Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With 16 children, the Fielding family was always conscious of the value of money. My parents, George and Shirley, encouraged us to work hard and save money, to take personal responsibility and care for our possessions, and to not waste things. That was the only way my family could make ends meet. These are values Australians have been brought up with, although they have been greatly undermined by our society’s hyperindividualism and hyperconsumerism. These values underpin Family First’s approach to the environment. Family First is passionate about caring for Australia’s environment. Let us never forget the reason we are so passionate about protecting our environment: to preserve it for our children and for future generations to enjoy.

We need to adopt common-sense policies that strike the right balance between maintaining our prosperity and providing more jobs for more Australians while ensuring that we protect our natural environment and wisely use our precious resources. Too often, debate on the environment forgets the family. Too often it involves highbrow discussions of things quite removed from the everyday realities of families, such as carbon trading, geosequestration and renewable energy targets. For an everyday family man, this type of language makes the issues even harder to understand, and many of us cannot relate to it, because it is the language of experts—real and so-called. I think it is important to point out that, while green issues now dominate our news pages almost daily, environmentalism is not new. When I was growing up, I remember constant talk about pollution and ways to reduce it. We adopted common-sense approaches which are used by most families today: habits like turning off the lights when you leave a room; not letting taps run when you clean your teeth, sharing a bath, keeping showers short—especially when there are 16 queuing up—keeping heating to a lower temperature and putting on a jumper. These are still common-sense and good ways that families can save both money and the environment.

Since my childhood, great strides have been made to reduce pollution, to make our rivers cleaner, to take the lead out of petrol and to recycle rubbish. But we all know that is not enough, that we need to keep doing more, and that the challenge today is even greater. Families have a key role to play, as do big business and small business, unions, community organisations and, of courses, our elected leaders in this and other parliaments as we face the problems of climate change and drought. It is worth noting that households account for less than 10 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. The bulk comes from other sectors: electricity, gas, water, agriculture, forestry and fishing. So we need to work with those industries to reduce emissions in a way that does not threaten businesses or Australian jobs and does not push families to the brink—as many families are already finding it hard to make ends meet.

We must never forget the need to create more jobs for more Australians, as that gives families peace of mind so they can plan for their future. Family First supports Australia’s coal and aluminium industries and their workers. They are vital parts of our economy and employ thousands of Australians. Family First also supports the Kyoto protocol, as its aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, if Australia is to agree to further targets, it is vital that we do our homework first; in other words, we must examine any future targets in light of hard data and solid evidence about potential impact on jobs and the livelihoods of everyday Australians. This is common sense and will ensure that we get the balance right.

The government has so far resisted further targets, while the opposition has set ambitious targets before determining the cost and impact on Australians. Australians want a balanced and common-sense approach to the environment and to issues like global warming and the drought. They want sensible solutions, they want to know the pros and cons, and they want to know how they will be affected. Any politician can pluck a figure out of the air—declare a target and say, ‘This is what we must reach,’ regardless of the consequences. But that is irresponsible. Let us not forget that the government of the day has the responsibility and the resources to undertake a study on behalf of Australian families to get the facts to guide us through a very difficult issue.

There is talk about setting up an emissions trading scheme for Australia, and Family First believes we should have that debate. But we should not forget that markets do not always serve families well. It is worth while studying the issues paper of the Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading. That document sets three criteria for success. It says any solution should be environmentally and economically effective and politically acceptable. Sadly, the document does not mention families—not once. Families are ignored in the environment debate, even though the reason we are so passionate about protecting our environment is so that our children and future generations can enjoy it. Family First is concerned about the negative consequences of an emissions trading scheme, or even a carbon tax, which may result in the loss of Australian jobs and higher prices for families. We have to get the balance right. Families are already struggling to make ends meet, with soaring petrol and grocery prices, yet they would have to pay more for their electricity bills, and possibly other bills, like water as well. That is a solution that only the well-off would propose.

Water is the other major environmental issue. A total of 70 per cent of water use is accounted for by irrigated agriculture, so we need to ensure farmers use water more efficiently without threatening their livelihood. The last thing we want to see is farmers and our next generation of farmers walking off the land. There are good arguments that we can save huge volumes of water by investing in agricultural infrastructure to make the water systems more efficient. Consider how governments are dealing with the water crisis—frequently with market-based solutions like water markets. Often prices for water are increasing, putting pressure on family budgets. Governments are also offering rebates for good initiatives, such as installing water tanks. But of course, to ensure a good supply of water, families have to dig deep into their own pockets as well, and many families simply cannot afford to do so. Water tanks are great, but shouldn’t governments be using taxpayers’ money to build new dams or other major infrastructure projects or to cover the full cost of alternatives like water tanks?

Family First believes that families are becoming the victims of cost shifting, where governments are not meeting their obligations to provide essential services like water but are encouraging families to pay more themselves to solve the problem. These policies might be fine for middle- to high-income families who may have spare cash, but they are not suitable for families in the outer suburbs and regional areas who are struggling to make ends meet. Family First is uneasy with the concept of water markets. What happens to farming families when they sell their water and their land is separated from water? Does the trading of water rights undermine the family farm? Does it mean that big business farms that can afford to buy water will survive while family farms will not? Water markets can mean that small business farms can lose out to big business farms which have more cash to pay for this scarce resource.

Family First believes that we should look at our environment as a precious resource which we must look after. The environment is there to serve us but we must not abuse or exploit it. However, we must ensure that concern for the environment is not simply an excuse for passing costs on to families. It is the role of government to provide basic services and infrastructure. That is what families pay taxes for. Other approaches slug lower income families the same as higher income ones, which is unfair. Australia is not alone in confronting serious environmental challenges. Yet we must strive for common-sense and balanced ways to fix those problems. That does not mean shutting down industries and throwing workers and families on the scrap heap; nor does that mean shifting extra costs to Australian families. As the nation’s political leaders, we cannot forget the practical and immediate effect on families of such flawed policies. Some Australians are at risk of running out of water. In some cases that has already happened and farmers are not planting because they do not have a guaranteed water supply. In other cases cities are facing severe water restrictions.

Family First believes that a carbon emissions trading scheme should be investigated; we need to invest in cleaner uses of fossil fuel; it makes sense to examine the feasibility of nuclear power in Australia but it is way too early to make any decision one way or another; we need to consider how we employ other technologies to combat global warming, including renewable fuels and our land and transport use; we should invest more funding for alternative energy research and more effective strategies and technologies for treatment and recycling of waste; and we should have incentives to reduce waste and pollutants in the environment. Family First will continue to argue for common-sense solutions that strike the right balance between protecting Australia’s environment while also protecting the needs and interests of families, small businesses and farmers.