Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Environment, I present the committee's report on the visit to Singapore and Malaysia from 25 October to 30 October 2015, together with the minutes of proceedings.

The Standing Committee on the Environment went to Malaysia and Singapore in late October last year. In my brief remarks today I will outline some of the contents of the report. The committee was made up of four members: the member for Mallee, who I understand will be speaking in just a moment, and the members for Barton and Scullin and myself. We were accompanied by the committee secretary, Julia Morris.

The committee identified several issues of interest to focus on during our visit and, whilst it was not limited to those issues, they included greenhouse emissions, renewable energy, environmental protection, biodiversity conservation and governance frameworks for appropriate responsibility across jurisdictions for such matters.

During the visit, one of the most immediately apparent environmental issues facing both Singapore and Malaysia was the impact of transborder haze resulting from fires caused by slash-and-burn agricultural clearing in the region. This issue was not only demonstrated in poor air quality in all places visited; it arose in all discussions with international counterparts. It was suggested by many that the haze experienced this year in both Singapore and Malaysia had been worse than in any previous year and that it had had extremely serious negative consequences, including school closures, respiratory illnesses and other environmental impacts. The committee observed that responses ranged from frustration to a sense of futility that the situation may never improve.

Other issues common to both countries related to the use of renewable and sustainable energy and the importance of managing environmental impacts of development, including urban planning, traffic management, secure water supplies and waste management. Underlying these was the need to balance economic development with a commitment to ensuring good standards of environmental protection and biodiversity.

The committee heard on many occasions of the importance of government and non-government agencies working collaboratively to achieve outcomes. It was clear that the highly engaged and cooperative approach of many industry and government bodies had contributed to the rapid success of Singapore's reputation as a stable, progressive and respected place to do business. It was notable that there were differences between what was occurring in Singapore and in Malaysia. In particular, it was noticeable that in Singapore the commitment to greening the environment had taken place over recent years—in fact, they had been very successful at doing this. Given that Singapore is the third-most densely populated country in the world, again, space is not something they have an abundance of, so they were particularly effective in how they managed the limited space that they do have.

The committee was also fortunate to undertake the visit during the Singapore International Energy Week. The committee attended the opening session as well as a discussion panel session about the building of energy resilience. In particular, we were there when Mr Fatih Birol, the newly appointed Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, made observations regarding changing energy prices and political momentum for sustainable energy supplies, while maintaining a global commitment to a reduction in carbon emissions and the status of renewable energies as a mainstream fuel source which will be responsible for two-thirds of all new power plants. Again, the committee also learned about how Singapore is managing its own population challenges and particularly its water supply needs, which come from four different sources.

It was a different situation in Malaysia where, clearly, the palm oil plantations were perhaps the focus of our visit. I would point out that Malaysia is Australia's second-largest trading partner in Asia and the eighth-largest globally. The committee was keenly aware of the importance of the palm oil plantations to the Malaysian economy and was able to meet with representatives of the Malaysian Palm Oil Board and the Sime Darby plantation and refinery. Whilst we note that there is a lot of good work being done to manage the plantations and make them sustainable, there are still some concerns about the palm oil plantations in that country. We also note the importance of the palm oil industry to the country.

Finally, on behalf of the committee I express our appreciation to all of the organisations which were so generous with their time and resources throughout the entire program, the high commissions in both Singapore and Malaysia for all the good work they did, and the committee secretariat for organising and supporting us on our visit.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(3).

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on the report of our visit to Singapore and Malaysia. It is important, as good stewards of taxpayers' money, that at times people in senior leadership go and see what is going on in different parts of the world to gain a full understanding so they can bring good policy, ultimately, to the Australian people.

The Chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment has mentioned the smoke haze which was very evident while we were in both Singapore and Malaysia. I found myself wondering whether I was coming down with the flu because I had a sore throat, I was lethargic and my eyes hurt. The smoke haze was really significant. It was a strong reminder to members of the environment committee that humans are not just custodians of the environment; we live within the environment. When the environment impacts us to that level it does focus the mind on what are the issues at hand.

The discussions around how we deal with smoke haze in a regional context were very relevant. I represent farmers who talk about a drier situation because of climate change, but here were people who were being impacted in terms of air quality because of the different farming practices being adopted in Indonesia. There are lessons that we can learn from that as to how we can use agricultural exchange to help our regional countries lift their farming practices so they can, in turn, diminish and reduce any negative impacts on the environment for people who live in Singapore and Malaysia.

The discussion on the way we construct buildings was very relevant. There is a lot of work being done in Singapore on building things in an environmental framework. With urban planning and building natural airways through cities you lift people's standard of living as they go about their daily lives, simply by having good construction.

The discussion on local answers that empower people was also relevant. We looked at, rather than having a garden city, having a city in a garden, with people growing things in their own communities. Whilst the agriculturalist in me likes broadacre agriculture, and would rather this than buying their food, there is real value in empowering people to grow their food, even in very small, land-constrained areas, using hydroponics and so on. As well as giving people a sense of ownership as to where their food comes from, it allows them to feel, as part of being a human, something about the environment in which they live, even within an urban construct.

There was a lot of discussion around even the future of coal, as we looked at the global energy mix. It became quite evident that coal will certainly be part of the energy mix in the future. The question of course is, 'How can we not denigrate the resource but make sure we use the resource cleanly?' If you think about a 1960s car and the emissions that came out of the 1960s car as opposed to the emissions that come out of a 2015 or 2016 model car, both using petrol, the one is a whole lot cleaner than the other. So there were some discussions around that.

It was also evident that the palm oil industry is addressing some of its big challenges. The world demand for vegetable oil is substantial. On average—and this will make your heart palpitate when you think about this, Mr Speaker—the average Western diet consumes 52 litres of vegetable oil a year: one litre a week. No wonder that we have health problems! The average Eastern diet consumes 13 litres of vegetable oil per year. But that has been increasing as their diet becomes more Westernised. Probably, we should advise them not to become more Westernised! But palm oil is certainly a significant supplier of vegetable oil. There is some really good work being done as they look at how to manage palm oil environmentally and how to use integrated pest management—using owls to control rats and using weevils to control pollination. I found that just fascinating, as a farmer. We always thought that weevils were a pest.

I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their sense of good nature. There is value in travelling with people who we sometimes abuse across the corridor. We get to know them as friends and get to discuss some of the big challenges for Australia. I also thank the secretary, Julia Morris, for all her hard work and for putting up with us. I think this was worthwhile and I hope it has helped our understanding in order to formulate better policy for Australians when we think about how we live and work responsibly within the environment.