagging the dog. You have former Prime Minister Tony Abbott out there talking about his dislike for the recommendations in the Finkel review when he has not even read the report! He has not read the report but, because of his ideological beliefs against renewable energy, he has already decided, along with buddies such as George Christensen, to bag it out and try to lead the coalition into not supporting it.
The idea that you can change the definition of something, that you can decide that clean energy has to include coal, is just bizarre. To have a definition of clean energy that includes new coal power stations just to placate the Tony Abbotts, the George Christensens and the Barnaby Joyces of this world makes a complete mockery of the seriousness of the work that the Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel, has done with his panel over the last number of months. I cannot understand where this government is coming from, but one thing does seem very clear and that is that we are not going to land in any space or time of certainty soon. They are simply too divided on where to go forward in relation to climate policy, so much so that I have just learnt today that Lord Howe Island has a plan for renewable energy to reduce its massive reliance on diesel power generators that it has provided to the energy minister. Its plan is for two wind turbines—just two—on Lord Howe Island to reduce its reliance by 70 per cent on diesel power, but it has been rejected by Minister Frydenberg. Let's look at what minister Frydenberg said: it would have 'clearly unacceptable impacts'. 'Clearly unacceptable impacts' is his take on it. He also said:
Government considered the proposed wind turbines would create a considerable, intrusive visual impact.
This is the environment minister, this is the energy minister, and he is basing his decision on the visual impact of two wind turbines on Lord Howe Island, when 92 per cent of the locals on Lord Howe Island support this proposal. They do not want to continue to rely on diesel generation. In fact, Chris Murray, who has lived on the island for 58 years, has said so very clearly, yet all we get from this government is a refusal of the benefits of renewable energy. (Time expired)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Singh, I remind you to refer to others in the other place by their correct titles.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (15:20): I also rise to take note of answers to questions by Senator Carr and Senator O'Neill.
Those opposite like to pretend that they are the champions of scientific endeavour, of research and of science informing policy. However, here we are with a report brought down by the Chief Scientist on Friday to government and to COAG about energy security. This report has been brought around because of an absolute tragedy that occurred in South Australia. But I will come to that later.
This is actually a report by our Chief Scientist, the Independent review into the future security of the National Electricity Market. It is not climate policy; it is about the future of the security of the Australian energy market. And it was delivered to COAG. Do those opposite know why? Do they know why? We have had a lot of exponential increases in household energy prices at both the household and industry levels because state governments have a significant role to play in the price of the power bills for Australian households—how much it costs them to heat and cool their homes and to refrigerate their food. Importantly, those who are actually interested in the workers in this country—who are actually interested in energy-intensive industry and who are interested in the food-processing sector or manufacturing—know that those sectors in our economy are energy intensive and know that those industries under incredible pressure from the cost of doing business. Their power supplies are a significant component of that, and everybody knows that state governments have a crucial role in ensuring that supplies for energy generation are available to the domestic market.
I think of my home state of Victoria, and I call on the energy minister in Victoria to take her responsibility for this report—having been handed this report—and, with what the various state energy ministers have been tasked to do in this report, not to fob it off. She should actually take responsibility and think, 'How can I increase the supply of gas in a safe way and in a way that does not damage our waterways?' It needs to be in a way that ensures we get more supply into the market and increased investment. Affordable reliable energy is something that we all should not take for granted but ensure that it is actually delivered.
It is disappointing that those opposite seem to wish they were in Soviet Russia or, indeed, North Korea, where power blackouts are the norm. I hate to tell them: we are a first-world economy. We are an incredibly sophisticated and well-developed society: power blackouts should not be happening in 21st century Australia!
Senator Farrell: I was in town that day. It was the worst storm we ever had in South Australia.
Senator McKENZIE: Senator Farrell, you talk about it being a storm. It is a problem—you want to talk about science being applied to policy. Again, Senator Carr, you are the champion of the Chief Scientist and you are the champion of science in informed policy—
Senator Kim Carr interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: and yet who the hell was talking to the energy minister from the South Australian Labor government when they decided to jack up their Renewable Energy Target but not worry about ensuring that there was actually going to be a secure supply? Or to deal with the intermittent pulsation of renewable energy power supplies? They did not worry about that. You did not worry about that, because you are all about the emotional response. You do not care about engineering and you do not care about economics.
The things that will actually make a difference here in this country for the power prices that senators opposite were talking about is ensuring that state governments get on board and get serious about setting appropriate targets. I could go on and on. I am quite devastated that I now only have 30 seconds to go, because I did have a lot to say!
At a federal level, if the Labor Party are serious about jobs and about cost-of-living pressures then they will be looking at the Finkel review. They will be looking at how they can put pressure on their state colleagues to ensure that they are doing what they need to do so that we get access to reliable and affordable energy. The Chief Scientist says that coal is part of the mix. You do not like us to say it, but that is what the science tells us. You must accept the science.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (15:25): I want you to tell the tale of a brave person, the kind of person who rises to speak earnestly and passionately about a book they have not read, a film they have not seen, music they have not heard. Our once and possibly future Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, is such a brave person. He waded in knee-deep, opining that the Finkel review of the Electricity Market was deficient in many respects, despite then admitting to not having read it.
It is reported that many other members of the Liberal party room, a number speculated to be as high as 20, condemned it too on the 'vibe of the thing', as that famous Australian saying goes. Twenty is, of course, a very interesting number in Liberal partyroom dynamics. It is a very good start if you are contemplating mounting a coup. It is probably Mr Abbott's bedrock. It is a number, no doubt, keeping up the Prime Minister—
Senator Farrell: No, he's got more votes than that.
Senator KITCHING: Yes, I think that is right, Senator Farrell—as he reflects on whether he can survive until Christmas: clinging to power, pleasing neither conservatives nor small 'l' Liberals, only occasionally winning favour among a diminishing number of scribes.
But of course what the people of Australia want is a Prime Minister who will reserve the best efforts of his care and attention to the people's business. And self-evidently vital to the welfare of the people of Australia, to jobs, is ensuring certainty into energy policy. Despite their weasel words, the Abbott-Turnbull government, perhaps soon to be the Dutton-Abbott government, have presided over great uncertainty and are in control of what is really best described as an energy crisis in Australia. Wholesale power prices have doubled in their four agonisingly incompetent years in office. And you do not have to be a Belgian detective to figure out that if wholesale electricity prices go up, retail prices will surely follow.
This building, this vast beautiful building constructed inside a hill, cost more than $1.1 billion to build in 1988 dollars. The representatives and senators who sit here cost the taxpayers around $500 million a year, every year. The taxpayers pay us to make decisions, to make the big calls that affect the future of the country. And yet this government, on so many issues, has shown itself incapable of making decisions. Those 20-plus coalition MPs know that indecision is killing their government. Who else knows this basic truth? Pretty much everyone else in Australia: peak industry groups, unions, welfare groups, farmers. Its policy paralysis on energy policy, a paralysis caused by a genuine confusion in the Liberal party room about whether they believe in climate change at all, is led by someone who actually does believe in climate change—but, of course, he is not really leading them. He is their Prime Minister in name only. The Energy Council has contributed soaring electricity prices to the government's inability to do its job to determine a coherent, consistent energy policy.
The Finkel report into the future security of the National Electricity Market is an important contribution to the debate about the right policy mix for energy policy in Australia. The issues it addresses are complex, but there is no doubt that the Australian Labor Party will always be focused on protecting and encouraging the creation of jobs in Australia. There is a straight line between cheaper, cleaner and more secure power and jobs. Labor will never indulge in the ideological zealotry of those who do not care about climate or those so rich—often so green—that they do not have to care about jobs. For Labor, our mission is clear and always has been: jobs, jobs, jobs. Under the Abbott-Turnbull-Dutton-Abbott-again government, there has been a crisis of indecision and incompetence on energy policy—a party room of climate sceptics notionally led by somebody who would probably be pedalling renewable schemes for Goldman Sachs if he was not the Prime Minister.
We are here to make decisions, the tough calls to govern and to lead. My message to the Liberals, to the Nationals in this ramshackle hopeless government on energy policy is that if you cannot lead and will not follow then please, for the sake of Australians and their jobs— (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Donations to Political Parties
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:30): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludlam today relating to foreign donations.
I ask that the Senate take note of the question that I put to Senator Brandis a short time ago and the complete vacuous absence of an answer. A little bit earlier in question time, I asked about the ASIO Director-General's warnings to major political parties about receiving offshore donations, which could be perceived in the minds of any reasonable person as raising the potential for cash for foreign policy commitments. Personally I think every senator in here is used to being addressed by Senator Brandis as though they were lesser beings, beneath the contempt of his formidable intellect. It is like the Dunning-Kruger effect took human form and shared his presence with us today, and dropped his little bundle of condescension on us. We are well used to it but today, I think, was something of a special case.
Donations to political parties is a deadly serious issue. This is a question of whether fairly senior and exceptionally well resourced people, in this instance with links to the Chinese Communist Party, are dropping enormous amounts of money on Liberal, National and Labor Party serving MPs. I think you could quite reasonably ask about what they would expect in return. The revelations I am going to focus on a little bit in the purpose of asking the question today were outlined in a fairly recent Fairfax Four Corners report, which sparked the government into a certain amount of action on donations reform.
We saw a vote a little bit earlier today, and some of these matters are going to be returned to the closed shop known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It is fascinating that it is the major parties who are receiving these donations, who have flicked this question to a joint committee with no crossbench representation. Mr Andrew Wilkie served, I would argue, with distinction on that committee for a couple of years before the government incoming Abbott government wiped out crossbench representation. The major parties in this closed shop are going to effectively be adjudicating themselves.
Billionaire Chinese property developers Huang Xiangmo and Chau Chak Wing and their associates have made nearly $6.7 million in political donations to the government and to the opposition. What do you get in exchange for transactions of that magnitude? I know Senator Dastyari is in the spotlight again this week for his now infamous comments regarding the South China Sea dispute. Shortly after, Mr Huang reportedly threatened to withdraw a proposed donation of $400,000 to the Australian Labor Party if then defence spokesperson, Senator Conroy, continued to criticise China's militarisation of the South China Sea.
I happen to think Senator Dastyari got it right and I was surprised at the time that the Labor Party was taking such a hard-line and inflammatory approach to questions of the South China Sea and I never quite understood exactly where Senator Conroy was coming from. But the fact that this about-face on a really significant and important area of foreign policy was being made on the back of a $400,000 donation, I think, calls into question really whether this kind of practice should be banned, should be allowed at all. Because, irrespective of what you think of those making those comments or the various policy positions being put forward, the very fact that they are coming straight off the back of these inordinately large donations is cause for enormous concern.
Former Liberal trade minister Andrew Robb won a $880,000-a-year contract the day before the 2016 election while he was still the member for Goldstein. A part-time consulting fee was offered by another Chinese government linked billionaire, Ye Cheng, who purchased the 99-year lease on the port of Darwin—something that United States security agencies called the Australian government into question on. Equally alarming, obviously, was Mr Huang's donation of $100,000 to Mr Robb's Bayside Forum, which is his campaign donations vehicle, on the day of the signing of the free trade agreement in 2014.
The focus this week, obviously, is on donations from offshore, but the Greens believe that while major parties continue to accept donations which buy influence they inspire distrust in the people that elect them. Whether they are coming from foreign governments, like China, or the United States' foundations that write cheques for Senator Bernardi, in my view domestic donations are also poisoning not just the political process but certainly the perception of whether people think that their politicians and the policies that come out of this building are being bought and paid for. We need to do better.
Question agreed to.
BUDGET
Consideration by Estimates Committees
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:35): I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates:
Additional estimates 2016-17—
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 9 May and 15 June 2017—
Education and Training portfolio.
Employment portfolio.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 10 May and 14 June 2017—
Defence portfolio.
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.
COMMITTEES
Economics References Committee
Environment and Communications References Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (15:36): by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from an appointed to committees as follows:
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Xenophon for the committee's inquiry into the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility
Participating member: Senator Xenophon
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Rice to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the rehabilitation of mining and resources projects
Participating member: Senator Whish-Wilson
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Energy
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:36): I move:
That the Senate notes Australia's energy crisis, its impact on consumers, businesses and the broader economy, and the need for urgent and effective responses.
This relates to the energy crisis facing Australia, its impact on jobs, on businesses and on our economy, and the need for urgent action to intervene to take emergency steps to deal with this crisis.
If I may start with an extract from the book Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu. He talks about Argentina. He says that Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Australia and Argentina were two of the wealthiest countries in the world at the beginning of the last century. Up until the World War I, Argentina was thriving. It did not live so much off the sheep's back but off cattle and agriculture—very similar to Australia. Then there was a series of bad policy decisions made—of instability and of policy mishaps and policy missteps—on the part of the Argentinians, and Argentina went from being one of the wealthiest countries in the world to being a country in chaos, a country whose economy faltered and a country where there was enormous poverty and dislocation.
A number of the factors in Argentina will never happen here—we are talking about a level of political instability as something that could never occur in this country—but the bad economic decisions made led a wealthy country to become one of the poorest in the world. My fear is that unless we tackle the energy crisis in this country in the coming months—not in years, but in the coming months—we will have our Argentinian moment. We will take a number of courses of action that will cause deep damage to our economy, that will lead to tens of thousands of jobs being lost—jobs that we will not get back—that will scar our economy and scar our economic and social future.
I will be very careful in the context of this debate not to ascribe political blame, because if there were ever a time for bipartisanship it is now. If there were ever a time for some clear policy thinking to deal with this crisis, we need to deal with it now.
There are two aspects of this crisis that we must deal with. The first relates to our electricity sector and investment certainty in respect of our electricity sector. We have had the Finkel review by the Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, and I will go to that shortly. That has been useful in prompting a debate and the need for investment certainty. Whether you believe in the science of climate change, as I do, or not, you ought to believe unambiguously in the harsh reality of the investment climate, where investors around the world will not go near Australia to invest in new-generation capacity because of the policy uncertainty. We need that policy uncertainty to end. We need very clear guidance to create that policy certainty. I am concerned that the Finkel review does not address those issues in the sense that a clean energy target is not the preferred option of the Australian Energy Market Commission. It is not the preferred option to deal with issues of certainty and of the lowest cost methods of abatement. We must go down a path where we can meet our Paris agreement targets of a 28 per cent reduction in carbon emissions on 2005 levels by 2030 and, eventually, the trajectory that will get us to zero emissions by 2050. We need to do that and there appears to be, at the very least, a bipartisan acknowledgement that those are the targets we must get to. But how we get to them appears to be fraught with difficulty.
Back in 2009, along with Malcolm Turnbull, as the then Leader of the Opposition, we jointly commissioned Frontier Economics and its managing director, Danny Price, to come up with an alternative carbon trading system and emissions intensity scheme, which back then was derided by one side of politics, the current opposition, as being a mongrel of a scheme. It is now Labor Party policy, and I am glad that they came to that position—it seems that the mongrel has become a top dog in the course of eight years or so—but, curiously, the coalition has walked away from that and is now looking at other alternatives. We need to have the best, lowest cost emissions abatement scheme in place. We need to look at the way we transition to renewables and we must do so carefully and sensibly. I support renewable energy, but I also support it being done in an orderly and transitional way. I previously put a position forward that we need to aim for a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. I believe there are better ways to meet our Paris agreement targets. I believe that we should of course aim to have baseload renewables and renewables that can give grid stability, but we need to be very careful about having a target that is simply black and white and does not take into account the realities of the marketplace.
The inquiry by the Select Committee into the Resilience of Electricity Infrastructure in a Warming World, of which Senator Hanson-Young was the chair, was conducted recently and looked at what happened in South Australia. What is instructive is that, as a result of that inquiry, documents were discovered that had been provided to the South Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet back in 2009—two reports, essentially saying, 'If you want to go beyond 20 per cent renewables, you need to be very careful that you have grid stability. You need to be very careful that the system is there to ensure stability so that, if you have blackout events, there is reliability in the system.' Those independent reports, by McLennan Magasanik Associates and the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, were not heeded, in my view, by the South Australian government. So mistakes were made—and that is not being pejorative in any way towards renewable energy. On the contrary, if we are going to do it through transition, we should do it right.
We have two issues here. The first is the price of electricity, which is rising on the eastern seaboard by some 20 to 30 per cent by 1 July for consumers and retail customers. It is rising by 18 per cent in South Australia, already one of the highest priced electricity markets anywhere in the world. That is something that the Finkel review looked at, but one thing that the Finkel review did not look at—and this is not a criticism of Dr Finkel because he was not asked to look at this specifically—is the gas crisis that is facing Australia. We have a situation in this country where, absurdly, Australian gas being exported overseas and landing in Japan, even with the cost of shipping it there and the costs involved of liquefaction and de-liquefaction to get it into the Japanese market, is half the price of gas here in Australia—the same gas; effectively the same molecules. How can it be that we have Australian gas going overseas and they are paying half the price of what we are paying for it here?
The market is dysfunctional. Of course, I support market solutions, but when the market is broken, you need to look beyond that. You need to look at emergency interventions.
For a number of years now, Manufacturing Australia and leading manufacturers have said that the gas crisis is real and we need to deal with it. The AWU in conjunction with Manufacturing Australia—one of those alliances between industry and the union movement—took the same view, and they have been warning about this for years. They are saying that this is a looming crisis and if we do not do something about it, it is going to hurt manufacturing. In recent weeks, I have spoken to a number of manufacturers who tell me that their gas bill, which is already in the millions of dollars each year, will more than double by the end of the year. They are the contracts that are being offered. Unless we bring the price of gas down, we can expect to see hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses pushed to the brink and some over the edge, and tens of thousands of jobs lost in this country. The impact it will have on manufacturing will be severe. The impact that it will have on jobs will be severe. The flow-on effects will be severe. It will leave lasting scars in our economy. I fear that, unless we deal with the gas crisis sooner rather than later, it will push the country into a recession. It is not alarmist to say that—the businesses I am speaking to are talking about laying off hundreds, if not thousands, of workers—given the sizes of the enterprises and the flow-on effects of those businesses closing down.
We need to deal with this. I do not ascribe blame. We have stuffed it up as a nation. We need to fix this as a nation and take away the rancour of politics from it, because poisonous politics have stood in the way of this. Manufacturing still matters in this country. We have a situation where something like 200,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in this country since the GFC. But we still have over 850,000 Australians employed in manufacturing in this country, and that is a major sector of our economy. It has slipped as a percentage of GDP. Some six per cent of our economy is now based on manufacturing compared to 12 per cent a decade ago. We are bumping above Botswana and Rwanda in Africa—two countries that have never had the manufacturing and industrial base that we have had. If you lose those businesses, the flow-on effects to the economy and in reducing innovation will be quite profound.
What do we do about it? In my negotiations with the government, in particular with Senator Cormann, a number of measures were agreed to, which I welcome. Those measures relate to having more transparent gas markets. Those measures relate to dealing with the use it or lose it principle. My concern is that there are companies out there that are masters of creating scarcity, because we have enormous supplies of gas, particularly in the North West Shelf, that seem to be just sitting there. I have asked many questions in the Senate estimates process about the use it or lose it policy. These retention leases ought to be unlocked. We need to take every measure possible because we need to unlock that gas and bring it into the marketplace.
We have been warned about this on many occasions. The ACCC—the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—in a report dated 13 April 2016 to the Assistant Treasurer, the Honourable Kelly O'Dwyer MP, set out issues in the competitiveness of the wholesale gas industry. It was very disturbing reading. That was over a year ago. We were warned then that there were factors feeding into the uncertainty about future gas supply on the east coast: that the magnitude of gas flows into LNG projects were removing gas from the domestic market and the lower ore price had led to declining investment in gas exploration. A whole range of regulatory restrictions were also raised, but those LNG projects were a very serious issue in reducing gas supply. The ACCC, in one of the headline parts of its report, said:
The LNG projects have disrupted the gas supply-demand balance in the east coast gas market
That is something that we have ignored. Right now, there are businesses that I am talking to that have a gas bill of $15 million, or $30 million in some cases, who tell me that their gas bill will at least double and they cannot sustain a successful business on that basis. They are going to have to shrink that business or shift offshore. They will not be able to compete with our international trading partners with gas prices going up that high. This is a looming tsunami of job losses that we face unless we tackle this with a great degree of urgency. This is something that Manufacturing Australia and the AWU have been talking about for years. We have shied away from a domestic gas reservation policy, having a national interest test. They have had it in the US and in other parts of the world. I know it is a market intervention, and I know it is anathema to many on both sides of this chamber to have that level of market intervention, but what do we do? We cannot afford to let manufacturing businesses in this country die because of these distortions in the gas market and in the transparency of the market. Do not take my word for it; there are many others who are saying this.
Bruce Robertson, from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, has been banging this drum year after year. He has been warning of the risks of our export LNG plants in the context of ensuring we have adequate supplies of gas for the domestic market. Bruce Robertson and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis put out a report titled Australia's export LNG plants at Gladstone: the risks mount, and I commend the report. Bruce Robertson is one of the pre-eminent analysts on gas and LNG in this country. What Mr Robertson is saying is that, incredibly, there is going to be a glut in the global supply of gas, but for some reason we have a lack of gas here in Australia. He says that the doubling and tripling of prices is untenable for Australian industry and that there is a lack of transparency in the tenements that are there. We need to have integrity in oil and gas company accounts and better disclosures. So for those who do not want market intervention, we have information asymmetry here that we need to deal with. At the very least, we need to have the level of disclosure that they have the in United States, where gas reserves are determined on a much better benchmark basis, where there is less opacity in terms of those gas reserve figures. Mr Robertson concludes:
Poor disclosure in the oil and gas industry is leading to poor policy decisions in Australia. It is not possible to produce good policy outcomes in the current information void.
That is something that concerns me very deeply. He refers to the Australian gas cartel and says:
The Australian gas cartel has been very successful at restricting supply to the domestic market and forcing up the price. There is plenty of supply and plenty of reserves on the East Coast of Australia. Australia will be the world’s largest exporter of LNG by 2021.
This does not pass the pub test. It does not pass any reasonable test.
How can we be one of the biggest producers of gas in the world yet face a domestic gas crisis in this country, which is going to literally force the closure of hundreds of businesses, including manufacturing businesses and energy intensive businesses? Never mind the flow-on effects on every consumer in this country, because gas is an increasingly important part of our baseload energy mix.
We need to tackle this, and it must involve levels of intervention. If we cannot get the price of gas down, and if those businesses cannot secure contracts in the coming months at a much lower price than the $12, $15, $18, $19 per gigajoule that is being offered at the moment, it is unsustainable. We should have a gas price in the order of $5 to $6 a gigajoule. The days of $3 or $4 a gigajoule are gone. I know that, but we need to at least have a competitive price for Australian industry. We have had inquiry after inquiry into this. The government is taking a number of steps, and I acknowledge we worked constructively with them on those for transparency. But my fear is that the businesses I have spoken to in recent weeks say that we need an urgent intervention.
There will be an intervention on 1 July in export markets with export controls, but from the little information I have seen in respect of that, my fear is that it will not be enough to deal with this issue. It will not provide the level of intervention powers required in order to get a result, to bring those prices down. The proof will be in the pudding, and the reason we have not had more companies speak out about this is very simple. Multinational companies talk to me privately, and they say to me: 'If we tell the world how bad things are in Australia, what will our head office do? Our head office in Europe or in the US or wherever it may be will say, 'We do not want to do business in Australia; we will make plans to shift to other plants.' Private businesses, not publicly listed, are saying, 'We have covenants in our loan agreements that if our profit forecast declines dramatically that can lead to the loan being called in,' and they do not, understandably, want to speak publicly about this.
I urge my colleagues to consider this as an issue of great national significance. We are at a tipping point in this country, we are at a crossroads, because, if we go down a path where gas prices are not reduced, we will see the decimation of our remaining manufacturing sector in this country and many tens of thousands of jobs will be lost. We need to make some tough decisions that may involve intervention and that may involve using every constitutional power we can in order to free up gas for the domestic market at an affordable price. It may involve cooperating with the states in order to take this action. It will involve a whole sweep of measures, and, whilst I welcome the measures the government has put in place to date that we work constructively, the information I have been getting in recent weeks is that, unless they see a significant decline in the price of gas, those businesses will not be sustainable. That is why this is so important.
I will conclude by saying this: a hundred years ago Australia and Argentina were two of the richest countries in the world. Argentina went down the path of bad and disastrous decisions and a path of penury and dislocation from which it has never recovered. We cannot, we must not, go down the Argentinian path. This is our chance and our opportunity to tackle this in a bipartisan sense, because the consequences of gas prices not going down will be catastrophic for the Australian economy. This is the immediate crisis we face in addition to the bigger, longer-term issues in respect of electricity supply and security of fair and reasonable prices in this country. Thank you.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (15:57): I am pleased to have another opportunity to contribute to this important debate after a necessarily brief contribution in the take note debate following question time on Tuesday. In a moment, I will come to the specific recommendations made by Finkel—the five key recommendations made—and I will make some comments and observations about them.
Before I do that, I want to take the opportunity to comment in a more general sense on the public policy development process and how it has been conducted so far in this debate. I understand the legitimate interest that the media has had in the way in which the coalition has so far conducted an internal debate about this policy issue, and I also understand why the natural instinct of an opposition party in those circumstances is to try and seek political advantage from that debate, to seek to draw attention to political divisions and to exacerbate and over-emphasise them. But I actually think this has been a very important and, in fact, one of the best policy-development processes we have been through on a really difficult question in my short time in this place. I say that because I think as parliamentarians we should be able to admit that on difficult, contentious issues like this—which involve trade-offs, which involve competing priorities and which involve a clash of values sometimes—that within a political party we do not all necessarily have the exact same view. In fact, it would be a very unhealthy thing if we all had the same view.
We represent different constituencies, different states and different seats and for that reason alone, as well as the naturally different philosophical differences that exist within political parties, we do come to this debate with a different starting point and different points of view, and that is a healthy and normal thing. I do not think it is a healthy and normal thing to pretend, as some have sought to do in this debate and in other debates, that political parties are of one mind, have one view and do not engage in internal robust debate, criticism, scepticism and enquiry. It is not true. It is not true of our party and it is not true of the Labor Party. It is not a healthy thing to tell the public something that is not true. One of the reasons why this is really problematic is that, in an age of declining faith and trust in political parties, in the parliament as an institution and in governments, we should all seek to do as much as possible to treat those who put us here—those who voted for us, our constituents—like adults and not spin and pretend to them that what is not the case is the case. It does this institution no good and our parties and our governments no good to mindlessly repeat talking points on issues and pretend that there is not a diversity of opinion. That is one reason why I think this has been a good and important process, although not the most elegant or the most clean process so far, and that it should be engaged in.
The second reason why I believe it has been an important and positive process is that in this place we all fulfil a number of roles. We are here to represent our constituents and to assist them in their dealings with the federal government. We are here to represent our parties. Those of us who serve in the executive have those responsibilities. Those of us on the backbench have our obligations through the committee process. But first and foremost—and this applies particularly strongly to those of us who are not part of the executive—is that we have obligations as legislators. Our primary purpose here is to be legislators, to vote on legislation and to pass laws. In order to fulfil that role, we should not mindlessly accept policies handed down to us by our political parties, by our governments or by the executive. It is our role to make sure first and foremost that we understand what we are voting for and the implications it will have for our constituents. A very healthy way to do that is to engage in robust debate and inquiry—sceptical inquiry—about legislation. We have an obligation to test policies proposed to us to ensure that they do achieve the objectives they set out to achieve and that they are in the best interests of the people that we are here to represent. So the desire by some in politics to hold the line, to be seen to be uniform without colour and without debate undermines, I think, the faith that the public has in our institutions and prevents us from fulfilling our role. So I have welcomed this debate.
I should add that I respect greatly the sanctity of the coalition party room and I do not propose to in any way undermine that, but, given all the public commentary on, and interest in, the process we had earlier this week, I can say that I found it to be personally a very useful process. I learnt much more about this issue than I could ever have simply by reading media commentary about it or the report itself, as informed and uninformed that sometimes can be. As a result of that process, I will bring a better informed view to the debate going forward. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, for putting to the coalition party room a recommendation, a report, to government—but, as others have said, not a policy of government—for our feedback, input, insight and questions. I think that is a welcome development. On big, contentious and difficult questions like this, it is something that we should do more often.
I will turn now to the specific recommendations in the Finkel review. There are five key ones that I would like to highlight and make some observations about here today in this debate. The first is a requirement that there be an energy security obligation on new wind and solar generations. This is distinct from—which I will turn to in a moment—an energy reliability obligation. Without wading through the technical scientific matters too much, which are beyond my technical expertise, one of the issues that we encountered during the South Australian energy crisis was the lack of stable frequency or inertia provided by renewable energy sources, particularly wind power, to the South Australian grid and the problems that that caused. Everyone recognises that that was an issue and that it needs to be improved. Finkel has sensibly seized on this and is recommending that all generators that are connected to the National Energy Market meet these new technical requirements under strict new standards, which will ensure that stable frequency is provided to the electricity grid.
In addition to that, the second recommendation is, as I mentioned before, an energy reliability obligation. This refers to the fact that many renewable energy sources, although not all renewable energy sources particularly wind and solar, provide energy in an intermittent way, in an unreliable way. As we all know from the South Australian example, on a good day, wind can provide up to 120 per cent of South Australia's energy needs, and South Australia can be a net exporter of energy to the other states within the national energy market. But on a bad day, when the wind is not so strong, it can provide as little as none of South Australia's electricity needs. What the Finkel review has recognised is the pressure that this places on the electricity system and the danger that poses to the stability and reliability of the grid. He recommends that in future the government places an obligation on renewable energy providers to provide either backup or storage of electricity to ensure that in those times when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing that reliable stable energy can still be provided to the grid. This is absolutely essential if we are to increase renewable energy penetration in the grid any further than it has already been increased—quite dramatically in recent years.
The third recommendation from the Finkel inquiry is that a three-year notice of closure be required of all existing large electricity generators. This is designed to deal with the situation we faced in my home state of Victoria with the Hazelwood power plant, which gave very little notice to the electricity market or to the people that it serviced in Victoria that it intended to close, and gave the market and governments an extraordinarily minimal amount of time to respond to that major change to the electricity market and the pressure that that put on the system. We have to ensure in the future, if there are to be any further closures of current—particularly baseload—large electricity generators that we have sufficient notice of their plans to close so that plans can be made to ensure that the reduction of energy supply into the market can be compensated for elsewhere.
The fourth very sensible recommendation from the Finkel review was to have a consistent and coordinated national approach to emissions reductions, if we agree that that is the most important national goal. It does the energy system no good at all to have different renewable energy targets in different states and territories and nationally. Many state opposition parliamentarians have promised that—and I speak of the Victorian coalition opposition as one such example—if they are elected to government, they will abolish Victoria's Renewable Energy Target and respect the national Renewable Energy Target or whatever replaces it as the single standard for renewable energy to avoid the kind of absurd situation we had in South Australia with such an ambitious renewable energy target, far beyond that the federal target and the pressure that has put on the South Australian system.
Finkel was also appropriately critical of those states and territories which have bans or restrictions on the exploration of gas in my home state of Victoria, a ban not just on exploration and harvesting of unconventional gas sources, which it has in perpetuity, but also a ban on conventional onshore gas and oil exploration up to the year 2020, and the extraordinary damage that has done to the gas market, and, as Senator Xenophon was referring to earlier, the extraordinary price increases that have flowed as a result. There is plenty of gas in Australia which could have been harvested, which should have been harvested in the last few years and which had it been harvested would have helped to put downward pressure on gas prices but, regrettably, some very ill-advised state based moratoriums on gas exploration and exploitation had been put in place to the great cost of the manufacturing industry, households and others.
Finally, the biggest recommendation in the Finkel report and the one that has obviously attracted the most interest is the clean energy target to replace in part the Renewable Energy Target, which currently exists at a federal level and is scheduled to expire in 2020. This new target would or could replace the Renewable Energy Target and would set a goal of emissions reductions on behalf of the electricity sector by 2030. It would do so in a much more energy agnostic, technology neutral way than the current Renewable Energy Target. It would open up incentives to technologies which can help reduce emissions but not limit them just to what is effectively the case today, which is just solar and wind. It would allow, for example, a new modern gas-fired power station to come online to replace existing power stations and deliver reliable base load energy at a much lower emissions intensity. Depending on where the emissions intensity level is set, it could also allow for new high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power stations, which, if replacing today's older coal-fired power stations, could reduce emissions by up to 40 or 50 per cent.
My view is that that would be a very welcome thing. My view is that, if we are concerned about the impact of emissions on the planet, then we should not quibble about how those emissions reductions come about. The planet does not mind if the emissions reductions come about through renewable energy or any other form of energy. An emissions reduction is an emissions reduction. If coal-fired power with new ultrasupercritical power stations can achieve those reductions then I think they deserve due consideration, as does the potential for carbon capture and storage with both gas and coal-fired power.
I would like to conclude this afternoon by making one final observation. The issue the government is grappling with is how to provide certainty to the energy industry to ensure that the investment strike that has taken place over recent years does not continue. We need new generation to come into the market. We need to reverse the trend in recent years where no new base load power has been built in Australia. In the last 10 years no new coal-fired power stations have been built, in the last seven years no new gas-fired power stations have been built and in the last five years 10 coal-fired power stations have closed.
The government's role in providing certainty to the energy market is only 50 per cent. Over the next 30 years, which is the trajectory by which an energy industry investor will be contemplating a return on their investment, there is absolute certainty, I regret to say, that we will not be in office and those opposite will be in office. It is just as important what policies they propose to adopt when they are in government as we propose to adopt now when we are in government on the incentives that are being provided to an energy industry investor. So, even if the government is able to arrive at, propose and legislate a clean energy target, if we are to provide the certainty that we know is needed to provide stable electricity supply to Australians, it is not just incumbent on us to propose and legislate it but it is incumbent on the Labor Party to ensure that they will not only support it being legislated but agree to keep it in place with the settings that are agreed to today when they are in government.
If they say that they will pass a clean energy target but only in order to tinker with it when they are in office, change the settings when they are in office and make it more demanding on the energy industry or if they say that they will accept the existence of the clean energy target but reserve the right when in office to trial and experiment with other schemes, such as an emissions intensity scheme, as they have been saying in recent weeks, then that certainty for energy industry investors will disappear. The certainty that they need will evaporate because over a 30-, 40- or 50-year investment time frame there is certainty that those opposite will have an opportunity to implement their policies and they weigh just as heavily on someone contemplating investment in the energy industry today.
If we really are to achieve bipartisan consensus, it has to be durable bipartisan consensus that will last. That may involve on the part of the government a compromise and introducing a measure that not everyone in the government is completely happy with, but necessarily it will also require a compromise on the part of the opposition to support a policy that they might not be 100 per cent happy with, because, if we are to continue radically changing energy policies between governments as governments change hands, then that certainty needed in the energy industry will not be provided. We know what the flow-on consequences of that will be for electricity prices, what the consequences will be for businesses in Australia, who employ so many Australians, and what the consequences will be for households in Australia. We know the brunt of the burden that they will bear as a result of that.
I encourage those opposite to consider their role in providing certainty and stability that they say is necessary. I encourage them to consider not proceeding back to the path that they were on when they were last in government, which is to favour an approach of carbon taxes in their various guises to solve this issue. I encourage them to consider backing whatever proposal the government puts to this place and committing to keeping it in place if they have the pleasure of occupying the government benches in the near future.
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (16:15): As you well know, there are very few certainties that come before this chamber, but this afternoon the arguments that Senator Xenophon put forward about the concerns in our community about our energy situation—and in particular the impact on consumers, businesses and the broader economy and the need for urgent and effective sponsors—I think, come as close to certainty as we have ever had in front of us.
I listened with great interest to the arguments that Senator Xenophon put forward and, in his contributions, he was focusing very clearly on the impact of gas supplies and gas prices. While that was not one of the leading processes in the Finkel report, I think it could be easily picked up in the response that we, in this parliament, make to the recommendations of the Finkel report. Having survived the years of where there has been such furious debate in this place—alluded to by Senator Paterson—about the way people bring pre-acknowledged and predetermined positions and are not prepared to compromise, we have not seen a great deal of compromise on this issue over the last few years.
I am concerned by the final element of Senator Paterson's proposal, which was: whatever the government comes up with must be the right answer, and that everybody in the chamber—ergo, everyone in the community—must agree with that, not question it, not look at how we can move forward. We have to agree, absolutely, with what the government of today says will be our future.
I do not agree with that proposal. I do not believe that that is what the impact and the expectation of the Finkel process has been. It seeks ongoing consideration, research and activity around the issues to develop a plan into the future, to which we sign absolutely, and we should all make every effort to ensure that it is effective and meets the needs of the community.
To make an expectation that absolutely everything that is determined at this time must be without any change—and I did like the use of the verb to 'quibble'—or quibbling and that that will be the way we are going to move forward automatically reinforces the divide. It reinforces the space where there will be the kind of debate that we have suffered from in this place around the issue of the best way to look at energy, the best way to respond to not just Australia's need—though I do note Senator Xenophon's proposal is looking particularly at a crisis in Australia.
As I have said many times in these discussions over the last few years, we are not only looking at Australia in this process; we are looking at our world and how it responds to the dictates of the pressures of climate change, of us living on this planet together, while maintaining our lifestyles, which is very important, and our effective use of energy. Together, we have to fulfil commitments to ensure that we do have a future, not just here but across the globe, which is where international agreements come into play. We must ensure that Australia takes a leading role in those international discussions so that we are part of a worldwide response.
I was heartened today by some of the responses by Senator Brandis in question time—and that is not something I say a lot. However, I was heartened today when he said that the government would be relying on the science. That is something that is very valuable to hear because consistently, in past debates, the role of the science has been debunked. The role of science has been dismissed and used almost as an argument for not responding—instead of listening to and working with the strong scientific evidence that we have, there has been a desire for personal reasons and needs to actually debunk the science. There is a big difference between questioning and actually strongly questioning, demanding effective research and demanding stringent investigation, and there is a big difference between that approach and debunking and dismissing. I think that one of the many lessons we need to have learned over the last few years is that this movement to debunk, dismiss and attack scientific processes has been wrong. That has actually coloured a lot of the debate and has caused great pain and concern not just in the scientific community but, I think, in our wider community as well. So I was really pleased to hear Senator Brandis say that the approach of the government is going to value the science and listen to the science.
We did have a very strong step in that direction by the agreement of the federal government and all the states and territories to give our Chief Scientist and the extraordinarily highly credentialed team that supported him through the conducting of the review the very serious but responsible and appropriate task to undertake an independent review of exactly where our community is at the moment in terms of our energy needs and where we need to move forward. The fact is that that review was conducted in a rigorous way and an engaging way. The approach that the Finkel team took to this review is the way we need to continue. They placed absolute importance on the science and ensured that they got the best possible research positions, the best possible knowledge and the international awareness of what the science is in evidence to their review.
What they also did was open the process to the community, the business groups and across the whole of the country so that it was not only located in certain regions. The Finkel review ensured that they heard evidence from people who were concerned about these issues all across the nation and gave them the opportunity to be involved. People were not excluded. They were not told that this was the business of other groups or of people who may have credentials or particular experiences. This particular review was placed in the situation where everyone had the opportunity to be involved, and they took that opportunity. Hundreds of submissions were received by the review and all were published. Meetings and discussions were held with groups across the country—groups that often in the past have not talked to each other. I think the message this review process gave us is that there is an opportunity to engage in debate and discussion without degenerating into abuse and disgust. That is something I think would be a model for how we go into the future with this process. They actually did that by asking for the advice and asking for the engagement.
I began this contribution by saying there are very few certainties in any debate, but one thing that is certain is that people across Australia are concerned about our energy situation. They are concerned about where energy in the future will be obtained so that we are able not only to maintain the goals that we have now but to improve and have greater access to the kinds of things we all value. The certainty is that people are concerned about increasing prices of power. There is no argument about that. Mr Acting Deputy President, no matter how you look at the figures and no matter which graphs you use, it is clear that energy prices have been rising. It does not do us any credit to talk about whether they rose more quickly 10 years ago or now, or what the expectation is in the future. The fact is that energy prices are growing. That is putting greater pressure on families and individuals. As we heard from Senator Xenophon's contribution about his interaction with a range of businesses, it is also putting extreme pressure on businesses that actually provide jobs and economic opportunities for people across the country. So the certainty is that people are concerned about the source of power and the cost of power.
It is always a position of debate when we get surveys about whether people are concerned about climate change and renewable energy. People can pull out graphs and survey results all over the place and argue about what is fact. But what I can say is that my own perception is that people across the community are concerned about a genuine clean energy future. They are concerned about the impact of energy use and different sources of energy, the impact on climate change and about a clean environment in our country. And that does not matter whether you are talking with people in Central Queensland in my state or the power areas around Gladstone, Mackay and those areas, or whether you are talking in capital cities.
I think there is an open discussion going on around the issues and the impact of different forms of energy on the environment. Instead of actually taking that out of the debate we are having through this process and putting it into a separate box, this should be central to the debate that we are having around our future. If we keep these issues separate or if we deny that these are real and important to people, we are closing down experience, we are closing down knowledge and, I believe, we are closing down a really integral part of how we are able to plan into the future. As I said, we are actually changing the impact we would have as international citizens in this place.
Senator Paterson, in his contribution, went through the various recommendations of Finkle. I think what we have seen is, across a range of different groups in the community, people have responded in a positive way. Consistently, when you look at quotes from a number of the major industry groups, the major unions and from ACOSS, you see that there is a willingness to consider what has been put before us. I think that is a very positive step. There is a tendency for all kinds of reasons to rush to judgement, particularly if you think that somebody has said something that you agree with and you can actually join in concert with that and say, 'Naturally, this was the right result because I agreed with it.' Or, if you do not agree with it, you can rapidly jump into an attack mode and say, 'This is garbage. There's no way this will work. We won't go down that track.'
The thing about which I have found the most hope in the debate we have been having in the last couple of days is: it does seem to be, across the board, an approach that says let's have a good hard look at what the Finkle review has said and let's see how we can move forward with it. It certainly is a major move forward. I really like this quote. I am worried about cherrypicking quotes from all around the place, but I am going to use this one because I think it sums up a little bit of a view about where we are at the moment. It is from Matthew Warren from the AEC. He said on the ABC:
Right now, we couldn't do it worse if we tried. We're making everything worse. We're making prices higher, reliability more unreliable, and we're not delivering the emissions we're required to deliver.
As a snapshot of an assessment about where we are, that actually is a pretty strong warning that there has to be change.
When we look at some of the other responses, the common theme is: let's have a reasonable consideration of what is before us and see what the next steps are going to be. I think that is the challenge for all of us. If we do this, we will consider and look very clearly at the recommendations around the issue of the clean energy target. It is a different approach and is, actually, one that is not in the current Labor Party policy. I am really pleased that I have heard Mark Butler, our shadow minister in this space, and also Bill Shorten speaking very publicly that we will actually consider this different option and see how it could work. With the Labor Party policy which we took to the last election, about which we were very sure, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, we are not going to say, 'Just because Finkle has recommended something different, we are going to close our minds to this particular aspect of the recommendation.'
In terms of our own approach, there has only been the one element that we have questioned at this stage, and that is around the use of the term 'clean coal' and whether it can actually go under the heading of renewable energy. And that debate will continue. But it is certainly something that is not new. With the other recommendations which Senator Paterson read into the Hansard record, those areas are things which, I think, now, the Finkle process has given the challenge to all of us as a community and as a parliament. And it is not bipartisan; it needs to be cross party. The term 'bipartisan' belongs to a previous part of history. We now have to engage with a range of representatives that come here with the vote of the population to say that we need to consider what is before us in terms of this debate. In terms of where we take it, we need to look very seriously at some of the arguments that Senator Xenophon has put before us about the issue around gas in this country and the impact on businesses. That is one area that I do not think was picked up as strongly as it could have been in the Finkel review, but we have the opportunity now to include it in the discussions that will inevitably come from looking at it reasonably and with responsibility.
An element that I want to finish with is the expectation of the community. People in the wider community are suffering in their awareness of rising prices and their fear of the future. They need to be able to look with confidence to the parliament that they have elected to respond effectively to the processes that are before us. If we continue to just throw barbs across the chamber and refuse to work together in this area, we are not fulfilling the responsibility that we have from the people who have elected us. We should not add to their uncertainty, vulnerability and anger by not taking up the challenge that is before us now. While not everybody in this country has read the full Finkel review or the submissions that are now public, people in the wider community are caring about the issues. They are reading things in the media and listening to media commentary and they expect us to make a reasoned, responsible judgement about how we go forward. We have a way to go to learn how to do that as we should.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:31): In following Senator Moore to discuss this topic, I do make the point that Senator Moore referenced the issue—I will paraphrase here, Senator Moore—that it is time to stop the argy-bargy and work together constructively to get an outcome. That is generally the way of those who are getting what they want. They want to work constructively because they know that the capitulation of common sense and reason is almost complete on the other side. When it is outreach and working together, it means doing what those on the other side of the chamber actually want. That is a problem because the energy crisis this country undoubtedly faces is a direct product of the policies that have been enacted by successive governments over the last decade. Now, belatedly, honourable senators and MPs are being dragged kicking and screaming to recognise the disaster that they have created. I say that it is belatedly because it has been obvious to all and sundry who want to see and who can study the facts for themselves and to those people who bother to talk to people in business about the crisis of electricity. It has been obvious to all and sundry who have taken the time to talk with pensioners and families who are struggling to pay their electricity bills if the lights are even on. That, once again, is a direct product of the people in this place and the decisions that have been made over many years.
It is government policy that is responsible for the electricity crisis in this country—nothing else. It is government policy that has created the problem. There are no ifs or buts. There is this foolish pursuit of renewable energy targets that has compromised our electricity security, not only most notably in my state of South Australia, but right across the country. I say it is foolishness because everyone knew that renewable energy was intermittent, unreliable and uneconomic yet they pursued this green dream, thinking that, somehow, we can pave our way to nirvana. Well, it has all come crashing down because the renewable energy industry itself is completely unsustainable without taxpayer dollars, and those taxpayer dollars are being borrowed. At the moment, about $40 billion a year overall is being borrowed, but some of that is being channelled into the renewable energy sector, which has so egregiously let down the people of South Australia and is letting down the people of Australia. In my state of South Australia, we had what was effectively a five-day power failure. That is Third World stuff. For five days, a state in a First World country was without power. Businesses lost tens of thousands of dollars, and millions of dollars in some instances, in stock because the lights and the refrigeration were not kept on. Business investment in places like Port Lincoln, where they want to build cold storage facilities, has been absolutely stopped. Millions of dollars worth of investment has been stopped because they cannot rely on the electricity generation. We see businesses in small country towns and larger businesses in major metropolitan centres buying diesel generators to back up the unreliable electricity supply—and why? Because of the ideological pursuit of a 50 per cent renewable energy target.
That is Labor's policy and, until a few moments ago, it was Senator Xenophon's policy. Senator Xenophon cannot escape unscathed here, even though he is crab-walking away from his own belief system, because he was the one who was pursuing this renewable energy policy with some sort of special zeal. Then, when it was turning catastrophically bad, he decided he would tax the taxpayers more by demanding and insisting upon $70 rebates and subsidies for everyone who was suffering under the policy that he created. Now, today, he has done the little mea culpa. He said, 'Maybe the 50 per cent renewable energy target was a bit ambitious.' He sacked his best mate from being a candidate for his next party in South Australia, whatever it is called, because his mate belled the cat and said it was a ridiculous policy. I wonder if his mate is going to be reinstated. That will be something for Senator Xenophon to announce to the South Australian people—'I got it wrong for so many years. My mate got it right. Maybe he should be leader of the Nick Xenophon Team.'
But the responsibility does not just lie with the Nick Xenophon Team. It lies with everyone who has tried to cobble together some amalgam of fiction married to an ideological agenda that is being imposed from afar. Apparently, because we are resource rich, we are a prosperous nation and we have bountiful products with which to produce electricity, we are somehow destroying humanity. It is simply not true. Cheap, reliable and abundant electricity is the recipe for economic and human progression. If you have any doubts about that, go to a place like South Australia, where it is not cheap and it is not reliable. Our industry is suffering. Our state is suffering. If you want to extrapolate it out, go to a place where there is no real electricity connected in any meaningful form. Compare the quality of life, the life expectancy, the health and welfare outcomes and the economy there with those places that are generating cheap and plentiful electricity.
Yet, notwithstanding the crisis that our country faces, the ideologues are still pursuing this green dream. They are shutting down coal fired power stations with nothing to replace them. In South Australia, of course, the Labor government faces a political crisis because, in March of next year, after what is expected to be a stinking hot summer with plenty of power blackouts due to the green energy schemes that they have insisted upon, they will be looking to have a quick fix. Do you know what the quick fix is? They are going to go out and lease or purchase a whole bunch of diesel generators to back up their green dream. Diesel generators are probably the most inefficient, most polluting form of generating electricity known to man. I have heard reports that in another green oasis, that second life experiment called Tasmania, where the Greens been running the show far too long, they have got diesel generators there. It costs something like $11 million per month to fuel these diesel generators and to subsidise them. In South Australia, the government is going to be switching those on in about November or December just so they can get through the politically expedient period of three or four months without any blackouts. The cost of that is going to be tens of millions of dollars, which is going to be more than it would cost to fund the Port Augusta power station to keep it operating, burning coal for another couple of years until they can build another gas-fired power station or thereabouts.
Then we have, of course, the crisis with gas that Senator Xenophon talked about. I understand that gas contracts are wrong, are not acting in our interests and we have been done over on some of them. But there is this tie-up of resources. There is an inability for people to explore the gas or unconventional gas in some areas, to access a bountiful resource, because, once again, green ideology seems to have infected every major party. It started on the crossbench with one or two and it has crept its way around this chamber. I am happy to tell you and am happy to tell the people of Australia that Australian Conservatives are not buying into it.
Our energy policy is remarkably simple: stop subsidising any of it. Let the market do its work. I have heard time and time again about a market pricing mechanism. Leave it alone and the market will work it out. Become agnostic about how your electricity is delivered and generated and allow investment to take place. I do not care if it is windmills, solar panels, batteries, gas, coal or nuclear—there is the other thing missing in this debate. No-one seems to want to talk about the N-word, nuclear.
They do not want to talk about it because it might challenge some of their own beliefs, but I can tell you right now that, if a nuclear power station stacks up economically, we need to open our minds to having one built. There is no doubt about that, because that is a zero-emissions way of generating electricity. That would satisfy those catastrophists who have bought into the Marxist agenda of global warming, which is not happening. It will also provide base load power. I know there are concerns about that, but the new generation of reactors—the modular reactors—can be dealt with in a safe and efficient manner. In actual fact, if we decided to get really smart, we would explore the nuclear fuel cycle, including the safe storage of radioactive material, as a generator of revenue for this country.
That is what we need to open our minds to in this country, but instead we are doing every single consumer in this country a disservice. With every insistence that we fund another renewable energy project or somehow demonise the coal industry, we say it is okay for us to dig it up and ship it to India for them to burn, because we recognise their right to have cheap, reliable electricity. Or we send it off to China to burn over there, because we think they deserve cheap and reliable electricity. But somehow the Australian people do not deserve it—and what is it? Senator Moore referenced Senator Brandis's answers in question time today. Senator Brandis said—and I will paraphrase—that our commitment to the Paris Agreement was 'not an obligation but an undertaking' or words to that effect. So why the hell did we sign it in the first place? What's the point? It is not going to make one jot or tittle of difference to the climate. The only thing it is going to do is impede our economic development in favour of other people's economic development. And who the heck is an unelected international body to tell us or to instruct us or to obligate us to fulfil their fanciful dreams, particularly when the world's largest economy and emitter has just walked away from it? We should do the same.
If we are serious about solving an electricity crisis, we need to change the mindset in this place. That means we have to accept there is a place for any type of electricity generation if it is economic and if it is sustainable. When I say 'sustainable', I do not mean you have to have it committed for 100 years, but, if the crisis is baseload energy and someone wants to build a coal-fired power station, we should allow them to do it and we should allow them to do it with certainty. That means that if government is going to be a technology agnostic and wants to get the best results for the Australian people, it will say, 'We will not change the environmental conditions attached to that project for the life of the project.' If governments in the future break that agreement, they will then have to compensate the generator for it. In other words, they would do so at their own peril, because that is how we will give investment confidence to this country. It will be the same. We should have an open mind to nuclear power or thorium reactors, which people are continually telling me about and that are even more efficient again. We simply cannot close our minds to this, because otherwise we are not dealing in reality.
The crisis we face right now is going to get worse before it ever gets better. It will simply not get better if we are relying on Elon Musk and his battery storage technology. You can send $100 million on batteries and it will keep South Australia alight for six minutes or something like that, I am not sure, and then 10 years later you can replace them again and spend another $100 million to keep it alight for another 12 minutes when the wind has been blowing and the sun has been shining. Let me tell you, it is a very dark day for a lot of people in hardship in this country. It is a dark day because they do not want to turn their heater on and they do not want to turn their lights on, because the cost of power is out of control.
I come back to it: the only reason it is out of control is because the market has been distorted. It has been distorted by taxpayer-funded subsidies. In effect the taxpayers are paying twice, because they are paying the bills of the government and the interest costs on the money that the government borrows to throw in to international renewable energy generators, wind and solar farms, who then pass on the higher costs of their generation to the Australian consumer. They are subsidising coal and gas out of existence. The intermittent gas generators cannot afford to fire up their plants, because they are competing, when the wind is blowing, with something that is subsidised to zero. This is madness. It is utter madness, and it says almost everything about the failings of government, but not just the current government.
We have been through this many times. We had 'the great moral challenge of our time'. Remember when Prime Minister Rudd said that? And then, of course, we had the different approach of Ms Gillard. She said there would be no carbon tax under a government she led and then she introduced one. Then when Prime Minister Rudd came back he was remarkably silent on that climate change malarkey in his three weeks in office—a vindicating stroll around the country. Then we had Mr Abbott, of course, who repealed the carbon tax, but did initiate the Renewable Energy Target scheme. He claimed to have reduced it to 26 per cent or something along those lines. We have all in one way, shape or form gone along with this to solve political problems.
The difficulty now is that it is a political problem but it is also a massive economic problem for our country. That economic problem, as I said, is caused by government policy. It does not matter if you call it an ETS or a RET or a LRET or a CET or any other acronym. It comes down to this: the government interfering and distorting a market, damaging Australia's economic prospects and damaging individual Australians' quality of life. That is what we are facing. Until we recognise that and everyone in this place and in the other place faces up to that fact and says the only way to solve this is to ditch the ideology, ditch the theology attached to it and ditch the green dream which will never be reached. We have to open up the market to what it does best—that is competition, that is certainty and surety and that is survival of the fittest.
That will guarantee the best outcomes for the Australian consumer. It will guarantee us a place at the First World table where electricity stays on. The South Australian experiment is gradually being exported right around the country. It is being exported there through the ideology of Labor governments, Liberal governments and Nick Xenophon wannabe governments. The only government you can rely on to clean it all up would be a conservative government. I know that that is highly likely, at the next election anyway, but the aspiration is there for everyone else to follow. If you want a policy agenda that is going to act in Australia's interest, dump the ideology. Open your minds to what is required to make a difference in our people's lives and our economic future.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:51): I want to concur with a couple of things my colleague Senator Bernardi has just said: yes, dump the ideology and that we do need a conservative government. I would just remind members in this place and the public who are listening that it has been said of the Liberal Party that it is the home of classical liberal thought but also the natural home for preserving conservative values. That is what Menzies brought to Australia and it has seen some of the best decades in Australia's development in history post World War II.
Senator Bernardi: You're stealing my party name.
Senator FAWCETT: I am being accused of stealing the conservative name. I think we had it first in terms of the character, Senator Bernardi. As a conservative—in fact, I said this in my maiden speech in this place—one of the reasons I am attracted to the Liberal Party is that as an experimental test pilot, which was my previous career, I am open to new ideas. That is the whole purpose of testing things and trying things and experimenting with things. But I am also a conservative because there are fundamental principles, particularly in the engineering space, that you just cannot walk away from because of ideology or marketing or hope or anything else. The two have to work in balance.
This energy debate, I think, is a classic example of where those two things have got out of balance. There is a whole bunch of dynamics at play here and even the tabling of Dr Finkel's review brings out some of the worst in Australia's polity, in the media and in community debate. What we see is people assuming that you are either for it or you are against it, and if you dare to talk about or question or look at alternatives then people assume that you are either a climate denier or you are whatever—that label they want to put on you. But I have to say it is that attitude that has got Australia into the problem that we are currently in. Certainly speaking as a South Australian, I see the problems in my home state where what the Premier there called the great big experiment in renewable energy has gone horribly wrong. So we do need to take the report that Dr Finkel has handed down in response to a direction from COAG, who have recognised finally that the system we have had for many years needs changing. The National Electricity Market is over 20 years old. It was designed in a day where the generation of power was predominantly from things with spinning turbines. Whether it was from hydro or coal or gas, it generated a consistent power that was essentially different sources of the same kind of power fed into a network.
The introduction of renewable energy, particularly where it has been accelerated by schemes like the RET and by government, often local or state government, regulations to encourage the uptake or placement of things like wind farms by providers of renewable energy, has occurred without the required systems engineering to understand what all the inputs are and what the failure modes of systems are. Just in the last few months, people in this place have finally started talking about some of these principles of engineering as opposed to the ideology or the legal basis or other considerations that often constrain or guide debate in this place. I am on record as saying it and I will say it again: I think the Australian nation would be well served if we had more systems engineers and fewer lawyers in the parliament so that legislation and policy going forward was actually based on a good requirements analysis and an understanding of the constraints and the objectives, working through the different models and approaches and then looking at how we test the implementation to make sure that what we have put in place works. We are part way down that path.
So what do we need to do in this area? As Senator Xenophon stated, we do have to address the current situation. There are a number of factors that have driven electricity prices sky high. We have stabilised that in part by getting rid of the carbon tax, but back in May 2014, to take a particular month, the electricity price was set by the peak gas price only nine per cent of the time, whereas in May 2017 it was set by the gas price 24 per cent of the time, which means all of the other generators are actually dragged up to the price of the highest input at that particular time. So we have seen this distortion of the market driving prices up. The other key thing that we need to do, other than getting prices back down to an affordable level, as I said yesterday in another contribution to this debate, is lower the cost of energy. It is the low cost of energy that has traditionally allowed Australia to be competitive in manufacturing and a range of other industries. If we want to maintain good wages and a First World standard of living, then we cannot compete with other nations unless some of our input costs are more competitive. Low energy prices are one of those key input costs for many business sectors. Pricing is one thing, reliability is another.
We need to understand the true cost of integrating renewable energy—in fact, all forms of energy. We need to understand the system requirements in terms of interfaces and failure modes and what the true cost of those things like wind farms, for example, are. I am completely technology agnostic when it comes to generation, but I do believe you need to look at the system as a whole. If you need to look at ways of addressing system stability and frequency issues as part of increasing the amount of power coming from something like wind, that needs to be one of the costs which is weighed up against how much this is costing us to bring it into the marketplace. In South Australia's case—everyone has talked about the blackouts there and we have had members opposite call out that it was a storm that caused it—I again come back to my test flying background. When we test an aircraft, we look at the response and the controllability of the platform in a range of environmental conditions. One of the things we look at is what we call the gust response, and some aircraft are just dreadful. It only takes a gust of wind, almost, for some very light aircraft to be almost uncontrollable. Others, heavier aircraft or aircraft with better designed control systems, can respond to a whole range of turbulence and still be quite controllable. What we are talking about here is the trigger event. The trigger event may well have been a storm; the trigger event may well be a lack of wind. There could be a range of trigger events, but the thing that we are concerned about is the design of the NEM and the design of the system so that it is resilient and able to withstand shocks to the system—and, again, that is where systems engineering comes in.
The third area that I think we need to get right in looking at the NEM is making sure that we have certainty so that people are prepared to actually invest into new generating capacity, into new distribution systems and into new storage systems. That requires policy certainty. A lot of the people who have come out in response to the tabling of the Finkel report have said, 'This is fantastic. Let's adopt it, because we need certainty.' I agree with them that we need certainty. But what I would just caution is that—while Dr Finkel's report is a very well informed, considered and expert input into this debate—it is an input and not the solution. With any report that is given to government, the government will normally take some time to consider it and obtain a range of opinions from other stakeholders before deciding on how they will actually respond.
Why do I think that is important? Already, what we see is people looking at the Finkel review. Other than those who are just retreating to their camps, there are those who say it is fantastic and that we should just adopt it, to those who say it allows coal and therefore it is bad and to those who say it does not allow enough coal and therefore it is bad. There are some people within the industry who have started looking at things like the modelling. Again, I am not an engineer in terms of power systems and electricity, but I do understand modelling. Again, we use a lot of that in the world of flight testing. It is a fantastic tool to work out what might happen and it is a fantastic tool to analyse why something happened, but it is not perfect. Certainly, speaking as a test pilot, the ultimate certification needs to rely on tests as opposed to just modelling.
One of the reasons that is so critical is that the design of your modelling tool is important but also the assumptions that you make are important. Having gone and had a look at the report, I notice here that they have used one particular software tool called STRATEGIST. I have gone back to the US Department of Energy and had a look at their power sector modelling reports, where they have done an analysis of different tools: it is a well-regarded tool. But it is one of a number of tools. There is another tool called PLEXOS, which happens to actually be written by a company called Energy Exemplar in South Australia, in Adelaide, my hometown. Interestingly, that is used by numerous academics, universities, regulators and power providers. In fact, it is used by the majority of people, like AEMO and others, here in Australia. This tool was used by the firm that was supporting the Finkel review was but one tool in the market. It probably does not have the penetration of perhaps some other tool. That is not to say it is not valid, but it is one view and one method of analysing data. They also used some other tools, particularly around renewables, to understand some of the changes in that.
What I want to go to particularly is annex B, where it talks about some of the assumptions that are used. For example, the assumptions around the existing renewable energy target. With modelling, you can have a model or perhaps even a couple of models, something that people trust to be transparent and reliable. As I have looked at something like PLEXOS, it is used by a number of regulators and market operators. The extent of its uptake around the globe says that there are software products that are accepted as a good baseline that everybody would trust to do a sensitivity analysis, as you vary the inputs and the assumptions to it.
So let us take the assumption here that the existing RET is going to remain for all scenarios. That is what it has said here. If we varied that—there are some people who hate the RET; there are some people who think the RET should be greater—what would happen in terms of the decisions to invest in new coal by people who perhaps favour clean coal technology?
What would happen if we varied it in terms of reduction? Where would the investment level in renewables be? Just that one factor could actually make some quite remarkable differences in who would invest and then what the impact would be in terms of pricing and reliability, and, importantly, understanding things like emissions.
There are other factors that we should be looking at. For example, availability of international offsets. The model in this report has assumed that there are no domestic or international offsets allowed. That is fine—that is one assumption. But what if we did a sensitivity analysis on that? What if we said: 'Let's play with that variable to see what the impacts are on some of the other considerations? Are there combinations or permutations of the assumptions and inputs that potentially could deliver us an even better outcome in terms of lower prices and reliability of power, and still achieve emissions outcomes?' There is a whole list. I will not go through the whole lot; I think I have made my point with those.
The other part that I think is really important is that as a society we also need to do a cost-benefit analysis. One of the parts that I found interesting in the report by Dr Finkel was when he looked at Australia's emissions—it is generally accepted that they are around 1.3 per cent—and what the contributions are by different sectors to that. The NEM contributes about 30 per cent. So in terms of Australia's emissions in the world, we are talking about 30 per cent of 1.3 per cent here.
As my colleague mentioned earlier today, when he asked Dr Finkel in estimates:
… if we reduce the world's carbon emissions by 1.3 per cent,
Completely, which would essentially mean shutting down Australia—
what impact would that have on the changing climate of the world?
And Dr Finkel said:
Virtually nothing.
What we are seeing here is that even if we achieved perfection by shutting down Australia, at a huge cost to everyone, it would not make very much difference at all.
I am not asking us to pull out of Paris or other things like that—I think it is great to put on the record that Australia has consistently exceeded the targets that have been agreed to at the various international conferences and that we are well on track again to meet our current targets. I think that is a great thing. But I think there is a valid question to ask about not being afraid to have a transparent approach. We should take the reports by people like Dr Finkel and take other concepts, and look at doing that sensitivity analysis around the inputs and assumptions and also weigh up the cost benefits. We should ask, 'Can we reduce power prices by 50 per cent and could we increase reliability to close to 100 per cent?' Is the difference in terms of the actual output we make—that 30 per cent of 1.3 per cent, that is not very much—something that we could live with? Can we say, 'Yes, we think we can still meet our emissions targets.' Or, if there had to be a variation to that, can we find an amount where we could say, 'Yes, we're happy to work with that with the international community.' We should not be afraid to have that discussion.
My view, from what I have read and from different people I have spoken to, is that it would be possible to meet our emissions targets but at the same time be driving down the price of electricity as an equal priority with reliability. That means both systems engineering and integrity in the redesign of the NEM. What that requires is for people to have confidence in the process. That is why I think that we need to move away from the situation that has developed, even in the last two or three days, of people taking sides and assuming that the Finkel report is the be-all and end-all—that we either accept it or we reject it. We should take a sensible systems-engineering approach which says: 'This is a rigorous and very valuable input to the debate. Now let's set up—let's get AEMO and some of our key universities; let's get people who produce tools that are accepted and validated around the world to do that sensitivity analysis. Let's work out what the best combination is that will achieve the lowest price, the greatest reliability and our emissions target.' The people who hate coal may not like to hear this, but it is just possible that if you varied those parameters—if you varied, for example, the RET: took it down, got rid of it—you might get to a point where you actually get enough investment in good, solid baseload power that enables us to meet our emissions targets, but drives down prices to the extent that our economy is able to compete more effectively, creating more jobs and a better environment for people in the nation. All of these things will remain unknown unless we are prepared to engage in the discussion.
We have the tools. As I said, I can—not that I am vouching for the company, but they work out of Adelaide, they are used by our regulators, by regulators overseas. We have the tools. We have the academics. We have the people in the market. Let us have the maturity as a nation to go beyond the binary positions that people adopt; let us do that analysis to challenge some of these assumptions, to look at the different options and then be prepared to say: here is a transparent matrix of test results that show that this combination is going to achieve these results. We can then pick the combination of price reliability and emissions that the Australian community says is in our national interest. If there is one thing to come out of the debate this week, it is that we need to be prepared to move beyond the simplistic binary debate, engage in more depth and work together towards what is in the national interest, and certainly that requires engineering and not ideology.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (17:11): I also rise to make a contribution in this debate. This is about Australia's energy crisis, the impact it has on consumers, on businesses and on the broader economy, and the need to urgently respond. But unlike those on the government benches, who do not seem to know which way is up, Labor is committed to finding a solution to this energy crisis—a crisis that has engulfed this country under the leadership of the Turnbull government.
People across the country have been waiting to hear about this all week—that is, whether or not the government will step up and take serious action to deal with the energy crisis that is gripping the nation. Under Mr Turnbull power prices, as we know, have gone up, pollution is up, but jobs are down. The electricity policy paralysis of this government has led to this energy crisis. We need a plan for cheaper, cleaner and more secure power, and that means more renewables.
The Finkel review, which I will touch on shortly, has made it clear that the best way forward to deliver cheaper, cleaner and more secure power is through renewable energies, and I know that my colleague opposite, Senator Duniam, would concur that Tasmania has in fact led the country for decades in renewable energies. But what we also have to comment on here tonight is that we have a Prime Minister who promised so much to the Australian community when it came to climate change, who promised so much when it came to innovation, but who has failed to deliver on each area of this policy—and we are not even going to talk about the budget failures at the moment. We had a weakened Prime Minister even before this debate was before us. What we have seen this week, yet again, is a government in crisis. It just does not have any clear direction of where it wants to go. We know that it is not Mr Turnbull who is running the agenda. We know that his predecessor, Mr Abbott, takes every opportunity he can to try to 'help' the Prime Minister—he does that every day—and so what we see is a government with ministers who do not know which way to go.
This government promised at the last election that it was going to be a government about jobs. It failed on that account. They have failed to provide a united and a mature adult government, because quite clearly they are acting like children at the moment. They are divided on so many fronts; it is absolute chaos. I was asked out at the doors this morning: 'What happened at the ball last night? What was the gossip going around the room?' I said, 'I wasn't even at the ball, but I can tell you it isn't gossip that's going around at a function there last night.' This is what people out on the everyday streets in my hometown of Launceston, around Tasmania and around the east corridor know: this is a government that they thought was going to deliver so much under Mr Turnbull, but he is not the Prime Minister that they voted for. He is not in control of his own government. He is in chaos. There is no unity of purpose there. We have different groups. We have Mr Abbott coming out at every opportunity to try to assist the new Prime Minister to keep him on track. There is one thing the people do know, and this is not gossip. This is the reality: this government, led by Mr Turnbull, has been a government that has done nothing about ensuring equality in our community across the board.
There is so much happening through this area of policy, on energy alone. We talk about the impact it has on people—on families, on older Australians and on pensioners. They are the people Senator Bernardi actually referred to, and I agree with him. What we find is that Australian pensioners and those who are on fixed incomes are finding it increasingly difficult to be able to meet their budgets when it comes to electricity. I do not know how many times I have heard from people in my home state about the fact that they can no longer afford to put the heater on at night. These older Tasmanians who have worked hard all their lives can no longer afford to pay their bills, so what do they do? They go to bed and turn on their electric blanket because it is cheaper and more cost effective to run their electric blanket than to heat their lounge room. That is the reality of it. This government has done nothing but add to that with their unfair budgets.
The Prime Minister keeps trying to tell us that the only reason the wholesale power prices are going up is because of gas prices. Let's be very clear: power prices are going up because of the policy paralysis of this government and the uncertainty under the leadership of Mr Turnbull. The Liberals can try to spin it any way they like, but the reality is that under this government for the last four years the power prices have continued to rise. I know my good colleague from the other side will come up when he speaks after me and put his own spin on these things, but the reality is that this government is so out of touch in understanding what is happening in the Australian community.
On top of this, what we know is that in 17 days the government are going to bring about even further hardship to people in this country. Some 40,000 Tasmanians are going to be worse off because the government have been a part of taking away their penalty rates. They could have stopped that. Again this week they voted against Labor's legislation to protect penalty rates for some of the lowest-paid members of our community who do the jobs that look after us if we want to have lunch on a Sunday or if we want to go out on a public holiday. They are the people who are away from their families. They are doing the things that people expect them to do when they go to a restaurant, a hospitality—whatever the circumstances—or hairdressers or pharmacies. But these people in government are so out of touch that they do not care. They do not care at all.
We know the real effect of their budget and what they want to do via the government's attempt to remove the energy supplement from the most vulnerable Australians, a cut that will rip $550 from the pockets of pensioner couples in this country and $229 from a single Newstart recipient struggling with inadequate payments already. So that is 1.7 million people that are going to be affected. This is a cruel cut, so we will keep opposing that and we will always oppose that. It is quite obvious that over the last four years the increases in power prices and the terrible, unfair budgets that the Turnbull government and the Abbott government have delivered to this country have made it harder for everyday Australians. If you believe some of the gossip around this place—even from my good friend Senator Abetz yesterday; there might be a second coming, obviously, when Mr Abbott comes back and takes over the leadership again—we will see more of that in their budgets.
But the Liberals want us to believe that repealing the carbon tax was the key to guaranteeing low electricity prices for everyday Australians and that somehow the energy supplement is redundant. Actually, the wholesale energy prices have doubled under the Abbott-Turnbull governments. It may not seem like much for many who sit in this chamber, and particularly the Prime Minister, but $14.10 a fortnight is a lot of money when you are already living on a very meagre income. That money is crucial to those people who are trying to meet their budgets for just essential items. It is so evident that Mr Turnbull, who promised so much, has let down even Liberal supporters, but this government does not understand anything when it comes to fairness—nothing at all.
I want to turn to the Finkel report. Without reform, we will be forced to endure, as I said, higher prices, reduced security, lost investment opportunities and stubbornly high emissions. We need a careful considered review of the decisions that we need to make to lead to the return of a stable investment environment, affordable prices and reliable supply. The Business Council and other businesses and environmental groups sent a very clear message to the government last week: to give full and fair—there is that word 'fair' again; the problem is they do not understand what fair means—consideration to the Finkel report. We, on this side, are committed—Labor is committed—to giving that full and fair consideration. We have welcomed the release of the Finkel review, and we are clearly looking at the recommendations of the report. We are taking it very seriously. Unlike the Liberals, Labor is committed to finding a solution to the energy crisis that has engulfed this country under the leadership of the Turnbull-Abbott—maybe Abbott again—government. This is why we took a detailed energy policy to the last election.
I want to go back to what we have done in Tasmania for decades that no-one, not even those cynical people on the other side of the chamber that laugh with their interjections—Senator Duniam understands, because he is a Tasmanian and he understands; he is very proud, as I and my colleagues are on this side of the chamber. Tasmania has been very innovative when it comes to hydro—world leaders, international and national leaders. We have led the way, and it has been successful for our communities. But there is still more to do. We have wind energy. We have wave energy. There are so many other opportunities for us to look at. We have solar energy. I fundamentally believe that solar energy is fantastic for our community, and more and more people will take it up. The only difficulty that we have in Tasmania is that the rebate has been reduced, which is making it harder for some Tasmanians to be able to make that investment. We should be encouraging people to invest in solar. It is going to be better for our communities and better for our family budgets. It is better for the environment, and it is something that is good for us as individuals and as families.
As I said, it all comes back to a government who are so busy having their own internal crises that they have not been able to give due consideration, careful and fair consideration, to this report, so we are waiting, as are the community, to hear what direction this government is going in. I would have to say that there are a lot of people that are concerned about the coal industry. Coal—that is, the industries and the mines that we have now—obviously will always have to be taken into consideration. It is also part of our economy and important in terms of the benefits that it provides to communities, jobs, the economy et cetera. But it is very clear from my reading of this report that we really ought not to be moving into opening up any further new mines.
As I said, this comes down to the leadership of this government. I know that Labor will continue to push to consider the recommendations and work forward in the interests of resolving this energy crisis, giving some certainty and security, and doing something about ensuring that people can afford to heat their homes so that older Australians, older Tasmanians and those on fixed incomes do not have to resort to turning off the heater, going to bed and running their electric blankets.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (17:26): It is always a pleasure to follow my great Tasmanian colleague Senator Polley and listen to her contributions to debate. I think that tonight, though, she was reading from the pages of her latest bestseller, Away with the Fairies, which you can find in your local Dymocks bookshop. I do not know that there was much fact. There was a lot of commentary and hyperpartisanship, which is something that I have even heard her own colleagues talk about in this debate and other debates—the need to remove the partisanship from this debate. The last 15 minutes of debate on this particular issue have been about nothing but how bad, in Senator Polley's eyes, the coalition government is for Tasmania, pensioners and workers, and how good Senator Polley and her colleagues on that side of the chamber are. I recommend that the 17 people listening to this debate across the country head on down to their local bookstores and see if they can pick up this fantastic fictional novel. Senator Polley tells me that she will be doing signings in her electorate office the week after next.
But I do welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate on the motion that has been moved by Senator Xenophon. It is an important topic, it is salient and it has been on the minds of many in this building and across the country for this week and much time leading up to now. The motion reads:
That the Senate notes Australia's energy crisis, its impact on consumers, businesses and the broader economy, and the need for urgent and effective responses.
The motion sums up everything about the debate we are having now and what we need to do. It is great that we are able to take the time in the Senate to actually talk about those particular issues, the impact on the groups that Senator Xenophon mentions and what needs to follow.
Listening to the contributions that have been made throughout the course of this debate, I come to it with the information that has been provided to me by the people I represent from the state of Tasmania. The biggest issue that they raise, which seems to be an undercurrent in every contribution on this debate, is the need for certainty—certainty around prices and supply in the case of businesses, particularly major industrials. That is the one key theme that keeps being brought up to me in my home state of Tasmania—one that I simply cannot ignore.
One issue that Senator Xenophon did raise in his contribution was around a particular source of power generation, and that was gas. That is something that we do not have a great deal of experience with in Tasmania, although, watching from the beautiful Apple Isle to see what is happening in other states across the country, I think the moratoria on further gas exploration are part of the problem. Where we have state governments who refuse to allow further exploration, it means that we do not have more to inject into our domestic market and it means prices go up. As has been pointed out by Senator Fawcett and others in this debate—although my friend Senator Polley would argue with this, and she did—the high price of gas has had an impact on overall power prices for businesses and households across the country.
So, again, the key point for me from Tasmania, and I think many who have spoken in this debate, and indeed many of those colleagues I have spoken to from my own party room, is about certainty. Certainty for investors—people who want to get into the energy market. They want to know what they are buying into and that what they invest in today is going to be a decent investment in a number of years' time because decent investments mean that people can provide a more stable and better yield on their product. They want to know that supply is stable and reliable and that it is not going to flicker on and off. Intermittency is something that we do not have to deal with. It is something we have heard talked about with regard to wind and solar—but not so the case with hydro in our great state of Tasmania. The most important thing for the average person on the street, the people who bowl into my main electoral office in Devonport in the north-west of Tasmania, is affordability. It is so incredibly important in trying to make the household budget work and, if you run a small business, in trying to make sure that the books balance at the end of the month.
I think enough has been said, in broad terms, about the Finkel report. We have had a week of discussion on this and I suspect, based on what I hear from my colleagues across the way, that they will want to keep talking about it for some time to come—fair enough; it is an important issue. I think it is a good opportunity to touch on the point that was made by Senator Brandis in his answers to questions over the last three days and that is around the trilemma that the nation faces with regard to energy policy: the need for reliability, affordability and to meet our international obligations. The one thing that seems to be lost on many in the opposition is the need for process around that. What we have had presented, as promised, was a report. A report was provided to the government by the Chief Scientist and that report was released publicly. As you would expect, following on from receipt of such a document, which is weighty in the concepts it canvasses and the issues it covers, there is a discussion. The point has been made by others in this debate that we come to this debate from different backgrounds representing different constituencies and with different preconceptions about how we think the issue ought to be dealt with. Once a discussion has been had, then the government has the opportunity to respond. They are the steps you take.
As I said in the contribution to the take note debate a day or two back, those opposite seemed aghast at the fact that we were having a discussion, that we were even canvassing various elements of the debate and various options on what some people think might work and what others think might not work. But I think that is an important part of what we have in this country: a healthy democracy, the right to speak your mind and the right to stand up for your constituents, and not just to be told what you are going to say and do. We on this side of the chamber are not a homogenous blob of mindless individuals but people who come to this debate with different backgrounds, experiences and views on what is right and what is the best way to go.
Senator Paterson, as I referred to before, has talked about the different communities we represent. In my state of Tasmania, particularly in the north-west, we have a much lower average household income in that part of the state than in many other parts of the country—so much more than people in eastern Sydney or downtown Melbourne or even parts of Hobart. People in the north-west of Tasmania, where my main electorate office is in the city of Devonport, struggle with the cost of power. Senator Polley's point about pensioners and people on fixed incomes who have been forced to turn the heater down or to hop into bed just to stay warm rather than get cold on a winter's night, the cost of power is a chief concern. That is what is driving my contributions to this debate and the debate more generally. It is about ensuring that whatever we do moving forward means that we do have affordable power for Australians and for Tasmanians alike, that no-one misses out and that everyone has the ability to purchase power and fund whatever activities they undertake. That impacts on families and also businesses. Businesses need to know how much they are going to be able to allocate towards power so that they do not get a shock power bill in a month's time, find that the books do not balance and have to add to their overdraft or similar. There was the case in Tasmania where a number of major industrials were reaching the end of long-term contracts that they had signed with the power generator Hydro Tasmania and prices were going to increase significantly. Thankfully, the Tasmanian government intervened and did what it could to restrain the cost of power, but it demonstrates the point that cost is very important in this debate.
As I said in some comments I provided to the Hobart Mercury newspaper yesterday—it was reported today; and Senator Fawcett touched on this point as well—the minute you start talking about something like affordability of electricity as a chief concern as opposed to some of the other elements of this debate, you are written off as a 'climate denier' or, as Senator Carr would like to say, a 'knuckle-dragger'. I think that is an insult to people who complain—
Senator Williams: Who said that?
Senator DUNIAM: Senator Kim Carr made that comment.
Senator Williams: A knuckle-dragger?
Senator DUNIAM: A knuckle-dragger is how people who are concerned about the price of power are referred to. As I was about to say, those people who are worried about paying their power bill—and I have my own power bill here, which is quite significant; I was just about to pay it—
Senator Williams: How much was it?
Senator DUNIAM: It was over $3,000 for a quarter.
Senator Williams: What!
Senator DUNIAM: That is correct. The heaters were on high. The point is that anyone who complains about the cost of power and is therefore labelled as a knuckle-dragger. I do not think that is right. I think the people of Australia who are struggling to pay their power bills deserve respect; they deserve to have their concerns heard. This government, that opposition and the crossbenchers should all understand how important their budgets are to us and help them pay their power bills.
On Tasmania, as Senator Polley mentioned, we do have a very proud history of being a renewable electricity generator through our tremendous hydro scheme. We have a great history down there. Many communities were settled as a result of the hydro scheme. Many immigrants came to our state and have been a great part of the tapestry of the Tasmanian community. As Senator Polley said, we are a world leader—and I would like to think in some cases over the course of history we have been certainly a trendsetter—when it comes to new and innovative ways to generate energy. South Australia is not the only state to have had a power crisis. In recent times, the Tasmanian community faced a perfect storm of low rainfall—
Senator Williams: A drought.
Senator DUNIAM: a drought—that is right, Senator Williams—and a broken Basslink Interconnector, which is the extension cord that effectively connects Tasmania to mainland Australia. As Hydro was trying to keep up with demand for electricity, we were running down the dams to dangerous levels. We had to ship in containerised diesel generators to keep up with demand and to ensure that we did not empty the dams. We are not immune to a power crisis, so we need to make sure that we have in place plans to increase capacity to keep up with growing demand and trends in power consumption. This is why I am excited about the announcement that the Prime Minister made with regard to the future of Tasmania's hydro power scheme. There is the pump storage proposal that is being examined by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and also a number of other schemes and projects, including the refurbishment of the very successful and historic Tarraleah Power Station, which will generate in excess of 2,000 megawatts. As ARENA pointed out at Senate estimates, those projects will necessitate the establishment of increased interconnectivity with mainland Australia—be that a second or third cable, I do not know, but I am excited by the prospect of Tasmania becoming the nation's battery and providing base load renewables in the form of hydro.
On Tasmania—if we can go back in time a number of years—a lot has been said about whether coal should be in or whether it should be out. I thought it would be interesting to put on record something that I know is already on the public record.
I refer to an article in The Mercury newspaper, dated 20 October 1981—which, for the record, was before my birth! It is entitled 'Coal-fired power "best option"'. It was written by a fellow by the name of Wayne Crawford. The article says:
TASMANIA'S environmental lobby has expressed its preference for coal-fired thermal power generation over the construction of more hydro-power dams.
So, to be clear, that is the Tasmanian Greens and associated entities opting for coal fired power as opposed to renewable energy in the state of Tasmania. The article continues:
The director of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society; Dr Bob Brown—
Who would be known to many in this place; he is a former senator—
said yesterday that if there was to' be a new power station, then coal-fired thermal was "the best centralised option we have."
He went on to say:
… the conservation movement regarded a coal-tired thermal station as a "manifestly better" option than more dams.
It is there in black and white: for coal fired versus dams they would go with coal back in 1981.
Also in the article, Mr Peter Blackwell, from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, which exists to this day, talked about coal fired power stations yielding more energy than what was proposed at that time, and that was the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam, which—according to this article—was only going to generate 180 megawatts. Further, he went on to say that pollution levels quoted by the Tasmanian Chamber of Industry's advertisement, which is what this article was in response to were for a station:
… five times as big as what was proposed in Tasmania, and apparently involved an old-fashioned combustion system and no equipment to control emissions.
So in here I read that the Greens also believed in clean coal technology. It is amazing how things have changed in the course of over 30 years. They have gone from believing in clean coal and opposing renewables to opposing clean coal and only supporting hydro and other forms of renewables. But I suppose that anyone can change their mind over time.
I will return to another point that Senator Paterson made, about the obligation on the opposition in this debate. I think that it is a point that he also made well in his take note address a day or two back. His point was that the Australian opposition needs to be up-front about what its proposal is. Senator Polley said that the opposition will consider the report, look at ways forward and make a decision. Whatever that decision is, I think that it is right to give certainty to the Australian community—to all of the people who we represent in this place—and to tell Australians what they will do and what they will sign up to, and to stick to that.
What did concern me was Senator Moore effectively saying no and reserving the right to move the goalposts after a decision is made. In effect, this was everything that Senator Paterson was warning us about—that the Labor Party will say one thing now for the purposes of a political point before an election and then say something very different afterwards. That could mean new targets and new rules, and therefore no certainty—which is what we are trying to avoid. So I was quite disheartened to hear that from Senator Moore.
The point was also made about the debate being divisive and that we need to move away from the sniping and hyperpartisan nature of this debate. I would have thought that was right, but when you look back at question time over the last three days that is exactly what it has been. The questions have not been serious ones like: 'What are you going to do? How can we help? What is the best way to advance Australia's future here?' They have been all about: 'Is it true that this was said in the party room? What do you say about this comment in the paper?' Those are nothing that I think would aid Australians when it comes to this debate in any way, shape or form.
I will touch on just one other issue, that of our obligations to the globe and part of that trilemma that I mentioned at the commencement of my contribution. We are told that we need to adhere to our global obligations when it comes to emissions reduction. I do not think there are that many people who would argue against that. But I suppose that the other end of that is that we need to take into account the global situation—how we stack up as a country against other emitters across the globe. If we are genuinely interested in emissions reduction then we should be genuinely interested in our brothers and sisters overseas committing to emissions reduction too. We cannot go it alone, as it has been said previously. We do have an obligation and we should adhere to that. But if you look at other countries—China and India, for example—they are high emitters. And, yes, I know they are very different countries to ours. We do have to take into account what they do and what they plan to do to meet global obligations that we have been told we need to meet, as well, and we have to look at their challenge relative to our own.
I will conclude on that note. I do thank Senator Xenophon for bringing on this debate. It is good to have the ability to air my personal views on this issue—and from the Tasmanian perspective. I look forward to seeing the debate unfold over months to come.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:45): I would like to join this debate. Thanks to the Senator Xenophon for moving the motion. I was just doing a bit of research. I noticed that with the Xenophon Team in South Australia there is a bit of controversy about where they stand with these renewable energy targets. I think Peter Humphries was the candidate who attacked the Weatherill government for saying that the pursuit of 50 per cent renewable targets was reckless and expensive and so on.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Sullivan ): Senator Xenophon, on a point of order?
Senator Xenophon: Senator Williams has just said something that is materially inaccurate. It is a complete lie and misrepresentation.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is a debating point, Senator Xenophon.
Senator Xenophon: Wacka should know better than that.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Xenophon, you would know better. That is not a point of order. Resume your seat. Senator Williams, you have the call.
Senator WILLIAMS: I am just doing some research. I must bring up that article I just read and show it to Senator Xenophon. He might even talk to the paper which wrote the story about the situation. Never believe those newspapers, Mr Acting Deputy President. I did not make it up; I read it out of the paper. I will google it and show it to Senator Xenophon soon.
On electricity and how it has changed in my life, I know it has not changed much in Senator Dastyari's life. He is only a young fella—born on 28 July 1983. That makes you about what—34 at the moment?
Senator Dastyari: Nearly 34 soon.
Senator WILLIAMS: Nearly 34? Next thing you will be driving a big car!
Senator Dastyari: A big red car.
Senator WILLIAMS: Just make sure it is not a V8 and you put all that carbon into the air and help us grow our wheat crops.
Senator Dastyari: Is it automatic? I can only drive an automatic. I don't have a manual licence—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senators! Order!
Senator WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Interjections are disorderly, aren't they?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They are disorderly.
Senator WILLIAMS: I often remind people of that.
Senator Dastyari interjecting —
Senator Gallacher: You can't interject against yourself, mate!
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator McGrath: You're interrupting yourself. Stop it!
Senator WILLIAMS: The people listening on the public radio here say, 'Let's get serious with this debate.' I remember as a little fellow back in the 1950s—long before you were born, Senator Dastyari—and when we lived on the farm in South Australia, where my great-great-grandfather settled. We had the 32-volt system. We had a little windmill and the batteries alongside the house, and the old Coopers motor—the same motor we used on the shearing plants for many years—to start up when the wind was not blowing. It appears that since then things have only get worse in South Australia with the renewable energy target. This is what I find so frustrating. We used to rib our friends in South Australia when we left South Australia in 1979 to move to New South Wales. We used to say that there is a sign at Cockburn—Cockburn is little place on the border of South Australia and New South Wales—that says, 'The last one out of South Australia, please turn off the lights.' The sign has been pulled down now because the lights go off automatically!
Senator Xenophon: Oh, yeah, it's hilarious, Wacka!
Senator WILLIAMS: Senator Xenophon, I will tell you what is hilarious: when I go back to South Australia and I see all of those wind towers over the hills at Jamestown. I have no problem with renewable energy, if it stands on its own two feet. But to think that three-megawatt per hour wind generators are subsidised to the tune of $700,000 a year each—that is for each one—so then they can sell electricity cheaper into the grid. And you wonder why Port Augusta goes broke. And you wonder why it is shut down. Then when the wind is not blowing, you wonder why you do not have electricity. I think the situation of these subsidies—these renewable energy certificates—to the wind towers is costing this country a fortune. As I said, in my life I have come from the little windmill on the farm to the batteries and to the generators. The situation we face now is that we have relied on cheap energy in this country to compete around the world. That is what we have relied on. Go to the abattoirs.
We have a business in Inverell—and I am very proud of it—called Boss Engineering. Seven years ago they kicked off. They employed seven people making wide air seeders for planting wheat, cereal, sorghum et cetera. They now employ just short of 100 people. When manufacturing is dying in Australia, Boss Engineering, making what I believe to be the best seed planter in the world, is growing week by week. But what is their energy cost going to be? What do we have more of per capita in this country than anyone else in the world? Energy: whether it be gas, whether it be coal or whether it be potential energy. I say that with total confidence.
Senator Duniam, hydro energy is a wonderful scheme while there is plenty of water in the dam, but it is not much good when the dam is empty, like the scare that hit Tasmania through that dry spell where they seriously looked at seeing their dams run dry—a very serious situation. Now we have adopted this whole policy of, 'Let's save the planet.' As Senator Macdonald has said in here 100 times, we produce 1.3 to 1.4 per cent of the world's CO2 emissions. Are we are going to change the planet? No, we are not. But what we are going to do, if we run out of energy and it gets more expensive, is simply put the cost up and transfer manufacturing overseas like we have already done so often during my lifetime. This is a serious situation, and I think it is very sad for a place like South Australia. I talked to my friend Michael Kelly at Jamestown. Michael lives with his wife, Mary-Ellen, there in Jamestown, where I grew up. His quarterly bill for just the two of them is around $800 a quarter. My quarterly bill at home on the farm—given that I have an underground bore that waters seven paddocks and an underground tank for the house with a pump that every litre that goes into the house is pumped through—
Senator Gallacher: We want a little bit of that water back down the Murray.
Senator WILLIAMS: Yes, we are in the Murray-Darling catchment basin in Inverell as well, by the way. You want our water and yours—our rain and yours. That is a pretty selfish attitude, I think. Anyway, the situation is this: our power bill is about $380 a quarter. I think that is very, very reasonable. I do not think it has gone up much in the last six months. My wife, Nancy, always pays the power bill. I think that is very reasonable, but the point I make is that two of us living in our house at Inverell, when we have underground pumps and so on, are looking at $360 to $380 a quarter, while our friends with the same number of people—two people; one couple—in a house in South Australia are looking at $800. That shows the expense of electricity in South Australia. It is driving industry out, so we have to find a solution. But what is the solution?
I think hydro-electricity is a wonderful thing—and thanks go to Minister Barnaby Joyce, who is very keen to get on with building the dams—but what will happen when we pick out a site to build a new dam? I will tell you what will happen: it will be just like the Adani mine. Along will come the Environmental Defenders Office, and into the courts they will go, saying, 'No, you can't build a dam here, because there might be some certain frog under threat or whatever.' That will then be stopped for years. We cannot build a dam, and, of course, what we desperately need to do is store more water in this country as both the population and the need for food production grow. That will all be stopped by the left-wing environmentalists who are supposed to help the environment, but half the time they damage the environment—I say that especially because of the way they manage the national parks and allow them to just grass up and burn and kill the animals in them.
We are getting into a really serious situation where it is so critical to have efficient and cost-effective energy in Australia, and yet what a mess we are making of it. Now we have the Finkel report and we are having a discussion. Those opposite are ribbing us, because we are discussing what the best policies will be as we go forward to give us a reliable supply of energy—reliable, Senator Xenophon, which is what your state desperately needs. Now New South Wales and Queensland and everywhere else we seem to look also need it—even Tasmania, with their hydro renewable schemes and their dry weather hits. We need to have the most efficient and reliable, and hopefully the cheapest, sources possible. That is why we need to have a look at the whole review and see what can be done best.
It is funny that Senator Polley was saying we need more renewables. South Australia has led the country on renewables. That is a fact when it comes to wind and solar, but perhaps not so much on hydro—there are not a lot of dams down there. But that has been the state that has got in to the biggest mess with the supply and cost of energy. Tasmania has the greatest amount of renewables and Senator Polly says, 'We went to the last election—the Labor Party—with a clear energy policy.' Well, what was that clear policy? It was the carbon tax/emissions trading scheme. Those opposite had a carbon tax and it was costing the country about $9 billion a year. We on this side promised to remove it when we won government under the then opposition leader Tony Abbott. We had the biggest reduction in prices for many years and those opposite want to bring it back. After the carbon tax, those opposite will move to an emissions trading scheme if they are elected in govern in this place—supported by the Greens, of course.
Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, I do not know if you know what an emissions trading scheme is, but basically it is a very simple scheme where wealthy people sell fresh air to wealthy people and poor people pay for it. That is the basic emissions trading scheme. The big companies will trade the dollars and who will pay? The poor widowed pensioner will pay when she gets her power bill. She will be living on a pension and they will increase the price of electricity—a crazy situation.
I am very pleased to see Prime Minister Turnbull, and especially Minister Canavan, intervene with the gas exports—the reason being: who owns the gas in the ground? It is owned by the people of the state, the Crown, and that is why royalties are collected on it. It is very good for companies to come out here, invest, take that resource owned by the people and export it overseas. That is good for our balance of payments and it is good for helping to pay our bills. However, the situation is this: when the people own that resource, enough should be kept back here in Australia to supply our needs first and foremost. I look forward to more changes in that field in the very near future.
The price of gas is going up and up, and there is a crazy situation in Victoria where even traditional gas pumping and production is being banned by the Labor government there. They say, 'We do not want to have any gas production.' Then they complain because they do not have enough gas to keep industry going, to keep the households going and to keep the gas ovens going or the gas heaters or the gas hot water systems. So where does it come from? A little bit of realistic policy in Victoria would be a big help, instead of just trying to appease the ultimate left wing, green, save-the-planet people who seem to be concerned about destroying jobs and industries. The fact is, if you want to look after the environment, you have got have money. When you have got money, you can spend it on the environment. If you are going to put us in a situation where we are moving our jobs and industries overseas then that just makes the country poorer, and we will not have the money to spend on the environment; other countries will make use of it.
As I said, to get a reliable supply of electricity we need steam—hot water—to drive the turbines. Whether that is heated by coal or gas does not really matter, but it is an efficient supply of electricity, and we can just turn it up almost instantly. If you have been through a coal-fired power station, you will see how quickly they can actually raise the temperature of the water and the steam pressure—in a matter of seconds. It is quite amazing how they powder the coal and feed it into the furnace. We need that, especially on hot days, when people rely on their air conditioners to keep them cool, especially in aged care facilities. In the hot summers, people who are 80, 90 or 95-years old in 40 or 45 degree heat—whether it be a north wind from Alice Springs blowing down to South Australia or a north-westerly coming into New South Wales from the centre of Australia—need to be cooled and cared for. We need reliable energy and a reliable electricity supply. That will come with coal, gas and, to a certain extent, hydro so long as there is enough water in a dam. Of course, we just do not run water out of the dams to spin the turbines; we also need that water to be used for irrigation, human consumption or whatever.
So what is the final plan? We on this side of the chamber are looking at a plan that has been put forward, an idea by Dr Finkel. We will assess that and make the best decision. But I hope that we come up with the reliability and the savings because the more we put the cost of electricity up, the more we are going to drive business overseas, shut down businesses here and send them to the wall. Important businesses such as engineering, abattoirs and food-processing industries help us produce those vital exports that Australia relies on to pay for all the imported products we now import since manufacturing has been wound back and since we simply cannot afford to compete against cheap labour countries overseas. We used to be able to help with cheap energy. Unfortunately, the way we are going, that cheap energy is going. The Labor Party's carbon tax will not fix anything as far as keeping the price down for energy. That will just put the costs up, cost the industry, cost jobs and cost the nation.
The PRESIDENT: It being 6 pm, the time for the debate has now expired.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following orders of the day relating to documents were considered:
Australian Hearing—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Bilyk to take note of document agreed to.
NBN Group—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Bilyk to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post)—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Bilyk to take note of document agreed to.
Department of Communications and the Arts—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Bilyk to take note of document agreed to.
Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (Fair Work Building and Construction)—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Bilyk to take note of document agreed to.
Department of Social Services—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)—Report for 2015-16, including report of the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Clean Energy Regulator—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Department of Health—Report for 2015-16, including the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee report on processes, financial statements for the Australian National Preventive Health Agency, and the report of the Australian Digital Health Agency. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document agreed to.
Department of Human Services—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Indigenous Business Australia—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Indigenous Land Corporation—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Central Land Council—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Department of Finance—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document agreed to.
Climate Change Authority—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of documents called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency (National Disability Insurance Agency)—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of document agreed to.
Aboriginal Hostels Limited—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Dodson to take note of document agreed to.
Anindilyakwa Land Council—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Bilyk to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Outback Stores Pty Ltd—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Bilyk to take note of document agreed to.
Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA)—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Bilyk to take note of document agreed to.
National Archives of Australia and National Archives of Australia Advisory Council—Reports for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Dastyari to take note of document agreed to.
Workplace Gender Equality Agency—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Bilyk to take note of document agreed to.
Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report no. 73—Frances Well Land Claim no. 64. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner—Social Justice and Native Title—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995—Report on the operation of the Act for 2014-15. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
Primary industries—Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—Relocation—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) responding to the order of the Senate of 29 November 2016, and attachment. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of documents agreed to.
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Royal Commission—Report of case study no. 36—The response of the Church of England Boys’ Society and the Anglican Dioceses of Tasmania, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney to allegations of child sexual abuse. Motion of Senator Dastyari to take note of document agreed to.
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Royal Commission—Report of case study no. 32—The response of Geelong Grammar School to allegations of child sexual abuse of former students. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of document agreed to.
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918—Redistribution into electoral divisions—Northern Territory—Report, together with composite map and compact disc of supporting information. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of document agreed to.
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Royal Commission—Report of case study no. 34—The response of Brisbane Grammar School and St Paul’s School to allegations of child sexual abuse. Motion of Senator Dastyari to take note of document agreed to.
Health—Dental services—Funding—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) responding to the resolution of the Senate of 30 November 2016. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of document agreed to.
Law and justice—Catholic Church—Allegations of child sexual abuse—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Prefect, Secretariat for the Economy, Vatican City State (Cardinal Pell, AC) responding to the resolution of the Senate of 8 February 2017. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of document agreed to.
Family and community services—Private rental housing market—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Social Services (Mr Porter) responding to the resolution of the Senate of 9 February 2017. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator O’Neill to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Murray-Darling Basin Authority—Basin Plan—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Telecommunications Act 1997—Funding of telecommunications consumer representation grants—Report for 2015-16. Motion of Senator O’Neill to take note of document agreed to.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—Australia State of the Environment 2016: Overview. Motion of Senator Rice to take note of document agreed to.
Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory—Royal Commission—Interim report. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator McAllister. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Indigenous Australians—Closing the Gap report—Parliamentary consideration—Resolution agreed to on 9 February 2017—Letter to the President of the Senate from the South Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (Mr Maher). Motion of Senator McCarthy to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
National Wind Farm Commissioner—Report for the period November 2015 to December 2016. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Environment and Communications References Committee
Report
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (18:02): On the committee's report on oil or gas production in the Great Australian Bight, I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I just want to put some facts very clearly on the record. In all of my deliberations on committee work as a senator, in the almost six years that I have been here, I always rely on my decision being based on the evidence and the merits of the case. In this particular exercise, we had a number of hearings, we had a number of witnesses and we had questioning of those witnesses. Suffice to say, it was a contested hearing in some respects, with different senators coming from different perspectives. I want to also put on the record that I have never, ever had the occasion to question another senator's right to express a view, up until now. I have the greatest respect for—and still have the greatest respect for—members of the Greens party. They were led by Senator Bob Brown, Senator Christine Milne and now Senator Di Natale, Senator Ludlam and Senator Waters. Their right to have a view is not contested.
But when they make additional comments in reports, which are an extension of the Senate, and put in reports matters which are not correct and in fact are disorderly, that is when I have a real issue. I have an issue when there are statements on the Hansard which say:
When is the Labor Party going to start standing up for proper action on climate change and staring down these climate criminals in these multinational companies?
I have an issue when you get statements that are clearly not related to the evidence taken by the committee and not related to the subject matter of the reference per se. Those arguments are brought into this place and thrown around in an attempt to disparage a committee view. There is no rule in the Senate that says every senator has to agree with the chair. There is no rule that says that a committee has to support the chair's draft report. There is plenty of precedent where this has happened. I think the honourable Andrew Wilkie, when he chaired an interactive gambling committee, a joint committee of the House, had occasion to propose reports which were not supported by the majority of the committee. I do not recall Mr Wilkie then going out to denigrate other members of the committee in Hansard, in additional comments, in a way that is not part of the reference and not part of the committee. I have no recollection of that, but I do see very clearly here that one particular senator, Senator Hanson-Young, has made very defamatory statements about matters that were never spoken about in the committee, and I find this extremely disturbing.
I am certainly not thin-skinned about all this stuff, and I think that willing debate is good. I think you should push debate as far as you can, but there are lines you cannot cross. Impugning the motives of a senator and actually misrepresenting the Senate should be brought into line. And I think, at the appropriate time, all senators should reflect on this. The standard that is set here is: if you do not agree with the chair and if you go with what you believe is the evidence to a committee, and if you sign off on a report with the majority of the committee, then you should not be maligned, impugned or have your motives questioned in the way that Senator Hanson-Young has done. And linking allegations to bribery and to siding with climate criminals—these are really beyond the pale. They are not matters that should be part of the normal discourse where there is a healthy divergences of views or where there are people of different ideological backgrounds. She put on the record this comment: 'I will withdraw that. I simply point out that Chevron donated money to the South Australian Labor Party.' That was not the subject of any evidence to the committee. I personally had no knowledge of any donation to the Labor Party, or to the Liberal Party, for that matter. And to bring that sort of discourse into this place and throw it around willy-nilly is reprehensible.
The simple facts are: we have an independent world-class regulator, NOPSEMA; we have, arising from a spill in Montara, a dedicated band of professionals securing the future of our oil and gas exploration in South Australia and Western Australia and anywhere around our coast. I happen to believe—and the evidence that was given to us—that they are doing a good enough job to merit going ahead with drilling in the Great Australian Bight. Senator Hanson-Young does not agree with that evidence, and I respect her right not to agree with the evidence. But she went on to make all sorts of wild, scurrilous allegations about other members of a committee she chaired. I always thought the job of the chair was to get consistent cooperation between all members of the committee, to hear all of the evidence with complete impartiality and to produce a consensus report. Clearly, that is not the way that Senator Hanson-Young operates.
Her view is that when she produces a report—which some of us believe was not underpinned by evidence—it is her way or the highway. If we do not support her report, she will then put in additional comments which contain disorderly behaviour. She withdrew it in the Senate but leaves it in a report of the Senate. There are avenues that we could all take to pursue that, but I suppose it comes down to this: if the chair of the committee is unable to carry a report on a vote of the committee, then it should not be the case that that chair then goes out and makes unsubstantiated allegations which were not a subject of the reference, either in additional comments or in this chamber.
I think that, when we move on in this space—and I note that Statoil has announced that they have acquired two of the permits with which BP was intending to drill—there may well be further discourse on this matter as Statoil and possibly Chevron or others move into the Great Australian Bight with a view to finding resources for Australia's benefit and exploiting those resources. There may even be another hearing. Who knows? But I really wanted to get the bottom of what the standard is that we are setting for ourselves.
Senator Back, as he normally does, said something really prescient: we need to treat each other in this place with enough respect that we can always return the next day. We might have our feathers ruffled. Make no mistake about it: I am not thin-skinned at all, but I do not think the standard is that, when you do not get your own way, you go out and make allegations either in here or in additional comments which are not the subject matter of the reference. I do not know if that behaviour is appropriate and can be allowed to continue.
I wanted to take this opportunity to very clearly put on the record that I personally thought the evidence that we got enabled me to make a decision about drilling in the Great Australian Bight. I care about the environment as much as anybody in this place. I have children and grandchildren. I like Kangaroo Island as much as any Kangaroo Islander. It is an iconic place in the world, sustaining really-high-value tourism. But we can do things, as the human race has proved. When we measure the risk and we take out as much of that risk as we humanly can, we can do things very well.
Look at whales. It is really ironic that it was the drilling of oil which produced kerosene, which replaced whale oil to light the world. In the 1860s, when we drilled for oil and we got the by-product kerosene, we stopped sending out hundreds of ships to hunt whales, which we used to boil to get the oil for lamps all around the world. Ironically, drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight is good for Australia, is good for the communities around those areas and is good for whales.
Question agreed to.
Finance and Public Administration References Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (18:12): I rise to take note of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee report Operation, effectiveness, and consequences of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Location of Corporate Commonwealth Entities) Order 2016. Here we have the report into the government's decision to move the APVMA from Canberra to the University of New England in Armidale and, with it, start a centre of excellence in regulatory science which will not only assist in skills shortages within the APVMA itself but also assist with state government bodies that are similarly experiencing skills shortages when it comes to regulatory scientists.
This committee was set up essentially as a ruse for Joel Fitzgibbon to pursue the Deputy Prime Minister over false claims of pork-barrelling, and the conduct of the inquiry itself and the report as you read it similarly bear that fact out. This was nothing more than a political exercise by the Labor Party, who would not know regional Australia if they fell over it.
Senator Polley: Where do you live?
Senator McKENZIE: I am happy to go to the detail, Senator Polley.
The PRESIDENT: To the chair, Senator McKenzie.
Senator McKENZIE: Sorry; I direct my comments to the chair.
The report actually selectively quoted a range of material from submissions. Unfortunately, the majority of submissions—88.5 per cent of submissions—supported decentralisation and, indeed, many of them went on to support the move of the APVMA directly. They were not quoted; they were actually derided in the majority report—seemingly, they were not relevant to the terms of reference. Well the terms of reference went specifically to the government's decision to back its election promise and move the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale and, in that, looking at any other matters. It went to the very heart of decentralisation.
It is very sad to see the Labor Party now, following Whitlam's decisions around decentralisation and, in the mid-eighties, shifting CSIRO from Sydney to Hobart. There were a lot of scientists in CSIRO who were very, very upset that they could no longer kayak across the harbour to work—I think it was in about 1985—but they have found a very welcoming home in Hobart. There were some staff issues in the beginning, but now, when you look at what an iconic, world-class scientific program is being conducted down there, particularly with the focus on Antarctic research, no-one could doubt that that was not a fantastic move.
Similarly, there is the New South Wales government's decision to move the department of agriculture from Sydney to Orange. We heard throughout this inquiry from a councillor in Orange, Mr Kidd, who said, 'Yes, there were some problems'. I think the direct quote of Mr Kidd was, 'We'll all be rooned, Hanrahan' when the announcement was made to move the department of ag out to Orange. I said, 'How is it now, Mr Kidd?' He said, 'Well, we'd have a riot in the streets of Orange for the first time if anybody suggested moving it back.' I think that goes to the broader point: it is a concern sometimes if you, personally, are needing to shift, but when we looked at the actual evidence, there had been 200 job applications to the agency and, indeed, those younger staff within the agencies were really quite looking forward to the move to Armidale.
But going to my critique of the report, which we are still getting to, about selectively quoting from the evidence and choosing not to include more than 88.5 per cent of it: the opposition senators who put together the majority report claimed the terms of reference did not cover decentralisation. That simply was not the case. We had submissions from regional councils right across the country, from regional development corporations right around the country, who not only said they supported decentralisation, but also made very articulate, well thought out cases of why they should be considered as a potential space and place for relocation of government agencies and jobs. The only council actually quoted in the majority report is the City of Cessnock. That is an ALP dominated municipality within the Labor held seat of Hunter. Joel Fitzgibbon likes to make reckless claims of pork-barrelling, but it is pretty hard—that would mean we would not be spending any money in regional Australia as a government. We hold most of the seats—that is the reality—so actually servicing those communities as a government is not pork-barrelling.
The other issue the Labor Party relied on quintessentially encapsulated the Labor Party's understanding of regional Australia. The shadow minister commissioned some research from the Parliamentary Library to look at the government order that said 'these agencies needed to be located outside of 150 kilometres from a capital city'. Joe Citizen, Mary Sixpack, Mary Housecoat: all of us would think a capital city or the centre of a city is the GPO. But, dear shadow minister, in order to fit his political argument, used a measurement that saw places like Sorrento and country towns like Romsey in my home state of Victoria counted as 'Melbourne', and the outer boundary of that particular geographic area became where he measured 150 kilometres. So he actually cut out a lot of potentially suitable places for relocation. When we looked at going from the GPO, we added 19 potential locations. Unfortunately, Joel, Romsey is not in Melbourne. I could go on with Brisbane and Sydney examples, but I am going to run out of time.
I want to highlight some of the communities in regional Victoria that made a great case to this inquiry about why they should be selected. There was the City of Greater Bendigo. Bendigo is a great goldmining town and is where my office is located. A lot of people think that decentralisation—moving agencies and jobs out of capital cities to the regions—is doing the regions a favour, is giving a bit of economic development and is putting some brains into a country town, where clearly there are not any. I could go on and on with the stereotypes. But what we saw in this inquiry was regional capital after regional capital stand up and say, 'It's in your best interests to put those jobs here, not just for the economic interests but for policy outcomes.'
For instance, the city of greater Bendigo has a great tradition of financial expertise, with the Bendigo Bank et cetera. Having that sort of capacity makes Bendigo an ideal candidate for relocating the Regional Investment Bank, for instance. I know they were in the mix for that; unfortunately, they lost out. Similarly, Wodonga made a great case that being in the middle of the Murray-Darling Basin, being part of the communities directly affected by the decisions of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and given its proximity to Canberra and Melbourne make it an ideal place to locate some of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority staff. That is fantastic. I know they have welcomed the 10 jobs that have come to them locally.
I have to put this on the record. I recommend anyone actually interested in this issue read the dissenting report of government senators and participate in the House committee into this exact issue. Unfortunately, this committee had a day's hearing in Canberra, did not go to Armidale, where the APVMA is going to be housed—there were so many issues fleshed out, but we did not go there—and did not go anywhere else in regional Australia except Townsville, where we had a half-day hearing. We had five councils from Victoria and five from New South Wales on a teleconference panel and they had roughly five minutes apiece to make their case. That simply was not good enough. I think that to do this issue justice it is appropriate to have a committee that will travel throughout regional Australia and flesh out the great benefits that decentralisation of government agencies and jobs can bring not just to the communities where they will be housed but indeed to the governments that they serve.
In terms of participating in this inquiry and the outcomes, I know there were claims made around the finance minister's involvement. The government acted with integrity every single minute of the application of this government order, and to suggest otherwise is simply a misrepresentation of the truth. We absolutely back the decentralisation agenda and very much welcome the government's moves in that direction.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:23): I rise to speak about the inquiry that I chaired into the location of corporate Commonwealth entities order. It is disappointing that Senator McKenzie has chosen to disparage in the way that she has the work of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee. The committee undertook that work with the seriousness that the finance and public administration references committee approaches all of the tasks it is allocated by this chamber.
It is true that through the inquiry there was a campaign from National Party members of parliament to broaden the focus of the committee beyond the focus that was set out in the terms of reference for the committee. The Senate asked us to look at the government's decision to relocate the APVMA. The National Party established a campaign, including writing to a range of regional councils, asking them to submit information to us about the much broader question of decentralisation of government services and departments.
I put on the record that Labor is enormously interested in that question and sympathetic to the agenda set out by those councils, but the place to progress that was not this committee. This committee had narrow terms of reference, and we fulfilled the mandate provided to us by the Senate. I should note that Labor members in the other place, in fact, supported the establishment of a joint committee that could examine this question of decentralisation, drawing on representation from both the Senate and the other place. Unfortunately, the government did not choose to support that in the other place, and we now have a House-only committee, dominated by government members of parliament. That is a great loss to a policy agenda that could have been fleshed out by a much broader range of participants.
I want to make a couple of remarks about the findings of the committee. The first is this: that this was a decision to move one government agency to just one electorate—the electorate that happened to be held by the Deputy Prime Minister. It was a decision that was announced during an election campaign. During the course of our inquiry, we asked all of the regional councils that appeared before us which of them had had the chance to make their pitch to government about why their town would be deserving of the $25 million investment that the government has elected to make in Armidale. The answer to this was, of course, none—not a single one of those councils had had that opportunity. When asked, 'What would be a good process for decentralisation?' all of them said, 'It ought to be transparent, and we all ought to have the chance to apply. We all ought to have the chance to make the case for our community to receive the $25 million that, on this occasion, has been allocated just to Armidale.'
Senator McKenzie referred to the role of the finance minister. The evidence from the departmental officials in the Department of Finance was very clear. They basically said, 'The finance minister had this role. It's his job to sign off on it, and so we did it.' There was an opportunity, of course, for the finance minister to apply a very different kind of scrutiny to a decision of this kind. The finance minister could have looked at the cost-benefit analysis and scrutinised whether or not the benefits that would arise for Australia from a relocation of this kind were really worth the $25 million investment. But the evidence from the department was that that was not part of the consideration. It strikes me that this narrow reading of the finance minister's role in the making of a general policy order is, at minimum, a missed opportunity for the finance minister to exert his authority in making sure that the decisions of government properly reflect the social and economic interests of the country.
The assessment around economic benefit was, of course, that there was very little economic benefit at all from a move of this kind and, on the contrary, there were very great risks associated with the relocation of this agency. The estimate from Ernst and Young about the financial cost to government of the relocation was that it would be $35 million in the short term. In the last budget, the government allocated $25 million for the relocation of this agency. I understand that Mr Joyce has indicated that the balance of that will need to be made up from within his own department. As it stands, the move of this agency is not fully funded.
It is also the case, of course, that additional costs emerge every moment that this sad story drags on, because many of the staff have indicated that they do not wish to move to Armidale. The workaround for this currently being contemplated by the APVMA is a complete reworking of the computer network. The cost of that is unknown, but the evidence from the then CEO of the APVMA was that it would be many millions of dollars. There has been no indication from government about whether funding for this element of the project will be provided nor indeed what the total cost will be. There is some indication that the total cost of this farrago could be as much as $60 million.
What I say to those listening is that, if we are to spend sums of this kind to move agencies, it ought not be done because it is politically convenient to provide a significant investment to one electorate during an election campaign. There ought to be a more substantial basis for analysis than this, and unfortunately, through all of the committee's deliberations, it was not at all clear that that deliberation took place in any serious way.
The prospect of harm to the agency's capability is very real. Industry body after industry body lined up to tell us that at the hearings. You know you have a problem—quite a serious problem—when the National Farmers' Federation turns up to criticise a National Party decision. We have a very serious problem where all of the businesses who are reliant on the APVMA to approve in a timely way their importation of chemical product are deeply concerned that that capability will be compromised by the move of this agency to Armidale.
Regional communities should have access to public sector jobs. We heard repeatedly about the damage that has been done to regional communities by this government's obsession with slashing public sector jobs—an obsession which is felt most keenly in regional Australia. In Townsville, where we visited, 200 jobs have been taken out of the ATO. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has been rapidly downsized despite the fact that Townsville is host to a very significant Defence community. The Department of Human Services has been subject to repeated job cuts. Regional communities should have jobs and they should not have to live in the Deputy Prime Minister's seat to get them.
Question agreed to.
Economics References Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (18:33): I rise to speak on the report into film, computer game and publication classification by the nanny state inquiry which I chaired in the last parliament. Under state and territory laws, films and computer games must be classified before they can be exhibited, demonstrated, sold or hired in Australia. Under a COAG agreement, the Commonwealth is responsible for this classification. The states and territories are responsible for the enforcement of classification laws and determine the offences and penalties, for example, for distributing refused classification material.
Classification is undertaken by the Australian Classification Board, a statutory body established under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Its role is to classify films, computer games and publications for exhibition, sale or hire in Australia. One of the guiding principles of classification is that adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want. This sits alongside three other primary principles: the protection of underage viewers from material that is likely to harm or disturb them; the principle that everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; and the need to take account of community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.
There has been a long debate around this subject. In fact, it is an old debate and the arguments on each side are well known and have been heard many times. This was apparent in evidence to the inquiry. Some were supportive of the classification of media content, while others argued that the classification regulations amounted to an infringement on the personal choice of consumers to access entertainment freely. The view was put that there is an inherent tension in finding an appropriate and desirable balance between ensuring that adults can access content freely while protecting those who may be negatively impacted by the content. The Arts Law Centre of Australia noted the importance of maintaining:
… a balance between allowing adults to read, hear and see what they want, protecting minors from unsuitable material, and taking into account community concerns.
However, they also argued that it was critically important to maintain freedom of speech and expression through the means of artistic mediums, which is affected by classification. The centre argued that the legislation 'has the potential to conflict with the common law freedom of speech'. A different view was presented by the Australian Council on Children and the Media, particularly with regard to children. It argued that classification is a social good, carried out by government to ensure the community's safety and protection from harm. In other words, parents need guidance to be parents.
As it stands, the principle that adults should be permitted to read, hear, see and play what they want is not being upheld, particularly in relation to sexually explicit content. According to the industry group Eros:
The current system of official classification in Australia, is now a system of censorship.
It argued there is a 'contradiction between federal and state classification legislation' and that Australian wholesalers of sexually explicit material, who are obliged to abide by the classification system, are no longer commercially viable due to the availability of the same material elsewhere, the prohibitive cost of classifying such material and 'frequent abuse of power by customs and customs officials'. Eros pointed out that the X18+ and Refused Classification categories include a number of consensual sex acts between adults that are largely accepted in the community. Eros claimed that this inclusion discriminates against those who participate in these acts, including members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersex community. And, when films are classified as X18+, the states, through their respective classification enforcement statutes, have ensured that the legal status of these films remains in a grey area. An adult can legally buy and possess X18+ rated films, with the exception of adults in Western Australia, but it is illegal in all states for an adult retail store to sell such a film. This is despite the fact that an adult retail store is age restricted. You must be over 18 to enter.
This is where the inquiry hit the reality wall—where it became clear that the old debate and its rules are no longer relevant because the game has changed. The new game is called the internet. The Classification Board's decisions and the state rules that enforce them are increasingly becoming redundant. They have been superseded. Anybody is able to access, via the internet, material that would be classified as X18+ or Refused Classification. There are really no limits. Anything short of North Korean or Chinese style censorship can simply be avoided. That leads to the obvious question: what role should classification play in an environment where content is accessible regardless of the attempted restrictions of regulatory bodies? Maintaining a classification system is expensive. If it is to be retained, a major rethink is needed.
The committee concluded that for any system of classification to work it must recognise that the only scope for enforcement lies in drawing a clear distinction between illegality and immorality. It is neither reasonable nor practical to expect law enforcement to enforce morals, which is what is expected now. The committee I chaired nominated some principles upon which a policy could be based, irrespective of technological change. These principles are, firstly, to prosecute those who depict matters that are illegal while leaving depiction of legal stuff alone. Police and courts have better things to do than to wag fingers at people who engage in consensual legal sexual fetishes and then make the mistake of taking photographs or shooting video for wider distribution. Illegal things, such as rape and child sex, should be the focus.
Secondly: warn adults of content so that they have the option of avoiding exposure to it. Warning need not be particularly subtle: its purpose is to ensure that people know what they will be exposed to so they can decide whether to look at it. That means nobody needs to be exposed unwittingly, but, equally, nobody is making a nanny-state decision for someone else. Thirdly: restore responsibility to parents to protect children. The government is neither entitled nor qualified to assume the role of parenting. Other people may have different ideas about parenting but that does not give them the right to impose those ideas.
Other measures are also losing their relevance. As free TV argued, classification time zones, where programs under a certain classification can be shown within a certain time frame, were originally designed to protect children from viewing inappropriate content. There are now technological measures for this, such as parental locks, and there are children-specific television channels, such as ABC2 and ABC3. And in any case, there is an expectation that content will be available at a time of one's choosing, without restrictions such as classification zones. Catch-up viewing options, such as iview, are now ubiquitous. This effectively means there are different rules on content depending on the means by which is it is accessed.
Achieving change in this area might not be easy. While the states could go it alone, the COAG agreement calls for the unanimous agreement of all relevant state ministers for all but minor amendments. But, clearly, change is needed. Times have changed, and the regulatory system needs to respond. It is time for the government to recognise that and to begin the process of change.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Leyonhjelm. Are you happy for that motion to be put or do you want to preserve the document?
Senator LEYONHJELM: There is no need to preserve the document.
The PRESIDENT: In that case, I put the question that the document be agreed to and that the report be noted.
Question agreed to.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (18:43): I would like to preserve item No. 46.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Polley. Is there anything on page 20? In that case I will just clarify document No. 6 on page 15: we did discharge that and then it was again preserved, so I presume the Senate is happy for that to continue to be on the Notice Paper. In that case, all those other documents are discharged.
COMMITTEES
Consideration
The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:
Public Works—Joint Statutory Committee—5th report of 2017—Referrals received December 2016, February and March 2017. Motion of Senator Gallacher to take note of report agreed to.
Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—Reports—Examination of the annual report of the Australian Federal Police 2014-15—Examination of the annual report of the Australian Federal Police 2014-15. Motion of the deputy chair of the committee (Senator Singh) to take note of reports agreed to.
Environment and Communications References Committee—Risks and opportunities associated with the use of the bumblebee population in Tasmania for commercial pollination purposes—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Whish-Wilson) to take note of report agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Report—Planned acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)—Government response. Motion of Senator Ludlam to take note of document debated.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—167th report—Nuclear Cooperation – Ukraine; Extradition – China—Government response concerning nuclear cooperation with Ukraine. Motion of Senator Ludlam to take note of document agreed to.
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Operation, effectiveness, and consequences of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Location of Corporate Commonwealth Entities) Order 2016—Report. Motion of Senator Rice to take note of report debated. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—Report on the 2015-16 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act. Motion of Senator Dastyari to take note of report agreed to.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing Centre—Report. Motion of Senator McKim to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Resilience of Electricity Infrastructure in a Warming World—Select Committee—Stability and affordability: Forging a path to Australia's renewable energy future—Report. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Second interim report—Increasing use of so-called Flag of Convenience shipping in Australia—Government response. Motion of Senator Sterle to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Community Affairs References Committee—Complaints mechanism administered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Siewert) to take note of report agreed to.
Community Affairs References Committee—Price regulation associated with the Prostheses List Framework—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Siewert) to take note of report agreed to.
Environment and Communications References Committee—Oil or gas production in the Great Australian Bight—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Whish-Wilson) to take note of report debated and agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Department of Defence's management of credit and other transaction cards—Report. Motion of Senator Gallacher to take note of report agreed to.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Airport and aviation security—Report. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Environment and Communications References Committee—Retirement of coal fired power stations—Final report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Whish-Wilson) to take note of report agreed to.
Red Tape—Select Committee—Effect of red tape on the sale, supply and taxation of alcohol—Interim report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Leyonhjelm) to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—Parliamentary Budget Office Review 2015-16—Report of the independent panel. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Smith) to take note of report agreed to.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—Nature and scope of any agreement reached by the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments in relation to the distribution of proceeds of the liquidation of, and litigation concerning, the Bell Group of companies (the proceeds)—Report to the Senate on compliance with motion no. 274. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Pratt) to take note of report agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Operation of the Australian Defence Force's resistance to interrogation training—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Gallacher) to take note of report agreed to.
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Operation of the Administrative Arrangements Order, the effectiveness of the division and performance of responsibilities under it, and any other related matters—Report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of report agreed to.
Economics References Committee—'Lifting the fear and suppressing the greed': Penalties for white-collar crime and corporate and financial misconduct in Australia—Report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—Nature and scope of any agreement reached by the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments in relation to the distribution of proceeds of the liquidation of, and litigation concerning, the Bell Group of companies (the proceeds)—Interim report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Pratt) to take note of report agreed to.
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—The 2016 Federal election: Foreign donations—Second interim report. Motion of Senator Leyonhjelm to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Economics References Committee—Report—2016 Census: issues of trust—Government response. Motion of Senator O'Neill to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Murray-Darling Basin Plan—Select Committee—Report—Refreshing the Plan—Government response. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Leyonhjelm. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Import of seafood and seafood products—Report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Sterle) to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Human Rights—Joint Statutory Committee—Freedom of speech in Australia: Inquiry into the operation of Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and related procedures under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)—Report. Motion of Senator Paterson to take note of report agreed to.
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—Reports—Review of administration and expenditure no. 14 (2014-15): Australian intelligence agencies—Review of the listing and re-listing of four terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code: Al-Qa'ida in the Indian Subcontinent, Islamic State in Libya, Islamic State Sinai Province and al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula. Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of reports agreed to.
Economics References Committee—Reports—Future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry—Part 2 – Future submarines—Part 3 – Long-term planning—Government responses. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of documents called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings, including the gender and age related dimensions, and the particular situation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, and culturally and linguistically diverse people with disability—Government response. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document debated.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—167th report—Nuclear Cooperation – Ukraine; Extradition – China. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of report agreed to.
Wind Turbines—Select Committee—Report—Government response. Motion of Senator Smith to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Economics References Committee—Report—Australia's innovation system—Government response. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document debated.
Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Extent of income inequality in Australia – Bridging our growing divide: inequality in Australia—Government response. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Economics References Committee—Future of Australia's steel industry—Interim report. Motion of Senator Carr to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Economics References Committee—2016 Census: issues of trust—Report. Motion of Senator Bilyk to take note of report agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Report—Delivery and effectiveness of Australia's bilateral aid program in Papua New Guinea—Government response. Motion of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion) to take note of document agreed to.
Economics References Committee—Personal choice and community impacts—Interim report. Motion of Senator Leyonhjelm to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Economics References Committee—Personal choice and community impacts—Bicycle helmet laws (term of reference d)—Interim report. Motion of Senator Leyonhjelm to take note of report agreed to.
Economics References Committee—Personal choice and community impacts—Sale and use of marijuana and associated products (term of reference c)—Interim report. Motion of Senator Leyonhjelm to take note of report called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
Economics References Committee—Personal choice and community impacts—Western Sydney Wanderers supporters (term of reference f)—Interim report. Motion of Senator Leyonhjelm to take note of report agreed to.
Economics References Committee—Personal choice and community impacts—The sale and use of tobacco, tobacco products, nicotine products and e-cigarettes (term of reference a)—Interim report. Motion of Senator Leyonhjelm to take note of report agreed to.
Economics References Committee—Personal choice and community impacts—Sale and service of alcohol (term of reference b)—Interim report. Motion of Senator Leyonhjelm to take note of report agreed to.
Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Palliative care in Australia—Government response. Motion of Senator Polley to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Consideration
The following orders of the day relating to reports of the Auditor-General were considered:
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 32 of 2016-17—Performance audit—Offshore processing centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea – Contract management of garrison support and welfare services: Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 35 of 2016-17—Performance audit—Indigenous Advancement Strategy: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 37 of 2016-17—Performance audit—Australian Taxation Officeʼs implementation of audit recommendations: Australian Taxation Office. Motion of Senator Dastyari to take note of document agreed to.
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 38 of 2016-17—Performance audit—The approval and administration of Commonwealth funding for the WestConnex project: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development; Infrastructure Australia. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of document agreed to.
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 39 of 2016-17—Performance audit—Australian Border Force's use of statutory powers: Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of document agreed to.
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 40 of 2016-17—2015-16 major projects report: Department of Defence. Motion of Senator McAllister to take note of document agreed to.
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 41 of 2016-17—Performance audit—Management of selected fraud prevention and compliance budget measures: Department of Human Services; Department of Social Services. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 43 of 2016-17—Performance audit—Proceeds of crime: Australian Federal Police; Australian Financial Security Authority; Attorney-General's Department. Motion of Senator O'Neill to take note of document agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
The PRESIDENT (18:43): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Mining
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:43): Last week I had the honour to address the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies convention in my home town of Perth, Western Australia. It is no secret that the mining industry in Western Australia and across the world is becoming more challenging. On a global level, miners are facing increasing challenges with declining grades, deeper deposits, harder oil and labour productivity problems. Here in Australia our biggest impediment continues to be the current regulatory environment for exploration activities that present a constant and ever-present threat to the prosperity of resource based states, like my state of Western Australia. A central feature to this in my consideration is the impact of the current native title regime, which continues to limit land access and increase compliance costs for explorers.
At a time when Australia not only needs opportunities for future job growth but is also calling for greater energy security, the constraints placed upon the exploration activities of our mineral and energy sector can no longer be ignored. Three weeks ago marked the anniversaries of two major events in Australia's history: the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 25th anniversary of the Mabo decision. The 1967 referendum is widely recognised as a crucial point in Australia's reconciliation journey. For the first time, Australians properly acknowledged the identity, the culture, the history and the citizenship of Indigenous Australians. However, 1967 was also important because, following the Mabo case of 1992, it provided a basis for the Commonwealth to create and enact native title. The Native Title Act was a major step in recasting the relationship between Indigenous and other Australians, recognising past injustices and setting the scene for a more equitable future.
On the face of it, native title has achieved a lot for our country. Since its assent, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' rights and interests in land have been formally recognised over 40 per cent of Australia's land mass. Almost 400 native title determinations have been made by the Federal Court and about 170 prescribed bodies corporate have been established to represent the rights of traditional owners. However, it is important to note that the Native Title Act does not confer a new title to land but gives recognition to an ancient title. Inherent in this recognition is a 'right to negotiate'. This right to negotiate is significant in two important aspects: firstly, it is more extensive than any other right held by members of other races facing a compulsory acquisition of property; and, secondly, it is available not only to people with established rights but also to those who merely claim them.
This right to negotiate has resulted in making native title negotiations notoriously complex and has created significant challenges for a resource based state like Western Australia. Increased approval time lines for the grant of mineral licences and petroleum exploration permits, coupled with the complexity and length in resolving native title claims, is significantly impacting on the productivity of Western Australia's mining and energy sectors. Approximately 85 per cent of Western Australia is subject to either a native title claim or a native title determination that recognises the existence of native title rights and interests. Today there are 79 currently filed native title claims in Western Australia, on top of 60 native title determinations, comprising over 50 per cent of the land area. Just under half of these current claims in Western Australia were filed more than 15 years ago. Since the Native Title Act commenced in 1994, more than 90 per cent of all future act applications have been made in Western Australia. The majority of these future acts relate to resource based activity, primarily low-impact activities such as exploration or prospecting. Forty-eight per cent of these objections remain unresolved, which means activities like mineral exploration—the necessary precursor to resource development and employment growth—cannot occur.
The current native title regime requires explorers to have negotiated an agreement with any native title holders and registered claimants to enable an exploration permit or licence to be issued. However, the act requires that collective groups are nominated by communities to make authorisations on behalf of claimants, which can number into the thousands. However, there are no statutory rules that govern how these groups, known as 'prescribed corporate bodies' or 'native title representative bodies', should exercise that power, which, in my mind, is akin to the fiduciary duty of directors acting on behalf of shareholders. Prior to the grant of an exploration title, mining and resource companies are required to negotiate an access agreement, which includes land use regulations and compensation arrangements with the representatives. The onus to negotiate an access arrangement rests solely on the explorer, and the costs are borne before explorers are able to determine whether recoverable mineral discoveries actually exist. This results in increased project costs, reducing the ability to respond to changing market conditions, impeding project financing and, ultimately, deferring potential development and revenue opportunities.
In addition, the grant of an exploration license also requires a heritage survey specifying how an explorer will engage with traditional owners or other consultants to protect Aboriginal heritage sites. Although heritage legislation is separate to native title legislation, the two are dangerously intertwined when it comes to damaging the opportunity and capacity for mineral exploration. The process for an exploration company to engage with traditional owners in order to conduct their heritage survey to ensure there is no impact on any Aboriginal sites during exploration is costly and is time consuming. Once again, the onus rests solely on the explorer.
Estimates that heritage compliance costs, including the native title access agreements, are estimated at 10 per cent of exploration expenditure. The quantum of the costs, which often includes a fee for the meeting to begin the negotiations, is largely dependent on the traditional owners or the representative body: their availability, the fees they charge and their willingness to participate. Additional barriers can arise when there are multiple traditional owners groups covering a single area. This increases the costs and time to consult with all groups and coordinate representatives from all groups to participate in these surveys.
It is no secret to those familiar with these arrangements that some traditional owner groups have in the past—and I suspect will continue in the future—used the heritage process as a lever in native title negotiations in order to place pressure on the company to come to a native title settlement. In order to obtain heritage approvals and progress work, an explorer may feel pressured by time and come to settle its native title negotiations in less favourable terms. In addition, the identification of Aboriginal sites is open to interpretation and potential abuse. Anecdotal shows that withholding cultural heritage information after a heritage survey is completed is becoming increasingly prevalent as a means to extract further payments from resource companies.
Protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage is important, and it is a necessary aspect of exploring and mining minerals in Australia. But I believe the time has come to restart a debate that highlights the inefficiencies of the current native title regime that is resulting in unnecessary delays, leading to higher costs of exploration. The complexity of native title—which often involves some very entrenched interests and, to be fair, the legitimate claims on both sides of the table—demands a negotiating process that is scrupulously fair. It also demands a process that is more transparent and better understood by all parties. Until the role and responsibilities of prescribed corporate bodies and native title representative bodies are thoroughly reviewed and their levels of governance and transparency significantly improved, the WA mining industry and the traditional owners they support will continue to be constrained by the native title process that was, once upon a time, conceived in the spirit of helping the people it now seeks to punish.
Litchfield, Mr Frederick
Road Safety
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (18:53): I rise to make a contribution in this adjournment debate on a subject which you probably hold very dear, Mr President: that is, the Australian National University's internship program. I think this is my fifth intern. Frederick Litchfield has just completed a report for my office on subject matter that I find I am very closely involved in. The work is, as always, exceptional. Mr Litchfield has delivered a report entitled The cost of road crashes in Australia2016: an overview of the safety strategies. He has completed this work in around three months. It has condensed down to approximately 41 pages. He has done, as always, excellent work—as have all of the interns that I have had the luxury of hosting in my office.
As someone who has probably sometimes looked at university graduates with bit of disdain, these types of exercises really bring home the value of a top, high quality education. This young intern has done exceptionally valuable work, which I think is worthy of being widely circulated, widely read and widely tested as to the references he has drawn the information from. Just to give you a sample of what he has done, this report builds research on the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics in 2009 to calculate the total social cost of road crashes. The report updates the cost for 2016 using new fatality and injury data and includes estimates of the cost of property damage. These results can serve as a very useful guide for policymakers when assessing the merits of safety strategies in Australia.
Transit fatality data are explained, including with comparisons between heavy trucks and non-heavy vehicles as well as state-based and time-based comparisons. State and territory injury data is analysed to estimate the number of serious and minor injuries from road crashes in 2016. The property damage costs arising from road crashes are also calculated.
There were 1,295 fatalities from road crashes in Australia in 2016, and the report's analysis shows that that is a 19 per cent decrease from some 10 years ago. However, it is a 13 per cent increase on 2014, our lowest fatality year. Since 2006 Australia has fallen from 14 out of 34 to 17 out of 34 in the OECD rankings for fatalities per capita. Fatalities per billion kilometres travelled were 5.9 in 2016, and fatalities per 100,000 people were 5.4. Heavy trucks were involved in 14.7 per cent of fatalities in 2016 despite making up only 3.1 per cent of registered vehicles and travelling only 7.2 per cent of the vehicle-kilometres travelled.
Due to state and territory methodologies and the different ways of counting in each state and territory, there is currently no nationally consistent road crash data in Australia. The report's estimations are that there were 32,300 serious injuries and 224,104 minor injuries sustained from road crashes in 2016. Some 620 people per week are seriously injured in crashes on our Australian roads. The report used the willingness-to-pay method of estimating the cost of road crashes, with the outcome being an average cost per fatality of $7.8 million, cost per serious injury of $310,094 and cost per minor injury of $3,057. It found that property damage costs increased relative to 2006 by 36.5 per cent including inflation and resulted in higher insurance administration costs and vehicle repair costs, of which 22 per cent, interestingly enough, were borne by heavy vehicles. On this basis, the total social cost of road crashes in Australia for 2016 was $33.16 billion: $9.38 billion in property damage costs, $10.2 billion in fatality costs, $13.58 billion in industry costs and a total increase from 2006 of 22 per cent, which is less than the overall CPI but still equates to two per cent of GDP.
This report provides a comprehensive overview of the different types of safety strategies and their management in Australia, presents what is being done and what could be done under multiple categories—management, resources, leadership, awareness, roads, infrastructure, technology and heavy vehicles—and concludes with a number of recommendations in these areas.
This is excellent work. This is the result of a bright young mind having the opportunity to access the Parliamentary Library, the department of transport resources and other groups like the Australian College of Road Safety—all of the various groups which we gave him the basic introduction to. He has gone out and produced an exceptional piece of work which I commend to any senator or party interested in road safety.
It gives me that underpinning evidence so that, when I go to estimates and I ask the department, 'Why didn't you spend $24 million allocated in the budget to road safety?' and they do not have a coherent answer, it makes me believe that we do not have a coherent strategy in the national department in respect of road safety. If the officers attending estimates are unable to tell any senator why a measly $24 million was not able to be spent in a year when we have a cost to the economy of two per cent of GDP—in excess of $32 billion—I find that absolutely extraordinary.
When you press really hard on those officials who turn up, they do not have answers. Clearly, what that says is that there is no structured road safety group within the department. No-one has carriage or responsibility for directing the federal effort across the nation in respect of this huge challenge. We are approaching 1,300 deaths per year and 620 serious injuries per week, and the department does not spend the $24 million allocated. And to add insult to injury, if you look into the forward estimates they budgeted to spend less money, not more. You can probably guess that if you spend a dollar in road safety, the underpinning evidence says you will get a minimum of $1.30 back. But what about the human and social costs? What about the human and social costs of 620 people tying up the time of all those emergency service vehicles and the emergency sections in our hospitals? What about retrieval by helicopter? There are huge costs attributed to inaction in this space.
I have asked the department to do one thing, and that is to mandate autonomous-braking technology. It would stop lunatics driving into people. That is what it does; it actually stops you from driving into people. It would save an enormous number of injuries, particularly in the pedestrian area. And it is a cheap technology, and it is readily available. It is actually taken out of vehicles that are imported into Australia, and that is a disgrace. We will not make motor vehicles in Australia at the end of this year, and the department, the minister and this government—and I would say this if it were Anthony Albanese—must mandate the safest-possible technology for Australian motorists. We import a million and a bit cars per year and there is no reason we cannot have the safest cars in the world imported into Australia, just as they are in the European Union or United States. We need to make an impact in this space. We need to make a big impact in this space, not only in heavy vehicles but right across the board.
It is not believable to me that we, as policymakers, can just blithely accept 1,300 Australian deaths per year and 620 seriously injured per week. It is beyond my comprehension that we can sit here and do this. It is affecting our GDP; it is costing us two per cent of GDP. We are spending a miserly amount on it and we need more urgency in this policy area. The Hon. Darren Chester believes in road safety. I co-founded the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety with him, but we need action. We need to get on the front foot and take up this sort of work. It needs to publicised and it needs to be acted on. We need to reduce the fatalities, reduce the injuries, and start doing things appropriately in road safety.
The PRESIDENT: The Senate stands adjourned and will meet again on Monday, 19 June at 10 am.
Senate adjourned at 19:03
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk pursuant to statute:
Export Market Development Grants Act 1997—
Determination of the Balance Distribution Date for Grant Year 2015-16.
Determination of the Initial Payment Ceiling Amount for Grant Year 2016-17.
Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995—Dispensation Report—06/17.