Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lyons because the longer he spoke the more information he gave me to use as ammunition. Of course, the member for Lyons was speaking of those who may doubt the issue of global warming. It strikes me that the member for Lyons may be in that very same category. The issue that he has raised is the absolute unknown factors in relation to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and related bill that we are discussing.

The coalition, as is well known by our government friends, support the idea of carbon sequestration in soil and various other attributes of farming carbon. What we do not support is simply accepting, in the broadest of terms without analysis, some proposition being put up by a government that has such a track record of failure. Anything this government was to suggest albeit, prima facie, quite reasonable, you would surely doubt the veracity of because the track record is there. We know it well but I will mention some of them again.

They had a great idea to save the economy and save energy by insulating ceilings, prima facie, a wonderful idea. It was an abject failure that burned down houses, cost lives and is costing taxpayers millions of dollars still to check where they went wrong. And we were promised this was going to be absolute lifesaver. School halls—wonderful monuments were built to the Prime Minister but at what cost to the Australian taxpayer? Where was the veracity? Where was the rigour? Where was the value for money? Totally absent. Solar panels—great idea for anyone totally ignorant as to how to select the best process of renewable energy. Photovoltaic cells seems to be a great idea—energy for free from the sun. Well it is not free; it is about six times the price of power generation by coal. That has been a failure and is starting to send state governments broke.

Then we had the issue of the cash for clunkers. That lasted a very, very short period of time. But, once again, it was a bright idea. I am sure the surveyed groups and the consultative groups that were listening to the public would have rushed to the caucus and said: 'We have another idea that is going to save the planet.' That did not last long. How are we, as intelligent members of this parliament, in this place to take seriously a proposition from the government—until we see the detail; maybe this Friday—and why would we for a moment accept that this is a good idea as it is presented? My experience indicates quite clearly that those on the land have a lot of commonsense and they are not easily fooled. They will not swallow glibly the ideas that are proposed by this government because lurking in the background is the knowledge that this government's reputation will surely result in this proposition being yet another failure.

We are being told that, of course, this is a panacea and this will be one of the tools in the box, so to speak, that will bring salvation and credit to this government. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for the time when the Australian public recognises that this government can save itself. Everywhere I go—and I accept I am from Western Australia and many recognise that we are slightly different—I hear the clamour of constituents for the cessation of this government and this government's policies that are impacting negatively on the people of Western Australia. Quite frankly, my great concern is for the people of Durack. They are my primary concern. They are tax-paying Australians and they deserve better than that that is being meted out by this government, especially when we are confronted with legislation that has no rigour whatsoever, not an ounce of real detail that will allow those people who might put this program into play—that is, the farmers of Australia, specifically in my case the farmers of Durack. They are wanting this government to give them some indication that there is an opportunity for them to contribute to the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, at the same time, use some of their non-productive land to turn a quid. Farming is a tough game these days. It is dependent upon so many externals. This might at best—as I said I will not hold my breath—be a salvation for farmers who are doing it tough and it may make some serious contribution to carbon sequestration.

There are so many holes and so many unknowns, yet we are being told that this is a great panacea. The member for Lyons, of course, raised the issue that it depends on the model. So much depends on the fine print of the final regulation that will be addressing the core of this legislation. Amongst other things we do not at this stage know even the starting point for the cost of a tonne of carbon. Therefore, farmers have no idea of the value of compensation for planting out hectares of non-productive country with trees. They know nothing about what the impact will be of some climatic event that will release the carbon that is contained in those trees.

See this speech in context