Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by senators today.

It is a little disappointing that today, the day of the National Disability Awards and only a few days away from the International Day of People with Disability, the government has continued to answer what are legitimate questions about the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the NDIS legislation with partisan and dismissive diatribes. I would have hoped that if there were one area of policy where questions could be asked and answered in a civil way it would be the area of disability policy. I must take issue with the continued contention of those opposite that the opposition does not really support a national disability insurance scheme. The opposition does support a national disability insurance scheme. Also, I must take issue with the contention which we heard—repeated by Senator Wong and through Senator Evans's interjections—that the opposition only has a policy for a committee. What the opposition wants to see is a mechanism that can lock in the support of all parties in this parliament for an NDIS. What the opposition wants is a mechanism that can oversee the implementation of the NDIS over the several parliaments that full implementation will take. That is the purpose of the parliamentary committee that the opposition has proposed, to be chaired by both sides of politics, to oversee the implementation. That is the essence of our proposition. It is completely different from the characterisation that the government has given it.

The questions that I asked Senator Wong were pretty straightforward. They were about whether it was the intention of the government to announce this week funding to enable the implementation of a full NDIS. The reason why I asked if that announcement will take place this week is that the government are introducing tomorrow, in the other place, the legislation to give effect to the national disability insurance transition agency. It is not just me and it is not just members of the opposition who are asking the question as to when the government will announce funding certainty for the NDIS; it is also Australians with disability, it is also their families and it is also their carers. It is not a partisan question to ask the government of the day if they are going to provide funding certainty for an organisation which will be given effect to by legislation to be introduced tomorrow. That is not a partisan question. That is a legitimate question, and the fact that the government continue to hurl partisan abuse across the chamber every time we ask simple legitimate questions in a sober and reasonable fashion does not reflect on the opposition. It reflects on the government that the most simple questions and the most basic questions about the NDIS and NDIS funding cannot be asked without receiving partisan diatribes in return. Every time I ask questions on the NDIS I make sure I circulate the Hansards to people with disability, their families and their carers, so they see what the true attitude of this government is when it comes to bipartisanship and the NDIS. The government pay lip service to bipartisanship when it comes to the NDIS, but every time the hand of bipartisanship is extended, it is rejected by the government. The ultimate proof of that was when I moved a motion in this chamber to establish a non-partisan parliamentary oversight committee for the implementation of the NDIS and the Labor Party and the Greens combined together to vote it down.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because it was a bad idea.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let the record show that Senator Jan McLucas said that a bipartisan committee binding on all parties to oversee the implementation of the NDIS 'was a bad idea'. Let the Hansard record show that Senator McLucas is against bipartisan oversight of the implementation of the NDIS. But I can tell you, Mr Deputy President, that is what Australians with disability want. They want bipartisanship, they want parliamentary oversight and they want certainty. (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with Senator Fifield on one thing, and that is that today is a good day, because we are going to have the disability awards this evening. I know the one thing that will actually engage all people in this chamber is the recognition and celebration of the people who will be acknowledged this evening. So I think that, in a true bipartisan way, I can start off with that.

I was a little worried, though, when Senator Fifield said he was able to actually show that in this chamber all the questions asked by the opposition are sober and reasonable and that the only place where there is any objection or abuse is on this side of the chamber. I would think that any sober and reasonable evaluation of the Hansard would point out that—and we have had this conversation, Mr Deputy President—in many ways there could be a consideration of behaviour and how we interact across the whole place.

I am interested that we are taking note of the answers given to questions asked of both Senator Wong and Senator Bob Carr, because they are very important issues, but it is difficult in five minutes to respond effectively to both. In terms of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we are very keen to have that legislation in this place and to have the opportunity of a fulsome committee process around that, which I would expect, where all the questions that so many people have about the future of this wonderful scheme will be addressed.

We know, from the first round of the budget, that the trial process has been guaranteed. That has been out there publicly in terms of looking at the trial sites, which required massive discussion and consultation with user groups, with people across the country and, on the financial side, most clearly with the states, which seems to be forgotten in the way we look at finances around the national disability scheme. We have been very open about the need for this discussion through the COAG process. The services that people with disabilities clearly need—there is no debate about the fact that these services are required—require the financial, social and policy engagement of all levels of government in this country because, currently, the scheme engages both the federal and state systems. That is one aspect of pulling together the scheme for the future.

The implications of the full funding of the NDIS in the future will be a matter for the upcoming budget. There is no doubt about that and no-one is unaware of that process. In terms of what we will do when looking at the legislation when it comes before this place and through the committee process, which I expect will occur, if and when the Senate agrees to that, we will be able to identify exactly what the needs will be in the future and work with that.

I fully expect that there will be bipartisanship because I have this need for optimism, because I have this need to see a massive acceptance of the need to better improve services and to provide respect for people with disabilities in our country. The development of a committee, which was asked for by the opposition, was not considered to be the best way to do that at this stage. That was explained. I understand that people from the opposition who put that forward will be disappointed that it was not the chosen direction of the government. But saying that that means that there will not be full opportunity for bipartisan engagement is just not true. I am also interested in whether we could be given any information about where we have previously had this kind of committee in terms of development of policy. That would be useful.

I also want to make a couple of quick comments about the answers given by Senator Bob Carr on what happened with the UN vote. It was incredibly important for the government to have a united voice on this process. It is not the way it has been portrayed by people in this area and by the great investigations and references in the media. It is not the case that the Prime Minister was pushed into a position. When you have policy, what happens is that you debate it within the caucus, you debate it within the cabinet and then you come up with a position. It is clear that there is great support for our country to be involved in an effective process around the development of policy in this incredibly important area. We have seen the most wonderful development: a peace settlement has been put in place now, tenuous and vulnerable as it is, by people internationally saying, 'These two important groups, Israel and Palestine, need to work together to develop their future.' We all have a role in that. We must have that. What we have asked is that in this important UN vote we acknowledge that there should be a process to allow Palestine to have a greater say. (Time expired)

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today the opposition again extended the hand of bipartisanship on both issues, Israel and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, raised by this motion and, again, that hand was turned away arrogantly, dismissively.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seriously?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seriously. The politics of this is very straightforward if we talk first about the National Disability Insurance Scheme. How do you lock in your opposition to a process? You lock them in by having them be part of the process. The opposition was offering to be locked in with the government in a bipartisan committee that would oversee this. Everybody would be on the same page, speaking the same language and on the same wavelength. The government has nothing to lose from offering the hand of bipartisanship, nothing at all. Politics 101 teaches you that when you offer the hand of bipartisanship, it is almost always to the benefit of the government of the day; yet this government is so incompetent it cannot even see what is in its own interest.

So why do we offer the hand of bipartisanship? Because Tony Abbott took a leadership position on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the government was forced to respond, as it did in the budget context. But it was dragged, kicking and screaming. It offered $1 billion over the forward estimates, not the $3.9 billion requested, evaluated and recommended by the Productivity Commission. We now wait for the budget to see what funding is put in for the out years, because the sacred promise that Julia Gillard has made to all of those disabled people out there is that the money will be there, that there will be a ramp up of $7 billion or $8 billion on top of what we do already by 2017 or 2018. Those people are waiting. They take it seriously. It is not just a political headline to them. So why treat them with such contempt? Why raise their expectations only to dash them?

In relation to Israel, I will say only this: the events of the last 24 hours confirm that the judgement of Julia Gillard has once again been trashed by her own colleagues. The Prime Minister took a principled view on this, to give her her due. She, as Prime Minister, made a judgement and, as the principal foreign policy spokesman of the government—the person who recently has been doing most on the foreign affairs trail, if you like, representing the government abroad—she took a view, and her colleagues rounded on her. Senator Bob Carr, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, led the charge against the Prime Minister.

I do not ascribe leadership aspirations to Senator Carr but his behaviour was not that of a foreign minister, loyal to the Prime Minister, backing up her judgement. He took on her judgement. They have been emboldened within the Labor Party by the events of the last 48 hours, in which the Prime Minister's judgement has been rendered under such a cloud by the events in Melbourne of almost two decades ago which have, once again, reminded people that Julia Gillard's judgement cannot be trusted.

But on the issue of Israel there is a bond of bipartisanship between the Prime Minister and the opposition. The only people not in the cart are the Labor Party. The excuse that was given was that it might upset people in Western Sydney—that is, it is about votes. It is about Chris Bowen's seat of McMahon and about Tony Burke's seat of Watson. We were told that it might offend some of our trading partners in the Asia-Pacific and that it might offend people in the live sheep trade or the live cattle trade. Well, we offended them when we unilaterally revoked the trade, when we took away the capacity for Australians to trade with the region. That is what we should have dealt with. You do not trade your foreign policy for your trade policy. You take a principled view.

What are we getting in return from the Palestinians, who will be the beneficiaries of our abstention? Have they given any further commitments on going to the peace table? At least Britain is trying to get something out of the Palestinians in terms of if they get observer status at the United Nations they will not join the International Criminal Court and then try to take Israel to that court to charge them with crimes against humanity. At least the Brits are trying to get something in return. By the government's action we have given our vote—in effect, our consent—to what Hamas has done.

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

Thank you, Senator Sinodinos. Before I call the next speaker, it was my error for not bringing you to order earlier in your debate. I let it go and it complicated matters. Please refer to members of the other house and, in particular, office bearers, by their correct title, not just by their names alone. I remind all senators of that for the continuation of this debate.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President; I stand admonished.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to make a contribution to this debate and to take note of the answers given by Senator Bob Carr and Senator Wong to questions today. If I could follow on from where Senator Sinodinos left off, I do not think that there is one Australian who is not concerned about what is happening between Hamas and Israel. No-one could have turned on the television during those six days of horrible violence between those parties and not wanted some kind of a resolution.

A ceasefire was announced. I think that the conditions of the ceasefire are a credit to all those who were involved in the negotiations. But, as Senator Sinodinos has so rightly asked, we certainly need both sides to adhere to the conditions of that ceasefire and we need both parties to resume negotiations towards what we all believe is the right thing, which is a two-state solution.

But a question from Senator Barnaby Joyce in question time today was what really flummoxed me—to be asking the foreign minister about the importance of abstaining in this vote, as it comes up, for non-state status for Palestine. His rant actually became part of the question and, in a sense, it was oxymoronic. It defies belief that people would want to stand up and debate an issue like this while being so absolutely ignorant of the facts and having no understanding of what it is all about. Of course, abstaining is a political statement.

The notion that, because we have a seat on the Security Council, it means that abstaining is actually supporting Hamas's position is a nonsense. First of all, the vote does not count as a veto, which is what some people would like us to believe is the case, so our position on the Security Council is totally irrelevant; and that means that in this case an abstention from the vote is not a wasted vote at all. It is a very important political statement and it reflects our unanimous position, over many, many years and many governments, that a two-state solution must be negotiated through a sensible outcome. Israel cannot, as Minister Bob Carr said and as Israel has argued, be bombed towards peace negotiations. It is such a nonsense.

Someone, in the interaction in question time, suggested that Senator Joyce needed to study UN resolution 101 to understand the issue. We have an unequivocal commitment on all sides of politics here to what is a very important position of a two-state solution, and statehood for Palestine can only be negotiated through a resolution that is negotiated between the two sides. So, as I say, abstaining is a valid option.

The conditions of the ceasefire agreement are actually quite important, not only for those who are concerned about Palestine and for the staged departure of some 60,000 Israeli troops who are deployed along the Gaza border, but there is also the need for a very serious commitment to not re-arming Hamas. Dealing with the whole tunnel industry that has become part and parcel of the Gaza Strip is a very significant issue and, unless those conditions can be agreed to, it will be very difficult for Israel to make any kind of agreement with a moderate Palestine authority. We are all very conscious that this is not a partisan issue; it is one that we all seek a resolution to. I would hope that the coalition's position on this is not to undermine a peace process and a two-state solution.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Bob Carr and Senator Wong to questions asked by Senator Abetz and Senator Fifield. I am sure all senators in this place will extend, in anticipation of tonight's National Disability Awards, our appreciation for the success and courage shown by many disabled people and the organisations that represent them. And, of course, in anticipation of next week's International Day for People with Disability, I am sure the Senate again wants to note its endorsement of the great work that many people do to support people with disabilities in our community.

I want to touch briefly, in the short time available to me, on comments in the debate about the importance of adopting a bipartisan approach to the issue of disabilities in our country. No-one doubts that this is an issue critical to the generosity of our country going forward. To reflect on the contribution of Senator Fifield, I think his defence of adopting a bipartisan approach is an appropriate one, and it is disappointing that the government and others in this place did not endorse it at the time of its debate. As Senator Fifield said, a bipartisan joint select committee approach does allow this parliament a mechanism to lock in support from all parties for this important policy issue going forward. In addition to that, of course, it does provide a very effective parliamentary oversight mechanism to ensure that the implementation of a national approach to disability services is well constructed and well implemented over many years and many parliaments.

Senator Fifield and coalition senators believe that this approach is sound and forward thinking. It was somewhat surprising to hear the contribution of other senators in this place—some Labor senators—who suggested that a bipartisan approach was a bad idea. It is a great shame, but the reality is that over time this government is increasingly being characterised by inflexibility—inflexibility in a whole range of issues, not least the ability to develop and implement a bipartisan approach to what is an important national social policy; that is, the creation of a National Disability Insurance Scheme.

In the contribution of Senator Moore she was quite right to talk about the necessary engagement of all levels of government across Australia when we move toward the implementation of a National Disability Insurance Scheme. Reports today in the West Australian newspaper and in the Australian Financial Review point very, very squarely to the fact that the government is being inflexible in its approach to a National Disability Insurance Scheme. Let me quote from an Australian Financial Review article headed 'WA rejects disability scheme bill':

The West Australian government says it doesn't support federal legislation to introduce the national disability insurance scheme, describing the bill as too prescriptive and likely to set the state back 30 years to a time when people with disabilities had little control over their support services.

That article goes on to highlight the government's inflexibility. It says of the final version of the draft legislation:

… the state's Disability Services Minister, Helen Morton, said the final version failed to address WA's concerns and limited its role in decision-making.

The article goes on to say that the Western Australian government thinks that this Labor government might be more about promoting its own self-interest and that it should be about promoting personalised services, encouraging choice and control, rather than a constant prescriptive and inflexible approach to disability services as proposed by the government draft legislation.

In addition to that the West Australian says that the Western Australia state government:

… remained unhappy that the Commonwealth was insisting on sidelining the States in regards to the issue of control.

The scheme in Western Australia remained deadlocked after the state rejected the Commonwealth's latest offer of a fifty-fifty funding split with Canberra because—

not because of the funding split but because—

Canberra wanted to maintain its control over the particular pilot program.

It is very, very disappointing that this government is again characterised by inflexibility in its approach to disability services. But I am an optimist and I am very, very confident that, when the government's legislation reaches the Senate and the Senate decides to embark upon a consultation process across Australian cities and other locations, the bipartisan spirit of this Senate will come to the fore and that we will be able to work towards developing a truly effective National Disability Insurance Scheme.

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to climate change.

What a shemozzle of an answer I got from a minister who had no idea what I was talking about—absolutely zilch idea. He was not across his portfolio. He did not even seem to understand the report I was talking about was the report to the United Nations climate talks in Doha overnight in relation to the terrifying scientific evidence being presented as a result of warming permafrost, the deterioration of organic matter and billions of tonnes of methane going to atmosphere—and of course recognising that we are approaching an irreversible tipping point. That should be terrifying everybody in this chamber. We should be recognising Australia is nowhere near where it needs to be in terms of its target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Having said that, Australia agreed last year in Durban at the climate talks that we would recognise that the global warming potential of methane is greater than people thought previously. Previously it was 21 times that of carbon dioxide. In Durban it was agreed that it actually has 25 times the global warming potential of CO2. Countries like Australia agreed to adjust their national accounts accordingly. As a result, Australia had to increase the amount of methane going to atmosphere in our national accounts because of that increase in global warming potential. The issue is that the government, having decided to recognise that, decided not to require that methane emitters like coal seam gas actually pay the additional liability until 2017.

Why not? This is a new subsidy to coal seam gas—a new subsidy to the fossil fuel industry to say, 'Yes, we acknowledge our national accounts have to recognise our increased liability because of the increased global warming potential of methane, but we're not going to require coal seam gas to pay until 2017.' So the question is: what is the total volume of methane emissions from coal seam gas in Australia? What is it now; what is the forecast level from the approved projects; what is, therefore, the dollar value of the liability that is being deferred to the coal seam gas companies till 2017; who is going to pay accordingly; and what is this level of subsidy that the government has now decided to give to coal seam gas?

But that made me realise that there is this question: is it true that one of the reasons why the government has implemented no field studies to do on-the-ground measurement of the amount of methane pouring out of coal seam gas around Australia is that the government is trying to shield the coal seam gas industry from the cost of the fugitive emissions and the analysis that will show that all its claims about being cleaner than coal are probably wrong? That is the key element to this question, and the minister was a disgrace in not being able to even put his mind vaguely to any of the questions he was asked. I think it is about time the Australian community got an explanation from the government as to how it is that they are using American data generated by the petroleum and gas industry in the US. They are just trying to translate that to Australian conditions when the scientists will tell you that that cannot, and will not, give you anything like an accurate answer. Then we have the University of Queensland doing studies showing massive amounts of fugitive emissions coming from coal seam gas operations. We have Minister Ferguson attacking the university, saying it is not peer reviewed, when the nonsense coming out of the gas and petroleum industry in the US is hardly peer reviewed in the context of Australia.

So we need to know the extent of the fossil fuel subsidy that the government has just decided to give the coal seam gas industry in Australia out to 2017, the volume of methane emissions, the impact on our national accounts and when we are going to get field studies in place and funded. The technology now exists to measure fugitive emissions from coal seam gas accurately. The fact that it is not happening leads me to believe that the government is in so much of a rush for gas that it is completely failing to take into account how fast global warming is coming upon us in terms of increased numbers. We are now on track for three to four degrees at least. It is an unlivable planet we are talking about, yet this parliament is obsessed with the AWU. We have a climate emergency on our hands.

Question agreed to.