Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Hansard source

Let me begin with two words: pink batts. If you want to define the record of environmental incompetence under the previous government, just start with two words: pink batts. It was a $2 billion catastrophic failure. There were over 100,000 roofs that had to be fixed. There were over 200 house fires. What we also saw during that time was a $500 million bill just to fix their own program. It was a $500 million bill just to fix the roof. That was the reality. These are not our figures; these are Labor's own budget figures. This is the level of incompetence that we saw. They may have airbrushed history, but those of us who have watched with interest the passage of the royal commission have witnessed a litany of catastrophically foolish ignorance with regard to the inevitable consequences of a dumb design. It was a dumb design and you know it, and it came, sadly, with the most catastrophic of human consequences.

Let me run through the litany: pink batts, Green Loans, Green Start, 'cash for clunkers'. We loved 'cash for clunkers'! It summarised the entire ALP approach to the environment. This is not to mention the citizens' assembly. That was another beauty. That was, in fact, the climate policy they had before they had the carbon tax, and it was the policy they took to the 2010 election. Then there was the wondrous carbon tax, but I will come back to that in a minute, because let us just remember Green Loans. Green Loans was another signature policy which ended up at an average cost of $100,000 per $1,000 loan. It may sound extraordinary, but the average price per loan distributed was about $100,000. They spent $100 million. They issued just over—just over, I will concede that—1,000 loans. Therefore, the program, on average, cost $100,000 each for loans which were just over $1,000 each. It is a level of incompetence rivalled and surpassed only by the Home Insulation Program.

Then we go from Green Loans to 'cash for clunkers'. This was, of course, the signature program. It was going to be a giant. It was going to transform the automotive sector—except that it never happened. They were so moved by the beauty and the glory of the 'cash for clunkers' program that, in the end, it collapsed. In the end—

A government member: It crashed.

it crashed. In the end, they could not even bring it to bear.

The citizens' assembly, of course, was going to be the parliament you have when you are not having a parliament. This was because, leading into the 2010 election—members of this House may remember—the policy was: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead; instead, there will be a citizens' assembly under a government I lead.' They did not have the citizens' assembly; they did introduce a tax for which they had no mandate. Then they went to the last election, as everybody knows, pledging to terminate that tax.

So what is the consequence? The consequence is that we now know that Australians have faced just over $15.4 billion in taxes over the last two years which they pledged we would never have. If this tax is not repealed, they are set to face an additional $550 a year of household costs over and above that which they would ordinarily face. This is, again, in breach of an election promise from last year, and the litany goes on, whether it is the Solar Homes and Communities Plan, which crashed, or the Green Car Innovation Fund, which was going to be a multimillion-dollar program. They took $400 million out of it one day and then they took $400 million out of it another day. The effect was nothing. The effect was a grandly announced program which ended up being slashed and destroyed.

What we saw throughout the last government was a very simple pattern: grand announcement and then catastrophic failure. Let me just remind the House of some of these grand announcements. There was the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program, which they were going to keep. They then slashed $135 million and $65 million from it. In the Green Car Innovation Fund, I pointed out a $400 million cut then another $400 million cut. The National Solar Schools Program, one of their signature initiatives—gone. Retooling for climate change, at $37 million—gone. The Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships Program was a beauty; it was going to be an absolute corker. They sunk $420 million from it, and then there was another $60 million, and then the Carbon Capture and Storage Institute was a catastrophic failure. One of their favourites was the Solar Flagships Program, which was allocated $1½ billion five years ago. You would remember that the then Prime Minister Rudd made a grand announcement. But, in five years, how many watts of energy have been introduced? Zero, nix, nada—not one. It is a $1½ billion program that, to date, has produced precisely nothing. However, Ian Macfarlane is going to make sure that the contracts that are being delivered under the ARENA program will deliver real value for money.

This brings me to the comparison with what we are doing. We have set out four areas—clean air, clean land, clean water, and heritage protection. In terms of clean air, we will get rid of a carbon tax which does not work, which had a 0.1 per cent decrease in emissions for a $7½ billion tax in year one. Instead, we will directly focus on cleaning up power stations. We will not give brown coal power stations $5½ billion to do nothing. We will clean up waste coalmine gas, we will clean up waste landfill gas, we will capture methane emissions and we will encourage energy efficiency and improvement in the land sector. We are already delivering, in terms of clean air, a supercomputer for the Bureau of Meteorology—which was meant to have been funded by the previous government but was not—to monitor what this country is doing, to deliver forecasts of a much higher standard, and to deliver early warnings for cyclones, bushfires and floods.

In terms of clean land, we have already passed through the Senate—and I thank the opposition for their help on this—a half a billion dollar Green Army program. This will put 15,000 young Australians into paid training over the coming years. It will ensure that we improve our local environment. It will clean up riparian areas. It will allow us to engage in revegetation, the removal of blackberries, the planting of native species, the installation of boardwalks, the recovery of mangroves, the recovery of foreshore areas—real work which actually provides real environmental outcomes at a local level, delivering what local communities want, with training that leads to certificates, employment and a sense of self-worth. That is what we are delivering through the Green Army.

We are also delivering $2 billion in natural resource funding as set out at page 27 of the portfolio budget statement. There will be $1 billion for the National Landcare Program. There will be a small grants program, to be announced before the commencement of August, as both the Minister for Agriculture and I had committed to. We are delivering half a billion dollars for the Green Army. In addition to that, there is Working on Country funding and a $40 million Reef Trust to deal with the highest priority threats to the reef. This is exactly what we are doing.

In terms of clean water, we have completed the work of the Murray-Darling Basin agreement. The parliamentary secretary, Simon Birmingham, has done a brilliant job in helping complete the work of three governments and protecting the Murray-Darling Basin for the long run—along with what we are doing for the Reef Trust and coastal river recovery initiatives which will help the Torrens, Swan, Yarra and Tamar rivers and the Tuggerah Lakes.

I want to deal with some of the claims made in relation to World Heritage. As members opposite would know, in 2011, under their watch, the World Heritage Committee raised questions about the status of the reef—and in 2012 and 2013. This year they made a finding that there had been significant work and progress. They made a finding that they were moving towards a positive outcome. In other words, after three years of failure, we have had the most significant improvement yet in the findings of that body. In relation to the decision last night, we had a mandate; we took it to the people and we were given that mandate. We then took it to the international body. We accept the umpire's decision, as does the Tasmanian government. Yes, there is disappointment in that. But let me be clear: we accept the umpire's decision there. Do you accept the umpire's decision in terms of the Australian people and the carbon tax? If you do, get out of the way! (Time expired)

See this speech in context