Tim Storer's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation | Adjournment | Senate debates
In an era of fake news, the ABC stands out like a beacon in Australia's media landscape. A public opinion survey by the Roy Morgan organisation is but the latest to confirm that the ABC is by far...
In an era of fake news, the ABC stands out like a beacon in Australia's media landscape. A public opinion survey by the Roy Morgan organisation is but the latest to confirm that the ABC is by far the nation's most trusted media organisation. For example, the survey found that, while close to half of all Australians—47 per cent, to be precise—distrust social media, just nine per cent distrust the ABC. Eighty per cent of those polled trust the ABC, telling the Morgan organisation that their trust is driven by its lack of bias and by its impartiality, quality journalism and ethics. Australians expect not only for their ABC to be independent but for the national broadcaster's management and board to protect that independence. The events of last August and September—the sacking of Michelle Guthrie and the subsequent resignation of Justin Milne—at the very least undermine the confidence of Australians that the board and the managing director were defending the ABC's independence. Indeed, Mr Milne has acknowledged that he saw himself as a conduit between the government and the ABC. By his own evidence to the Senate inquiry into allegations of political interference in the ABC, which I participated in, and in interviews, he acknowledged his concerns about the impact on ABC funding of the reporting of some of the corporation's most senior journalists and of triple j's decision to shift its Hottest 100 broadcast. In 2012, parliament passed amendments to the ABC Act designed to enhance the independence, integrity and transparency in the process for appointing directors to the ABC Board. This government has had a habit of ignoring the spirit of that legislation. Three appointees to the board by this government were not recommended by the independent nomination panel. A fourth was highly rated by the panel but then withdrew from the process, but was subsequently appointed by the minister. As evidence to the inquiry indicated, the approach to appointments by this government may have directly led to the problem centring on Mr Milne and Ms Guthrie. Only one member of the board had direct media experience. None, apart from the staff-elected director, had experience in public broadcasting. Despite all that and despite the impression of many Australians that the government did put pressure on the ABC on many occasions, the Prime Minister again ignored the spirit of the appointment process, with a captain's pick for the position of ABC Board chair. Ita Buttrose does appear to be better qualified than any other recent appointment. But, in the circumstances, I believe it would have been better if she had gone through the independent nomination process. The fact that she was not approached does not necessarily point to deficiencies in the appointment process. It may well have been a consequence of deficiencies in the approach taken by the executive search firm. This is one reason I readily endorse the inquiry's recommendation to enhance the transparency and accountability of the nomination panel. Equally, I also endorse the recommendation to require the Prime Minister to table a statement advising the parliament on the extent and outcome of consultations with the Leader of the Opposition on board appointments. No process will be perfect, but the more transparency the better, especially in light of the events surrounding Mr Milne and Ms Guthrie. I would like to take note of the recommendation in this report acknowledging the benefit and desirability of stable funding as a guard in part against political interference. The ABC would like a five-year cycle rather than a three-year cycle, and they may well be right. However, I believe it is even more important to guard against out-of-cycle cuts to the ABC budget. Since this government came to office in 2013, the ABC has had its base funding cut by at least $340 million, according to the MEAA. No organisation can plan for its future on that basis. In my view, it would be wise for the national broadcasters, SBS as well as the ABC, to make public their funding requirements ahead of the budget cycle. The government should be required to then respond. That would be no guarantee of certainty, but at least, if there were out-of-cycle cuts, the responsibility and consequences could be well and truly sheeted home. The ABC is the nation's most trusted and valued cultural institution. I sincerely hope that we will never see its independence challenged again by a government in the way we have seen in recent years and that the inquiry we undertook, in which we delivered a majority committee report, will help ensure that this is the case.
Statement and Documents | Budget | Senate debates
Fairness is not a proposition that comes readily to the mind of ministers in this government, as this budget once again reminds us. The Treasurer's overnight backflip on the energy assistance...
Fairness is not a proposition that comes readily to the mind of ministers in this government, as this budget once again reminds us. The Treasurer's overnight backflip on the energy assistance payment is yet more evidence of this government's insensitivity to the need to enhance fairness and reverse inequality. That insensitivity comes at a time when many Australians on low and middle incomes are confronted with sluggish wages as they struggle with their food and power bills. I did, of course, vote for the energy assistance payment today. But I was appalled that, when the payment was unveiled in the lead-up to the budget yesterday, people on Newstart were explicitly excluded and—if that's not bad enough—that the value of Newstart and associated payments has not increased in real terms in a quarter of a century. Some of the poorest people in the community were to be denied help to keep themselves warm and cook their food. Overnight, the government thought better of its stinginess, not because it genuinely cares about the most unfortunate in our society but because there is an election around the corner. Something is better than nothing, but a one-off payment of $75 is little more than a slap in the face to the less well-off in our community, who have been struggling with rises of much, much more in their energy bills in recent years. It is also a tacit acknowledgement that the price of energy is too high for comfort for most consumers. Despite that, this budget contains no measures to seriously address the issue. Australians are paying a high price, literally, for the failure of this government to get its act together on energy and climate change. It shows how little the government cares for the future health of the environment or for the wellbeing and prosperity of the generation of Australians now voting for the first time. How else do you explain the fact that the government still won't rule out wasting taxpayers' money underwriting new coal-fired power generation? This is despite the fact that renewables are the cheapest form of new power generation in Australia. With our old, inefficient, increasingly unreliable and expensive coal-powered fleet set to retire in coming years, the government should be doing more to encourage new clean energy generation. On that score, the government should be using competitive market-based approaches and not picking winners, as it has shown a tendency to do. My home state of South Australia has an incredible contribution to make in this field. But what we have in the wake of the budget is a one-off payment of $75, rather than long-term policies to encourage the development of cleaner and cheaper power into the future. Young voters in particular are understandably fed up with this appalling lack of leadership on climate and energy policy from this government—so don't be surprised if, when they come to vote in a few weeks time, younger voters take it out on the final remnants of the boomer generation who are still in charge of policy in Canberra. But the story of the energy assistance payment is not the only indication that fairness has been far from top of mind for the government in the budget or elsewhere. In fact, last night's budget is a tacit admission from the government that last year's personal tax cut package offered too much to the well-off and did not do enough to assist low- and middle-income wage earners. The decision to give priority to the less well-off in the community in last night's tax program vindicates my decision to oppose stages 2 and 3 of the original package last June. On that score, I'm pleased the Prime Minister and Treasurer are seeing their way to double the maximum relief provided by the low- and middle-income tax offset which was part of stage 1 of the original tax package. It was a course I argued for last year, and I am pleased that in some measure the government accepted my conclusions. However, I am disappointed that the revamping of stages 2 and 3 now will see even more benefit for people on higher incomes but little for the less well off. We can get a sense of the government's long-term priorities by looking at their numbers: $19 billion through the forward estimates is the cost of tax relief for low- and middle-income earners. But to get an idea of just how much the overall tax package favours the well off we need only go to the 10-year figure: fully $300 million. The time is long overdue for Australians to be rewarded with a government and parliament that put fairness right at the top of the agenda. In developing policy, fairness ought to be the first thought, not an afterthought. The government's initial apathy on energy assistance was bad enough, but I am even more disappointed that neither the government nor Labor is prepared to commit to an increase in the criminally low level of Newstart, which has not increased in real terms for fully a quarter of a century under any government, both sides included. In a nation as prosperous as Australia, this is simply a disgrace. At its current level of just $40 a day, Newstart and associated payments condemn many jobseekers to a life of poverty without the means to seek work in a realistic fashion, which is, after all, their primary purpose. From my earliest days in the Senate last year, I have used every opportunity and avenue to advocate for an increase in Newstart and associated payments to a more humane, realistic level—not generous but realistic. More than once I have supported the push from ACOSS and others for an increase of $75 a week—just over $10 a day. That would hardly buy a sandwich and a milkshake, to use the Amanda Vanstone index. It's not just ACOSS leading the charge; to her credit, Jennifer Westacott from the Business Council of Australia has been advocating an increase for some years now. As she has repeatedly pointed out, at just $40 a day Newstart has itself become a barrier to effective jobseeking. What a bizarre and perverse contradiction: a payment supposed to get people back into work is actually making it harder because the level is so low that jobseekers cannot afford clothes to make themselves presentable or bus tickets to get to job interviews. Then there's John Howard, who says that the Newstart freeze has gone on too long. I am not forgetting his former chief of staff, now Senator Arthur Sinodinos, who, in various capacities, has been at the centre of more fiscal reform and budget preparation than anyone else here. On Monday he told Q&A on the ABC that over time it should be higher—cautious, for sure, but we get the message and so should his coalition colleagues. Modelling by respected economist Chris Richardson of Deloitte Access Economics last year estimated that an increase of $75 a week would cost the budget $3.3 billion but produce a prosperity dividend mainly through increased spending of $4 billion and also provide a significant fairness dividend—targeted at low-income earners, of course, and especially in regional areas. It sounds like a pretty sensible transaction, especially when the budget papers indicate consumption is sluggish. So it's appalling that neither major party is prepared to commit to a Newstart increase that would stop many people living in poverty as they try to get a job. Maybe there aren't enough votes among the jobseekers. If that is the calculation of the major parties, they ought to stand condemned. The government is very pleased with itself that, if current economic trends continue, all debt will be paid off by 2030. Perhaps the Prime Minister and the Treasurer might take a moment to thank those crossbenchers in the Senate who braved their scorn last June for opposing the full suite of the government's proposed company tax cuts. Not only did we save the budget $35 billion in revenue forgone but the money saved is also making a massive contribution to the task of reducing debt. Calculations by the Australia Institute today estimate that fully $90 billion of the projected reduction from the current net debt level of $374 billion over the next 10 years comes from the fact that the tax cuts to the big end of town were defeated in the Senate last year. It's another reminder of the value of the crossbench to the Senate. The government seem to be slow learners, because this budget now bakes in tax cuts worth $300 billion for a decade, regardless of economic circumstances and their lack of fairness. The symbolism is stark, as is the absence of any real action in the budget to make Australia a cleaner and healthier place for the generations who will follow us, who will have to clean up the mess we have made of the environment. The generations who follow us will pay a heavy price for the government's years of inaction, opposition and internal conflict over real action on climate change, just as they may for rash commitments to tax cuts to the well-off two and three elections into the future.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
by leave—I wish to put on record my support of the Greens amendments.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
If any more evidence were needed of this government's insensitivity to the need to enhance fairness our society, it came with the Treasurer's overnight backflip on the energy assistance payment....
If any more evidence were needed of this government's insensitivity to the need to enhance fairness our society, it came with the Treasurer's overnight backflip on the energy assistance payment. Like many others, I was appalled that it was denied to people on Newstart. As if it's not bad enough that the value of Newstart and associated payments has not increased in real terms in a quarter of a century, some of the poorest people in the community were to be denied help to keep themselves warm and to cook their food. Overnight, the government thought better of its stinginess. It was not because it genuinely cares about the most unfortunate in our society but because there is an election around the corner. Something is better than nothing, but a one-off payment of $75 is tantamount to an insult to the less well-off in our community, who have been struggling with rises of much, much more than that in their energy bills in recent years. Australians are paying a high price, literally, for the failure of this government to get its act together on energy and climate change. The $365 million for one-off energy assistance payments is not evidence based policy. If the government were really taking the problem of energy bills seriously, it would spend that money on energy efficiency. Improving energy efficiency tackles an underlying cause of high energy bills, whereas the benefits of the one-off energy assistance payment will be short lived. My bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving the Energy Efficiency of Rental Properties) Bill 2018, would only cost $21 million to $29 million in total, in contrast to the $365 million. Importantly, my bill would offer not simply temporary stimulus but long-lasting benefits, despite its modest costs. It not only cuts power bills for some of the most needy but cuts consumption as well—win-win. The bill was designed to help those worse off in our society, those who have been left behind by successive energy policies. It is narrowly targeted at renters, who could benefit most from energy efficiency but have been forgotten. The energy debate in Australia is stubbornly focused on the supply side, on prices, but the demand side, energy efficiency, lacks sufficient scrutiny despite overwhelming evidence of its benefits to reduce energy bills. Energy efficiency offers the single greatest, simplest mechanism to cut energy bills not just over one quarter but over decades. According to a report released earlier this year by Green Energy Markets, energy efficiency investment could slash $7.7 billion per year from energy bills and create the equivalent of 120,000 new full-time jobs. Taking the problem of energy bills seriously requires careful policy development, not a desperate, last-minute cash splash. Taking the problem of energy bills seriously must involve a national energy efficiency strategy. The scale of the problem is too large and important for energy efficiency to be an afterthought. Policies that promote sustainability and give relief and hope to those who need it most should be supported. While I support this bill, I do so reservedly, noting that there are better policy options available that would do far more in much better ways. Evidence based policies that would have lasting impacts on reducing energy bills have been put aside in favour of simplistic, insulting policies like this bill. How fair is that? Hardly fair.
Parliamentary Transparency Charter | Motions | Senate debates
Public confidence in our federal politics is at an all-time low. With scandal after scandal involving corruption, misuse of public funds, political donations, unregulated lobbyists and attacks on...
Public confidence in our federal politics is at an all-time low. With scandal after scandal involving corruption, misuse of public funds, political donations, unregulated lobbyists and attacks on whistleblowers, it's no wonder people are fed up. My parliamentary transparency charter aims to improve the integrity of, and public confidence in, our national government. It represents common sense, achievable and deeply needed reform. Sixteen crossbenchers from both the House and the Senate, representing different ideological backgrounds, have signed the charter and committed to pursuing its reform. The public should know who they are: Cathy McGowan; Andrew Wilkie; Adam Bandt; Senators Griff, Patrick and Burston; and all nine senators from the Australian Greens. If the crossbenchers can put aside our differences and recognise that this reform is needed in our politics, why can't the major parties? To be clear, this motion would pass if just one of the major parties voted for it; we would have the numbers. In the lead-up to the election, the public will know who in this chamber is committed to meaningful reform that will restore belief in our federal politics and who is not. I implore my Senate colleagues to realise— (Time expired)
I move: Parliamentary Transparency Charter Preamble Transparency is essential for a well-functioning democracy. The (House of Representatives and the) Senate commit to pursuing the following...
I move: Parliamentary Transparency Charter Preamble Transparency is essential for a well-functioning democracy. The (House of Representatives and the) Senate commit to pursuing the following transparency reforms to improve the integrity of, and public confidence in, our national government. Reforms National Integrity Commission Establish an independent National Integrity Commission to oversee the activities of public officials and empowered to conduct public hearings and make public findings of fact. Real-time disclosure of political donations above $1,000 Amend political donation laws to require disclosure of donations above $1,000 by recipients in as close to 'real-time' as practical. Enhanced freedom of information arrangements Boost funding to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and FOI units within departments and agencies and improve FOI review processing times. Enhanced whistleblower protections Further consolidate the whistleblower protection regime and enhance existing whistleblower protections. Overhaul lobbyist rules Legislate lobbying code of conduct and require lobbyists to disclose who they meet with and the subject matter of their meeting on a monthly basis. Expand lobbyist register to include in-house lobbyists. Conduct standards for parliamentarians Develop a Statement of Parliamentarian Standards, modelled on the Statement of Ministerial Standards, applicable to all parliamentarians. Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner Establish an independent Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner, empowered to enforce standards of parliamentary conduct, oversee interest disclosure requirements and deal with allegations of misuse of public funds, blatant falsehoods in political advertising, and breaches of lobbyist rules. (2) That this resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives for concurrence. I seek leave to make a short statement and to table a document.
Anning, Senator Fraser; Censure | Motions | Senate debates
I rise to speak in support of this censure motion. I was shocked and appalled by Senator Anning's disgraceful comments in the wake of the Christchurch tragedy. He is an embarrassment to our...
I rise to speak in support of this censure motion. I was shocked and appalled by Senator Anning's disgraceful comments in the wake of the Christchurch tragedy. He is an embarrassment to our country and to this parliament. We must take this opportunity to rise as one and show that he does not speak for Australia, that he does not speak for this Senate. More broadly, it's time to draw a line in the sand. The Islamophobic race baiting and dog whistling engaged in by some politicians, commentators and media outlets must stop. If there's one thing the Christchurch tragedy should teach us, it is that there are real-world consequences to this behaviour. It's time for those of us with megaphones, those of us in positions of power and influence, to reflect deeply on the impact of our words. We must rise above the politics of religious and racial division and disunity; it has no place in a modern, tolerant, multicultural society. I stand here as a passionate supporter of multicultural Australia. Our diversity and differences are what makes us strong and vibrant, and should be celebrated and embraced. Let us send a message to all those who wish to divide us, to tear us apart, that we are united and proud of our diversity and we will fight like hell to defend it.
Rearrangement | Business | Senate debates
I seek to insert an amendment to Senator Wong's amendment to government business notice of motion No. 1, which I believe has just been circulated in the chamber, relating to the Parliamentary...
I seek to insert an amendment to Senator Wong's amendment to government business notice of motion No. 1, which I believe has just been circulated in the chamber, relating to the Parliamentary Transparency Charter: After subparagraph (aa)(iii), insert: (iv) general business notice of motion no. 1446, relating to a Parliamentary Transparency Charter;
Federal Election, Independents | Adjournment | Senate debates
The strength of our democratic institutions is underpinned by trust and integrity, but those values have been compromised and systemically undermined. The major parties have grown complacent and...
The strength of our democratic institutions is underpinned by trust and integrity, but those values have been compromised and systemically undermined. The major parties have grown complacent and entitled. Those values have been used as political footballs by those putting their short-term interests above those they represent. With scandal after scandal involving corruption, misuse of public funds, political donations, unregulated lobbyists and attacks on whistleblowers, it's no wonder people are fed up. It's no wonder that public confidence in our politics is at an all-time low. We've lost confidence because our system allows powerful lobby groups to donate millions to political parties, without public disclosure of that funding until months and, previously, years after an election. We've lost confidence because our system allows lobbyists who are employed by companies or peak bodies to go completely unregulated, as they fall outside our lobbying register. Interests of well-resourced big business and unions should not be prioritised over the public interest. We've lost confidence because our private sector leaders are held to a higher standard of behaviour—through directors' duties—than our publicly elected officials, who have no equivalent explicit duties imposed upon them. We've lost confidence because our system does not enforce the requirement that ministers wait at least 18 months after leaving cabinet before becoming a lobbyist in their former ministerial portfolio. Voters are disillusioned, angry and seeking change. We can and must win back their trust. As the 45th Parliament draws to a close, it is timely to reflect on the contribution of Independents to the political process. In 2016, more than one in four Australians voted for someone other than the major parties. In this election, over 20 Independents have already announced that they will contest the election. Major parties have overlooked many issues important to Australians, not because they don't have merit—not because they wouldn't improve the lives of Australians—but simply because there is no political imperative. Even as the major parties are reluctant to restore the faith of voters in our democracy, the Independents have been stepping up as a viable alternative, making far-reaching improvements to policymaking. Our parliament is improved by the presence of Independents who can vote based on evidence, based on the best interests of their communities and the country, not on outdated, inflexible ideology. Independents in both houses don't just play a key role as a check and balance to government policy—though that is critical. They are also ideally placed to voice and deliver on issues that are important to the public and their local communities but that have been ignored by the major parties. Just look at the successful examples of stalwart Independents like Cathy McGowan, Tony Windsor and Andrew Wilkie. If you agree that politics in this country is fundamentally broken, that the most important decisions of government are being made by people who don't represent your views, then do yourself a favour and, in the lead-up to the election, take some time to see what your local Independent candidate is all about. Weigh them up and give them an honest assessment. If you find that you agree with their policies, that your views align with theirs, that they speak for you, then you should go one step further—you should vote for them. I truly believe that, if more of us voted for Independents, we would fundamentally improve the way politics is done in this country. It's not a party; it's a principle. Vote Independent. I have been fortunate enough to be a member of the Senate for close to 500 days. I pledged that I would review every issue on its merits and on the basis of the evidence. I promised that I would not trade my vote for side benefit. I have been as good as my word, and I hope to have contributed to the standard of debate and the quality of legislation. I am proud of the fact, for example, that I opposed the company tax package proposed by the government, reducing the impact on the budget by $36 billion over the next decade. It makes the task of restoring the budget balance that much easier and means more money is available for infrastructure—roads, hospitals and schools—which, the best evidence suggests, not only improves the quality of life of our community but also produces jobs and growth more quickly than tax cuts. Equally, I'm proud of opposing stages 2 and 3 of the government's income tax cuts. They will do little for the less well-off and too much for the well-off, who should not be a priority when people on low and middle incomes are struggling to pay their electricity and food bills. It does appear that the government has got the message, with steps taken in tonight's budget to do more for the less well-off. I am proud to have argued for an increase of $75 a week to Newstart, and I am disappointed that neither the government nor the ALP is prepared to commit to such action. It is a disgrace that the level of Newstart has been unchanged in real terms for a quarter of a century, leaving many jobless, living in poverty and unable to effectively seek work. I am proud of co-sponsoring legislation to give people on Nauru and PNG access to the medical care qualified professionals believe they need, rather than leaving the decision in the hands of politicians and public servants. The legislation does not undermine the sovereignty of our borders, and to date there is no sign the people-smuggling trade has resumed. I am proud to have instigated the inquiry into electric vehicles, which I chaired. Australia has been asleep at the wheel, left behind comparable countries in the take-up of EVs. My recommendations establish a pathway to enable Australia to catch up, and I am pleased that the ALP has drawn on my work to develop credible policy. There are many other issues where I and other Independents have made real improvements to the quality of politics and raised issues which otherwise would not have had an airing—for example, the plight of the Murray-Darling; the threat of an oil spill in the Great Australian Bight; the cruelty of the live sheep export trade; the benefits of energy efficiency for low-income people who rent; pressing the case for legislation on modern slavery; enhancing the integrity, independence and transparency of the ABC board process; recognition of the Uluru Statement from the Heart; the Closing the Gap disappointments; and the frontier wars in our history. Many of these issues are of great concern to Australian voters, but the fact remains that the level of scrutiny and quality of solutions proposed to those issues would never have happened without the significant support of Independents. That highlights the deficit of integrity in our political system. The major parties have been taking Australian voters for granted. This week, I am introducing in the Senate a suite of reforms for greater transparency, accountability and integrity in our political system through a parliamentary transparency charter. By pursuing such reform, we are holding those who wish to engage in behaviour that undermines the very fabric of our democracy to account. Our major parties should realise that ensuring confidence in democracy by pursuing reform in these areas is more important than what may be discovered within their ranks, and they should support my reforms. But, yet again, it looks like the major parties have put these reforms in the too-hard basket, and it is Independents and the other crossbenchers who are taking the lead. I'm pleased to report that 17 crossbenchers from both the House and the Senate have signed onto my charter just today. I invite other members of parliament to follow their lead and commit to improving our parliament's transparency and integrity. I stand for a parliament that is for unity and hope and that truly and fairly represents all Australians, not just party insiders or inflexible ideologues. It's time to clean up our parliament and restore public trust and confidence in our democratic institutions. In the lead-up to this election, we should be demanding a higher standard from our elected officials. If you're fed up with the way politics is done in this country, the answer is simple: vote Independent.
I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019. In an era where the Indo-Pacific is the centre of world power politics,...
I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019. In an era where the Indo-Pacific is the centre of world power politics, it is more important than ever for Australia to step up its engagement in the region. Australia prides itself on being a regional player, working closely with our neighbours in aid, trade, security and investment. For this reason, any efforts by Australia to increase investment in our Indo-Pacific partners for the betterment of our region is welcome. I therefore applaud what this bill hopes to achieve. Targeted and comprehensive investment in our region will only improve Australia's relationship with our neighbours. This is certainly in Australia's best interests. However, any efforts made to invest in our region must also be compliant with two simple principles. First, any investment must be not only in Australia's interests but also in the interests of the recipient country. It is antithetical for us to invest in our neighbours if such investments actually end up hurting our neighbours. Second, we must comply with our international obligations. Australia is a strong and steadfast proponent of rules based international order when on the world stage. We hurt our legitimacy and integrity if we advocate for one thing and then do another. Unfortunately, the bill in its current form falls short of these two principles. For this reason, I propose two amendments which aim to rectify these shortcomings. First, the bill as it currently stands only requires that investments are in Australia's interests. This is insufficient. We must ensure our investments in the region are not only in our interests but in the long-term interests of our neighbours. We cannot expect this bill to help Australia build stronger regional relationships if we don't ensure that our investments actually assist our neighbours. For this reason, my proposed amendment would require a suitable legal, administrative and policy framework for any investment. It would also remove the requirement for maximum Australian benefits to be sought from any investment. This requirement hurts Australia's reputation in the region. Whilst the likelihood of Australian benefits should also be a consideration, maximising the benefit to Australia should not be the overarching consideration for investments. Second, it is concerning that the Australian Senate wishes to pass a bill which allows us to undermine our legally binding commitments under the Paris Agreement when we invest in our overseas partners. Under article 2 of the Paris Agreement, Australia committed to: Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. Any investments Efic makes under these new arrangements should be consistent with this commitment. The truth is that Australia is a wealthy nation that has the capacity to help its neighbours develop clean, suitable energy and infrastructure. To pass this bill without a requirement that we comply with our commitments under the Paris Agreement would undermine our commitment to the rules based international order. It would also be a missed opportunity to help our neighbours develop sustainable infrastructure. For this reason, my second amendment would require investments to be consistent with achieving the aims, objectives and obligations of the climate change conventions passed in Paris. It is a shame that such issues were not more deeply considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry. The truth is that the committee rushed the process, notably not even holding public hearings. For a reform as significant as this bill, this is simply unacceptable. Having worked in Vietnam for the World Bank and in other countries in our region and in other private sectors, I am completely committed to targeted, comprehensive and meaningful investment by Australia in the Asia-Pacific's development. But any such investment must always comply with our international obligations and must seek to not only benefit Australia but also benefit the recipient of any such investment. For this reason, I am pleased that Australia seeks to invest more widely in the region. However, I am disappointed that a structure we have chosen to use to facilitate such investment, as laid out in this bill, has clear shortcomings, which has the potential to lead to worse outcomes for our region and Australia's reputation at large.
Christchurch: Attacks | Condolences | Senate debates
I rise to provide my wholehearted support of the many wonderful words that have been said today by all of the senators who have spoken. For some, it's been quite emotional—for us here in...
I rise to provide my wholehearted support of the many wonderful words that have been said today by all of the senators who have spoken. For some, it's been quite emotional—for us here in this chamber and for those listening. I've been a passionate advocate of multiculturalism in Australia, through not just my life here in Australia but also in our region and beyond. I'm very much brought to also consider the sister city status of my home town, Adelaide, as a further indication to me and others in Adelaide of the fact that there is no 'other' when we consider what occurred in Christchurch. It is 'us', because we in Adelaide are a sister city and have exactly the same community within our multicultural state and have similar brothers and sisters, friends, long-term South Australians and new arrivals. I wish, therefore, to send out—as has been done today already—messages of love and peace after this senseless act. This is an opportunity, as we have seen in the last weeks, for the power of love to transcend the senseless vicissitudes of hate. I have welcomed the opportunity to speak here today on behalf of myself but also of the many others in this chamber and the people I know that have been affected by this tragedy. Thank you.
Closing the Gap; Consideration | Documents | Senate debates
I would like to begin by acknowledging the Ngunawal people, as the traditional owners of the land upon which we stand, and the Kaurna people, as the traditional owners of the land on which my...
I would like to begin by acknowledging the Ngunawal people, as the traditional owners of the land upon which we stand, and the Kaurna people, as the traditional owners of the land on which my office in Adelaide sits, and pay respect to their elders past and present. I also acknowledge all First Nations people in this and the other place. Eleven statements, and yet on some of the most important indicators we are not even close to meeting the targets adopted more than a decade ago. On the current trajectory, for example, we cannot expect Indigenous Australians to live as long as the rest of the community, nor that child mortality rates will fall to the level the rest of us can expect. Just two of the seven goals are now on track, one less than last year. How are we going backwards despite pledges from all sides of politics to make sure that the people who have inhabited this continent for at least 60,000 years enjoy the same quality of life as the rest of us? In 21st-century Australia, after more than a quarter of a century of unbroken economic growth and increased prosperity, this is simply a disgrace. As both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged, it is simply not good enough. Words are one thing, as are intentions, but it is actions that count. We have made the pledges but failed to produce the results. I agree with the Prime Minister that this is unforgiveable and appreciate his honesty in admitting that he does not know when Indigenous children will have the same opportunity as any other child in this community, but it is an indictment of us all. I'm pleased the report acknowledges that a top-down approach was set up to fail and that a strength based, community led approach will form a critical foundation for future work. I'm also pleased that the government has endorsed the expansion of small, family and medium-sized Indigenous businesses to tackle the Indigenous employment gap. More must be done on this score. As I noted in my first speech, the Commonwealth's Indigenous procurement policy should be adopted by all levels of government and by more companies to drive demand for Indigenous goods and services and grow the Indigenous business sector. I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to waive the HECS debts of teachers who spend more than four years working in remote Australia. This is a practical step which may encourage more teachers to spend more time with their Indigenous pupils. This initiative is essential but not sufficient, given that most Indigenous students live outside remote Australia, in the cities and towns of our nation. Education, knowledge and skills are the keys to a better life. They may not be the sole determinants, but, without them, it is that much harder. A good start would be to commit to the suggestion of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples that we start to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents, carers, elders and leaders at the local level to create an education system which is culturally safe, inclusive and relevant. If some of the nation's most eminent Indigenous leaders think they are not being listened to, what hope have we got? As I said in my first speech last year, it is shameful that, by percentage, more of our First Nations people are in jail than any other indigenous group in the world. I agree with the opposition leader that it remains true that men and women are being arrested and jailed not because of the gravity of their offence but because of the colour of their skin. As Martin Luther King Jr put it all of those years ago: he dreamed of a nation where his children would not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I also applaud the opposition leader for his candid challenge. As he put it, 'If this parliament cannot acknowledge that racism exists in 2019, we are just wasting the time of the First Australians today.' I pledge to redouble my efforts to do all I can to ensure that the aspirations of the First Australians for a referendum are realised. As I said in my first speech, the historic hand of reconciliation extended to our parliament through the Uluru Statement from the Heart remains unmet. I support calls for a First Nations voice in parliament enshrined in our Constitution and for a makarrata commission to supervise a process of truth telling and agreement making. We further need to officially acknowledge the Frontier Wars, as well as incorporate them as a central element of our school curricular, and to review the Frontier Wars being formally acknowledged at the Australian War Memorial. We must recognise that the First Nations people fought gallantly to defend their lands in the face of European invasion. I also believe that true reconciliation requires becoming a republic and a review on changing our flag. Importantly, this year's Closing the Gap report is yet another reminder that we are failing our First Nations people and that we must redouble our efforts to address the root causes of persistent inequality. It is time to take a stand and succeed where previously we have failed.
Murray-Darling Basin | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
What is the point of legislating oversight of the operation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan by the Productivity Commission if the government wilfully ignores their recommendations?
Will the government proceed with the structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, as recommended by the Productivity Commission, to prevent conflicts of interest?
The topic of my question was chosen by South Australian voters and is to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Today the Senate agreed that the government...
The topic of my question was chosen by South Australian voters and is to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Today the Senate agreed that the government should immediately respond to each and every recommendation proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and the Productivity Commission's review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. When will the government respond to each and every recommendation proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and the Productivity Commission?
Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission | Motions | Senate debates
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1374 relating to the Murray-Darling Basin and standing in my name for today by replacing the word 'adopt' in paragraph (b)(i) with the...
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1374 relating to the Murray-Darling Basin and standing in my name for today by replacing the word 'adopt' in paragraph (b)(i) with the words 'immediately respond' and adding the words 'and the Productivity Commission's review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan' to the end of the sentence. Leave granted. I move the motion ad amended: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Murray-Darling Basin needs more water to ensure its survival, the latest evidence of this being the fish-kills at Menindee Lakes, (ii) the management of the Murray-Darling Basin requires urgent reform, (iii) the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission delivered its findings on 29 January 2019, including recommendations to: (A) improve transparency by "requiring real-time data sharing and publication on water extractions", (B) abolish the water buybacks cap of 1,500 gigalitres, and (C) undertake further research into return flows so that we know the effects of irrigation efficiency projects, and (iv) the Productivity Commission delivered its findings to the Federal Government on 19 December 2018, pointing out that: (A) the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's twin roles as overseer of the Plan and its regulator are "conflicted and the conflicts will intensity in the next five years", and (B) structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority into a Basin Plan Regulator and Murray-Darling Basin Agency is required to ensure effective implementation of the Plan; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to: (i) immediately respond to each and every recommendation proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and the Productivity Commission's review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and (ii) proceed with the structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, as proposed by the Productivity Commission.
Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018; Returned from the House of Representatives | Bills | Senate debates
I rise to speak in favour of the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. These sick people in our care are now one step closer to getting the quality medical...
I rise to speak in favour of the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. These sick people in our care are now one step closer to getting the quality medical treatment they need without jeopardising our borders. I welcome the comments made by Senator Hinch and Senator McKim just now. I'm pleased to be part of a process which has seen the Australian parliament really at its best in that none of those involved in the discussions which led to the amendments carried by the House of Representatives got everything they wanted. But members of a number of parties, as well as Independents, like myself, came together to achieve a result which should help sick people on Nauru and in PNG who are in our care get the medical attention they require. That's the key focus of the bill. These amendments would not have been necessary had the government not been using the courts to stop sick people coming from these countries to Australia for treatment on the advice of medical personnel. These amendments should now bring this heartless practice to an end and bring greater transparency and objectivity to the existing medical transfer process. We know that more than 800 sick people have already been brought to Australia for treatment without seeing the people-smuggling trade resume. There is no reason to believe that these amendments will change that, particularly with the changes agreed with the House crossbench yesterday. Let us all remember that the boat turn-back policy remains in place. The government should accept the decision of the majority of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate and allow these amendments through this chamber forthwith. The people of Australia will not thank them for any attempts to delay this considered and humane measure. I welcome the prospect of that measure today.
Australian Public Service | Adjournment | Senate debates
An efficient, professional and well-resourced public service is at the heart of a healthy democracy. Without it, people cannot get the services they expect and deserve, and respect for the...
An efficient, professional and well-resourced public service is at the heart of a healthy democracy. Without it, people cannot get the services they expect and deserve, and respect for the political process is likely to decline, as is respect for democracy itself. For these reasons, I believe in the value of a well-functioning and well-resourced public service. How can we solve the many challenges we face as a nation if we do not have the right people working in the public interest to identify policy solutions and programs to address those challenges? I am particularly concerned about the loss of corporate knowledge and the quality of services to the public associated with outsourcing. Between 2013 and 2017 Public Service staffing was cut by more than 14,000, with the government insisting that the level return to, and not exceed, the level of 2006-07. The irony is that this has not necessarily saved money. Over the same period, spending on external consultants has risen from a shade under $400 million to close to $700 million. Nor has it necessarily improved the quality or delivery of services. For example, there were problems with the 2016 census which undermined public confidence in this essential policy-making tool. The data it contains is critical in the development of the widest range of decisions affecting all Australians, from the provision of roads, schools and hospitals to the priorities for budget planning as the age profile of the Australian population changes. Who can forget the cost to the government's reputation of the robo-debt saga, Centrelink's automated debt recovery scheme, and the stress it caused some benefit recipients when it mismatched their employment and payment records? Public servants skilled and experienced in managing benefits would have identified inconsistencies within the computerised system. Targeted recipients would have suffered less anguish, the costs would have been lower and the government would not have suffered all the bad publicity—grief would have been avoided all around. For similar reasons, and to protect our national security, I am opposed to the privatisation of our visa services. I will do whatever I can to fight these measures. They are short-sighted and reduce the expertise of the Public Service. They have eroded the quality of service Australians have come to expect and in real terms have done little or nothing to reduce the cost to the taxpayer.
Select Committee on Electric Vehicles; Report | Committees | Senate debates
As chair of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles, it's my great pleasure to report to the Senate on the outcome of this important inquiry, and I move: That the Senate take note of the...
As chair of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles, it's my great pleasure to report to the Senate on the outcome of this important inquiry, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The seven-month inquiry held five public hearings, received 137 submissions and heard from 85 witnesses. It produced a consensus report, which was tabled on 30 January. It included 17 recommendations designed to help accelerate Australia's EV uptake and take advantage of the substantial opportunities the EV transformation presents. I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to the inquiry, including all of those who provided submissions, appeared as witnesses and hosted the committee on site visits. Special thanks to my fellow senators and our staff, and to our secretariat, led by Ann Palmer, who worked tirelessly to deliver this report. With the right leadership, Australia can truly capitalise on the global EV transformation, delivering benefits to the economy, the environment, motorists and public health. As a first step, I call on the government to move swiftly to implement the consensus recommendations of this inquiry agreed to by senators from the coalition, ALP and Australian Greens. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Murray-Darling Basin | Motions | Senate debates
We have the balance wrong. It's very clear. The Murray-Darling Basin needs more water to ensure its survival. The intent of the Water Act—to share savings between irrigators and the...
We have the balance wrong. It's very clear. The Murray-Darling Basin needs more water to ensure its survival. The intent of the Water Act—to share savings between irrigators and the Commonwealth on a fifty-fifty basis—should be returned to. Irrigators are the primary beneficiaries of a plan originally designed to increase flows to the environment to have a sustainable system. But the irrigators won't benefit for much longer if the river dries up. The Menindee Lakes fish kill will only be the start of much larger and regular catastrophic events. So we must reorientate the plan to fairly balance environmental sustainability of the system with economic concerns of individual irrigators. Management of the Murray-Darling Basin requires urgent reform. That reform must be pragmatic. We must improve the integrity of the plan carefully and methodically without putting the plan itself at risk. Reforms outlined by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission, delivered 29 January this year, include critically important recommendations to improve transparency by requiring real-time data sharing and publication on water extractions, and a call to abolish the water buyback cap of 1,500 gigalitres, which we're addressing today. It recommends to undertake further research into return flows, so that we know the effects of irrigation efficiency projects. The Productivity Commission also delivered its findings to the government, on 19 December last year, pointing out that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's twin roles as overseer of the plan and its regulator are conflicted and that the conflicts will intensify in the next five years. Structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority into a basin plan regulator and a Murray-Darling Basin agency is required to ensure effective implementation of the plan. That is per the Productivity Commission. I am encouraged that the Labor Party, the Greens and others are moving to abolish the water buybacks cap following the recommendation of the South Australian royal commission. I drafted an amendment to the Water Act to double the cap, which I had planned to introduce this week. The system needs more water to survive, and water buybacks have proven to be the most successful mechanism to achieve that aim. There is overwhelming evidence that water buybacks are cheaper, more reliable and more effective than other measures of water recovery. It's important to note that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder puts out a blind tender, and those who want to sell put an offer in—so Senator Ruston's analogy regarding Renmark and the irrigators there is not solid—yet, since 2013, water buybacks have stalled just below the 1,500 gigalitre cap imposed by the coalition government in 2015. I call upon the government to adopt each and every recommendation proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission, which includes abolishing the water buyback cap of 1,500 gigalitres, and to proceed with the structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority as proposed by the Productivity Commission. We must act now before it is too late, but we must act carefully and responsibly, putting the sustainability of the system above short-term political gains. I, for one, believe that is the priority.