Andrew Bartlett's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
type: channel
language: en-gb
creator: OpenAustralia.org, mprss.php script
date: 2018-09-11T23:05:25+00:00
items: Australian Greens | Adjournment | Senate debates
items: National Disability Insurance Scheme; Consideration | Committees | Senate debates
items: Human Rights Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
items: Constitutional Recognition of ATSIP; Report | Committees | Senate debates
items: Great Barrier Reef Foundation; Consideration | Documents | Senate debates
items: Clean Energy Regulator; Consideration | Documents | Senate debates
items: Energy | Motions | Senate debates
items: Climate Change Authority; Consideration | Documents | Senate debates
items: Energy | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
items: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
items: Live Animal Exports | Petitions | Senate debates
items: Turnbull Government | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
items: Koalas | Adjournment | Senate debates
items: Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates

Australian Greens | Adjournment | Senate debates
type: item
description: This is my final speech to the Senate. I'm not calling it a valedictory as I'm not retiring from politics. I'm not leaving politics. I'll continue campaigning outside this place on the same...
encoded: This is my final speech to the Senate. I'm not calling it a valedictory as I'm not retiring from politics. I'm not leaving politics. I'll continue campaigning outside this place on the same issues as I've spoken on and campaigned on inside and outside this place over many years. If you want an idea of what those issues are, I think I've made about another 110 speeches or so since I came back to this place a little over nine months ago. So there's plenty of material for you to look over, if you're interested. The reason I'm continuing with these campaign efforts, as should be clear to everybody, is that our political system is more broken than ever. It is rigged to benefit political insiders and their corporate donors and mates, and we need to change that urgently. We need to create a kind of politics that will provide a future for all of us, and that's what I'm leaving this place to do. Today of all days demonstrates better than any other that our political system is badly, badly broken. It does not just need a bit of tinkering, a bit of minor reform, a bit of incremental change; it needs major transformation. Having as many strong progressive Greens voices as possible in the Senate is crucial to changing this, but the key factor to advance this badly-needed change is to win more lower house seats, to weaken the grip of the two entrenched parties, which make up the political establishment and which have held power in this country for over a century. When I left the Senate the first time, in 2008, a while ago now, it was in the early days of the Rudd government. There was much about our parliament, our political system, then that didn't work particularly well. But, since coming back here last November, everyone who is still around here now and who was around back then has expressed an opinion on the matter to me—and I mean everyone, whether it be members of this chamber, members of the House of Representatives, journalists, others in the press gallery, staff on commi…
date: 2018-08-23T18:51:00+00:00

National Disability Insurance Scheme; Consideration | Committees | Senate debates
type: item
description: I rise to speak on document No. 13, the government response to the joint standing committee's examination of the transitional arrangements for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, known as...
encoded: I rise to speak on document No. 13, the government response to the joint standing committee's examination of the transitional arrangements for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, known as the NDIS. Again, given that I'm often so critical, I should note when positive things happen—that the government response to this report was reasonably swift and reasonably thorough, and it's good to see those processes working well when they do. I want to speak more broadly on the ongoing issues, and this report and the response acknowledges that the transitional arrangements for the NDIS are an ongoing issue. One of the things that struck me most starkly when I came back into this chamber at the end of last year was how many times people raised with me concerns about the NDIS, and they raised it spontaneously. Often when I was meeting and talking with them about other issues the problems that implementation of the NDIS arrangements were causing would come up. One area where that's particularly so is in regard to people from backgrounds where languages other than English are spoken. There's clearly an underrepresentation and so far a failing to adequately reach out to and connect with many people from migrant backgrounds to ensure that they get the services and support they need under these new arrangements. The area of Brisbane is one where the NDIS is only just, finally, being officially rolled out from 1 July this year. I had a very valuable forum in Brisbane not too many weeks ago, which my colleague Senator Steele-John attended, along with some other advocates with direct experience with the NDIS and with disability issues more broadly, to examine ways that we can improve these transitional arrangements and the final arrangements and operations of the NDIS. Whenever you have something as large as the NDIS and such a significant transition and change in model, there will always be some issues there. But I think—in fact, I know—it is more than teething problems. I also ha…
date: 2018-08-23T18:37:00+00:00

Human Rights Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
type: item
description: I rise to speak on document No. 8, which is Human rights scrutiny report: report 8 of 2018, a report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, a committee that came into being during...
encoded: I rise to speak on document No. 8, which is Human rights scrutiny report: report 8 of 2018, a report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, a committee that came into being during the period when I was not in this chamber. This report demonstrates again—as with some other processes, like the scrutiny of bills—the limitations of the process that this committee goes through. That does not mean it's not of value, but it does mean there are limitations. This report, amongst a number of other pieces of legislation, specifically examines the cashless debit card trial expansion. We were debating that legislation in the chamber yesterday and this morning, as well as speaking separately to the Auditor-General's report about it, so I won't revisit the debate on the legislation; I want to stick just to what's in this report. The report itself—and Senator Siewert spoke to this yesterday as well—and the committee's responses contained within it, particularly about the proposal to expand the trial to Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, clearly indicate the committee's unanimous concern about the appropriateness of doing so, the human rights implications of doing so. Their final conclusions, their final response, are that concerns remain as to whether the trial is effective in achieving its stated objectives and whether it is a proportionate limitation on human rights. There is a bit of a dismissive approach to human rights by some in the community and some in this chamber. But the ones this committee has in its terms of reference are pretty fundamental. They're not massively wideranging but narrow, targeted and proportionate themselves. If we have a report where the committee expresses its ongoing concerns that measures are not proportionate in regard to limiting basic human rights then we should be noting that. This legislation is still before this chamber. It has not been voted on. It's at the second reading stage, but there are still amendments to consider. Again I would …
date: 2018-08-23T18:27:00+00:00

Constitutional Recognition of ATSIP; Report | Committees | Senate debates
type: item
description: I refer to the interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. This is an ongoing process which,...
encoded: I refer to the interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. This is an ongoing process which, unfortunately, has been going on far, far too long. I've had cause to reflect a number of times since coming back into this place after a 10-year break on how many issues remain unresolved that people were talking about many years ago. I think it should always be said that constitutional recognition of the unique place Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have in the history of this land was talked about and recommended, as part of a wider range of measures, by the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 2000, at the end of a 10-year process that was legislated through this parliament in 1991. One of the chairs of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Senator Patrick Dodson, of course is now in this chamber. He was one of the co-chairs of the committee that has produced this interim report. I listened to Senator Dodson's comments when he tabled this report, and all I can say is that he's far more polite than I would be about how long this has taken and how little progress has been made on such a fundamental issue. I don't just mean constitutional recognition—there are a range of views about that, of course, including amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples—but all of the related, unfinished business that was summarised very well, I should say, in those Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation reports almost 18 years ago. We saw that process derailed pretty comprehensively and, frankly, pretty offensively by the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, who was very dismissive of 10 years of work and a massive amount of consultation with both non-Indigenous and First Nations peoples from communities large and small. As a result of that, little progress was made. We made some advances during the Rudd years but none in regard to those key issues of tre…
date: 2018-08-23T18:20:00+00:00

Great Barrier Reef Foundation; Consideration | Documents | Senate debates
type: item
description: Document No. 9 on the Notice Paper is a letter to the President of the Senate from the former Minister for Finance and former Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, responding...
encoded: Document No. 9 on the Notice Paper is a letter to the President of the Senate from the former Minister for Finance and former Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, responding to an order back on 20 June 2018 regarding the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. There is not a lot to speak to in terms of the document itself, because it's just a couple of paragraphs in regard to the Senate order for the production of documents, as well as some further information following on from a question asked by Senator Carr earlier this week. The government's response is basically that the wide scope of the order means the government needs more time. Given that the order of the Senate was back in June, the information really should have been provided in much more detail by now. We're seeing this with the government's dodging and weaving in regard to the Senate committee inquiry and other attempts to examine what the hell is going on with this massive grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. It is an extraordinary thing, and it's been raised a number of times in this place, even amongst the extraordinary scenes of today, yesterday and earlier this week. We've had a bit of talk today about what the legacy of the Turnbull government might be. Well, the legacy of this extraordinary—I think unprecedented—massive, monumental $440 million grant to a very small organisation, all dropping out of the sky in one year—not even spread out over 10 years, five years or four years—has to be one of the most extraordinary things that we've seen in regard to the distortion and perversion of proper public policy process under this government. It shows again why they're so fractured and why they've got so disintegrated when it comes to any idea about how to do anything properly or about respect for due process and for the institutions that conservatives like to pretend they care so much about. Of course, as a Queenslander, I'm happy when money is made available to invest in any sort of …
date: 2018-08-23T18:05:00+00:00

Clean Energy Regulator; Consideration | Documents | Senate debates
type: item
description: Document No. 7 on the Notice Paper is a report from the Clean Energy Regulator assessing the progress over 2017 in terms of meeting Australia's Renewable Energy Target for 2020. It's a pretty apt...
encoded: Document No. 7 on the Notice Paper is a report from the Clean Energy Regulator assessing the progress over 2017 in terms of meeting Australia's Renewable Energy Target for 2020. It's a pretty apt follow-on from the debate we've just had about energy policy. Perhaps the most obvious thing to say—which isn't in this report, which is apt—is that there is a gap in this report which matches the total gap in this government's policy when it comes to what happens after 2020 with renewable energy or any form of energy policy. There is no 2020 vision from this government. There is no vision at all when it comes to renewable energy, other than the vision of the climate change deniers in the coalition, who want to destroy the renewable energy industry and turn us backwards to job-destroying, economy-destroying, environment-destroying, price-increasing, taxpayer-money-sucking coal-fired power generation. The report does contain some useful information. It does show that, despite all of the efforts of this coalition government to hurt the renewable energy industry, to destroy investor confidence, to reduce the number of jobs that it generates, including in regional and rural areas, nonetheless the expansion of renewable energy continues in this country. According to this report, the large-scale Renewable Energy Target for 2020 is in sight. We've heard a bit of scorn from some of those in the coalition about the unworkable targets that other parties are putting forward. Let me say that the Greens target for renewable energy is a vision of 100 per cent renewable energy in the future, a future of clean energy for all of us, a future of reliable and affordable energy for all of us, and a future where we still hope we can avoid the harm—the economic, social and environmental harm—of runaway climate change that the climate deniers, the fossil fuel industry, lobbyists and donors are still so determined to inflict on this planet, on the community, hurting, most significantly, the poores…
date: 2018-08-23T18:00:00+00:00

Energy | Motions | Senate debates
type: item
description: From Labor and from Liberal, Senator Macdonald, the two parties who have failed in this area consistently over many decades. Part of the instability in the current government and the previous...
encoded: From Labor and from Liberal, Senator Macdonald, the two parties who have failed in this area consistently over many decades. Part of the instability in the current government and the previous Labor government has been because their complete wedding to the neoliberal economic ideology poisoned their approach and meant they put the market before the community, time after time. With essential services you have to put people and the community first. As neoliberalism has become more and more discredited, and as free market fundamentalism has been shown to deliver more and more harm, suffering and inequality in our communities, they have been unable to agree internally on new approaches. We've seen that play out—alongside good, old-fashioned hatreds, which are part of the human condition and are not unique to any part of the political spectrum—and it's a key reason why we've seen such political instability from both of the traditional parties, the parties of the political establishment, over the last 10 years. And that has led to policy failures. So, this motion, which I support and acknowledge the validity of, nonetheless does need to be put in the wider context of the wider failure of our entire political system, going back many decades. This is just one example amongst many of how our political system is broken and how it needs transformative change—not just a bit of tinkering at the edges, a new person in the driver's seat or a slight change of management; it needs a complete overhaul. The motion does recognise that Australians deserve real leadership on energy and it is clear, every day, that they will not get it from this coalition government. The big question mark on this, and many other issues, is whether they will get it from a Labor government. The story, time and time again over many decades, is that the Labor Party will say one thing in opposition and do a different thing in government. An extra reason you need more people from other parties in the House of Re…
date: 2018-08-23T17:03:00+00:00

Energy | Motions | Senate debates
type: item
description: The Senate is debating a motion regarding electricity prices and the massive failure of this government to deliver not just on that policy but on any sort of policy when it comes to energy in...
encoded: The Senate is debating a motion regarding electricity prices and the massive failure of this government to deliver not just on that policy but on any sort of policy when it comes to energy in general. On the government side of things on a day like today, I know somebody's got to roll up and go through the motions. So, to that extent, I have some sympathy for Senator Ruston in having drawn the short straw to try to defend the indefensible when it comes to the government in this week of all weeks. We might have forgotten by the time we got to Thursday, but the week started out with the disintegration of this government's so-called National Energy Guarantee, a policy they'd spent months and months pulling together. They'd had meetings with all the state and territory ministers, tonnes and tonnes of backbench consultation, continual refinements and changes—almost all of them driven by the climate-denying right-wing rump in the coalition that's become much, much larger than a rump in the most recent few days. I'd have to say, despite getting the short straw and soldiering bravely on, it's a bit much to hear accusations that, somehow or other, it's this side of the chamber that has a problem with an ideological approach to energy or a problem with politicking, when the ideological warriors and climate change deniers and Turnbull haters in the Liberal-National coalition have just shredded any credibility this government had left when it comes to energy policy. The ideological approach that has infected energy policy in this country, particularly in recent times, has been from those who insist on making energy prices higher by pushing more public money into coal, into fossil fuel, into outdated, last-century technology. I'd be quite happy to deliver a bunch of reports to Senator Ruston about the fact that the expansion of renewable energy clearly will drive down prices in the future. In fact, if you look at the modelling that people have done to try to justify some of the f…
date: 2018-08-23T17:03:00+00:00

Climate Change Authority; Consideration | Documents | Senate debates
type: item
description: I move: That the Senate take note of the document. In the short time available, I want to highlight a few key parts of the Climate Change Authority's Review of the National Wind Farm...
encoded: I move: That the Senate take note of the document. In the short time available, I want to highlight a few key parts of the Climate Change Authority's Review of the National Wind Farm Commissionerreport, dated May 2018. This was a review the government promised they would do when they first established the Wind Farm Commissioner, and this is the result of that review. The report notes the rapid expansion of the wind industry in Australia as a key component of the growing renewable energy industry in Australia and a key component in assisting to deliver into the future not just cleaner energy but cheaper energy than the energy generation methods of the past, particularly coal, which is not only dirty but also expensive. The number and size of wind farms in Australia has grown rapidly. According to this report, there are currently around 78 wind farms in Australia, with at least another 21 proposed, which will increase wind farm capacity by almost two-thirds when they are completed. Wind farms are in all states in Australia. They are particularly concentrated in the south-eastern corner of the continent—South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, but also in other states. I saw quite a sizable new wind farm development going up on the Atherton Tablelands when I was up there just a few weeks ago. The report also notes that new development associated with the renewable energy target is likely to be significant over the next few years in the wind industry but also with large-scale solar and storage developments, such as large-scale batteries. This is being driven not just by the Commonwealth renewable energy target but also by the policy of some state governments in actively promoting greater investment in renewable energy. This is also, of course, generating jobs, many of them in regional and rural parts of the country—both construction jobs and ongoing maintenance jobs. This also highlights, I should say, a development driven by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency…
date: 2018-08-22T18:12:00+00:00

Energy | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
type: item
description: It is in the power of governments to do something about it. Because both Liberal and Labor are so caught up still in the neo-liberal agenda of putting profits first, in letting market forces...
encoded: It is in the power of governments to do something about it. Because both Liberal and Labor are so caught up still in the neo-liberal agenda of putting profits first, in letting market forces deliver supposed benefits to the community, they can't see that there are other approaches that will work. This is the approach that the Greens put forward, and it is an approach that independent energy analysts have said will deliver. Alongside rolling back privatisation, having public ownership, having government control, and having a long-term legislative objective to require prices to be set in a way that doesn't allow price gouging, we can also invest in renewable energy. Again, every independent observer who's not an ideological warrior will recognise and say that expanding renewable energy is the way to reduce power prices. Killing the renewable energy industry, as this government wants to do, and funding coal-power generation won't push down prices; it will push prices up. It will not deliver jobs and it will not, of course, deliver the sorts of emissions reductions that every independent scientific analyst recognises we urgently need to deliver. The economic harm, let alone the environmental harm, from continuing to allow runaway climate change, because of a lack of political will to reduce emissions, will hit all of us and it will, of course, hit poorest households hardest. We can invest in continuing to roll out renewable energy generation, which is creating jobs in regional and rural parts of the country, including in Queensland. The proposals the Queensland Greens put forward of investing adequately in renewable energy generation would not only reduce prices but also create up to 5,500 full-time jobs in design and construction every year for five years. That doesn't include operation and maintenance jobs, which would be additional and ongoing beyond that. That's if you had the political will to fund activities that will not only generate jobs but also reduce electri…
date: 2018-08-22T13:05:00+00:00

Energy | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
type: item
description: You also need to eliminate corporatisation and stop governments being able to direct their government-owned corporations to gouge the public. Make government responsible and be able to regulate...
encoded: You also need to eliminate corporatisation and stop governments being able to direct their government-owned corporations to gouge the public. Make government responsible and be able to regulate prices to ensure that there are not massive profits being made out of the pockets of Queensland households. It's pretty simple. It might be a pretty old-fashioned sort of thing, but you like to portray yourself as an old-fashioned guy, Senator, so take up some old-fashioned ideas—
date: 2018-08-22T13:05:00+00:00

Energy | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
type: item
description: If you'd listen to me, Senator, as a Queenslander you would understand that reversing privatisation is essential but not sufficient.
encoded: If you'd listen to me, Senator, as a Queenslander you would understand that reversing privatisation is essential but not sufficient.
date: 2018-08-22T13:05:00+00:00

Energy | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
type: item
description: Many of the people in this building are probably preoccupied with the political soap opera happening around the place, but I'm sure the Australian public would be much keener if there was a...
encoded: Many of the people in this building are probably preoccupied with the political soap opera happening around the place, but I'm sure the Australian public would be much keener if there was a continuing focus on what was supposed to be the big focus this week of the government, which was an attempt to bring down energy prices and to do so in a way which would be compliant with our obligations to also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, this government is focused on tearing itself apart whilst Australians continue to face significantly and unnecessarily excessive power prices. Of course, all of the 16 different variations the government put forward in their so-called energy guarantee wouldn't have delivered the sort of price cuts to electricity costs that Australian households are keen on, and it certainly wouldn't have delivered anti-greenhouse emissions. So, in that sense, the fact that that whole plan is dead is of no great loss, because it wouldn't have delivered anything of value to the Australian community over the long term. In fact, it would have caused more harm. But it should not mean that the issue goes off the agenda. The Greens have promoted and put forward workable solutions for significant reductions in energy prices for a number of years now. In the lead-up to the state election in Queensland, the Greens released a comprehensive package that was independently assessed by a well-known expert, Hugh Grant, and not only was it found to be effective and valid but, indeed, it would have delivered more cuts to households in terms of electricity prices than the policies put forward by either Labor or the Liberal National Party of Queensland. One Nation, as far as I know, didn't put forward a policy of any substance at all, which is pretty much what you could say about most of their issues. It's pretty simple, really. The government managed to tear themselves apart after they finished tying themselves in knots around this issue, but it's actually prett…
date: 2018-08-22T13:05:00+00:00

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: The proposed legislation before us, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, is fairly unusual in the sense that it solely affects people just in...
encoded: The proposed legislation before us, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, is fairly unusual in the sense that it solely affects people just in one electorate or one part of my home state of Queensland—parts of the electorate of Hinkler and, most significantly, the communities in and around the towns of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. That being the case, I want to put on the record again how deeply disappointed and, frankly, disgusted I am that the government-controlled Senate committee did not take the time to go to the communities directly affected by this legislation. It simply held a derisory phone hearing, packing in a small number of witnesses, all within a brief half-hour period. I'm sure each of us in this place knows those types of so-called hearings. The nature of the consultation was token in the extreme. Of course, this issue of the cashless debit card trial is not new. There was legislation relating to this at the start of this year and a Senate committee inquiry into the wider idea of the trials at the end of last year. But, again, the committee did not go to Queensland. They did go and hold a hearing in Kalgoorlie, in an area that was going to be affected by the legislation, but they did not come to Queensland. The Senate quite rightly rejected the attempt at that time to expand the trials to parts of Queensland, and I very much urge the Senate to do the same again now. Nothing has changed since then. The only thing, really, that has changed is that there is even more information about how badly designed the trial is. There is the very damning Auditor-General report into the trial to date, which I spoke to in this chamber last week, as well as the clear condemnation of the farcical assessment that was released by the government to try to justify the so-called effectiveness of the trials that have occurred to date. Other speakers on this legislation have already gone through the very strong and very valid …
date: 2018-08-22T12:05:00+00:00

Live Animal Exports | Petitions | Senate debates
type: item
description: by leave—I table a non-conforming petition relating to live export in Townsville.
encoded: by leave—I table a non-conforming petition relating to live export in Townsville.
date: 2018-08-21T17:00:00+00:00

Turnbull Government | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
type: item
description: I will note the interjection there. As an informed intellectual, you would know I am under no obligation to leave at all. I was not rolled; I chose not to run, because I recognise the need to get...
encoded: I will note the interjection there. As an informed intellectual, you would know I am under no obligation to leave at all. I was not rolled; I chose not to run, because I recognise the need to get rid of you lot, and the only way to get rid of you lot properly and get transformational change is to start winning seats in the lower house. I've chosen to step out of my job early to focus all my energies on winning lower house seats so we can totally transform this political system. I could have stayed here on that $200,000 a year salary with cars and all the things your people are reportedly so keen to keep; I'm not. I'm not seeking a medal for that; all I'm saying is we need to be focusing on what will create change for the Australian public, not on our own interests. That is why so many Australians have had enough of the political system overall. That's why they think the whole place is not working in their interests. They can see that, inside this bubble, people are focused on what works for them, their mates and their donors. That's the matter of public importance, and the thing we need to change.
date: 2018-08-21T16:14:00+00:00

Turnbull Government | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
type: item
description: The item before us in the Senate at the moment, described as a matter of public importance, 'The inability of the Turnbull Government to progress any coherent policy or legislative agenda,' which...
encoded: The item before us in the Senate at the moment, described as a matter of public importance, 'The inability of the Turnbull Government to progress any coherent policy or legislative agenda,' which has been put forward by the Labor Party as a chance for the Senate to spend an hour talking about the travails of the Turnbull Liberal-National Party coalition government, is very similar to what we had yesterday. As I said yesterday, I don't think that's particularly important; what is important is the horrendous and growing inequality in our community, the massive danger we are facing from extreme climate change, the lack of action in regard to dealing with that, the lack of action in regard to homelessness in our community, the refusal to increase the rate of Newstart, and the continuing punishment of the poor. Unfortunately, punishing the poor and favouring the wealthiest is a coherent policy of this government. The problem is not the internal enmity in the Liberal and National parties, who both have their own significant difficulties; the problem is that their ideological and legislative agenda, such as it is, specifically makes life much harder for the majority of Australians and, inasmuch as they can manage to implement it, assists the big end of town. Some important things, though, are becoming even more clear as a result of the shambles that this government currently is in—that is, the very understandable and massive disillusionment of the majority of the Australian community with the entire political system. This government currently has huge difficulties, but that's just a manifestation of its internal philosophical incoherence and lack of solid value base that has been there for many years. That's why so many people, young and old, think our political system is broken. The public can see it every day. On days like today they can see it very starkly, but they know it's there every day. It's not because of the personal disputes, the leadership squabbles, the trava…
date: 2018-08-21T16:14:00+00:00

Koalas | Adjournment | Senate debates
type: item
description: I'd like to speak tonight about the crisis facing the iconic Australian animal the koala, particularly in the regions of Queensland, northern New South Wales and the ACT. That koala populations...
encoded: I'd like to speak tonight about the crisis facing the iconic Australian animal the koala, particularly in the regions of Queensland, northern New South Wales and the ACT. That koala populations in these areas are under threat is a symptom of the major failure of this government to meet its legal obligations under federal environment laws. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which was passed in this place almost 20 years ago now, in 1999, was at the time a significant expansion in the environmental powers of the federal government. I played a significant role in the debate and decision at the time when I was in this place. It certainly was not a perfect piece of legislation by any means, and it had some significant shortcomings. Nonetheless, it was a major advance, in many respects, on what had been there before, and if it hadn't been passed then certainly the previous laws would have continued to provide very minimal protection for most of the Australian land mass. There were those in the environment movement who were disappointed that more wasn't achieved, but there was a hope that the legislation would at least provide a stepping stone that could be built on, particularly when Labor came to government—even though it took them eight years to do so. Instead, what we've seen is that the adequacy of that act has been continually eroded over time. That has been a result of quite conscious decisions by governments of both persuasions, but particularly Liberal governments and Liberal ministers, to slowly but deliberately weaken the effectiveness of the administration of that act. They slowly but effectively developed precedents which reduced the effectiveness and enforceability of components of federal environment laws and, alongside that, simply by virtue of inertia and the winding back or redirecting of funding away from areas that should have been resourced to ensure proper monitoring and proper enforcement of the act, allowed it to decay thr…
date: 2018-08-20T22:09:00+00:00

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: I, of course, along with the rest of the Greens, will be opposing this legislation. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 sacrifices massive amounts of taxpayer...
encoded: I, of course, along with the rest of the Greens, will be opposing this legislation. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 sacrifices massive amounts of taxpayer revenue and gives it to some of the largest corporations in the country. We've heard continual repetition by various speakers from the government of the assertion that providing these tax cuts to big corporations would somehow lead to wage growth and employment growth. The simple fact is that there is almost no evidence of that. There is, instead, a very large body of evidence to the contrary, most notably and most recently in the United States, where very large tax cuts have not led to wage growth and employment growth at all. What they have led to, as always happens, is growing calls to make up the cost by cutting back services to those in the community who are least well off. This is a measure that, quite rightly, many government MPs are keen on seeing dropped and not proceeded with by their own party because they know that it is not supported by the majority of the electorate, and the electorate is right not to support it. Many government speakers have also, understandably, pointed to past comments by Labor Party leaders and ministers in support of doing just what this legislation does. And it's reasonable for the government, when it's trying to make its case, to point to the Labor Party and say, 'Well, they've said the same thing previously.' That merely points out that the Labor Party, at least at the time, also bought into this myth that giving big tax cuts to the big end of town would somehow create jobs and increase wages for those who are least well off rather than just give money to those who are more well off. Whether the Labor Party's shift is because of short-term political opportunism now that they're in opposition or whether it's a sign of a genuine philosophical shift within the party, I don't really know. Certainly, you don't need to be as old as I am to be very …
date: 2018-08-20T20:15:00+00:00

Turnbull Government | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
type: item
description: The Senate is debating a proposal put forward by the Labor Party suggesting the division and dysfunction within the Turnbull government is a matter of public importance. I'm sure it's a matter of...
encoded: The Senate is debating a proposal put forward by the Labor Party suggesting the division and dysfunction within the Turnbull government is a matter of public importance. I'm sure it's a matter of public interest, but I have to say that I'm not actually sure it's that important. I don't think it's really very important whether the leader is Mr Turnbull or Mr Dutton. It's going to be an appalling, disgraceful, divisive and destructive government whoever is leading it. The current dysfunction is apparent to everybody, and the division has been apparent to everybody for literally years. It has come to a bit of a head in the last few days, and, frankly, where that goes I really don't care. Until we get rid of this government altogether, the harm being done to the majority of Australians will continue. I would really urge those people in the media—who, of course, love nothing better than to sit around all day interviewing each other about the latest leadership permutations and combinations and internal gossip—to actually focus on the policy issues, the legislation, as some of it will still get discussed in this place. Who knows what version of the national energy guarantee legislation we might deal with? But there is still other legislation being dealt with there. There are other matters before these houses of parliament that are hurting Australians, that are continuing to cause massive and potentially irreversible damage to our natural environment and that are undermining and fraying the social fabric. That is what the attention of not just the press gallery but all parliamentarians and legislators here should be focused on. Not only have the internal personal enmities within the Liberal and National parties, both jointly and severally, been clear for a long time; it has also been clear for a long time that there has been no binding or uniting philosophy or value base in the coalition. As with any organisation that is basically part of the establishment, its main focus r…
date: 2018-08-20T16:38:00+00:00