Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

I will refer first to the question and the comments of the member for Hasluck. I thank the member for her contribution in this debate as we consider the budget appropriations. It is the case that the government has made a significant commitment to climate change programs, to energy efficiency programs and to solar programs. We have done that by extending the Solar Cities program. In extending that program, we have recognised that the communities around Australia are enthusiastic about playing their part in addressing the dangers of climate change by getting involved in consortia and in applying energy efficient and low-emissions technologies and techniques to reduce their emissions. I applaud those communities, particularly the Perth solar city consortium, for the good work they have done so far. I note that, when the member for Hasluck refers to the emissions savings that will be gained there, these are significant emissions savings. They involve some 6,000 homes and businesses and some 15,000 tonnes of CO2. This is real, on-the-ground delivery of emissions reductions, and it is on account of the programs that have been brought forward by the Rudd government.

I quickly add that last week I was pleased to be in Coburg, a suburb of Melbourne, which we formally announced a Solar Cities city. Solar Cities is a particularly important program because it enables low-income families to gain the necessary skills, expertise and information required to start reducing emissions in their homes. There will be a big component of insulation in that program.

In relation to the questions put to me by the member for Murray, I remind the member that, following 11 years of total lack of action on climate change, the Rudd government brought into the budget the most comprehensive commitment on climate change that we have ever seen. That is the ultimate take-home of the budget. It is a $3.3 billion commitment. Specifically, not only do we have in place directed funding towards those areas where it is necessary and needed—and I refer to the renewable energy fund, the National Solar School Program and numerous others—but we are also doing it within the framework of a program which will start to deliver to Australians the capacity to reduce their emissions at low cost. That will mean a rigorously developed emissions trading scheme and an additional range of complementary measures that we have in place to enable that to happen.

The member asked me questions in relation to Landcare and a number of other issues. The member has made a number of misleading statements about Landcare, and I referred to these when I spoke previously in the consideration in detail stage. She continues to claim that Landcare has been cut by 20 per cent. I advise the member that this is not the case. Landcare has been allocated funding of $189.2 million over the first five years of the Caring for our Country program. It is also not the case that Landcare is buried within the Caring for our Country program. It is not. Landcare continues to be separately appropriated within the agricultural portfolio, and my colleague Tony Burke, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, will effectively operate and run that program very judiciously.

Additionally, the member claims—and I quote the member to herself—that Landcare leverage is $10 for every $1 of funding; again, that is wrong. The member claims that we are not cutting red tape; again, that is wrong. The member has also claimed that the guidelines for contestable pools of funding will not be available until September; again, that is wrong. There is a requirement for the opposition to come into this analysis of the budget appropriations and produce some accuracy in terms of their claims and their figures. If the member is going to continue to bring these questions into these fora, she has to be accurate in terms of the statements she is making.

The government will put in place a smoother transition for Caring for our Country in this transition year than the opposition when in government ever managed between NHT1 and NHT2. I refer the member to the Australian National Audit Office report which said:

The delays in reaching agreement had unfortunate consequences for some regions in existence prior to NHT2. Staff members were laid off and regional bodies were downsized.

We have provided significant transitional funding to enable catchment management authorities and regional groups to have sustainability over the period of the transition. Yes, there will be a component of contestable funds—as there ought to be, because we believe it is only by people bringing forward the very best programs that they can that we will get the best delivery for Australian taxpayers. (Time expired)

See this speech in context