It’s a formidable task to describe the impact that Bob Brown has had on the fabric of Australian politics and society.

I, like many of my fellow Greens, see Bob’s retirement as the passing of a giant. Like a mighty forest eucalypt, Bob has been buffeted by immense forces but has stood tall and proud. A true visionary and pioneer, his final gift to all Australians is his example of high principled public service and unswerving honesty coupled with genuine humility.

Bob’s activism began early and has never ceased.

During his training as a doctor at the Royal Canberra Hospital Bob Brown and a number of colleagues took a pacifist stance and refused to certify young men as fit to be conscripted to Vietnam against their wishes.

His protests against social and environmental injustices were particularly courageous and personal. He announced he was gay despite homosexuality still being a crime in Tasmania. He fasted for a week on top of Mt Wellington in protest against the visit of the nuclear aircraft carrier “USS Enterprise“.

As Director of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society he became the leader of the now iconic and history making campaign to save the Franklin River Valley from destruction by an unnecessary dam. He was one of 1500 protestors arrested and spent 19 days in Risdon prison. On the day of his release in 1983 he became the State Member for Denison and began a 30 year political career.

In his time in the Tasmanian Parliament Bob introduced a wide range of private member initiatives including measures on freedom of information, death with dignity, reducing parliamentary salaries, gay law reform, banning battery hens and keeping Tasmania nuclear free. He introduced a bill to ban semi-automatic weapons but it was voted down by the major parties. This was 9 years before the Port Arthur massacre and typical of Bob’s vision.

In 1996 he was elected to the Federal Senate to become the most outspoken critic of the Howard government’s appalling record on human rights and environmental issues. Bob and therefore the Greens filled a space that many expected the Labor opposition to take.

From those years till the present Bob Brown has been a strong and visionary voice introducing bills for constitutional reform, forest protection, opposition to dumping of radioactive waste, unjust criminal proceedings against aboriginal minors, bans on cluster munitions manufacture as well as advocating numerous initiatives to tackle climate change.

On the big questions he always stood tall. In 2001 he was the voice for all compassionate and fair Australians when he opposed John Howard and Kim Beazley on the MV Tampa incident. I remember working in the South Australian Greens campaign office during the 2001 federal election with the phone ringing off the hook as ordinary Australians responded to this strong, compassionate politician who seemed to be the only one prepared to speak up for those who could not.

In 2003 he was highly critical of Australia’s participation in the invasion of Iraq and he became a leading voice for the antiwar/peace movement.

This attracted international press attention on 23 October, 2003 when he and then Senator Kerry Nettle were suspended from the Australian Parliament for interjecting during the address by President George W Bush to the joint sitting of the Houses of Parliament to protest against the unlawful detainment of David Hicks.

Bob was a voice of sanity in speaking out against the Iraq war. This disgrace of a war, justified by lies, and paid for by the lives of more than 655,000 Iraqis, 4,480 US troops and two Australian soldiers – with tens of thousands disabled and disfigured for life. A war which has cost Australia almost $3billion, the US more than $800billion – and that doesn’t include the trillions in ongoing health costs including disability claims.

So I proudly joined many other Australians across the country who cheered when Bob and Kerry had the courage to show their opposition to this outrageous war in this highly symbolic and non-violent way.

Bob’s outspoken stances have come at some personal cost. He has endured threats to his life , been sued by Gunns Limited, the Tasmanian based forestry and woodchip giant and has been publicly vilified for his stand on issues such as full equality for gays and lesbians, and his stand against the polluting coal and mining industries.

For the Greens, for everyday Australians, and for our Planet, his legacies are many.

One that truly inspires me is his founding of Australian Bush Heritage Fund (now the Bush Heritage Association) in 1990, when he used the money from a US environmental prize to buy threatened wilderness and protect it in perpetuity from logging and for future generations to enjoy.

Last year, in an act of characteristic altruism and generosity Bob gifted to the Australian people the 35 acres of exquisite bush that is his personal retreat near Liffey, Tasmania.

However Bob’s greatest legacy that will continue to make real and lasting changes to our lives is the growth of the Greens into the undisputed third force in Australian politics.

Bob took Greens policies, for a healthier, cleaner and more compassionate future and sold them to ordinary Australians. He has been an inspiration to me and was a big influence in my decision to join the party back in 1999. At the last election, a record 1.7 million Australians voted Green.

I have no doubt that Christine Milne will continue this legacy supported by the talented team of Greens MPs and staff that Bob has played such a key role in developing. The Party is in very good hands.

Bob, this wonderful little planet of our’s, and fair and compassionate people everywhere, thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [3.40 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to dispel some of the global warming and climate change myths being circulated by climate sceptics. I refer to the website www.scepticalscience.com, which provides facts about the many myths that are being circulated by people trying to convince us that climate change and global warming are not happening. The document deals with the myths under the heading “Climate Myth vs What the Science Says”. As to the climate myth “It’s the sun”, what the science says is “In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.” Another climate myth is there is no consensus. In fact, 97 per cent of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. The next climate myth is “It’s cooling”. The science says that the last decade, 2000 to 2009, was the hottest on record. Another myth is that the temperature record is unreliable. The science says that the warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
Another climate myth is that it has not warmed since 1998. Yes, it has: for global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record tied with 2005. A further climate myth is the Antarctica is gaining ice. In fact, satellites have measured Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. A climate myth put forward is that an Ice age was predicted in the 1970s. In fact, the vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. Another myth is the “Hockey stick is broken”—that famous graph. However, recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1,000 years. Another myth is “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy”. In fact, a number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident. A myth out there is that hurricanes are not linked to global warming. In fact, there is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming. Glaciers are growing, some climate sceptics tell us. In fact, most glaciers are retreating, which poses a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.

Another climate myth is that 1934 was the hottest year on record. The science says that 1934 was the hottest year in the United States, not globally. Climate sceptics say that it is very cold. The science says, no, a local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures. Another climate myth being bandied about at the moment by climate sceptics is that extreme weather is not caused by global warming. In fact, extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming. That is what climate change scientists have been saying for many years. Another climate myth is that the medieval Warm Period was warmer. The science says that globally the average temperature now is higher than the global temperature in medieval times.

Another climate myth is that the arctic ice melt is a natural cycle. In fact, the thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat. Climate sceptics like bandying about the myth that oceans are cooler. The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming. Another climate myth is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is alarmist. The science says that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summarises the recent research by leading scientific experts. Apparently, Greenland is gaining ice. In fact, Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Hear! Hear! More water for arid lands.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I think the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is saying that is the result of global warming.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Natural global warming.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I am glad I am putting this on the record because there is at least one climate sceptic in our midst today, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. Climate sceptics like to say there is no empirical evidence. The science says that there are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global. Another myth is that the Arctic sea ice has recovered. The thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat, according to the facts. Another climate myth is “It’s aerosols”. The science says that aerosols have been masking global warming, which would be worse otherwise. Another one is “It’s El Nino”. El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming. Some climate sceptics say, “It’s a natural cycle”. The science says that no known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming, except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Another climate myth is “2009-10 winter saw record cold spells”. The science says “A cold day in Sydney in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.” Climate sceptics say, “Scientists can’t even predict weather”. The science says, “Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather details.” Another climate myth is that the sea level rise predictions are exaggerated. In fact, the sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting. Another climate myth is the “IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers”. The science says that glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite one error in one paragraph in a 1,000-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Climate change is real and it is time members in this place dealt with the facts rather than conspiracy theories.

If how we treat our animals is a measure of our development—a notion made famous by Mahatma Gandhi—then our society still has a long way to go. The law treats animals as property. Industry treats them as commodities. We consumers treat them as another product in our shopping trolley. Insufficient regard is given to animal welfare in meat production, and cruelty is entrenched in the codes of practice. We have become desensitised to our fellow animal—until we get a glimpse of what goes on in the meat production line and then our sympathies are provoked. Some recent glimpses have been ugly.

When Four Corners telecast footage revealing the treatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs on 30 May last year, there was a massive public outcry. The Federal Government acted swiftly the next day to suspend exports to the abattoirs exposed in the Four Corners investigation. As the outcry amplified, it resulted in the Prime Minister announcing a full suspension of the trade to Indonesia by the end of the following week. The Federal Government has now resumed approval for Australian cattle exports to Indonesia in accordance with a new export supply chain assurance system, but it seems that animal welfare is not at all assured.

Footage of animal cruelty at the Timur Petir and Cakung abattoirs in Jakarta, which was obtained by an Indonesia investigator engaged by Animals Australia and telecast on the ABC TV Lateline program on 28 February 2012, shows that serious and systematic breaches of the Export Supply Chain Assurance System are still taking place. On behalf of the Australian Greens, my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon has reintroduced a bill in the Senate to ban live animal exports, the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2012. Anna Krien has an interesting take on the Government’s fix, in an opinion based on her dissertation in the Quarterly Essay, “Us and Them: On the Importance of Animals”. Krien suggests the point of the new Export Supply Chain Assurance system is “… for killing standards to be raised to Western-approved levels so that cattle can safely become objects once more.” Is she right that our conscience was briefly raised, but we are too willing to be reassured and slip back into the comfort of our complacence? I hope this is not the case and that The Greens bill will pass. But we are naive if we think this happens only in Indonesia and in countries less developed than ours. In February we were appalled when footage was released from a Sydney abattoir exposing horrendous cruelty to sheep, cows, goats and pigs. The footage was obtained covertly by Animal Liberation and with thanks to the bravery of whistleblowers. The abattoir, Hawkesbury Valley Meat Processors, was promptly suspended by the New South Wales Government. Statements were made suggesting it was a rogue operation. I am not convinced. I have joined calls from Animal Liberation, Animals Australia and the RSPCA Australia for mandatory closed-circuit television in all abattoirs.

Paul McCartney once said that if abattoirs had glass walls we would all become vegetarians. Committed meat eaters might resist, but video surveillance would at least allow increased scrutiny and ensure that cruelty cannot thrive behind closed doors. Hawkesbury Valley Meat Processors has been allowed to resume operations and has decided to install closed-circuit television cameras. The recordings will be inspected by the Food Authority, for which I commend the authority. It is not a mandatory requirement to have closed-circuit television cameras, but some in the industry are moving forward on it. In February Teys Australia, which is an internationally owned meat processing business, announced it would install closed-circuit television cameras in its premises. With industry moving in this direction, it would be appropriate for this Parliament to act and make it a mandatory safeguard to at least ensure the treatment of animals in abattoirs is lawful. However, I recognise that mandatory video surveillance is not an answer on its own.

The abattoir workers who handle, stun and kill animals must be trained and competent and that training must be ongoing. The Australian Meat Industry Council has animal welfare standards for abattoirs that are more rigorous. However, those standards apply only to abattoirs processing meat for export and not to New South Wales abattoirs that process the meat for the domestic market. They should. The RSPCA is writing to Ministers ahead of the Standing Council of Primary Industries to ask for the standards to apply nationally. I also will write to the Minister on this point. The question of what is lawful is the next matter we must address, if we are to evolve as a more humane society. As a result of codes of practice, piglets can have their tails sliced off and teeth cut without any form of pain relief. Laying hens suffer for their entire lives in battery cages where they cannot even stretch their wings, and millions of meat chickens die every year because they are bred to grow so fast that their legs are unable to support them.

What might ordinarily be considered an act of cruelty is not an offence under the New South Wales Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act if it is done in compliance with the codes of practice. If the codes of practice act as a defence against animal cruelty, then they need to ensure they are genuinely avoiding animal cruelty rather than sanctioning it. So, as a society, we have a long way to go before we are humane and respectful to our fellow animal. I want to see ambitious animal welfare law reform in this Parliament to bring about such a society. As one small yet important step towards this goal, I will soon table a private member’s bill for mandatory closed-circuit television cameras in New South Wales abattoirs.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [3.34 p.m.]: I focus on what should be a basic human right—to live in a pollution-free environment—as well as the urgent need for adequate information to protect our right to life, health and clean water. The protection of the environment is a vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine. The International Court of Justice has found that damage to the environment undermines all human rights in the universal declaration and other human rights instruments. Every day we are exposed to toxic chemicals through pesticide spray drift, air pollution and emissions from products, including children’s toys, contaminated soil, drinking water and food.Persistent organic pollutants [POPs] are chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, bioaccumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife, and have adverse effects on human health or on the environment. Persistent organic pollutants are generally created by humans in industrial processes for common products such as pesticides, solvents and pharmaceuticals. According to a World Health Organization paper on food safety released in November 2011, human exposure to some compounds and scenarios, even to low levels of persistent organic pollutants can lead to, among other things, increased cancer risk, reproductive disorders, alteration of the immune system, neuro-behavioural impairment, endocrine disruption, genotoxity and increased birth defects.Some persistent organic pollutants are considered to be endocrine disrupting chemicals. Endocrine disrupting chemicals disrupt the network of glands and organs in the human body that secrete hormones that regulate growth, metabolism, reproduction and physiological functions. Endocrine disrupting chemicals can mimic or block a hormone, which is of particular concern for unborn babies as their development depends on the availability of certain hormones at certain times. Endocrine disrupting chemicals have been linked to health problems ranging from acute childhood leukaemia and other cancers to neuro-behavioural effects, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], as well as effects on the reproductive and immune systems.
The World Health Organization has stated that approximately three million children under the age of five die every year due to environmental hazards. This is not limited to developing countries. Children in both the developing and the developed worlds are affected by exposure to hazardous chemicals. In 2004 the European Union’s Ministerial Conference on Children’s Environmental Health concluded that reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals could save the lives of many children. In July 2010 the National Toxics Network and the World Wildlife Fund Australia released a list of Australia’s most dangerous pesticides, more than 80 of which are prohibited overseas because of the risks they pose to human health and the environment. The National Toxics Network states on its website:

The list includes 17 chemicals that are known, likely or probable carcinogens, and 48 chemicals flagged as having the potential to interfere with hormones. More than 20 have been classified as either extremely or highly hazardous by the World Health Organisation yet remain available for use on Australian farms.

This appalling situation is evidence that Australia’s regulatory system for chemicals is failing to keep us safe from dangerous exposure. European pesticides regulation is founded on the precautionary principle designed to protect human health and the environment before profits. As a result, many dangerous chemicals have been removed from the market. Through reforms in farming and food processing European governments are supporting programs for farmers to switch to biological approaches to farming instead of relying on pesticides. The European Union is widely recognised as the world leader in chemical regulation, employing a systematic approach to reappraising chemicals to ensure public health. Consumers are encouraged to make educated choices via European Union policy marks—labels indicating geographic origin, use of traditional methods or ingredients and organic inputs.

Australia’s approach to chemical regulation is very different to Europe’s approach and involves a multitude of authorities at various levels of government. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is responsible for regulating pesticides. On its website, the authority assures consumers that new products are subject to a rigorous scientific assessment process before they are registered. Older registered chemicals undergo a review, but only if new information suggests there is a risk. The review process can drag on for years, and there are several potentially highly toxic chemicals that have been under review for 10 years or more.Australia is lagging far behind the precautionary principle many other countries use to safeguard public health. Here, use of a pesticide is permitted unless there is conclusive scientific evidence that its approved use is hazardous to human health and it persists as an environmental pollutant. The highly toxic insecticidal ingredient endosulfan, for example, continued to be used on a wide range of citrus fruit, vegetables and cereals in Australia, despite having been banned in more than 60 countries, including New Zealand, the European Union and several Asian and West African nations. It was finally and belatedly banned by our Federal pesticides regulator in October 2010 and distribution companies have been given two years to run down their supplies.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority must surely recognise that while Australia may have unique wildlife and different farming conditions, the toxicology of these dangerous pesticides is the same. If smoking causes cancer in the United States, it will also cause cancer in Australia. It is the carcinogens that matter; not the country. If a pesticide is too dangerous to use in Europe, it is too dangerous to use in Australia. It is up to governments to ensure that the chemicals used on our crops and in our homes are safe and that the community knows the potential impacts of exposure. The Greens call on both State and Federal governments to ensure our regulatory regime keeps chemicals deemed too dangerous away from our food and away from us.

CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEME

A deposit and refund system for used beverage containers is a simple concept and one that makes sense from almost every point of view. Therefore, it is an absolute disgrace that a 30-year battle has been waged to have one reinstated in New South Wales. The simple step of putting a 10¢ deposit on a beverage container which is refunded when the container is returned is one which worked well in the past in New South Wales and which should work in the future. A container deposit scheme would create about 1,000 jobs across the State. I am sure that many members of this House have fond memories of collecting drink bottles from parks and beaches as children and cashing them in to supplement their pocket money. Others will remember that community groups such as the Scouts and Girl Guides used the scheme to help raise much-needed funds. However, not only children and community groups but also the entire community and of course the environment will benefit from the reintroduction of container deposit legislation in New South Wales.

South Australia has had a container deposit scheme for well over 30 years and now has the highest rates of recycling of bottles and cans in Australia and the lowest rates of littering. Containers covered by the legislation comprise just 4 per cent of litter in South Australia compared to more than 30 per cent in the rest of Australia. In June 2011, PricewaterhouseCoopers International released a report on reuse and recycling of beverage packaging. It found that the benefits of recycling beverage containers resulting from the implementation of a mandatory deposit scheme produced outstanding results with collection rates of between 80 per cent and 95 per cent. That should be compared with kerbside collection recovery rates of about 40 per cent.

Despite the clear benefits, the multinational beverage industry has waged a 30-year campaign against any government that has dared even to consider the idea of placing a nominal deposit on beverage containers. Coca-Cola Amatil has been using the Keep Australia Beautiful Council as a means to gain access to members of Parliament to put forward its views in several States. In the Northern Territory Coca-Cola and its allies ran a well-funded misinformation campaign against the cash-for-container scheme. The beverage industry and other container deposit opponents frequently argue that container deposit schemes undermine the viability of kerbside recycling services. Kerbside recycling became unviable as soon as the beverage and packaging industry subsidies on the payback price for recyclable materials were withdrawn. As a result, ratepayers have been left with the burden of recycling their products.

In 2005 the Boomerang Alliance said that industry contributed just 1 per cent of the total cost of kerbside and public place recycling. Yet it is proposing to have new street recycling bins, which are notorious for cross-contamination. That would simply be another financial burden on the community whereby councils would be required to pay for collection without any greater chance of success than the current system. It is the community that pays for the cost of landfill disposal and kerbside recycling systems through damage to the environment and higher council rates. Kerbside recycling costs on average $41 a year per household. Every container that is recovered through combined container deposit refund and kerbside recovery costs about 2¢ to 3¢. However, for every container that is sent to landfill it costs us all about 8¢ to 9¢, including environmental costs. Where is the economic sense in that?

The Boomerang Alliance has found that a national refund scheme of 10c per container would lead to an additional 4 billion—yes, that is right, billion—containers or an additional 440,000 tonnes of material recycled each year. The weight of the steel arch of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is some 35,500 tonnes. That means a huge number of containers are not being recycled. Can we afford to keep doing this? Container deposit schemes already exist in 11 States of the United States, in all provinces but one in Canada, in Sweden, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark and, of course, in South Australia and the Northern Territory. The average rate of recycling is 80 per cent and it is as high as 95 per cent in some countries—the higher the deposit, the higher the return rate. Internationally, deposit-refund systems are the most effective mechanism for achieving high container recovery rates.

In 1995 the incoming Carr Government promised to introduce a container deposit scheme but then bowed to extreme pressure by a powerful industry lobby led by groups such as Woolworths, Schweppes Cottees and Coca-Cola Amatil, all under the umbrella of the Beverage Industry Environment Council. If that name is not the epitome of greenwash I do not know what is. The groundbreaking report produced by the Institute for Sustainable Futures and commissioned by the Carr Government in 2000 was kept hidden by that Government and released only in response to The Greens call for papers in February 2002. It was kept hidden because it told the Government what the industry did not want it to hear; that is, that a 10¢ refundable deposit on bottles and other containers in New South Wales would create 1,500 jobs while easing Sydney’s landfill problems. Local government emphatically supports a container deposit scheme. The time has come for the New South Wales Government to stand up to the beverage industry lobby and to reinstitute a tried and true method for saving money, reducing waste, reducing resource and energy use, creating more jobs and reducing environmental harm.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [5.38 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Government’s Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Bill 2011. A significant achievement in the Greens decade-long campaign is removing the influence of money from politics. I do not hesitate in joining my Greens colleagues in claiming a Greens achievement in the passage of this bill.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: You are taking out the unions.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: We are not taking out the unions. The credit for this bill can be justly claimed by Greens campaigners, including Senator Lee Rhiannon and Greens donations expert Dr Norman Thomson, whose calm advice and incredible expertise in the area of donations reform truly made the Democracy4Sale project the world-class project that it is. It exposed the level of donations from corporations to political parties.

The Greens Democracy4sale project began in March 2002. Lee Rhiannon and Norman Thompson began a small research project to classify the top donor companies by industry sector, to see what influence political donations were having on the major parties. They estimated that the project would take about 30 hours. Several years and thousands of research hours later the project now analyses all political donations made to New South Wales political parties and presents this data to the public in a simple website that sorts donations to political parties by industry category. What an inspiring and revolutionary project Democracy4sale was. We can thank Democracy4sale in large part for the incredible situation we are now in, where the Premier of New South Wales has described the banning of corporate and organisational donations as “a reasonable, measured and equitable way to put in place a system of political participation in New South Wales that is more transparent and more accessible.”

This is the Premier of New South Wales adopting Greens policy, and I congratulate him and the Government for this. And so I remind the House that this bill’s key feature—a ban on all political donations from corporations and other organisations—is not only core to The Greens policy; it is an absolutely essential step towards ridding New South Wales of money politics, because we know that the influence of money on politics is insidious, to say the least. The reality that organisations and corporations can buy influence with policymakers and legislators is contrary to every democratic ideal and to the Australian mantra of a fair go. No, this bill is not perfect. And, yes, it does impact on affiliated organisations in the way some political parties have been operating. But, as the Hon. Trevor Khan has said today, this bill does not prevent organisations affiliating with political parties and will not prevent unions from affiliating with Labor.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Yes, it does.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: No, it does not. It just gets the money from those organisations out of parties. We all know that as political parties we get funding of $80,000 per upper House member of Parliament to pay for administration for political parties. It is not as though Labor will not have any money if affiliated unions decide not to affiliate as a result of this bill. Of course, there has to be a price paid to get this type of reform through. But the hard fact of the matter is that we have to get money out of politics, and that will hurt. We understand that Labor and the Shooters and Fishers Party are not happy with us about this. Of course they are not. This bill impacts on those parties, and they have spoken at length about that. But, unfortunately, the road to cleaning up politics necessarily involves removing donations from not only corporations but all organisations, including unions.

As members have heard today, The Greens have discussed this matter at length and have prepared various amendments to the bill. But, as we have also heard today, the Government has not met with The Greens this year to discuss any of our amendments. However, I will put on the record that the Premier met with The Greens twice last year to discuss whether the Government would be open to supporting some of The Greens amendments that we believe would improve the bill. The Premier was not willing to agree on amendments at that time, and he has not been willing to meet with us more recently to discuss further amendments. This is unfortunate, as there are some amendments on which we could have found common ground with the Government in seeking to improve this bill, for example, with better enforcement measures.

However, as we have heard, the Government will not be supporting any amendments. So The Greens cannot support amendments that will ultimately lead to the bill being defeated in the lower House because, on balance, The Greens deeply held principle of cleaning up politics and getting money out of politics has to be upheld in this case. Therefore we have no choice other than to support this bill. That means, as my colleague Dr John Kaye has said, not supporting any of the amendments which will kill the bill, and Labor and the Shooters and Fishers Party know that.

I would like to turn now to one of the main arguments I have heard against this bill, that is, that it would impact on the ability of environmental groups to campaign. I have heard this claim ever since the bill was tabled—in private conversations I have had with members of this place and with members of the community outside it, in the media, and again and again today during this debate. The Hon. Robert Borsak said this bill would kill community groups, including “greenies”, to use his language. The Hon. Steve Whan, in his contribution to the debate, said that the online campaigning organisation GetUp! would not be able to run campaigns. That is simply not true. Organisations like the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, GetUp!, the Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace, et cetera, receive the vast majority of their donations from individuals, not from other community groups.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: But not all of them.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: GetUp! is not a peak body. GetUp! has been used in this discussion; every member who has spoken in the debate today has suggested that that organisation’s environmental campaigning will be adversely affected. That is simply not true. GetUp! is an environmental group, not a peak body. However, GetUp! is a registered third party campaigner in New South Wales which receives most of its donations from individuals. Therefore, it will still be able to spend up to $1.05 million on political campaigning that is related to the State election, as long as that $1.05 million is from individuals. If this bill was going to impact on the ability of environmental groups to do what they do best—that is, to run environmental campaigns—they would have been making public statements to that effect. And those would have been very loud public statements—as environmentalists know how to do so well. They would also have been making submissions to the inquiry but they did not. No environmental organisations in New South Wales made a submission to the inquiry and nor did GetUp! Further, these groups made no comment, either publicly or to me, that they were worried about the impact of this bill on their work.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: So it only matters if they talk to you?

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I am correcting misinformation, which has been spoken about at length in this House by members of the Labor Party, that this bill would affect environmental campaigning. That is simply not true. As for the State’s peak environment body, the Nature Conservation Council, it receives the vast majority of donations from individuals. Nothing in this bill will stop the Nature Conservation Council from using the donations it receives from individuals on electoral expenditure. Under the Act electoral expenditure is defined as:

… expenditure for or in connection with promoting or opposing, directly or indirectly, a party or the election of a candidate or candidates or for the purpose of influencing, directly or indirectly, the voting at an election.

However, many not-for-profit organisations have certain restrictions placed on them due to their charitable status, including the Nature Conservation Council and many other environment groups as well as thousands of other community groups. I am not sure whether all members are aware, but the Australian Taxation Office already restricts what type of campaigning not-for-profit organisations which are registered for deductible gift recipient status are able to do. Deductible gift recipient status means that organisations are able to take tax deductible donations. Many charities have deductible gift recipient status. Any organisation that has deductible gift recipient status is at risk of losing that status if its main purpose is seen as no longer charitable; in other words, if it is seen as a predominantly lobbying organisation.

We saw that happen when the Australian Taxation Office revoked the Aid/Watch organisation’s tax deductibility status in 2006. Thankfully, the organisation’s deductible gift recipient status was reinstated upon appeal to the High Court. So restrictions are already in place for many non-profit organisations when it comes to how much, and what type of, campaigning they can do during election periods. Let us remember too that third party campaigners will still be able to spend $1.05 million if they were registered before the commencement of the capped expenditure period for the election. That is a fair amount of money. Then there is an additional cap of $20,000 for expenditure incurred by a third party campaigner substantially for the purposes of the election of a candidate in a particular electorate. I would like to read out part of the contribution of Professor Anne Twomey to the inquiry:

The most contentious and vulnerable part of section 96D, however, is its application to donations to third-party campaigners. The effect is to prevent lobby groups from acting as third-party campaigners where they raise money for political campaigns from other groups with the same interests. Hence an association that represented the interests of shooters, pubs and clubs, environmentalists, religious bodies, or retail businesses, which would ordinarily receive its funding from rifle clubs, hotels, environment groups, churches or shops, would under section 96D be banned from receiving those donations and would be effectively neutered from running a political campaign during elections. This would leave the third-party campaigning field to big corporations, unless lobby groups were able to raise sufficient funds from individual donations from people on the electoral roll, which would be exceedingly difficult.

While I agree with this statement to some extent—and I thank Professor Anne Twomey for her excellent work in this area and for her contribution to the inquiry—I repeat that because of the way in which environmental groups in New South Wales are funded, section 96D will not impact on environmental groups to any significant degree. We have not sold out non-profit organisations, which The Greens have been accused of doing today. I am sure what environmental groups and most non-profit organisations would like to see is the political system cleaned up. They want money out of politics just as The Greens do.

As we heard from my colleagues Dr John Kaye and the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, this is a very hard decision for The Greens. We have thought and talked long and hard about what position we will take on this bill. Our members have debated our position long and hard because of the tension this bill creates between one more significant step towards cleaning up politics and the impact it will have on affiliated organisations like unions—not environmental groups—and some political parties. The Greens support unions and the right for unions to be able to campaign. Let us remember that this bill will allow unions to campaign. It will still allow each union to spend up to $1.05 million during the election. It is disingenuous to say that The Greens have sold out unions or non-profit organisations by supporting this bill, which is one step closer to removing money from politics. The Greens support the bill.