Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I listened with interest to the member for Ryan, who is a very articulate spokesperson for the people of Ryan, as we have heard in many question times. I would take issue with him on a couple of things: firstly, the nuclear power station issue, which I will talk about a little bit later. He spent some time talking about jobs and consistency in relation to the various messages that are sent and right at the end of his speech he said that he was a supporter of biomass. I am as well and I have spoken to him privately about this matter on a number of occasions. But this is about sending messages—this legislation is part of that process—on trying to develop a trading framework, on climate change and on global warming. It is also about creating preconditions where policy can be developed.

In relation to biomass and biofuels in particular, we have a message that is being sent completely in the wrong direction. As of 2011, producers of biofuels in Australia will be taxed. This means taxing a fuel source which is renewable and has some impact on fine particle emissions from our cars. There is still some debate about greenhouse gas emissions in relation to biofuels, but there are a lot of positives in the use of biomass to produce fuels. It is renewable, to start with, and a non-carbon source.

The message the government is sending through the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007 is a good one. It is trying to encourage and establish a framework for the future. I do not think anybody will argue about that. But the government wonders why people do not get the message. It is because there are these other messages being sent at the same time. As I said, from 2011 through to 2015, biofuels will be used as a source of revenue. I would have thought that, if we were trying to encourage renewable fuels, reduce emissions, have an impact on greenhouse gas, do something about global warming, do something about the health of people in our major cities et cetera, we would not be using the solution as a tax source. Normally you use taxation in an environment area as a deterrent to using something.

We have heard the member for Ryan and others saying, ‘This is a good idea; we’re putting in place these things to encourage people down the right path.’ I congratulate his wife for trying to keep him in the dark by changing all the light bulbs. That is a good thing—or I hope it is.

See this speech in context