Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on the adjournment this evening to talk about a government which is intent on repeating the errors of its short history and a government which cares more about fish than it cares about people. We might have thought that this government had learned a few lessons about making policy on the run. After all, it is not as if they have not had plenty of opportunities to learn. We have had the ill-considered, poorly thought through Home Insulation Program. We have had the bungled school halls program. We have had a mining superprofits tax—a policy to which the current Prime Minister and Treasurer enthusiastically subscribed until they read the polls, at which point they quickly threw it on the scrap heap along with the political corpse of a former Prime Minister. We have had the East Timor solution, which was going nicely until the Prime Minister discovered that it might have been a good idea to consult with the East Timorese before making her announcement. So that was ditched and, before we knew it, we had the Malaysia solution, which was so poorly designed the High Court struck it down. In less than two weeks, Australians will cop the world's biggest carbon tax—the final manifestation of one of the most cynical deceptions ever perpetrated on the Australian electorate. The government is right to talk about its compensation package—its one-off payment to relieve the pain for Australian families, retirees and pensioners—because its carbon tax will hurt people. We have a compensation program because the carbon tax will hurt people. It is worth noting its compensation package is a one-off payment, whereas the carbon tax is the tax that keeps on taxing. Year in, year out it will continue to rise.

Tonight I want to draw the Senate's attention to the government's expansion of marine parks. It seems the Prime Minister's determination to placate her political enablers in the form of the Australian Greens goes further than the imposition of the world's biggest carbon tax. We now have the government proposing the world's biggest network of marine parks. I am old enough to remember the statement that no child will live in poverty—

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not that old!

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am that old/young! So I am very sceptical when I hear about grandiose government plans, particularly from this government. We see big ideas based on bad policy, a lack of science and little real consultation with affected communities. Once again, the policy has been cobbled together with inadequate consultation, a failure to address the likely economic consequences and what seems to be a manic determination by this government to placate noisy environmentalists at the expense of a careful, balanced, science based approach to policy.

The coalition has an excellent record when it comes to marine conservation. I will always prefer a balanced, science based approach to environmental management over a cobbled together environmental and political fix. All of us in this place understand the importance of protecting Australia's marine environment. The coalition has a clear, strong record of delivery in this area with policy that is based on science and a proper process of consultation with affected communities. The Senate will remember that it was the Howard government that established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 2001. It was the coalition that commenced the process of establishing a network of marine protected areas in 2006, a process begun by working cooperatively with both environmental and fishing groups. When this incompetent Labor government is finally gone, the coalition will restore sanity to the process by committing to a carefully balanced, science based panel approach to reviewing the boundaries of these marine conservation reserves.

The announcement of the marine reserves network smacks of Labor's typical approach—that government knows best and this is what we are doing, take it or leave it. Minister Burke's own statement makes this crystal clear. On 14 June he announced a 60-day consultation period, but the very next sentence in his statement reads:

It's too late for people to say I want this line shifted or I want this zone painted a different colour.

In other words, the decision had been made and the government was not the least bit interested in hearing what ordinary people might have thought. What makes this dismissal of community views even harder to stomach is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the government has based its marine reserve zones on an empirical, science based approach. Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest that precisely the opposite has occurred. The minister's own department has reportedly admitted that there is no marine science behind the Coral Sea lockup zone. The minister himself concedes that the scale of the lockup in the temperate east zone is nothing more than a payoff for the vast lockup of the Coral Sea zone.

Environmental and industry groups have been played off against each other, with some kept in the dark so that others can be given preferential treatment. This might sound familiar to some people. It all sounds rather like a good old-fashioned Sussex Street fix, or Sussex Street under water. However, we are not talking about a preselection or the latest plot to overthrow a Prime Minister. We are talking about people's livelihoods. The minister needs to realise that, whilst he might enjoy playing politics, when it comes to the protection of Australia's marine environment and the viability of our fishing industry it is time to end the deals and stop the games. The policy needs to be based on science and not politics.

The farcical consultation process that has accompanied the announcement of the marine reserves means there is great uncertainty in Australia's fishing industries about what kind of assistance they might be able to get. The Prime Minister, speaking on the ABC on 14 June, declared that there will be assistance 'in the vicinity of $100 million'. That should make commercial fishers around Australia feel extremely nervous—because of both the woefully inadequate figure, which I will come to in a moment, and the Prime Minister's language. This Prime Minister has clear political form. We know that when she makes a firm declaration such as, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' she is quite prepared to do precisely the opposite. So when the Prime Minister invokes a qualifier and says a compensation package will be 'in the vicinity' of $100 million, we are entitled to ask: does that actually mean $50 million, does it mean $75 million, or does it in fact mean $100 million?

Given that we will all be paying this Prime Minister's carbon tax in two weeks, Australians are entitled to doubt her word. It is worth noting that experts have made it clear that $100 million will not go anywhere near addressing the problem. When the Howard government established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the compensation for that one region alone came to $250 million. Yet Labor now tell us something 'in the vicinity' of $100 million will be adequate for an area covering 3.1 million square kilometres. It is even more concerning when you consider that Labor did not allocate a single cent in the budget last month to this initiative.

In my remaining minutes, let me talk about the impact on my home state of Western Australia. As we all know, Western Australia's exports of iron ore are critical to Australia's economic wellbeing. It stands to reason that any government with a modicum of common sense would act to ensure the mining and resources sector did not suffer as a result of increasing cost and regulatory burdens. Alas, for now, we have in Australia the Gillard Labor government, which is not just content with slugging the $68.2 billion iron ore export industry with its mineral resources rent tax; it has found another way to make it harder for the mining sector to do business. The marine reserves plan announced by Minister Burke will place restrictions on port and shipping access in the Kimberley and the Pilbara—the very ports used by the iron ore industry to get its product to overseas customers. This is another policy masterstroke from a Labor government that has brought new depth to the meaning of the word 'ineptitude'.

The oil and gas sector's capacity to grow in the years ahead is wholly dependent on its ability to undertake further exploration—an ability that will be constrained by the government's marine park announcement. I am sure these issues could have been worked through—there is always some give and take in these sorts of issues—but it appears to me that on this particular point there has been a tremendous lack of consultation with key governments, such as the Western Australian government. (Time expired)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, had been able to hop on that plane to Rio I would have recommended that he read Dirty Money by Matthew Benns on the long haul across the Pacific. Mr Benns's book details numerous examples of the impact that mining companies—many of them Australian owned—are having on low-income countries. Dirty Money is a stark reminder that the Gillard government's plan to promote so-called sustainable mining to respond to global environmental damage and social inequality is an irresponsible policy that should not have any role in the negotiations to finalise the UN document 'The Future We Want' at Rio+20. Mining companies have an appalling record in low-income countries. This is one excerpt from Dirty Money:

They put the boys into the Anvil mining truck. They came for my dad. I asked them 'where are you taking him?' and they didn't answer." The Australian mining company trucks had come roaring into the African village and disgorged over 100 heavily armed Government soldiers. The rebels, protesting at the way the Australian company was mining the Congolese silver and copper without giving anything back to the local community, had already surrendered. But their looting of food and fuel from the Anvil Mining depot at Kilwa could not go unanswered. The Australians flew in the Government troops, loaded them onto their trucks and then stood back while they rounded up the rebellion's 'sympathisers'. "We started running but the soldiers caught and searched our belongings, they arrested my dad and two other boys," said Albert Kitanika. The soldiers refused to say where they were taking his father. "They took him 50 metres down the road where they shot and stabbed him to death." A United Nations investigation found Mr Kitanika was one of at least 100 people summarily executed in the Government operation in 2004. Afterwards the Australian company issued a press release praising the Government for its rapid response. Asked about its role in transporting the troops, Anvil's chief executive officer Bill Turner said: "So what".

Sadly, these events are not unusual for mining corporations in Africa and other low-income countries.

Closer to home, Australian mining companies may not be working with the military but their actions are far from world's best practice. The name Ok Tedi has become synonymous with polluting mining practices. Downstream from the BHP Billiton owned mine, 50,000 locals from 120 villages have been affected. Polluted waters from the mine have destroyed food, gardens and fishing grounds. Hardship and sickness is what this mining operation brought to locals. This gold and copper mine has been run for the benefit of boardrooms far removed from PNG, but if you read the company's documents you would be led to believe otherwise. BHP's 'Guide to Business Conduct' promises: 'It is BHP's policy to achieve a high standard of environmental care.'

Rio Tinto also talks up its high standards. This mining giant states with reference to workers in Australia: 'Employees will be protected to the best of the company's ability against harassment in the workplace.' However, in Indonesia Rio Tinto is being investigated by the National Human Rights Commission over sexual abuse of underage children at its Kelian mine. BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are two of the mining companies that are playing a role in AusAID's Mining for Development Initiative, introduced last year by the Prime Minister with the stated aim to see:

… developing countries use their natural resources to grow their economies and provide social benefits to their people.

The statement goes on to say that this will:

… improve resource governance, sustainability and development.

The wisdom of the choice of BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto by AusAID is telling. BHP Billiton's main task is to maximise its profits, and that is frequently at the expense of occupational health and safety standards on the job, environmental standards and the rights of local communities. BHP Chairman Jac Nasser recently told the Institute of Company Directors that Australian industrial laws should be amended to 'recognise the rights of management'. BHP Billiton regularly battles unions campaigning to protect working conditions.

In Australia, mining companies such as BHP Billiton do not have a track record in managing the environmental and health impacts of mining related activities that we can in any way be proud of. This leaves a very big question mark over how these mining companies can serve as a model for best-practice mining in low-income countries. A Western Australian parliamentary inquiry into the deaths of over 9,000 native birds near Esperance in Western Australia that occurred over about four months between the end of 2006 and 2007 found the cause was lead poisoning from Magellan Metals lead carbonate. Illegal mining is polluting the Great Barrier Reef and uranium mining in Kakadu National Park conflicts with the World Heritage status of those sites. Newmont Mining dumped 7,000 tonnes of poisonous mercury over Kalgoorlie—mercury damages our vital organs. And we should never forget that it was the careless actions of the Australian owned company Esmeralda that resulted in a huge cyanide spill that reached the Danube River and killed countless fish in Hungary and other countries. With a track record like this, Australian mining companies are hardly the model international citizens to promote responsible mining practice. The Greens certainly support the right of all nations to develop their mineral resources in accordance with the needs of their communities and to protect local and global environments. But the Australian government's increasing emphasis on mining in developing countries risks prioritising interests of mining companies over the needs of local communities. With most workers employed on mining projects in low-income countries not drawn from communities neighbouring the mine and locals having to contend with negative health impacts and damage to their food sources, the Australian funded Mining for Development Initiative does not look like a program that directly meets the objectives of the Millennium Development Goals.

The Independent review of aid effectiveness, released in April 2011, states that using the aid budget on extractive industries 'could raise conflict-of-interest issues, which would need to be carefully managed'. The Gillard government is championing a pro-mining message at Rio+20 this week. The government's preparation for the negotiations reads suspiciously like a strategy to assist mining companies to boost their profit margins. The Australian government's 'Rio+20 and mining for sustainable development' document asserts that mining is sustainable development. Mining by definition, however, is unsustainable, as all mining involves exploiting a non-renewable resource.

Experience of mining to date demonstrates that mining results in damage to local and global environments. Air and water pollution are a common feature of mining along with loss of biodiversity, displacement of local communities and destruction of farming land. The climate change impacts of many mining operations are huge. The burning and mining of coal in New South Wales contributes about 40 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Friends of the Earth, Aid/Watch and Quit Coal have questioned the governments tactics at Rio+20 in a letter sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon. Bob Carr. Their letter states:

The UN draft states that Rio+20 must not 'impose new conditionalities on aid and finance', nor 'restrict the policy space for countries to pursue their own paths to sustainable development'. In addition, the UN draft reasserts the obligation of developed countries to commit at least 0.7% of national income to overseas aid; the Australian position suggests a commitment of only 0.5%.

Their letter further states:

Australia's proposals on 'financing sustainable development' signal the use of aid in 'enabling policy settings, regulations and incentives (such as innovative market-based tools) to catalyse private finance in sustainable investments'. At the same time, it favours the use of aid 'creatively to leverage private capital through risk-sharing'.

The closest the government's Rio+20 document comes to admitting any problem is in its statement: 'Converting mining into sustainable development is a challenge.' The weakness of this statement reflects that AusAID's mining projects are out of step with its own objectives. Using the cloak of overseas development as a way to rebadge mining as a plus for low-income countries is troubling. At the very least AusAID should start working with mining impacted communities to oblige the companies to clean up their waste, help communities disrupted by mining to restore sustainable living practices and ensure that the bulk of the profits are retained by the people of the countries where the mining occurs.