Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is a long list of terrible programs introduced by this appalling government: pink batts, green loans, $700 set-top boxes, cash for clunkers—I could go on. But the program which underpins and is proposed by this Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012 would have to be right up near the very top of the worst of all programs that this government will be introducing. This bill involves an appropriation of $10 billion from taxpayers to put into a government fund to invest in speculative projects that the commercial sector would not invest in. Hence, I predict that billions of dollars will simply be wasted. It is the sheer magnitude of this that is astounding—$10 billion! If you lined up $100 notes end to end, it would go for 20,000 kilometres—from here to the other side of the world. That is the size of this program that we are talking about, and it is all on the government's credit card—or, should I say, the taxpayers' credit card. It is astounding.

I want to raise three core arguments against this bill. Firstly, this proposal, despite the sheer magnitude of it, comes with no mandate and no detailed policy underpinning it. This is simply a grubby deal done with the Greens. Secondly, it is entirely funded by government debt at a time when we can least afford to be adding to it. Thirdly, this bill will have no impact on the renewable energy sector, as the member for Melbourne would like us to believe, because the renewable energy sector is governed by the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target and not by this. What is worse, we will see billions of dollars wasted.

If I can go to the first point, the only reason we are discussing this bill at all is because the Greens have forced it upon the government. The member for Melbourne, who spoke just before me, was very clear in that regard. In fact, the Greens first raised this concept back in July 2007 and had the opportunity to implement it through its negotiations with the government when they were discussing the carbon tax proposal—that tax that the Prime Minister said that she would not introduce. As you might recall, Deputy Speaker Grierson, after they had negotiated the carbon tax deal out popped this green energy fund—$10 billion worth—and Senator Milne, the deputy chair of the multi-party task force which was investigating this, proudly proclaimed that it was her idea, a great initiative and therefore it will occur, because what the Greens call for the Labor government will introduce.

There was no mandate for this. It is a $10-billion appropriation, but the government did not take it to the last election to reach a mandate. There was actually no policy paper underpinning this proposal. There is no discussion paper to get community views about this. In fact, the government would not even allow a House of Representatives standing committee to investigate this proposal before we are forced to debate it and vote on it. No, it was just a grubby deal with the Greens. It is as simple as that, with no policy underpinning at all.

We cannot just hold the Greens responsible for this fund. Yes, they were the catalyst for it, but Labor agreed in part to this $10-billion fund—in part because the philosophy underpinning the fund perfectly aligns with modern Labor's philosophy of having the government at the centre of the economy. Kevin Rudd talked about this, as you will recall, Deputy Speaker Grierson, very loudly and clearly in his essays. Prime Minister Gillard, of course, supports this proposition, and we can see it in the government's other policies, most particularly the National Broadband Network policy. We are the only country in the world that is renationalising its telecommunications network. We see it in the carbon tax policies, which re-regulate the economy. We see it in the 16,000 regulations which the government is proposing. So this bill is actually very much in keeping with modern Labor philosophy of having government right in the heart of our economy. It was not the philosophy in the Hawke-Keating era, when they knew that the private sector had to flourish, but it is the philosophy of modern Labor and this bill is in keeping with this philosophy.

The other reason that the Labor government are supporting this, despite it being advocated by the Greens, is because they have realised the politics of it. The first tranche of money—the first $2 billion—will start to be paid out merely weeks before the next federal election is due. What a coincidence! This government has seized upon this and thought, 'Geez, we can put this towards our marginal seats, all underneath the budget radar.' That is the reason. So, yes, it started as a deal driven by the Greens but is very much aligned with the Labor Party philosophy and the whatever-it-takes group that now drives the Labor Party.

My second point is that this bill and the financing that underpins it is all done on borrowed money. The concept of this green energy fund managed by the government and invested in speculative projects that the commercial sector would not touch would be a bad enough concept in and of itself and under fantastic economic circumstances. But it is particularly bad when the government has so categorically blown out our government finances. Of course, we all know the numbers. They started with a $20-billion budget surplus; they started with $70 million in the bank. But for the next five years we had the four biggest budget deficits in Australian political history and now we have net debt of $145 billion. We have interest payments on that debt of $8 billion per annum and we have had to increase the debt ceiling to $300 billion.

See this speech in context