Richard Colbeck's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Early Childhood Education and Care | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise tonight after a visit to a little multi-educator family-day-care facility at Latrobe in Tasmania last week. Addisons family day care has been operating for about 15 years as a...
I rise tonight after a visit to a little multi-educator family-day-care facility at Latrobe in Tasmania last week. Addisons family day care has been operating for about 15 years as a multi-educator family-day-care model. They are currently caring for about 50 children from 35 families, and I've raised this matter before in the chamber. Not long prior, I visited a little place called Abracadabra family day care at Spreyton, which has been operating for 20 years as a dual educator model. Tanya is looking after some children there, and there are about 35 children at that facility, again from a number of families. The issue I want to raise tonight relates to a sincere request for the government to get on with the job of implementing recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission's review of childcare services. If it doesn't, the running of these two facilities will be under threat. I was talking to Natalie last week, and the expense to her service, if this recommendation isn't implemented, will be something in the order of $600,000 to make alterations to the facility. In terms of Tanya's facility at Spreyton, the reality is that it may need to close, and all of those families and all of those children will lose access to the service. Interestingly, I was talking to the local council after I met with Natalie last week, and the deputy mayor said that these services aren't just appreciated in the local community; they are loved. That is the value that's placed on them by the families that utilise these services. In many cases, more than one generation of children have been through these multi-educator family-day-care centres. Just to put it into context, I'll read out recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission review, which is: Allow two family day care services to be run in a single venue in regional and remote Australia. The National Quality Framework should be amended to allow two educators to provide education and care to up to 14 children at any one time at an approved family day care venue. No more than eight children can be preschool age or under. This amendment should only apply to approved family day care venues in Inner Regional Australia, Outer Regional Australia, Remote Australia and Very Remote Australia as defined in the Australian Statistical Geography Standard. The minister has said on a number of occasions that the government is implementing the recommendations of the Productivity Commission review. That's very good, terrific. But in terms of these two small providers, in an area of childcare shortage, can you please just get on with it. These services are needed. Both of them have waiting lists of over 100. I acknowledge that the government is providing a significant amount of money to support another private facility in Latrobe. One other centre said that it was going to close, and a new provider is coming into town, so the government is funding a temporary service. But we can't afford to lose the services that are there, and we certainly can't afford to lose ones that are so greatly appreciated by the community. As I said, the deputy mayor of Latrobe said to me on Friday, 'These services are not just appreciated; they are loved.' Please don't leave this situation to hang. They are currently operating under exemptions granted by the state government. The state government is doing its bit. Can I say, Minister, please get on with the job of implementing recommendation number 5.3. There's no controversy. It just helps take the pressure off these services—in some cases it allows them to continue to operate. But it also provides really important and valued services for local communities. (Time expired)
Cost of Living | Motions | Senate debates
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Henderson be agreed to. A division is required. There being no divisions on Thursdays after 4.30 pm, we shall return to the question at a later time.
Fiscal Policy, Defence Properties | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Senator Paterson and Senator Chandler in question time today. We saw in question time...
I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Senator Paterson and Senator Chandler in question time today. We saw in question time yesterday and through the correction that Minister Gallagher was forced to provide to the chamber today the importance of the truth in this chamber and why Australians should be very wary about believing anything that Labor are saying. We heard, through the last debate, the minister make a joke of a serious matter with regard to orders for the production of documents and the complete lack of respect that Labor has shown in this chamber with respect to delivering information that the chamber—the parliament, the representatives of the people—have asked for. They show no respect for that and they do the same in question time. They will do anything that they possibly can to deflect from the truth, from the reality. Yesterday, on a day when interest rates went up by 25 basis points and Australians were hurting, the Labor Party tried to say that the Howard government was the highest-spending government in the last 40 years, and of course we know—because the minister was forced to correct the record today—that wasn't true. The government tries to deflect from its high spending, which is driving inflation up and keeping interest rates higher for longer. It tries to deflect from that. In fact, the Howard government never achieved a spending-to-GDP ratio anywhere near what this current government is doing. The current government's spending-to-GDP ratio, according to their own documents, is 26.2 per cent of GDP. The highest level for the Howard-Costello government was 25.1 per cent in 1996-97. And let's remember, they were coming off the Hawke-Keating years, when spending did run out of control, and it was that Howard-Costello government that put in spending parameters and delivered budget surplus after budget surplus after budget surplus—paid off $96 billion of Labor debt, left zero debt when we left government in 2006-07 and had put billions of dollars into the Future Fund. That's the government that Senator Gallagher tried to blame for having the highest spending. And of course today she had to correct for the pandemic, when all of us were concerned that the Australian economy wouldn't crash because we had to close so much down. And yes, we did spend a lot of money during that time, but Labor wanted us to spend more money; let's not forget that. Labor complained when we stopped JobKeeper. Labor complained when we decided it was time to cut back on programs. They said, 'Spend more.' So you can't believe a thing they say. This government is the highest-spending government, outside of the pandemic, in 40 years. It's that simple. Yesterday we also saw that the Defence Force, desperate for money, is having to flog off our heritage—defence heritage around the country—to pay the bills. It's shameful. In my home state of Tasmania there is no question that it will be much harder for young people to engage with cadets, whether Air Force, Navy or Army, because it's not going to be in their home town. We don't know whether Devonport or Burney is going to have a base anymore. They're combining the two into one. The 44th Transport Squadron, which has been there for decades, is being sold off. It's a disgrace. And the facility at Scottsdale, which, for 60 years, has been at the forefront of food innovation, in developing materials and meals for our Defence Force, and received an $18 million upgrade in 2014—they're going to flog that off, too. That capacity is being taken out of Tasmania. It's no wonder that the head of the Tasmanian RSL said: Such a withdrawal fundamentally alters Tasmania's role in Australia's Defence posture and sends a clear signal that Tasmania is no longer regarded as a state of Defence significance. It's shameful. This is an extraordinary position to adopt, given Tasmania's longstanding and disproportionate contribution to Defence recruitment. It's an outrage. (Time expired)
Finance and Public Administration References Committee; Government Response to Report | Committees | Senate debates
In respect of the government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report on management and assurance of integrity by consulting services, I move: That the...
In respect of the government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report on management and assurance of integrity by consulting services, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I want to start by acknowledging the contribution of particular colleagues that participated in that inquiry, Senators O'Neill and Barbara Pocock. I appreciate that the government has tabled its response to the report, which I think was an important one in the context of the way that government contracts for services across the board. And I do acknowledge that a number of changes have already been made to the processes for contracting that started occurring during the conduct of that inquiry and have continued since, some of that work in response to recommendations of the inquiry. But there are a few things in this government response that I find a little bit concerning. I'll start with recommendation No. 7. I have to say that I think that the government is either misinterpreting or misrepresenting what the committee said with respect to a central register for conflict-of-interest breaches. There's a lot of discussion in the response with respect to conflicts of interest, and we respect and acknowledge the work that the government has done in relation to managing conflicts of interest and improving processes around declarations of conflicts of interest as contracts are let and education of personnel within various departments to identify and manage those things. But, in my view, a register of breaches of conflicts of interest should be a very small list. The government makes some reference to its work on its code and the 'notice of significant events' clause. It may be that conflicts of interest could be a part of a notice of a significant event. In fact, I would suggest a breach of conflict of interest probably falls in that category. My view would be that, as long as the guidance around notices for giving notice of a significant event as part of the government's work makes specific reference to a breach of conflict of interest and there is a place where departments can go and that information is publicly visible and visible to other departments, that's the thing that we were seeking to achieve as part of the recommendation that we made. This was not to do a carte blanche across all conflicts of interest. The committee looked at this pretty closely. We recognised that conflicts of interest exist. You can't legislate all conflicts out of existence. But we want to make sure that, where somebody does, as PwC did, commit a major breach of integrity as part of their contract with the government, it's recorded somewhere. The PwC one is probably not the best example because I don't think there are too many people in the system that wouldn't know about it. But, in time, that will fade. I think that the government should consider that element of the intent of the recommendation as part of the work that it continues to do. With respect to AusTender, I don't know how many witnesses and colleagues came to us complaining about the operation of AusTender. It needs to be functional and it needs to be easy to search. I acknowledge that the government made some changes to functions starting on 1 July last year. I very much appreciate the government's support for recommendation 12, which went through this chamber not long after the inquiry reported. But that actually does create some duplication that could be removed if AusTender worked as we intended it to and recommended that it should out of the inquiry. So I would encourage the government to continue with that work. We also made a recommendation with respect to the governance of large partnerships. I know that the Treasury has been doing some work in relation to that. There was a very pertinent question asked during the inquiry in relation to why you would change what's there right now. Different people on the committee had different views in relation to this. My concern is that I don't believe that the structure of a large partnership, such as PwC, adequately looked after the interests of all of the partners where the partners are jointly and severally liable for everything that occurs in the organisation. The way that the business was broken up into different elements meant that those that were part of the particular section of the business contracting on this particular tax law or advising on this tax law wouldn't have been aware of what was happening in other parts of the business. So other partners were not appropriately protected. So I would urge continuation of work on that. When you get the response that we got from the then CEO of PwC, Luke Sayers, who had a worse memory lapse than Alan Bond did at his trial with respect to knowing what was going on—the intent is to make sure that people are properly supported. The last one that I will go to relates to recommendation 11, which was for a committee of the parliament to oversight spending in respect of contracting, particularly for large IT projects. As someone who has been a participant in this place for a long time and a minister who has gone to ERC seeking funding for large IT projects, which are effectively infrastructure—they are public infrastructure—I can say that there is absolutely no parliamentary oversight of that spending in the way that there is with public works. The government says in its response: … Recommendation 1 of the Eighty Seventh Annual Report by the Parliamentary Committee on Public Works (tabled 24 March 2024) proposes a thorough review of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, with a view to repealing and replacing the legislation. We're not talking about getting rid of the public works committee. That committee provided oversight in 2023-24 of something like $3.7 billion of public expenditure. That oversight by the Senate and the House, through the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, is warranted. What that committee does is look at the scope of works and the cost of those works and perform an assessment on value for money. That's the role. It's not, as the government's response intimates, to decide who does or doesn't get a contract. That's quite rightly a department's role. They do that work. This is to provide oversight of the expenditure of public money and to ensure and provide confidence to the parliament and to the Australian community that value for money is being achieved by that work. Over the same period that I mentioned with respect to the public works committee, 2023-24, there was something like $3.2 billion of funds spent on consultants and major IT projects. There should be public scrutiny of this expenditure to make sure we're getting value for money. That is my point. It's not to do anything more, despite what is indicated in the response by the government. I think the government misrepresents the intent of the recommendation, and I have to say I'm a little bit suspicious, given the lack of transparency of this government, that that might be a motive. I know that others will want to speak on this and some other things, so I will leave it right there. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise to make my contribution to the very poorly named Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. If you'd called it the 'firearms and customs law bill',...
I rise to make my contribution to the very poorly named Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. If you'd called it the 'firearms and customs law bill', it would have been much more honest, but I do acknowledge that we are dealing with the horrific events, or the aftermath of the horrific events, of Bondi on 14 December and that there's a desire to make a connection. And, as I said yesterday, we must do everything that we possibly can in this place to ensure that Australia again becomes safe, and we'll pass some other legislation later in the day to do that. But I can't support this legislation, because of the flaws that are in it. The fact that, frankly, the government wasn't prepared to work with the coalition to get bipartisan support for this legislation in the same way that John Howard did after the tragic events of Port Arthur in 1996 is an indictment of this government and a demonstration of the fact that they are about the politics and not the reality of the situation. I was a candidate in the 1998 election for the seat of Lyons, and I won't forget those lawful firearm owners who came to me (a) to put their perspective and (b) to place their trust in me as someone they intended to vote for despite the fact that we'd legislated for them to have tighter access to firearms. Now, I wasn't successful in that particular election, but I haven't forgotten the conversations nor the responsibility. This legislation is a complete demonstration of the failure of leadership of the Prime Minister in managing this. The fact that the legislation was tabled a week ago—nobody had seen it. He hadn't come to the opposition, who had indicated for a considerable period of time since Bondi that we were prepared to work with the government as the Australian people wanted us to do to make some changes. The Prime Minister, despite calling for us to come together, has done nothing and failed to actually do the things that would bring us together. He mocked the coalition. He criticised the coalition, and, quite frankly, in calling for us to come together while not bringing us together, he was gaslighting the opposition, gaslighting the Jewish community and, in fact, gaslighting the Australian community—a complete failure of leadership. For him to now try and compare this legislation and some of its actions with John Howard, who actually did bring the country together, got bipartisan support and got the National Party to agree to the legislation in 1996, is actually quite offensive. It's quite offensive that he tries to appropriate the actions of John Howard in this debate because in this sense he has completely failed. There are a number of measures in this legislation that we should have been able to agree on, and there are others that, with some improvement, could have formed some very sound legislation. But, of course, Labor thinks they know better, and I really wonder who they were actually listening to when they built this legislation. They clearly weren't listening to their own backbench because up until this morning this legislation prohibited a piece of equipment that Olympians use in Olympic competition. So who were they listening to? Who were Labor listening to in developing this legislation? They tell us that this will have no impact on farmers and rural Australians, and they tell us that this will have no impact on sporting shooters. I don't believe them. Why should I? The evidence is completely to the contrary. Why would I? They don't even know what the impact is. They have no understanding. We hear it so often in the trotted out talking points that they run in this debate in relation to this matter. They have no concept of what tools are required by farmers to manage browsing on their farmers or the different forms of browsing, the different firearms you might need to deal with wallabies or wild deer or, as Senator McKenzie said earlier, wild pigs. So the artificial limitations on the number of firearms available are a limitation on the tool kit available to farmers and rural Australians in managing their farms. They say that if you're not a citizen, you won't be able to get access to firearms. What about the non-citizen farmers? What about the Australian residents who run farms? I know some. They're not Australia residents, but they have the same problems as every other farmer in managing feral wildlife. That's not considered as part of this legislation. What about the non-resident Australian farming workforce that also assists? Senator Steele-John was talking about managing feral animals in parts of Western Australia. I'm sure some non-resident farmhands are assisting with that very important role. But they can't under this legislation, because they won't be allowed to have a firearm licence; they're excluded under the simple fix. This government has no idea what it's legislating. They have no understanding of the unintended consequences of this legislation, so why should anybody trust them when they say it will have no impact on farmers? We know it will. What about those farmers who reload their shells? If they want to use a carriage device to find information about reloading the shells appropriately, so that they get the right amount of shot in the shell, that's an offence under this legislation. We're not sure about the impact of that. What if an Olympian finds out that, in the United States, there is a new technology around reloading shells that gives the Americans an advantage? Are they going to be impacted? This lot don't know; they can't tell us. And nobody was consulted; I was listening to the evidence at the hearings last week. They have no idea what they're legislating here, so why should we trust them? I don't believe them when they say nobody is going to be impacted, because they don't know themselves. So why should we pass bad legislation? It's a pattern that we've, sadly, grown used to with this government—a failure of leadership, a failure to bring us together, a failure of consultation and, in this circumstance, a failure to genuinely understand. Here's a photograph, through a scope, of browsing pressure on a farm in Tasmania. There's hardly room to put a sheep or a cow on that farm in between the browsing animals. Farmers need to have the right tools to manage their properties properly. On that same farm, where all those wallabies are competing with grass that might be used for sheep or cattle, is a vineyard. The next day there are wild deer in the vineyard. There is a different firearm required for the wallabies to the deer, or perhaps the birds that might come in and take grapes off the vines at different times of the year. Farmers need to have the toolkit. I don't believe the government when they say this legislation won't restrict them, because it's clear to me that there are unintended consequences. The fact is that, until this morning, an Olympian couldn't have a jacket that would hold 50 shells—which is an Olympic requirement—because they were restricted to 30. The buyback is another example of the failure of leadership of this government. As I said before, it's offensive that the government tried to appropriate John Howard's buyback in their arguments for this buyback. John Howard worked with the states, set up a process, made sure that appropriate payment for firearms was paid, supported small business—and then he paid for it all. He didn't just announce it and then say to the states, 'By the way, you're paying half,' without any consultation first—which is what this government has done. This government talks about us coming together and this being a time for us to come together—yet they have done nothing to bring us together, and they present us with this flawed legislation. I'm not surprised they've done the political deal they've done with the Greens, because they have no care for Australian farmers. And here we are with this bad and flawed legislation, which I cannot support. It's a sad situation because, had the Prime Minister gone to the Leader of the Opposition in the days and weeks after the terrible events at Bondi and worked with her and other members of the parliament, we could have been standing in this place today with an agreement on legislation which we all understood and which did the job that we wanted it to do. It is a failure of leadership of the Prime Minister that we are not in that situation. It is a very, very sad situation for us to be in because, with genuine leadership, this legislation could have been so much better and it could have been something that we all supported. As I have said, there are a number of things in this legislation that we should be able to agree on—the background checks; some of the controls. But, because of the failure of leadership of this government, we're not in a position to be able to do that, and, therefore, I am not in a position to support the legislation.
Bondi Beach: Attack | Condolences | Senate debates
I rise to make my contribution to this debate, knowing that my words will be small consolation but hopefully some consolation to those of the Jewish community but also to the families who have...
I rise to make my contribution to this debate, knowing that my words will be small consolation but hopefully some consolation to those of the Jewish community but also to the families who have lost so much out of this brutal event that occurred on what was supposed to be a happy occasion for Australia's Jewish community—the commencement of Hanukkah, on 14 December last year. I offer my condolences to the families of those 15 innocents who were taken so brutally from us and to the broader Jewish community. The fourteenth of December will forever be a day where this country changed forever, with 15 people murdered in cold blood because they were Jewish—where antisemitism and hate invaded one of our most symbolic locations, while the Jewish community were celebrating light over darkness for the commencement of Hanukkah. We have to acknowledge the confronting nature of this attack, driven by the hatred of antisemitism. This is not the country that I thought it was. This is not what I thought we would see in our communities. But we are now forced to confront that this is who we are, because of those events. Antisemitism and hatred live in this country, in our communities, to our national shame. We're now forced to confront what we will do and how we will confront and manage this evil of antisemitic hatred that has taken hold in our country. It is an enormous challenge, but we must do that to honour the lives of the 15 who lost their lives, by making and taking the appropriate actions. How are we to make Australia a safe place again? How is it that those who escaped the Holocaust and came to Australia because they thought it was safe were to lose their lives in such a savage and evil antisemitic attack? How do we ensure that the security guards are no longer required outside our synagogues and our Jewish schools, kindergartens and aged-care facilities? That must be our priority if we are to appropriately honour the loss of life that occurred at Bondi on 14 December. We all say that this is not who we thought we were. This is not the sort of horrific act that we thought would happen in our country, yet a world with global information flow means we are all exposed to the horrors of antisemitism. It is a philosophy that we must all now work together to ensure, for those mown down by the evil events perpetrated by those two humans on 14 December, can be stamped out. We are all going to have to act in that sense. The leaders of our Muslim communities are going to have to decry Islamic extremism. The leaders of our Christian faiths are going to have to decry Christian extremism. And it goes for every other faith and community in the country—for all faiths. We must all eschew the hatred of radicalism and the hatred of evil. It can have no place in our society. As Australians we all must do what we can to ensure efforts to stamp out antisemitism and all racial extremism in our country. Calls for unity cannot be just words. They must be accompanied by actions that actually bring us together in unity—genuine actions that help us to, together, design and implement the tools that our society needs to oversight our values. Those calls for unity must not be just words used to silence opinions or perspectives of politics or be of one particular view. That will not bring us together in the way that we must come together. We must bring to our country a unity of action in condemning radicalisation in all its forms and to particularly root out antisemitism. As I've said a couple of times, anything less is a betrayal of those 15 innocents who lost their lives in this murderous, evil attack. It is also a betrayal of all Australians who, in good faith, expect that in this country we can come together again and become a place where we all feel safe. As happens so often in this wonderful country, when we are confronted by evil, our hearts are warmed and gladdened by what is so good. We saw it again at Bondi—in effect, and in the spirit of Hanukkah, we saw light prevailing over darkness. Many have mentioned those who ran towards danger: those who, despite the danger, ran to help others, those who tried to stop the slaughter and paid the ultimate sacrifice and those who put their bodies over others to protect them. Then, of course, there were the police, other first responders, medical teams, counsellors and even those Australians who gave blood. It is clear that the Australian community spoke very loudly with respect to what they want to see in terms of Australia trying to recover some of what it lost through the tragic events of Bondi. When it comes to those good actions that we saw—something we also should consider when we're thinking about what we do now, in terms of legislating the reforms we might want to legislate and in some of the pronouncements that we've heard, particularly with respect to some cultures in this country, since 14 December—I'm reminded of the words of Ahmed al-Ahmed, a refugee from Syria. If you listen to some of the rhetoric that I have heard in the few weeks since Bondi, and the pronouncements of what some people might like to see occur, you'd wonder how Ahmed might go getting into this country with what's been pronounced. And yet his words speak so much about how he sees his actions as a member of the Australian community. He said: My soul and all my everything in my organ, in my body, in my brain, asked me to go, and to defend and to save innocent life … I didn't think about it. Those are the words of a Muslim man who is now, globally, recognised as one of the heroes of Bondi. We all must remember his actions and where he comes from when we're considering what we do into the future. He said: My target was just to take the gun from him, and to stop him from killing a human being's life and not killing innocent people. A wonderful Australian individual who we should celebrate—and clearly we are. The reverberations of this horrible event will continue for some time. We must ensure that those reverberations maintain a determination to stamp out antisemitism and hatred from our community and from our nation. To the families directly affected, we trust that the warm memories of your loved ones that we know you hold so close in your hearts can provide you with some comfort at this time. We know those 15 innocent souls can never be replaced. We owe it to them to ensure our actions are appropriate. To the families of Edith Brutman; Dan Elkayam, Boris and Sofia Gurman; Alex Kleytman; Rabbi Yaakov Levitan; Peter Meagher; Reuven Morrison; Marika Pogany; Matilda, the innocent of innocents, who was named for this country; Rabbi Eli Schlanger, Adam Smyth, Boris Tetleroyd, Tania Tretiak and Tibor Weitzen, we offer our sincerest condolences at this terrible time.
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
You might remember my private member's bill to get over it.
My question is: how do you intend to manage the standing provisions within the act, which I know the Samuel review indicated should be expanded, which is of concern? As I indicated in my previous...
My question is: how do you intend to manage the standing provisions within the act, which I know the Samuel review indicated should be expanded, which is of concern? As I indicated in my previous contribution, we already know that environmental groups don't always tell the truth. I go back to 1981, when the Wilderness Society were opposing the construction of coal-fired power stations in Tasmania, rather than renewable energy, and there's the recent action where a court found that one of the environmental groups was actually fabricating evidence against a proposal so that legal action could delay or stop the proposal. My genuine concern is that that process will return with the removal of the exemption and that the forest industry will be killed off by a thousand cuts through that process. You'll say that that wasn't your doing. My view is that the removal of the exemption is what does it. How do you intend to ensure that the industry isn't subjected to a continuous flow of legal actions, which will effectively make it very difficult if not impossible to operate?
I want to go back to one of the points that I was making about the reason why the exemption came in in the first place, which goes to the issue of the continuous flow of legal action and appeal...
I want to go back to one of the points that I was making about the reason why the exemption came in in the first place, which goes to the issue of the continuous flow of legal action and appeal against the forest industry, which is why we moved to the RFA model in the first place. I'm curious to understand the standing provisions and how the government intends to manage the situation under the new act so that the forest industry doesn't have to suffer a return to the process of continuous challenge to operations, which is basically a mechanism to disrupt. I suspect that the reason the Greens are supporting this legislation is that they know they're going to be able to go back to this continuous cycle of challenge to the industry. How does the government intend to manage that process?
I just want to make a few comments and I'll have some questions, Minister, in relation to some of the interactions within the bill. But I want to go back to some comments that you made with...
I just want to make a few comments and I'll have some questions, Minister, in relation to some of the interactions within the bill. But I want to go back to some comments that you made with respect to the exemption for the RFA process in particular. I happened to be here—I think I'm the only one who was—when the RFA bill was passed. I remember quite clearly the delight of the forestry industry, because the exemption that was placed into the act, with the passing of the RFA legislation, took away the continuation of green lawfare that was imposed on the industry. With every particular harvest they wanted to undertake they had to go through a separate environmental approval process. That's why that process came about; it was because of the green lawfare of environmental groups who wanted to use that to cost the industry out of existence. That's where it came from. You made some comments with regard to my former government leader in the Senate Robert Hill when the RFA legislation was passed—that was the background to that. I remember why. I remember the impact on industry by environmental groups, who we know don't always tell the truth. We know that because a court recently found that they actually fabricated evidence in one particular case where they were looking for an outcome. But it was done to mitigate the impact of that green lawfare. I'm very keen to understand if the operation of the new system will continue to allow industry to operate on a reasonable basis so that they are not on a coupe by coupe basis, for example, required to come back for environmental approval. This sector already operates under an environmental standard. It's called Australian standard 4078 for sustainable forest management. I would be very curious, Minister, to understand how that standard, the Australian Forestry Standard—benchmarked globally against other forest standard systems; established through the principles of ISO 14000—will that be applied? How will industry be able to manage a reasonable process for their operations without constant interference and interruption? This will be an important part of what happens into the future. There's a good reason why people in my home state of Tasmania don't trust the Labor Party with respect to this. I go back to Graham Richardson, I go back to Mark Latham and I go back to former minister Tony Burke. That's why I'm concerned about this. We have good reason not to trust them, and I would be very keen to have assurances and some understanding of how the industry, with the work it has already done to establish the standards under which it operates, that are benchmarked globally and that operate under scrutiny and regular auditing, can continue to operate on a sustainable basis and not be priced or costed out of the market by continuous challenges through green lawfare. We know that's what will happen. That's the method of operation that these green groups utilise. We know that they're not always honest. Courts have found that to be the case. What guarantees do we have that the processes that they have in place will work properly with the new system and that they won't be continuously interrupted on a microbasis as a part of the way they conduct their business? All of the states, particularly the two RFA states, have good forest management systems and forest approval systems to ensure that they do comply with the Australian forestry standard. It's bemusing to think that the government is proposing that we will have to establish a new standard when we already have one. The minister said earlier that the industry is moving more and more towards the utilisation of plantation timber. That's certainly true in the context of structural timbers. They are more cheaply grown and developed, and the way that manufactured timber works these days is that it's not just about the timber that provides the structural strength. So having enough capacity within the plantation industry is extremely important for the forest industry in this country. In fact, demand for timber in this country is projected to double by 2050. That's really important. But so too is the native forest industry. It's important to the people, the workers and the communities in my home state of Tasmania, and I know it's important in a number of others. I know that, from talking to my friends in the farming community, they are very concerned about whether their private forests will still be able to be appropriately operated. Of course, the forest standards will apply to those, so how does that work? How do our private foresters, who are operating a native forest private industry, ensure that they still have the basis of an industry to work with? One of the things I have to say that I lament in my home state of Tasmania and that occurred in the nineties, when we were moving much more towards plantations, was the conversion of native forest to plantation. It was a very difficult period of time in my home state. When we talk about the comparison between the plantation based industry, which I know the minister accepts is important, and a native forest based industry, one of the things I now understand, having worked very closely with people in the forest industry and forest scientists in particular is that, when you compare a plantation forest with a native forest, a native forest is better for biodiversity, water quality—I know the minister is concerned about that; he's made that point a number of times during his presentations today—and carbon storage. It actually stores more carbon. It uses no chemicals. At the end of the day, it produces a higher value and higher quality product. We're sitting amongst it today. If the native forest industry folded, you wouldn't be able to build what we enjoy today in this place because the timbers would not be available. I know that's what some in the environment movement want, but, quite frankly, that is the wrong response. It's against the science, and it's an ideological and philosophical perspective. Now, that's fine; I don't object to people having their ideology and their philosophy. But, if we're going to do this based on proper science, then the attributes that I've already listed are really important. In that context, there is a genuine case for the continuation of a strong native-forest based industry, because it's basically a natural forest based process. Are there considerations that need to be made with respect to native species, endangered species and all of those things? Absolutely, there are, but they are already built into our forestry standard. The Australian forestry standard already incorporates those things. Minister, how do you intend to ensure that the industry has the capacity for continuous flow and not the possibility of interruption after interruption, which is basically designed to inhibit their operations? We know that that can happen, and that's why we had the exemption in the first place. Also, there's the Australian forestry standard and the chain-of-custody standard that works with it, which is also an important element, that ensure timber that is being sold in our marketplace is sourced appropriately. It's a very important piece of work, which Minister Burke started, which I continued and which has been followed since. But they're important questions— (Time expired)
Rearrangement | Business | Senate debates
The fact that we are even having a debate about additional time at the government's instigation demonstrates how grubby this whole process has been. This is one of the most complex pieces of...
The fact that we are even having a debate about additional time at the government's instigation demonstrates how grubby this whole process has been. This is one of the most complex pieces of legislation that will come before this parliament. It affects industry from a whole range of perspectives. The government didn't even allow the committee process to be completed—a process that this chamber decided on. There has been no proper scrutiny of the legislation by this chamber, which is this chamber's job. That process was scrapped by the grubby deal done overnight by Labor and the Greens. And the fact that the embarrassment will continue out of the Labor Party's process is demonstrated already by the fact that they themselves have to extend time for the debate in the committee stage of this legislation. It is absolutely shameful that senators stand in this place to say that they haven't had the parliamentary resources to have their amendments for this legislation drafted. How shameful is that? And of course we know what sits behind that. The Greens don't have theirs ready either, which is why we're standing here debating additional time, and the government is put in the embarrassing situation of having to extend time for the committee stage of this legislation. I have questions that I would have liked to ask during the committee stage before lunch with respect to the standards, particularly around the treatment of the forest industry, which I've worked very closely with over a period of time. But the minister's response to questions and submissions made as part of the debate here belled the cat on the whole show. Labor are about the politics and the deal. They're not about looking after the environment. They're not about looking after Australian communities. And they're not about looking after people in our communities that rely on an effective piece of environmental legislation. They're all about the politics. Every time a coalition senator stood up to make a contribution, the minister's response was all about the politics. It's absolutely shameful that senators in this place would have to get up as part of this extension debate to say that they are being told by officials of the Senate that they can't get their amendments drafted. How is that a proper process? How does the government and how do the Greens see that as a proper and reasonable process to pass one of the most important pieces of legislation that this parliament will pass—that senators cannot get their amendments drafted? That is a failure of this place, and it's a failure of the way the government is running this place. They should be ashamed. They're not. They think it's a joke. It shows how much they respect this chamber and it shows how much they respect the Australian people. They don't. It is all about the politics and it's all about the deal, and they should all be ashamed. The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 is a very important piece of legislation. It deserves the proper scrutiny that this parliament gave it through the committee process which was to report at the end of March next year. What we are finding, and what industry and those who are going to have to work with the legislation are finding, is the more we look into it, the more problems we find. This government is going to go through further embarrassment next year when they have to come back with an EPBC Act reform bill, because they're going to have to fix up the mistakes that, to their shame and embarrassment, aren't being dealt with right now. They'll see it as a joke. They'll blame somebody else. But it's their bill; it's their dirty, grubby deal; and they should all be ashamed. They should give this chamber enough time to debate it properly. (Time expired)
Child Care | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Last week, I visited Tanya at the Abracadabra family day-care centre in Spreyton. Tanya's been operating there for 25 years, and for a large proportion of that time she has been operating under a...
Last week, I visited Tanya at the Abracadabra family day-care centre in Spreyton. Tanya's been operating there for 25 years, and for a large proportion of that time she has been operating under a dual educator model. She's now caring for the children of the kids she once cared for, and she's certainly much loved. Recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission report into child care recommended that, particularly in rural and regional areas, the dual educator model be permitted under the national framework. The government, through the minister, has told this chamber twice now that the government will be implementing those recommendations. Recently, the Tasmanian government did their bit in this discussion, which has been referred to by the minister on a couple of occasions, and granted Abracadabra family day care and Addisons family day care at Latrobe an extension and a temporary waiver of the guidelines until 31 January 2026. The question is: when will the government do what it said it would do, which is implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission review? When will the minister implement recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission review, which will take the pressure off these two family day-care centres, which are providing service in an area of need in north-west Tasmania. The minister has the future of these facilities at the tip of her pen. Tanya is now deciding whether she remains open when school starts again next year. That's the decision that this government needs to make: will it support the provision of childcare services in our region, or will it continue to sit on its hands?
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
The question is that the amendments moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.
Answers to Questions | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
I, too, rise to make a contribution to this motion to take note of answers given by government ministers to coalition questions during question time. What question time has again demonstrated to...
I, too, rise to make a contribution to this motion to take note of answers given by government ministers to coalition questions during question time. What question time has again demonstrated to the Australian community is that you cannot believe a thing that this government says. When they get into a bit of a corner they revert to the old tactics: ramp up the rhetoric, start calling people names across the chamber and then deflect the blame to somebody else. It doesn't matter who they deflect the blame to; they're just not prepared to take responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions. You see it time and time again. Then they all trot out the talking points. They've read the BS in the talking points so many times that they actually believe it themselves. The fact that the assertions being made by government ministers and senators are not true doesn't seem to mean anything anymore in this place. We started today with a conversation and a debate about respect in the chamber, and yet what do we get from government ministers across the chamber during question time? We get personal reflections. We get attacks on colleagues on this side of the chamber. Then, of course, Minister Watt—in something that probably only Minister Watt could do—tries to blame the Turnbull government for something that's happening under his watch now. It's as if the last three and a bit years didn't happen. What have the government been doing for the last three or so years while the Bureau of Meteorology has been developing its website? Have they been wandering around blindfolded? Have they been looking at what's going on? How did Minister Watt allow the BOM to suggest that a project that had cost $96 million had cost $4.1 million? He did acknowledge that he was upset about it, but it is just extraordinary that a project of this nature and of this importance to Australians, from a whole range of different perspectives, could be done so wrong. What does Minister Watt try to do? Blame the Turnbull government because they commissioned the project. So what has Labor been doing for the last three and a bit years while the project's been finalised? Who was it that checked up on the project before the website went live to see that it was providing the service that it needed to provide? How can that be the Turnbull government's fault? It is preposterous to suggest that this could be the Turnbull government's fault. That is why you cannot believe what this government's saying. They do this all the time. It's their stock in trade: ramp up the rhetoric, blame somebody else and distribute the blame to somewhere—it doesn't matter where it goes. And of course, when it comes to the promises that they've made, it's as though they were never made, and they certainly can't be believed. We all remember the 97 times before the 2022 election when the now Prime Minister Albanese and his then shadow ministers promised a $275 reduction in Australians' power bills. What did they do? They spent billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to provide a rebate because they can't meet their promise. They promised the most transparent and open government, and yet they are the worst in history, to the frustration of this entire chamber. You cannot believe a word that this government says. They promised us cheaper housing. How's that going? They promised us a better cost of living, and yet Australians' cost of living is going backwards. On all of these promises that they made, Australians are coming to understand that they cannot believe them, and the government should do better.
Energy | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
Senator Cadell predicted that we'd get a rolling out of the talking points, and that's exactly what we got. There was a point of discussion about reality, but, unfortunately for the Australian...
Senator Cadell predicted that we'd get a rolling out of the talking points, and that's exactly what we got. There was a point of discussion about reality, but, unfortunately for the Australian people, reality is the problem. Labor promised 97 times before the 2022 election that they would reduce energy prices by $275 by 2025. Here we are, in 2025. What have we seen? In the last year alone, power prices have gone up by 23.6 per cent. That's the reality that the Australian people are facing. And guess what? At Christmas, just a few weeks down the track—frighteningly—because Labor, to get themselves through the last election campaign, only put up six months of energy price subsidy, the energy subsidies will be gone, and what will the Australian people be left with? Higher power bills. It was always going to be the case. Once the energy subsidies disappear, the Australian people are left with higher energy prices—over $1,300 a year higher under this Labor government. Subsidies will be gone, and power bills will still be there at a higher level—23.6 per cent in the last 12 months. When the kids are going back to school, with all the expenses and costs for the kids to start school again, the higher power prices will still be there. When the credit card comes in for Christmas, the higher power prices will still be there. Yet we heard the Labor Party 97 times before the 2022 election say that they would reduce Australians' power bills by $275 by 2025. That's the reality. That's the reality that Australians are facing. You cannot believe a single word that this government says with respect to energy. You can't believe Mr Bowen. You can't believe the Prime Minister. You can't believe the Treasurer. You can't believe anyone opposite. They'll trot out the talking points. They'll blame everybody else. But it was their promise that they would reduce power prices for Australians by $275 by 2025. What are we seeing with respect to industry? Industry are starting to walk out the door because energy prices, the foundation of this country's economy, are too high, and it's now too expensive to do business in this country. That's what Tomago is saying. That's what Bell Bay Aluminium in my home state of Tasmania is saying. The minister trotted out earlier this year saying, 'Here's a program so that we can support business and industry in this country to get through, because we want to have a built in Australia—made in Australia—campaign. What are they doing? They're having to subsidise industry to cover the costs of their power bills because their energy policy is too expensive. It's the same thing over and over again. They just don't seem to be able to join the dots. They make a whole series of bad decisions through their governance of the country. They're spending too much money. They're keeping interest rates higher for longer because of the expenditure. The Reserve Bank has said that on a number of occasions. They're energy policy is wrong and driving up costs to business. They had to subsidise the Australian community for 2½ years. That's now coming off. They got through the election. They don't need to worry about you for a while now. But the credit card bill will come in after Christmas, and the kids going back to school will still have all those increased costs. Energy prices are up 23.6 per cent over the last 12 months. It's no wonder that Ken Henry said: If you have to provide a permanent or semi-permanent rebate for something, then you're saying that your policy settings are wrong … your energy policy settings are wrong … That's Ken Henry. He's not necessarily a friend of this side of politics, but that's what he's saying about the government. And the government need to shape up with respect to this matter.
Environment | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
The coalition calculated at the time of the election in May this year that at least a whopping 9.75 billion square metres of land had been approved for clearance for renewable projects by Ms...
The coalition calculated at the time of the election in May this year that at least a whopping 9.75 billion square metres of land had been approved for clearance for renewable projects by Ms Plibersek, of which well over 6.53 billion square metres had a known disturbance footprint. Does the minister have the latest updates of those figures to provide to the Senate, or will he, yet again, like on so many occasions under this government, fail the accountability and transparency test?
Minister, is it the case the Albanese government has been so reckless that it doesn't actually know how much land and wildlife habitat has been approved for clearance for renewable projects under...
Minister, is it the case the Albanese government has been so reckless that it doesn't actually know how much land and wildlife habitat has been approved for clearance for renewable projects under its watch? Or is it, as seems more likely, that the primary reason the government has continued to refuse to provide figures is that it knows the numbers would further expose the complete environmental hypocrisy at the centre of its renewables agenda?
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Minister, on multiple occasions last year, your predecessor as environment minister was asked by the coalition in...
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Minister, on multiple occasions last year, your predecessor as environment minister was asked by the coalition in question time and in OPDs to provide the number of hectares of native vegetation and wildlife habitat approved to be cleared for renewable energy projects in the years of the Albanese government. Naturally, this information goes to the very heart of the government's environmental credibility or otherwise. So, Minister, why to this day has the government still refused to release that data?
Child Care | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
That is not correct. It's a federal regulation that covers that matter. The future of those two childcare centres lies at the tip of your pen, and your implementation of recommendation 5.3 would...
That is not correct. It's a federal regulation that covers that matter. The future of those two childcare centres lies at the tip of your pen, and your implementation of recommendation 5.3 would save those two centres from closing. When are you going to complete that work?
Recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission's report recommended supporting multisite services. The Abracadabra family day care centre in Latrobe caters for 33 children over 25 families....
Recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission's report recommended supporting multisite services. The Abracadabra family day care centre in Latrobe caters for 33 children over 25 families. The Addisons childcare centre in Spreyton caters for 50 children over 37 families, and the nonimplementation of recommendation 5.3 means those centres will have to close. (Time expired)