Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (17:29): I rise today to comment on a matter that Senator Cash has raised, and I share the concern of my leader, Senator Bob Brown, that this private members' time is being taken up by a matter allowing the coalition to continue a personal attack instead of dealing with matters of public importance. I mentioned this yesterday when Senator Sinodinos took the opportunity, in an incredible fall from grace, to spend his first matter of public importance for the year engaged in a personal attack on another senator rather than outlining a coalition policy or strategy. The normal procedure for matters of public importance is to talk about matters that are important to the future of the nation, and I move: That Senator Cash's motion be amended to insert the following words after 'Senator Cash': but considers the call from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) to debate Australia's economy, and his proposals which would lead to a $70 billion deficit and extensive job losses, as a more appropriate matter for debate in the Opposition's private senators' time. I have a signed copy of the amendment and ask that it be delivered to the chair. As to the matter of the coalition's black hole, it is quite extraordinary that the coalition would prefer to use private members' time to, in Senator Kroger's own words, 'be clumsily deflective and to refuse to have scrutiny and accountability for their actions'. That is precisely what the coalition is doing in relation to economic policy. What we have already is confirmation by Mr Robb, the shadow finance minister, of a $70 billion black hole, and Mr Hockey, of course, confirmed that, saying that the coalition faced the task of finding $50, $60 or $70 billion worth of savings. Mr Robb again confirmed in November last year that $70 billion was the order of magnitude of the coalition's black hole. People listening to this debate must be asking themselves, 'How are the coalition going to deliver the surplus they say that they are going to deliver, when there is a $70 billion black hole already in their promises?' The coalition have said they want surpluses of one per cent of GDP rather than the 0.01 to 0.02 per cent that the government intends. That would mean finding more than an additional $10 billion a year. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, at the Press Club, his aspirations on dental health and disability insurance— Senator Brandis: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 90(3): An amendment must be relevant to the question to which it is proposed to be made. I am aware, of course, that when it comes to debate on the MPI a great deal of latitude is given to recharacterise the question before the chair by way of amendment. However, I submit to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that an amendment in the form which this has proposed goes a very long way beyond the latitude that is customarily given. The proposition it advances is that the Senate form the opinion—the amendment has just been handed to me—that a particular subject matter would have been a more appropriate matter for debate in opposition senators' private time. I do not recall ever having seen an amendment of this character. It is not an amendment which addresses the substantive issue which it seeks to raise—that is, the economy and criticism of the opposition's alternative policy proposals—but rather something entirely different. It is as it were by way of commentary upon the appropriateness of Senator Cash moving the motion she has moved. Mr Acting Deputy President, I invite you to rule that this amendment falls beyond the terms of standing order 90(3) because it is utterly irrelevant to Senator Cash's motion. The expression of an opinion that Senator Cash would have been better off moving a different motion is utterly irrelevant to the issue which Senator Cash has placed before the Senate. Indeed, in substance—to take the point further—it is not really an amendment to the motion at all. It is grammatically in the form of an amendment, but in substance it is not even an amendment. It is a comment on whether or not Senator Cash should have moved the motion. In that sense as well it is beyond standing order 90. Senator Chris Evans: Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, I think Senator Brandis hit the nail on the head when he indicated that a great deal of licence had been allowed in these debates. I think that is right and, while I do not feel strongly on the issue, it seems to me, given the nature of the debate, it is probably not unreasonable to rule that the amendment is in order. But I have to say that senators ought to think about how they are treating the Senate and their own behaviour. This motion is a disgrace. The attempt to use general business and the time of the Senate in this way is a disgrace. It brings no credit on anyone; it brings no credit on the Senate, and this tit-for-tat, childless behaviour that is going on in the Senate is an embarrassment to us all. Mr Acting Deputy President, however you rule, I encourage all senators to have a good think about it. Senator Kroger: Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, the amendment has not been distributed throughout the chamber. As opposition whip, I do not have a copy of it, and I understand the normal courtesy of the senator moving an amendment is to provide one so that we have an opportunity to look at it. We do not have copies throughout the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Mark Bishop ): It is not a point of order that a proposed amendment has not been circulated. Senator Kroger: Can we ask the attendants to circulate it? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, we will ask the attendants to circulate the amendment, but I am aware that Senator Brandis has received a copy of the amendment. Senator Brandis, on the point of order, the motion that is before the chair is extraordinarily wide. Its opening words refer to the reflections of a range of members of this place and another place, and in no way is that limited by the remaining content of the motion. The amendment that has been moved by Senator Milne certainly to a limited extent comes within the known deliberations of a range of the persons referred to in the motion. By 'known deliberations' I mean comments that I have heard reported in the press or comments I have heard persons make in either chamber. Accordingly, whilst the amendment is very wide and at a distance from the motion, I do rule that it is in order. However, I have not had sufficient time to give more than cursory consideration to the points you raised, and the point you raised does have, in my mind, some substance and certainly some consequence. Accordingly, I will seek that the issue you have raised, whilst I rule against it now, be referred to the President for more considered deliberation and report back to the Senate, if he thinks appropriate, at a future time. Senator MILNE: As I was indicating, what we have at the moment is rhetoric from the coalition about avoiding deficits that would require them to find an additional $50 billion a year in savings. In the Press Club speech the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, said that by the end of a coalition government's term tax cuts 'will be in prospect'. What does that mean? Will be in prospect? Taken at face value, that suggests that there will be no tax cuts for at least four or five years. This policy seems to have lasted less than a day, because media reports then had spokespeople for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, saying there will be tax cuts within the first term. I also go to the issue of the clean energy package which passed through the Senate last year and in which there is considerable benefit to Australians, with a $10 billion investment in clean energy—a huge investment in energy efficiency—announced today. I urge people in the community to be aware that there is over $200 million that the community can now apply for for energy efficiency grants that have been announced today as part of that package. The coalition would abolish all of those and yet it is out there telling the community that it supports renewable energy whilst at exactly the same time saying it will not support the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Interestingly, in that context in Tasmania you have the opposition—the Liberal Party in Tasmania—saying that the government should try to leverage off the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for Tasmania to have a whole strategy in renewable energy. It is quite clear that Mr Groom, the spokesperson, and Mr Hodgman, the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, have not spoken to their federal colleague Senator Abetz, because Senator Abetz would be able to tell them that they ought not talk about leveraging off the Clean Energy Finance Corporation when he intends to make sure it does not happen and that Tasmania gets no benefit from it in that circumstance. Equally, we have Mr Groom and Mr Hodgman out there saying they want a second Basslink. They want to get that out of the Connecting Renewables Initiative, which the federal government has on the go. They are saying, 'We want some of that money for Tasmania.' Meanwhile we have the coalition saying that it has a $70 billion black hole. It is going to sack public servants and somehow it is going to add tax cuts. It is going to get all the benefits, supposedly, of compensation and so on. This is a complete mess from the coalition in terms of an economic policy. No wonder Senator Cash does not want to talk about the coalition's policy; she does not want to have any scrutiny or any accountability for her actions in relation to the economy. Let me move onto the issue of the mining boom. The Greens supported the resources super profits tax that was broadly in line with the Henry proposals. And we regret the fact that the government backed off the super profits tax, because it would have been appropriate to take excessive profits in the midst of a minerals boom and put them in a sovereign wealth fund in order to help Australia invest in public health and public education—particularly in light of the fact that under the Howard years there was such underfunding of education. We hollowed out the manufacturing sector. We failed, under the Howard government, to invest in education and training. We turned this economy into a far less sophisticated economy. We turned it into a quarry economy, and that is why the coalition are now struggling with their economics. They have a situation where they cannot indicate how they intend to make up the $70 billion black hole in their strategy. I want to go onto the super profits tax and the mining issues because Senator Cash is one of those who thundered against the proposal that the standard petroleum excise would apply to condensate from the North West Shelf. She was one who wanted to make sure that they did not pay an appropriate return—that they did not pay the taxpayers for the resources they were taking, that are owned by the community. There is an appropriate return to be had by the community from the resources of this country, and in the view of the Greens that should be spent on building the new economy—on building diversification and sophistication in the economy, investing in new manufacturing sectors and, in particular, investing heavily in education, training and pure research as well as applied research, because Australia happens to be very good at innovation. Australia happens to be very good at coming up with solutions to problems in particular technological areas. That is why we have such a fantastic global reputation when it comes to the solar industry in particular and the renewable industry. I am very pleased to say that it is because of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the clean energy package that we now see people wanting to come home from overseas, back to Australia, to get behind the transition to the low-carbon economy and create the manufacturing industries of the future. We are at a stage in Australia and in the world, in fact, where the race is on to make the breakthroughs that are necessary in the technologies, whether that is solar, wind or batteries for electric cars. We are looking at a global race to be first in getting the breakthroughs that will rapidly accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. That is what the Greens have been working on with the government to try to achieve through the clean energy package. We have seen the coalition oppose it, oppose it, oppose it. They do not want to see a transition to a low-carbon economy; they want to lock in coalmining—a massive expansion of coalmining in Queensland. In fact, they are massive coalmines that will lead to an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. They talk up cheap energy at the expense of the environment and an acceleration of climate change and global warming. They deny global warming exists for the most part. They want to see an expansion of fossil fuel industries at the end of the fossil fuel age, when our whole competitive advantage in the future depends on us leaving those fossil fuels behind and making the massive transition. It is a fundamental difference of approach. That is where these debates ought to go. As I was indicating a moment ago, in terms of fairness and income equality, we had here this morning a motion that I brought forward to address the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths, which is absolutely undermining the farm-gate price return for rural communities across Australia. The coalition, the National Party and the Liberal Party, voted it down with the government. Senator Ryan: Since when have you cared about farmers? What are dairy farmers going to do with a carbon tax? Senator MILNE: You voted it down and, tragically, there are farmers across the country who are going to the wall. We had the Queensland dairy farmers showing exactly what the milk price war has done to them, including the losses at the farm gate over time—the downward spiral that is going on. Exactly the same will now occur with Coles's discounting of fruit and vegetables—a 50 per cent reduction in the price of some lines of fruit and vegetables. Where will that leave the growers? How long is that discount in place? Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator Ryan interjecting— Senator MILNE: The word 'hypocritical' has been used in here. Let me say, in relation to the Liberal Party and National Party's position when it comes to farmers and farm-gate prices, whenever Coles and Woolworths are mentioned they get up on their soapbox in communities around Australia saying they are doing everything they can to address the duopoly. Then, when you bring things in here which will actually start to address that, they vote against it because, when push comes to shove, they are not prepared to stand up for a decent farm-gate price. This goes to the bigger picture issue of food security and food sovereignty in Australia. I would love to have a private member's debate in here at length on the issue of how you keep farmers on the land in Australia when they are under assault from coal seam gas, which the coalition totally support. Every last one of them is out there supporting the gas companies against the farmers. We are seeing the water resources of Australia compromised by coal seam gas miners and, behind them, the coalition totally support them and then get up and say they support farmers. Well, they are not supporting farmers in the Year of the Farmer. They are not supporting lifting productivity on farms. How is it lifting productivity when you drive a farmer off the land with coal seam gas expansion? How is that lifting productivity? How is polluting and compromising the Great Artesian Basin lifting agricultural productivity? It is not. We have got a situation here where, if you are serious about keeping farmers on the land and protecting and sustaining the land for food and agricultural production, you would be looking at issues like, first of all, the planning laws that allow so much agricultural land to go under urban expansion around the country, you would be looking at issues like forcing the supply chain, and you would be looking at issues like the margin of each stage of the supply chain, so that we could find out with Coles— Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator MILNE: Mr Acting Deputy President, don't you love it when people stand up and make a big issue of respecting the procedures of the chamber and then they just cannot help themselves but interject at length. I am on my feet now speaking. They will have their turn in a moment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Opposition speakers in this debate were listened to in absolute silence. The same courtesy should be extended to Senator Milne. Senator Milne, you were correct to raise that with me. Senator MILNE: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was just discussing the Coles and Woolworths duopoly and what is going on with Coles at the moment. What we should be debating in here this afternoon is how we can get an answer out of Coles. They are saying on the one hand that they are going to reduce the price of certain lines of fruit and vegetables by 50 per cent and they are saying that that will not have a long-term impact on farmers. In fact, they are saying that they are doing a great thing by the farmers by taking their surplus product. However, what is going on is that they have clearly negotiated a lower price with the farmers without guaranteeing a volume in return that they will take or a period of time over which they will take any particular volume. What is to say that farmers have not signed onto a low price in a time of glut, if you like, around the country and then will be forced to take lower prices into the long term? Furthermore, while Coles will deny it, it is very clear that Coles will not be suffering a margin drop in its profits. It will spread the loss across the supermarket to make sure that it is not out of pocket, but the farmers will be pushed to a lower level of return at the farm gate. At some point farmers have to decide whether it is worth continuing in the business of farming, and that is why we are suffering in Australia at the moment. With the average age of farmers increasing, younger people are deciding that they are not going to go on the land because they have watched their families struggle all these years for less and less of a return. That is the kind of debate we should be having in here this afternoon, and we should be taking on this duopoly. We should be looking at it. On Australia Day I was sickened to see big Australian flags over the tops of canned products in supermarkets. The assumption of the consumer is that if you buy this product then you are supporting something Australian, but we do not know that. The labelling laws in this country would allow the supermarkets to import vegetables from overseas by the container load, put them in those cans, stick an Australian flag on the front of the can and then lead consumers to believe that they are somehow supporting Australian farmers. That goes to the heart of the issue of trade, which is another issue we should be debating in here. We do not have fair trade under the current arrangements that have been entered into. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator MILNE: The coalition members are interjecting but they are the ones who oversaw the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. The former Minister for Trade Mark Vaile ran around the country telling people in rural Australia that there would be hundreds of thousands of jobs created in Australia because of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It was a sell-out, and the Productivity Commission has now pointed out that the claims were wildly exaggerated and that the benefits have not ensued as a result of that agreement. Now the US is coming back with the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement, which is being negotiated as I speak. The whole Australian community has no clue what the Americans will ask for under this Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement because the US is insisting that the negotiating documents are kept secret for four years after it is negotiated. That is not on. I understand from leaks that have been made in other countries that are in these negotiations that the US is coming back with big pharmaceuticals to try to extend the patent period so that the generic medicines cannot be made sooner. The result will be more expensive medicines for people in Australia and in developing countries. Equally, Monsanto is coming into that agreement wanting to overturn any restrictions on GMOs. We have a moratorium in Tasmania and we do not allow it there, but Monsanto will be coming back to try to overturn that. We also have proposed changes to copyright. They are trying to get rid of Australian content in the Australian media and communication rules. We have an issue here that warrants a debate. We have been asking the government to come clean and tell the Australian people what they are negotiating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. What are they going to sell and give up? What are they about to trade away under an agreement where there is no indication at all that this is anything more than a big geopolitical move to suit the United States, rather than offering any benefit to this country? That is what we should be debating. We should be looking at the broader issues; and, frankly, the Abbott opposition is not up to it.