Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to put the Democrats position with regard to this proposed reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee on the record. It used to be the case in this chamber in days gone by, before the government got control of it, that constructive proposals to look at important public policy issues were broadly given support across the board because it was recognised that it was part of the Senate’s role to not just have a look for ourselves at important public policy issues but, more importantly, enable input from the community, from people with expertise in the field and from people who were potentially going to be affected by those issues. This proposal clearly recognises that, as representatives of farmers have said, climate change poses a huge threat to the future of Australian agriculture.

It is all very well for Senator McGauran to come in here and talk about the government being friends of the farmers. It is a lovely label. I am not sure if it is the Nationals or the Liberal Party that are friends of the farmers; it depends which one of them you are talking to. Senator McGauran could give us a unique perspective on that, having experienced the inside of both of them. But the simple fact is that it is not about nice labels and rhetoric; it is about action. This government has spent the vast majority of its 11 years in power denying the need for substantial action in the area of climate change. There are nice-sounding programs here and there, and the Democrats have been involved in pressuring to get some of them established from time to time, but the actual implementation in most cases is far short of what has been needed.

In addition, there have often been piecemeal, short-term driven responses. There has been no comprehensive overview of these sorts of things and no focus on what needs to be done. There has certainly been no adequate, open and transparent consultation with the diversity of ideas out there. As Senator Siewert said in initially speaking to this motion, a protective screen is put across anytime anyone mentions anything about a policy area that might affect farmers, as though somehow it constitutes an attack on farmers, an attempt to try to destroy this, that and the other. We just get ideological, rhetorical diatribes.

Frankly, this does not help the farmers, apart from anything else. It creates this impression that they are a protected species and that nobody is allowed to raise anything at all without risk of being ferociously attacked for being somehow anti farmer. It is sort of a new form of political correctness we have under the Howard government. Mr Howard made a great song and dance about presenting himself as being against political correctness and people being unable to say what they think, and yet there is a whole range of areas now where, if people dare say what they think, they get slandered from one side of the country to the other. They are un-Australian, unpatriotic, anti farmer, anti mining, anti this—all of which, usually, is either exaggerated or fabricated.

The same goes with this debate here. This is a Senate committee reference; it is not a piece of legislation that will generate an immediate outcome. It is an attempt to try to examine issues. The government can interpret and interpose its own political rhetoric about agendas, but I think most people, including people involved in the agricultural industries themselves, recognise that there are serious issues that need a lot more action. And they need to be grappled with by people across the parliament. Senator McGauran says: ‘The government is doing all this, so don’t you worry about that. Leave it to us. We’ve got it in hand, just butt out.’ That is the attitude we get from this government on every issue: ‘We’re the government; we’re here to govern. We’re fixing it. Butt out. Leave us alone. Shut up. We’re not interested. We’re not listening. Go away.’ That is their attitude towards the Senate, the parliament and large portions of the Australian community: ‘We’re in charge. We know what’s best. Leave us alone. We’re going to do it.’

Clearly, on climate change—and not just on climate change but certainly on that area—the government has failed. To expect anybody to suddenly believe that they are across all of this, on top of it, committed to it and making substantial and urgent change is ludicrous. This is not something we can faff around on for another 10 years while they figure out which constituency they do not want to offend and how they can best pork-barrel them if they need to do something that might affect them. This is urgent. It was urgent 10 years ago, and the lack of action we have had over that 10 years constitutes culpable negligence. It is simply too late to be faffing around any longer.

That is why these sorts of inquiries are important. It is another example—the list is now getting longer and longer—of constructive, valuable proposals for Senate inquiries just being contemptuously brushed aside by the government. They were quite happy to sit in their own little back room and dream up an inquiry to try to score some political points on the Traveston dam in south-east Queensland and not consult anybody else about it. They just came in here and said that they were moving it and that their terms of reference were best. They could not even be bothered figuring out a reporting date. They just bulldozed it through. But when it comes to anyone else putting up ideas they are just dismissed. They just say: ‘We know what’s best. Leave us to it.’ But they are happy to set up an inquiry into the Traveston dam, which, broadly speaking, is a matter being driven by state government in any case.

Of course I supported that inquiry, and I must say I will participate in it enthusiastically, but it is a perfect example of why Senate inquiries are valuable. I think the National Party senators have made their own case for that. It does not matter that the dam is an initiative of the Queensland government. It goes to a range of issues of broader public importance and significance. It goes to issues of our national water policy; national environment laws; threatened species; transparency, accuracy and honesty in public debate; and giving the public a say—all of which are ample reasons to support the proposal put forward by Senator Siewert.

The other point that has to be made in this debate when the impacts of climate change on agricultural industries are being looked at is that agricultural industries are not just potential victims of climate change; they are also significant contributors to emissions in the first place. That is just a simple fact. Again, under the new era of Howard government political correctness and suppression of freedom of speech, anybody that puts out that basic fact is asking to be slandered as somehow being anti farmer, as attacking farmers or trying to destroy rural industries. Actually, what we are doing by putting it out there is trying to protect rural industries from the damage of climate change if they do not do something about it.

We are all hearing about the coal debate and coal exports. Frankly, I think it is a bit of a distraction. As I have said on the record, the notion of trying to close down coal exports from Australia is not practical and not necessary. The proposals put forward by the vast majority of environment groups, let alone anybody else, still see a role for coal down the track—a reduced role, but a role. Similarly, anybody that points out the extent of emissions from the agricultural sector is not saying we have to close it down. That is the sort of knee-jerk response we have had from the government anytime anyone suggests any sort of action. We just get: ‘You can’t do that. You’re trying to close it down.’ We are not trying to close it down; we are trying to make it evolve, for a cleaner future and a future where the industries will not be subjected to such harsh and dramatic impacts, as could well happen if emissions are allowed to continue to rise at anything like the rate that they are—or even if they are allowed to continue to rise at all. The chances of dramatic impacts are quite severe.

A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation report came out a couple of months ago. It had the finding that, globally, from livestock alone—so not the whole agricultural sector—the amount of greenhouse emissions is greater than from all the transport sector put together: cars, trucks, shipping and aviation. All of those put together still have lower greenhouse emissions than just livestock globally. Given Australia’s heavy reliance on livestock, I think it is reasonable to assume that the same thing would translate to Australia. Putting that factor out on the table does not mean we therefore have to close down the beef and dairy industries, but it does mean we need to be aware of that and take that into account in how we, on a scientific basis, effectively reduce emissions. And you cannot do it in a ‘business as usual’ way. It will mean changes in behaviour. It will mean shifting from some agricultural pursuits to other agricultural pursuits.

To say that we are simply not allowed to raise those issues because that is attacking the industry or being anti farmer is not only ludicrous and a deliberate suppression of speech and facts but also an approach that is not doing the farmers themselves any good. Even getting those basic things out into public debate would be served by this inquiry because, frankly, I think most Australians are not aware of them. I remember an article that was published in my hometown paper, the Courier-Mailit might have been the Sunday Mail version—a month or so ago where a columnist made the simple point that, from the point of view of either water consumption or greenhouse emissions, if people wanted to make a big impact then they could stop eating beef. The response and outrage that that drew from some readers was immediate.

To just refuse to allow those sorts of facts to be put out there is, as I said, not doing the agricultural sector, let alone any of us, a service in trying to ensure a fact and science based approach to how we reduce emissions. Certainly, the Democrats approach has not been to look for magic bullets or to target one particular industry or activity and make them the bad guy or the whipping boy for everybody and suggest that that is going to solve everything. It is an issue that is going to need across-the-board responses, across all endeavours of society. It is an issue that will require action and has impacts on all of us. In different ways, we will all have to change what we do.

In the same way that we should not single out any particular sector or industry for attacks, we also should not have any sector or industry exempt from examination just because of political sensitivities or political correctness. That is a key aspect of the government’s reasons that they have put forward as to why they will not support this inquiry, apart from their usual approach these days, which is that they do not support any inquiry except their own. That is basically the state of affairs that we have arrived at. It is another reminder of why the Senate contest at the next election will be just as crucial as the contest for who ends up in government. Whoever ends up in government, people want a Senate that is actually going to operate independently and enable proper scrutiny, not just of the government of the day but of issues of importance of the day. Their only hope is to return the Senate to a state where it is not controlled by one party or group so that we can make it function again in a democratic way that actually enables input from the people who are affected, rather than just saying: ‘The government’s in; they can do what they want for the next few years. We all just have to sit on the side and hope they do it right.’