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

The Democrats support this proposal for a Senate inquiry into this particular component of serious climate change regarding the rise in sea level. It should be noted at the start that it is no particular secret that there is a federal election very much in the air. It is quite probable, in my view, that next week will be the final sitting week of the parliament before the election is announced, although that is not a certainty.

The motion before us has a reporting date of 3 December, which could be two days after a 1 December election or a few days before an 8 December election—to go as late as is practically possible. In my view, that is not a sufficient reason not to support an inquiry. As senators probably know, but for those who do not, an inquiry can be initiated to start and, whilst it might be suspended or prorogued during an election campaign, it is quite possible to then pick up and continue to run with it after the election. Of course, the composition of the current Senate will stay the same until 30 June next, so in some respects you could argue that the reporting date is probably a bit short for this inquiry. In any case, the initial part of the inquiry of seeking public submissions and input could well be done and, indeed, could continue whilst the rest of us are off doing our campaigning. So I do not think the election should be seen as a reason not to go ahead with this.

If there is one issue this Senate needs to grapple with and really pressure the next government on, whether it is a Liberal or a Labor government, then it has to be climate change. I could list a few other issues, but climate change has to be right up there at the top of the pile. It is an area in which the current government has failed dismally. The current opposition has shown some signs belatedly of treating the issue with some greater degree of seriousness. But, frankly, both alternative governing parties still have a long way to go to be really grappling with the finer detail on the specifics.

Because we have had such an era of wasted opportunity, of culpable negligence, from the current government the time frame is short. The need to pull together comprehensive, wide-ranging action in a vast array of areas is much more urgent. It is unfortunate that significant, complex and comprehensive measures will be needed to be pulled together in quite a short space of time. But, unfortunately, because of the neglect of the issue for 20 years, that is the situation we are in: we cannot afford the luxury of more drawn out, considered assessments about how best to go about this. It is urgent and that is a reason why this inquiry is appropriate at this point in time, despite the pending election. We can get on with the job now by starting to pull that information together and build on that momentum in the new parliament.

That is not to say that the inquiry before us deals with every single aspect of what needs to be done about climate change. Indeed, to some extent this particular proposed inquiry to do with the risks associated with the rise in sea level in Australia is in part looking at dealing with the consequences of climate change that is likely to happen and, in some cases, is already happening. The separate issue of how to reduce the risks of climate change, the extent of it and the impact of it is something that we also need to be working on.

Frankly, whoever are in government, I do not think that is a task where the rest of us can just sit back and hope they get it right. We all need to be working on it together across the political spectrum and across all parts of the community as cooperatively as possible. It is worth noting that one of the benefits of Senate committees in the vast majority of cases—but not in all—is that once they get underway most of the time people from across the political spectrum will seek to work together to develop a range of solutions.

I should take the opportunity to point out that it was the Democrats that initiated the first comprehensive Senate committee inquiry into issues relating to climate change. We did that back in 1988, I think. The report, tabled in 1991, was called Rescue the future: reducing the impact of the greenhouse effect. It was a unanimous report. It is a real tragedy that, despite the urgings and concerns of the Democrats and the recognition of the need for action, the recommendations for action that were put forward by people across the parties in 1991 were not meaningfully and genuinely picked up by the then Labor government. It is just one of the earlier examples of a terribly long list of missed opportunities.

There was a further comprehensive inquiry by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee—again initiated by the Democrats, in the parliament before this one. It produced a report called The heat is on: Australia’s greenhouse future. From memory, I do not think that report was unanimous but it certainly still produced a comprehensive range of recommendations. That inquiry was not just initiated but also chaired by the Democrats, and its recommendations received support from the majority of senators on that committee. Again, that was a missed opportunity on the part of the government in failing to respond to those recommendations.

There are many other examples, such as the missed opportunity of the government by failing to fulfil its promise to look at inserting a greenhouse treaty in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act back in 1999. The then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, backed down and totally acquiesced to the resource lobby within cabinet and the government, totally pushing aside any direct mechanism in our federal environment laws for assessing greenhouse impacts in particular proposals—despite his concrete pledge to do so to this very Senate in this very chamber. So there have been a range of missed opportunities on the part of the current government, and it must bear enormous responsibility for that.

It must be said in passing that, despite the overnight emergence of Mr Costello as the Prime Minister in waiting who is suddenly going to reinvigorate us with a new vision and a new agenda that he has not yet articulated, he has been absolutely in lock-step with every single component of this government’s actions, including Iraq, Work Choices and its absolute failure to take any action or responsibility for the housing affordability crisis, and Mr Costello has also been up-front and centre in the government’s strategy of refusing to act on climate change. He not only refused to act but actually set about actively and deliberately sabotaging efforts in the global arena to get action with regard to climate change.

There has been no indication at any single step along the way that Mr Costello has been anything other than an enthusiastic advocate of that policy of culpable negligence on the part of the federal government with climate change. As far as I am aware, the words ‘climate change’ have not escaped Mr Costello’s lips since he started talking again in the last 12 hours or so. As we all know, it took until this year for him to even mention the words ‘climate change’ in any of his 10 or 11 budget speeches, so forgive me if I do not have a great deal of confidence that we will see any major leap forward. I do not see any sign that Mr Costello has exercised a single synapse on this issue in all the time he has been Treasurer.

That is all the more reason why collectively we need to work on this to overcome the intellectual and political shortcomings of some in positions of influence within the government. There is no doubt that there is a wide range of expertise and ability, including from among many in the coalition who would contribute enormously by being able to engage with this debate rather than leaving it up to a few that have shown they do not have the capacity or an interest in the issue.

The other point I would like to make in speaking to this motion is about the issue of sea level rises. It is a serious problem. It is already happening and there is evidence with regard to some Pacific island nations and parts of Papua New Guinea of the damage that has already been done. It is important to emphasise that sea level rises do not just mean people finding the tide creeping up bit by bit and eventually lapping around their doorstep and around their ankles in a nice, gentle, slow rise. The real danger is not so much that, although that over time is obviously not a good thing, but the greater vulnerability of communities close to the coast to extreme weather events and to storm surges and the impact on rising water tables harming the viability of agricultural land and bringing up saline water into water sources that the people use for drinking water or for watering crops, and there is also the damage to foundations of buildings and infrastructure as well. So it is a lot more than just homes or land being flooded or drowned over time. These things can come on quite quickly and it is devastating for many communities.

I should point out, as a Queensland senator, that it is already a serious concern for Australians living in the Torres Strait, for example. One of the Torres Strait Islands particularly has experienced a number of serious storm surges in recent times. One could argue about whether that is or is not directly related to climate change. To some extent it does not matter: they are experiencing it and have to deal with it. I do not think that there is any doubt that climate change is making the risks from such things as storm surges and the loss of potable water supplies more and more of an issue. The amount of arable land on some islands including those in the Torres Strait and the amount of available fresh water on some islands is a serious problem already, and it is likely to become more serious.

Those sorts of valuable issues would be useful to put to an inquiry like this. It is not just an intellectual exercise with a bunch of scientists giving some theories and different scenarios; it is an opportunity to actually hear from people directly. The point needs to be made as often as possible that these sorts of inquiries and debates are not just intellectual exercises. We are actually examining an issue and the consequence of its direct impact on human beings, on Australians and, in some cases, on some of the poorest people living in our immediate vicinity in the wider region around Australia. We need to be looking at what this means for people at community level as well as what it means for the natural environment with the risks it brings to biodiversity.

Again, as a Queenslander, I have to emphasise the grave concern about the impact on the Great Barrier Reef and the marine park more broadly. It might sound like sea level rises should not matter for a reef because it is under water anyway. But obviously sea level rises can impact on the viability of the reef in different areas, particularly when accompanied by changes such as extreme weather events and changes in the temperature of the water in particular. That can certainly happen with sea level rises and it can also happen with changes in currents. All of these things can impact significantly and rapidly on the reef. Of course, there have been changes in sea level rises over time in the past, and sometimes in the fairly recent past, but the real issue with climate change and sea level rises is the rapidity of the likely changes.

So this is about forward planning and trying to prevent or minimise damage. It is a serious issue, and for those who want to say that it is too close to the election it should be pointed out that it would have been helpful if the government had not blocked previous inquiries into these sorts of areas. Once again it appears we are trying to have an inquiry that the government is blocking. It should be pointed out in passing that this is now one of a very long list of substantive and substantial proposed inquiries the Senate has put forward where the government is using its numbers in this place to block that from happening. I am not saying that governments should support every single proposed inquiry that is put forward—although, having said that, I think that the growing habit of blocking inquiries even into legislation is setting a very dangerous precedent.

One thing that the government should recognise is that they are not going to be in government forever—they might not be in government for much longer at all, depending on what happens at the election. All of the precedents that they put in place now when it seems like a good idea while they have the power are ones that the next mob will look at and say: ‘That’s not too bad an idea at all, actually. We might do the same thing.’ If the coalition does not regain government, then clearly the Labor Party is not going to control the Senate after the next election. But it does nonetheless create a circumstance where the precedents have been set. There is no doubt that the number of Senate inquiry proposals that have been not passed by the Senate in the last couple of years is at a level unprecedented for decades, as a direct result of the government’s use and abuse of their Senate majority.

As I said, there is no obligation to support every proposed inquiry that is put up. The Democrats do not support every inquiry that is put up. It may be that we should be a bit more judicious with regard to the inquiries that we adopt, the workloads that committees bring on and those sorts of things. I am happy to indicate my interest and preparedness to in the future look at considering ways to make sure that any inquiries that are put forward are as effective as possible. But that is a long way from the approach that the government are taking, which is just blocking anything that is politically inconvenient. They have done it time and time again. There have been more blocked than agreed to. Over periods of time, we have had committees sitting there with no work before them at all. That might sound like a nice idea, particularly given that both chairs and deputy chairs get paid allowances these days for those positions, even when in some cases the committees have not had a lot of work to do.

I should emphasise, because it is almost forgotten in this place, that there was a convention which was around for quite a period of time that there would always be one or two—and often more—Senate select committees going. These committees would be put together specifically and solely for the purpose of examining a particular issue, which is different from how the standing general purpose committees that we have are put together. We have not had a select committee initiated in this chamber for a prolonged period of time. That also indicates the clear attitude of the government that they will let a few inquiries go forward if it is in their interest but they do not want to have focused, rigorous and independent examination of any issues. They do not want to divert any attention or any power away from themselves. That has degraded the role of the Senate quite significantly.

The problem with trashing conventions is that they become much harder to restore. We have had a high turnover of people in this chamber in recent times, and we will have some more at the next election. It does not take long before the corporate knowledge and corporate memory disappears and people will not realise that select committees, rather than being out of the ordinary, were very much part and parcel of the day-to-day work of this Senate. There were select committees stretching over the life of a number of parliaments, like the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation. Previous to that, there was the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. We had the Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, which was chaired by the Democrats. That produced an incredibly valuable, comprehensive and unanimous non-partisan report. That provided a catalyst for big advances in the area of mental health.

The government should not be afraid of Senate committee inquiries. They actually give them a hand. They help; they assist. They also assist the community in being able to have a say and in being able to access the resources and information that gets tabled and put on the public record through the process. It is not just about what suits the government. One day, perhaps, there will be a recognition that parliament and politics are not just about the immediate contest for political advantage for each of us but about trying to do what is best for the community and about trying to provide more avenues for their expertise to be engaged and used and for people to have a say. It is real tragedy that once again that opportunity is being denied by the government’s refusal to support this proposal.