Jonathon Duniam's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
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
It'll be very good for your Facebook.
Rearrangement | Business | Senate debates
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of...
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bills until 6.30 pm. In moving this motion, I think it's a great opportunity to continue to ventilate this dodgy deal that we've seen over here between Labor and the Greens, done in a smoke filled room in the ministerial wing of this building away from prying eyes, or maybe it was in the new sumptuous Greens party room down the corridor. We will never know, because these deals will never come out, but I think it is good to have this extended time for scrutiny. I now have realised why Labor and the Greens want to get out of this building tonight. The last speaker belled the cat on why. I now suspect that Senator Wong, Senator Gallagher and others are joining the Greens at this paddle-out in Newcastle. I did not know that the Labor Party were surfers as well, but they're going to go out, and they're going to blockade this coal port and prevent these important fossil fuels from getting in or out of our country and prevent the economy from functioning. I think it is important that this sham process that these poor members of the Public Service have had to sit through—forced to sit here and watch the sausage being made. I'm sorry. I really am. There's no time for scrutiny, no proper accountability, no respect for this chamber of the parliament, no ability to answer basic questions and no respect for the people of Australia and the people of the forestry industry. We have established that here by the simple fact that the Australian Greens have celebrated this victory today. This deal done between Labor and the Greens is something that they've been wanting for a very long time because it brings about the death of the native forestry industry in Australia. They would not be voting for this if it didn't do that. The ridiculous claims by the minister of, 'No, no. The Greens are voting for something that grows the forestry industry because of this growth fund of $300 million,' are madness. I can guarantee you that, when Senator McKim and Senator Whish-Wilson go back down to Tasmania, they're not going to be talking about forestry industry growth as a result of the deal done this week. They're going to be talking about the demise of this evil industry that's been propped up by the taxpayers for so long. So I tell you that this is why we need to get to the bottom of this dirty, dodgy deal that was done between Labor and the Greens to shut down these important industries and make it more difficult than ever before to do business in this country. I feel most aggrieved at the way in which the Labor Party, along with their coalition partners in this new Labor-Greens alliance, have approached democracy and accountability. They shut it down. The point was made earlier on today that the one non-contro bill we had to debate in this place—was it an hour and a quarter or thereabouts of debate time for one non-contro bill? There are seven bills in this package, and, as was originally slated, that's about the amount of time we had to debate these bills in this place, bills that govern a public good, Australia's environment. It's something that belongs to everyone, not just the government and certainly not just the Greens—thank the good Lord; I can tell you. It's something that is an important driver for our economy and something that our future generations need to have a say over as well. They're going to need jobs. They're going to need places to live. They're going to need to be able to pay their power bills. But under this legislation, of course, there is a real concern that all of those things are going to be impossible. I really do worry about the short-sighted nature of this and the fact that we don't have any scrutiny available to do this. So I am putting forward to this chamber—I suppose I'd better be relevant to the question before the chair, which is that we extend—that we need this extra hour and a half to interrogate this legislation. I'm sure that Senator Pocock, Senator Cadell, Senator Bell and Senator Barbara Pocock all have questions to ask this government that is so desperately wanting to get out of this place to join the paddle-out, to blockade the Newcastle port and to end fossil fuel exports, but honestly I'm just so disappointed. Maybe you could come down to Tasmania when the Senate rises, and we can look those forestry workers in the eyes and tell them what you've actually done. But, at the end of the day, it's not a surprise to us that of course this government has done this. They wanted to chalk up a win. They were happy to do a deal with anyone. It just so happens that the Australian Greens' price was—well, we don't actually know. Maybe I'll use the next hour and a half to ask about what that price was. I don't know how much bigger that sumptuous party room could be made, but maybe there's an ensuite being added on, an annex or a patio. I don't know. We'll see! Either way, it won't get through any EPBC laws—this government will have strangled any new development applications, and the party room will be no bigger. I commend this motion to extend the debate to the Senate.
Yes. I'm about to ask a question, Senator David Pocock. I've got three minutes to ask my question. I will do that. Let's not forget, though, that we had 700 pages of legislation thumped on the...
Yes. I'm about to ask a question, Senator David Pocock. I've got three minutes to ask my question. I will do that. Let's not forget, though, that we had 700 pages of legislation thumped on the table. We had a Senate committee inquiry process out to the end of March. I'll try and find it in this pile of paper that's been put on my desk today by the government, who want these bills passed—I'm just going to quote Senator Sarah Hanson-Young again. She said in a Senate inquiry last week, 'The people know it stinks'—'it' is this legislation—'It absolutely stinks, and that's why it needs scrutiny.' Senator Hanson-Young also just said to the chamber, in asking her question before, that she appreciates the urgency with which this is now being attended to. I don't know what's happened in the last week. Something big, something seismic, has shifted here. Senator Hanson-Young, who is normally so strident in her opposition to terrible bills, has suddenly found a way to agree with the government on this arrangement. It was, as I say, a deal to make it harder for resources projects to start. It will make it harder to get more gas into the grid, so we're going to have problems with supply when it comes to this critical resource of energy. It will make it harder to get housing developments up, despite any rhetoric we hear from the government on this. It's just going to be ridiculous. Of course, the crown jewel in their achievements of this week is to shut down the native forest industry and take away tens of thousands of jobs. And, of course, we won't be getting the beautiful timbers that adorn this chamber from Australia forests; we'll be ripping them out of the Congo Basin and we'll be displacing human populations and endangering even more species overseas. But, hey, if it's over the horizon, we don't care. My question to the minister is: can the minister guarantee that not one job will be lost in the forest industry as a result of the arrangement that has been put in place here today with regard to the changes to the RFA?
Thank you, Chair. Now that the temperature has been taken down a couple of degrees, we might get back to the truth of the matter, and that is that the Australian Labor Party have teamed up with...
Thank you, Chair. Now that the temperature has been taken down a couple of degrees, we might get back to the truth of the matter, and that is that the Australian Labor Party have teamed up with the Greens to kill forestry. Let's not forget, though, that this is the same party that was toying with the idea of—
'Save the forests,' says Senator Faruqi. I will take that interjection. What the Labor Party and the Greens have signed up to today is a deal to kill native forestry and, of course, take away all...
'Save the forests,' says Senator Faruqi. I will take that interjection. What the Labor Party and the Greens have signed up to today is a deal to kill native forestry and, of course, take away all of the jobs that go with it. We can't escape that fact. It is just that simple. The Greens would not have signed on if it did not mean this industry would now be brought to its knees. Ms White, the member for Lyons; Ms Collins, the member for Franklin in Tasmania; and my good friends in the Labor Senate team from Tasmania—we should go out on a road trip and talk to the forest workers of Tasmania who have been let down by this Labor government and have had their jobs suddenly pulled out from underneath them. These are people who have mortgages. They live in regional communities like those on the north-west coast of Tasmania. These are people who have kids in schools. These are people who are a part of communities, volunteer fire brigades and sporting clubs. And the Australian government have decided that they don't support these individuals anymore. They've cast them on the scrap heap. Their jobs are not important. They do have a $300 million bailout package—buyout package, scale-down package, whatever it is—to try and ease the pain of shutting down this industry, to soften the blow of the news that today the Labor Party have sold you out. It is interesting, though. I do wonder how the Greens managed to be talked into providing a further $300 million to the native forest industry, an industry that just last Friday Senator Hanson-Young said— Honourable senators interjecting— Sorry, Chair. I can't hear myself.
The proponents of the legislation we are dealing with here seem to have a bet each way when it comes this legislation. They say it's terrible and it's bad and it's written by these awful people...
The proponents of the legislation we are dealing with here seem to have a bet each way when it comes this legislation. They say it's terrible and it's bad and it's written by these awful people in Labor, but they're backing it; they're signing up to it. Have your cake and eat it too, Australian Greens! That's exactly what's going on here. I will say that I understand that the amendments before the chair are identical to the government's amendments relating to unacceptable impact. Hopefully, the government will support these amendments when they're moved. I want to reflect more generally on the debate before— No? We'll talk about it later, I'm sure, Minister. I have to commend the minister for being able to pull off this deal. It was masterful. I don't like it. I think it's terrible. I think it's dirty. I think it's dodgy. But you did a great job of getting this mob down here, the Australian Greens, to again name a price they were willing to pay. Of course it's the shutdown of the native forest industry. The workers out there are screaming into the phones now on radio stations across the country, and they're providing comments to journalists in print and the TV newsrooms. They are wondering how a Labor government that once used to stand for the worker has today said that they will sign the death warrant of the native forest logging industry. The Prime Minister, ahead of the 2022 election, wrote a letter to Tasmanian forest workers committing that he would never do this. He reiterated that commitment in 2025, saying he would never do this. Guess what, he's gone and done it now. There's a bit of a concern now in Tasmania; I think there's a missing person report for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Ms Collins, who's nowhere to be seen on this issue. Has she popped up to justify what the government have done? Has she popped up to defend this dirty, dodgy deal with the Greens? The Greens are celebrating. I heard Senator McKim on the radio just before I went on, and I gave Senator McKim credit for consistency. The Greens have always been consistently against native forest logging. The only ones who've been inconsistent here are the government. They're the ones who've changed their position today by supporting this arrangement that the Greens put to them. I did commend Senator McKim and the rest of the Australian Greens for at least being consistently against this industry for its entire existence. They've never once changed their position, but the government now have. As I said before, at the last two elections—in which promises were made around reduced power prices, and those promises were broken—promises were made to the native forest industry and its workers around their industry being protected, particularly in Tasmania, but they are going to see this unacceptable impact of shutdown. I would be interested to know what detail is out there on this $300 million—I think the government is calling it a growth fund, which I find rather odd, given you can't grow an industry that you're shutting down. The words are interesting, and it's kind of cute, but there are hardworking men and women out there who are now very, very concerned about their futures because of this deal done at the eleventh hour, as we prepare to rise for the year, by the Labor Party, who once used to stand proudly for the forest workers of this country but have now sold them out to the Australian Greens. We heard Senator Faruqi before celebrating how the handbrake is going to be put on this industry and how there is now a spanner in the works. They were the senator's words, I believe. She nods in agreement. That is something the Greens are celebrating, so the government cannot get away from this fact. As I said earlier today, the Greens would not have signed up to this deal if it didn't mean we were going to kill that industry by a thousand cuts.
Selection of Bills Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
I move an amendment to the motion, as circulated: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription...
I move an amendment to the motion, as circulated: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2026".
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; Limitation of Debate | Bills | Senate debates
I was wondering if we could put paragraph (b) separately.
We ask that paragraph (c) be put separately.
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; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
What a great opportunity this is to have a little bit of scrutiny of the legislation that's before the chamber, which will now be rammed through in record time. This is a pattern of behaviour of...
What a great opportunity this is to have a little bit of scrutiny of the legislation that's before the chamber, which will now be rammed through in record time. This is a pattern of behaviour of the Greens down the end there. At the end of every sitting year we see this arrangement. The mighty new Labor-Greens alliance comes together. They've been behind closed doors for a couple of weeks now, hatching this one up. I'd very much love to know what the price of this latest agreement between the government and their natural bedfellows the Australian Greens political party is this time. Last time, as we know, it was that sumptuous party room down the end of the corridor, lined with myrtle and Huon pine and other endangered old-growth species. But, hey, that doesn't matter. That was the price last time. What have they got this time? Let's not forget that these laws were so important they had to be fully interrogated through the Senate committee process. We had the Greens environment spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, saying, 'We must have a full interrogation of these bills by the committee and we cannot report before the end of March.' Well, here we are, and who's voting to ram the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills through the Senate today? None other than the Australian Greens environment spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, and all of her colleagues. If you look at the Greens press release issued today about the dirty, dodgy deal they've done, with the price unspecified—the price tag we can't find anywhere on the product before us—there are criticisms of the legislation that the Greens are supporting. This is them wanting to have their cake and eat it too. It says, 'Despite significant wins for nature, the bill is still woefully short of what the climate needs, with Labor's refusal to take meaningful climate action,' et cetera, et cetera. You've got the whip hand here, Australian Greens. You signed up. You're supporting the legislation, but you're still unhappy with it. I do not understand how this works—how they can say it's a terrible bill, that it doesn't do what needs to be done, yet they'll sign up and pass it? It's because it is, as I said, just another dodgy, dirty deal made behind closed doors that these warriors for integrity and transparency—not—want to pursue. They will do anything it takes to get whatever it is they need. The list of criticisms goes on in this extensive press release crowing about their win. But, when they sign up and support this legislation, you've got to wonder how serious they are about the issues they are backing in here. I see some of the detail that was talked about in a press conference that was held just over an hour ago, I understand, by the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Environment and Water, and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Gallagher. The shutdown of native forestry happens to be a part of what this government has signed up to today. Why would the Greens support this bill if it didn't do this? I'll tell you what: the only reason they have signed up is that it does do that. This will shut down native forestry in three years time, when the RFAs no longer have their exemption. That's what's been signed up to here today, and that's exactly what's going to happen. Those RFAs will go out the door. Native forestry, a sustainable industry, will be shut down. There will be tens of thousands of workers across the country without a job. We don't know the details yet, but apparently there is a bailout package in the order of $300 million that is being supported by this crowd down the end of the chamber, the Australian Greens, who last week in the Senate told us that this native forestry industry is too reliant on taxpayers' money. But, hey, let's not worry about it. We'll hand them another $300 million of taxpayers' money to exit the industry and shut them down. That sounds like a bit of a prop-up to me, but this is what the Greens have signed up to: more taxpayers' money to native forestry—and Labor has signed up to the shutdown of this industry. I know there are supporters of this industry in Labor ranks. I just wonder where they are on these issues. Where is the union in relation to forestry workers on this issue? Why aren't they standing up for the workers who've been abandoned under this dodgy, dirty, Labor-Greens deal done behind closed doors at the eleventh hour? Where are they? The coalition was negotiating in good faith, and even as late as 10 o'clock last night there were discussions ongoing between the coalition and the government. We still haven't finally heard back. We got our message that they weren't going to deal with us through the press conference this morning. I don't think that's a good-faith discussion. It makes me wonder whether this crowd over here—the government, the Labor Party, the party of the worker, the party that wants to bring down energy prices but won't and in fact sends them in the other direction—had any intention of doing anything other than a deal with the Greens. It's a convenient deal that happens to be one that ultimately sells out workers in a number of industries. Those good-faith negotiations I was talking about—and they were fairly modest—would have gone some way to protecting these industries and these jobs. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs are now at risk because of the added layers of complication that the Greens have inserted into these laws. We won't have a chance today to fully interrogate this legislation. We'll have an hour of committee stage, assuming that the full time for the second reading stage is taken up here today. There is in excess of 700 pages of legislation and in excess of 700 pages of explanatory memoranda. A range of amendments have been announced today—less than an hour ago—and are being circulated only as we speak, but it's all going to be done today. It's all going to be through this parliament and back to the other place so that this government can go on holiday chalking up a win. We said earlier this week, when we announced that we were still keen and had a number of amendments this government should take into account in progressing the laws—a set of amendments that we thought were sensible and that industry were supportive of—that there should be no rush to do a deal with the Greens. As we said, at the very outset, this would come at an extremely high cost, but the government was willing to do a deal with anyone. The coalition supports the mining industry and the forestry industry in all its forms, including the native forestry industry. We support the more than 50,000 workers across the country who have jobs reliant on that industry. We also support the fossil fuel industry, farmers and property developers. Property developers are going to build the houses we need to ease the housing crisis. The government were willing to work with us, according to the minister earlier this week, but apparently they were also willing to do a deal with the Greens, as evidenced by the fact that they have. This is a party that has inserted into this bill, as I said before, a clause that will kill off native forestry at the end of three years. The government will deny it and say they won't, but why is there a $300 million bailout package in there then? If it's not going to kill the industry, why put a penny into dealing with this? It's something this party down the end here, the Australian Greens, have railed against since time immemorial—taxpayers' money going to this industry. But today, it's okay. It does go to the issue of conviction. It does go to the issue of belief, when it comes to this government—the Labor Party as it is in 2025. What do they stand for? They'll happily do a deal with anyone. It doesn't matter what it looks like, because all they needed to do at the end of this week was to chalk up a win, get a bill through—just ram it through, with whoever is willing to do a deal at the lowest price, the easiest price, the most convenient political price. And this is what it looks like today. Mark my words: the Greens would not be supporting this legislation if indeed it was in any way good for industry, good for jobs or good for the things we need to bring down power prices in this country. They wouldn't be supporting it if it meant that there were laws that were making it easier for this country—as the Prime Minister says we need to—to access gas resources, to be able to get energy into the grid to support manufacturing, to support the tens of thousands of jobs in industries now at risk because of Labor's latest dodgy deal with the Greens. Why are they supporting it? Because they get their token wins—things that of course this government have supported, and said they supported, but have sold out on. I do want to go back to a quote here, again, to talk about hypocrisy—the hypocrisy of the Australian Greens—and I wish my colleague Senator Hanson-Young were here to hear this, but she said in the committee hearing just last week: 'The people know it stinks. It absolutely stinks, and that's why it needs scrutiny.' That was what Senator Hanson-Young, the Greens' environment spokesperson, said of this legislation: 'It stinks,' and, 'It needs scrutiny.' It's, 'We will stand our ground, and we will make sure that the government does the right thing and has this full-on committee hearing all the way through to 24 March 2026.' It doesn't stink anymore, does it! It doesn't have the slightest stench of support for fossil fuel industries or for forestry. That's because they've gone and done this dodgy deal which actually cuts the guts out of the laws that were needed to ensure that we could do what this country needs when it comes to growing our economy and all of the other things necessary to deal with the crisis facing us. Just on that, on housing, we know, from the evidence given at the Senate committee, that the laws, which have been made worse by this deal, were going to be difficult for the property industry to comply with. They were going to make it harder for greenfield housing estates to be brought online. The complicating factors around what is now before us, made worse by this deal with the Greens, mean this housing crisis this government is presiding over will not be dealt with any more quickly or any more easily—in fact, quite the opposite. It will be harder for people to build houses in this country. It will be harder for people to get into a house as a result. It will drive up prices because, as we know, the basic laws of economics—supply and demand—mean that, when you've got less supply because of a dodgy Labor-Greens deal, and demand is still being stimulated by all of these bunkum schemes this government runs, prices are going to go up and it is going to be harder to get into a house. So here we are, ramming through this legislation—700-plus pages of laws and explanatory memoranda. There's a range of amendments—goodness knows how many; I haven't been able to count them yet—and, yes, there are some here from the coalition. But they're the ones, of course, the government would be aware of, because they're the ones we've gone to them with over the last few weeks and that we still haven't heard back from the government on. This is not democracy at its best. These are dodgy deals at the end of a sitting, which is exactly what we saw at the end of last year. It's what we saw before the election. It's what we've seen a couple of times since the election. It's a hallmark of this brave new world we have in this parliament, where the Labor Party, finding it a bit difficult to be held to account for their legislation, turn to their friends down the end here. And there is always a plus for the Greens. They are not resolute in their views. They can be bought off. They can be taken in for a price, and they have, once again. The price, sadly, is the people of Australia, who are struggling with power bills, who can't get into a house, who are finding it difficult to get or hold on to a job. These laws will do nothing to assist that. They will not be better for business. There are some mild wins in there—I'm surprised the Greens even went at them—but, honestly, this bill will not make things better, which is the ultimate test here. Will things be better for business and the environment? On both counts, sadly, I think we'll find that neither will be better off as a result of this dirty, dodgy deal. On that, let's talk about being able to access the resources needed for stimulating supply when it comes to energy generation—gas and coal, which we rely on right now. Of course there's a transition underway, which this government is blindly pursuing at any cost, and the people paying the price are the people in the gallery and the people out there in the real world, whose power bills keep getting bigger and bigger. As we saw in the inflation data yesterday, there's been a 37 per cent increase in the last year alone. That's not good. Their policies aren't working, and I can tell you now: this deal is going to make it much worse. Under these laws, with Labor's deal with the Greens and the amendments that will no doubt be made, it is going to be harder to get a new gas project online. They'll champion that. They'll cheer for that. But what does that do for the supply of gas and therefore bringing down prices in a grid that is heavily reliant on gas now? It doesn't do anything good. It does only things that are bad, and that is what we are very upset about today. We tried to make these bills much better than they were. We've expressed our concerns. We've operated in good faith with the government, but, instead, it was easier and quicker for the government to do a dodgy deal with the Greens, whatever the price. As I say, it's not just that people will now have higher power bills as a result. The people who work in institutions that rely on gas or other resources that will be harder to get out of the ground because of these laws—their jobs will now be more uncertain. Investors will now decide: Australia has suddenly become a bit harder to do business in; we'll do business somewhere else. Again, more jobs gone. Then there are the people of the forestry sector. Because of Labor selling out to the Greens today, to chalk up a win to get a bill through this parliament before the end of the year so they can all go out on a high—until they have to look forestry workers in the eye—the people of the forestry sector are the ones who have been sold out today. It is a sad day. I hope that when the Greens speak to these bills today they can tell us what the price was. I think Australians deserve that. (Time expired)
Answers to Questions | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate take note of answers to all questions asked by coalition senators during questions without notice today. In moving that motion, I want to start with the question that I...
I move: That the Senate take note of answers to all questions asked by coalition senators during questions without notice today. In moving that motion, I want to start with the question that I asked, and that was in relation to the exploding industry of illegal tobacco in this country that has happened on this government's watch. It didn't just happen overnight. It's happened over the last three or more years now while this government has been on the Treasury benches, and it has had devastating impacts on the lives of many Australians. Indeed, the government itself is not immune to the impacts of the illicit tobacco trade, losing billions of dollars of revenue in excise collections every year as a result of their hands off approach when it comes to dealing with this insidious issue. There's not an Australian—particularly in major population centres like Melbourne or Sydney, Brisbane perhaps, or even, indeed, some of the regional communities around Australia—that cannot see firsthand the impacts of the illicit tobacco trade. I understand that every day in this country these cartel operations, these crime gangs, are making a $13 million profit off illegal tobacco, and this government has sat on its hands for the last 3½ years. They talk about hundreds of millions of dollars being ploughed into enforcement initiatives. The problem is that it is not stopping the problem. It is not stemming the flow of these terrible products coming into our country, be they illegal cigarettes, loose leaf tobacco or illegal vape products. Of course, we know that these products can be laced with some of the most harmful chemicals with terrible consequences for human health with no approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Again this government and the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs say, 'Virtually nothing to see here.' This is a terrible indictment on government that should have, in its top few priorities, a desire to keep this nation secure and a desire to keep Australians safe, healthy and protected from, as I said before, the insidiousness and harms associated with the illicit tobacco trade. I was in Melbourne, just a couple of weeks ago, and I was able to stand and do a media conference with the Victorian shadow Attorney-General, Mr James Newbury, in a vacant tenancy in the suburb of Prahran. As we know, and as we've seen night after night on television news, in places like Melbourne—and Sydney, as I mentioned before—there are countless firebombings, ram raids, theft activity and physical assaults which are all associated with the illegal tobacco trade. The tenancy we stood in was not a large premises, but it was one that had an insurance cost, I'm told, of roughly $2,000 per annum for the landlord to pay in order to have insurance protection around that tenancy. In a 12-month period, that insurance bill went up from $2,000 per annum to $200,000 per annum because a tenant in that shop area was a legitimate tobacconist. They are someone who was actually paying their GST bills and ensuring that excise was collected on the products that they sold. They dealt in legitimate products, but, because they were doing so, they presented a risk that insurance companies weren't willing to stomach. Therefore, they saw insurance bills for that particular business go up from $2,000 to $200,000 in a one-year period. That is one of the many consequences flowing from this industry. We know of firebombings of people's houses. Representatives of crime gangs have had their homes targeted by rival crime gangs. There have been firebombings gone wrong. We know of fatalities related to that. Again, this government seem to say: 'It's all under control. We're doing everything we can.' The fact of the matter is you are not. The impact from the number of products, and the weight of those products, coming into this country is growing. It's exploding, and there is nothing that these crime gangs are seeing this government do that will in any way deter them from doing what it is they do. The government is losing billions of dollars every year—$3.3 billion last year alone—and billions of dollars over the forward estimates. Humans' lives are at risk. Our country's security and safety is very much under threat because of, as I say, a hands-off approach. This is a government that's happy to set up a taskforce here, a group there and a committee here, but it does nothing meaningful or tangible about this. It's an indictment on this government. It does indicate to me that their priorities are wrong. It is the kind of thing that needs urgent action in collaboration with state and territory authorities, intelligence authorities and law enforcement agencies more broadly. But it is an indictment on this government nonetheless. (Time expired)
Crime: Illicit Tobacco | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
I was after an exact figure. Anyway, in light of the answers to both of those questions, what is the minister's response to the clear exasperation of the New South Wales health minister, Ryan...
I was after an exact figure. Anyway, in light of the answers to both of those questions, what is the minister's response to the clear exasperation of the New South Wales health minister, Ryan Park, who told reporters yesterday that he was very disappointed with the lack of action from the federal government, including that the government has no intention to change anything in this area despite the near constant pledge from state governments to do something about it?
In 2023, Minister Mark Butler forecast the tobacco excise would deliver an extra $3.3 billion in revenue over the forward estimates instead of what's now turned into a roughly $25 billion loss as...
In 2023, Minister Mark Butler forecast the tobacco excise would deliver an extra $3.3 billion in revenue over the forward estimates instead of what's now turned into a roughly $25 billion loss as a result of the exploding illegal tobacco trade. Minister, can you tell the Senate exactly how much worse off the bottom line will be as a result of this hands-off approach and the lack of any effective action being taken by your government?
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Given the rapid acceleration in the illicit tobacco trade in the years of the Albanese government and all...
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Given the rapid acceleration in the illicit tobacco trade in the years of the Albanese government and all of the dangerous black market and organised crime activity associated with it, does the minister accept that the lack of any meaningful or decisive practical action by your government is severely hampering state and territory governments' efforts to shut down this illegal activity within their jurisdictions.
Australian Public Service Commission; Order for the Production of Documents | Documents | Senate debates
I move: At the end of the motion add: (c) if order for the production of documents no. 10 has not been fully complied with by 31 December 2025: (i) the order of the call for question time be as...
I move: At the end of the motion add: (c) if order for the production of documents no. 10 has not been fully complied with by 31 December 2025: (i) the order of the call for question time be as follows: (ii) the Senate requires the Minister for the Public Service to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings each sitting day to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order, and that: (A) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (B) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes and shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. It was circulated electronically. Parties may not yet have it, so I'll just speak to it briefly. Our amendment to the motion outlines that if the order for the production of documents hasn't been complied with by the end of this year, 31 December, question time will revert to the order and number of questions as was stipulated in the motion that the government is seeking to overturn—15 questions per day with questions 11 to 15 being for non-government senators only. There's an additional element to the motion which requires the Minister for the Public Service to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings each sitting day to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order and that any senator may move to take note of the explanation. Any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes. It will have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for no more than five minutes each. While we appreciate the government's attempt to comply with an order they should have complied with some time ago, we want to put in place this measure to ensure that this transparency which we are now being told we will be provided—there will be a briefing to the committee, and I accept that. But we want that document tabled. In order to ensure that it is provided—as the government has promised it will be—and in the spirit of seeking transparency and making sure this government actually honours the promises it made not just at the last election but at the one before that, the opposition will be putting in place this amendment. We hope the crossbench will support this, and, indeed, if the government is true to its word and will table this document by the date that they have specified, it will support this amendment as well.
Environment | Ministerial Statements | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate take note of the document. What this country does internationally is important, but what they do here domestically is more important when it comes to our environment. I...
I move: That the Senate take note of the document. What this country does internationally is important, but what they do here domestically is more important when it comes to our environment. I think there is a range of issues the minister might have glossed over in his annual report card. I always find it amusing when the government tables its own report card, marking its own work over the last three years, since 2022, telling us that everything is peachy and all is good. In fact, it is far from that. There is a range of issues I think we need to go through here to properly dissect that. I'll come to the EPBC Act reforms that the minister has alluded to a little later on. There are a few things I do agree with in the minister's statement. The environment and, of course, the laws related to regulating, managing, protecting and preserving our environment do go to the heart of our economy. We live, exist and work in the environment. It is not a separate organism; it is not something that is ethereal and totally disconnected from how we operate here in this country. It is important that we have laws and arrangements in this country to ensure that when we make decisions related to the functioning of our economy, they don't have an adverse impact that outweighs the benefits of any economic activity in the environment. It is connected to the health of the nation. It's also connected, as the minister said, to housing. Having said that, though, for the last three years—under this government, prior to the last election—EPBC laws have held up decisions relating to tens of thousands of housing units, dwellings, across this country. To suggest that things are on track and that this government has got matters under control and things are heading in the right direction when we're in a housing crisis—no HAFF or program run by this government would have addressed these issues in the same way as they are attempting to do now through reforms of the EPBC Act which are specifically targeted to removing the handbrake on delivering housing supply in this country, which is critical to addressing the issues that all Australians think this government should get on with. But their handling of this portfolio and their handling of the laws have not, in any way, lead to dealing with this crisis in a way that should be in accordance with the approval of the Australian people. To try and pretend, as the minister has in his statement, that this government has had its hand on the tiller of law reform in this country and that what it is doing as a good environmental actor—as the minister said this country is regarded as—I think is something worth scrutinising a little more than these debates ordinarily allow us to. It has been 3½ years since this government was elected to power and five years since the Samuel review was handed down recommending changes to the EPBC Act. For the first year, the Morrison government attempted to get reform through this parliament but was blocked in doing so by those now in government when they were in opposition. That takes us down to four years. So there was a year of activity, but reform was blocked by the opposition, the Labor Party. Then there was a change of government. For three years, the entirety of the last term, nothing happened in this place because the government decided, behind closed doors, to hide away from the world their plans for reforming laws that govern that public good, the environment. Stakeholders of all sorts had to sign nondisclosure agreements. They were sequestered away in various rooms either here in Parliament House or down in the offices of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, trying to nut out a plan that they could bring into this parliament and foist through as quickly as possible. But for three years under the former minister, Ms Plibersek, nothing happened. We didn't get laws for a new EPA. We didn't get reforms to how we'd manage major projects and how they might impact on the environment. We didn't get faster approval times. We didn't get added environmental protections. We didn't get any of that. It was three years completely squandered. I'm heartened by the progress that has been made by the new minister, Minister Watt, and I commend the government for bringing these reforms to the parliament. I don't commend the government for saying, 'Now's the time to pass it. It's now or never,' having tabled 750 pages of legislation just a few days ago and roughly the same amount in explanatory memoranda. It takes a bit of time to get through, and of course this government has had the benefit of the last three years of work to try and pull it together. To get this right—to ensure we get it right—is going to require proper scrutiny, and I am pleased that this Senate ordered that the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee will interrogate this legislation properly until the end of next March. That is important. All of those facts are important to put on the record. There are many redeeming features of the proposal that has been put forward by the government, and I'm hopeful that we see some further changes that make this bill entirely acceptable and something that will gain passage. One other area of course that I think is missing from the minister's report card on the government's activities is something that's important to a number of people—reforms to laws as they govern Indigenous cultural heritage in this country. Last term we were promised we would have laws in the parliament that would reform the ATSIHP Act, the very outdated legislation governing Indigenous cultural heritage. I think it dates back to 1984. That is legislation that is truly out of date, and again it was a promise in the last term that we would have reformed laws in here in the wake of Juukan Gorge, the terrible disaster there, that would protect Indigenous cultural heritage and would give certainty to Indigenous communities and also those who work in and around Indigenous cultural heritage about what to expect. But three years passed—three years that have been covered by the Labor government's report card on its own work. It glossed over this and other statements, and we still have not a skerrick of legislation that would reform an act that is now 41 years old—almost as old as me. I think that is a terrible indictment. It was urgent to deal with at the time, and I agree with the government. It was urgent in the last term to deal with. So why are we here, in another term—and we asked about it at Senate estimates—yet to see any evidence that this government is taking that issue seriously and is progressing what is an important piece of legislation to many, not just here in this place but out there in the wider community, which needs to be dealt with as a matter of priority? The minister says in his statement—and I accept there are some good things that have happened, particularly on the international stage, but what happens here domestically is equally as important as what happens out there around the rest of the world and how we interact with other nation-states. To say that this is a national priority when over the last three years or more nothing has been done on key priorities—promises that were made by the government in the lead-up to the 2022 election—and when there have been big fails when it comes to law reform, reforms that would protect the environment, reforms that would enhance our economic activity and put us as a world leader when it comes to environmental regulation in the world is a crying shame. It's important to have a bit of honest reflection about some of these things. I always enjoy reading people's own marks on their own homework, but I think there are a few red marks against some of the government's activities over the last 12 months.
Question Time | Motions | Senate debates
Thank you for your protection, President. It has been a delight to again highlight the willingness of this government to hide from accountability and to do what it can do with its numbers from...
Thank you for your protection, President. It has been a delight to again highlight the willingness of this government to hide from accountability and to do what it can do with its numbers from time to time. It's a real disappointment, especially when such promises were made before the last election and the one before that, which they so easily break.
The suspension, of course, is about question time and altering the order of call. We believe it is urgent because this government, these ministers, refuse to be transparent. That is the thing....
The suspension, of course, is about question time and altering the order of call. We believe it is urgent because this government, these ministers, refuse to be transparent. That is the thing. The minister over there, Senator Watt, says, 'We've answered the questions.' He's provided whatever he thinks is an answer, but it doesn't go to the issues that are being asked about here, because, as discussed, record numbers—this is all interrelated. It's all interrelated. Transparency is not just something that occurs in one part of a government's business. We have orders for the production of documents that this government refused to respond to in any meaningful way. We have FOI requests on behalf of the people of Australia that this government refused to provide responses to in any meaningful way. We are here in question time—the one time of the day when we are able to ask ministers of the Crown, elected on behalf of the people of Australia to run the government. Of course, they seek to run their influence here as well, telling senators when they'll get a question and in what order. What is next from this government that refuses to stand by the promises they made? They won't do it. This is just another example of that. So I would ask the Greens to reconsider their position—and Senator Pocock as well—because I think it is important this government is held to account. If we can't get this motion passed here today, we will come back with another motion to deal with this very issue, because, as I said last week, it is an urgent matter now. But we've had enough of a government completely rejecting the democratic rights of the people of Australia, as represented here by the majority of senators outside of the Australian Labor Party. I look forward to working with a government that wants to actually be co-operative; I'm happy to do that. But a bit of transparency along the way never goes astray. It was what was promised—transparency. Part of that is question time. We have, as I've said before, a government that refuses to be transparent and wants to dictate to this Senate who'll get a question when and in what order. That doesn't sound like a government that is obeying the will of the Australian people and working cooperatively with all senators that don't happen to be in their party room. Of course, this Senate chamber is sovereign. It is not ruled by the government. There are conventions that that mob there, this government, will not stick by, whether it's on staffing, on question time, on transparency— Honourable senators interjecting—
At the heart of the urgency motion before the chamber is the matter of transparency. Question time is all about transparency. It's about non-government senators asking ministers questions and...
At the heart of the urgency motion before the chamber is the matter of transparency. Question time is all about transparency. It's about non-government senators asking ministers questions and answers being provided. I tell you, sadly, this government isn't in the habit of doing so. What this enabled, again, is for the world to see what this government is really like. The aerating of this motion in front of the media, in front of the gallery, again highlights the aversion to transparency this government has. Senator Pocock mentioned, of course, that the catalyst for this, which precipitated the question time last week—the longest question time since federation, 3½ hours—when the government lost control of the chamber, was that this government refuses to release a document. That's the catalyst. That's why we're having this debate now in response, instead of releasing the document which brought us to where we are today. This is because the government—the all-powerful government that must be obeyed and will tell this chamber what to do, when they'll do it and who'll get what question at what time—again sought to alter the order of question time. So, of course, all of this comes back to this attitude, which is completely opposite to what the government promised this country they would have, around transparency. Even the answers to the questions that were asked by senators in this place last Thursday and today were not befitting of transparent ministers—one-word answers, 10 seconds here, 10 seconds there. The EPBC Act—