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

No, you are introducing a carbon tax. What we are saying is this $10 billion that you are putting in is going to have no benefit. That is what we are saying. I appreciate the interjections from those opposite, but, as usual, they do not contribute much to the debate.

As we have seen from this government's track record, we do not expect that the $10 billion will be successfully invested and, even if it was, which as I said is highly unlikely, there would be no new renewable energy generated as the target will still be 20 per cent.

In total, through Senate estimates and the government's own documents, we know the Clean Energy Regulator will cost $256 million over the four-year forward estimates, with around 330 staff expected to be appointed. That is on top of the staff and costs associated with the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the $3.2 billion Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the $25 million Climate Change Authority.

The CEFC is also not charged with investing in the lowest cost technologies to produce the cheapest emissions reduction. Its responsibility is to find the technologies which the market considers to be unproven, too speculative or too risky for commercial financing. This will mean that not all investments will produce a commercial return; the CEFC sets itself up for failure before it even begins.

It will not be the first time we have witnessed failures of this nature. For example, the government's $700 million Solar Flagships Program in Moree and the Queensland Solar Dawn projects struggled to gain industry support. The Bligh government presided over more than $100 million of losses in the ZeroGen project, despite clear warnings from both the opposition and experts. Former Queensland Premier Beattie even said that the shadow minister for energy and resources was 'on drugs' for his warning that ZeroGen would fail. But as we all know, the shadow minister was in fact correct. The CEFC also has many of the hallmarks of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, which left Victoria in a disastrous state only two decades ago.

Programs like these tell a similar story in the United States. The failures of the $700 million Solyndra project, as well as those of Beacon Power and Ener1, occurred under a similar program to the CEFC. These companies were recently joined by the collapse of Solar Trust of America, which had a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the US energy department. I recently read that President Obama spent $90 billion of his stimulus package on green energy projects, yet at the end of the day only some 16,100 people landed jobs in the so-called new green industry. That is a cost of some $5.6 million a job.

Direct action is what is needed in my electorate of Forde. A carbon tax and a Clean Energy Finance Corporation will do nothing to resolve local issues with respect to the water quality in the Logan and Albert rivers and other environmental issues. I grew up near the Logan River at Waterford and we spent plenty of time swimming and fishing in the river. These are not activities that I would undertake or recommend today, given the recent water quality reports. There is only one way to solve the issues with the water quality in our rivers and waterways and that is by protecting vital areas of biodiversity for future generations. This is a practical, sustainable, long-term measure that can be implemented from the ground up. That is what our Direct Action Plan is designed to do. There is not a single dollar of carbon tax money allocated to practical, on-the-ground environmental projects.

Ms Owens interjecting—

I know the member for Parramatta finds this funny. That is a sad indictment on where this government is at. Under a coalition government we have demonstrated that we can deliver practical, on-the-ground solutions for environmental projects. One of those was our successful Green Army scheme. We will look to reintroduce the Green Army to tackle environmental issues, such as the Logan and Albert rivers in addition to planting trees around the nation to improve local environments.

I mentioned during the debate on the clean energy bills that it is the height of ignorance to believe that we as a society can control global climate change via a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. It is just as ignorant to believe that the CEFC will produce one watt more of renewable energy by 2020 as a consequence of this $10 billion being spent. The CEFC also says it will not provide grants. It is intended to be commercially oriented and to make a positive return on its investments. Given we are investing $10 billion of Australian taxpayers' money, I would certainly hope that it is focused on achieving positive returns on its investments and that they are significant, given the uncommercial nature of those supposed investments.

As this bill presents itself as an extension of the carbon tax, we will oppose its implementation. An economy-wide, wealth-destroying carbon tax, along with its suite of bureaucracies that provides no practical, on-the-ground environmental outcomes, is not the solution for the future of this nation.

See this speech in context