Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, I table a ministerial statement entitled Caring for our country.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This document is quite an astounding document. It is just a rehashing of what the government has said before. I am quite perplexed as to why the minister has chosen to make a statement today, other than that he may have been lacking something to say just before we break from parliament and is trying to make Caring for our Country look like a halfway decent program. The statement adds nothing to the debate. It is quite disgraceful in the way it has a go at the hardworking Landcare groups and those people who have been working for several decades on natural resource management. The statement makes claims about chaos—it is true that there was some chaos between the Natural Heritage Trust 1 and Natural Heritage Trust 2—but that is nothing compared to what is going on out there now in the resource management community. People are leaving in droves from natural resource management groups. Their funding has been slashed. They do not know what their future holds. They are losing expertise that has been built up for years and years, yet the minister has the audacity to claim that we have had to move to this new program because it was chaotic between NHT1 and NHT2. He then claimed that all that valuable taxpayers’ money has nothing substantial to show for it. How insulting is that for all the people that have worked for so many years on Natural Heritage Trust projects and on delivering natural resource management and land care outcomes.

If I were working in an NRM group now, I would be devastated—in fact, I feel personally insulted given that I have been working for years on natural resource management, as have hundreds and hundreds of other Australians. The work of these groups has been trashed by the minister. He should be ashamed of himself for treating these groups like that. He then has the audacity to say that this is a ‘far-reaching, strategic and accountable program’. By ‘strategic’ he means: ‘I cobbled together some of the environmental promises made during the election. I had to fund them somehow, so I thought I’d make a raid on the money that was there for natural resource management and make it look like it is a program and then dream up a few other programs.’

The minister has already made the statement that the open grants program round is currently being assessed and that it will provide $25 million for a range of activities. He said that this was a strategic program before he had developed the outcomes, which are yet to be announced. I looked through this document, thinking it would announce the outcome statements that have been promised for months and months. But no, they will be another month in coming. After that, it will be another month before we get the business plan: ‘But in the meantime we will make use of a little grants program out there and vegemite the money across the landscape like we used to in the bad old days.’ Instead of learning the lessons of the past—that just releasing small grants of a couple of thousand dollars here and there does not deliver good environmental or natural management outcomes—what we see here is ‘back to the bad old days’ so they can be seen to be doing something. Some environment groups out there will get a little bit of money, from which they cannot achieve big strategic outcomes. That makes the government feel good, that they are doing something—they have trashed programs that were starting to work.

I, for one, know that NHT1 and NHT2 made some bad funding decisions—we should not step away from that, and I have been critical of that—but the point here is that we are not learning from the mistakes that we made under those grant programs. It feels like we have gone back to the future. We have gone back to making unstrategic, poor decisions with no overall framework for investing this money. An example is the outcomes for natural resource management in remote and northern Australia. When I asked in estimates what was meant by ‘remote’, I was told: ‘Oh, that does not really mean remote. We are still going to fund all the regional groups we are funding now.’ But we know very well that the funding to those NHRM programs has been cut. After years of developing their strategic plans and investment plans, they are then all trashed.

The regional groups do not know what their future holds. In his statement the minister pulled out a couple of quotes from a couple of regional groups that appear to support his position. He should be saying what I know the regional groups are saying, which is: ‘We do not know what our future is. We do not know whether or not we can employ staff. We are haemorrhaging our staff all over the place. We have to cut our staff by 50 per cent and if we do not cut them, the staff are leaving anyway because they do not know whether they have a future.’ This is not mentioned in his announcement. He just made a feelgood announcement in response to the criticism that he knows very well is going on out there. That is why he has made this statement today: because he knows very well that there is a lot of criticism about the program out there. The groups are not able to get on and do their work. They do not know where their funding is coming from, and the long-term investment plans that they have developed will not be implemented. Yes, there were problems with this program. Yes, the Auditor-General and the ANAO found some problems. But they did not find problems of massive maladministration and massive rorting of the system. What they did say—and don’t forget we are talking about long-term change here—is that there is little evidence as yet that the programs are achieving anticipated national outcomes or giving sufficient attention to the radically altered and degraded Australian landscape.

Yes, that is the point. That is the point of the Auditor’s report: that we cannot do that because we have not been monitoring and evaluating the programs properly. What we needed to do was to evolve these programs. Instead of evolving them, we have gone back to the drawing board to small, ad hoc programs that are not strategic. It makes me laugh to say that what they are doing at the moment is strategic, particularly when there are no outcome statements yet. We have released granting programs before we have even got outcome statements. We have gone back to the future; we have gone back decades in the way that we treat natural resource management, in the way we treat our investment in these programs. It is disgraceful that the minister is trying to put out statements as if the work that has been done by all those groups in the past is nothing, that it has been massively rorted and that there have been no outcomes. Well, there have been outcomes. They are not perfect and I would be the first to say they have not been perfect, but we should move on and learn from those programs, not go back to the past and not trash the work of hundreds of thousands of Australians over the last couple of decades who have put so much of their lives into natural resource management, so much of their lives into developing these regional groups, so much of their lives into Landcare. We need to be learning from the past, not repeating the mistakes of the past.

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

I thank my colleague in the Greens, Senator Siewert, for drawing my attention to this, as she says, quite disgraceful report from someone masquerading as being interested in the environment. There is not too much of what Senator Siewert said that I can disagree with, except that I have to tell you, Senator Siewert, that the Labor government and this minister are there because of the preferences the Greens continue to give to a party that has absolutely no interest in the environment.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could have left it a nice comment.

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

I feel bad about saying this, but while you are in the chamber I just want to get the point across. I do not want to get too personal here, Mr Deputy President, but Senator Siewert is a genuine environmentalist. Some of the rest of her party are more socialist lefties of the old-style communist mode than they are environmentalists. I just wish Senator Siewert were leading the Greens political party, and a number of us on this side are running a campaign for a leadership spill in the Greens political party—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He cannot help himself. He is just bitter and twisted.

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

The Labor Party have to enter into this because they know it is true. In every state of the Commonwealth and federally, you guys would not be there without the preferences of the Greens. I agree with Senator Siewert that your record in the environment is just atrocious. While we are talking about Mr Garrett, it takes him a flick of an eye to use the EPBC Act to stop commercial developments in my state of Queensland, but when you have got the greatest environmental disaster on the way perpetrated by the Queensland Labor government and Mr Garrett has the ability to do something for the environment, he does absolutely nothing. I am talking, of course, about the Traveston Crossing dam, which is a travesty of environmental management.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right.

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

Thank you, Senator Siewert. We could form almost a mutual admiration society; well, not quite.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

LNPG.

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

Senator Parry distracts me by saying LNPG. We will not go there. I do not want to make light of this, because this is a disgraceful statement by a minister who has absolutely no interest in the environment. I have to be careful, but I suggest that his passion for the environment had a little bit more to do with his former employment than it does with genuine belief in the environment and heritage. We see so many examples of what he sang about before being absolutely trashed in government by this minister, who is a disgrace to the name of minister for the environment and heritage.

I can only agree, but not quite as eloquently as Senator Siewert—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think those remarks ought be withdrawn. They are way outside the scope of anything that would even vaguely be regarded as parliamentary.

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

On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: I inquire what particular remarks Senator Carr is talking about. If he is worried about the lefty socialist tag, I do not think that is unparliamentary. If he is worried about what Mr Garrett did in his former life and suggesting that his passion for the environment was more related to his previous employment than his current employment, I do not see that that is unparliamentary. If that is unparliamentary and if we are going to cry about that, I should have been crying for years.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Macdonald, I think that the words that were perhaps unparliamentary were ‘disgrace of a minister’. Perhaps that section could be withdrawn.

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

Mr Deputy President, if you so rule, I will withdraw the words ‘disgraceful as a minister’ and say that this minister is incompetent and without any honour as far as his management of the environment is concerned.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: to impugn the motive of a minister is unparliamentary.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think that Senator Macdonald was impugning any motives.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I believe those remarks are unparliamentary. To describe the minister in those terms goes beyond the normal range of political debate. He may well cast judgement on a range of the minister’s administrative abilities, but to go to the question of the manner of his behaviour being honourable or otherwise I believe to be outside the normal convention of what is regarded as parliamentary.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot remember the exact words. I will check the record, but at this stage I do not think that Senator Macdonald is using unparliamentary language. Senator Macdonald.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. If I was using unparliamentary language, I withdraw it; I do not want to use unparliamentary language. But I do want to highlight what a disgrace as a minister—in his ministerial capacity, not as a person—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m going to have to point at you.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sterle! Before I call you, Senator Carr, can I just say it was only 20 minutes ago that I had complaints from my right about people interjecting on Senator Carol Brown when she was speaking—and you were here, Senator Sterle. I suggest that, if you are going to ask me to rule interjections out of order on one side, I am going to rule interjections out of order on the other side as well.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again I draw your attention to the remarks that the senator has made in regard to Mr Garrett. He has used the words again that you have just asked him to withdraw and that he has agreed to withdraw.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. the words that I suggested were unparliamentary were ‘disgraceful minister’. He said ‘a disgrace as a minister’. I will check to see whether that has been ruled unparliamentary before, but at this stage I am not going to rule that as unparliamentary.

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

I do not want to be diverted from my speech, but if I have been called ‘unrepresentative swill’ and that is considered parliamentary then surely saying someone is a disgrace is hardly as offensive. But I know Senator Carr’s sensitivity, the little flower that he is, so I will watch my language in future. Senator Sterle, you do not have to point to be rude; you manage that in other ways.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I think you should address your remarks through the chair and that might just calm things down a little.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The Labor Party have successfully distracted me and the chamber from what is a very, very important issue, and that is the way in which this environment minister is managing the environment. As I was saying when I was interrupted, Senator Siewert has said in much more eloquent terms than I that everything about this Caring for our Country program has been difficult, if not downright dangerous or downright useless, for the environment and for the work done by these natural resource management groups.

The statement by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts says that rorting under the NHT program was rife because in some unfortunate cases people claimed funding but failed to do the work. Talk about taking points of order calling the minister a disgrace; here is the minister accusing many ordinary Australians, who give up their time voluntarily to look after the environment and our country, of rorting. The statement by the minister goes on to say that these communities were swimming against the tide of rorting, political manipulation and mismanagement.

I do not expect Senator Carr would ever have been out in the bush, let alone anywhere near an environment group, but Mr Garrett should go out and talk to some of these people and see the absolutely fantastic work they have done and the people that they employ. I often talk about the Northern Gulf Resource Management Group, a great group based in Georgetown, a small country community in the Gulf of Carpentaria region. These people, with the money the Howard government gave them, have built up a number of technical staff in that community that go out doing the work that the Queensland government used to do before the Labor government slashed its DPI program. They do some fantastic work. They have brought people to the community and have searched over the last three or four years to get a good team together, and then Mr Garrett comes along and slashes the funding for their group and for every other group by 40 per cent. People are worried about their jobs. Talk about working families! Mr Garrett and Senator Carr should go and talk to some of the families of these people who have been working in natural resource management groups for years but who now find themselves without a job or feeling uncertain as to where they are going. All this expertise that has been built up in NRM groups over the last three to four years has been cast asunder by this insensitive and quite stupid decision of this environment minister.

Mr Garrett talks about the ANAO. I never have a great deal of time for the ANAO. I remember their comments on Centenary House—and, of course, they were the main paying tenant—and so at times I think that others are as well able to make assessments. It is a bit like the Regional Partnerships program where, according to the ANAO, two or three programs were badly funded—and I think they were. But that does not stop the Labor Party, as they are doing here, from lumbering every honest, hardworking citizen who is involved in these groups with claims of rorting or not properly spending the money.

Senator Siewert is absolutely correct in outlining the problems that these decisions will create. The money has been cut. It has been diverted from country areas and areas that really cared for our country into city areas—and you can rest assured that that is going to continue. Across the board it is quite clear that the Labor government have no interest in the environment and will rort and remove funds from these programs to further their other philosophical focuses. This statement out of the blue certainly says little of interest to anyone, but it does highlight what very poor management of and interest in the environment this particular minister has. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.