Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

You are not doing anything about it. I will come to the issues that the bill attempts to deal with. The bill shows, as I said, that it is really only pandering to the seven per cent of the population. It is ignoring the overwhelming call for action in this area. We oppose the bill because of its failure to deal with the key issues.

Some of the amendments it proposes, we do admit, are of benefit. We acknowledge that. For example, the bill aligns the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Fisheries Management Act, which will be a significant factor in assisting in the management of our depleted fisheries. As a previous minister who had responsibility for resources and fisheries, amongst other things, I can say that this is a key area in preserving not just diversity but the source of supply for the future.

The bill will also allow for increased cooperation between the Australian government and state and territory governments. I think that is a good thing. But from all of the contact we have had with state governments we have heard that they too were given very little notice of what was involved in this bill. Just as this side of the parliament has been treated with contempt, so the government treats its state counterparts with contempt, yet it knows that the solution to these problems intrinsically involves the two levels of government working together. We are failing in this is because the government thinks that what it is doing it can do alone, and when it is left to its own devices it exposes the deficiency in its approach.

The bill also streamlines processes and eliminates unnecessary steps. We support those actions, as long as the public interest is protected and proper consultation is allowed. Clearly, we need to continue to strike a balance. The member for Ryan referred to this obliquely, but we genuinely believe that it is possible to strike a balance between sustainability and industry development. Labor has been at the forefront in government as well as in opposition in promoting solutions that achieve that objective. The original intention of the bill was to strike that balance between development and the environment. So we will address those issues. We recognise their importance. We would be prepared to support those particular measures if they were not contained within a bill that is deficient in so many other areas. We want the government to withdraw the bill and come back with a better-crafted solution. We will use the opportunity here as well as in the Senate and through its committee structures to highlight the problems.

Despite the question of climate change, which I have already referred to, being the most pressing environmental problem of our time, this bill does nothing to address it. Labor, on the other hand, has been putting forward policies for at least the past five years to address this issue in a comprehensive way. As I said earlier, the aims of this amendment bill are to get the balance right between development and the environment. The problem with this bill is that it tips the balance in favour of the development at the expense of the environment. We say that the balance has to be struck and that this bill tips the balance in the wrong direction. It is being rushed through, and we are moving to amend it on a number of fronts. The opposition’s second reading amendment highlights those. We also want to amend the bill to address the real and urgent environmental issues that face us: properly assessing greenhouse polluting projects, restoring appeal rights, restoring the independence of decision making, ensuring proper public consultation, reviewing the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and addressing the issues raised out of the Senate inquiry.

Apart from those amendments, which we are proposing in a positive way, the bill itself should also be opposed because it curtails appeal rights, undermines public consultation and further politicises the decision-making process. I will come to that at the end of my speech. Above all, it should be opposed because it does not address Australia’s greenhouse pollution or take any measures to protect us from climate change. It does nothing in itself to address the worsening water crisis or to protect the fragile coastal environment. It has been put forward by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who has totally politicised environmental and heritage protection. We remember the farce of the orange-bellied parrot and the minister who rode his horse around Parliament House in support of cattle grazing in the alpine high country.

On the question of water, our water crisis today is directly linked to climate change. When I was the leader of the Labor Party, one of my highest priorities was saving our rivers and restoring our land. More than three years ago I made a commitment to restore environmental flows to the Murray and to restore the health of that mighty river. I proposed the establishment of RiverBank to invest in water infrastructure in joint venture arrangements with state governments, in private sector water efficiency projects and in water supply improvement projects. We committed to returning 1,500 gigalitres into that once mighty river—the river that I walked across at its mouth and which had the width of a cricket pitch. In those days, that was dramatic enough. The other day, you only had to look at the picture in the press of the young girl walking across the Darling River, which has dried up. These rivers were the lifeblood of the nation. In any other country whose mightiest rivers were in serious decline or under threat from dying, they would have been doing something about it years ago—but not this government.

As I said, we proposed those initiatives back then. It was a billion-dollar program. It was fully costed and it was fully funded. It could have been afforded, and we demonstrated how it could be afforded then. We invited the government to pick it up and work in a bipartisan way to address this problem. Not only did they not pick it up; they used the 2003 budget to cut funding to the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. This government now wants credit for being seen to do something on water. I welcome the fact that they have finally recognised what we have been saying for so long. I welcome the fact that they have recognised the need to put effort and money into it. But what have they done? They have put forward a proposal for $500 million. Just imagine how much further down the track we would be had this government embraced what Labor put forward in an affordable way more than three years ago—a billion-dollar program over four years on top of their $500 million now.

It would be a real program that could give you leverage with the states, not this bickering that we see going on. We see Malcolm Turnbull, the great champion of water. Every time they ask him for a solution he says, ‘Oh, it is the states’ problem.’ I will tell you this: the Australian public are sick to death of the buck passing between levels of government. They want a cooperative effort. They want solutions—practical solutions—worked out. Of course it is going to involve commitment in terms of resources. But we are a wealthy economy, and these are the sorts of investments an economy that is prosperous should be making. They are about preservation for future generations. They are essential investments that this country needs to make.

As another demonstration of the impact of climate change, our 10 hottest years have occurred in the last 14 years. Just think about that. That is a dramatic demonstration of how serious this problem has become. It is on this government’s watch that this dramatic increase in the problem has occurred. The year 2005 was the hottest year on record, and the Murray River is at its lowest level for over 100 years. That paints a dramatic picture. If anyone wants any further demonstration of it, look at the drought.

The government have finally acknowledged the problem with drought this week. They have produced another drought package. But unless the government are prepared to tackle climate change, this issue is just going to get worse. What is the point in doling out relief packages time after time unless you are dealing with the cause? If they are failing to deal with climate change, they are failing to deal with the issues of our water flows, of drought and of all the consequences that go with it. It is not just the impact on the economy that people should worry about; think about the social infrastructure. There have been many reports of suicides, deaths and families being ripped apart. We have an obligation to save our nation, to look after it and to nurture it. We should not let it languish, blame someone else and refuse to turn up to the negotiating table to try and address the problem. That is the extent of inaction by this government.

Drought relief is essential. I acknowledge that. Indeed, when I was Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, I developed the national drought policy. I heard the Prime Minister the other day claim credit for the Farm Management Deposits scheme. I introduced it. I am delighted that the government have kept it because it is an important part of the way in which we encourage farmers to prepare their land and their natural resource base to prevent the impact and the ravages of drought. The package that I developed provided immediate relief and assistance for farmers and enabled better preparation for drought. That farm deposit scheme that I introduced could even out the incomes between the peaks and the troughs. It is also important to provide sensible and dignified exit strategies for farms that are not viable. Of course we have to provide drought relief, but we also have to assist marginal farmers to leave the industry with dignity. This is an increasing challenge because the failure to act on climate change is making marginal farms even more marginal. Again, it is the cause that this government is failing to address. It is producing bandaids—expensive bandaids, as we are finding out—to address the effect.

So, as important as these challenges are in dealing with drought, we must recognise the challenge of climate change and develop policies to counter it. We cannot develop lasting solutions to the problem of drought unless we develop active policies to combat climate change and address our water flows. Labor will ratify Kyoto—and we are proud of that. I heard the member for Ryan saying that we believe it is the panacea. We do not believe it is the panacea, but it is an important start. I say to the Liberal Party: I cannot understand why a government that prides itself on being the party of free enterprise and support for the market is denying Australia the opportunity to enter one of the new emerging future markets—that is, emissions trading. Where are its free enterprise principles? Where is its opportunity to let the market determine these levels? Its approach is to stay away from the negotiating table and say, ‘We’re not going to sign up until someone else comes in.’ We say: turn up at the negotiating table, use your international pressure to get the others to that negotiating table and deal us in in a way in which our industries’ interests are taken into account for that emissions trading regime.

We produce some of the cleanest burning coal, for example. Certainly our gas supplies in a production sense are far more efficient than that produced anywhere else in the world. Why should we not get credit for it? If we are not participating in the development of this market through the Kyoto protocol, we are going to miss the opportunity completely. Labor understood this. That is why we participated in the international forums and why we hammered home the importance of getting greenhouse sinks—if you like, plantation timber—into the equation for the purposes of addressing greenhouse gas emissions. We succeeded, and we did it in the interests of the nation. You do not represent the interests of the nation by staying away. That is why the member for Ryan is so stupid in ignoring the wishes of his people and not understanding the philosophy of his own party and looking to the opportunities that are presented by being a signatory to the Kyoto protocol. Labor understand the significance of it. We should get on board.

We need also to be encouraging the development of renewables and clean technologies in terms of our existing fossil fuels—sequestration techniques and clean coal technologies. We need to sign up to a stronger commitment to the mandatory renewable energy target, MRET. These are initiatives that Labor have constantly put forward. They are good policies. They address climate change, and we urge the government to address it.

There is one provision of particular concern: it is what we call the ‘parrot provision’ in this legislation—clause 324, which gives the minister the ability to regard information or advice from any source. This is the minister who holds up the Bald Hills wind farm but goes to China to open theirs. So he denies Australian industry the opportunity to develop wind farms but goes and opens them in China. All that to save a parrot. In saving a parrot, the minister has made himself look a complete goose, and this particular clause in this piece of legislation is designed to cover that stupidity. This is an ill-conceived bill. It should be withdrawn. The government should sit down with Labor, embrace the initiatives we have talked about and really do something on climate change. (Time expired)

See this speech in context