Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I hear the members opposite laughing. Perhaps they can tell me I am wrong. Perhaps they can tell me when their tax policy is going to be released. We would be very keen to see it. My understanding is that the opposition’s only pronouncement on tax policy is that it will not have a tax policy—and I suspect that is also something Mr Rudd has picked up from focus groups. We in Queensland know how Mr Rudd operates. He was the adviser to Premier Goss when he shut down any proposal for getting decent water supplies to south-east Queensland. There is a crisis now, 10 years later, because, when Mr Rudd, as head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, was advising Mr Goss, they decided to stop any proposals that the National and Liberal governments had put forward for a proper water supply in south-east Queensland.

The interjections from the other side have diverted me from the bill before us. Before getting into the bill, I want to raise a couple of issues. This bill is predicated on the fact that climate change is going to cause disasters in many communities around the world and that there will be a need for a higher level of migration of people as a result of that. Could I just point out that sea level rise is a long-term challenge for our region which scientific evidence tells us does not present an immediate danger of displacing entire Pacific island populations. Sea level rise is a complex issue, and all of the factors need to be understood and reported accurately. Inundation of Pacific islands could be caused by factors such as land subsidence, tectonic subduction, natural climate variability, El Nino, tropical cyclones and the like, long-term tidal cycles and land use patterns. Climate change is only one variable in this mix.

We as a government, as a nation, are providing more than $42.25 million in practical assistance to Pacific island countries to deal with climate variation and sea level rise by monitoring sea levels, improving climate prediction, assessing vulnerability and planning adaption action. In the 2007-08 budget, the government announced $7.5 million for the UNFCCC’s Least Developed Countries Fund to help some of the poorest countries, including some of these Pacific island countries, to assess and adapt to the impacts of climate change. I should mention that at the, I think, 2005 Pacific Island Forum, the Prime Minister and the other Pacific leaders agreed to consider measures to address population dislocation should a genuine need arise.

The Australian government, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Lightfoot, have a long record of responding generously when needs arise in the Pacific, and we will continue to do so. Further, it is important to point out in the context of this bill that our current migration program is designed to serve economic, social and demographic objectives. We also have a substantial humanitarian program which resettles people who have been subjected to persecution or gross violation of human rights in their home countries. The global climate change phenomenon is a focus for all governments. We are strongly engaged in global dialogue on this particular issue. It is not appropriate to speculate on how our government might respond to possible future environmental challenges in the region—that is a matter for negotiation with other regional governments—but any responses will be consistent with our role as a responsible global citizen. The government manages a range of aid programs designed to assist developing countries in our region.

At times, questions have been asked about why Australia is not doing more through its immigration arrangements to alleviate the plight of Pacific islanders affected by climate change. Australia has long maintained a global non-discriminatory immigration policy. Australia is already strongly engaged in supporting development in the Pacific. In the event of environmental conditions in certain Pacific states reaching disaster proportions, Australia would play a major part in any international response. As I have mentioned, the Prime Minister recently committed to the development of an Australian-funded technical college for the Pacific, and work has began across a range of Commonwealth agencies to explore how that commitment will be met. It is likely that many of the graduates of such an institution would have skills in demand in Australia and would meet standards required to have their skills recognised in Australia. So we are clearly doing a considerable amount already to help our Pacific island neighbours.

On a closer look, it seems that this bill is, as I mentioned earlier, simply another stunt promoted by the Greens. I understand that they are doing this at the behest of the Friends of the Earth. The Friends of the Earth is a very interesting organisation. It is connected with an Indonesian organisation called WALHI, which is the Indonesian chapter of the Friends of the Earth. There are some interesting connections between WALHI and the Australian Greens. I note a press release, dated 12 January 2004, in which Senator Bob Brown and a WALHI director tried to blame Alexander Downer for violence at the Newcrest mine in Indonesia. That is an interesting proposition. I also note that the so-called Mineral Policy Institute—an NGO specialising in campaigning to prevent ‘environmentally and socially destructive mining’ and other minerals and energy projects in Australasia and the Pacific—has listed Senator Bob Brown as its patron. The Mineral Policy Institute was also affiliated with Friends of the Earth International.

Interestingly, WALHI appears to have now been joined by radical Islamic groups in its campaign against the US mining giant, Newmont. A photograph—which I could perhaps table if the Senate were interested—recently featured in the Indonesian press shows Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah, flanked by Muhammad Al Khaththah, the leader of the Indonesian chapter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, attacking Newmont’s environmental record. I also note an article from the Straits Times of 22 April 2006 which states:

The head of Walhi, the main environmental group, is also a member of Hizbut Tahrir, a hardline Muslim group which emerged over the past year, and which has been famously described as being a ‘conveyor belt for terrorists’. Although the group claims to be non-violent, the Walhi chairman took part in recent violent demonstrations outside the US embassy, wearing full Islamic robes.

I would be somewhat interested to know—and perhaps in her closing address Senator Nettle could refer to this, or perhaps we could refer to this a bit more closely in the committee stage of the bill—what the Greens’ response is to this apparent alliance between radical Islamists and the Friends of the Earth on whose behalf, I understand, the Greens have moved this motion today.

Time is running away from me, unfortunately, but I did want to turn to the provisions of the bill to address some of the issues there. With this new form of visa being encouraged by the Greens, one wonders what safeguards might be put in place to ensure that other matters were taken into account as well in relation to suitable entrance into Australia. We proudly have very strict immigration procedures. Over many years, both Labor and Liberal governments have been very generous with their immigration policies, but have been determined to ensure that people coming into our country and society do really have a commitment to Australia and all that Australia stands for. I would be interested to see in this bill just where this new form of visa would fit with the people who might be eligible to come in, because disasters, if they do strike as anticipated by this bill, will strike in many places and it would be very important, I think, for those in charge to carefully look at, as we currently do— (Time expired)