We know that the resources sector is responsible for and is to thank for propping up the budget and is to thank for the schools and hospitals that we enjoy and the roads we drive on. Yet you won't hear the Greens acknowledge this. They just ask for more and more, until there is nothing left.
What you'll hear from the Greens is that they don't actually speak on behalf of all Indigenous Australians. They only like to talk about those that fit their ideological crusade. I'm sure you won't hear about the Indigenous voices who do support the resources sector. I've had the pleasure of meeting with members of the Top End Aboriginal Coastal Alliance, who gave evidence at this hearing last week. A group of Indigenous Australians—
How appalling to have those people undermined in this very place, when we are supposed to be here to represent them. I'd ask you not to do that. It is a group of Aboriginal Australians from northern Australia who support the resources sector because they know the value that projects like the Barossa project bring to their communities. The Greens never talk about communities like these.
The Greens would much rather parrot the talking points of the Environmental Defenders Office, an organisation that receives taxpayer funds to try and sabotage our nation's wealth-generating industries. What an outstanding, upstanding organisation they are, with allegations of witness coaching and confected evidence. Yet the Greens are happy to be strongly associated with that organisation. I'm sure that those on the government benches are proud to be spending millions of dollars on funding that organisation.
What about the government—the alleged party of the workers? Thanks to their terrible energy policies we are seeing manufacturing jobs leave this country. The mess this government has created is costing Australian workers and costing the country. We see senators on the other side talk about how proud they are of their union backgrounds and their support for Australian workers, so let's see what the unions have said. Brad Gandy, secretary of the AWU's Western Australian branch, called out the exploitation risk that is occurring in the offshore oil and gas regulations, saying:
The vulnerabilities in the regime that are being exploited must be closed, whilst retaining the integrity that the process needs.
AWU national secretary Paul Farrow expressed concern that workers were becoming 'collateral damage' in the campaign to destroy the oil and gas industry—a campaign the government is helping to fund through the payments to the EDO.
I raise this question: how can Australian workers have faith that Labor supports them? The answer is that Labor does not, and it's become apparent that the coalition is the real party of working Australians because Labor's only solution is to talk about how they support Australian jobs, while their policies lead to the closures and jobs fleeing offshore. As investment and capital flees, thanks to their energy policies and industrial relations disaster, more jobs will leave.
The coalition remains an ardent supporter of Australia's resources sector. We remain committed to ensuring that this crucial industry, which generates and delivers so much wealth, is able to keep investing in our nation. It's worth recognising just how important this contribution is. Australia's gas industry generated $92 billion in export earnings in the last financial year, which provided direct economic support to federal, state and territory budgets. It powers energy and manufacturing across the entire country and provides secure energy to many of our international partners.
]]>Some 42 per cent of jobs in this country are generated by small business, not by the big businesses that the unions are attacking and that Labor is fixated on and obsessed by. A third of the country are employed by people who take a mortgage, who work themselves to the bone and who in bad times pay their staff before they pay themselves. I would like to see people in this place or the other place put their hand up if they've done that. I've done that. I've put my name on the directors form. I've taken personal responsibility for my workers, for their mortgage payments and for their ability to put food on the table.
This is a time when business has never done it more tough. Thanks to this government there's skyrocketing electricity prices, skyrocketing insurance prices and skyrocketing costs of doing business. If it's not transport, it's fuel. Everything is driving small business into the ground. What has this government done? It has brought in legislation that makes it harder for them to operate.
Businesses wonder what this is about. This is about going to jail if you are late with wages. Let me explain to you what that's like. Let me explain to you what it's like in a pandemic. Let me explain to you what it's like when you have a lull in trade, which is what small business is seeing right now. Retail businesses have been smashed. Discretionary-spend businesses have been smashed. What is this government's answer? They're going to send you to jail if you cannot get wages paid on time. If you are busting your guts, paying other people ahead of yourself and your own mortgage, and jeopardising your family's future, what will this government do? They will send you to jail. They won't send rapists, people who are paedophiles or thieves to jail, but they will send you to jail.
It means right of entry. It means unions turning this into a business plan to grow their membership numbers, because Australians are choosing not to be a member of a union. Australians are choosing to have a relationship with their employer. They're choosing to work in a business where they are part of it, where they offer their services and are paid fairly for it. We have a very rigorous fair work regime, with awards and protections for long service leave, annual leave and sick pay. Senator Roberts is right: we have a fair work award that works. This is a business plan for the unions—be clear. Labor don't care about you. They don't care about your wages. They care about the unions putting their hands in your pockets. More union fees and more super donations—that's what they care about, because they are barking for their union masters. The government are desperate and weak, and this desperation is shown, on this last sitting day of the year, by how they're jamming through legislation that nobody has had the opportunity to see the amendments for and the committee hasn't reported on. We know that Labor is not for business, which means it's not for you. If you have a job in a business, Labor is coming after your job with this legislation.
What do we expect? We can't expect much from a cabinet that has 23 members who have had, on average, 35 years work experience each, 750 years of work experience, but only four of those years in business. What would they know about how hard it is to generate a job? I hear them talking about the reduced discrepancy in female pay. It is not them doing it; it is business. It is the mining companies that are employing more women and paying more. It is small business doing that. It is not government that creates jobs. It is people who take risks and who put their homes and their lives on the line.
I have done this. I know the stress of running a business, of trying to support workers and of trying to support my suppliers and my customers. I know what it's like to juggle these things and to look into the faces of my employees and say, 'I will get you through this and I will take the pain and I won't tell you about it.' It is not just me; there are thousands of small-business owners right across Australia who are doing that. But Labor doesn't care about that. They don't care about what it's like to run a business, particularly right now when it has never been harder. Workers are important, and businesses know that. If businesses are forced to close their doors or if business owners say they cannot go on because of this legislation and they have had enough of the layers of government regulation and stresses, where will those workers go to get a job? Labor, I assume, thinks that because there is a workforce shortage low unemployment will go on forever. But it won't. It is hard fought for. It is hard fought for to create jobs. Labor claim to be the party for the working people, but they're not. They are the party for the unions, and they don't give a damn about you. They won't give businesses the flexibility to ensure they can continue to operate. Right now, it has never been harder to employ someone.
Labor make no secret of their disdain for the mining sector. We have the energy minister running around the world, saying that we'll stop investing in fossil fuels. Maybe he forgot to mention that to all the well-paid workers in the mining industry. What jobs are they going to go to where they will receive a 50 per cent higher salary than they do in the mining industry? It certainly won't be polishing solar panels. What is the alternative? I feel bad for the member for Hunter, Senator Chisholm and Senator Ayres because they understand the value of the mining sector for mining communities. I wonder what they are telling those workers. It is obvious that the Left, the unions, are running the show. They don't understand that mining is a cyclical business. It's a commodity business, like agriculture, with boom and bust cycles. Companies have to invest billions of dollars to get up and going. They're at the whim of global markets, and the cyclical nature means they use labour hire companies for surge capacity.
Apparently running a business or understanding how we compete on the world stage is of no interest to Labor. What Labor has just done is ensure that Australian workers on well-paid jobs—50 per cent higher than the average Australian salary—will be the first to go because it is so hard to get investment in this country. It is down, and it is going down like a sinking stone because of Labor policy over the last 18 months. This industrial relations policy and legislation is one more nail in that coffin.
We will look back on the golden years of high employment and the quality of life that we have; these years will be the golden years, because Labor is ensuring they will not last. Our children will not enjoy the same quality of life we have enjoyed. When your employer says: 'I can't go on. I'm closing my doors. I've got to reduce your hours or put you off', thank Labor. Make sure you thank Labor because they are responsible for your job going. Labor don't care about businesses, don't care about all the people who work in those businesses and certainly don't care about you.
]]>Section 528(b) on page 3 of sheet SF110 includes references to projects covered by the amendment 'when considered with other developments, whether past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments'. Minister, what is considered 'other developments' in this context? Will it include pipelines, transport infrastructure or storage facilities? I want to understand what consultation has occurred with regard to the wideranging scope of this caveat. Given that these amendments were only circulated at 6 pm this evening, I would imagine that saying 'we will be introducing a water trigger' is a very broad topic.
Minister, finally—this is my last block of questions—AEMO and the ACCC have warned of imminent gas supply shortfalls as early as this summer. They've recommended a range of solutions, which include the urgent need for upgraded pipeline capacity from Queensland to the southern states—suitable storage facilities. Without these upgrades and an urgent increase in gas supply, households and businesses may face blackouts and energy shortages this summer. Does the amendment to the EPBC water trigger in this bill increase or decrease the regulatory burden on gas companies? Is the government concerned that this capitulations to the Greens political party's demands to rush this amendment will impede the approval of other developments, which will risk gas supply? Finally, has the government done any consultation on the risk to future investments in gas projects in Australia that will affect future royalties, company taxes, PAYG taxes and employment of hardworking Australians?
]]>I want to turn again to the amendments on sheet SF110, circulated at around 6 pm this evening. The sheet has a list of unconventional gas production definitions, which are markedly similar to the definitions introduced by the Greens in their proposed water trigger. Minister, in the amendment on sheet SF110, is it possible to vary the definition of 'unconventional gas' under section 528(d), which states 'any other sources prescribed by the regulations'?
]]>I'm proposing to release those exposure drafts in the second half of this year so people will be able to comment on the proposed changes that we're making.
Minister, we know that an exposure draft hadn't been released for this bill. You mentioned that it was no surprise that there was a water trigger coming. But surely the detail of these changes, these legislated black-letter law changes to the water trigger, matters. It matters how the legislation is written. So, my question to you is: when were relevant stakeholders advised that this bill would be debated this week? Were stakeholders consulted prior to the guillotine motion being passed by the government? And when did stakeholders—you named Tamboran and Empire, amongst others—see the black-letter legislation that we're now looking at?
]]>On 15 May 2023, the Minister for the Environment and Water, Ms Plibersek, told RN Breakfast:
I'm proposing to release those exposure drafts in the second half of this year so people will be able to comment on the proposed changes that we're making.
That was the environment minister. What a joke that is, because here we are with absolutely no consultation—in fact, the ink is not dry on the amendments that we're looking at now. Where were these exposure drafts? Where can people comment on these changes? Well, they miss out on that, thanks to yet another dodgy deal through the back room. I remember the days when the Greens believed in transparency and good government. What a happy memory that is. Has anyone had the chance to review this legislation? Or has Labor only bothered to consult the people who are the most out of touch with Australians—the Australian Greens political party?
This pattern should not be a revelation, though, to the Australian public as it's become apparent that the Albanese Labor government are desperate to protect their own political careers by trying to buy Greens votes in Melbourne and Sydney. Surely it is only a coincidence that there was a swing to the Greens at the last election in Minister Plibersek's electorate. What about the rest of her Labor colleagues? Have any Labor members from Western Australia or the Northern Territory faced up to their constituents and had to tell them that Minister Plibersek is trying to save her own political career by pandering to Greens votes in inner-city Sydney or that Labor are abandoning the gas and manufacturing industries to save their own necks? What about Labor Premier Roger Cook, who recently had to come out and try and defend the gas industry, saying, 'No-one will thank us if we don't have enough gas.' Is Premier Cook aware of the dirty, dodgy backroom deals being done between his federal colleagues and the Greens political party that put his state budget in the firing line? Any claim from the Labor government that they support the gas industry is undermined by their continual capitulation to the Greens political party. We have had the safeguards amendment, funding of the EDO and the anti-gas Middle Arm inquiry, not to mention housing deals and the Murray-Darling Basin. And now we have this rushed backroom deal to target gas supply. This Greens political party is pulling the strings of the Labor Party, as if they were already in government together.
But, even without this dodgy, rushed deal, this legislation is another example of Labor putting their inner-city Greens fantasies ahead of the realities of life for hardworking Australians, especially land managers like farmers and graziers. Labor has consistently attacked and undermined farmers, removing property rights, legislating away farmers' water rights, removing markets, stalling necessary road infrastructure and removing the ability to fish. Now this government sponsored carbon frenzy means projects are being waved through by local councils with just the bare minimum of regulatory scrutiny.
This is an absolute travesty, to have these amendments come into this place with no consultation—no consultation with industry, no consultation with members and elected representatives of those communities, and even no consultation with environment groups. I have flicked through the amendments, because I only recently got them, and there are questions that we will drive a truck through tonight. This is not the way we make legislation—with these kinds of rushed, poorly drafted amendments to get a deal done so that the Greens will support the Nature Market Repair Bill, which they've already said they didn't agree with; they said it was a dog of legislation. Are Australians going to live with the dog and the fleas that sit on its back, thanks to these terrible amendments to the EPBC Act?
]]>On Saturday at COP28, more than 22 countries, including the US, Britain and France, pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. French President Emmanuel Macron and America's climate change envoy, John Kerry, both say nuclear must be a part of any country's ambitions for nett zero. Canadian PM Justin Trudeau says:
We're going to need a lot more energy… We're going to have to be doing much more nuclear.
And Swedish PM Ulf Kristersson says:
Sweden is going to build new nuclear power plants to produce more clean electricity and speed up the green transition.
Finnish PM Petteri Orpo says they want nuclear power to become the cornerstone of the government's energy policy. Yet the energy minister for Sydney panders to Greens in his electorate by scoffing at nuclear energy and ridiculing its supporters.
If Minister Bowen thinks no-one will build nuclear in Australia because of cost, then why is he clinging to the ban so desperately? Even the current Australian Workers' Union National Secretary, Paul Farrow, has made clear that nuclear power is necessary and slammed Labor's position, saying:
If nuclear power doesn't stack up on cost today, that's one thing. But objecting because of outdated twentieth century ideology is another.
Australians deserve a far more mature government than what is currently being offered. Labor has left us standing isolated on the world stage while other developed countries pursue a tripling of nuclear— (Time expired)
]]>The group came to Canberra so they could speak directly to politicians about their support for Santos's Barossa offshore gas project and make them aware that statements opposing it are not shared by all traditional owners. In the words of one member of the alliance:
It is a fact that most remote and regional First Nations peoples of the Northern Territory are living in poverty.
The Barossa Project presents a desperately needed opportunity for us to improve our living standards and to close the gap.
We decided to support the Santos Barossa Project because they are supporting us.
Our peoples will support Barossa because of the opportunity it presents. We hope that other companies will come and talk to us about their Offshore Activities in the same respectful way that Santos has engaged us, and with the same level of commitment to working in partnership with our peoples.
Because of this poverty and poor living conditions, we are confident that when people hear and see about the benefits that the Barossa Project is proposing, most First Nations peoples from across the Top End will turn to support the Barossa Project.
We ask the Federal government to help build support for the offshore sector …
I would encourage every parliamentarian, both here and in the other place, to take the opportunity to meet with this delegation. Thank you for your time and for coming to the Senate.
]]>One of these anti-Australian Labor brain explosions is the banning of net fishing in North Queensland. It's a subject I've raised repeatedly here and in the media because Labor is crucifying an industry that is unworthy of such treatment. The latest nail being hammered in by Queensland Labor involves mandatory cameras and inspectors on fishing boats. Hardened criminal have less scrutiny placed on them, but this is the result when you have activists dictating policy. Just at the weekend I spoke to multigenerational net-fishing families in Tully, in North Queensland. They take great care to place their nets away from where non-target species move. They're highly regulated with GPS and logbooks. But, thanks to Labor, one family's 14-year-old son is being denied his dream to follow in his father's and grandfather's footsteps and supply fish to those who cannot catch their own. The demise of commercial fishing in North Queensland will be to Queensland's and federal Labor's eternal shame.
]]>Those opposite have planned to ban live sheep exports out of Western Australia, smashing that market. It was devastating to listen to ABARES make excuse after excuse about how they'd examined the impact of the live export decision on prices but not be able to demonstrate one bit of data they'd extracted that was relevant to the Western Australian situation.
They have failed to support the dedicated visa pathway for agricultural workers that the Liberal-National coalition announced before the last election. If there is one thing that farmers across the country talk to me about, it's the workforce shortage—how they can't get suitably qualified people. The agricultural visa would have provided them.
The renewable energy transmission line projects across highly productive agricultural farming country are a disgrace. They have been poorly planned, and the Labor government will not allow us to have a Senate inquiry into them. What are they trying to hide?
We're going to see more changes to the EPBC Act, and you can guarantee they won't be about protecting farmers and maintaining productive land use. In the north, where bushfires are raging, nobody is able to clear a firebreak. What is happening to farmers and graziers in the northern part of the country is absolutely appalling.
What about the industrial relations impacts? Last week we saw rolling stoppages at abattoirs. Chains stopped because the CPSU in Canberra feel they need a pay rise, but what does that mean for graziers who can't get their stock in to be slaughtered? It means lower prices for them again.
We've seen the banning of gillnet fishing. This is a personal favourite. In North Queensland, we have gillnet fishermen who will lose their livelihoods, starting this December. Merry Christmas, fishermen in North Queensland! When you can't buy wild-caught barramundi or wild-caught grey mackerel, Mr Acting Deputy President, say thanks very much to this Labor government for the secret, sneaky deal that Tanya Plibersek, the minister for environment, has done with UNESCO. It is somehow going to save the Great Barrier Reef. I must send the environment minister a map, because the Gulf of Carpentaria is nowhere near the Great Barrier Reef. That doesn't seem to matter. It does mean that it will cost more to buy wild-caught fish—if you can get it.
There's the cost of electricity. I see graziers with electricity bills that would make your eyes water. An 82 per cent renewables target—what rubbish!
They have not signed a trade deal since they've been in government. It was the coalition that, during its last period in office, took agricultural products from 25 per cent to 85 per cent under a trade deal. That allowed farmers to get better prices, more scale. This government, the Labor government, hates farmers. They hate the regions and they certainly don't support lower food prices for Australians. It's shocking.
]]>I'm going to start in the north of the country, in my country, where every bit of water funding has been ripped out. One of the first actions of the Minister for the Environment and Water was to take back every planned water policy. It didn't matter whether it was a dam, a pipeline, small, large, because they hate dams and they hate farmers in the north. To make matters worse, they took that funding—$6 billion, Senator Davey?—
]]>This bill would require banks and financial institutions to make disclosures to ASIC and the Reserve Bank regarding to the use and management of foreign CBDCs in Australia. This is very important. This approach follows the one taken in the US but in a more expanded capacity. The protections would have safeguarded consumers during recent notable exchange failures, including FTX, ACX.io, MyCryptoWallet and Blockchain Global Ltd. This bill would have provided critical consumer protection. That's exactly what this bill aims to do. And it would empower ASIC, as I've already mentioned, to monitor and enforce licence requirements. It would empower the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services with inquiry and reporting functions to ensure the appropriate implementation of the bill.
This is urgent. This action is urgent. In the absence of any sort of movement, apart from another review, then who are consumers expecting will protect them? There will be other failures. We know that. This is the world we live in. Yet Labor remains flat-footed on protecting anybody apart from their union mates and big super.
The bill has been described by Blockchain Australia as a 'foundational start towards a comprehensive digital asset regulatory framework'. There was vast agreement by stakeholders who gave evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry that the bill's approach is correct. So we have broadscale support for an important piece of legislation to address an issue that is looming large for consumers and for industry. But the government thinks that it's not important. They obviously didn't listen to the evidence that was provided to the economics committee, because there was broad agreement with the stated outcome of the licensing regime and many of the licensee obligations.
This lack of modern regulatory support we are seeing right across industry, we are seeing in the resources sector. We are seeing inappropriate environmental regulations. We are seeing inappropriate regulation for important CCUS projects. We see the government fund the Environmental Defenders Office to undermine their very own decisions. But they will not take action on providing greater certainty and transparency for industry. I see it in the resources sector, I see in the agricultural sector and now, of course, here we are seeing it in the banking sector in the absence of protection and appropriate regulation and legislation for this new world.
We are seeing a government that is much more focused on looking backwards. I think pretty well all of their talking points are focused on what the coalition did. They very rarely talk about what their vision is, what their future for Australia is. It doesn't exist in their minds. They're so busy looking backwards and taking orders from the unions and the super funds that they are missing opportunities to ensure that Australia remains a country with a First World standard of living. They are missing opportunities to ensure that we are receiving investment and good, well-paid and, in this regard, smart jobs, because this investment is going elsewhere. It's going to other countries that have appropriate frameworks for it, and instead Australia is left with just the criminal element of cryptocurrencies. Australia is left with the dark web drug runners, paedophilia rings an others who want to escape the attention of regulators, because they are unregulated.
The entire point of this bill is that digital assets are no longer a niche product. They're no longer something so rare and unusual. This industry has potential to disrupt traditional financial services and provide Australian customers and consumers with better, lower prices. It could establish a suitable framework to regulate digital assets and it's critical to embracing the digital economy. As one witness said, 'If Australia fails to adapt to and enable digital business models, these platforms will still be built, but they will simply be built in other jurisdictions or remain in dark parts of the economy, leaving consumers and investors exposed.' What a terrific summary of the threats and risks that Australia is exposed to if this legislation is not passed.
]]>It is the role of the parliament to legislate where required, and what we've seen is an industry that is moving faster than government. We've seen an industry that is engaged in currency transfers. Digital assets across the board are moving faster than our regulators. It is unfortunate that the government has taken the road of inaction, as is their usual form—very slow reviews and inaction on something that is moving quickly. It is imperative that the Australian government move to regulate digital assets, because, in the absence of that, Australians are left unprotected. And this is happening right now.
We know that cryptocurrency is being used on the dark web. We know that it is being used by drug traffickers and we know that it is being used in all sorts of nefarious activities—as well as appropriate ones; I'm not suggesting that that is its only purpose. But the absence of appropriate regulation leaves Australians unprotected and it leaves criminal elements able to act with impunity. If Minister Jones is unwilling to act, then it is the responsibility of people like Senator Bragg, who is well informed and up to date on matters such as this, to bring forward private senators' bills, and I really do commend him for that.
We have seen that it is possible for the government to move quickly when necessary. We saw recently the bipartisan approach to national security around the placement of an embassy. We have seen other occasions when the government has been forced to take urgent action to protect Australia's interests and there has been bipartisan support, both during the term of this government and previously. This is another element where it is the responsibility of government to provide some leadership, to move quickly to protect Australians and Australian businesses. As I say, Senator Bragg, who has deep knowledge in these areas, has taken that leadership role.
There has been discussion already about the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023, which creates a licensing regime for digital assets, with custody, disclosure and minimum capital requirements that will give consumers protection and the market certainty. This bill proves that an Australian crypto bill is entirely viable. It builds on the work of the previous government and picks up the work of comparable jurisdictions. It would provide a legislative framework to regulate digital assets. This is absolutely achievable. The inaction by the government has forced the regulator, ASIC, to utilise the powers that it does hold to the extent that they apply to digital asset-type products, but the regulator cannot make the law, and so we have left the regulator hamstrung in this regard in managing cryptocurrencies and digital assets. ASIC has no power to protect consumers without appropriate regulation.
It's no secret that the government has been flat-footed on regulatory reform in areas of society and the economy that are moving more quickly than the government is able to keep up with. It was a shocking situation last October when there was an inability for NOPSEMA to have appropriate regulation to make decisions on important economic investments in this country. The government has remained flat-footed and done nothing to provide greater certainty and transparency around that kind of regulation. So it is no surprise that here in the crypto world the government has remained flat-footed, confused. I'm not sure exactly what it is that they think their reluctance to move will achieve, apart from putting Australians—Australian consumers and Australian businesses—into a more exposed position. But they are also not supporting our legal enforcers. Where are the regulations and the legislation that would provide those agencies with the tools to be fighting these criminal underworld gangs? Regulations and legislation would help ASIC, in the economic sense, and even some of our other enforcers—the Australian Federal Police and others. This absence of regulation leaves our enforcers without the tools to defend Australians against the sort of activity that is going on.
Under this proposed legislation the licence holders will be subject to various obligations, and it would be developed in consultation with industry and community. These obligations would include: minimal capital requirements to provide a buffer in downturn scenarios; segregation of consumer funds to ensure that those funds are not tied up with corporate funds in the event that a digital currency exchange or custody service declares bankruptcy; governance standards to bring the industry up to par with other financial services and products; disclosure requirements to both participants and government agencies; and of course record keeping and recording requirements. The bill would require minimum reserve standards to ensure that stablecoin issuers hold in reserve the full amount of their face-value liabilities on issue in accounts kept with an authorised deposit-taking institution in Australia. This would provide consumers with the minimum standard of consumer protection.
We are very proud of the stable banking system we have in Australia. It allowed us to work through several downturns, including the most recent supply shocks that we had during the COVID pandemic, and previously. It is shocking that we have a new currency system, a new area that consumers are exposed to, that remains unregulated. Consumers remain unprotected. And yes, I've already said that, and I will continue to say that, because it is shocking that the government remains flat-footed on what is a very basic protection element. We had a good fintech inquiry during the last government, very ably chaired by Senator Bragg, and the deputy chair was Senator Marielle Smith.
]]>A young boy and girl, 6 and 8 years old, and their parents around the breakfast table. The father's eye gouged out in front of his kids. The mother's breast cut off, the girl's foot amputated, the boy's fingers cut off before they were executed.
And then their executioners sat down and had a meal. That is what this society is dealing with.
The Australian reported just today on a soldier who in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack found two babies alive in a cupboard where their parents hid them before being killed. The same soldier found a dead baby in a bin and two 13-year-old girls who had been raped and shot. Thoughts now lie with the fate of the 200 people taken as hostages—the elderly, new mothers and children as young as three.
I struggled with the decision to repeat these horrors, but if we do not publicly confront the truth about 7 October, we do the dead no justice and we do not distinguish ourselves from those who excuse and even celebrate murder. These were not the actions of war. These were the actions of Hamas terrorists whose stated aim is to wipe out the Jewish population. Israel is fighting back and going to great lengths to prevent harming Gazan non-combatants. Of the one million people who lived in North Gaza, 800,000 have evacuated after warnings of impending ground attack. I asked to speak today in the belief that we all have an obligation to condemn atrocities because history has shown us with the Holocaust, the ongoing persecution of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and the inhumane treatment of Uighurs in China that, when people are silent, the innocent suffer. The actions of Hamas are evil.
]]>Graziers in this country are facing a crisis of poor prices, with the threat of drought, bushfires and limitations on abattoir operations stifling their ability to move stock. Now we find that the industrial action by the Commonwealth Public Sector Union will impact abattoirs because it includes government employed vets and meat inspectors. There are always more strikes and industrial disruption under Labor, but it's happening right now, when abattoirs need to be running smoothly to process animals. It is patently unfair that the meat-processing industry has been caught up in this action when it isn't even part of the negotiations. For graziers, it will cause enormous headaches in terms of scheduling mustering staff and transport trucks, driving up costs exactly at the time when they can't afford it. And, while graziers can't get paid, the striking workers will be able to make up the wages lost because of strike action and overtime payments. What's worse is that, while the CPSU members voted in favour of the revised pay and conditions offered by the government, union leadership rejected it. And spare a thought for the thousands of non-CPSU members who will also have to stop work.
Most people can appreciate the work of unions acting in practical ways to help employees, but this sort of greedy power play is where they torpedo any goodwill that they might have generated. They are happy to risk Australia's reputation as a stable business environment just to line the pockets of union heavies seeking pats on the back from their mates, rather than working constructively with industry. Under Labor, unions are running amok and making challenging business conditions even harder. We have an agriculture minister actively undermining the industry he's supposed to support and an environment minister funding activists to shut down resources and agricultural projects. We have an energy minister leading Australia over a power price cliff and a Treasurer who has overseen 12 interest rate rises in just 18 months. And our prime minister, who so boldly declared that he would always turn up, is distracted by fringe issues and rubbing shoulders with elites. It's hard to find one single portfolio that is not negatively impacted by Labor's policies, and, sadly, it's everyday Australians who are paying the price.
The economic landscape under this administration is worse than any drought and more destructive than any bushfire, especially for business owners and farmers. These people can rebuild after a natural disaster but not when their own government is stifling their ability to thrive. One of the most critical aspects of making a living on the land is timing and planning. Some farm decisions are based on circumstance, and some are planned. Uncertainty is an ever-present companion, so the one thing that they would love to be certain of is the support of their own government. Those graziers trying to get animals to market this week are the unwitting victims of Labor's cosy relationship with militant unions who are emboldened by distinct anti-business sentiment emanating from Canberra.
The meat processors are just collateral damage in a fight that they didn't start and can't influence, so I echo the sentiments of Patrick Hutchinson, the CEO of the Australian Meat Industry Council, who told Farmonline this week that the strike action will damage Australia's reputation as a reliable exporter of meat and that of Australian businesses accessing international markets.
To every small business that will also be affected—the truck drivers and the mustering contractors—I say: I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you've ended up with a government that doesn't back you, doesn't believe in you and is watching the cost-of-living impacts go ever higher. This strike action will just be one more nail in the coffin for consumers' ability to make their household budgets stretch to make ends meet.
]]>Only Queensland really has a structured compensation program for power lines. What about for agricultural land, particularly intensive, high-quality agricultural land? What about regions like that around Gympie and Borumba Dam? This is a community that has already been through land reclamations for dams. They need a very clear outline from government about what's going to happen.
It doesn't matter where I go; communities are asking questions. Why is it that there are different standards for renewable programs for transmission lines than for other economic developments? I was speaking to a landholder, at the Heart of Australia Gala Dinner on Saturday night, who asked: 'Where is the plan for solar panels? If a storm or "minicyclone" comes through, does that mean we will get fragments of glass through the Murray Darling catchment?' These are very valid questions from the community. They want to know how they can plan in this environment, because it is a huge commitment that this government is heading towards. Eighty-two per cent renewables is something that has never been considered in any other country in the world. I think, after several years of real commitment, we're down from 82 per cent to about 80 per cent coal and gas-fired power. This is for billions of dollars of investment and subsidies into solar and wind farms, but that's as far as we've got. This concept of getting to 82 per cent is extraordinary and it does need a serious project plan to understand the impacts on the competing land uses that they're talking about. We know that in some parts of Australia, land tenure is terrifically problematic. Certainly, in places that I deal with in Northern Australia, the different sorts of tenure are incredibly complex, making it almost impossible to build a house—much less to build a significant infrastructure project through some of these regions.
I just think that this proposed reference committee is a very basic, simple approach to getting on with the business of Australia's future energy requirements. As I look through the provisions, it is very practical. It does cover a number of different portfolio areas, which is something that, in government, we don't do terrifically well. We don't always get across the issues of interactions between different policies—to see energy talking to agriculture, to the environment department, to mining and industry, to native title holders and to different jurisdictions. This is a very eminently sensible plan. I would be absolutely delighted if we could see the government agree to support this sort of planning. I think that the government is very keen on a review, a white paper and all sorts of inaction. This kind of action, actually planning what's going on, could only serve to benefit Australians, the regions and, of course, the industries that are most affected.
It is incredibly difficult for individuals to negotiate on transmission lines or individual projects like renewables. So I was very proud of the work that was done under the LNP government in Queensland with the CSG industry and the introduction of the GasFields Commission Queensland. That allowed landholders to go to an independent third party and say: 'I've been offered this contract. Does that stack up with what you're seeing for other contracts in the region? Is this reasonable? Can I ask for this? Is this not enough to be asking for?' It settled the uncertainty and made it much more straightforward for individual landholders to negotiate. It meant that their neighbours knew what was in these contracts and what was available.
That also allowed them to feel much more confident about the decisions that were being made.
Of course, it's now well known that the CSGM industry in Queensland has provided great wealth to those regions. We have farmers and landholders who I talk to who have been able to afford to de-risk their property, who have been able to receive an income during drought years as well as good years and who have, fabulously, been able to send their children away for higher education. One family I spoke to the other day had one child doing medicine, one child teaching and a third child who they've been able to afford to bring back onto the property and who has been able to continue his dream of being a farmer. It's meant that the lady of the household, the business partner, has also received a well-paid job and has been able to pay for somebody to come and clean her house. I think we all enjoy when we don't have to do some of those tasks.
This is the sort of thing that comes from a well-planned agreement and understanding about the impact of these kinds of nationwide projects. What does it mean for an individual business or activity? How does it fit within that community? How does the community benefit from that as well? How do you leave that region richer rather than poorer from that sort of engagement? Unfortunately, we've heard some pretty horrifying stories around New England about some wind projects going in and talking to landholders with no provision for remediation of the towers. It is shocking to hear that, for example, after a 25- or 30-year project, the landholder would potentially be left with that kind of infrastructure to be remediated. It would require cranes. There's a significant amount of concrete. We're seeing up on the Atherton Tablelands blades that have been damaged on removal or coming up being dumped into ravines or into landfill, and that's not okay. That's not what Australians are expecting these renewable projects to do. It's not the standard that we expect to be set.
Unless we have oversight and a nationwide discussion about what this means for individual landholders; for individual businesses; for agriculture, mining and national parks; for native title holders; for environmental regions—unless all of these things are discussed, put on the table and planned, we will end up with a patchwork of different scenarios across the country. Some will be good and some will be bad. When there are bad ones, we are left with communities that are fractured and unhappy, and that will happen for generations. We will end up with places that were previously very successful—harmonious and industrious, agriculturally successful—and are completely broken, and that is a tragedy.
We're seeing in Queensland and right across the country that, when we have natural disasters, whether they be bushfires, floods or even droughts, it is when a community works together that you can get great outcomes for the people who live in it. I do believe that we are all here because we believe in the people we were sent here to represent. I do believe that, despite being out on election days and having people come in and say we're all the same, the one thing that does bind us is that we do believe in better outcomes for our people. This is a way to get better outcomes for our people not just in the region that each of us comes from but right across the country, because we can do things better, but we do need to elevate it into the sort of inquiry that the Senate can have.
A Senate inquiry can be broad ranging. It can call for new witnesses as the inquiry goes on. It can provide the sort of advice and deep dive into topics that would leave the country better off. And so, like Senator O'Sullivan, I most sincerely hope that the words that have been spoken in support of this reference motion are heard by the government and members of the crossbench and that we can genuinely all join together to do something, to build a community that is in the nation's interest and will allow all communities to benefit from these significant investments.
We are talking about billions of dollars. Unless there is serious planning by government, it will be left to be negotiated by big companies. Big companies coming in from Italy and Spain in particular are the ones that I'm seeing in the north. They receive significant government subsidies, and they will be going where they think the best outcome for them will be. I've seen planning maps where proponents have not been able to negotiate over an individual farm or environmental site and so they've done a big dogleg around it. That's okay so long as there is whole-of-project planning on that. But what it can do is then push the project into some smaller property where there's somebody who's less equipped to negotiate or doesn't know that they can negotiate. In North Queensland, property owners have come to me and said: 'I didn't know that I could reject this. I didn't know that I could negotiate it. Now I'm left with a property that's cut in half, and I've not been able to negotiate for additional help to build new dams or fences or to fence off the nature refuge that's been agreed with government.'
This is important stuff. As a Senate, we can do this. We can elevate issues in a way that the House can't. We can do it in a way that individual departments can't. Ministers can't do this work. So this is the appropriate place to have a discussion about how to manage this sort of infrastructure planning. I believe it has been rushed. It's been jammed into communities. It's creating division. It's creating bad outcomes for individuals who aren't equipped and resourced to negotiate these things. We're being left with what will be future environmental disasters. We are left with economic disasters.
In Hughenden we refer to the 12 wind towers up there as 'the 12 apostles'. There's been talk of turning them into accommodation; there's been talk of turning them into a whole range of things. They were built with significant government subsidies but couldn't be plugged in because there was never a negotiation with the state government about upgrading the transmission line to take the intermittent energy that would be generated by the wind towers. Unfortunately, they're right on the highway, so they're a reminder to everybody who drives that way, every day, of what failure of planning looks like. That was a failure of planning between state and federal governments. That is a project that went broke—all of those government subsidies and taxpayer dollars disappeared—and it has been bought by a new organisation, which is trying to negotiate an outcome.
I highly commend this reference to the Senate. I think it's an important piece of work.
]]>