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

The debate on immigration over recent years has had a number of complex sides to it, but one side is very clear and is one that the Labor Party would never understand—that is, Liberal Party members are able to disagree with others in the party and they are not expelled from the party for doing so. I challenged Senator Faulkner one day to follow his principles and vote against what the Australian Labor Party might decide is their policy. It will never happen. I think, of all of the lessons to be learnt out of the debate over migration in the last few weeks, the most important is that the Liberal Party is a party that allows dissent without automatic expulsion from the party.

While I am at it, can I say that Senator Vanstone continues to administer brilliantly a very difficult portfolio—a portfolio that, as I have mentioned before, deals with thousands of people. There are some mistakes made by her department, and that will happen because we are all human beings. But, generally speaking, Senator Vanstone does a very good job at administering that department. That is not why I have risen to speak tonight on this adjournment debate.

Weeds—would you believe—cost Australia $4 billion annually. If there was another single event that was costing us that amount of money, you would almost think that there would be rioting in the streets. There is not, regrettably, because it is a bit of a case of ‘out of sight, out of mind’. The majority of Australians do not understand this enormous cost not just to our economy but also to our environment. It is an enormous cost to Australia’s unique biodiversity.

Most Australians living in the capital cities will come across the weed problem but will not realise that they are doing it, because they will go to their local nursery and buy a lantana bush that looks brilliant as a pot plant, not knowing that lantana costs Australia a hell of a lot of money and has done for a long time. So there is a $4 billion price tag on weeds that do, regrettably, cover many parts of our country at present.

I was delighted this afternoon to attend the launch of a report: Economic impact assessment of Australian weed biological control, done by the AECgroup for the CRC for Australian Weed Management. This report, commissioned by the CRC and the very enthusiastic director of that CRC, Dr Rachel McFadyen, found that, for every dollar you invest in weed control and research into weeds, you get an enormous return. Last year, Australian biocontrol science turned a $4 million investment into a $95 million return. I might add that that has happened every year since 1903.

This report released today shows that for an average investment of $4.3 million a year since 1903 we have had an average economic return of something like $95.3 million a year. For every $1 invested, the return was some $17.40 to agriculture, $3.80 to society and $1.90 to government. I cannot confess to having read all of this quite detailed report in the few hours since it was released, but those figures show that it is a good news story. I think it emphasises the fact that our government must continue to fund research into weed management within Australia and must continue its weeds of national significance program.

I hasten to add that, while this very important environmental event was happening, I looked around at those attending and, would you believe, I did not see one of the Greens political party people there. That is the party in this parliament that is supposed to be looking after environmental interests and the so-called green vote. They only get elected to here because they masquerade to the general public that they are concerned about the environment. But when it comes to a real environment issue such as weeds, one that is not terribly sexy or front-page headline-grabbing stuff, they are nowhere to be seen. If you have a forest demonstration with all the TV cameras you can be assured they are all there. They do not have a message or care about the jobs they cost in that industry. They do not care about the science that says that forestry is actually good for the environment as well as for Australia and for jobs. But when it comes to the real environmental issues, the issues of weed management and feral animal management, they are nowhere to be seen.

It was typical in all those years I sat in estimates committees waiting for the Greens to come and raise some questions about the government’s handling of conservation or the environment that they never turned up. I took up a practice of actually sending Senator Bob Brown personal notification of those estimates committees but, alas, never did he turn up. It demonstrates that the Greens political party have no interest in the real environment. They have a lot of interest in the ultra-left-wing social and political issues, but no interest in the environment. I might say, without being personal, that I exclude Senator Siewert from that because I genuinely think she has a genuine interest in the environment—but she is on her own in that group that call themselves the Greens political party.

Unfortunately, I cannot speak on this and other issues in the environment area for half an hour, as I would like to, because I am about to go to a dinner tonight—

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Robert Ray interjecting—

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

which is organised by a group whose name you would like, Senator Ray. You would probably like what they do, too. It is called the ‘collective’ of NRM committees in Queensland. I have always indicated to them that I thought their name was a little bit Bolshevik for me. But, leaving aside their name, this is a collection of all of the natural resource management groups in Queensland who, with local input and their own expertise, spend the federal government’s Natural Heritage Trust money in Queensland. There are similar NRM bodies right around Australia. As a Queensland senator I am, of course, particularly interested in the Queensland groups. They come together once a year in this collective to share ideas and experiences.

These groups, in Queensland at least, are community driven. Increasingly they have very professional management, which they have organised themselves. With local input so they understand local conditions, but using federal government money, they have been able to make a real difference to the natural resource management of the areas that they look after. In my area there is the Burdekin Dry Tropics NRM Board. Bob Fraser is a great CEO of that organisation. A little further north there is the Northern Gulf NRM, looking after the northern part of the Gulf of Carpentaria and right up into Cape York. There is one for the southern gulf, dealing with the area from Mount Isa up to Karumba. I am delighted to say the Torres Strait Regional Authority has recently been appointed as an NRM body to look after the Torres Strait.

There are lots of groups all around Australia. They come together once a year, not always in Canberra, led by Mr Gordon French, the chairman of the Brisbane NRM body, who also looks after the statewide collective. They do marvellous work. They are not overly recognised—I suspect few in the avenues of power would even know of them. But they do a great job for Australia and our environment, and they continue to help the government with proper natural resource management in our country.