Andrew Bartlett's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Australian Greens | Adjournment | Senate debates
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...
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 committees and others—that things have gotten worse. They use a variety of different words but they all say roughly the same thing. This place is nastier, it's stupider, it's more dysfunctional and it's less effective at doing the job that we are all meant to be here doing and that we all get paid and overpaid to do. We are here to represent and work with the community in a way which ensures we are a united caring society, which protects our natural environment and provides economic security for all of us. As so many people have noted over the course of this week, over that whole period of time since 2008, we've seen nothing but instability delivered through our political system during the Liberal Party and National Party governments and the Labor Party when they were in power. The other difference between 2008 and now is that 2008 saw the end of the Australian Democrats party in this place and the period when the Greens were building into a stronger, more solidly grounded party. The Greens have now unequivocally consolidated ourselves as the most successful independent third party in Australian political history. With our breakthrough win in the Brisbane based seat of Maiwar in the state elections in Queensland last year, we now have representation in every state parliament, as well as the ACT, where we have a minister as part of that government. We have won a seat on the Brisbane City Council, the biggest local government authority in the country. Having now served two very different terms in the Senate, over 10 years apart, I can say with confidence that this is the last time I will be on the floor of the Senate. There will not be a third coming back to this chamber. If I do return to Parliament House, it will be as a member of the House of Representatives. As I announced early this year, I have decided I will not contest pre-selection for the Senate seat that I currently hold and will instead seek to build on the strong local momentum the Queensland Greens achieved in the recent state election by trying to win the lower house seat of Brisbane, a place I've lived and worked in and where I've been part of so many community activities over my whole life. The seat, of course, is currently held by the Liberal Party. By resigning my seat early, rather than serving out my term, it will also be the only time someone elected to this place to replace someone as a result of a section 44 disqualification—examples of which go all the way back to former senator Robert Wood—has not served out their term, but, instead, allowed the person they replaced to come back into this chamber. One of the reasons I have done that is that I know, and the people of Queensland know, that former senator Larissa Waters has done and will do again a good job in this chamber. She should be back here when the Senate resumes again in a fortnight's time. It remains a key goal of mine and of the Greens in Queensland that she be re-elected at the next election. If the Greens do not retain that Senate voice in Queensland, it will mean an extra voice in this place for the forces of the far Right, who will push for a more divided and unequal society. So retaining that Senate voice in Queensland is crucial. Whilst I readily acknowledge that adding to that by winning a House of Representatives seat will be a challenge, the Greens did achieve a similar breakthrough at the state election in winning the seat of Maiwar off the Liberal Party — a victory which happened just a week after I was sworn into this chamber for a second time, back in November last year. The sorts of swings the Greens would need to win Brisbane are similar to the swings the party achieved not just in Maiwar but also in the nearby seats of McConnel and South Brisbane. We achieved those swings by talking to people on the ground in community based, ground-level campaigning—communicating, listening and making people aware that there is a credible alternative to the failed approach of the two other parties, which are still in the thrall of the corporations that donate so much money to them. According to information provided to me by the Parliamentary Library, since 1901 there have been 20 people who have resigned from the Senate in an attempt to win a House of Representatives seat. Fourteen of those were successful and six were unsuccessful. All but one of those 20 stayed in their Senate seat until the date of the election or by-election they were contesting had been formally announced. The one exception, who I also have a linkage to, is Cheryl Kernot. She, quite honourably, resigned her seat earlier, for the very appropriate reason that, as part of her decision to contest the lower house, she also switched parties. She was successful, at least initially, in doing that. On most occasions that a former senator has attempted to win a seat in the House of Representatives, it has been done by people from the larger parties shifting into safe seats. The closest parallel to my situation was the attempt by another former Leader of the Democrats, the late Janine Haines, someone whose contribution as a pioneering female political leader in this country isn't acknowledged adequately. She resigned her seat in this chamber to try to win the House of Representatives seat of Kingston back in 1990. Despite that effort inspiring millions of Australians to shift their vote away from the two traditional parties for the first time, and delivering a higher vote for that party than they achieved before or subsequently, she was, nonetheless, not successful in that aim. The Greens have, of course, since gone one better and won seats in the lower house, both with the by-election win by Michael Organ in the seat of Cunningham in 2002, and, more significantly in terms of ongoing, sustainable political change, the election and re-election of Adam Bandt in the seat of Melbourne, three times now since 2010. To transform politics, to get transformative change, we need to build on that record and build the number of Greens in the House of Representatives. There a number of other strong chances for the Greens in Melbourne based seats at the next election. And, having lived in Brisbane all my life and seen all the changes that have happened there, socially and politically, I genuinely believe Brisbane presents an opportunity as well. I certainly say that for those people in Brisbane—and I bet there are more of them today than there were at the start of this week—that want to get rid of this Liberal government, the Greens at this election are better placed to win the seat of Brisbane than the Labor Party. We've been knocking on doors throughout that electorate for three months already, and I thank those many volunteers who are already part of that campaign team. I've been part of many of those doorknocks myself, and I am convinced there is a mood for a shift away from the failures of leadership, the failures of vision and the failures to deliver a future for all of us that we've seen from both the coalition and Labor governments over the last decade, since I was last in this place. People are keen for a change to a credible, experienced, independent alternative. That's what I'm focusing my attentions on from now until whenever the election might be called. I believe that is the transformative change we need. I thank all of those in this place who've assisted me and supported me during my time back here. I wish all of you, on a personal level, well for the future. I think we all would recognise that we need an improved future for all of us, and the sooner the better.
National Disability Insurance Scheme; Consideration | Committees | Senate debates
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...
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 had the great experience of going and speaking with about 10 different families in Toowoomba a few months earlier. A fabulous local disability advocate, Alyce Nelligan, linked me up with and gave me the opportunity to hear from a range of families with a diversity of different issues, and from some service providers as well. Toowoomba had been one of the early rollout communities. In that sense, perhaps it was more likely to get the teething problems, but I think it also showed that those problems are still very slow to be resolved. It can be a lucky dip as to what service providers you get, and, the further away you get from the capital cities, the bigger those challenges are. I spoke in this place a few times last week about the direct human cost of governments not being willing to invest adequately in social services in regional and rural areas and the fact that that can cost lives. We're talking about people with disabilities and carers with very complex and high needs. Proper delivery of support for them can be a matter of life and death. I don't want to be overly dramatic about it; it's just a simple matter of fact. So we need to look and listen to those people who are on the receiving end of the NDIS as the transitions roll out around the country and be directed by them as to what is going to work best and what needs to change. I think there are issues with the whole model of how the NDIS is structured. It is too reliant on a market based model that will always deliver some problems when you're dealing with complex, highly individualised situations. It will also mean problems when you get into more regional and remote areas. Nonetheless, the fact that there has been a significant increase in investment in support for people with disabilities is to be welcomed. It goes back to the topic I was talking about previously, about the basic right for everybody to be able to experience and have a good life and to remove the barriers that society often puts in the way of people with disabilities. It's an area, again, where I think we've got an obligation, as a community that seeks to be a united one, to make sure that every member of the community has an equal opportunity to participate fully. That core principle is something that I think needs to be embedded as we continue to assess and analyse how we can make the NDIS an effective mechanism for everybody. I think we still have a long way to go there, but certainly, the more we listen to people with disabilities themselves and, to a lesser extent, some of the service providers—particularly the not-for-profit service providers—the better we will do in ensuring this program, the NDIS, becomes the sort of transformational change that is often spoken of and that we would certainly all wish for. Question agreed to.
Human Rights Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
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...
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 urge those crossbench senators who still have an open mind on this issue to look at the concerns raised in this report, particularly when it comes to the government amendment before the chamber. I will be gone from this chamber after this evening and won't be here when the legislation comes back, so I make a final plea, particularly to Senator Storer and Senator Leyonhjelm, to consider that. But I was concerned, when we were talking about human rights, that it was put on the record by a number of speakers, including a government speaker on the legislation, that getting social security payments is not a right; that welfare is charity. It is a legislated right just as solidly embedded in law as our right to get paid—or overpaid—for the work we do here. I think the age pension has been a legislated right for over a century now, and it's one that we would all defend. When people are attacking social security or welfare payments, they're targeting unemployed people, sole parents and some people with disabilities, but the largest social security payment category is people on age pensions. Despite all of the massive tax breaks over the last 20 years or more to encourage superannuation accumulation, most of them favouring the better-off, the majority of Australians still rely very heavily on the age pension, and will do for the foreseeable future. I don't see anything wrong with that. The amount of money that has in effect been spent, via foregone revenue and tax expenditures, through giving all those tax breaks that have benefited the better-off has been far more than what would have been spent if those people had simply been getting the age pension. It is a right and needs to stay a right. We need to defend the right of people to have a basic income. We all know that Newstart as it now stands is not sufficient for many people to survive on. It is completely linked to the growing homelessness problem. There is a basic link between poverty and homelessness. We need to make sure, amongst all the political soap opera of the moment, that we don't forget about those core issues affecting people's lives right now. Tens of thousands of thousands of families are in major housing stress and at imminent risk of homelessness. Tens of thousands of other people are actually homeless. There are more vacant apartments in Brisbane than there are homeless people. The market has completely failed in this regard. Alongside that is a deliberate attempt to continue to drive down and eradicate the whole concept of the basic right for people to have enough income to survive. From my point of view, as part of the social contract of a unified society that delivers for all of us—not just for the able-bodied, the well-connected, the better-educated and the well-off—that legislated guaranteed basic income has to be available for everybody. Ample economic evidence shows that keeping people out of poverty and reducing economic inequality enhances employment and economic activity in a way that giving tax cuts to the wealthiest is never going to. Plenty of case studies demonstrate beyond doubt that minimising social inequality, social disconnection, alienation, homelessness and poverty reduces crime, dislocation, social breakdown, family breakdown and other associated problems, whose costs end up having to be covered and paid for in one way or another down the track. I strongly resist this trend we're seeing to dismiss that basic right for people to have social security payments. It's a legislated right that has been whittled away over decades now by successive governments hostage to the neoliberal agenda. It needs to be defended as a basic right, to stop people from being pushed into poverty, and not be seen as some sort of act of charity that can have all sorts of strings attached, can be withdrawn capriciously and can be subjected to the swings and roundabouts of the political winds and currents in this place as people position for political advantage in the short term. People need to have that basic guarantee, and as part of that we need to be recognising why this parliament has seen fit and why this chamber has seen fit to put in place processes that assess whether or not what we are doing here meets some of those basic standards of human rights. With regard to the welfare card, if you look at some of the evidence that people provided to the committee inquiry into this—not the derisory one that happened previously, which didn't even bother listening to the people of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, but the previous one, which did go to the Goldfields and actually had the chairperson of the Aboriginal Health Council of Western Australia, Ms Nelson-Cox, speak about their concerns as a result of the card in Kununurra: Since the introduction of the cashless card in Kununurra there has been an increase in crime, an increase around elder abuse, an increase around soliciting and black market trades happening with service providers that can trade off the card for cash. So it hasn't dealt with the contentious issues that were identified; it has actually caused a major influx around other issues. It had also been a contributing factor in why people have actually succeeded around suicide and, importantly, suicide is one of the outcomes. There had been over 474 cases of self-harm that these people, from their community, say can be linked at least in part to this cashless card and the constraints around it. We should be listening to people at community level with experience of this. We should have listened to people in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay about their concerns and what its impacts on people's lives will be—not the ideology, not the philosophy but the actual human impact. We're talking about 474 cases of self-harming that people in that community believe are partly linked to that card. Again, if you want to look at mental health issues, if you want to look at issues around self-harm, there is an inextricable link between the propensity for self-harm and poverty. Of course mental health issues can strike anybody, with any level of income, but it is far more likely to happen—and particularly unable to be resolved and to be chronic and lead to more instances of self-harm—among people who are in poverty or are under threat of homelessness or are experiencing homelessness. There is a direct link to that. That's why we talk about human rights, not as some flowery international instrument but because it's directly relevant to people's daily lives. Question agreed to.
Constitutional Recognition of ATSIP; Report | Committees | Senate debates
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,...
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 treaty, recognition, genuine reconciliation and a genuine voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is an advance that we have now some people of Aboriginal background in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, and all parties here need to look at ways that we can improve that level of representation. But that is not the same as having a significant, separate, self-contained, genuine process of self-determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In my official first speech in this place towards the end of last year, I started by speaking first about the major failing of our entire political and parliamentary process going back more than a century. The core failing has been the way it has dealt with and treated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. My colleague Senator Faruqi started her excellent first speech just last Tuesday making the same point on the same themes. This report does note the frustration about the length of time it has taken to advance these issues. There have been a lot of people this week criticising Prime Minister Turnbull about a range of things—many of them, of course, from his own party—but, if we're looking at failings, to me, the completely contemptuous and dismissive way that the underpinning, underlying, core component of the Uluru Statement from the Heart was swept away and misrepresented was a sign of the extent to which the Prime Minister had lost his way and was unable to deliver, as people thought he might have been able to, on any promise. There are divergent views amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people regarding the Statement from the Heart—in what way it should be prioritised, how it should be addressed—but there is very, very strong support for the continuing need to push for a treaty. That, I would suggest, is not something we're likely to achieve anytime soon via constitutional amendment, but that's no reason to step away from it. We have, as a nation, signed up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which does include the core principle that Indigenous peoples should be involved meaningfully in processes and decisions that directly affect them; that they should be able to give, and have the power to decline to give, free, prior and informed consent to the decisions that directly affect them. Implementing that principle in how we go about things in this chamber and in this parliament, and outside of it as well, is an area where all of us need to improve significantly. The specific aspects of constitutional recognition that the report goes to are important and merit examination. The inability for this path to be navigated to a successful conclusion, I think, is a very poor reflection on this government. As with so many other issues, it's been unable to navigate its own internal disagreements, its own internal tensions. In fact, there is no consistent, shared set of beliefs or values anymore in today's coalition parties. But on something as fundamental as this, where our whole political process has failed so many times, over and over again, in so many different ways, we need to call ourselves out and commit ourselves to doing better. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Great Barrier Reef Foundation; Consideration | Documents | Senate debates
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...
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 activity in northern Queensland, whether it's money to be spent on mitigation measures in the marine park itself or, perhaps even more importantly, money to support land management and mitigation measures and catchment management measures on land. There is some significant and positive work being done there, and it does need resourcing. But, when you're going to resource it, you want to ensure that the process for spending that money—any money, let alone something as enormous as this—is done properly. Again, it's impossible to ignore the linkages there to people with backgrounds in the fossil fuel lobby and people who are big donors to the coalition—another reason, among all the many, many other ones, why we need to get big corporate money and donations out of our political process. The other inevitable thing that has to be said about this is that you can pour all the money you like into mitigation measures, even if you do it through a proper process rather than the extraordinary, perverted process that's been used on this occasion, but, unless you have a credible plan to address and prevent climate change, it will be for nought. Even in my brief period back here, time and time again, when the government's own environment department officials at Senate estimates are questioned as to what is the No. 1 threat to the Great Barrier Reef and the marine park—not just the reef itself but all the other ecosystems in that marine environment—they say without hesitation, pause or equivocation that the No. 1 threat is climate change. None of this is going towards climate change. I listen to some on the government benches. Some of it is going to run ridiculous PR campaigns, trying to suggest that the reef is as healthy as ever, when everybody knows it's not. Let's not forget that 70,000 jobs in Queensland depend on that healthy reef in the marine park, most of them through small businesses. They're willing to ignore the economic and social harm to people and the risks to jobs in Northern Queensland, where we're already seen another person with links to the fossil fuel lobby, Mr Palmer, wreak so much damage and so much hurt and so much harm economically to people's lives in that region. Letting that go unaddressed is the height of irresponsibility and shows just how much in thrall to the fossil fuel lobby this government is. We do need to keep digging for information about what the hell is behind this. Just because there's a change in Prime Minister about to happen, nobody is going to let up on digging until we get to the full facts with regard to this issue. I seek leave to continue my remarks later—or someone else may continue them, I suspect. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Clean Energy Regulator; Consideration | Documents | Senate debates
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...
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 poorest amongst us and the poorest communities around the globe. In amongst the bad news that this government keeps delivering, the harm that this government keeps delivering, some of it deliberately in the interests of its corporate mates, some of it just because they don't have any vision themselves about what to do anymore, there is some positive news—that is, the renewable energy industry continues to roll out. I've spoken a couple of times already this is week about what can be done and the vision that the Greens have—the costed, affordable and credible policies the Greens have already put forward at previous state and federal elections—to turbocharge the renewable energy industry in a way which will deliver jobs, which will deliver clean energy, and which will deliver affordable and reliable energy around the country. That's something that we'll continue to campaign on. It is a reminder that, even in amongst the destructive and incoherent approach of this government, progress is still possible and why it's so important to continue to push to lock in mechanisms that are immune to vandalism by some of the ideological warriors and the people who are unable to escape their connections to their corporate donors and the fossil fuel lobby. So I commend the report to the chamber as something for them to peruse, to look at where our Renewable Energy Target is going. Question agreed to.
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...
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 Representatives is to keep them honest. If Labor does get into government, I'd have to say they could not possibly do a worse job than the current mob. I think most Australians would agree with that after today, of all days. But just going from somebody terrible to somebody not quite so terrible is not really good enough, and it's part of the reason Australians are disillusioned with the political system in its entirety. We need to make the change as significant and transformative as possible, and part of the commitment and role of the Greens in doing that is to get major change. This motion talks about real leadership on energy. I would like to see that meaning leadership that takes us in a brand-new direction away from the failed neoliberal and market-first approach that we've seen from both Labor and Liberal over many years now. That's the sort of transformation we need, but, as a bottom line, the first clear thing we need is any sort of coherent energy policy at all from a government so that investment and business can have some certainty and those of us who want to push for better policies can have a framework within which to operate—rather than just trying to engage with incoherent chaos, which is all we are seeing from the Liberal-National Party at the moment. I don't think anyone holds terribly much hope that we'll see improvement regardless of who ends up in the Prime Minister's seat after tomorrow. Energy policy is just one of the many failings of this government, and its failure is not a political failure on its own; its failure is in how it has failed the community and how it has failed the public—those rising energy costs and the impact they are having on so many people. And there is the inability to recognise the new approach that could be taken, which quite a number of people—plenty of independent people outside the Greens, including a wide range of economists and energy experts—have all put forward. It has to be based on a clean-energy future and it has to be based on government recognising it has a significant role to play—not just trying to leave to it the market or a privatised or corporatised system. This needs to be significantly changed. That's the sort of leadership we need on energy.
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...
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 figures around the government's National Energy Guarantee—whichever version of it you want to look at—most of the cost savings you can derive from it are based on the inbuilt savings that were already going to happen because of the further expansion of renewable energy under renewable energy targets in existence around this country at the moment. Let's not forget: it was the Abbott government that basically tried to destroy the Renewable Energy Target completely, purely on ideological grounds. If you want to talk about an ideological and divisive approach to energy, I suggest it is any policy approach that has come from the likes of Tony Abbott—every time, all the time, regardless of the public interest. That is clearly what we've seen from the coalition. I spoke at some length just yesterday in this place about this government's failures when it comes to energy prices—its failure to deliver any policy, its failure to do anything effective to reduce energy prices and its obvious failure to meet its obligations to reduce greenhouse emissions. Alongside that, I outlined the Greens policies that we've been putting forward for a number of years now, properly costed and independently assessed by the experts, who are saying renewable energy will deliver cheaper power, reduce emissions and deliver jobs. But it's a matter of political will and it's a matter of listening to the science and the economics of it. This government has been the rolled gold standard when it comes to massive failures on energy policy. Let's not forget, it's not just about this government's own internal failure to agree with itself on anything, let alone energy policy, but about the consequences it is having for people in the real world: the significant problems people are having with soaring energy costs, the significant problems small business is having with soaring electricity costs, the huge numbers of people who are having their power cut off because they can't afford to pay their electricity bill. It is a core obligation of government in the modern age to deliver reliable, affordable electricity, and it is something, when it comes to affordability and to emissions, that this government has failed on. I feel it's necessary to say that lost opportunities when it comes to energy policy are not unique to this government. In fact, what we've seen going right back to the Hawke era, when Labor first embraced the neoliberal approach to economics, has been missed opportunity after missed opportunity to modernise electricity generation and fast-track our shift to a renewable energy future that is affordable and reliable. The Hawke government first talked in the late 1980s of acting to reduce climate emissions, acting to transform our energy generation into the future. But it failed to deliver, repeatedly. Of course, whilst there have been individual policies here and there that have helped somewhat, when you're looking at trying to transform things, rather than changing incremental bits here and there to look like you're moving things forward, all you can look at is an overall failure to deliver, from both Labor and the Liberals. It is impossible not to assume that that is in significant part because of the very large financial contributions the fossil fuel lobby continues to make to both the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. Alongside that we've seen a massive disinformation campaign from the fossil fuel lobby worldwide to try to muddy the waters and fund the sceptics and denialists that have basically led to all of those missed opportunities. There is, of course, a significant exception to that—that is, the world-class carbon-pricing scheme that was adopted under the Gillard government. I give them credit for that, but the obvious point that needs to be made is it took the election of a member of the Australian Greens to the House of Representatives to put political pressure directly on the Labor government of the day and to feed that into the proper and thorough scientifically based, economically sound process that developed that world-class system and all the infrastructure around it. The Renewable Energy Agency still to this day is delivering positive outcomes for jobs, renewable energy expansion and cheaper electricity, particularly in regional areas. As I said in this place yesterday, there was also the problem of the obsession, particularly of the Liberal and National parties but to a significant degree the Labor Party as well at the state level, with privatising significant parts of our electricity sector and corporatising those parts that were still publicly owned. I spoke yesterday about the massive gouging by energy companies when it comes to electricity bills. People are paying high electricity bills at a time when the retailers, not even the generators, are making massive profits and giving huge bonuses to their executives. This isn't an area where we should have profiteering; this is an area where we should be ensuring an essential service is delivered at the cheapest possible rate in an affordable way that is not going to cause wider flow-on damage to our economy, community, society and environment by failing to address greenhouse emissions at the same time. These opportunities have been lost year after year, government after government, with the exception of that brief significant achievement during the Gillard era, and some bits like the Renewable Energy Target, which came in under the Howard government, so I'll give some credit there, despite Mr Abbott's attempt to wreck that. He wrecked the very effective carbon pricing regime just as it was about to kick into full swing, but he didn't manage to succeed in wrecking and destroying the Renewable Energy Agency. Ironically, now and then they try to point to some of the achievements of the Renewable Energy Agency and take credit for what it is still managing to achieve, even though it's something this Liberal-National government put every effort into destroying. But significant components of those achievements, and the significant transformation we had there briefly until the Abbott wreckers moved in, came about when a member of the Australian Greens was elected to the House of Representatives. It's a simple example of the transformative effect you can get by electing more Greens to the House of Representatives and by shifting away from the two—
Climate Change Authority; Consideration | Documents | Senate debates
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...
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, a key achievement that Greens were able to deliver. That has delivered cheaper, cleaner power and also significant numbers of jobs around the country in regional areas. This commitment to strengthening renewable energy is all the more critical and, at least while this government stays in power, it puts a significant onus on state governments to pick up the slack and not only fill the void but counter the vandalism that's happened at national level, with this government's disgraceful tearing to pieces of what was world's best practice when it came to a carbon-pricing regime. Of course, as we all know, the government replaced it with nothing but their own incoherent internal ideological confusion. There was no coherent energy policy at all from this government, other than to destroy one that not only was actually delivering a significant reduction in emissions but also, over time, would have delivered cheaper power because of the expansion of renewable energy. So because of the chaos in the energy-pricing policies of this government, acting in the interests of its corporate donors, the mining sector and its mates in the coal industry and putting the community last, it is all the more crucial that there be a continuing commitment and a continuing push for expansion in investment in renewable energy. This report by the Climate Change Authority acknowledges that, even under existing policy settings that this government hasn't been able to vandalise, there will continue to be significant expansion in renewable energy projects in the near future. But the Greens are calling for that to be turbocharged, because there is an ability to increase and improve the renewable energy targets well above not just what is being put forward by this government but what Labor is putting forward as well, which is certainly better than what the coalition are doing but is not as high as what is definitely achievable and doable. Renewable energy projects deliver significant jobs and reliable power. They deliver, obviously, not just cleaner energy but cheaper energy over time. So monitoring of those projects—because there will be more and more of them—is a good approach, but the key thing is to ensure that that investment in renewable energy not only continues but grows further. Question agreed to.
Energy | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
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...
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 electricity prices. Instead this government wants to give those gouging corporations more tax cuts. Thankfully, at least today the Senate managed to roll back that effort to give back even more money to companies already making record profits while households dealing with energy prices, which this government is now doing absolutely nothing about, face continuing wage stagnation and job insecurity. That is the focus for the Greens. That is the approach we will continue to put forward leading up to this federal election, whenever it might be called.
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...
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—
If you'd listen to me, Senator, as a Queenslander you would understand that reversing privatisation is essential but not sufficient.
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...
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 pretty simple if you know what you stand for and if you're about putting the community first rather than corporations. We want an energy system that runs for people, not for profit. The measures the Greens put forward would save people up to $600 a year on their electricity bill. A simple, clear thing we can do to reduce power prices is to roll back privatisation. The chances of the Liberals or Labor doing this are minimal, because they both take money from the energy companies, who are making record profits with their price gouging. Families are being driven to the brink while corporations make record profits and CEOs get fat bonuses. This is not just rhetoric. Last year 21,000 households in Queensland alone, not counting the rest of the country, had their power cut off because they couldn't afford to pay their electricity bill. After food and water and having secure housing, electricity is pretty much the next thing in line when it comes to the essentials of life today. I think we would all agree that it is an essential service to ensure that people have reliable electricity and affordable electricity. So, it should not be an area where corporations make massive profits while people pay soaring bills to fund those profits. Removing climate change targets won't bring down power prices; stopping gouging by private corporations will. In Queensland, Labor privatised the retail arm of the electricity sector in 2006 and prices have nearly doubled. Those energy corporations are making record profits whilst tens of thousands of Queensland households have had their power cut off. Pensioners and unemployed people are skipping meals to make sure they can keep the lights on and the heating on. We need to transition government-owned energy corporations back to being public authorities that are putting people first, not profit-making. Even those parts of the sector in Queensland that weren't privatised, as in other states, were nonetheless corporatised. Up to 40 per cent of our power bills in Queensland is profits made by state-government-owned energy companies and private corporations. Last financial year, the state government made $3 billion from the profits made by state-owned energy companies, money that came straight from the pockets of Queensland households. Origin and AGL made over $7 billion in profits. If they come back not just under government ownership but under government control and regulation, and are regulated in a way that doesn't allow billions of dollars—
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
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...
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 criticisms of that so-called assessment, a classic case of an assessment designed to deliver what the government wanted to hear based on flimsy or flawed underpinnings. It delivers what I think, frankly, is a false picture of the reality of the impact of the trials where they're already happening. So, if anything, the Senate's got far more reason now to reject this attempt to expand the trial of the cashless debit card than it did when it rejected that aspect of the legislation earlier this year. I repeat my plea to fellow crossbenchers to consider this issue very carefully and to vote against it. It is clear that the numbers on this legislation are very tight, so I urge senators, particularly Senator Storer and Senator Leyonhjelm, to please consider voting against this legislation. I have been to Hervey Bay and spoken with many people there. I went there last year, before I was back in this place, with my colleague Senator Siewert, and again just a few weeks ago. I also went to a public meeting in Bundaberg on a Monday night, attended by over 50 people, and not just people who are going to be directly affected by this trial. In an effort to get the Senate to agree to this trial, the government has wound it back and reduced the number of people it would apply to—only people under 35 who are on Newstart and parenting payments, including sole parents. That shouldn't matter. There's no logic as to why it should do that. The only so-called logic is political logic: an attempt to try to make it more politically saleable, to reinforce the disgraceful, longstanding myth that people on unemployment and social security payments and sole parents somehow or other are bludgers and unable to manage their money. That should not be a reason to now vote to extend the trial; it should be another reason to vote against it. People receiving Newstart payments are amongst the best money managers in the country. They have to be, because their payments are so low. The government is handing money over to a private financial company, rather than spending it on assisting people in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, particularly young people, to get jobs or on creating economic activity in those regions. The youth unemployment rate in those areas is significantly above the national and state averages. That's a reason to put more resources into stimulating the economy there with training; it's not a reason to waste money so that a financial corporation can make life even tougher for people receiving those social security payments. Even just as a matter of principle—that a Senate committee refused to go and listen directly to the community the government wants to impose this on—I'd urge Senator Storer and Senator Leyonhjelm to oppose this legislation. The mayor of Bundaberg, a former LNP state MP, has said on the record that he opposes this measure coming into his community, because the money would be better invested on services and job-generating activity. People can benefit from assistance to address substance abuse or gambling problems and any consequential financial challenges, but that should be personalised for those who need it, not a massive straitjacket imposed upon every single person solely on the criteria that they receive certain social security payments or are of a certain age. There's no rationale whatsoever for discriminating in that way, other than the supposed political benefits of further demonising the unemployed and those people who receive social security payments. That is something this government specialises in. They don't have terribly many ideas, but the ones they do have usually involve demonising some of the least powerful, poorest parts of the community. They're very good at demonising and dividing. Make no mistake: this is another measure to do that. All you need to do is look at the public debates and some of the online commentary around the card, and you will see what is motivating it. That type of commentary appears whenever this issue is brought up. It's all about reinforcing the myths and stereotypes of people on social security payments as, somehow, bludgers—when, in so many cases, they are people who merit more support and assistance, rather than things that make their life harder. I mentioned the mayor of Bundaberg before; I also mention the mayor of Hervey Bay, Councillor George Seymour. He was deputy mayor when I went to Hervey Bay last year; he's mayor now. He has spoken out quite eloquently against this card, not only the fact that it won't work for those people it's supposedly meant to assist but also the fact that it would be harmful to his community more broadly. I think, initially, Hervey Bay was seen as a place people went when they retired, but it's changed enormously in recent times. It's grown quite significantly as a community. Its local economy is very much driven now by tourism, by attracting people to the area because of its magnificent natural environment as well as its general attractiveness as a location. The last thing it needs is singling out as a community that has some sort of specific, unique social problem that merits this sort of measure, because it simply doesn't. As many people who work in this field—with people on social security payments, and with younger people who need assistance because of substance abuse issues—have said: if anything, this is likely to increase related crime. Further restricting people's control over their own income is hardly going to assist them to better manage their situation. It will impact on some of those small businesses that rely more significantly on the cash-based economy. There is no doubt about that. That is self-evident. The last thing we need is another measure that will somehow or other make it harder for small businesses but easier for the bigger companies and bigger retailers. We need to be encouraging diversity in the local economy, not further restricting the way that it operates. I mentioned the public meeting I went to in Bundaberg. Many of the people there were not people who are going to be affected by the measure directly. In fact, the majority of them weren't. There were many there who are social security recipients; though they won't be subject to this trial because of their age, or because they're on disability or carer payments—at least at this stage, they aren't subject to this measure. But they know that measures like this reinforce the discrimination that they already face as people on social security payments, so they will still cop the public abuse. They will still cop the increased public cynicism that comes when these myths are reinforced by political leaders. And, of course, they know that the more this is rolled out, the more chance there is that it will become entrenched, and that it will become a measure that is slowly wound out to more and more of them and will eventually, potentially, catch them in its net. Many of the other people at these meetings that I went to, in both Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, were people who worked in schools—for example, guidance officers. The supposed benefit of this card would be that it would help parents on Newstart or parenting payments to manage their money and, therefore, better able to have money available to feed their kids—those sorts of ideas. As I said, people on social security payments are amongst the best money managers in the country because they have to be. If there are challenges for people to get by, those challenges are magnified because of the inadequacy of the payments. Many of those people at those meetings were from other local, not-for-profit organisations and support services that work in areas with low-income people. I mentioned that the mayor, George Seymour, had a background in youth work and working with people in the community around social issues. All of those who were there not only said this measure wouldn't work but that it would make things worse for the majority of people. There'll be a group of people who will be fine: they'll adapt, they'll work with it and all of that. It will just be another piece of unnecessary bureaucracy and a waste of government money for no great purpose. But there will be a group of people for whom this will make it harder—it will make it more challenging for them to get by. Part of how people do get by when they're on very low incomes is through the cash-based economy. It is through finding bargains at op shops and markets, or paying friends to do maintenance, and those sorts of things. This will make it more difficult for them to make those dollars stretch out as far as possible. If the government want to assist people with managing their finances, and want to put money into this, how about they fund not-for-profit financial counselling better? I had a visit yesterday from people from the financial counselling field, who pointed to the significant problems faced by people who need to manage their debt. I'm sure any of us here who had to get by on just the amount of Newstart would find it extremely hard not to end up in significant debt and having to juggle that. Household debt for people of all incomes is at record levels in Australia, and more and more people are becoming vulnerable to for-profit debt management firms that prey on people who have low incomes. I'm not talking about just payday lenders and the like; I'm talking about professional debt management firms, who advertise. I'm sure we've all seen the advertisements. They actually charge people and further exploit them, and there's no regulation around that industry. If the government want to help, how about they better regulate the for-profit debt management organisations to ensure they don't exploit people in the way many of them do? How about they use the money that is being used on this card to properly fund financial counselling more generally—not-for-profit financial counselling? The federal government currently spends about $20 million to fund financial counselling services, and the states spend an estimated $26 million. There's certainly a significant and growing need there. More funding would go a long way in assisting people who do have genuine issues with managing their money and in protecting them from being exploited. We could put a levy on the industry to fund financial counselling, as happens in the UK and as already happens here regarding an industry levy to fund ASIC, for example. Those are the sorts of measures this government could use if it actually wanted to assist people who are having challenges with managing their income, rather than just putting a punishing straightjacket around an entire group of people and a using a measure that reinforces the stereotypes, the false prejudices and the myths around people who are unemployed. We all know—and we've talked about this in different contexts in this place in recent weeks—how much responsibility we have as public leaders in the language we use, in making sure that we do not further divide the community, that we do not demonise and single out parts of the community. This is another group of people who are deliberately demonised and have been for a long, long time. Because of those debates we have acknowledged that it is damaging and harmful to people both as individuals and as a group—to our community and the general social fabric—when false myths and stereotypes are reinforced and peddled, or even if they're allowed to flourish without being countered. But that is what is going on here. That is why the government, even though they got part of their measures through at the start of this year, rolled this one out again straightaway, had a sham Senate committee inquiry and didn't bother going to the communities that they are actually going to target with this and are trying to push this up again. It's a speciality of this government, whether in this type of area, in regard to social security recipients, or whether in other sections of the community, to demonise, single out and create division. That is the overarching goal of this measure. All the independent evidence and the experts in the field say it won't work, it won't deliver the supposed benefits that the government said is their motivation. So many of the people in the communities that are directly affected say they don't want it and that it will be harmful to their community in general, let alone to the individuals there. It's expenditure of public money that would be far better spent to create benefits on the ground in those communities, whether that be direct economic stimulation and employment or funding for some of the social services that work directly on the issues that the government says it's trying to address. It is also, of course, a massive Big Brother measure. I would appeal to Senator Leyonhjelm—perhaps on those grounds, given his general dislike of red tape and regulation—that he not support the government in spending money to enforce more regulation and red tape, particularly in a discriminatory way against a particular part of the community in a particular part of the country. I again repeat my appeal to him and to Senator Storer to please vote against this legislation. Their votes will be the critical ones with regard to a piece of legislation where the government has made no effort to consult with the community and has made no effort, frankly, to work constructively on so many issues. There is Senator Leyonhjelm's experience of the government breaking the commitments that it had given him. This is a chance to demonstrate his unhappiness about that as well. There are many, many reasons to vote against this legislation, but perhaps the simplest one is that it won't work. Why waste more money on something that isn't going to work?
Live Animal Exports | Petitions | Senate debates
by leave—I table a non-conforming petition relating to live export in Townsville.
Turnbull Government | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
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...
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.
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...
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 travails of the previous Prime Minister, or the accusations back and forth about section 44 of the Constitution; our political system is broken because the majority of people in this building—not just the elected representatives but so much of the press gallery as well—are so caught up in the irrelevant soap opera within this little bubble that they're don't care about what happens in the real world outside. We see today the consequences of that: the suffering of so many people because of homelessness, poverty, inadequate wages, insecure jobs, massive financial pressures and inadequate health services; the people facing horrendous, unimaginable suffering on Nauru or Manus Island; and the massive environmental damage that is happening because of the lack of action—or, in some cases, deliberate action—that causes further harm to the environment. But it is not just a feeling; it is a recognition. People don't just sense things are broken; they know it and can see it. That is what is important, and it is important not just today; it is important every day. The fact that it's normally covered up by a veneer of nice words around the place hasn't stopped people from seeing that. Days like today are just when it breaks through the surface and people can see the political process in this country for the joke and shambles that it is. A report today in The Guardian is headlined, 'Overwhelming majority of Australians believe federal politicians are corrupt'. That's a matter of public importance, not the squabbles amongst the Liberal Party at the moment. They believe that about federal politicians in general, all of us here. That's what we should be concerned about. That research showed: About 85% of respondents said they believed some, most or all of the federal members of parliament were corrupt … Perhaps that poll was a little bit rubbery. Perhaps it's a little bit larger than might reflect general public views—maybe 85 per cent is a bit high—but, frankly, if you're getting above 10 or 20 per cent of people feeling that, we're in big trouble. A clear majority of people feel the political process is broken, is corrupted. That doesn't mean they think everybody has money coming in in brown paper bags; they recognise that the process is corrupt and broken. The soap opera stuff we're seeing today occupies the minds—I would guarantee—of 90 per cent of people in this building. That's all they're talking about right now: the latest piece of gossip about the internal machinations of the Liberal Party. We all know that a month or so ago, before those by-elections, it was all gossip about whether the Leader of the Opposition was in some difficulties, and everybody could talk about that. That this process works to focus on those sorts of things, so we can all just ignore the fact that this parliament is delivering outcomes that are not working for the Australian community, is the matter of public importance, not the failures of the Turnbull government. Another extremely telling quote—anonymous but genuine nonetheless, I assume—came out today from a worried Liberal backbencher in a Sydney Morning Herald article by Peter Hartcher about the whole situation and why the minds of the members of the Liberal Party are so occupied at the moment: A lot of our people are facing that fact that they are in the last six months of their political careers. They've got houses, school bills, cars that they've set up for themselves on the basis that they're earning $200,000 plus— Of course, as we all know, federal parliamentarians get cars as part of the salary package on top of earning $200,000 plus— What do they do if they're suddenly out of work? Welcome to the real world! You're getting over $200,000 a year and a car and phones and everything else, and you're worried you might be out of work? That's what's exercising the minds of members of the government. How about exercising your minds about all of those Australians who are already out of work and all those Australians who are in full-time work and getting $40,000 or $30,000 a year and don't get everything with it? Exercise your minds about that for a bit! No wonder people think the system is broken. Of course people want to hang onto their jobs. I understand that—speaking as somebody who is about to give up their job at the end of this week in an attempt to try to change things by focusing on winning a lower house seat—
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...
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 through lack of use. As a consequence, nearly 20 years later—not surprisingly, given the ideology of putting the interests of corporations, property developers and commercial short-term profit above the interests of the natural environment and the long-term benefits it provides to the entire community, both economically and socially, in addition to its innate ecological value—we are well and truly overdue for a major overhaul of our federal environment laws. The koala is but one example, but I think an apt example, that illustrates why our federal environment laws are broken and why we once again have a situation where the government of the day is putting the interests of its corporate donors and the interests of property developers, who are of course also big donors, ahead of the interests of the entire community. We're seeing the environment trashed and our iconic species pushed to the brink because of short-term profits for the government's donors and their mates. The examples are widespread, but I'll outline the basics for starters. The government's own Threatened Species Scientific Committee reported, nearly six years ago now, that the koala populations in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT should be considered vulnerable. It stated that the rate of the decline of the koala 'over the last 20 years readily meets the eligibility threshold for listing as vulnerable'. That advice was accepted by the government and the minister of the day back in 2012, and the koala was listed as vulnerable in those regions, with the requirement that a koala management plan be developed by the time that the then National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy 2009-2014 expired. Instead, what we saw—by which time, of course, the coalition had come to power—was nothing. We've heard continual talk about a management plan appearing, being developed or being considered, but still there is nothing. Frankly, that is disgracefully negligent. If the environment laws were strengthened so that there were criminal penalties for ignoring responsibilities under the law then I could say it was literally criminally negligent, but certainly the deliberate neglect involved is rhetorically very much criminal in the broader sense of the word. The beneficiaries of it, of course, are the property developers and the construction companies. We've seen media reports covering major failings in mitigation strategies in both northern New South Wales and South-East Queensland in recent times. The mitigation strategies are basically the fig leaves that are used. It is a significant failure of the federal environment laws that, where approval is given to a project that seems a controlled action, it's often with a whole range of conditions attached. It can look very good on paper to say, 'We'll approve this, but we're doing all these things to ensure that overall there'll be no net environmental harm to the species or key factors of national significance listed under the act,' but the big flaw—and I'm happy to say in hindsight I wish that at the time, in 1999, I'd paid more attention to prevent it being able to be exploited—is that there's very little you can do if the government doesn't follow up on those mitigation strategies and check to ensure they're implemented or that they actually work. They all sound great at the time, but the reality is that in many cases they don't work and in many cases they're not even attempted. When the developers or the proponents of various proposals say they're going to do all these mitigation things but don't do them or do them badly—they do them with insufficient resourcing, so they're never going to work—there's no penalty at all, even assuming that there is actually follow-up monitoring. We're seeing this with the koala in northern New South Wales. The mitigation measures—the road tunnels and other wildlife infrastructure, which are meant to protect the koalas from road strikes and damage through construction and ensure they're able to survive in the habitat after major roadworks have gone through—are simply not working. They're not working nearly well enough to prevent continuing decline in the species. Similarly, in South-East Queensland, to use just one example, there is the area around Coomera on the northern part of the Gold Coast. Many who drive between Brisbane and the Gold Coast would know it for the amusement parks on either side of the M1, but there's a significant amount of bushland—though a lot less bushland than there used to be 10 years ago—in the surrounding suburbs. There is one development at the moment, called the Polaris Coomera development or Coomera Woods—it does have woods at the moment but by the time the development's finished, if it's approved, it won't have—that is a declared action under federal environment laws, and let this be clear: it is a tipping point. As happens repeatedly, each individual development is not enough to be denied by the federal Minister for the Environment and Energy—at least, that gives them cover—but when you add them up cumulatively they are massively destructive and, en masse, would never be in a situation where they could be approved by the minister. With this latest development, the independent environmental assessment of the koala populations shows very clearly that if that area is cleared as well then it will be a tipping point for the whole local koala population. There is simply not enough connected habitat left for those koalas to survive locally. We've seen significant publicity recently, on the basis of information given to estimates committees in the Queensland parliament, that efforts to maintain that population by transferring koalas from cleared areas to forested areas nearby really fall short. There are very significant, very high mortality rates when you try to relocate koalas. What we need is an emergency response to the koala situation from the Queensland government and the federal government, not just to finally put in place a management plan but to ensure that it is adequately funded and has powers to back it up to prevent further clearing of koala habitat. We need proper funding of recovery and management plans for all our threatened and vulnerable species, and that is something the Greens will be putting forward alongside the need to completely overhaul and update our federal environment laws so they deliver for the entire community, not for the corporations and the donors. Senate adjourned at 22:19
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
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...
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 cynical about either Labor or the Liberals saying one thing in opposition and then doing the opposite when they get into government. That is all the more reason why the Australian public is looking more and more to choices other than the two traditional parties of the political establishment. There is a growing amount of public support for candidates and parties outside of those two established political power blocs that have been basically trading power between themselves for over a century now in Australia. The simple fact is that this legislation will deprive the Australian public of tens of billions of dollars that could otherwise be invested in better funding for schools—funding increases that have already been removed or reversed by this government. That money could be used to provide better health care, particularly in regional areas. It could expand the resourcing of the public health sector. It could be put into dramatically expanding public and community housing to deal with the significant number of homeless people and the significant number of people under extreme housing stress due to insecure housing in our community. It could, of course, go towards increasing the rate of Newstart, which has not shifted in real terms in nearly a quarter of a century—leaving more and more people in absolute poverty. It could also support people on pensions and other sorts of allowances. We all know—and, hopefully, the economics of this is not disputed at all—that, if you put significant amounts of money, such as the tens of billions of dollars we're talking about here, into increasing the payments for people on social security and increasing the income of people on low incomes who really don't have discretionary income, then that money would flow straight into the economy. There is no better way to more directly stimulate the economy and to more directly generate jobs and economic activity than to ensure that poverty is addressed. What the Greens would like to see is a genuine commitment from either Labor or Liberal to tackle poverty. That is not just an ethical issue and a social justice issue; it is a clear economic imperative. Reducing economic inequality not only strengthens your social fabric but also enhances employment and adequate wages for people on lower paying jobs. That's the direction in which we need to be taking our economy. In a separate debate earlier today, I spoke about how both Labor and Liberal have basically been driven to swallow the Kool-Aid when it comes to the false promises of neoliberal economics. Whether Labor's shift on this issue is a sign that they're shifting away from their previous commitment to a fundamentalist free trade, 'let the market rip' type of approach which has been shown not to deliver, or whether it's just political short-termism whilst they're in opposition, we'll just have to wait and see. But it's all the more reason why you need other voices in the House of Representatives—to ensure that, if we do get a change of government, there are people there to keep that new government honest, keep them to their promises and make sure they don't switch back, in the way that they've done so many times before, when they finally do win power, should that happen. The vote coming up fairly soon about whether or not to finally pass this legislation is important. I'm sure various people and the commentators up in the press gallery will be unpicking the political ramifications of it. Don't worry. There isn't actually anybody up there; they're all somewhere else. I'll just gesture up in the direction of the press gallery. It would be a rare day that someone from the press galley actually turned up in the press gallery to watch the Senate. Nonetheless, the press gallery will no doubt go over the political meaning of this legislation and what it means for various people in the government and their opportunities for promotion or demotion. I don't care about that and, to that extent, I can certainly assure the government that the Greens' position on this has nothing to do with the short-term politics of this situation and has everything to do with our consistent approach to significantly changing the economic direction of this country. We need to transform our approach to one where an economy delivers for all of us—not just for the big end of town, with the rest of us hoping that somehow some of it might magically trickle down. That is now a massively discredited approach. The Australian public knows it. I think more and more people in this parliament know it, but either they're so beholden to the big end of town and the big donors that they can't shift away from it or they don't—or perhaps that and they don't—have any clear ideas about where they need to shift to. The Greens do have clear ideas. We put them forward in great detail at the last election. We'll be doing an even more comprehensive economic package leading into this election, because the Australian public are in desperate need of change. They need clear alternatives to the two parties of the parliamentary establishment that have failed to deliver for them over and over so many times. That is all the more reason why this bill should be voted down, and, to put everybody out of their misery, it should be voted down at the second reading stage so we don't have to go through any committee stage and look at amendments toing and froing and we don't have to continue any of the speculation about political ramifications. The public need certainty on this. They need it out of the way. They need to know that at least some of the revenue coming from big business is actually available to be spent on services. And let's not forget that, when we're talking about corporate tax, one of the big aspects of this that really hasn't got the attention it deserves in this debate is: how many of those corporations are not paying the amount of tax they should be at the moment? Let's focus on making them actually pay their fair share now. That is where we have the real opportunity for economic gains, for revenue gains and for a fairer economy that will deliver for all of us.
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...
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 remains on keeping itself in power and continuing its privileges. Any shred of keeping a consistent value base is jettisoned a long time before it ever becomes a threat to maintaining those privileges and that grip on power. It's all fine to have a diversity of views within an organisation, but the coalition have become so disconnected from each other in their parliamentary representation, let alone the disconnect from their membership base, that it's very clear that the main purpose of their existence is to keep a hold on power and keep anyone else out of it. It was not something that suddenly appeared this week or in the last month or even since Mr Turnbull rolled Mr Abbott. It was very, very clear from the very early days of the Abbott government, if not before—and that is what is hurting Australians. I guess you could say that is policy paralysis, although, when you see some of the very destructive policies that do get through this place, I wish they would be paralysed a bit more often and did even less to push through the measures that are causing ever-growing inequality in Australia, continuing to lead to massive environmental destruction and continuing to damage the fundamentals of our economy. Let us not forget: we are in an era now where we have record corporate profits. Perhaps one thing that does unite this government is its attempt to give tax breaks to corporations when their profits are at record levels, whilst we have continuing wage stagnation, growing casualisation of the workforce, increasing job insecurity and increasing underemployment. Anybody who has been watching the inquiry in my state of Queensland recently would realise that we have outrageously entrenched, systemic amounts of wages theft. Many people are not getting even the inadequate wages that they should be getting. They are being ripped off to unimaginable levels by the banks and by the superannuation funds. People have been calling that out for years and years and years. I wouldn't say it has been policy paralysis; rather, it has been a conscious decision to enable that to continue, to harm Australians, because this is a government that puts its mates first. It puts its corporate donors first. It puts the interests of the political elite and the establishment first, and the vast majority of Australians last. So I don't think the division and dysfunction within the Turnbull government at the moment is particularly important. It is a symptom of political parties that have decayed from the inside. I shouldn't reflect on you while you're in the chair, Acting Deputy President Bernardi, because I know you can't respond, but your actions in disconnecting yourself from that party is, itself, an indication of the fraying of all the divergent views within the current government, which means the only thing that's holding them together is trying to keep a grip on power. We have seen, in this place, continuing attacks on the poorest people. We've seen the continuing expansion of the disgraceful robo-debt program through Centrelink, which is seeking to claw back money from the poorest in the community. In many cases, it's money that they don't actually owe; it's money that they are legally entitled to. We've seen a reverse onus of proof, targeting people who are already the poorest, trying to rip money back off them. We've seen the handing out of huge amounts of money, billions of dollars, to the wealthiest and the biggest corporations. We're seeing ever-increasing fees for people who, having finished university degrees and TAFE courses, are trying to retrain and trying to get into the workforce, having to go into debt to get those additional skills. Now they are being forced to pay back that debt before they've even got to an income level that matches the median, the middle, income level. By definition low-income earners are being forced to pay back a debt whilst they're still in poverty. Newstart has not increased in real terms since 1994. Talk about policy paralysis: that's been a policy paralysis of both the Labor and Liberal parties for over two decades. That's where we need action. That's where the real hurt is. There is massive hurt for the enormous numbers of people who are homeless, who are in insecure housing, who are in financially-induced housing stress and having to pay massive proportions of their income on their rent or their mortgage because of the ridiculously overheated, turbocharged property market—turbocharged deliberately by governments that operate in the interests of their mates in the development industry rather than seeing housing as a fundamental human right to ensure somebody has a home. That's the policy paralysis that's been injected into this political system by the poison of neoliberal thinking, going way back to the 1980s when Labor was in government. That has paralysed the thinking of governments ever since, meaning that they put the interests of the market first and the interests of the community last. That is the paralysis that we've got to deal with. This short-term political theatre that is happening at the moment is, I'm sure, fascinating to many people in this building. But I can tell you that most of the people outside in the community couldn't care less. They want to see these issues addressed. They want measures that will increase their wages, that will increase their job security, that will lift them out of poverty, that will increase Newstart, that will stop them getting evicted without cause, that will ensure that they can afford a home, that will ensure that they can afford health care for their children, that will ensure that they can get proper education for their children, that will ensure that the schools their kids are going to are properly funded, that will ensure that those people with disability or caring needs have proper support, that will ensure that people in regional and rural areas have proper services and adequate public transport, and that will ensure that there are measures to address the rapid expansion of greenhouse emissions that is causing not just environmental damage but the economic damage that goes along with it. The paralysis has been longstanding, and the hurt to the Australian community—and many other communities around the globe, because governments elsewhere have also adopted the mantra of neoliberalism and austerity—is very long-standing. We need major change. We need it very quickly. Who leads the Liberal Party at the moment is irrelevant to that change. They could pull a name out of a hat; it's not going to give us the change we need. What we need to change is the government and the people who are elected in the House of Representatives.