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

I respectfully but categorically want to disagree with this motion. The reason is very simple: it is wrong. There are significant and profound enhancements in environmental science, environmental research and practical applied environmental work in one portfolio alone.

Against that background, let me run through four significant areas that I believe are critical, important and exemplars of the government's investment in practical real world environmental science. First—and this is something about which I am extremely pleased and proud—we have invested $142.5 million in the National Environmental Science Program. This program has been created with a six-year commitment to each of the hubs, and it follows three significant themes: firstly, clean air; secondly, clean land; and, thirdly, clean water.

In terms of the clean air space, we have two particular hubs. The first of those is the national Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub run out of the University of Melbourne with other partners, such as the University of Wollongong, and led by Professor Peter Rayner, with an $8 million allocation. Secondly, within the clean air space, we also have the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub, which is to be led by the CSIRO and Dr Helen Cleugh, with $24 million over six years, doing vital work on earth systems, climate science and climate research.

Similarly, the next things we have are the clean land hubs. I am particularly pleased that there is a northern biodiversity hub which is run out of Charles Darwin University, led by Professor Michael Douglas, with an allocation of $24 million over the six years. This is accompanied by something which has been a deep personal project, and that is the Threatened Species Recovery Hub. It is one of the most well-funded of all of the hubs, and it is led by Professor Hugh Possingham of the University of Queensland and Professor David Lindenmayer of the ANU. Their task and their job, with the $30 million allocated to that hub, is to focus on practical projects pioneering recovery of threatened species, whether it is the bettong, the bilby, the quoll or the powerful owl—important iconic species that are at risk if there is no action.

We then follow through to the water hubs. Here, there is a Marine Biodiversity Hub, led by Professor Nic Bax out of the University of Tasmania but working around the country. We move from that to the Tropical Water Quality Hub, which, Madam Deputy Speaker Landry, in your particular seat and others, will play a profound role in helping to pioneer long-term water quality initiatives for the Great Barrier Reef as well as other water quality areas. In particular, this is perhaps the best funded of all of the hubs, with $32 million. It is jointly led by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, and it is led by Dr Damien Burrows. This, the threatened species hub and the clean air hub will be particular pioneers in their areas, doing something which has not been done with federal funding previously.

That then brings me to the second major area after the National Environmental Science Program, and that is climate adaptation research. It is fascinating: the previous government defunded Griffith University's National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. We refunded it for $9 million over three years. Were we to have defunded it, the hue and cry would have rung from every rafter. The previous government, under then Prime Minister Rudd, took the money away; we have refunded it. To that, I add the work that we are doing on the Antarctic with a $24 million Antarctic gateway program and a $25 million Antarctic National Research Council program. These are critical projects going forward.

Then last I come to the extraordinary expenditure in science research hardware. Between the Bureau of Meteorology supercomputer, which was proposed by the previous government but unfunded, and the Antarctic icebreaker, which was proposed by the previous government and unfunded, we have found approximately half a billion dollars—$500 million—to fulfil vital national research infrastructure. This is a fundamental commitment to the future. We will hear nothing from the opposition about science research because we are delivering where they failed.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context