Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a theme?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is indeed a theme, and it is a very clear one. That is that the answers given to the question, firstly, posed by Senator Johnston and, secondly, posed by Senator Cormann, relate to the impacts of decisions by the Western Australian government.

Off the north coast of Western Australia there exists a huge resource for this country in the Browse Basin that some estimate to be worth $1 trillion. It is no secret that Australia has enjoyed great wealth from the resources of this country. But in Western Australia we have a scandal of epic proportions, where two companies, Woodside and Inpex, have sought over the last years to get permission and approval from the Carpenter government in Western Australia to proceed with providing to Australia riches from those resources. Indeed, we have a situation where Inpex, due to the years of frustration due to indecision and delay by the Carpenter government, are now considering taking that onshore liquefied natural gas refinery to Darwin—and in that delay Australia has been denied the wealth from those resources which it otherwise could have enjoyed.

In Western Australia we have seen, as reported in the West Australian on 26 August, a denial by the Treasurer, Mr Ripper, that any decision has been made by Inpex to move that project to Darwin. It is interesting that, in the same report, that comment by Mr Ripper was not backed by Inpex. In fact, Inpex itself, on its website, has stated that it is drilling and carrying out work in Darwin in relation to a potential development of the project there. It is also interesting that in August this year Knight Frank, on page 16 in an information memorandum for the sale of a commercial property in Darwin, touted the value of this property by citing ‘the imminent announcement of the site for the Inpex gas processing facility’.

What we have here is a situation where Inpex is looking at moving its potential onshore development to Darwin. This would deprive the Kimberley in particular of great wealth, of jobs—in fact we have the statement from Colin Barnett, the WA Liberal leader, who said that jobs, tax revenue, a chance to guarantee more gas for domestic use and WA’s international reputation as a resource state were in danger of being lost if Japanese energy company Inpex built its $12 billion LNG export plant in Darwin rather than the Kimberley.

We are facing a cover-up here, because the state government in Western Australia knows that there is bad news as a result of its negligence, and it does not want the bad news to be known by the people of Western Australia before they go to the polls on Saturday. That is a disgrace. It is something which we are seeing from the Carpenter government—cover-ups and delays in decisions. In the West Australian on 26 August, there was an article which outlined and was entitled ‘The nine things you are unlikely to know before you vote in the state election on September 6’, and the Inpex decision was one of them.

It was interesting that Senator Carr referred to there having been no decision. Of course, when he was pressed by Senator Johnston, he said, ‘As far as I’m aware there is no decision.’ He realised he was on dangerous ground. He realises that in Western Australia there is a huge cover-up as to the reality of the situation.

Similarly, a question posed by Senator Cormann to Senator Ludwig was on a very important issue in Western Australia—the health crisis there. As reported in the West Australian, the  Perth’s hospital emergency departments are Australia’s most overcrowded and have dangerously long waiting times. Again, we saw that this government here has a complete lack of knowledge of that. In fact, when Senator Cormann asked whether the Carpenter government had requested more funding for this crisis, the spokesman for this federal government’s health minister was unable to answer, because there has been no request.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers provided today by government ministers. The Rudd government are acting now on climate change because it is a responsible thing to do. We need to act now for Australia’s long-term future, for our children’s future and to protect our economic security. The government are not sitting back with our feet up, nor are we turning our backs on a crisis, denying its existence, like many of those opposite did. The Rudd government are preparing for the challenges of the future by tackling climate change and securing our water supplies. Australians know that acting now on climate change is the responsible thing to do. Years of inaction by those opposite have put us in a crisis situation; we cannot afford to waste any more time.

The situation we face in the Murray-Darling Basin demonstrates clearly that any further delay on climate change is not an option. For nearly 12 years those opposite failed to prepare Australia for the tough challenges of the future. Today, we are confronting the problem of historic overallocation compounded by more than 10 years of drought, and a future where there will be less water in the Murray-Darling Basin as a result of climate change. Those opposite spent nearly 12 years denying climate change; nearly 12 years of inaction.

Unfortunately, this means that there is not enough water in the system right now to do everything that we would like to do. The needs of people reliant on the Murray for drinking water, irrigators and the environment are all in direct competition for the limited water available in the basin. In the short term, the critical water needs of people reliant on the Murray for drinking water must come first, and they include the residents of Adelaide. We are the first federal government to purchase water entitlements. We are investing $3.1 billion to do this. By using a suite of measures to purchase water entitlements now, we are ensuring that rivers get a greater share of water when it does rain. We are also investing $4.8 billion to make irrigation more efficient by reducing the amount of water lost through outdated, leaky infrastructure. This will make the nation’s food bowl more resilient to climate change by allowing us to use less water to grow food and fibre.

Reduced water availability caused by climate change means we need to be able to trade water to where it will provide the most benefit. The new independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority will put in place a much better system for managing the basin by delivering in the national interest. We need to look to the future, and that is what the Rudd Labor government is doing. We are acting now for Australia’s long-term future. We are preparing Australia for a stronger future. We are a government committed to nation building, making sure our economy emerges in strong shape from these tough international times so that we can provide jobs and security for working families into the future.

When this government was elected we inherited inflation running at a 16-year high. We inherited a record, from those opposite, of 10 interest rate rises in a row. We inherited families struggling to make ends meet. Ask them about the cumulative impact of 10 interest rate rises in a row. At the point the Rudd government took over, those interest rates were the second highest in the developed world. Inflation running at a 16-year high, 10 interest rate rises in a row and the second highest interest rates in the developed world: simply put, those are economic conditions that the government inherited from those who sit opposite.

The Rudd government is providing a secure future, making sure our economy emerges in strong shape from these difficult global economic times, providing quality jobs and security for families. Scrapping the Liberal’s unfair Work Choices laws— (Time expired)

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers by ministers. Today, in answers by ministers we heard that the Rudd Labor government is going to spend over $76 billion on nation building. Before I get into other comments I would like to ask: if we are economic vandals through giving back $6 billion to taxpayers, what does this make the government in spending $76 billion off the top of its budget?

One of the main arguments for the need for this spending is to stimulate an economy that is failing. Boy, does it need stimulating! Confidence—both business and consumer—is at record lows. That is right: whether you look at business confidence or consumer confidence, the measures today are at all-time lows. You have to go back to the ‘recession that we had to have’ in the 1980s to see confidence at the levels we have sunk to now.

Jobs are being lost. You see major employers right across the country—from Tasmania right up to Queensland and across to Western Australia—having to put people off work. I think if you added it up you would find that there are thousands across the country. This fits in. If you look at the National Australia Bank you find that their latest models predict that we will see unemployment in this nation rise to 5.5 per cent by the middle of next year. That is right: 5.5 per cent. That is an extra one per cent of unemployed people around the country. And that means real things to people. What is worse, if no action is taken unemployment will reach six per cent by the end of next year, according to the National Australia Bank model.

The National Australia Bank thinks that Treasury have similar figures, and so the government know this. I suspect that is why they are looking at spending money to try and stimulate the economy—because without action the outlook for our economy is very bleak indeed. Why are we facing this situation? What has happened to an economy that was the envy of the whole world, with record low unemployment, high levels of employment, and solid surpluses of between 1.5 per cent and 1.9 per cent of GDP? And, yes, it is worth noting that if the government had done nothing—changed no policy settings in this year’s budget—we would have experienced a surplus of roughly the same as has been delivered by the government: about $22 billion.

Why are we facing this situation? What has led to the economy turning around from such a strong situation late last year to a point where we are facing such a bleak outlook? The fact is that, immediately upon coming in, the government talked up interest rates in a climate of global turmoil. It looked for a political solution rather than an economic solution.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind Senator Sterle that interjections are disorderly, but they are even more disorderly when you are not in your seat.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hesitate to say it but I suspect that what actually happened here is that the newly elected government forgot that it was not in opposition and that it actually had to start governing. It continued to play politics rather than look at what would be the real economic solution. The country faces a crisis of confidence and that is what has led to the situation that we are currently facing. Yet, despite all the government’s blustering, posturing and attempts to rewrite history—I am coming back to the budget—its huge slashing of vital services and its $19.7 billion of new tax hikes over five years, it has still only delivered the same surplus that would have been delivered if the government had not got out of bed.

The government has been trumpeting about how much it was saving but it introduced a massive $34 billion in new spending—that is right: $34 billion. That is an amazing amount for a government that was selling a budget on the basis of how much it would reduce spending. It is important to remember that the robust, sound and enviously strong economy that was inherited by this government in November of last year is very different to that which we inherited in 1996. We really had cause to complain when we inherited that.

We had a $96 billion deficit upon coming into government, and here we have this government inheriting a $22 billion surplus without getting out of bed. We had $96 billion of debt—and that was in 1996 dollars. That was costing us $10 billion a year in interest—$10 billion a year that we could not spend on education and health. What is more, it took us 10 years to repay that. Over 10 years, we had to repay $96 billion in principal and service the interest costs over that time. Senator Conroy sits over there and talks about how we squandered the proceeds of the mining boom. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I particularly want to take note of the answer given during question time by Senator Wong, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, to a question from Senator Minchin. I note that that question was asked in the context of the Mayo by-election to be held shortly in South Australia.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cheap politics.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator Sterle. I find it very disturbing that such dire issues as the future of the lower lakes and future water security in my state of South Australia have become the political playthings of the opposition.

The Labor government have been absolutely up-front with the people of South Australia about the situation in the lower lakes and in particular we have been up-front in saying that there is no easy fix. I do not know how many times South Australian senators, and indeed the minister herself, have said in this place that there is no easy fix for the future of the lower lakes in South Australia, just as there is no easy fix for the whole situation in the Murray-Darling Basin. However, that does not stop the opposition from using this critical and very complex situation, which affects a great number of people in my state of South Australia, to wind people up and offer them false hope.

Dr Nelson, the Leader of the Opposition, appeared on a television program last night where he was asked questions about this issue and he could not quite work out whether he actually believed in climate change. It was particularly disturbing. Here we have the opposition using a dire situation, which gravely affects a lot of people, as a political football in a by-election that they are probably going to win anyway. We had the Leader of the Opposition unable to articulate a coherent position on whether climate change has affected the flows of water into the Murray, whether it is only the effect of drought or whether it is the effect of 100 years of mismanagement and overallocation of River Murray water. He does not seem to understand the situation. Nevertheless, the opposition come up with cheap tricks and stunts to use this issue to influence the outcome of an election that has possibly already been decided.

We see not just the opposition backbenchers but also the shadow ministers travelling up and down the length of the river promising different things to different people, depending on where they find themselves. In the lower lakes they say: ‘It is terrible. Those people upstream are stealing all your water. We know how to fix it. We will just get all of the water off them.’ When they are upstream the opposition say: ‘Those people in the lower lakes just have to cop it. We are going to protect you here upstream.’ They have no coherent plan to deal with the issue. They have no coherent idea how to grasp the significance of the problem and how to move forward on it.

Senator Wong today mentioned a very good submission that has been provided by her department to the inquiry being undertaken by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the Murray-Darling Basin. I urge people paying attention to this debate about the future of the Murray-Darling Basin to get hold of that submission because it clearly articulates the nature of the problem and some of the things that can be done to ameliorate the problem. It outlines quite clearly how many options there are but how difficult some of them are to implement. It outlines that nothing will work better than having more water in the system. That will have to come fundamentally from rainfall. Thank goodness, we have had increased rain in South Australia, and I understand the levels in the lower lakes have been increased by about 200 millimetres. This has given us some breathing time to determine whether to continue pumping water from one lake to another, to think about another of those hard issues—whether we release the barrages or not—and to think about whether there should be a dam at Wellington and the possible consequences of undertaking a major project like that. The submission outlines all of those options. (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I particularly want to take note of the answer given by the Special Minister of State. Prior to the November election last year and during that election we were promised by the Prime Minister a new era of openness and transparency where he would run a government that was of unquestionable bona fides. We have seen nothing since then except exactly the opposite. This is a man of all spin and no substance. We have seen Ruddism after Ruddism after Ruddism. What he said prior to the election and what he has delivered since are two entirely different matters.

The one thing that defines this government is the CMAX contract for Labor mates affair. In case the Senate needs reminding, I want to get on the record a few facts in relation to this matter. This was a contract for the 2020 Summit given to a company owned by the media adviser to the defence minister, Mr Christian Taubenschlag. There was no tender called for. One attendance by his wife at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and a $60,000 contract was given to that company. Was the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet ever made aware of the fact that this was a company owned by a senior cabinet staffer? No. At no stage were they told that. Was this contract ever put out to tender? No. Was this $60,000 contract given to a Labor mate from within the Prime Minister’s own office?

Since 29 February, when this occurred, the Labor Party has squirmed and squirmed and squirmed. This is a matter of extraordinary embarrassment to you. You know that this has come from deep within the Prime Minister’s office. You know that this does not pass the ‘smell’ test. Indeed, today, in a question from Senator Fierravanti-Wells, the Special Minister of State was again asked if the government staffing unit inquiry was abandoned in light of the commentary of the Auditor-General. I am not entirely sure why Senator Fierravanti-Wells, or I, or Senator Johnston and others should have to repeat this, but I will read it out again. This is a letter from Mr Ian McPhee from the ANAO. It says—and I will repeat it slowly in the off-chance that the Prime Minister’s office is listening or Senator Faulkner is listening:

The audit will have regard to the outcomes of the review being undertaken by the Government Staffing Committee in respect of the engagement process.

What could be clearer than that in relation to the process that the ANAO expects to be followed? They are waiting for the outcome of the government staffing unit and that will form part of their inquiry. The government is aware of it and the Prime Minister’s office is aware of it—because this is where it starts and finishes, in the Prime Minister’s office. And Senator Faulkner can attack us for alleging this is a cover-up! This is an absolute mother of a cover-up and it comes out of the man who preached openness and transparency. This is a quite clear indication from the Auditor that he wants the government staffing committee to report so it can form part of his inquiry into it. And by suspending that inquiry you have indeed attempted to foil the proper independent inquiry of the ANAO. You stand utterly condemned. As I said before, this starts in the Prime Minister’s office and it will finish in the Prime Minister’s office.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to answers to questions from Senator Trood and Senator Ludlam to the government in relation to the Australia-Russia uranium agreement. There is no-one in this chamber who can plead ignorance when this comes back to bite Australia very badly. Before the Australia-Russia agreement was signed last year, Garry Kasparov, who is a well-known and outspoken person in relation to human rights abuses in Russia, said very clearly that Australia should not assume Russia can be trusted with that uranium. He said that Australia would have to accept moral responsibility if Russia then on-sells the uranium to a rogue state or uses it for other than non-civil purposes.

“Should Australian uranium end up in the wrong hands—and it’s not too far-fetched to suggest that Russia under Putin is already in the wrong hands—Australia will not be able to act innocent or to claim ignorance,” Mr Kasparov said.

Last year, before this agreement was signed, I moved two motions in the Senate pointing out the human rights abuses and that the then President Putin had acted to shut down NGOs and was engaging once again in punitive psychiatry. He is actually putting dissidents back in psychiatric institutions, just as during the Cold War.

I went to see the Russian ambassador about one of those people. I would urge everyone in the Senate to keep asking questions about Larissa Arap, a young woman who was put in one of these institutions. She was naked, bound by her feet, and then injected with drugs to keep her out of action. She is probably still there. I asked the Russian ambassador, ‘How is it that a dissident can be treated like that?’ The answer was simply that they have ways of dealing with people with mental illness in Russia just the same as we do, which, of course, was a ridiculous answer in the circumstances.

I know of young people—with NGOs—who were bashed in an anti-nuclear protest outside the Angarsk nuclear enrichment facility, which is where Australian uranium is going. President Putin’s response to that bashing was that they were neo-Nazi thugs and nothing to do with the government when in fact it is very clear that the government either pays them or organises them—or both—to go around dealing with dissidents for the regime.

Not only that, on the way to Australia last year, President Putin stopped in Indonesia where he signed an agreement to provide Russian military technology to Indonesia and guaranteed to the Indonesians that human rights considerations would not affect defence cooperation with Indonesia, therefore allowing Jakarta to initiate a long-term modernisation of all fighting services. Going on from that, Russia has expressed strong interest in participating in Indonesia’s national nuclear program.

So here we have President Putin on his way to Australia telling the Indonesians that he will provide Russian military assistance and nuclear cooperation. Then he came to Australia to sign up an agreement to get Australian uranium. Nobody in their right mind, looking at former President—now Prime Minister—Putin’s reputation could assume that he would have any respect for treaties with regard to how he might use Australian uranium.

Last year in the lead-up to these negotiations, Professor Rothwell at ANU said to the Howard government at that time that at the very least Australia should seek the inclusion of what is known as human rights and democracy clauses in the Australian-Russian agreement, which would make the promotion of and protection of the respect for human rights and democratic values part of the agreement so that it would be a reason for Australia to suspend sales if there were abuses in those regards. The Howard government did not do it. Furthermore, there were additional protocols under the safeguards agreement, which Professor Rothwell argued ought to have been a condition of signing. That did not occur either. The Rudd opposition agreed wholeheartedly. Everybody in this chamber, except the Greens and the Democrats, supported this Australia-Russia nuclear deal knowing full well the human rights abuses going on in Russia, knowing Putin was taking Russia back to the old KGB days. Now is the opportunity to repudiate that agreement. I call on Prime Minister Rudd to do just that. Australia cannot bank the dollars from the uranium sales knowing that dissidents in Russia are back in psychiatric institutions and that the thuggery of the Cold War is going on in Russia as we speak.

Question agreed to.