Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has received a letter from the honourablemember for Flinders proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to effectively manage its environment and water programs

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a government whose environmental programs are in chaos. Let us start with the midyear economic forecast. Carefully tucked away in a footnote on page 31 of the forecast is a small matter, a slight budgetary adjustment for this year, where the $1 billion allocated for pink batts suddenly becomes $2 billion. This is the minister responsible for a $1 billion blow-out in pink batts in one year alone. That is an impressive achievement in accounting. To spend $1 billion on pink batts is extraordinary, but to spend $2 billion, with a $1 billion blow-out, in one year, is a level of fine-grade management which we see coming from the government in its environmental programs.

But it is not just the issue of the pink batts program and a $1 billion blow-out in one year alone. There are the solar programs, which we will deal with shortly, where we have seen the collapse and the caning of the solar homes, the remote solar and the solar schools programs—all from a government that pronounced that it would be the best friend that solar ever had. Three programs axed on three different occasions.

We have also seen the way in which they have spent $650 million, which was brought forward to buy phantom water. That is what my friend the member for Parkes will deal with, the fact that we have a government that is indulging in an orgy of spending on phantom water—air over dams, water which does not exist. It is an extraordinary waste of funding rather than focusing on direct infrastructure spending in rural Australia on fixing up our farms, on replumbing rural Australia, on the once-in-century vision of replumbing our farms and our interconnectors. Whether it is spent on piping or channelling or lining of dams, these are things which would make a real difference and which could save 600 billion litres of water anywhere from the Darling Downs to the Lower Lakes.

And that brings me to the last point, which the member for Mayo will deal with, the fact that we have seen the Lower Lakes neglected on a grand scale. There has been a grand hoax in relation to that which was offered for the Lower Lakes. The reality is that one of Australia’s great wetlands, great migratory bird areas, one of the world’s Ramsar sites, has been neglected and, as the member for Mayo will point out, has led to a devastating environmental impact. Not all is within the government’s hands—not the causes, but the solutions are. So that is what we see today, beginning with a $1 billion pink batts blow-out in one year alone.

I want to turn first to the home installation program and the issue of rorting, the issue of inappropriate action and the way in which we have seen complete negligence in the management of the pink batts program by the government. Let me start with a small example. It is an example which is, shall we say, inconvenient for the government. It is Patricia Andrews. Patricia Andrews was surprised to discover that she had received insulation in her home. She received a letter from the government asking whether or not she was happy with the service that she had had. The only problem was that her home had been demolished. The home was demolished and she had never applied for insulation. More than that, not only was the insulation not delivered, not only was the home demolished, but Patricia Andrews’s home was within the Prime Minister’s electorate. So within a few short kilometres of the Prime Minister’s electorate office, we have an installation rort for insulation which was never delivered in a house which was demolished in the Prime Minister’s own electorate. So this program goes right to the heart of incompetence and mismanagement, not just at ministerial level but at prime ministerial level. There is a simple failure to oversee a program which was badly designed from the outset, which has been modified in response to opposition demands not once, twice, or even three times, but on four different occasions.

So what are the different forms of rorting that we have seen? Firstly, we see the fact that there have been false claims, claims for action which never occurred. There have been claims which are inflated. We produced at this dispatch box only some weeks ago an example of a $1,600 quote and then a second quote for the same apartment in Brisbane for $300. What we see here is a mark-up of over 500 per cent between two different quotes. That is what is occurring in many situations because of a program which was ill-designed and ill-considered.

What we have also seen from the government, beyond false claims, beyond inflated claims, is Google claims. These Google claims are where, in breach of their duties, certain dodgy installers that have been brought in by the promise of free money are making their installation quotes from the sky without ever making on-site inspections. It took us to expose these; it took us to put it to the government; it took us to argue for some months before they finally responded in exactly the way that we said was necessary.

But more needs to be done because beyond that you also have the example of flaking. Flaking is where you take ceiling insulation and you cut it in half and you double it. There are many examples. I have had that brought to my attention in my own electorate. All of these have been reported to the government. And finally we have dumping. There are many examples of homeowners who will go into their roof to discover that pink batts or ceiling batts—and do not let me leave any doubt that these are excellent Australian products, fine Australian products that are being misused by dodgy installers brought in by the promise of free money—have simply been dumped, in many cases unwrapped, in the roof, the money has been claimed and the homeowner has been left with the problem. That is a systemic, significant pattern of dodgy practice, of corruption, of rorting and it took extraordinary public pressure, whether it was through Ray Hadley on 2GB, whether it was through stations in Brisbane or Melbourne or Adelaide, to help bring to public light the rorts, the mismanagement, the problems occurring under the program.

I want to go to something more serious now, the problem of ceiling fires. These are not examples which we have made up. I want to read from a release by the New South Wales government’s Steve Whan, the Minister for Emergency Services and the Minister for Small Business. I quote from his release dated 18 November 2009—the member for Dickson’s birthday:

The Minister for Emergency Services Steve Whan today urged homeowners to check that ceiling insulation had been installed properly following a spate of 15 fires involving ceiling insulation over the past three weeks.

Mr Whan said that these 15 fires brought the total for the year to 49, compared to 25 in 2008.

So 15 ceiling fires in three weeks linked not by us but by the New South Wales Minister for Emergency Services to insulation and a doubling of ceiling fires in one state, in one year not yet completed, again linked not by us but by a Labor government state minister. We also see that in Western Australia the Department of Commerce issued a release noting:

This increase in demand for roof insulation due to the subsidy may attract inexperienced installers to the industry and there is a danger if the product is not being installed according to our strict safety guidelines.

Similarly the South Australian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gail Gago:

The main safety issues appear to be with the incorrect installation of loose fill or blow-in insulation, however, any type of insulation installed too close or covering electrical devices, such as down lights and fans, can cause them to overheat and start a fire.

What we have seen is state ministers around the country warning of fires under the government’s insulation program, not us. They are not our views; they are the state ministers’ views. Two out of the three were from state Labor governments.

I now turn to the most serious incidents under the Home Insulation Program and this is why there needs to be an urgent Auditor-General’s inquiry and why there can be no reason, I say respectfully to the minister, for ignoring or avoiding such an inquiry. It is also why the government must make all details of the Home Insulation Program—what the minister was warned of and when he was warned by different authorities—available to an inquiry and why there must be new training standards by the end of this week. What we have seen, very sadly and tragically, are three deaths of young installers involved in ceiling insulation.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Be very careful.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very careful, Minister. What we have seen from these three deaths is that all three have been involved in roofs over recent months. We say there must be a direct and specific inquiry into how such a pattern of deaths has occurred for young installers who have not been properly trained and who had not had experience in these roofs. I do note that there were specific warnings of electrocutions to the government by different agencies. Two agencies have provided written material to us: EE-Oz, the electrical installers, and the National Electrical and Communications Association. A letter to the minister on 9 March 2009 from the National Electrical and Communications Association says:

There are inherent dangers when installed inappropriately near electrical equipment and cables. Whilst not the only safety issue, by far the most dangerous is the risk of fire associated with installing thermal insulation.

I note that, having met with the National Electrical and Communications Association today, they have again repeated their point that the safety standards need to be upgraded.

These are three tragic incidents which should be investigated, because they are part of a pattern, because they are part of a process about which warnings were given and because they are part of a process which is ongoing. We do not know absolutely what the causes of these were, but we do know that there have been two deaths through electrocution of inexperienced workers—young men who have gone into the roofs to receive money under the Home Insulation Program. We do know there was a death through heat exhaustion of another young man, again inexperienced and operating under the program.

It is incumbent on the government—and I say this with the greatest respect—to launch an inquiry into this pattern. The electrocutions are sadly part of a grouping of eight or nine electrocutions, of which we are aware. These are not one-offs; this is a significant pattern with the most tragic circumstances. The advice I had just today from the National Electrical and Communications Association is that they believe more fires are set to occur, potentially with tragic consequences, and that more incidents are set to occur. The reason is the training standards are not adequate, according to the National Electrical and Communications Association. This is what they said in their media release of a month ago, 23 November:

NECA warns of fire and electrocution dangers when installing insulation.

These are the most serious matters of public administration. When we embark upon a program we take responsibility for the consequences. I say to the minister, now that we have had not one, not two but three of the most tragic outcomes, that the government must organise, initiate or instigate a full national inquiry into these tragedies and other tragedies under the insulation program. There can be no reason, no justification and no excuse. That is what has occurred and this is the time to agree to an inquiry. If you agree to that inquiry, you will have our full support. If the government does not agree, it must explain why this pattern of tragedy is not connected and why it has assumed away the responsibility for oversight of its programs. If the government does not do this, it will be held responsible.

We started with the issues of rorting. It is absolutely clear that all Australians know that a billion dollar blowout in one year is accompanied by flagrant rorting. Whether it is false quoting, the demolished house in the Prime Minister’s own electorate, overquoting—a 500 per cent overquote on one occasion—Google quoting from the sky, flaking, cutting the bats in half by severing them horizontally down the middle or simply dumping the batts, we know this is a program which is rife with rorts. There are good installers who have high standing in the industry, but they have not been the problem. It is the fly-by-nighters who have come in and have not been regulated properly. Then we had the fires—15 in three weeks, according to the New South Wales minister; a doubling in New South Wales over the course of this year—and now we have the tragedies. I say to the minister: it is time for an inquiry. (Time expired)

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate this matter of public importance in the House because it gives me the opportunity to place on the record a number of measures that the government have in place in relation to the delivery of the Home Insulation Program and our energy efficiency programs generally, and also to make absolutely clear the way in which, from day one, we have approached issues of safety, training and effective delivery for the Home Insulation Program.

The member for Flinders is a little late. That is really the subtext of the debate we are having here on a Wednesday. He has been running around the place trying to whip up concern about matters where the government has already responded and taken action. He made a call some weeks ago for an Auditor-General inquiry, knowing full well that the Auditor-General has communicated both to him and to me that any aspects of this program will be considered in the ordinary course of business—and that is as it should be. The member for Flinders raises the issue of the demolished house in the Prime Minister’s electorate and draws the longest bow to suggest that in some way the Prime Minister is responsible for what happened in this instance. What he neglected to say is that immediate action was taken on that case, that the installer was deregistered and that a comprehensive fraud investigation is well underway. We have said time and time again that in any instance of this kind—and there are remarkably few under a program which has been incredibly successful—the government will not hesitate to remove any installer of insulation from the register and take legal action, if appropriate, should they fail to comply with the program guidelines.

The shadow minister raises the reports of fires. These are tragic incidences—there is no doubt about that—and our thoughts are with the families of those involved. These cases, and there are only a small number of them, have all been under investigation and some that were mentioned by the member for Flinders are still under investigation at this point. I have asked my department, as I do in all cases, to work very closely with the state safety authorities, who have responsibility particularly for occupational health and safety matters that relate to these activities. I cannot stress strongly enough that installer and householder safety is an absolute priority under the government’s Home Insulation Program. All reports of safety breaches are dealt with under the program’s audit and compliance guidelines. In relation to one of these unfortunate and tragic deaths, I have been advised that hazards and control measures, including for heat stress, relating to hot working environments are covered off in the mandatory occupational health and safety training and relevant materials. Under this program, all installers—everybody installing insulation—must complete this occupational health and safety training as a requirement of the program’s guidelines.

It is a fact that, until such time that the government brought forward the Home Insulation Program, there was no nationally accredited training in place at all and there now is nationally accredited training in place. It is the case that installers must comply with all relevant state and territory laws as well as complying with the guidelines, which have been strengthened by this government. In relation to these matters, particularly training, there are industry skills councils considering issues around training. If there are any other matters that we need to consider—any recommendations that come forward as a matter of urgency—I will not hesitate to further boost training requirements and safety standards if that is required.

This is a very, very successful program. This is a program that has completely exceeded the expectations of all those who made commentary about it in the first instance. Let us remember that it was the opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, with the shadow Treasurer and the member for Flinders, who specifically opposed in the parliament that the government should bring forward stimulus measures which would deal with the global financial crisis and provide an opportunity to stimulate manufacturing activity and, through the Home Insulation Program, put in place the largest and most comprehensive energy efficiency program that this country has ever seen. That is what we are dealing with today, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I say through you that since February this year ceiling insulation has been installed in over 700,000 households in this country. That is 700,000 households that have had the opportunity to reduce their energy costs, to contain greenhouse gas pollution and to take the benefit of ceiling insulation, which will in the long term provide not only ongoing energy savings but additional amenity. It is improving the infrastructure of people’s houses as well, and that is why it has been so strongly supported by the Australian public. It is a fact that over the last nine months almost one in 10 Australian homes has been made more energy efficient.

When the member for Flinders came in here he referred to chaos. He talked about the chaos of a program which has seen one of the most significant and consistent deployments of energy efficiency that we have ever witnessed, where we have a remarkably small percentage of complaints and where we have in place a series of measures around compliance and auditing to ensure that each and every complaint is followed through and, if there are breaches of guidelines or safety regulations, they are dealt with as a matter of urgency.

This is a program that is on its way to putting ceiling insulation in the homes of one million Australians; this is a program that is delivering right along the manufacturing and distribution chain; this is a program that is employing many Australians; and it is a program that is strongly and fully supported by the industry. I have regular stakeholder meetings with the industry. I value those meetings and I value the advice that they provide for us and the way in which they have strongly supported what the government has brought forward.

The member for Flinders started talking about chaos in here. The fact is we have never seen more chaos, at least not that I am aware of, in any setting of any parliament in this country than we have seen in this House over the last two days on the matter of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the tenure of the Leader of the Opposition. You want to talk about chaos in here? Just turn on Sky television and watch it minute by minute as these headless chooks try and get their act together and figure out what they are going to do about one of the most important pieces of legislation to come through this parliament. Even today, we had a spill on at one o’clock, one hour before question time. Yesterday, question time nearly did not happen when it was meant to, because of the chaos which was being produced by the opposition, who were in complete disarray. The definition of chaos: the opposition parties in this parliament over the last 48 hours.

Success normally has many parents. There are normally many who claim the parentage of success. But, in this case, the opposition are willing on the failure. They are willing on the failure because they hate this program. They opposed it at the beginning. The shadow Treasurer made great mockery around the fact that we wanted to have pink batts put in the ceilings of Australians’ homes which would enable them to reduce their energy bills up to about $200 per year, sometimes more; help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions; make their homes more comfortable—warmer in winter, cooler in summer; employ many Australians along the way; see the manufacturing facilities in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne going 24/7; see the truck drivers going out and doing the work; and see the Insulation Council responding positively on each and every occasion that the government made an announcement in relation to this program. The opposition hate success. They hate the fact that we have done something which some of them wanted to do.

The member opposite, the member for Flinders, knows very well that it was the Leader of the Opposition himself who proposed at one point, we understand, that we should in fact think about putting ceiling insulation in the ceilings of Australian households, and it was the now departed member for Higgins, the former Treasurer, who knocked him over, just like he was knocked over in many other instances with the submissions that he brought forward to the cabinet in the Howard era. So here is the irony upon irony. Here we have a program which has satisfied the requirements that we put in place for providing proper fiscal stimulus to keep the economy going in the face of the global financial crisis, to provide Australians with the opportunity for meaningful and good employment, to make sure that there was plenty of investment down the supply chain and to start on the business of serious investment in energy efficiency—and it is serious investment. Those opposite, the Liberal-National Party coalition, opposed it from day one and they have been attacking it ever since.

The proof is in the pudding. This is the most successful energy efficiency program Australia has ever seen. It will continue to deliver that which we set out to deliver at the time: employment for Australians, local manufacturing jobs, distribution jobs, jobs along the supply chain and reduced energy costs for Australians. Everyone listening knows that energy bills are an important thing that they have to deal with in their lives. Insulation reduces greenhouse gas emissions and makes their homes more comfortable. You do not necessarily have to get the big aircon unit in when you have insulation in your ceiling; you do not necessarily have to have the heater going all through winter when you have insulation in your ceiling; and it is in your ceiling for longer than the lifetime of this program—it is in your ceiling for 10, 20 and 30 years. That is what it does to the housing stock of this country. The fact is that this government has produced one of the most significant additions to housing infrastructure that we have seen in this country.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s if it’s in your ceiling!

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can hear the rattling of the interventions from those opposite, but I do want to go on and say that it is not only about the Home Insulation Program, because we take energy efficiency seriously—something that the coalition never did. I struggle to remember a single significant initiative on energy efficiency that came through when we were in opposition. I genuinely struggle to remember it. Do you know why I struggle to remember it? Because there weren’t any. There was not a single one. You were not paying attention because there was not a single one.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Hull interjecting

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take intervention on light bulbs—light bulbs and light bulbs only.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask members to stop interjecting. Other members were heard in silence. I expect all members to be heard in silence.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was one measure over 12 years, which this government has accelerated. Look at what we have done since we got into office and look at the announcement that was made today. Today I was pleased to be at the YWCA in Canberra, with Clare Martin from ACOSS, launching Green Start. What a fantastic program, with $130 million to help improve the energy and water efficiency of low-income and disadvantaged households. We recognise that low-income and disadvantaged households have additional pressures in terms of the cost of living and we know that provision of accurate information, assistance and assessment of the conditions of their homes and the provision of services, or even information, to enable them to take the necessary steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions will be very much welcomed. I look forward to hearing from those who will tender for that program, because I know that we will be providing vulnerable households with free home energy and water assessments, linking that to various government energy and water efficiency rebates and programs, including the Home Insulation Program, and providing installation of practical, low-cost energy and water efficiency improvements. And then there is Green Loans—another innovative and excellently supported program by the Rudd government on energy efficiency—empowering Australians to take the action that they want to take to reduce their energy costs and play a role in reducing and containing greenhouse gas emissions.

At the end of the day, this government is absolutely serious about energy efficiency. By rolling out the largest and most comprehensive energy efficiency program that this country has ever seen, we are delivering on our election commitments, we are providing Australians with the opportunity for increased employment, we are delivering to Australian households the opportunity to reduce their energy costs and to contain greenhouse gas emissions and we are showing that we know what it takes in this country in 2009 to take real and practical action on dealing with dangerous climate change. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is in fact a matter of public importance, and I commend our record to you.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for his performance. The trouble is his performance is far more appropriate for the other part of his portfolio, the arts, than it is for the environment part. The amount of drama, illusion and theatre involved in his performance and his total removal from reality were quite compelling, so I compliment the minister on his great artistic performance.

What we are seeing here is a great disconnect. I am totally amazed that day after day we see ministers on the other side of this place stand up and say that black is white—sometimes with a bit of flair, as the minister did, and sometimes with a straight face. It is absolutely amazing. I am speaking on water, but I will touch first on home insulation, because that scheme has given me, as a local member of parliament, a lot of work. In the towns of my electorate the citizens are being preyed upon. The mainly elderly have been approached door to door with an offer too good to refuse: the government will pay for it all; if your roof is a bit bigger than the average, we will need just $200 or $300 more and we will do it. When these elderly people have had a younger relative or a neighbour come and inspect the work, they find that the work has not been done, except for the bit around the manhole that you can see. Anyone who knows anything about home insulation knows that unless it is installed properly—unless the entire area is covered—it will have no effect. So this is indeed a rort. If the minister thinks this program is well regarded in the community, he is delusional. The community sees it for what it is. They see that it is a scheme with the best of intentions that is totally mismanaged, is totally rorted and will not deliver what it was meant to.

Today I want to speak about water—the government’s programs on water and its attitude to water and the environment, particularly the environment west of the range. When it comes to water this government appears to have only one policy, and that is to buy it—to remove water from the basin. At the moment the problem is that they are buying air. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars but have only bought air.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Rishworth interjecting

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member from Adelaide over here might like to reflect on this and she might learn a little about what is actually happening in regional Australia and in the Murray-Darling system. Last week in here we spoke on a bill that required another $650 million to cover the shortfalls in the government’s misjudged, misguided and mismanaged water buybacks.

This government has no commitment to improving the efficiency of water delivery and has no commitment to saving. Indeed, some of the foolish decisions made by this government are breathtaking in their stupidity. There is no greater example of this than the purchase of Toorale Station at Bourke—one of the landmark agricultural properties in western New South Wales, a producer of food and fibre not only for the citizens of Australia but for people all around the world, an employer of some 100 people, and the major taxpayer and ratepayer in the Bourke shire. This property was purchased without a word of consultation, and it was purchased because of a small amount of water. I would like to ask some of the members from further down the stream about that, and I will make an offer to my good colleague from Adelaide here. I will supply her with a digital camera. She can go out and stand on the banks of the Murray River. If she takes a photo when that water from Toorale Station reaches the Murray, I will come in here and apologise. But it is not going to happen. That water may, at best, make it to Menindee, where it will evaporate. A couple of penguins might get a couple of days benefit from it, but that is it.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Penguins in Menindee?

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry; I meant the other fellas, with the big beaks—pelicans. I am from inland, and I get my waterbirds mixed up. It is all this discussion of global warming and climate change. I have got penguins coming up the Murray-Darling now. But the pelicans at the Menindee Lakes, for a couple of days, will appreciate the water from Toorale Station. The community of Bourke has been decimated for now and evermore. Toorale is locked up. It is a national park. The feral pigs will appreciate it. The feral pigs will have a field day with what is a landmark property in western New South Wales.

The other major purchase this government has made has been the purchase from the Twynam Agricultural Group. If anyone saw a good deal coming to them, it was the Twynam Agricultural Group. A massive sale of water, something they did not actually have, was made to this government. But what is going to happen when the seasons do return and when the dams do get water in them? The town of Collarenebri, which relies very strongly on the production and employment of Collymongle Station, will be in a permanent drought—a drought that has not been induced by the environment but by this government.

You might think that the decimation of the community of Collarenebri is an accidental thing, that it is a bypass, that it is an unthought of consequence. But tie this in with the overspend of $1.7 billion on the Minister for Education’s Building the Education Revolution and ask: where did the savings come from for that $1.7 billion? I can tell you where they came from—from places like Collarenebri Central School. Nearly 90 per cent of its students are Aboriginal students and its science lab is a demountable that has been there for 30 years. It is in desperate need. But the only chance those kids have got of any employment in Collarenebri, now that the major employer in the town has been closed down by the government, is to get a decent education so that they can go off and do something else. But the government has made that so much harder. I would like to think that the decimation of Collarenebri and Mungindi is an unforeseen consequence, but when you tie it in with other government programs I wonder if there is not a more sinister scheme behind this.

The other thing is the decimation of Landcare. Caring for Country, something that Minister Burke comes in here and trumpets time after time, has been an unmitigated disaster for the environment of Australia. In the last 12 months I have travelled a large part of this country speaking with natural resource management groups. Without exception, whether it is a group from Cape York or from Gippsland, they are fed up with this government and its gutting of Caring for Country and Landcare. That is one of the largest volunteer organisations in Australia: a million volunteers who do things for nothing because of their commitment and their love of the environment. They go out on weekends to stabilise creek banks, plant trees, combat erosion and put in programs to stop salinity. All they need is a bit of back-up support from the government, and that has been removed. The funding has been cut by 40 per cent in the last 12 months—everywhere in New South Wales except for one place. Can you guess which catchment management authority got an increase in their funding last year?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sydney!

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the Sydney Basin got an increase. I think the government needs to rethink this. When you have got a million volunteers who are prepared to spend their spare time improving the environment in which they live, I would have thought that they would be encouraged, not pitted against state organisations; not expected to put in large proposals that they do not have the time or the skills to do, so that after several attempts to get a tiny crumb of funding they give up and go home in disgust as large, quasi state government organisations get money to look at issues in the Sydney Basin or up on the east coast of Queensland. This government’s approach to the environment, to water and to the people of regional Australia is an absolute disgrace. (Time expired)

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It never ceases to amaze me the subject matter that is raised in MPIs by the coalition. They could not possibly choose subjects that could more starkly highlight the failures of the Howard government and the successes of the Rudd Labor government, and the water and environment areas are probably two of the most prominent of those. When we look back on those 12 Rip van Winkle years of the Howard government, we think about what was not done about climate change, what was not done about infrastructure, what was not done about schools and what was not done about water. I think there was some sharpening of the mind as we came close to the 2007 election about the need to address the water issue and the cries for help from the Murray-Darling Basin down to Adelaide. That was when they finally realised this was going to be an election issue, so we had the incredible rollout of the Living Murray program—and we know the public administration failures that were associated with the rapidity of that announcement.

But I do not want to talk about this from a partisan point of view. I think I should let an objective observer speak about the failures of the Howard government on water. In particular, a fellow by the name of John Quiggan, who is an ARC Federation Fellow at the University of Queensland, wrote an article in the Australian Financial Review, a notable journal, on 4 June 2008. He said:

Until recently, despite talk of the state obstructionism, the big failures in water policy were at the federal level. Economists and environmentalists have long agreed that unless governments are willing to buy back some of the water rights that were created on a lavish scale, then given away over the 20th century, there is no real hope for a solution to the problems.

He went on to say:

The Howard government, and particularly Malcolm Turnbull as Minister for Environment and Water Resources, talked a good game, but failed to deliver significant progress. The Living Murray Program and the National Water Initiative went nowhere. Howard’s final venture, the National Plan for Water Security announced in early 2007 with no apparent input from Turnbull, was a big step backwards. The $10 billion allocation (most … deferred far into the future) concealed a decision to do nothing about buying back water for fear of offending the National Party.

And what did Mr Quiggan conclude about what has happened since then? He said:

But water policy is one area where the Rudd government has moved beyond review and consultation and gone on to effective action. The government’s purchase of water from Toorale Station and the Twyman Agricultural Group—

which we have just heard reference to—

in NSW with entitlements totalling nearly 300 gigalitres has the potential to secure more water for the environment, and for flows downstream to South Australia, than all the initiatives of the Howard era put together, and at significantly lower cost.

Those are the words of Mr Quiggan in the Australian Financial Review.

In my own area I deal a lot with groundwater issues and I am proud to be involved with the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative. Just yesterday morning I was at a conference on groundwater, the National Water Commission’s Groundwater Forum. This was another area of neglect by the Howard government. What we saw highlighted in the Australian Water Resources Assessment 2000 was that no nationally agreed, standardised method for calculating and reporting sustainable yield was available for groundwater. That was highlighted in the year 2000, so there were seven years of inaction after that. Also, the National Water Commission recognised in 2007 that groundwater had been the poor cousin in water issues, notwithstanding that groundwater is 30 per cent of our total consumption.

So, what did the Rudd Labor government do? We established the National Groundwater Action Plan. We are proud to say that we have approved $105 million for the commission’s National Groundwater Action Plan, which is being funded under the $250 million Raising National Water Standards Program. This is going to address groundwater knowledge gaps and progress groundwater reforms agreed to under the National Water Initiative. Under that plan, there are three major components: the National Groundwater Assessment Initiative, the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training, and a knowledge and capacity-building component to communicate research results. It was wonderful to see the 125 experts at that conference, finally helping us to fill the gap in our knowledge about groundwater. We need to be able to capture that knowledge. We need to be able to regulate groundwater more effectively as part of our overall management of water.

But the Rudd Labor government has been very busy in many other areas in relation to water. We have moved ahead rapidly with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the appointment of its head, Mr Taylor. The proceedings of the planning phases, moving to the final Murray-Darling Basin Plan, are going ahead well, with consultations throughout the community in the basin. That plan should be completed by 2011. This will finally establish an enforceable, scientifically informed limit on the amount of water that can be taken from rivers and groundwater systems in the basin.

Part of filling that knowledge gap that I mentioned also involves us putting $450 million into establishing, with the Bureau of Meteorology, exactly what water is coming into the system. The problem that we have in the basin largely relates to overallocation, which suggests that we released water we did not know we had—we did not know the amount of water that could be released to licence holders. So overallocation has been a problem, and it needs to be solved by knowledge.

We have also, through our purchases, seen a great amount of water going back into the Murray-Darling Basin, not just to move down through the basin to South Australia but also for the very important environmental assets and values that exist throughout the basin. There were many wetlands and lakes that needed assistance, including Ramsar registered wetlands that were dying. One of the great things that I have seen in this job, when I accompanied the minister for water, Senator Wong, down through the Murray-Darling Basin, was the Hattah lakes. This is an area that had been dry, and the birds had gone. The purchase of our environmental water has enabled those wetlands to be rejuvenated and birds to return—and, in their wake, a large number of tourists. So we can see the effects of that on the ground.

There are many other projects, and it would take me too long to go to them all, but I will say that a number of them are having an immediate effect. The introduction of water market rules and termination rules is having considerable benefits for irrigation farmers through the basin. It is leading to more efficient use of water and it is establishing a dynamic that is improving productivity.

One of the programs I administer, the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative, which is allocated $205.6 million, has received 5,700 applications for the installation of water tanks, and 3,445 rebates had been paid as at 10 November this year. Some 43 surf-lifesaving clubs have now also applied to install rainwater tanks or water efficient devices, and grants have been approved to 38 of those.

We have assisted small-block irrigators in our exit program, people who are crying out for assistance and are in financial distress. We have provided irrigation exit grants of up to $150,000. We are providing $10,000 for advice and retraining, and $20,000 for the removal of permanent plantings to allow more flexible farming to take place on those properties, and there is production related infrastructure funding of up to $10,000 offered in the original package.

Through our National Urban Water and Desalination Plan, we have committed $30.2 million for the Glenelg to Adelaide Park Lands Recycled Water Project, which is due for completion in early 2010 and will deliver 5.5 gigalitres of water each year. There is $20 million for the Barwon-Shell water recycling project in Geelong, which will deliver two billion litres of water each year at the Shell Australia plant in Geelong. There is $328 million to support the construction of the Adelaide desalination plant, delivering 100 billion litres of drinking water annually and reducing Adelaide’s reliance on the River Murray. There is $20 million for Murdoch University to host the National Centre of Excellence in Desalination, in Perth, and $20 million for the Western Corridor Recycled Water company to host the National Centre of Excellence in Water Recycling, in Brisbane. There is $86 million—out of a total $200 million allocated to stormwater projects—for 13 stormwater harvesting and reuse projects, with the potential to deliver an estimated nine billion litres per year, in Brisbane, Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat and Adelaide. Through our National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns, 19 projects identified as commitments by Labor during the election have come to fruition or have started, totalling $101.2 million.

We are also doing a great deal on on-farm irrigation infrastructure, including providing $4.4 billion out of the $5.8 billion allocated to our Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program, $191.4 million of which has been expended to date. I do not have time to go through those projects in detail, but they include $21.7 million for the Gwydir Valley pilot project—(Time expired)

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. I would actually be happy to move an extension of time for the Parliamentary Secretary for Water so he could tell us about those on-farm irrigation investments, because we have not seen them. We have not seen one drop of water returned to the system since this government came to office in 2007—two years ago yesterday. They were handed, on a gold plate, a plan thought through by the now Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, and announced in January 2007. It has not been moved on in respect of agricultural investment. It is an absolute disgrace. There is a complete lack of effort being put into that area. Instead, there is just an obsession with buybacks in the wrong part of the system—not delivering any real water. We all accept that buybacks are a part of the answer to this crisis. They were part of the plan announced in January 2007 by the then minister for the environment. But what we have seen with this government is an obsession with buybacks because that is the easy thing for them to do. They do not have to do the hard yards like saving water through on- and off-farm infrastructure investments. So it is a complete ‘F’ for failure for the Rudd government in that respect—not enough spent, not enough effort made; lots of spin, no substance. We see that all too often.

The parliamentary secretary also talked about all they are doing in relation to urban water in cities. We welcome that. We welcome such a commitment because the state Labor governments across the country have been fundamental failures in planning for the future. We have had eight long years of the Rann government in South Australia and clearly the Premier has had too much on his plate. Clearly he has been too busy; clearly he has been focused on other things. He has not been straight with the South Australian people. We know that. We have seen that all too often recently. He has not focused on this issue and therefore the federal government must come in and do something about it. It is a disgrace and on 20 March next year will see a change of government. We will see Isobel Redmond come in with real plans for recycled water. We will see Isobel Redmond come in with real plans to talk straight to the South Australian people about what she believes in and what she will do to fix the water crisis, not only in the urban centres of South Australia but also in the Murray-Darling Basin and in the Great Lower Lakes, which are in my electorate. We have seen a complete failure by the Rann government and by its Minister for Water Security, the Nationals SA member for Chaffey, who will lose her seat to Tim Whetstone next March.

We have seen from the federal government two years of failure, having had a gold-plated plan handed to them by the then minister for the environment. And we have seen eight long years of failure by the Rann government in South Australia. The two of those combined mean we have an urban water crisis in South Australia, no investment in recycling, a Murray-Darling Basin crisis and a Lower Lakes crisis—complete failure by the Labor governments. We need a change. Malcolm Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition, said two months ago in South Australia that when he is elected Prime Minister next year he will finish the job he started. That means putting real focus on on-farm and off-farm investment which will deliver real water. There will be 200 gigalitres put back into the Menindee Lakes system alone for environmental and irrigation flows.

The Labor Party forgets that Australia still needs to grow its own food. If you buy out the farms—if you buy out all the water entitlements—you will have a situation where we do not grow our own food. That is a situation that we on this side of parliament want to avoid. It is a situation that those on the other side have not thought through, which is just so consistent with how this government goes about so many policy areas. It is disappointing to see the parliamentary secretary, who very rarely speaks on this issue in this place, raise the issue of the $10 billion water plan in negative sense. It was the most groundbreaking, well thought through plan on water that has been put to this place since Federation. It dealt with a lot of the significant issues. Unfortunately, when the Rudd government was elected it dropped the ball. It did a deal with John Brumby in Victoria and it failed to get a truly national system, and it is the lack of a national system that has caused most of the problems we face today.

It is a failure of leadership by this Prime Minister, a failure of leadership by the Minister for Water Security in South Australia, who has had other things on her plate, and a failure by the state premiers. The South Australian Premier clearly has had other things on his mind. He has not been able to focus on these issues. He has been off topic. We do not know what he has been up to but he has not been up to water. That is what he has not been up to. It is disappointing. We will hear now the defence from the member for Kingston, a good member but one who is misguided on this issue. This is the most important issue facing my electorate. (Time expired)

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take great pleasure in speaking on this MPI because water is one of the most important issues to South Australians. We heard the member for Mayo talk about how good the $10 billion water plan of the previous Prime Minister was. Unfortunately, it was only a plan on paper. Not one cent of that water plan was actually delivered. It is very disappointing because for the 11 years during which he was the Prime Minister we saw no effort on water. Closer to the election—when he realised he needed to look a bit environmental, to get in touch with the greenies—he decided to put forward this plan with no intention of ever delivering it.

I will point out a couple of things. Firstly, I note that the member for Mayo said we all agree with buybacks. He obviously missed the member for Parkes, who actually indicated that he was against buybacks. This once again highlights the division within the Liberal and National parties. The member for Mayo supports buybacks and the Leader of the Opposition supports buybacks. On 5AA on 28 April 2009, the Leader of the Opposition said:

I think there is a role for government in buying back water and, indeed, I undertook to buy back water when I was the water minister.

So we see the Liberal Party seeming to support buybacks but then we have the National Party which does not support buybacks. There is a real tension that seems to keep raising its ugly head in this place. Whether it is on the CPRS or on things like the structural separation of Telstra, we see that the Liberal Party and the National Party are constantly at odds and divided with one another.

But we are talking about what this government is doing for water. This government has a very clear plan. We have made it clear that water buybacks are part of the solution to improve environmental flows and in fact we have secured 638 gigalitres worth $996 million. This has been a very successful program returning significant water to the Murray-Darling Basin. In addition to this, we have also invested significant amounts on irrigation infrastructure. I will talk about one project in McLaren Vale in my local electorate. I am so pleased to see the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government here in the chamber because he came with me as opposition water minister to pledge to the people of McLaren Vale that he would provide the money to deliver recycled water. We have delivered on that pledge. We have heard the member for Parkes and the member for Mayo say, ‘You haven’t delivered anything.’ I can tell you 120 irrigators in McLaren Vale have been able to switch from mains water to recycled water, saving the need for them to draw water from the Murray-Darling system.

In Adelaide there has been a significant amount of investment in water infrastructure to reduce our reliance on the Murray. We in Adelaide know that we are one of the driest places and that we rely on the Murray-Darling system for our drinking water. The Rudd government has invested significant money. We heard before that there was supposedly no money spent on things like stormwater and recycled water. Obviously, the member for Mayo, who made that claim, has not been reading my newsletter. Otherwise, he would know of the recent significant announcement that this government would deliver $14.97 million for the city of Onkaparinga to invest in stormwater infrastructure to enable us to follow through with an innovative stormwater capture project to drought proof the south. This is what South Australians have been calling for—money to be delivered to their local electorates.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has concluded.