Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Looking back on the inquiry of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee into native vegetation laws, greenhouse gas abatement and climate change measures, I think it is one of those good ideas that the opposition think they have but when they actually get into the nitty-gritty of the inquiry probably wish they had not sought to do so. The terms of reference of the committee encompass the rhetoric that was being used by the opposition to try to gain support amongst farmers and to try to share blame on anywhere but the coalition on this issue of native vegetation. The terms of reference go to the diminution of land asset value. They go to compensation arrangements for landholders. They go to the method of calculation of asset value and ‘any other related matter’. Yet if you look at the recommendations, which we as government members do not have great problems with, you will see they talk about anything but the terms of reference. Why is that? It is because this was a pure political position being put by the coalition to try to raise their position with farmers around the country. All they did was raise expectations through this inquiry and delivered on nothing. They delivered on nothing.

I have heard much about hypocrisy in the debates in this chamber this afternoon but, let me tell you, the hypocrisy from the opposition senators on this was huge. The hypocrisy was oozing from every pore in their bodies on this issue. They were up there arguing that there should be compensation when they were talking to farmers outside Parliament House at rallies but, as soon as they had to face some reality, they ran away from that position. I must say the coalition have got form on this whole issue and that form goes back a long way. It goes back to about 1995, when one of those coalition senators, Senator Ian Macdonald, was in the chamber, in opposition. In the Hansard of 22 March 1995, he says:

As opposed to that the coalition’s policy that Senator Kemp and Senator Brownhill have mentioned is a sensible policy. It was put out in our discussion paper and calls for an end to broadacre land clearing with compensation to owners to be negotiated between the Commonwealth and the states for the loss of further earnings, a no regrets approach to greenhouse reduction strategies, and a nationally coordinated reafforestation program.

So this was a ‘no regrets’ policy from the coalition. Well, as soon as they said it, they had regrets, because Senator Macdonald in the Hansard on 9 March 2000 changed his position. It was not that the Commonwealth should pay compensation because Labor were in government. Because the coalition were in government, it now became the coalition’s policy for an end to broadacre land clearing with compensation, but then they went on to say in 2002:

The Commonwealth reiterates—

This is the coalition government; this is Senator Macdonald—

that land clearing is primarily a land management issue and is the responsibility of state and territory governments.

And we heard that repeated again today. Senator Macdonald went on to say:

The Commonwealth has, however, indicated that it would be prepared to provide a financial contribution commensurate with the reduction in emissions from land clearing negotiated and implemented by the Queensland government. Achieving a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will involve a sizeable and sustained reduction in the ‘business as usual’ clearing rates over the past decade, beyond that flowing from the vegetation management regime in the national action plan.

When they were in opposition they were always saying to the farmers, ‘The Commonwealth should compensate you.’ When they were in government they ran away from that at a rate of knots. The coalition have got form on it and they are back again with the same form telling farmers that they should be compensated and it is a terrible thing that has happened to them—yet they were the federal government that pushed these laws on the farmers.

You were the ones that pushed it through the states and said the states had to deliver to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Then you go and grandstand to farmers, hypocrisy running out of you. Then, when you have an opportunity to actually stand up for what you were saying, you again run away from the issues. You did not deal with the issues and you must be absolutely clear with farmers; you should be honest with farmers. You should be honest with what you claim is your constituency because, when they find out what you have actually been up to, I do not think they are going to be your constituency for too long. They must realise that this was a con job, that you used this inquiry to give them false hope, that you used this inquiry to grandstand and when you had the opportunity to stand up for what you were saying you did not stand up for it. You ran away from it at a million miles an hour.

This has been going on for some time. There was evidence given by Mr Rheese, the executive director of an organisation that calls itself the Australian Environment Foundation. When I was questioning him I said: ‘Why is it an issue now? Why wasn’t it an issue when the coalition were in government?’ Mr Rheese said, ‘We addressed this at a public meeting in Dubbo in 2003. We tried very hard to get this on the national agenda.’ But Senator Macdonald could not get it on the national agenda for them because he was a minister at the time and he was not interested in getting it on the national agenda. He wants to grandstand now. He wants to say he is standing up for farmers, but the hypocrisy is so clear in relation to the performance of Senator Macdonald on this that the farmers will soon understand what he is about.

I asked whether there were any coalition government members at that meeting in Dubbo and the reply was: ‘Yes. Senator Nash was there.’ I said, ‘What did they put at the meeting?’ They said, ‘Senator Nash did not speak at the meeting.’ Here we have the National Party up ranting and raving about all these issues, but when they were in government there were as meek as lambs, as quiet as mice, not prepared to take the issue up. Now they are in opposition, they do exactly as they did when they were in opposition last time—hypocrisy is everywhere in relation to this.

To be fair to Senator Nash, she was not a senator at the time, but she was at the meeting. I suppose she was there in her employment at the time, which was as an adviser to the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile. The coalition government were all over this issue but what they were doing was trying to keep it quiet—no ministers, no members, at a meeting of 300 farmers complaining about this in Dubbo. When they were in government there were no ministers there running the arguments about compensation, yet they have the hide and the hypocrisy now to be raising these issues but when they had an opportunity to actually put recommendations up on the terms of reference that were drafted by the coalition they ran away from it. There is nothing there that goes to the issues that they laid out as a promise to the farmers.

As I said, we do not have a problem with the broad generalities of the recommendations. We have put up a further 10 recommendations that strengthen the recommendations of the coalition senators on this committee. I think it is about time that the coalition senators were honest with farmers. When they are out there talking about compensation Senator Joyce goes back to the press saying, ‘No, no, we are not going to give compensation; it’s all too expensive.’ They are out there grandstanding to farmers at meetings and telling the press behind the scenes that there is no reason for compensation, that it is all too difficult and that it is all too expensive. Just be honest. (Time expired)