Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that, pursuant to an order agreed by the Senate, I have been asked to attend the chamber in relation to a number of government responses to Senate Environment and Communications References Committee reports tabled across a period of time. This order notes the approach—since 1973, it says—that government responses to committee reports seek to be tabled or be tabled within three months of a report being finalised. I note that there has probably been a wide variation in terms of the handling of that since 1973, whether it be Labor or Liberal governments' compliance with that. I note that in that time frame there would be many such committee reports that have lapsed in different ways in terms of their relevance as a result of the passage of time and other matters along the way, and of course I'm pretty confident that the volume of committee reports being made by the Senate is probably much greater today in 2022, and in recent years, than it was back in 1973.

Nonetheless, I can advise the Senate in relation to some of the reports that have been identified in the motion passed by the Senate that work has been underway to respond to those reports. The government responses to the National Landcare Program and to the regulation of the finfish aquaculture industry in Tasmania are indeed being tabled today. And I'm sure that there will no doubt be a sense of interest from senators in relation to their contributions on Landcare—an important and very much valued program across Australia. Landcare is a program that our government has very strongly, passionately and enthusiastically supported in a range of different ways, and the finfish aquaculture industry in Tasmania is a sector that I imagine my colleague Senator Duniam is much better placed to address the merits and challenges of than I am, necessarily.

And, yes, I am certain that Senator Whish-Wilson will have much to say on a matter such as that. So I'm sure those government responses on those two matters are no doubt going to be eagerly anticipated by the Senate and, of course, I'm sure they will add enormous value to the debate in relation to such matters. But I know that, no doubt, when I conclude speaking there will be a rather predictable take note motion that will be moved and there will be a degree of faux outrage that will come.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not faux.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, I know, is very good at turning up the dial when she needs to have a degree of outrage. I think there's a little knob under Senator Hanson-Young's desk somewhere so she can work out which level of outrage she wants to flick to on the outrage machine. So she'll have her degree of outrage. Perhaps she'll have something to say about the finfish aquaculture industry as well. But, no doubt, there will be that approach taken from the crossbench, and probably from the opposition as well, notwithstanding the fact that I'm sure that, if we were to work our way through the period of their time in government, we would equally find many different committee reports that were not responded to within the 1973 standard of three months that I suspect governments of all persuasions have honoured more in the breach in that period of time.

I wouldn't want anybody to think that that means that Senate committee reports are any less valuable. The work of Senate committees is of crucial importance in a range of ways, and that of references committees has a unique role in terms of how they operate across our parliament. References committees of the Senator operate with a certain freedom and liberty to explore issues beyond the remit of specific legislation, and the unique aspect of references committees in this place is that they not only have freedom in terms of exploring issues beyond pure legislation presented to legislation committees but, of course, those references committees are constituted with a non-government balance in this place. Oftentimes that is a good thing. Those references committees with a non-government balance—I've been there, as chair of a references committee myself, back in the dark, dim days of opposition.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I bet you did a great job!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that Senator Cash would have been chair of a references committee too, Senator Stoker, and that she would have done a great job at that time. They are valuable opportunities for a constructive approach to be taken at times. However, there has been a bit of a trend over the years as well where references committees are sometimes abused. Because they have that non-government majority that they are constituted with, those references committees then operate in a way where they are used not so much for the legitimate analysis of the issues that are proposed, not so much for the pursuit of information and knowledge around those issues but instead for political purposes where a non-government controlled committee is able to pursue political attacks on the government rather than the purpose, original function and intent for which that references committee was established. I've noted that over the years there have sometimes even been attempts to have legislation referred to a references committee, if opposition parties of the day think they can get the numbers in that regard.

Those approaches, when they are used in ways that undermine the intent of those references committees, can indeed be, I think, undermining of the overall benefits we have from the very powerful and important committee system in the Australian Senate. Now, there has been a little bit happening, as there usually is in sitting weeks and in the finance minister's life. I haven't had a chance to go and have a look over each of the 18 committee reports from the Environment and Communications References Committee myself.

I have no doubt, Senator Whish-Wilson, that others, particularly in the relevant portfolio offices, would have read the valuable work of those committees. I just, in the last day or two, haven't had the chance to go and read the reports myself. I'm sure that in some parts they are valuable additions to public policy and debate. But I equally suspect that in other parts, especially given this references committee has for a period of time had a chair from the Greens—and I note Senator Hanson-Young's enthusiasm on this topic—it is probably the case that this committee's reports are somewhat laden with the Greens' view of the world, perhaps with the support of the Labor Party—a reminder of the type of Labor-Greens alliance that we could see after the next election, where their pursuit—

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Morrison-Joyce!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Usually the Labor Party seek to deny that there would be a Labor-Greens alliance, but I note Senator Keneally didn't on that occasion. She instead drew an automatic analogy to 'Morrison-Joyce'; those were Senator Keneally's words. So there you have it; Senator Keneally sees the Labor-Greens alliance as being akin to the coalition parties.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I'm just observing that anyone who goes in a coalition with a Joyce government has a hell of a lot of nerve trying to cast aspersions.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think that is a point of order, Senator Keneally. These are free-ranging debates. Minister you have the call.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, this is quite amazing! This is quite a revelation—that, even in taking that point of order, Senator Keneally didn't seek to suggest—

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to; thank you for the invitation!

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Keneally, there is no point of order.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator is giving me the chance to take the floor, Mr President, to deny that there is any coalition between the Greens and the Labor Party.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Keneally. Resume your seat.

Senator Keneally! Minister, you have 15 seconds.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A little bit of dragging, kicking and screaming there from Senator Keneally to deny that essentially the Labor-Greens relationship would be just like the Liberal-Nationals relationship—working in coalition, working in tandem, should they get the opportunity. That's what we saw for much of the last term of a Labor government, and that is the risk for Australians ahead of the next election. (Time expired)

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's response.

What a display of disrespect for the institution of this chamber in reviewing government policy and looking into issues of serious matters concerning the community. The idea that, as senators, we should just sit back, be quiet and do whatever the government of the day likes is just laughable. That is not the role of the Australian Senate. Our role is to inquire, to ask tough questions and to hold government to account. That is precisely why this motion, this request for the minister to respond today, was moved. At the time this motion was put forward, there were 18 reports of the Environment and Communications References Committee that this government had arrogantly refused to respond to, despite the rules and requirements and respect set back in 1973. During those times it was a big debate about the role of this chamber.

The arrogance of this government runs through everything, doesn't it? It's led from the top, by Mr Morrison himself, and it goes all the way down to Senator Birmingham, who is here today thinking that he doesn't have time, that it's not part of his job to have to read and consider and think about what his government's responses are to reports that are put forward by this chamber. Well, that's wrong. It is your job. If you want the gig of government, you take responsibility for copping accountability and scrutiny as delivered by this chamber.

It seems from the response of Senator Birmingham that, because governments past and current have been tardy in their response and accountability, they can be tardy now. They can be tardy in relation to responses to these serious and well-considered reports put forward by fellow senators in this place. This is the government of tardiness—spin, mistruth and tardiness—and we've just seen it from Senator Birmingham this morning.

There were 18 reports that the Environment and Communications References Committee considered, inquired into and reported into and that require government responses, some of which go back to 2014. That's how tardy and arrogant the Morrison-Joyce government are. Yesterday, after this request for the minister to come and explain the arrogance, dismissal and lack of accountability of his government was clear, the Senate received responses to two of these reports. Imagine that! So, if we were to keep asking for these, maybe by the end of the next term, if they were to be re-elected, we'd get some more responses. That is not how this process is meant to go.

There have been 18 reports with no response from this government, and why? It is because they do not believe they are accountable to anyone. They don't believe they're accountable to the people of Australia. They don't believe they're accountable to the chamber. They don't believe they're accountable to the institution of the Senate. This government, the Morrison-Joyce government, thinks that it's its way or the highway. They would like to write their own rules and not have to be accountable for anything.

Of course, we know the attitude of Mr Morrison in all of this: nothing's ever his fault, it's always somebody else's, and then, if he gets caught out, he doesn't tell the truth. The reputation of this government is in tatters because it is unaccountable. They think they are above everybody. They are above the law, and that's led right from the top, from a Prime Minister who schemes and twists and thinks that everybody can be taken for a fool. There is no accountability and no transparency, and when you get caught out you do your hardest to cover it up or lie through your teeth. These are the hallmarks of this government.

As we lead into what is going to be the next federal election, there are only three sitting days of this chamber left. All this request asks is that this government finally do its job and respond to the hard work of the committees in this place, the witnesses who have put forward evidence and the members of the Public Service who have participated in these 18 different inquiries across different issues. Many of them, yes, have to do with the environment, an important issue to many and most Australians, and with issues in relation to our public broadcasters and the rules that govern media in this country, another issue that is important to our community. But, no, this government thinks that if it doesn't don't have the numbers on a committee to get the reports and the recommendations that it wants then, bugger it, it's not going to respond. It is arrogant, dismissive, sneaky. It is always looking to blame someone else and cover up when it gets caught out. These are the hallmarks of this government, and this has just been demonstrated again here today.

On the eve of a federal election, when we have three siting days left of this chamber, the government has had an opportunity to come in and give some considered contribution to important issues that this chamber has debated, inquired into and worked on since 2014. Rather than taking that seriously, rather than being prepared to be held to account or to be transparent with the Australian people, we heard from the government minister that he didn't have time. He thumbed his nose at the democratic institution and role of the parliament and the right of the Australian people to ensure that there is accountability and transparency of their government. There isn't a level of accountability that this government likes. Every which way they try and avoid it. Of course there was a promise that there was going to be an anti-corruption commission in this term of government. Where is it? It's not happening. And why? Because Mr Morrison and Mr Joyce don't want the scrutiny. They don't want to be held accountable. They don't want anybody looking into their affairs. They don't want to be held responsible for the dodgy deals that the government have made with their mates in business, in corporations—big developers who've been given the green light to damage and destroy our environment. This government has an allergic reaction to truth, to accountability and to transparency. You can't trust them on anything.

It's not just the smirk that frustrates and alienates the Australian people from the Prime Minister; it is his arrogance to think that he doesn't have to do his job and that he never owes anyone the truth. Well, this chamber is standing up today against that arrogance not for ourselves but for the Australian people. The display from the minister today and their pathetic response just proves why this government does not deserve another day in office.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to take note and to make some remarks about the minister's contribution just now. You would think that this government, and indeed all senators in this chamber, would be seriously concerned and worried about the declining trust in politics. It is not an overstatement to say that this is a moment of crisis. Trust in Australian politics is at an all-time low. The 2019 Australian election survey, which is an important resource for every person here, showed that just one in four Australians are willing to express confidence in their political leaders and institutions. I find that terribly sad. I've spent much of my life in volunteer capacities seeking to contribute to Australian democratic institutions and to public debate. It's built on the idea that every Australian citizen has the ability to contribute, that every Australian citizen has the right to be heard and that the Australian parliament exists to safeguard those rights, to safeguard those interests and to ensure that we continue as a democratic community capable of taking important decisions for our nation together.

Just over one in 10 Australians are willing to say that they think government operates for all people. That statistic alone should concern every person in this chamber.

So, when a minister is asked to come to this place and explain why, since 2014, report after report after report that's been prepared by senators in this place has been ignored by the government, you would think he would do the Australian people the courtesy of providing a serious explanation, because Senate inquiries are a serious political process. Senate inquiries offer the opportunity for ordinary people working alone, working in community organisations or working as researchers to provide a perspective on the questions that should be concerning us as a nation.

I tell you what: just at the human level, there might be a job for people in chamber—a job that the Leader of the Government here was willing to disparage and making mocking remarks about, with a little bit of: 'Ha, ha, ha! How funny it was back in the dim, dark days of opposition when we had to stoop to chairing committees!' Well, Minister, that's not the way everybody in this place treats committees. We treat them seriously, and we know that the people who spend their time coming before us as witnesses take them seriously as well. These people spend hours writing submissions. Then we ask them to come to Canberra and provide evidence. We ask them to sit before us, to appear on television at times and to expose themselves to scrutiny. They come. They are willing to subject themselves and their evidence to our scrutiny. They sit before us and they answer questions. At times that's not comfortable for those witnesses, but they do it. Those ordinary Australians, those good citizens, do it because they believe that our democracy matters. They believe that the deliberative processes of the Senate matter.

So why is it that a minister, the leading representative of the government in this place, would have the temerity, the hubris and the arrogance to come into this chamber and treat a motion of this kind with contempt? He failed to respond to the original request to provide a response to all of these matters and has failed to provide a serious explanation for why they have done so. It's typical of the broader approach of this government, a government which shows disrespect to evidence and to experts on every policy decision.

It starts with the Prime Minister, doesn't it? I've given some thought in recent years to why the Prime Minister seems so pathologically incapable of responding to the public interest, because I'm actually a person who's generally generous about the motivations of the people around me. I know that I don't agree with many of the people on the other side, but I'm willing to acknowledge that they come here in a spirit of public service. But I have racked my brains to understand what it is that drives the Prime Minister. We've have had some fairly recent free character assessments offered by some of the people who know him best. According to the man who now occupies the position of Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Morrison is, in fact, just a liar; according to the unnamed frontbencher, Mr Morrison is a psycho; and, according to former Premier Berejiklian, he's a horrible, horrible person who—and I think this is the kicker and the thing which explains it the most—puts politics before people.

The:

Senator McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Smith?

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

Mr President, I think that Senator McAllister is now straying very widely from the matter that is before the Senate. That matter is clearly prescribed in the Notice Paper. It refers to responses to references committee reports. So I ask you to bring Senator McAllister back to the substance of the matter before us.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said when an attempted point of order was being made against Senator Birmingham, these debates are generally allowed to be fairly free-ranging. However, I will take note of the response being provided by Senator McAllister, and I will draw her back to the matter under discussion.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is needed is a leader who is willing to take responsibility for the stewardship of this place, for its functioning and for its role in a democratic nation. He could start by committing to the ordinary processes of accountability, by responding to the reports provided by this place and by insisting that the ministers in his cabinet respond to the reports that are provided by senators in this place and that reflect the evidence provided by Australian citizens. He could follow up by keeping his promise to establish some kind of national integrity body—some kind of anticorruption commission that can deal with the rorts and the scandals that have, sadly, proliferated under his watch.

He could, possibly, direct his people—his ministers and the public servants who work for them in executive government—to take the Senate estimates process seriously. We're going into estimates next week, and I tell you what: what's the bet that we'll see a repeat of the behaviour that we have seen intensify over the last three, four or five years under this government, where questions are taken on notice and then an irrelevant and meaningless answer is provided? Public servants nervously glance sideways at their minister to assess whether on this occasion they should just tell the truth about what is happening in a government program or whether there's some kind of punishment coming their way if they dare to speak up and actually explain what is happening in Australian public programs.

Whether it's responding to references reports, establishing an anticorruption commission or dealing properly with the estimates process, this is a government that is allergic to scrutiny and accountability. A minister in this place hid behind a whiteboard rather than merely be photographed in an uncomfortable week for her. A minister went to the cricket rather than attend a Senate hearing into the crisis occurring in our aged-care facilities as a consequence of the pandemic. This is a government that ignores Auditor-General recommendations. This is a government that's willing to defend its car park rorts, its sports rorts and its decision to purchase land at many, many times its value. It sees no problem with that and no questions to answer.

So is it any surprise at all that it has no interest in the matters that have been considered by the Environment and Communications Committee since 2014? These are questions about direct action, about land care, about finfish aquaculture, about online gambling and the harms it does to Australian families, and about climate change and its impact on fisheries and biodiversity. Do you all think that the Australian public don't care about this? Are these issues that you think aren't important? That is the very strong signal you are sending here. But worse—and I'll return to where I began—is your contempt for and lack of interest in securing and stewarding the health of Australian democratic institutions. (Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my small home town of Launceston in northern Tasmania, we've broken yet another temperature record this summer, we had the driest December ever recorded, and yesterday it was reported in the media that an estimated 60,000 Atlantic salmon—finfish, an invasive species that is farmed in the Tamar River—died. There was a mass fish mortality, because the water has warmed to such an extent that the nitrogen levels underneath those fish pens have starved those fish of oxygen. Those fish literally choked and drowned in their own shit in those pens. That's a problem for the salmon company, but it's not just the Tamar River. We've seen hundreds and thousands of fish die in single events in Macquarie Harbour, on the west coast of Tasmania. If you think that's a lot—Senator Duniam knows this—one of the companies, Tassal, lost over a million fish in a single event in the shallow waters of the Huon Valley. Why? Because our oceans are warming. Why am I raising this now? For two simple reasons. Two of the Senate inquiries that haven't been responded to, dating back to seven years ago, firmly warming oceans and the problems with finfish aquiculture in Tasmania on the national and federal political agenda. That's not to mention the amazing work the environment and comms committee did back in 2016 into the impacts of warming oceans.

Who in here doesn't think we've seen an unprecedented period of history where marine habitats have changed because of warming oceans? I honestly couldn't think of a more important issue in the environment than this. I'm a bit biased, because I spend a lot of time in the ocean and I care deeply about our marine ecosystems, but this is an issue that this chamber and this government have ignored. They have refused to respond to these inquiries.

The 2015 finfish inquiry—and I thank Labor for their support; it was fellow Tasmanian Lisa Singh who convinced her colleagues in this place to support that inquiry—began because some secret documents were put under the Greens door in Hobart. There were leaked emails from two of the CEOs of the three salmon companies begging the state government to do their job and regulate the salmon industry. They said, 'It is a ticking time bomb if you don't act.' Companies begging for regulation—you don't see that very often.

This was a significant matter of national interest because Macquarie Harbour—where we did have a ticking time bomb; it's been an unmitigated disaster since 2015—has protected federal species and is on the on the edge of a World Heritage area. Eventually, we convinced the federal environment department, because of those threatened species, to go down there and talk to the environmental protection agency. Finally, we saw some action on destocking salmon in those harbours. The regulation of finfish and salmon aquiculture is a federal issue. Yet, this government has refused to take its seriously and now they are reaping the consequences of that, as is the Tasmanian community.

Another report that this government has sat on for six years is the report on the mitigation of shark bites in this country. It was one of the biggest Senate inquiries I've been involved in, and I'm very proud the Greens led on this one as well. We went all around the country and took evidence from small towns like Ballina in New South Wales, through to Sydney, Perth and northern Queensland. We listened to all the evidence and we pulled together the world's first inquiry into mitigating the risk of shark bites and how we can get the balance to protect our ecosystems. Sharks are critical to ocean health, yet we have these fisheries devices, like shark nets and drumlines, that are indiscriminately killing not just sharks; they are weapons of mass destruction for protected marine life, like turtles and rays and whales. That was a great body of work, but this government has never responded. There are a number of recommendations in that inquiry about, once again, how the federal government could show leadership on this issue. It is way past time for the federal government to show national leadership on this debate. We still see the media victimising sharks. We still see state governments, like those of New South Wales and Queensland, refusing to remove these last-century responses to what is a very complex problem that has much better solutions. And they're all in that report—if the federal government would just listen and pay attention.

By the way, when we were holding this inquiry on great white sharks, which are a nationally protected species, there was a big push on to open up great white sharks to fishing, all around this country. We saw Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister at the time, calling great white sharks the terrorists of the sea. I remember when Mr Frydenberg flew over to Western Australia and whipped the media into a frenzy to kill great white sharks. CSIRO did a report looking at the genetics of white shark populations and found that, contrary to the myths that this government was whipping up, shark populations aren't exploding in this country. In fact, they're not exploding; they're flatlining, at best, if not continuing to decline.

We're still catching these protected species in shark nets. We're still catching whales. Senator Waters, who's from Queensland, knows that, every year, on the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast, whales are getting entangled in these awful shark nets that are just designed to kill marine life for a false sense of security. We've recently had the tragic death of a surfer at Snapper Rocks and Greenmount, on the Gold Coast, bitten by a shark, inside a shark net. He probably had a false sense of security, like many surfers and ocean-goers do—that somehow you're safe if the shark nets are there. Well, you're not. Shark nets do not make you safe from shark bites. They are simply a fisheries device designed to reduce the population of sharks and other marine life. They're totally indiscriminate killers.

We could do so much better if we had federal leadership. I'm proud that the Greens have led on this issue, as they have with warming oceans, through this Senate committee, and as they have with trying to get some action on regulating toxic Atlantic salmon in the waterways of my home state of Tasmania. The Greens will continue to lead on these issues. Senator Duniam, I hope that you provide a response to this today and that we see some action from your government on this issue; I recognise that we are looking at Commonwealth waters and other ways of farming finfish, and you can be sure that I'm keeping a very close eye on that.

I want to finish by saying what Senator Hanson-Young has said so eloquently already: the fact that we have 18 reports from a committee on the environment that haven't been responded to—many of them on critical issues like those I've outlined today—shows this government's contempt for the environment; it shows how low a priority it is on their agenda. There's been critical work done by good people, including the amazing people who work in the Senate committee—the secretariat and all the fantastic people—as well as all the witnesses around the country. There were hundreds of witnesses in the shark inquiry, and there were even more submissions. Yet we've done nothing. We've failed to respond and we've failed to show leadership on an issue that is a significant matter of public interest. This idea of shark bites, whether our oceans are safe and how we can better protect our marine environment is still one of the issues most talked about by Australians at their barbecues in summer. Let's get some responses before this parliament is finished, so that we can give them to the people who went out of their way to make submissions and inform the evidence that we need for good policy and good decisions. (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for the contributions made on a range of important issues relating to the work of the Environment and Communications References Committee. It's a committee that I used to be a member of. Indeed, I participated in some of the inquiries that Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Hanson-Young have spoken about. They've had their chance to say their piece, and we'll just leave that on the record.

But I do want to turn my attention to one of those inquiries that Senator Whish-Wilson referenced, and that was the one into the matter of finfish farming in Tasmania. That is something he did indicate to the Senate I would have a high level of interest in, and it is something that both he and I and Senator Urquhart and Senator McKim as well, as Tasmanians, have a strong interest in, albeit I expect Senator Urquhart and I are on a unity ticket with regard to the industry and not with Senator McKim and Senator Whish-Wilson.

Both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party support this industry in Tasmania that employs over 5,000 Tasmanians, predominantly in regional communities up the north-west, down the east coast and on the west coast. We talked about Macquarie Harbour and some of the issues that have occurred there. Down the Huon Valley, it's a huge employer in that area. It's something that both Senator Urquhart and I take very seriously and support.

The one thing with regard to this inquiry I want to focus on is the fact that this is about an industry in Tasmania, one that is regulated by the Tasmanian government and one that occurs within the waters governed by the Tasmanian government and managed by the Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority and the department of primary industries, water and the environment. That's something under the terms of our Federation that's well and truly within the scope of the Tasmanian government, not the Australian government. The committee report notes that extensively.

There are a range of recommendations that came out of the report. The three that I could see before when I was having a look through this report were recommendations for the Tasmanian government to act. The last time I checked in this place, the parliament we're in is the Australian parliament, to which the Tasmanian government is not accountable. They are the ones that those recommendations relate to.

Another point to make with regard to this industry is that there are—

That's a ridiculous proposition and not related to this debate at all, Senator Patrick. My point is that we've got an inquiry that at the time it was established we know the Tasmanian division of the Labor Party did not support, but the inquiry went ahead. The reason they didn't support it is that they knew it was a stunt. They knew it was just another beat-up. They knew that it was something that was going to be weaponised to try to trash an industry that, while not perfect, does a very good job of managing our environment.

This industry is proudly employing 5,000 people, something I support and something I want to see improved. If there are technological and regulatory improvements to be made in this industry, let's make them. Let's help them make them. That's why, rather than raking over some of these issues based on emotion, rather than fact and science, I'm keen to see what we can do within the Australian government's purview—that is, Commonwealth aquaculture. That's something you referenced, Senator Whish-Wilson—through you, Mr President—and I'm looking forward to having a science based, fact based discussion around what we can do to grow this industry.

I don't agree that these are a toxic, poisonous species of fish, as described by the previous speaker. These are a commodity farmed sustainably and one that we rely on for protein in diets and for economic support. This industry pays the wages of over 5,000 people. This is an important part of the Tasmanian economy and something that, as I said before—and I doubt Senator Urquhart would disagree with me—we in Tasmania are proud of. Ninety per cent of our population support that industry because they vote for the parties that actually support those 5,000 people.

I reflect on comments made by those who are opposed to it, again, based on emotion, not science and fact. They're cherrypicking stats and data rather than looking at these things in the context of the truth. We end up with these horrible emotive debates, which we need to steer clear of. As I say, that's my priority. That is what I'll be doing as we head into this work. The Blue Economy CRC is a fantastic institution bringing scientists together with industry and people who want to grow that sector and do it well. We have to remember that those industries that operate in the finfish-farming sector trade on brand. A lot of the evidence provided to that inquiry points to the fact that, in order to be successful in the marketplace, you have to be able to point to your record as environmental managers and ensure that you are doing the best you can.

I might just turn to the government senators' additional comments. Of course, it was clear at the time that the government didn't support the establishment of this inquiry because, as I've already outlined, it's a matter for the Tasmanian government. Insofar as the Commonwealth of Australia is concerned, we are heading down that path with Commonwealth aquaculture. That's something I'm very excited about and it's something, Senator Whish-Wilson, I can promise you I will engage with you on directly. We've already talked about it in brief. As work continues, I hope you and I can find a unity ticket to support a well-established industry based on science that actually will be good for the environment and the economy.

Sorry, I can't understand what Senator Whish-Wilson is saying, but my point is that I would hope we can find a way past the division and we could agree on that industry. I assume that's something you would like to see, Senator Whish-Wilson. I would invite you at some point in the future to come and stand with Senator Urquhart and me as Tasmanians to support the growth of this industry in Commonwealth waters. I think that would be fantastic. Imagine doubling the size of the industry and having 10,000 Tasmanians employed in this industry! That would be fantastic. We could do it based on science. I'm going to take a little punt here—not that I'm a gambling man—but I don't reckon I'll get any unity with the Tasmanian contingent of the Australian Greens. I don't think they'll stand with me, no matter what the science says, and they won't be standing with Senator Urquhart either to support growth, no matter what the Blue Economy CRC says. I expect we will be facing opposition to growth in that sector.

I'll go back to the government senators' additional comments. Obviously the government was opposed to the inquiry because it would be used as a platform for anti-industry attacks. Quite clearly that was the case; it happened. We noted also that the Tasmanian division of the Labor Party didn't support the inquiry. The points made by the government senators include the fact that there were appropriate systems and regulatory frameworks in place but, most importantly, that it was a matter for the Tasmanian government.

There's concern around the lack of response to this, but I think it's important to look at what has happened in Tasmania since that point in time, under the auspices of the Tasmanian government. They are the ones who are actually charged under regulation and legislation to regulate and manage that industry, to improve its future, to improve its impact on the environment and to ensure that it remains a strong industry. There have been a range of changes made to how they do business down there; not all of them, I have to say, have been supported by sections of the community.

No matter what we do, no matter how far we go to try and ensure an industry is sustainable, they will never ever be happy because trashing the brand of these businesses and the future livelihoods of these 5,000 Tasmanians who work in this industry is important for them, because it's about politics; just like this report was about politics. It's not about actually improving the future for Tasmanians and making sure that regional communities can survive. Senator Urquhart and I—and I hope she would never disagree with me on this—stand for those jobs. They are based on sustainable practices and science, and they improve every year. Every year those businesses get better at what they do. We support them to ensure that they can continue to improve and provide that important commodity to the Australian marketplace and, of course, exports.

As I said before, none of this is about committee report responses; it's about politics, it's about division and it's about running down Tasmanian jobs and businesses. I say to those who keep doing this and who keep highlighting divisions and trying to run these entities down: stop it. It's not what the majority of Tasmanians and, indeed, Australians want. They want us to get on with creating conditions that are actually supportive of jobs and creating environmental outcomes that are based on science, not emotion.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, one of the highest governance training organisations in this country, I learnt a lot about accountability and transparency. Coming out of that training and coming into this place, I see a very real lack of accountability and transparency, which is the very essence of how you govern an organisation, a corporation and—I thought—a country. Obviously that isn't the case, and maybe they should include in that training that, when you get to the place of governing the country, accountability and transparency just does not apply, particularly to this government.

To hear the government's contribution and excuses as to why they can't be accountable and transparent to the people of this country is an absolute joke. To hear the government talk about science and sustainable practices while there are black senators in this place who come from over 65,000 years of sustainable practices in this country is also an absolute insult. You want to think about whether or not to stand for the acknowledgement of country the next time we sit because, if you can't acknowledge the over 65,000 years of sustainable practices and our survival as First Peoples in this country, then you should sit down for the acknowledgement. An acknowledgement of country is about obeying the law of this land. The law of this land is about not harming the land, not harming the water, and not harming the animals and everything that belongs to these lands. So sit down to the acknowledgement to country. And, of course, take down your dot paintings, because I'm sure you've got some animals and totems in your dot paintings that are in danger of becoming extinct right now. So, while you have your hand on your heart and you're standing up to acknowledge us, you're actually stabbing us in the back and murdering our totems and our land and our water in the same breath.

You talk about 'commodity' and the land and water being 'your commodity'—stolen land, stolen water and stolen wealth from our commodity. We don't see it in the same way. The land is our mother. The way we look at our land and our water is the same way we look at our mother. If you can sell your mother as a commodity, then you're gross. It's disgusting that you could sell off your own mother and treat your own mother the way you treat our mother in this country—raping and pillaging our mother. I ask you: would you do that to your own mother? Look at it through the eyes of the First Peoples of this country and understand the hurt and pain you're causing our water, our land, our air and our people.

Those reports that you refuse to acknowledge or answer to are part of the solution to healing these lands and these waters. I know you're not interested in that. I know Labor aren't really interested either—only when it suits them. But we know your position on protecting country, and you treat us like a bunch of greenie activists when the greenie activists, or the Greens Party, are in step and absolutely respect the first people of this country. So, if anyone is guiding the Greens Party on how to care for this country, it's the first people of these lands. So don't refer to us as some breakout party that causes you grief because you're doing the wrong thing with your mates over here: Labor. Look at us in a way that you can stand for the acknowledgement of country, because you need to have a bit more respect and you need to account for the destruction and desecration that you are causing and creating for our future generations. You've been doing it since you arrived on your boats. Since you arrived on your boats illegally to this country, the colonisers, who only see our land and water as a commodity to destroy and make money from so that you're comfortable in your privilege, and your mates, who are giving you the money who run all of these outfits to destroy and destruct, all sit back with your privilege. You know what? Your children and your grandchildren are going to look at you in 10 or 20 years time and they're going to say: 'What did you do? What did you do for us?' What are you going to say to them? I want to know what you're going to say to your grandchildren when they don't have clean water to drink, when they have to stay inside because the heat is so unbearable that people are dropping like flies. What are you going to say to your children and grandchildren? What are you going to say to the young people of this country who are out there fighting for their lives, trying to tell Labor and you, the Libs and Nats, that you need to do more to sustain our future?

We want clean air. We want clean water. We don't need fossil fuels. We don't need the destruction and desecration of country and water. There are other ways to do this. Do you think all those young people marching for climate change and climate action are going to take up one of your jobs in your departments to destroy and destruct? No. No. They're going to be looking after your children and your grandchildren. They're the ones putting their arms around your grandchildren and saying: 'Come with us. We just have to try and survive for another couple of years before the wave comes or the heatwave comes or the dirty water comes'—which we know is already happening. We know communities don't have clean water because of the decisions that are made in this place. We know that you're stealing land off traditional owners to destroy and destruct. What does that say for our future?

What do you want left? What? Really? Because you've had free run to destroy and destruct, and you've made a lot of money out of it. What are you going to leave us? What are you going to leave the First Peoples of these lands? What are you going to leave the children and young people of this country? You're going to leave them in an absolute mess, an absolute dire mess where they'll be gasping for their air, where they'll be desperate for clean water. Wake up! Why can't you see this? It's happening now, and you can't even provide any feedback about the importance of protecting country. Why can't you protect country with us? Why can't we protect country together for all Australians? Why is it such a big ask?

Why do these fossil fuel companies and companies that are set up to destruct and destroy have precedence, because money won't matter when we are fighting for our life? Your status won't matter when we're fighting for our life. COVID shows that. Rich, poor—it affects everybody. You will be affected. What are you doing for your children, I ask. We are fighting every last breath to maintain the survival of our young people in this country and our old people, because our old people drop from the heat. What are you going to say to that? (Time expired)

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say Senator Duniam obviously missed a memo of the Labor-Greens scare campaign with his performance before—on a unity ticket with Senator Urquhart and supporting the Tasmanian fishing industry, as plenty of other senators do in this place. I'm sure he'll get a rap over the knuckles for that. I wasn't really going to come in and contribute to this debate—until I saw the performance of Minister Birmingham before. It was, as Senator Hanson-Young said, a disrespectful and arrogant performance. You can understand that he's probably not in a good mood this morning; the government haven't had the best of weeks. But it's not as though he's been busy passing legislation. I don't know what else he has been up to this week if they couldn't respond to these important 18 reports of the Senate committee. I have had the misfortune of being on the Senate committee with Senator Whish-Wilson on and off over the last couple of years as well and I recently just came back onto it. I was astonished to see that there were still so many reports outstanding that the government have not responded to. It really is astounding that they have been so derelict in their duty that they haven't responded to some of these important reports. I will come back to this later. You might think, 'Oh well, these are just Senate committee reports,' but they do touch on really important issues and they have real life consequences for people. I had an experience of that recently—and I will come to that later—on the road trip I did through North Queensland and Central Queensland with the federal Labor leader Anthony Albanese.

The Australian community take these Senate reports very seriously. Anyone who has been involved in these committees knows that the experts and the Australian people who participate, who have lived experience and turn up and give evidence, take this very seriously. They think it's important that they get the opportunity to express their ideas or their experience or their knowledge so that the senators can take that and put it into their report. And I think we've seen from the debate on this today that there often is contestability—Labor and the Greens will disagree or Labor and the government will disagree. That's exactly what you want when you're preparing these reports; you want some contestability. But it's also why you want the government to respond. They are actually looking at the evidence that has been gathered from experts and from those with lived experience so they can actually use that and implement it and turn it into policy.

This goes to the arrogance of this government and it also goes to the lack of accountability of this government—the fact that we're having this debate this morning, in the same week they have announced that they are going to junk, and not actually pursue, a federal integrity commission. It is no surprise when you look at the way they treat Senate committees, when you look at the way they treat the Senate, when you look at the way they treat accountability and integrity issues. This government always looks the other way. And they do it in so many areas. It's quite remarkable when you think about it: they haven't responded to 18 important Senate committee reports from environment and comms but they took half an hour in a meeting, with no due diligence, to give almost half a billion dollars to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. They can go and do that with half a billion dollars, with no notice, with no due diligence, yet they can't respond to these important reports despite some of them having existed for more than seven years.

I want to go to the real-life consequences of this and some of the reports that I've been involved with. If you look at the retirement of coal-fired power stations, what triggered that was the closure of Hazelwood—something that had a significant impact on regional Victorian communities and something the government has not responded to. You'd think there would be something in it they could learn, something in it they would be able to better respond to, yet there has been no response from the government on this important issue.

The other report that I had some recent experience of is in relation to the impact of feral deer, pigs and goats in Australia. This is something I had some involvement with when it was before the committee. On that road trip I did with the federal Labor leader early in January, we stopped at a banana farm near Tully that was run by Stephen Lowe. For those who don't know, Panama disease has had a significant impact on the banana industry in North Queensland. Stephen, the owner of that farm, was talking to us because he is so concerned that the Panama disease is only one farm away from his. And one of the things that is transporting the Panama disease across farms is feral pigs.

You might think, 'What's the real-life consequence?' Well, this is someone who has put his life into building this farm. He knows that feral pigs are causing the problem of spreading Panama disease across farms in North Queensland, yet this Liberal-National government can't find the time to respond to such an important issue in Far North Queensland. So here's a farmer—he employs plenty of people; he provides good support to the local community—who's doing the right thing by his farm and trying to build a long-term operation in North Queensland. He knows the risk of Panama disease from feral pigs. These are issues that were tackled in this Senate report, yet the government—the Liberal-National parties, who are supposed to look after farmers—can't take the time to respond.

When you think about these reports you might think: 'They're abstract. They don't really contain real-life experience.' But they do for this farmer near Tully. They do for these banana growers, who know that government action to stop feral pigs spreading Panama disease is going to be the difference between them keeping their livelihoods or falling by the wayside. Senate reports are not just glory exercises by senators; they have a real impact on real people with real livelihoods, and on communities. Banana farming in North Queensland is a significant industry. It employs hundreds of people. It is something that the government need to turn their attention to.

They are just a couple of examples about the real-life consequences of the government not responding to these reports and not adequately addressing these issues. It means people's livelihoods and communities are at risk.

This motion goes to the accountability and transparency of the government. And the way they have come here today and treated the response to senators raising this important issue goes to the arrogance of the government. We see it more and more. It is really troubling that there are so many reports outstanding. There are so many issues on which the government's integrity and accountability can be called into question, yet they continue to run, continue to hide. It is absolutely disgusting that this week they said they would be abandoning a federal integrity commission.

There's no doubt that the Australian people are sick and tired of this government. They're sick and tired of the rorts and the waste. They're sick and tired of the arrogance. Today we've again seen examples of an arrogant government, an arrogant minister, and an arrogant performance, when they really have nothing to be arrogant about.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Davey, you have about 20 seconds.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first thing I will say—very briefly—is: don't cast stones when you're in glass houses. Can Labor honestly stand there and say that they effectively and efficiently responded to every single report that was produced by a Senate committee when they were last in government? I can assure you that, no, they did not.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Davey, the time for the debate has expired.

Question agreed to.