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

I congratulate the shadow minister for the environment! For him to appear at the dispatch box and talk about the environment is something of an achievement, because, after 500 questions, 12½ months and numerous question times, he is yet to ask his opposite number a single question on the environment—not one, not ever

I think he is quite a nice guy, but when he took on the title of 'shadow minister' I suspect he took the shadow part of it a bit too seriously.

This is a question about the seriousness of climate policy. Let me remind the House of a few words: 'pink batts', 'green loans', 'cash for clunkers', 'citizens assembly' and 'carbon tax'—which they were never going to have. These are the realities and legacies of what they did in the name of climate policy. Let me run through these things in order. Let's remember what a tremendous success the pink batts scheme was. We have recently had findings from Commissioner Ian Hanger, and what did he find? He found:

The reality is that the Australian Government conceived of, devised, designed and implemented a program that enabled very large numbers of inexperienced workers—often engaged by unscrupulous and avaricious employers or head contractors who were themselves inexperienced in insulation installation—to undertake potentially dangerous work.

He went on to find, sadly, in relation to the tragedies:

… each death would, and should, not have occurred had the HIP been properly designed and implemented.

He went on to find that:

… despite electrical safety issues being raised squarely as an issue after the death of Mr Fuller, insufficient action was taken to prevent further tragedies—had it been, I am satisfied that Rueben Barnes' death could have been avoided.

There are numerous findings—findings that go on for page after page—and I am happy to table them for members of the opposition to read. This was a program done, inspired and delivered in the name of climate change, but it was a singular failure. It was a catastrophic failure and it was done in the characteristic style of chaotic management which embodied the way in which the previous government went across not just climate policy but almost all areas of policy.

I mentioned the Green Loans scheme as well. It was a $100 million farce: on average it worked out at $100,000 per loan for each loan that was actually delivered. It was an incredible failure which resulted in business destruction, confusion in the sector and virtually no change in emissions whatsoever. Cash for Clunkers—you only have to say the name, 'Cash for Clunkers', it says everything—was a policy which was so bad that they never got it off the ground. I should ask the member for Charlton: were you the designer of that? Are you going to put your hand up? Was this your baby? Or are you going to handball it to somebody else?

Mr Conroy interjecting—

In other words, not even the member for Charlton will own up to Cash for Clunkers. Then we go to the citizens' assembly—that was another beauty. You will remember that they went to the election in 2010, saying: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but there will be a citizens' assembly.' Their entire policy was going to be a citizens' assembly—this was the grand, majestic belief that the Labor Party had. But after the election, of course, everything changed. I will say something on this front: I was reading the Australian today and there were two articles jumped out at me. The first one says:

Gillard on Kevin Rudd: a man desperate for applause.

There are no great surprises in that, but almost entirely opposite that story was a come back article, ' Rudd on Gillard: a coup plotter and a backstabber'. What is interesting in this renewed battle is that Mr Rudd is reported as saying of his nemesis:

"(Gillard) sent me a written communication saying that under no circumstances could she, or would she, support an emissions trading scheme going to the next election," Mr Rudd wrote.

…    …    …

While recognising "the postponement" of the CPRS was "wrong", Mr Rudd said it was necessary to "prevent a total split in the government in an election year led by (Gillard's) implacable hostility to the ETS."

They were so serious about climate change—it was such a fundamental issue—that the government of the day was entirely split. He goes on to say that Ms Gillard and '"the faceless men" who supported her, including Bill Shorten,' should be absolutely chastised 'for ripping the party apart'.

This issue about which they huff and puff and provide a great degree ad hominem commentary today was one which was of such fundamental importance that they were in complete denial of it at the 2010 election. Then, three years later, what was their policy going into the 2013 election? It was 'to terminate the carbon tax'. So, their policy in 2010 was not to have a carbon tax under a government they led; their policy in 2013 was to terminate that same carbon tax. Except for the fact that when they lost the election and when the vote came up, they did not vote against it once or twice; they voted against the repeal of the carbon tax six times. So it is a system that Gillard did not believe in, that most of her supporters—I am happy to say, 'G'day' to the member for Port Adelaide—did not believe in when she was campaigning for the leadership and it was a system they were happy to abandon in name prior to the last election. What we see is a degree of farce and a degree of pomposity, which accompanies everything they say.

When you go to what they did—they terminated the solar rebate. They talk about renewables but they terminated the solar rebate—they terminated the solar hot water rebate. They created a phantom credits program which to this day has left a catastrophic flaw in the renewable energy target. I have mentioned pink batts, green loans, cash for clunkers, citizens' assembly—this is a record not of proud success, but one about which you may feel a little disappointed and a little embarrassed.

What have we done by comparison? We are doing practical and real things. On the international front, we have recommitted to our targets and we are committed to a solid, real and ambitious post-2020 agreement and just today we announced that Australia will be hosting an Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit in the coming months in Sydney. This is a chance to do something real and profound in terms of protecting the forests of the world, to enhance the reductions of emissions, to ensure that both biodiversity and climate change are addressed in a real and significant way on a grand global scale.

Domestically, instead of a system which costs $7½ billion a year and which largely failed to have any significant impact on emissions, we are going to ensure that there is an emissions reductions fund and a carbon purchasing fund which uses the existing Carbon Farming Initiative, which cleans up waste coal mine gas, cleans up power stations and cleans up waste landfill gas—real things which actually reduce emissions. This will engage in energy efficiency on a large, significant and broad scale. It will engage in the regeneration of our farmlands through work which improves soil carbon, which reduces deforestation and which reduces land clearance. These are actual incentives to do real things to reduce emissions on the land and in our cities. Add to that the regeneration of urban forests through the 20 Million Trees Program, and add to that what we are doing with the Green Army, which will allow for riparian recovery, the stabilisation of riverbanks, the replanting of mangroves and the recovery of threatened species. These are things which improve the environment in a real way, as opposed to extraordinary programs. Is there one person on that side of the chamber who will put their hand up and proudly say, 'I was responsible for the home insulation program'? Not an author. Is there a single person who will at least say, 'I was responsible for the Green Loans Program'?

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Who came up with the cash-for-clunkers program? Member for Charlton, you were playing a significant role. You are a great climate change warrior. Not yours? What about the citizens assembly? Any responsibility for the citizens assembly? Is there one of you who will claim responsibility for these programs?

I will claim responsibility for the Emissions Reductions Fund, for the Asia-Pacific rainforest recovery plan, for the 20 Million Trees plan, for the Green Army plan. These are real things that do real things. (Time expired)

See this speech in context