Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) to questions without notice asked today.

It has been 10 very long years that we have put up with the Howard government frustrating and obfuscating and pretending climate change is not happening, but lately we have been watching them squirm and struggle and try to work out a way that they can accept the fact that climate change is happening and not lose face. The bottom line for this government is that the tide has come in on them on climate change, both figuratively and literally. The government are scrambling to try and find a rational policy to deal with climate change. They have got a long way to go. It is very interesting to note that legislation being debated in this place this week does not go anywhere near it. Despite the specific opportunities presented to the Howard government, none of them have been taken.

It was on only 20 August this year that the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources of the Howard government infamously told the Sunday program that he was a ‘sceptic’ about the connection between emissions and climate change. And then on 27 September, in a disgraceful statement, the Prime Minister said he was not interested in what might happen in 50 years time. What an abrogation of responsibility. What a disgraceful way to let down not only Australia but the global movement to stem climate change. It is a serious threat to Australia’s environment and our ecology. Action is needed on the ground and in legislation, and it is not happening under this government. As I mentioned, we do have a bill before us at the moment, but there is no measure that the government is prepared to support in that legislation that will actually take tangible steps towards turning the problem around.

Today we heard Senator Polley’s question about the 16 faith organisations that have now joined the call for immediate, specific and useful action to stem climate change. They have joined with the community, with business groups, with schools, with children and with the Labor Party and other political parties to call for change.

Perhaps the most obvious and glaring example of the Howard government’s weakness is an incompetent Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Senator Carr today asked a question of Senator Ian Campbell about the Bald Hills wind farm once again having to threaten court action to force the minister to do his job. Let us see what has been going on today. The minister feigned ignorance about the latest submission from the proponents of the Bald Hills wind farm. Either he is completely and utterly incompetent or he is just pretending he did not know, because on the department’s website, dated 20 September 2006, is that submission that the minister claims he knows nothing about. Does that not prove that he is completely incompetent? I seek leave to table the submission for the interest of senators.

Leave not granted.

Isn’t that a disgrace! It is there on the website. We are debating this issue. The act requires this submission to be on the website. The geniuses across the floor here today have decided not to agree to a public document being tabled which informs this debate. That sums up the incompetence that we are dealing with. This government has nowhere to go in the environmental debate. They cannot stand it when facts expose an incompetent minister in question time with just a few days to go of the federal parliament in 2006. It is no wonder it is widely expected that he is going to get the punt. What sort of dope of a minister, who did not even know that this document was on his site—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. That is unparliamentary language and a reflection on the minister.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please withdraw, Senator Lundy.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. But this proposal that I am discussing—which has been denied leave to be tabled by government senators—clearly confirms that the minister misled the public over his claims that the project would kill one parrot every year instead of one bird every 1,000 years. This document shows it. No wonder they do not want it tabled here. It also confirms that the minister abused his power, misled the public and tried to cover his tracks. We all know, and it is firmly on the public record, that the Bald Hills wind farm was blocked in April as a political favour by the minister to the member for McMillan. We know that because he was ordered to pay costs and to reconsider the proposal. How incompetent is he? The proposal has been on the website and today in question time he did not even know it was there or what it contained. Well, well, well. He has been completely and thoroughly exposed as being incompetent to an extraordinary level. That just about sums up the Howard government’s performance on climate change, on environmental management and on the issue of the Bald Hills wind farm. (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only assume that the ALP Senate Christmas party has started and they had a whip round to see if someone was prepared to talk about anything for five minutes. That is probably the most bizarre five-minute speech that I have ever heard in my life. We had this feigned indignation about the treatment of David Hicks. Do we hear a word about it? Was the taking note of answers about David Hicks?

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be a very pleasant change. Say no more: when the retiring senator is making more sense than one of Kevie’s kids, who came in here and talked about climate change—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You need to refer to people in the other place by their correct title, Senator Ronaldson—if you are.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Deputy President: the new Leader of the Opposition, who replaced poor Mr Beazley. You claimed to be serious. You came into this place during question time and wrung your hands with indignation about someone’s treatment, yet when you had the opportunity to speak on the issue during the taking note of answers—which even in my short time here I have seen is reserved for the discussion of important matters raised during question time—there was not one word. Instead, there was some extraordinary general spray about climate change. I have worked with Senator Lundy. We put together a report in relation to women in sport. She was clearly set up. I respect Senator Lundy, and we did a great job with that report. But she has been set up. How can you go out now into the public and talk about your concern for David Hicks when you did not have the intestinal fortitude or the intellectual rigour to raise the matter today during the taking note of answers?

I heard the interjections from across the chamber while the minister was giving his answers to the question on David Hicks. There was a wringing of the hands and interjections about how appalling this is. And at the first opportunity to debate it—your first opportunity to do what the minister did: talk about it—you slipped away. You think that this David Hicks matter is so incredibly serious that you took up half of question time with it, but you were not prepared to come in here and discuss it today.

I am still totally gobsmacked by Senator Lundy’s extraordinary climate change contribution. We got that for the leading item in the taking note of answers. Let us look at the issue of Bald Hills. If the Australian Labor Party is proud of the fact that they are making political mileage out of the protection of an endangered bird, then congratulations; if that is what turns them on, then congratulations. I find it quite extraordinary that you can be so duplicitous as to come in here and attack the minister for the environment—who is about 85 times more effective than you lot have been over the last 25 years. Why aren’t you attacking Rob Hulls in Victoria, who refused a permit for wind energy installation in Ballan—which is in my old seat of Ballarat—because of unacceptable risk to the wedge-tailed eagle? The wedge-tailed eagle is not on the threatened species list—albeit that there is no more magnificent animal than a wedge-tailed eagle. You have not had a go at Rob Hulls for the decision in relation to Ballan, but you have come in here day after day talking about the move by the minister for the environment in relation to the orange-bellied parrot. That was a disgraceful performance today. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Every time that you talk about David Hicks in public, I am going to remind you of what you did not do today. I am afraid that crocodile tears are no substitute for quality debate. You had the chance and you failed. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Ian Campbell to questions relating to the environment and climate change—or, should I say, his attempt, in his patronising response, to answer questions. This government has repeatedly demonstrated its ignorance when it comes to the environment and climate change. It has spent the last 10 years in office in complete denial that climate change is a serious problem and, for the last 10 years, it has failed to protect Australia’s environmental and economic future.

This is not just the opinion of members of the opposition; this is a known fact. The Howard government has not been concerned about climate change, because this government, which cares only for the here and now, knows nothing of the concept of planning for the future. This is obviously a view held by many, many Australians. We now see that Australia’s religious communities are uniting to demand action on this serious issue. Sixteen faith communities—including Anglicans, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and Aboriginal Australians—have joined together to release a report, titled Common belief: Australia’s faith communities on climate change, which demands that this government act on climate change—and act now.

In its statement, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils said, ‘The Howard government has a poor record on climate change.’ They were obviously being kind. We all know of this government’s refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol and how it has actively discouraged Australians from taking up more sustainable energy resources. Recently we saw the government move to end a rebate that was available for Australians who wanted to install solar energy systems in their homes. A campaign against that move was led by Mel and Kochie from Channel 7’s Sunrise program and resulted in more than 170,000 Australians signing a petition for the rebate program to be kept in place. Coincidentally, we then saw Mr Costello announce that that program would be kept. If this example is any indication, along with a continuing interest in Mel and Kochie’s Cool the Globe campaign, it would seem that a great majority of Australians are now aware of the very real issue of climate change and the fact that that action is needed.

The Howard government would have liked us all to believe that climate change is a myth—that this is just a scare tactic being bandied about by scientists and environmentalists. That is most certainly not the case. You only have to take a drive in the countryside around Canberra to see how dry this wonderful country of ours is. This is a problem that is not going to go away, and the only solution that the Prime Minister is offering is nuclear energy—another one of his ideological agendas left over from 20 years ago.

In the interfaith report on climate change, the Uniting Church of Australia was vehement in its opposition to nuclear energy, stating:

We believe that the continued research, development and implementation of renewable energy is an absolute priority for governments and industry in order to minimise greenhouse gas production. As a matter of urgency we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

This report by Australia’s interfaith leaders, which represents more than 12½ million Australians, is the greatest demonstration yet of just how out of touch the Howard government is when it comes to the issue of climate change and the effect it is having on Australia’s environment.

I would have thought that some of my Tasmanian colleagues within the government—who I know identify themselves as members of the communities included in the report—would be urging Mr Howard and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to take action. But it would appear that they are just as out of touch as their rest of their colleagues are with the Australian people on this issue. It is very disappointing.

Also of note in the report is the point made by the Federation of Islamic Councils that the rapid onset of climate change will only be slowed down by shifting the focus away from consumerism and ‘the concept of profit above everything else’. This attitude of profit above everything else resounds right through the Howard government. You only have to look at its so-called Work Choices laws or the Independent Contractors Bill that we debated in this place last week. Unfortunately for this government and for Australia, the government has failed to realise that climate change and the environment will have a far greater effect on our economy than they could ever have predicted. The report indicates just how much weight the Australian people put on this issue, whether the government likes it or not. Our religious leaders have confirmed what Labor has known for some time, and we will continue to put forward Labor’s plan to combat climate change.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For those who are listening to these proceedings on broadcast, I should explain that this is a period—known as ‘take note of answers’—of some half an hour when the government, the opposition and the minor parties get a chance to debate answers given during the Senate’s one-hour question time. It is an important period, particularly for oppositions. It gives them an extra chance to drive home their point, their theme, that they set up during question time. But I would have to say that I have been taking note of answers for many a year now, and this would have to be the most contemptible take note of answers from the opposition that I have ever known.

They come in here and feign compassion for Mr Hicks, who has been stuck for some five years in Guantanamo Bay. They raised at least four questions on the matter, and yet they have not raised the matter here in taking note of answers. And it really gets worse. I endorse everything that my colleague Senator Ronaldson said: the Labor Christmas party must be on, because it just got worse. Not only have they chosen not to raise the theme of their question time, which is a serious matter—particularly for the family—and a cause that they have apparently taken up. Not only have they decided not to raise it in taking note of answers, but they never intended to. We heard the mishmash address by Senator Lundy, but I can tell you that Senator Polley just made it worse. She had prepared her speech. This was a set-up. They never intended to raise the issue of Mr Hicks in Guantanamo Bay.

What was all that about? You had your speech prepared early this morning, Senator Polley. You were never going to raise the matter of Mr Hicks. It just got more contemptible. I say to Senator Ronaldson, if he is listening: it just got worse than what you believed it to be. Mr Deputy President, I have got to tell you that the government are of late most concerned about the Hicks issue—to the point where they have raised it with the President of the United States and have said that this man’s trial ought to be brought on. Yes, he has been in Guantanamo Bay for too long without trial. We have raised that with the President of the United States.

We show a political genuineness. We understand the elevation of this issue in the community; you do not. We have been genuine from day one. What I say about Mr Hicks is that he was caught with a gun in his hand, he did return to Afghanistan post September 11 and, apparently, he did train with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. There is enough circumstantial evidence for the Americans to believe that he should be charged, but they ought to charge him and get on with the trial quickly. That has been our genuineness. That is what we have raised with the Americans—and you cannot come into this chamber and sustain the argument. If I were Mr Hicks, I would be very worried about the Labor Party’s support and ability to sustain their interest. Instead of the Hicks issue, they came in here and raised the issue of the Bald Hills wind farm and the orange-bellied parrot—which time does not permit me to get on to. That is what you have raised in this motion to take note of answers. You have made a mockery of it. You have disgraced yourself.

You have elected a new leader this week who purports to bring in change and a fresh approach to the Labor Party. Where are the issues on the economy that you want to bring in? What do you think you lost the last election on? It was your credibility with regard to economics. You do not discuss that; you discuss the yellow-bellied parrot. Where is the IR issue that you are going to make the centrepiece for the next election? You do not bring in that issue; you discuss the yellow-bellied parrot. This has been one of the most disgraceful motions to take note of answers. All I can say is: thank goodness for Senator Stott Despoja. I am going to stay and listen to her address on Mr Hicks. We should all have an equal concern with regard to the delay in that trial. There are reasons given as to why that trial has been delayed as long as it has, but if you have a serious concern about it raise it in this chamber and use this period as an opportunity to do so. Senator Stott Despoja, I invite you to address the matter of Mr Hicks in Guantanamo Bay. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too am going to take note of answers given by Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I note that Senator McGauran is off on some bizarre analysis of the Labor Party’s responses in taking note today, when in fact the biggest issue of today is probably the release of the Australia state of the environment report 2006, which Senator Ian Campbell willingly referred to in his answers.

In the state of the environment report we find that greenhouse gas emissions in this country have risen by 22 per cent. When we asked the minister for the environment questions about the appalling state of the environment in this country at the moment, he made some comment about South Australia’s Coorong. I do not think he has ever been there. I do not think he has any idea what the Coorong is or how important it is to the whole Murray-Darling Basin system. He also made a comment about some pathetic commitment of 35 gigalitres to go into the Murray for the purposes of rehabilitating the Coorong wetlands—the Coorong wetlands which are about to be delisted because they are so degraded due to the inaction of this federal government. The Coorong wetlands need 1,500 gigalitres of water, and this government can find 35 gigalitres. It is an absolutely appalling response to a very serious issue.

Senator Ronaldson, in his bizarre spray, also made mention of Senate Christmas parties. I did not go to the Labor Senate Christmas party for too long last night, because I had the misfortune of having to be in this chamber listening to Senator Ian Campbell attempt to debate a very important piece of legislation—the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006. It was a woeful performance from the minister in charge of the single biggest issue in Australia at the moment, and that is climate change. It was an absolutely woeful performance. It was puerile and we had sulky behaviour from him. We spent four hours debating one amendment last night, and Senator Ian Campbell’s contribution was to pick up the pronunciation of ‘Kyoto’ by senators opposite. So we had to endure elocution lessons from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, instead of addressing the real issues of the day, including climate change. His bill does not even mention climate change. The bill that we spent four hours debating one amendment on last night, because of his complete lack of action with regard to the environment, does not even mention climate change.

We heard from Senator Julian McGauran just then about the yellow-bellied parrot. Is that another endangered species, Senator McGauran? There is no yellow-bellied parrot. I think there has been comment made about yellow-bellied ministers but not yellow-bellied parrots. It was in fact the orange-bellied parrot. So we have helped you out there, Senator McGauran.

We did note today in question time that the proponents of the Bald Hills wind farm are threatening legal action against the federal government because this minister has taken so long to respond to their legitimate request for a decision so that they can get on with either building or not building the $220 million wind farm that the people of Victoria need so that they can have clean green energy. Isn’t that what we are all about? What does your minister do? Sit down and do nothing. He does not even know what submissions are on the department’s own website.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I am quite taken by Senator McEwen now launching into an off-the-cuff speech which would now give her an opportunity of some two minutes to turn her attention to Mr David Hicks. I invite her to do so.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator McGauran.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the submission from the Bald Hills wind farm proponents, I would like to give the government another opportunity to make good the ridiculous mistake they made last time when they neglected to agree to table the document that is on their own website. I seek leave to table the documents that were referred to earlier by Senator Lundy.

Leave not granted.

They are great, aren’t they? They would not have a clue what was going on with the environment. They do not even know what is on their own website. What a spectacular result from the minister that is. After all, this is the minister who cannot tell a cow from a horse. We remember that wonderful contribution we got from him about cattle grazing in the Victorian alpine region. He cannot tell one four-legged critter from another, but he is pretty good at flying around the world trying to protect the whales. I do not think he has protected one, but he manages to wear his lovely blue bracelet every day. When he is pointing and wagging his finger across the chamber at us— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.