Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Anyway, it is no real surprise to see Mr Abbott walking away from his early support for Australia's commitment to reduce carbon pollution. He has made it clear on a number of occasions that he sees no particular problem with carbon pollution. But it is disappointing that, rather than listening to the expert advice given by the Climate Change Authority, he will close down the agency instead.

The explanatory memorandum for this bill gives an explanation of why the Climate Change Authority is being scrapped:

The Government has a long-standing commitment to abolish the Climate Change Authority (CCA) because it is not needed.

…   …   …

Abolishing the CCA will make a significant contribution to delivering a smaller climate change bureaucracy.

What a hollow attempt at an explanation. I would say the government do not think it is needed because they do not intend to achieve any tangible outcome from their Direct Action policy—not even the 5 per cent reduction on the year-2000-level target that they appear to be walking away from.

This bill also scraps the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board, although you would not know it from the short title of this bill. There is very little about the scrapping of the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board in the explanatory memorandum, which does not even give a fig leaf of an explanation as to why this board is to be scrapped. There is not one word. I find it utterly bizarre that the government, especially the National Party with their alleged concern for rural Australia, is scrapping this board.

This is not a tin-pot board that meets once a year to discuss something of no importance. This is a board that has administered tens of millions of dollars of grants, and yet the Liberal-National government do not give one word of an explanation in their explanatory memorandum of why they want it scrapped. It is utterly remarkable. Talk about lack of transparency! Were you all too busy backflipping on education to finish writing the explanatory memorandum?

For senators and those listening who may not be aware, the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board was established under the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 to provide advice to the Australian government on the implementation of the Land Sector Package, which is part of the previous Labor government's Clean Energy Future plan. It has funded and supported a large number of projects since its inception.

From its 2011-12 annual report we can see some of the projects that the board has funded:

The first round of the Filling the Research Gap program has provided multi-year grants to 58 projects to the value of $47.3 million to support research into emerging abatement technologies, strategies and innovative management practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the land sector, sequester carbon and enhance sustainable agricultural practices.

The first round of the Action on the Ground program has provided multi-year grants to 59 projects to the value of $25.2 million that are supporting more than 420 farmers from across the county to trial on-farm practices and technologies to demonstrate how farmers can reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions or increase the sequestration of carbon in soil on their properties.

These round one Filling the Research Gap and Action on the Ground projects cover a broad range of farming practices and climatic and geographic conditions associated with the dairy, livestock (grazing and feedlot industries), horticulture and cropping industries and will help farmers become more sustainable and resilient. The funding for these projects is an investment in the future of Australia’s agricultural sector.

I am surprised—and pretty disappointed, quite frankly—that the Nationals are agreeing to the abolition of a board that is providing tens of millions of dollars of funding to projects in rural communities around the country. I am disappointed that the Nationals are agreeing to the abolition of a board that is making farming more sustainable and more environmentally friendly into the future. They really need to have a good hard look at themselves and have a think about what they really believe and who they really represent.

Can Senator Nigel Scullion explain to the farmers of the Northern Territory why the Nationals are agreeing to abolish the organisation that, through the Action on the Ground grant program, provided funding of up to $548,303 to trial and demonstrate practices to reduce nitrous oxide emissions associated with horticultural and cropping industries in Northern Australia? Can Senators Fiona Nash and John Williams explain to the farmers of New South Wales why the Nationals are agreeing to abolish the organisation that, through the Action on the Ground grant program, provided funding of up to $394,000 to trial minimum tillage practices, including controlled traffic and use of mulches, to reduce nitrous oxide emissions and increase sequestration of soil carbon during the production of vegetable crops in New South Wales? Can Senator McKenzie explain to the farmers of Victoria and to my home state of Tasmania as well why the Nationals are agreeing to abolish the organisation that, through the Action on the Ground grant program, provided funding of up to $540,909 for increased nitrogen use efficiency by cropping farmers in the high-rainfall zones of Victoria and Tasmania? Can Senator Ron Boswell and Senator Ian Macdonald explain to the farmers of Queensland why the Nationals are agreeing to abolish the organisation that, through the Action on the Ground grant program, provided funding of up to $534,364 to improve cattle-grazing practices to reduce methane and benefit soil carbon?

I think the farmers of Australia should be extremely concerned and disappointed at the decision of the National Party to vote against the projects funded under the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board that are improving knowledge and farming practices across Australia. I think those that vote for the National Party as a separate entity from the Liberal Party need an explanation of why they continue to act against the interests of the people they claim to represent.

I am surprised that the Liberal-National government want to destroy a board that now has significant expertise in agricultural science, economics including environmental economics, conservation ecology, greenhouse gas emissions measurement and reporting, greenhouse gas abatement measures, public administration, business management and the management or care of Indigenous-held land. I am surprised that the Liberal-National government want to destroy an organisation that now has significant expertise in overseeing carbon sequestering, enhancing sustainable agricultural practices and planting trees when these are all parts of their own Direct Action policy. You are abolishing the board that has the expertise to push your own policy agenda. That is crazy. It is just remarkable.

The government have come into this place with this bill and the previous bill on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation without presenting a clear case for the abolition of either of these bodies. They have made no argument other than a hollow ideological fig leaf of reducing bureaucracy, while at the same time advocating for direct government action on climate change. How much bureaucracy will it take to administer their Direct Action policy? They have stated that they have a policy to 'cut bureaucracy' in the Climate Change Authority, the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, yet will create a massive bureaucracy to administer their Direct Action policy. It is utterly ridiculous, honestly. Ironically, the expertise they will need to administer their Direct Action plan is already possessed by people in the Climate Change Authority, the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board and—you guessed it—the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This Liberal-National government will make them redundant and pay their redundancies, only to find that they will need to rehire them through the Department of the Environment when they realise their Marxist Direct Action policy will need considerably more bureaucracy than those that they have sought to destroy over the last few weeks.

Senators in this place should be extremely disappointed with this bill and indeed many of the bills that have been brought to this place under the Liberal-National government. Proper debate in this place should be based on fact, not on ideology. The Australian people should be greatly concerned about the Liberal-National habit of destroying agencies and boards whose advice they are opposed to merely for ideological reasons. As I said, this attempt to destroy the Climate Change Authority comes on top of the government's closure of the Climate Commission and AusAID, the abolition of the science portfolio, the loss of hundreds of jobs from CSIRO and previous attempts to destroy the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The Liberal-National government are seeking to destroy the Climate Change Authority because they do not like the advice it provides and they do not want any government authority at all to be able to measure how well or how poorly their Direct Action policy is or is not working. I just find it a bit of a joke. It is a joke, unfortunately, at the expense of the Australian people. I would urge all senators, but particularly those National Party senators who are voting to destroy a board that has granted tens of millions of dollars to Australian farmers, the people they claim to represent, to think again and to vote against this bill.