Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) and the Minister for Defence (Senator Johnston) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

I am fascinated by Minister Abetz's additional answer on NICTA! He confirmed the government is abandoning NICTA by a reduction of their funding to no government support after 2016. He then went on to suggest the private sector will fill the gap and—the most ironic of all his statements—appealed to the German government to fund NICTA. That seems to be the implication of what he said today.

The Prime Minister's efforts at the G20 to boost Australia's international reputation have fallen on deaf ears. The government was severely embarrassed by the contradictions in its policy. It was embarrassed by President Obama's speech, which implicitly chided the government for its inaction on climate change. It was embarrassed by its stubborn refusal of the invitation to join other G20 members in creating the Green Climate Fund. Of course, it has been profoundly embarrassed by the visit today of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to Australia's internationally respected information technology research agency, NICTA.

Germany is the largest economy in Europe and the fifth largest economy in the world. Germany is a prominent exporter. It has built its prosperity on the capacity to export machinery, motor vehicles, chemicals and household goods, and it is a longstanding exponent of advanced manufacturing because it takes seriously the advances in the skills of a highly trained, high-wage workforce—by government investment in those things. The German government has invested heavily in education, including in higher education. In fact, Germany has recently restored free university education. It is somewhat bizarre, therefore, that the Prime Minister lectured the Chancellor and other G20 heads about the government's education agenda.

German governments, both Left and Right, have also invested heavily in industrial innovation to commercialise the fruits of research. They understand that there is a need for and how important it is that there be a longstanding commitment from governments to undertake that. That is why Germany built the Fraunhofer institute and Max Planck Institutes so effectively within the German innovation system. The real irony here is that Dr Merkel chose to visit NICTA because of its partnerships with the German Fraunhofer and the Max Planck institutes, and NICTA's relationship with German global transport logistics firms Hamburg Sud, DB Schenker and SAP. Given Dr Merkel's doctorate is in physics, she understands the importance of research scientists to the innovation system. I am certain she would have closely questioned those scientists and she also would have been seeking some advice from the ministers for industry and communications—because how can this government have chosen to abandon NICTA, given how important NICTA is to the development of ICT industries in this country?

At NICTA there are 300 PhD students. I understand that probably half our PhD students in ICT are trained through NICTA. We know that this is an agency of immense international importance. While I am sure Dr Merkel would have refrained from embarrassing her hosts, it is hard to imagine that she did not at least want to know why it was that the Abbott government was turning its back on NICTA, cutting it adrift and ending its funding in June 2016, when NICTA has been a powerhouse of Australian talent and Australian knowledge. Dr Merkel would have wanted to know why the investments in NICTA's German partners are being given such short shrift by this government. How ironic it is that Minister Abetz now says he is talking to the German chancellor about her investment in our public institutions. Surely Dr Merkel has wondered why the Abbott government has chosen not to include this crucial area of ICT amongst the growth centres that have been established under the so-called competitiveness agenda.

How embarrassing it is that such appalling statements by the government have come thick and fast over the last three days. Is it any wonder that this government is known for its hypocrisy? Its complete lack of vision has been exposed for the world to see. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following Senator Carr, I cannot help but reflect that if he were an educated man and had a PhD of his own, he would be a doctor of negativity because all he can do is criticise and carp and whine. He is critical of the free-trade agreements that this government has finalised, which the previous government failed to do. He is critical of the G20. He is just down on Australia. It is the most appalling indictment of a former minister of the Crown. Now, he is critical of the National ICT Australia initiative—an initiative, might I point out, that was introduced by the Howard government in 2002. This government is committed to funding that with $85 million over the next two years.

It was always intended to be one of those significant points of difference between those who support free enterprise and industry and those who support government welfare and dependency on the other side. NICTA, when it was started, was an incubator. It was starting an embryonic thing that was funded by government until it could stand alone. Standing alone means having investment in it, not just government and taxpayer funds but private investment from domestic and international organisations. And that is precisely the conversation that the minister is having with the Chancellor of Germany. It is about getting private funding from German companies interested in investing in Australia. Somehow that is an abandonment of a great initiative of the Howard government. It is nonsense.

The problem we have with Senator Carr is: as an industry minister, he presided over the demise and the closure of the motor vehicle manufacturing facilities in this country. He was the guy whose great incentive, whose great mission to embrace new technology was to send SMSs into outer space in case the aliens would come along and respond to them. How could anyone take that seriously? Have you had any responses yet, Senator Carr? Has any alien got back to you yet and said, 'Hello, thanks for your kind message'?

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr is a bellicose former minister who failed so dreadfully in his portfolio. Now the only thing he can do is carp and moan and whine and complain. It is a bit rich to have a lecture from a former government minister who presided over $50-billion deficits, who racked up hundreds of billions of dollars of debt in his brief time in office. His was the most discredited government in the history of this country, worse than the Whitlam government. And those opposite are such sanctimonious hypocrites for defending their sandbagging.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hold the mirror up. You are the most discredited.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lines's interjecting reminds me of one of my favourite bands from the early 80s, A Flock of Seagulls, because that is what it sounds like when she is interjecting in the parliament. Senator Lines, show some courtesy. Stop chirping away and just respond to the issue before the chair.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a circumstance where the sanctimonious hypocrites on the other side of the chamber dare to get up and criticise—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, you might need to withdraw that.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the term 'hypocrite'. The sanctimonious and pious people whose words have never matched their own actions are standing up and criticising budgetary measures that are necessary to ensure our sustainability.

I cannot help but reflect on the fact that some people stand up here and question our investment in our Defence Forces when the other side cut billions and billions of dollars from it. Our Defence Force capacity is probably at one of the lowest points it has been in many years. The reason for that is because they were treated like some sort of handy bank where they could withdraw the cash and stick it into these silly SMSs into outer space. It was ridiculous.

You know what? I do not want to take any lectures on the use of taxpayers money from Senator Peris. I have got to say that. And I do not want to hear lectures on industry policy from Senator Carr. It is absolutely outrageous that they think they can stand up here and say to the Australian people: look at the great job we did and what a terrible job this mob is doing.

Those people on the other side are down on Australia. They are down on Australia. They want to see Australia get worse. They want to see their mismanagement multiplied again and again because they think it will make them look good somehow. It is not going to work like that. We have to fix the mess that was made and no amount of chirping and whining— (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again we hear from the other side: play the person, play the man, play the woman but do not get down to the tin tacks of the day. We have heard Senator Bernardi have a go at Senator Carr, have a go at Senator Lines, have a go on everyone on this side. But they are the ones who have had to come in here and defend a government and defend a Prime Minister who are so out of touch that it is unbelievable. In fact, even in my electorate office, I have people coming in and saying to me constantly now, 'We voted Liberal for a long time but we are not doing that next time. They are so out of touch with the real world.'

Those on the other side came in during question time and defended Mr Abbott's failure to act as a world leader on the world stage.

Senator Seselja interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could bleat like Senator Bernardi about interjections from the other side but I can keep talking. As you know Senator Seselja, I worked in the childcare industry. You can keep going. It does not actually make me draw breath. So go for your life, mate, but you have got a long way to go to make me draw breath on that.

Senator Seselja interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! On my right and to the chair.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The G20 communique said that taking action on climate change supports growth and calls for member states to take strong action. But what did we get? We got Mr Abbott's comments to the G20, which could not have been more poorly judged. He could not have judged the mood of that conference more poorly if he had tried.

Mr Abbott has always said that Australia should move on climate change when the world moves. Well guess what? The world has moved and it has moved away from Mr Abbott. The two biggest carbon polluters, China and the US, have announced to the world they are acting to reduce carbon emissions significantly. This is the global action that Mr Abbott wanted to see from other nations. How did he respond? He responded by making, frankly, a very embarrassing speech complaining—because that is what those on the other side do so well—that Australians do not want a GP tax and gloating about removing real action on climate change. It might have been a big stage but I can tell you I do not think Mr Abbott looked all that big. In fact, I think he made himself look quite small and like a sooky little boy.

US President Obama declared that his nation would double its pace of reductions and seek to cut its emissions by 25 to 28 per cent less carbon on 2005 levels by 2025. Obviously the President of the United States is aware of the devastating impact that climate change can have on Australia. He referred to it, as I mentioned in my question to you, Senator Abetz, in regard to longer droughts and more wildfires. But why can't Mr Abbott see it? China announced a cap on carbon emissions for the first time, so we have them acting, pledging to peak emissions by 2030.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What year?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have still made a move and they have still made a commitment, Senator Abetz. They have pledged to increase the amount of clean energy they use to 20 per cent by then. You can laugh about that, Senator Abetz, but it is quite a significant move—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, address your remarks through the chair.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr President, it is significant global action. Climate change was clearly an issue on the agenda of the largest economies, yet Mr Abbott tried to ignore the issue and keep it off the agenda. He could have been a leader and he could have sought to use the G20 to galvanise agreements amongst the other G20 nations, but he did not. Poor old Senator Abetz—I felt quite sorry for you today, Senator Abetz, having to come into this place and defend Mr Abbott and the Treasurer's lack of backbone. Once again, you had to defend the Marxist style Direct Action intervention into the economy.

I agree with Senator Abetz that Australia has done well to be on track to meet its five per cent goal, but let us remember that this is due to the strong action taken by Labor, not your Direct Action waste of money. It was due to Labor. Through you, Mr President, Senator Abetz has confirmed that, despite global action by major countries, Australia will not make a contribution to the Green Climate Fund. That is despite the US, Germany, France and Japan being involved. Through you, Mr President, I have to ask Senator Abetz: how much more of an agreement from the world does your side need before you will move forward on this issue? Climate change is obviously an issue for the Chinese— (Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased that Senator Bilyk, having criticised people for attacking the person, spent all of her time attacking the person! She spent all of her time attacking the person, can I say, falsely. I want to go through a couple of the issues that Senator Bilyk touched on, including the G20, and the free trade agreement—though not in any detail. Both Fairfax and News Limited publications have been praising what has come out of the G20. Let's read Mark Kenny's take on the G20:

Leaders from the world's 20 largest economies have committed to historic levels of cooperation and transparency in a bid to dramatically raise growth, lift millions of people out of poverty, and propel up to 100 million women into the worldwide workforce for the first time.

Brisbane's G20 summit concluded … with agreements to close tax loopholes used by multinationals, improve trade, encourage the setting of early emissions reduction targets, strengthen banks, reform energy markets including gas, and coordinate a stronger response to the Ebola epidemic.

In one of the most conclusive G20 summits held, leaders adopted the Brisbane Action Plan which contains over 800 firm economic reforms to be undertaken domestically by member states in the hope of turbo-charging economic growth.

That is not a bad outcome by a G20 led by Australia. Instead of the Labor Party bagging Australia and bagging the leadership, they should acknowledge what most people would see as absolute fact—that this was a highly successful G20 summit, ably led by our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, ably led by the Australian government.

We have heard questions on the free trade agreement between Australia and China. Again, both Fairfax and News Limited are praising what we are about to see in that free trade agreement. I think this will be a historic moment. Unfortunately, those on the other side simply could not get it done, so they seek to bag it. We can again quote from Mark Kenny:

… the first termer's—

referring to Prime Minister Abbott—

record on trade is unprecedented. Before even reaching the half-way mark of his first stint, Abbott has crashed through the wall of inertia and the tangle of befuddling technical difference that has stopped many before him, to conclude crucial free trade agreements with our most important partners.

This year alone, he has signed landmark bilateral trade agreements with Japan and Korea, ending years of deadlocked negotiations. Ably assisted by … Trade Minister Andrew Robb, whose commitment to staying the course is admired in trade circles world-wide, Abbott has succeeded where those before him failed to make ground. The secret ingredient is no secret at all: purpose.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 15:20 to 17:00

As I was saying before the break, I think there is much to celebrate in the outcomes of the G20, including—and this is something I did not get to mention before the break—the new global infrastructure hub. I think this is a fantastic initiative and I think it is fantastic that it is through Australia's leadership that it has been established and that it will be based in Sydney. That is another win.

I will briefly touch on the free trade agreement. It was great to hear President Xi speaking about this in the other place, speaking about the very important ties between our two nations. I thought there was much we could take from that speech, as well as from Prime Minister Tony Abbott's speech. I have to say that I think the partisan note in the opposition leader's speech was unfortunate and unhelpful. I do not think it is appropriate, when we are hosting a major world leader, to get that kind of partisan speech from Bill Shorten.

The opportunities arising out of the free trade agreement are endless. I thought Paul Kelly's piece on the weekend highlighted what a major breakthrough this would be—not just for our agricultural and mining sectors but particularly for services. Given the growth we are seeing in the Chinese middle class, the services sector is where massive opportunities lie. The middle class is already there, it is already massive, it is already prosperous and it is only going to grow. As a result, we will see opportunities in education and financial services. I see opportunities for our nation and I see opportunities for Canberra, for my home city—a place that is excellent at delivering services. We already have many exporters in this space. I commend the government for this free trade agreement. I think it will help to create great opportunities for our nation. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor does of course support free trade agreements. We recognise that China is a major trading partner and that a good free trade agreement can bring us many benefits. But, as Senator Wong said in this place earlier today, we have seen a lot of secrecy—way too much secrecy—around this free trade agreement. Indeed, we have seen nothing but orchestrated leaks from the government about what may and may not be in the free trade agreement. We have seen it talked up and we have seen it talked down. The more it remains in the dark, the more concerns Labor and the Australian public have. I have had a significant number of emails from Western Australians who want to see the detail of this free trade agreement. The Abbott government's track record is one of saying one thing and doing another. We all know the long list of broken promises. We certainly do not want to see Australia signing a blank cheque at the expense of our national interest.

A particular issue of concern to me is protecting the rights of workers. We want a good trade agreement but not one that reduces the rights of Australian workers. We are not against skilled migration—Labor has a strong record in that regard—but we are against the abusive systems that exploit migrant workers, that hurt the entire Australian workforce by driving down wages and conditions, and that undercut businesses that play by the rules. We need to see the detail of this agreement. We have heard a lot about it, but we do need to see that detail. Currently in Australia there are more than a million people on some form of temporary visa, which is equivalent to 11 per cent of our workforce. If we are going to add to that, it cannot be at the expense of the Australian workforce and it cannot be at the expense of the benefits that Australian workers and Australian unions have fought for over a very long period of time.

Not only has Labor said that the government needs to be transparent about this but so has the Productivity Commission, who have said that there should be transparency at all stages of the negotiations—not glossy pamphlets or brochures, not leaks to certain journalists, but real transparency—so that all Australians can see the detail and can express an opinion, through their elected representatives in this place, about areas of concern. The Abbott government, which we know to be a government of broken promises, says one thing and then negotiates quite the opposite—so the Australian community has very good reason to be concerned.

Hopefully we will see some detail today. We certainly think the Australian parliament and the Australian people are entitled to that. The Labor Party will be looking at how this free trade agreement benefits Australians, how it creates growth in our economy and how that growth will flow to all. The Abbott government appears to think that the benefits of growth just trickle down, but of course they do not. We need to see how this free trade agreement creates wealth and prosperity for all Australians, not just for a favoured few, and we need to see how the rights of the Australian workforce are protected in all of this. I am not yet convinced that Mr Abbott has got the message on jobs. Free trade agreements should be about creating jobs—but not just jobs for the sake of jobs. They should be jobs that protect workers' rights, that give people a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and that do not undermine Australia's long and proud history as a fair go country.

Question agreed to.