Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak on the bills related to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—another wonderful boondoggle from this government which will see $10 billion of Australian taxpayers' funds put at risk. I would like to refer to a book titled The False Promise of Green Energy and to paraphrase a little bit from it. The authors make the point that the proponents of green energy would have us believe that if we spend enough money to build windmills, add solar panels to the desert and stuff insulation into buildings there will be myriad benefits for very little risk. The end result is that billions of dollars are borrowed or, in this case, appropriated via the world's most expensive carbon tax from ordinary Australians. They have this confidence that the savings in energy, the environment and health costs will actually be achieved, but given this government's track record I have very serious concerns as to whether that will be the case.

According to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's website, the objective of the CEFC is 'to overcome capital market barriers that hinder the financing, commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency or low emissions technologies'. This is not the job of government. The job of government is to get out of the marketplace and let the marketplace sort the wheat from the chaff. This set of bills gives the CEFC the power to invest in financial assets for the development of Australian based, renewable energy technologies. These are projects that by their very nature, and according to what the CEFC website says, are uncommercial in nature. Why would we be putting at risk the hard-earned money of Australian taxpayers—mums and dads, small businesses, corporates—by putting it into projects that have a high or very high risk of failure? The risk is high enough such that our commercial lenders and funders and even private equity investors do not want to touch it.

As the member for Wright pointed out in his contribution to this debate, we should be looking instead to provide support to the people that are already there, that have a proven commercial project and are going to add value to that project and to our economy. Part of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill sets out the parameters for the CEFC special account, which will receive $2 billion per annum in funds for the next five years, with the first instalment due to be paid on 1 July 2013. It has the purpose of receiving the payments that will ultimately be invested into these projects.

I think it is worthwhile to have a look at those who have a track record in this area, and that was the previous coalition government, which committed approximately $20 billion to a comprehensive range of measures to restore and protect our natural environment and invested $3.5 billion in policy actions to address climate change. Those actions included: the implementation of the world's first mandatory renewable energy target, which has stimulated $3.5 billion worth of investment in renewable energy technologies since 2001; the establishment of a $4,000 rebate to help families install solar panels in their homes and then the doubling of that rebate to $8,000, before it was scrapped by the Labor government; the provision of $126 million to establish a national climate change adaptation centre; and the provision of $10 billion for the National Plan for Water Security. We place a great deal of emphasis on a strong and effective policy in dealing with environmental degradation and carbon emissions.

The coalition are committed to a climate change strategy based on our direct action plan to reduce emissions and to improve the environment. The direct action plan would cost an average of $800 million a year for the first four years. This compares with more than $1 billion a year that was set aside for the pink batts program over the two years of that failed program, so direct action will actually cost less than the pink batts scheme. To facilitate direct action, an emissions reduction fund would be established to support emissions reduction activities by business and industry, with a goal of 140 million tonnes of abatement each year by 2020, equating to the five per cent target which is shared by all in this House.

It is interesting to note that under the government's proposed carbon tax, emissions are still going to increase and that in order to offset that increase we have to purchase carbon permits from offshore. As a country that is already a net importer of capital, why would we be looking to purchase carbon permits offshore which rob our future generations of wealth? We would be receiving income from export revenues and then sending money offshore again to buy carbon credits. It makes absolutely no economic sense whatsoever.

The coalition's proposed emissions reduction fund will ensure that every dollar of expenditure goes towards actually reducing CO2 emissions. Direct action will not add any additional costs to households. There will be no new taxes. There will be no pressure on—

See this speech in context