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

I am not sure I am pronouncing it right but, because it is written there, people will know what I am talking about. I would really like the government to come back—if the Senate agrees to adjourn this debate—and give some answers to the questions that Senator Siewert has raised and the points I have made. Can we get a plan that does have some action, that is not just fine words and that is not something you wave around then put in the bottom drawer and forget about? This is a very serious issue for many parts of Australia. It does require a serious response. It has been suggested to me that this is not a serious response.

What I want to know from the government and those who might be able to assist is: if we reject this plan, does the existing plan continue, so we do have a plan in place? I understand from some private conversations I had with Senator O’Brien that their briefing notes say that if this is knocked out then there is nothing. That is different to some other advice I have received, so we need to clarify that. If there is nothing else there when this is knocked out then I am fairly confident that the coalition would reluctantly oppose the disallowance. However, if agreeing with the disallowance will mean that the existing plan continues until a new plan is brought forward then that seems to me to be an appropriate way to go.

It is important that we get the department and the government to sit down and draw up a plan after consultation with the people who know and understand the issues—researchers and the Treasury department. I understand you cannot just say that it needs money—it has to be dealt with in the budget process—but it would be good if the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts could make some funding commitment from the huge amounts of money that are at his disposal. I think that would be a good way to deal with it. I am not sure how long it would take to get a new plan. There is probably six months of solid work and there needs to be good consultation with the right people. Then we will get a plan that actually means something. We will end up with not just a threat abatement plan but a plan of action to do something about this serious problem.

I will not hold the Senate any longer. I again apologise to the government for the confused messages they have received, which have left them a bit left-footed. I take full and personal responsibility for that, and I apologise. If we adjourn this debate, we can get some responses and be absolutely sure of the consequences of the rejection of the plan of action and the approval of this disallowance motion and some commitment from the government to detail a plan of action and detail some funding for the future. It may be that, even by taking this action, the government will be able to make some commitments as to plans of action and funding that may satisfy even the mover of this motion.

I conclude by saying that this issue is completely devoid of politics. This is an issue that not every Australian knows a lot about or even a little bit about, but it is very important. We all know about dieback. If this procedure may address that threat then it is worth spending a bit of time properly addressing the issue.

Debate (on motion by Senator Parry) adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the first sitting day of the next session.