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

This is somewhat of a segue from my previous comments in debate on the take note motion relating to the Great Barrier Reef. I was listening intently to the very few government speakers on what is the biggest and most momentous bill, as many on this side have said and rightly so, to go through this parliament—which is the government’s emissions trading scheme bill. All they have on the list are three speakers, one of whom was the old faithful, Senator McEwen. Just give her the notes and she will read them. She mentioned the bushfires, and that is why I stand in the chamber on this particular issue. She related the Victorian bushfires of Black Saturday—in particular, I dare say—to climate change. This is the same point that I was making with the Great Barrier Reef: be an extremist, find the most extreme case as your example, and then that becomes your case. But, of course, it is not. Not even the Victorian royal commission, which spent months and millions of dollars on the Victorian bushfires cause and effect, ever raised the suggestion of climate change. And that was a royal commission. There was no connection at all. What foolishness, what ignorance and what amateurishness!

Did Senator McEwen think that it was just a point of debate and that it would go unnoticed? It is a little more serious to the Victorians than just a point of debate that she might use in this chamber. It ought to have been suggested to her that she study it better. What about the decades of lack of state management of those forests that went up? What about the lack of resources provided for managing those forests? What about proper road networks and resources for the Country Fire Authority? I would say, what about the throwing out of cattle grazing in the high plains of Gippsland? What a tragedy and what a destruction of Australian tradition. There would not have been a man from Snowy River if the Labor Party had been in power at that time. In the two times they have been in state government—the Cain and Brumby governments—they threw all those mountain men and cattle graziers off the high plains country. What about that? There were no bushfires, certainly not to this degree, when the cattle were grazing in leisurely fashion in the high plains country of Gippsland. What about that as a reason for increased bushfires?

And this is the key: what about the neglect of back-burning and reducing of fuel loads? My own colleague here in Western Australia, Senator Back, a firefighter himself, tells me that when the Western Australian volunteers came over here they were stunned by the Victorian fuel loads. At such a level were they—and I have forgotten the figures but it was something like 10 times greater than a Western Australian firefighter would tackle in his own state—that the situation had become impossible to tackle. Why didn’t Senator McEwen mention something about that? What about the greater population that has moved into these areas? That is part of the tragedy too. We have a greater population—not that I suggest that there is anything wrong with that, but they have moved into this sort of bushland and local councils will not allow them to clear around their houses. What about the planning laws? There are all sorts of reasons—and correct reasons, truthful reasons—why we had those disastrous bushfires in Victoria and why we ought to protect ourselves this coming summer, and climate change has nothing to do with it.

But this is the point. They hold up these icons. If time permits me, I will find something else to stand up with and continue my rage against the extremism of climate change. Sea level is the latest icon, and we noticed Senator Wong using it today in question time. She was attempting to scare people and connect climate change and the so-called sea level rise and flooding of the eastern seaboard of Australia. The sea level rise is their latest little extremist icon. Now they have lost the Antarctic, I suppose that sounds like a good one. If time permits during debate on some other appropriate report, I am going to stand up and put that to rest too. It is a load of rubbish. Greater experts than Senator Wong have put paid to it. We are meant to believe Senator Wong and a House of Representatives report saying that sea levels are going to swamp the eastern seaboard, and those knaves in the New South Wales government— (Time expired)

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

I am also pleased to speak to the documents relating to regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the state of New South Wales. There are four regions mentioned in the reports before us at the moment. I might indicate—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, the Clerk has advised me that we are dealing with government document No. 3. If you would like to take note of that or continue Senator McGauran’s comments, indeed you may. If you would like to take note of the other documents, perhaps you would like to move a motion in that regard.

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

Perhaps I could move to take note of documents 3, 4, 5 and 6 and speak to them together, by leave of the Senate. I doubt that anyone else will want to speak on these.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

I am keen to talk about these documents, the annual reports on the regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the state of New South Wales. In commencing, I note that there does not appear to be anyone from the Greens political party here to talk about what they always considered to be one of the most important issues confronting Australia. I happen to remember that my first job in this chamber as the newly installed minister for forestry back in 2001, I think it was, in the very first week of sitting after the 2001 election, related to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill. Mr Acting Deputy President, would you believe that the Greens were so interested in that debate that they kept it running for 28 hours? We spent 28 hours on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill.

I just raise that in the context of an issue before the parliament at the moment. The emissions trading scheme bill, the wrongly called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill, is listed for debate—in fact, we have been debating it all week so far—but the government keep telling us they want us to deal with that bill before the end of next week. We all know from newspaper reports—and from no other source, I might say—that the government intends to amend that bill, to include agriculture at least. We do not know the details, but we have heard a leaked report from Senator Wong that the government will be including agriculture. We do not know about it, even though we have been debating the bill for three or four days. It just shows how the government cannot manage its chamber business, its parliamentary processes. We know they cannot manage the economy, but this just proves they cannot manage the chamber business.

But let me go back to the point I was making about the Regional Forest Agreements Bill. For 28 hours the Greens kept debate on that bill going. It was an important bill. I am pleased to say that the Senate, in its wisdom, approved the bill, and it is as a result of that that we have these documents before us today. But that was the Greens alone. I do not think too many other people took part in the debate except Senator Brown and me, as the relevant minister. We spent 28 hours on that important bill and, important though it was, I have to say in prioritising that it was not nearly as important as the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill, which could completely change the way of life in Australia. It could mean enormous additional taxes on Australians. It could mean increased costs of living for every single Australian.

So how can we possibly deal with that before the end of next week, when the Senate rises, according to a program which the Labor government put forward—a program that clearly indicates that this is the shortest sitting year we have had in the federal parliament for almost a decade. That is the Labor Party. Are they concerned about scrutiny or do they have something to worry about? But they are going to want us to deal with the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill in about 15 hours of government business time between now and when the Senate rises.

I will go back. The Regional Forest Agreements Bill, important though it was, did not have anywhere near the ramifications that the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill will have, and yet it took 28 hours to get it through this chamber. We are given something like 15 hours to try and get through a piece of legislation that will have a huge impact on the Australian economy. I ask my colleagues in the chamber and anyone who might be listening: how much hypocrisy is there in the Labor Party? How much do they think they can override the wishes of the parliament in dealing with their legislative program? That bill, as with the Regional Forest Agreements Bill, needs plenty of discussion. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.