Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

The threat abatement plan for Phytophthora cinnamomi is a very, very important one. I think that, in the broad, all senators would be keen to see a proper plan adopted. I will start just by making some comment on the process, with apologies to the government and the minister at the table and the whip. I understand that it had been indicated this morning that the coalition would be opposing the disallowance motion and voting with the government on it. For that reason, the government has not come prepared to debate in detail some of the queries that I have and some of the issues that Senator Siewert has raised. The coalition had another look at this this morning. I have some interest in this and so do some of my colleagues. We have been persuaded by Senator Siewert’s elegance not necessarily that she is correct but that perhaps this does need some further investigation that had slipped my mind when the matter first arose.

I have an interest in this because in a former life I was a minister with responsibility for weeds of national significance. I was also a minister responsible for forestry and promoting the sustainable use of our forests. I understand that it is a very big issue in Western Australia and also in Tasmania but that it does have implications right throughout the country. For those like me who are not precise in the scientific discussion regarding the particular pest, it is related to dieback, as Senator Siewert has said.

What I have suggested—and what I think the whip, with my apologies to everyone, has perhaps also suggested—is that the conclusion of this debate might be better left to another day when there is a minister at the table who is properly briefed in relation to a number of the issues that I want to raise and that Senator Siewert has raised. What has attracted me to Senator Siewert’s proposal to disallow the threat abatement plan is the fact that it does appear that Senator Siewert is right when she says that this new plan really contains no action plan, nothing different from what has been in the past, and that there are no resources made available to do what needs to be done. I know the Western Australian government would be very keen to address the issue. It perhaps is not an issue for which they have funding or responsibility. It does seem to me that it is a responsibility of the national government.

I hesitate in saying on behalf of the coalition that we will support the disallowance motion because of uncertainty as to what would happen if this were disallowed. If this were disallowed and there were then no plan whatsoever in place, that would concern me. That was the coalition’s original proposition—that even a bad plan is better than no plan. Senator Siewert has said—I do not think she said it in her address to the chamber but in private conversations, and I hope she does not mind me repeating this—that her understanding is that if this plan were disallowed then the existing plan would continue. So there would be a plan in place, but it would send a message to the government that they really need to work with a new plan of abatement that has serious action provisions and is in some way resourced.

I agree with Senator Siewert, and she with me, in relation to Caring for our Country. That has become a very top-down, bureaucracy-driven plan, as opposed to the previous plan which was in place, which was a bottom-up plan, a plan where the community was involved. The community was very much part of the process and, because of that, it had the support of the community. I am very concerned about the way that the whole Caring for our Country program is going. I think that is symptomatic of what is happening here. As I understand it, this new plan is a fine set of words—not quite the right words—but it does not come with any real provisions for action and it certainly does not come with any commitment to more resources.

What if, in disallowing this plan, we were to say to the government and the department: ‘Come back with a new plan that actually means something. Come back with a plan that has some funding to support it and we will all happily support it.’ I understand, from what Senator Siewert has said—and I have not been able to independently verify this yet but I have no reason to doubt Senator Siewert on this particular issue—that the experts in the field, the appropriate people, the people who have been doing a lot of research on this issue who have genuine and serious concerns about what is put before us, were not consulted. That may not be correct. I was going to ask the government minister about that, if there had been one here who was properly briefed. I acknowledge at this time that Senator Wong, who would normally be responding to this, is not in the chamber today. Whilst I know that Senator Evans is very able and has great capacity and a broad range of knowledge, I suspect his knowledge of Phytophthora cinnamomi is somewhat limited.