Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will start by congratulating the member for Brand for his speech on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008, particularly his comments about aspects of corporate Australia. I guess some of them were a little bit selective; nonetheless, they did, in my view, reflect quite significantly some of the views of many of our major corporations in relation to emissions trading and greenhouse gas emissions generally.

If there were ever an issue where this House and the Senate needed to come to a united approach, it is this issue. On both sides of the parliament we are at risk of losing what the great majority of Australians would like to see in leadership at the federal level. I believe, and I believe most Australians believe, that something needs to be done, that human habitation has created an accelerated problem in relation to greenhouse gases. The government went to an election with an approach based partly on embracing this particular policy initiative and has embarked upon a process of developing an emissions trading scheme. There are currently documents out there that people can comment on, with a view to developing legislation. I think there is a feeling in the community that the government may well have already developed what it is going to put before the parliament. If that is the case, I believe that would be a mistake. The member for Brand made the point a moment ago that this is a very complex issue; I do not understand it and I am sure many of us in here do not. For this to be successful, the Australian community has really got to understand, or have a knowledge of or a degree of trust in, the process that is developing. So it has to be a very transparent process.

It also has to be a process, in my view, where the government and the opposition come together and formulate a united approach. This is too easy an issue to politicise because of its inherent complications. It is so easy to bomb it out, in a political sense—to go to the populace and comment simplistically on the cost increases that are going to occur in the early years or the later years and how they are going to destroy family budgets et cetera. It is too easy to concentrate opinion on the negative in this particular issue. The government has to make a decision as to whether it is really serious about embarking on a process that will make a meaningful difference. If it compromises itself at the start it may as well not start. If it compromises itself because it believes the opposition will score some political points in terms of electricity prices or in the debate— and we had one a few months back—about the impact of a trading scheme on the price of fuel et cetera, the general public will see that. So there has to be a seriousness of intent to actually do something about the problem.

There is an easy answer. The member for Groom and others quite legitimately have raised this issue: if we do something here and the rest of the globe does not do anything we will just incur some pain economically and the rest of the world will laugh at us. There are a number of issues there that really need to be addressed. One is leadership. If we are serious, and if we are in a position to do something we should be doing it; we should be displaying a degree of leadership. That highlights the significance of a united approach at a government level. If we are not serious let us forget about it. Let us just go back and carry on as normal, as if nothing is happening; let us deny the problem. We can design some political agenda that says there is not a problem and the scientists got it all wrong.

I believe there is a problem and, as a member of parliament, I would rather this parliament did more than enough rather than not enough. I would hate to be in a situation where my family and others look back in 50 years time and say, ‘Why didn’t they do something about that?’ I would rather err on the side of doing more than enough rather than too little, and if, in doing more than enough, it were proven in 50 years time that we did not have to go that far, I think that would be an excellent outcome. But if doing nothing or too little now were proven in 50 years time to have been part of an irreversible process that should have been addressed, I would see that as an indictment of my performance and the performance of many others in this building.

So I think that both sides of this parliament have got to make a decision. Is this a problem? Do we have a problem? If we have a problem we should agree on what the problem is and then develop a process where there is a united approach to solving it. The member for Brand mentioned many big companies and the language that they have used. I know there is jockeying and positioning going on as to who pays and who gets compensated and who is who in the zoo in this at the moment. But it seems to me that the smart businesses are recognising that long term this is a global issue, it is a global problem that could have massive ramifications economically if it is allowed to go on into the future and there needs to be a degree of leadership. I think it is all too easy for all of us to say, ‘China and India—if they don’t do anything, the world burns.’ Things change through leadership. If anybody does not understand how little things and little people actually change political history, they should have a look at the initiatives that took place in South Africa that people had thought would never take place, in situations which they had thought were irreversible.

I made the comment earlier that I hope that the government has not made a concrete agreement on what it is going to be doing before it takes advice through the consultative process. As I said, I think that we need to take the Australian public with us on this issue rather than impose something on them that they do not understand and that can be so easily politicised. Obviously, the way to stop that politicisation is to have the opposition and the government work together on a common scheme for the greater good of the community, even though there will be costs and winners and losers. That would be the ideal, so I suggest to the government that they try to get to that rather than just return to the Howard sceptics’ approach of accusing the opposition of being sceptical. Some of them may be; most of them, in my view, are probably not. Most of them would rather see something done, but they want to see something that they believe can be achievable and can be embraced.

One of the other areas I have suggested the government take on board is global reafforestation—and the shadow Treasurer made the point on a number of occasions that it can be a significant contributor to solving the problem of climate change. I did not hear all of his speech because I had a meeting to go to, but I do not think he mentioned Australian or global soils—in particular, the humus and organic matter in the soil profile—as a potential natural sequester for carbon. I am sure you would recognise, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, that in some parts of your electorate there have been massive changes in cropping techniques and some pasture techniques, and one of the spin-offs has been much healthier soil. People have been doing that not because they have suddenly become concerned about greenhouse gases and the carbon debate; they have moved into those technologies because they make more money out of them. One of the consequences is that in many areas our carbon-depleted soils are now accumulating carbon at quite a rapid rate.

This is a debate we are living through at the moment. I have spoken to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry about this. I know that they have set aside some money to look at what is happening with our soils and whether they can be part of the solution to the problem. But, rather than just planting trees—and not cutting them down—for carbon sinks and natural sequesters, we should also be looking very seriously at the potential of our soils to be part of the solution. We should not rush headlong into an emissions trading arrangement which does not fully embrace the debate.

In many parts of Australia there have been significant soil test results that indicate that organic matter and humus in the soil can sequester carbon. I know there is a degree of argument about measurement and the release of carbon in times of extreme drought et cetera, but in my view there are various techniques that could help with that particular issue. I would encourage the government to make sure that that area is covered. It embraces the potential of our soil to be part of the solution—a natural solution rather than a costly one. In fact, there are benefits all around. Our soils will be healthier and they will be drought proofed to a certain degree. There are a whole range of positives, one of which is natural sequestration of carbon.

I think far too much attention has been paid to that area by those who would like to make money out of it, those who like to include the accumulation of humus and organic matter in our soils as part of an emissions trading system. As you would recognise, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is currently a difficulty with the measurement of carbon in our soils. We have the same difficulty with the measurement of carbon in our trees, or any vegetation, but we seem to be able to develop carbon trade in some global circumstances with trees in particular. Those measurement issues can be overcome. But, even if they cannot, there are other areas of government policy—for instance, drought policy—which can encourage better soil management and more healthy soils. Even if carbon trading is not a part of an emissions trading system, these soils can be part of the solution to the basic problem—that is, not only carbon dioxide but also the methane and nitrous oxide that make up the great majority of the greenhouse gas problem. I suggest to the government that they once again have a much closer look at that before they develop a hard and fast emissions trading scheme, because over a relatively short time there could be some natural solutions to these problems.

There is another issue I would like to raise. I know this is a little outside the bill, but I think this is an opportune time to raise this issue. There is currently a lot of talk about climate change in the Murray-Darling system. We have just had the Prime Minister and the minister at the lower lakes of the Murray talking about the difficulties that are currently there. I think we all recognise those difficulties, though people have different views on how we solve some of them. One of the things both the Prime Minister and the minister said while they were there—I am verballing them a little bit, but this was the intent of their words—was that there had been mistakes in previous government policy—meaning the overallocation of water and the lack of recognition of what parts of our landscape could sustain in terms of land clearing and the application of water—which had led to this crisis in the Murray. They also said that the drought and climate change have been part of the problem in the Murray-Darling.

There are a couple of issues I would like to raise here, and one of them is pertinent to my electorate at the moment. We currently have exploration licences being issued to major companies—BHP is one of them, and a Chinese company is another one—to explore for coal on the Liverpool Plains, which is part of my electorate. Most people would be aware that the Liverpool Plains is probably some of the most productive land in the world, not just Australia. I guess people can buy and sell land and do what they like with it, but that land is underpinned by something like 20 interconnected groundwater systems that have a relationship which we are not certain of with the river system, which happens to be the Murray-Darling system.

We currently have a planning process for developing a coalmine that is state based and very much centred on localised impact. I am not opposed to coalmines; I have one literally next door to me. There is a coalmine within a kilometre of my bedroom window. But for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Water to say, at the bottom end of the Murray system, that past policy mistakes have caused a crisis in the Murray-Darling and then to refuse an independent study of the potential impacts of longwall coalmining—not only in highly productive food-producing areas but in areas underpinned by interconnected groundwater systems that we have no knowledge of—is hypocritical. To allow the states to maintain that sort of mentality is, in my view, hypocritical. It is totally hypocritical to blame previous policy for a problem and then allow an existing policy potentially to exacerbate the same problem. There is no knowledge—whether it be in BHP, China or the United States—of what would happen to the Murray-Darling system if you slashed the artery of a longwall mine and interfered with the hydraulics of the interconnected groundwater systems that relate to it. Some would say: ‘You can give up just one valley. The Namoi Valley is only 250 kilometres long; who cares?’ There are six valleys in New South Wales and there are groundwater systems in the other states as well. They are something that we need to know about before governments allow exploration or mining in these areas.

BHP recently said, ‘We are going to shrink the area we are looking at mining in so that we do not incorporate those groundwater systems or the flat, black Liverpool Plains soils.’ That is all very well for them to say, but that does not stop them making application in the future to mine in those areas. I call on the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts to take a stand and not to leave it to the New South Wales government. It might be that all the government is interested in is getting some cash for the exploration licences but, if we are serious about the Murray-Darling, climate change, coalmining into the future and sustainability of food bowls and production, we have to have more knowledge of these groundwater systems and their interconnectivity; otherwise, we run the risk of looking back in 50 years time and saying: ‘Why didn’t they do something about that issue? Why, when they recognised at the time that there was a crisis in the Murray-Darling system, did they take the short-term cash option and destroy an interrelated system of highly productive groundwater aquifers?’ I support the legislation.

See this speech in context