Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will continue on from where I left off last night, when I was interrupted by the adjournment of the House. I was making the point that this is a terrible piece of legislation. It is probably one of the most insidious aspects of the Labor and Green alliance that we have seen in this hung parliament. Long-term damage will be done by this allocation of some $10 billion of Australian taxpayer money, which will be allocated for projects which have not met commercial viability tests, which the market will not fund, and which will distort an already existing market for renewable technologies. It is widely accepted that in renewable energy markets those companies and entrepreneurs who have already invested much in those technologies will be damaged. Those people have already put their own capital and work into creating these circumstances.

The member for Melbourne nods his head—he accepts that. The member for Melbourne knows better than the market does! The member for Melbourne knows exactly which of his mates, which industries, he would prefer to fund with $10 billion of Australian taxpayer money. That is exactly what this is all about. This is part of the sorry deal that the Australian Labor Party have made, much to their shame. We know that there are good ministers in that government who are increasingly stepping out of this deal, who no longer want to be associated with it. One of the ministers at the table, I know, is increasingly uncomfortable. I say, good on that minister, for some of the hard policy decisions he has forced through the Labor caucus in the last week. Good on you, Minister Grey. Good on the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and good on the Minister for Resources and Energy for standing up for good public policy in this nation against the vested interests of those on their left who are putting so much pressure on their base with their idealism, which is outside of the reality of how you need to govern this country.

This will be one of the worst legacies of this Labor government—this Labor-Greens alliance. The minister at the table knows it. That is why he is slowly but surely making his views the real policy views which need to be taken to ensure that this country is successful in the future. We know that the Greens approach to Australian public policy—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Mayo, I remind you to confine your comments to the legislation before the House.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am, Madam Deputy Speaker; very much so.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am listening very carefully.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a Greens wish list. This is a Greens desire. The new leader of the Greens, Senator Christine Milne, is taking the Greens even further to the left. I never thought I would see someone—she has taken over in recent days—take Bob Brown further to the left. We know there is not a lot of happiness in the Greens, because we have read about it recently. There is not a lot of happiness with the new leadership team.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. Deputy Speaker, the member for Mayo is defying your ruling, which was very clear. He should restrict his comments to those that are relevant to the bill before the House today.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Mayo, I encourage you to confine your comments to the cognate bills before the House.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand the embarrassment of the member for Fraser. For a so-called economist to be standing by this piece of legislation he must be ashamed of himself. You must be ashamed. You can hand back the little prize that you got a little while ago—

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. The member is now impugning another member. I ask him to withdraw or go back to the substance of the debate.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, the members opposite are clearly trying to curtail debate. If they want to use this tactic they will find that it will become a habit through this debate.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Mayo, before you continue, you have had two advices from the chair. I would like you to refrain from personal comments and to confine your comments to the legislation before the House rather than to the tactics.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being completely relevant regarding this legislation, because we know that there are members on that side who are very uncomfortable with these pieces of legislation, for very good reason: because it makes no economic sense. We know how much this Labor government have wasted over the last five years. Now we are going to hand them $10 billion to give to their mates in the Greens as a little reward for the support in keeping them in government. That is what this bill is all about. It is a shameful waste of Australian taxpayers' money. That is why there is so much sensitivity from those on the other side, trying to interrupt coalition speakers on this bill—because they know this will hang over them for a generation of Labor MPs who have stood by this piece of legislation.

One of the other issues that I will touch on, briefly, as I have been interrupted on so many occasions during this contribution, is that it strikes me as passing strange, in relation to the appointment of the CEO of this organisation, that the CEO's remuneration will not be set by the Remuneration Tribunal. I wonder how the member for Melbourne stands by that in his electorate? Presumably we will see an NBN-style CEO payment of about $2 million a year. I wonder if the member for Melbourne will go out to his electorate and tell his Green constituents that—that the member for Melbourne's piece of legislation, that he and Senator Christine Milne want and support, would encourage and allow market rates for this so-called bank. The market rate is not going to be anywhere under seven figures. So I look forward to the brochure from the member for Melbourne talking about executive salaries. What hypocrisy! What utter hypocrisy! What an absolutely hypocritical thing for you to do, sir, when you claim that you stand by the low-paid in society and rail against high bank salaries. I bet you this salary will be nothing under seven figures. Why else would it be outside the Remuneration Tribunal? And those on the other side know it. They know it.

This is a terrible piece of legislation. It should not pass the parliament. It will inflict damage on our economy for years to come. They should be ashamed of themselves for supporting it. (Time expired)

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Melbourne, I do remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill, the Clean Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012 and the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a thrill to follow the member for Work Choices, because it reminds you just exactly how much—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In accordance with your strict traffic-cop ruling, I suggest you call the member for Melbourne into line.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Casey, please do not reflect on the chair.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a thrill to follow this member because you realise just how much those on that side of the House are completely out of touch with what is happening in the rest of the world, even in the conservative side of politics. If one were to ask the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, what they are doing to tackle climate change and what steps they are taking to support a renewable energy industry in their country, one would learn that, even though they participate in the European emissions trading scheme, they are looking at increasing their carbon tax—and it is a tax in that country—because they have been worried that the level of the price imposed on carbon was not high enough to allow them to develop offshore wind to the point necessary to give confidence to investors to make the substantial amounts of investment that they would need to deliver long-term offshore winds. These are expensive projects that are being done for the first time and that need the kind of government support that the government gave dirty energy when it was built for the first time. If you were to go to the United Kingdom you would hear them there saying, 'Yes, we want offshore wind, and we will do what we need to do to sustain it.'

If one were to go to Germany—an economy that is a shining light at the moment in the European crisis—and ask the conservative chancellor of Germany and the conservative government what they are doing there, they would say, 'By 2050 we are going to get 80 per cent of our electricity produced from renewable energy, and we are phasing out nuclear power.' What you would also find, if you went and asked the conservatives in Germany about progress there, is that last year they produced 20 per cent of their electricity from renewables. They are ahead of their target.

During the recent cold snap in France, France, with all its nuclear power, got energy imported into the grid from renewable-energy-rich Germany because they ran out. In Germany they got 20 per cent of their electricity last year from renewables. How did it happen? It happened because the government got behind it when there were Greens in government, a long time ago, who helped set these settings that have been continued by the conservatives. There are now 382,000 jobs in the renewable energy sector in Germany. That is around 102,000 jobs in Australian numbers, or more than twice as much as in coalmining, oil and gas put together. That is the kind of future we can have in Australia if we as parliamentarians and we as a government get behind the clean energy industry and give it the kind of support that governments previously did and still continue to give to polluting energy. And that is something that you never hear the modest members talk about: the enormous $15 billion subsidies per year that are given to coal and dirty, polluting industries.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On your ruling as to relevance to the bill before the House: this is far outside that. He is attacking other members of the parliament. He should be—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened very carefully.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

brought back to the provisions of the bill and explain—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, member for Mayo; please resume your seat. I am listening carefully to the Deputy Leader of the Greens, and he may continue.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact that the member interjects and suggests that subsidies that are given to dirty, polluting industries is not relevant shows just how out of touch the conservatives here are with the conservatives in the rest of the world.

We know two things. Firstly, industries, when they begin—especially in Australia, where we do not do enough to support innovation and commercialisation—can go through, and often fail in, the valley of death. That is especially the case for these industries that are new in Australia but are increasingly entrenched in the rest of the world, and we risk being left behind in this clean energy race if we do not give our nascent clean and renewable energy industries the kind of support that is being given elsewhere around the world. That is why I commend the government for introducing this legislation, because one of the things that it is going to do is to give those clean and renewable energy industries the support they need to get to a viable commercial stage. Secondly, it is suggested that that is an aberration but, as I have said, we continue to give up to $15 billion a year in subsidies to fossil fuel industries. Why is it that when someone goes to the petrol pump in Melbourne or Sydney they pay 38c a litre in excise, but when a wealthy mining company does it they pay zero? Why are they entitled to that subsidy? This is the unlevel playing field that renewable energies and the new industries are competing against. And that is why it is absolutely appropriate that we here give whatever support we can to these industries to allow them to become commercially viable in their own right. It has got to the point now in Germany that, because their renewable energy subsidies—including a green bank, a green finance corporation—have been in force for so long and have worked so well, they are able to start winding back some of those subsidies because their firms are so commercially successful and viable in their own right. That is the point we will get to in Australia in a very short period of time because of our incredible intellectual and natural resources, but we will only do it if government is the midwife of the renewable energy industry in this country.

That is why I commend the government for the introduction of this bill, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012, and I note just how well the consultation and preparation phase has been done and how professional it has been. The fact that previous speakers in this debate have said it is outrageous that we are going to have industry experts who might have skills comparable to their peers in the private sector coming to work in this corporation does not show that there is anything wrong with this bill. It shows exactly what is right, because those experts will be making the decisions about how to allocate the substantial sums of money they will have at their disposal based on sound business propositions that come to them and they will be able to tailor the kind of support for a particular business based on what that business actually needs. It might be some form of loan guarantee; it might be underwriting some continuous purchase arrangement. That is exactly the kind of flexibility that this finance corporation will have and it will be run professionally.

This package of legislation happened because of the constitution of the parliament that we have at the moment and because it was something that we as the Greens pushed for very hard during the course of negotiations. That is why I am disappointed that the member for Fraser is not here. I respect the member for Fraser, but in a previous debate he said: 'Why are we even debating this now? The Greens should have supported this many years ago.' When that came from someone I respect, I was very disappointed to hear the most intellectually dishonest contribution to this debate that I have heard for some time. How can one get up here as we are debating this package and this Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which has never been on the table before and is only on the table now because the Greens are here, and say that the previous package should have been passed? If you were to say that that would have been better, then you would have to take into account, as the member for Fraser did not, the emissions savings we are going to get from this Clean Energy Finance Corporation. You would have to take into account the fact that we now have an 80 per cent by 2050 reduction target. You would also have to take into account the fact that we have a significant amount of money going into a biodiversity fund, that we have a floor price, that we have a climate change authority that will look over the targets we have set and recommend them downwards and that we have a tapering-off of the compensation that is going to be paid.

None of those were in the original proposal cooked up between Labor and the coalition that the member for Fraser urgently wanted us to pass, and yet he has the gall to come into this chamber and say that somehow that would have resulted in a better outcome for the planet. It is folly, and I hope he gets the chance to come back in here during this debate and respond to it. As someone who prioritises evidence, he should have been more careful about what he said and he should have been more intellectually honest about calculating the emissions reductions that will come from this package, instead of using this as an opportunity to suggest that there is some political mileage that might be made.

This package is in fact a reflection of what happens when people from differing political positions work together, and it will stand as a testament to this parliament that we have achieved such significant reform. Just think about this for a moment. In this parliament we have managed to get conservative country Independents, the Labor Party and the Greens together on the same page to pass one of the most significant reform packages that this parliament has seen. It is completely unlike any package previously before the parliament. It will set Australia up for a clean and renewable energy future. It will deliver more for rural Australia than any other package that has ever come before this parliament. And it will fast-track the development of renewable energy technologies in a way that no other package that has ever come before this parliament would have done.

This is not an opportunity for division and point-scoring. This is an opportunity for recognising what can happen when people of goodwill, coming from different points of view, are prepared to work together for the benefit of the planet. This is going to stand the Australian economy in good stead. It will only be a matter of years before we have those 102,000 jobs in renewable energy in this country. I am extraordinarily pleased that we are able now to assist those renewable energy industries to develop and flourish. And I do hope we get to the point where, in five, 10 or 15 years time, we can say, 'Perhaps we do not need to give them the support anymore because they stand on their own two feet.'

The University of Melbourne predicts that it will be somewhere around 2022 before solar becomes cost competitive with coal, absent any other subsidies. It may not be that long before we are able to talk about Australian inventions like the one that is being researched in my electorate where they are now printing solar cells onto almost any surface, working together with the note printers of Australian currency. BlueScope Steel is part of that project because it hopes it will be able to print directly onto surfaces so that your rooftop or your wall becomes a power source in and of itself. Newcastle university are looking at ways of getting microscopic solar cells into paint so you can paint the side of your house and use that as a power source. These are exactly the kinds of innovations and developments that this bill is going to fast-track. So I look forward to the day in 10 or 15 years time when we can come back here and say, 'This corporation is no longer needed,' because, like Germany, we will be getting the majority of our energy from renewable energy.

I commend the government for the introduction of this bill. I commend the people of Melbourne for the role that they played in getting this on the table, getting it into the House of Representatives and getting it passed by the parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Aston will resume his seat. The member for Throsby on a point of order?

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order goes to relevance. We are debating the clean energy legislation, not the appropriation bills. Perhaps he has got his speeches mixed up.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, member for Throsby, I take your point. You have outlined your premise. Please continue member for Aston.

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

This goes to the heart of this bill—it is about where it is going to be financed from. It is not getting financed from some magical budget surplus that the government would like to think they will have, but rather this is just getting added to the government debt—$145 billion in net debt already, and this just adds another $10 billion. I can see why the member for Throsby is very sensitive about this topic. He is supposed to be one of the smarter members on the other side of this chamber, so he does not want this discussed. But this is $10 billion—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have taken your point that you were relevant, but you will desist from reflecting on other members. Please continue.

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

This goes straight to the heart of how this is financed. The other side of this chamber will say, 'This actually isn't borrowed money because it doesn't appear on the budget papers'. No, this is the accounting trickery that also goes to the heart of this particular proposal, because the government would like to proclaim this as being a commercial venture and therefore it does not have to appear on the budget papers. It does not have to appear on the underlying cash balance of the government finances. We all know from a few weeks ago the Treasurer proudly proclaimed that the government was going to be delivering a $1.5 billion surplus in 2012-13, but if you just took this fund alone and you added it to next year's budget it would rapidly turn that tiny budget surplus into a deficit. That is the accounting trickery that also underpins this particular proposal. Ten billion dollars, whether it is on the budget or off the budget, is still $10 billion of taxpayers' cash that will be added to government debt. That is the bottom line. More debt means more upward pressure on interest rates and it means mortgaging future generations.

My final point is that this bill will not actually grow the renewable energy sector, but worse it will probably end up with literally billions of dollars wasted. It may seem incredible that there is a $10 billion fund that is going to invest in renewable energy projects and that it will not expand the renewable energy market in Australia. The reason this is the case is that the size of the renewable energy market in Australia is entirely driven by the mandatory renewable energy target, which yesterday, before this bill was introduced, was set at 20 per cent. Today and tomorrow it will still be 20 per cent. So all that $10 billion of investment into renewable energy will do is simply replace projects that otherwise would have got up on a commercial basis with more expensive renewable energy that will be funded through this particular fund. That is what will occur. It will not change the amount of renewable energy that we will actually consume in this country.

Most egregiously though, this bill will result in the waste of billions of dollars—that is my prediction. I say that for two simple reasons. First, by definition, and as outlined in this bill and the explanatory memorandum, the $10 billion will be invested into projects that the private sector would not invest in because there would not be a sufficient return and because they would be too speculative. This is where this $10 billion will be invested—into speculative projects. Second, governments have a terrible record at investing into projects generally. It is astounding that we have to repeat the arguments as to why this is the case. It is astounding that we have to repeat the arguments that it is better for the private sector rather than the government sector to invest in commercial projects. The reason is that the government sector (a) does not have the expertise and (b) does not have the same skin in the game that the commercial sector has. The commercial sector has the expertise, has the financing, has the skin in the game, can analyse projects properly and can take the risk.

This will be invested into projects that will be highly speculative and it will result in billions of dollars of taxpayers' money simply wasted. You do not have to believe me, but you can look at some of the evidence abroad and you can look at some of the evidence back home when governments tried to invest in speculative projects. Abroad, of course, most recently we have had the Solyndra projects: the United States set up a similar type of fund and put $700 million into the Solyndra project and, of course, that has all disappeared—$700 million. We have also seen the Solar Trust of America project, which had a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy, again under a similar program to what the Labor government is proposing here, and that $2.1 billion just disappeared because it was in a speculative investment which the private sector, quite rightly, did not want to touch. And of course, for the Victorians in this parliament or in the gallery, we only need to look back a decade or two to when Joan Kirner and John Cain were running our state and we had the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, which was investing in all sorts of speculative commercial projects, which quite rightly should not have been invested in with taxpayers' money. That almost bankrupted the state.

We thought that we had moved on from this style of economics from the Labor Party, but clearly we have not. I say in conclusion that if the member for Throsby, who will be speaking next, and the other members on the other side of this House honestly believe that this is such a great idea—to appropriate taxpayers' money to invest in speculative projects—then I suggest this weekend, before they vote on this bill, they go out to their community and speak to constituents and say, 'We're going to put $1,250 against your household's credit card to invest in speculative projects' and see what they will have to say. (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to be speaking on this package of bills. These are bills for all of Australia, not, as many of those on the other side have suggested, bills for the Labor Party or, as the member for Melbourne was just claiming, bills for the Greens. The objective of these bills is to build capacity in clean energy technology, which is critical for our energy security and critical for the future of the nation. It is also critical that this legislation be passed by the House, because what it actually does is address a market failure. The member for Aston just gave a great dissertation on the importance of markets. He obviously did not get that argument up in his own party room when they were addressing their response to climate change and how we implement policy here in Australia, because if ever there were an example of the rejection of a market based and evidence based approach to dealing with reducing carbon emissions and building a clean energy future it is the policy proposals of the member for Aston's party, which presumably he is going to get up at some point in time and defend in this place.

The reason we need this legislation is that essentially we have a market failure. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will encourage private investment that would not otherwise occur to help overcome financial barriers to commercialising and deploying clean energy technologies. There is a global recognition of the importance of moving to clean energy sources, and due to its endowment in the use of low-cost fossil fuels Australia is a late starter in the transformation to clean energy technology. It does not mean that we have not been great innovators in the research and development of clean energy alternatives. Indeed, we have, and the University of Wollongong in my own electorate has been a leader in the area of developing new cleaner energy technologies. But it is one thing to invest in the research and development; it is another thing entirely to bring that research and development onto a commercial footing and to make it available for large-scale use. It is that purpose that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is directed to.

Some background to the bills is important because a number of the contributions to this debate have talked about the process, and I will go to that in some detail. But, in essence, on 17 April this year the government released the expert panel's review on a report on the design of the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the bills before the House accept almost in full the recommendations of that expert panel. I know members of the coalition parties do not like to listen to expert advice in this area. In fact, they reject it at every turn. But the bills before the House today are based on the expert advice commissioned by this government, a detailed consultation process, and a research process and, on the basis of that advice and sound policy making, we have introduced this legislation.

Why have a clean energy finance corporation? It is a part of a suite of government initiatives designed to transform the Australian economy for a cleaner energy future. The government's $10 billion investment in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will play a role in unlocking significant new private investment and clean energy projects and the supply chain that feeds into these projects. Australia's clean energy market is at an early stage, categorised by incomplete knowledge and a limited experience of the risks associated with investing in these technologies on a commercial basis. That means that there are barriers inhibiting the efficient and effective allocation of capital. The corporation will leverage private sector financing for renewable energy, low emissions and energy efficiency technologies investments, which are critical to the transformation of the Australian economy.

The CEFC will make investments and encourage private investments in clean energy technologies which build upon the core of our policy—that is, to put a price on carbon, because it is the price on carbon which is key to changing behaviour and to creating a market in this area. There still may be market barriers that prevent these projects from going ahead, such as the incomplete knowledge or the lack of familiarity with investors in these emerging technologies, but the CEFC will have tools at its disposal to tailor investments to address market barriers. Over 50 per cent of the investments of the CEFC will have to be in renewable energy technologies. So it is good legislation and it is directed at that critical purpose of addressing the market failure which exists in ensuring that we are able to move to a clean energy future.

There are alternatives to the proposals in the legislation today. One of those alternatives is for us to do nothing. But daily we see the consequences of what doing nothing means. It means, for example, falling behind China, which is investing more in clean energy technology than any other country on the planet, a country which we are daily competing with in terms of our technology and our exports. I would argue that it is in our national interest to ensure that the government is doing its bit to ensure that we as a nation, with an abundant supply of non-renewable and renewable energy sources, is investing in the research and technology and putting in place mechanisms such as the clean energy fund to ensure we can commercialise that research and development.

The second alternative not mentioned by the member for Mayo, the member for Aston or, in fact, any of the coalition members who have contributed to this debate is that the consequence of doing nothing means, quite literally, we will be paying more for electricity. This is not because of the carbon price but because every single party, and by inference every single member of this parliament, has signed up to the renewable energy targets. We said that it is our commitment to ensure that we increase the amount that renewable energy contributes to our national energy load. Unless we put in place large-scale investments into large-scale renewable energy projects, we will be relying on the sorts of small-scale projects which currently characterise the renewable energy market. The feed-in tariffs from people having solar panels on the roofs of their houses is the best example that comes to mind. Every economic expert that has had a look at this has said this is probably one of the most expensive ways to generate renewable energy. Quite literally, unless we put in place the sorts of mechanisms that are contemplated by this legislation, we will be paying more for our electricity.

We need to ensure that we are not paying more than we need to pay for the renewable energy proportion—that members on that side of the House and members of this side of the House have all signed up to—by investing more in commercialising and bringing into the market large-scale alternative renewable energy or we will be paying more for electricity. That is a fact that those on the other side do not wish to mention. The simple fact of the matter is unless we put in place mechanisms like this, which enable us to commercialise large-scale renewable, alternative and clean energy technologies, we will be paying more for electricity. That is the nub of the policy of those on the other side of the House.

Of course, there are other alternatives that have been floated. We had an excellent dissertation from the member for Aston earlier—and repeated by the various contributions from the member for Mayo. I love being in the House when the member for Mayo is speaking. With the amount of energy that he emits, I always feel like bringing in a bag of washing and some soap and throwing it in his direction because, with all the sound and fury and activity, we could get a fair bit of recycling of energy going on—more noise than light. One of the interesting things in his earlier contribution was his astounding statement that he abhors the proposition the government should pick winners, that it is not the role of the government to enter into an area of activity that should be filled by the market and we should not be throwing billions of dollars into this area by essentially picking winners. Obviously, he lost that argument in his own party room because, if you have a look at the coalition's own policy—and this is one of the alternatives to that which we see before the House this morning—you see that their alternative is simply to set up a billion-dollar fund without the rigorous commercial guidelines that are included in the clean energy fund. They would set up a billion-dollar fund which would provide grants, presumably to those people who can convince coalition ministers that their proposals are worthy of support. Well, if ever there was an example of a government an alternative government attempting to enter the market and pick winners, it exists in the coalition's policy.

Absent in their policy is the proposition that you would put in place commercial principles or that you would require an interest return on the investments made. The same sort of rigour that a bank or a venture capitalist would apply when investing in a new project would be applied in their grants based scheme. I really found it quite amusing when I heard those on the other side, those from the coalition parties, attacking this proposal because it was an example of the government intervening in the market and picking winners. You would hope we would pick winners, because winners are the things that are going to ensure that we do have a clean energy future.

I will spend a bit of time addressing some of the other criticisms that have been made by coalition members. In particular, the member for Higgins made the astounding observation:

It is important to note that the consultation on this bill has been negligible. The consultation process has been virtually zip.

I have done some work on this and I can inform the House that since 1992 there have been around 36 parliamentary inquiries into climate change and the appropriate government response to it. I have about six pages here which list, line by line, those inquiries from 1992 through till today. I would be happy to table those pages if other members of the House do not believe me. There have been over 36 inquiries since 1992 looking into this area.

The legislation, as I already said, follows the report of the expert committee. This expert committee was chaired by Ms Jillian Broadbent, an eminent Australian who has a 30-year career in banking. I know her because she happens to be the vice-chancellor of the University of Wollongong as well. Her career in the finance and business sector, I would say, is entirely remarkable. She is a board member of Woolworths and Coca-Cola. She is known to all members in this place. She is a Reserve Bank board member and she has served on the boards of Woodside and Qantas. If you were thinking about anyone who could bring to this area a more commercial focus, you would think it would be the chair, Jillian Broadbent, together with other eminent members of the expert committee.

The expert committee received 151 public submissions to the inquiry. On the basis of those public submissions and their own research, they said to the government that they see the establishment of a clean energy finance corporation playing an important part in addressing the government's vision for a clean energy future, tackling climate change, lowering carbon emissions and transforming Australia's energy sector. In attacking the consultation process which has led to the introduction of these bills, the coalition are attacking the process that has been set up by the eminent people on the expert committee and the recommendations that were made. The expert committee was not the first time we dipped our toe in this water in this particular parliament. It follows the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation's inquiry in October 2011, an inquiry that received several hundred submissions and held numerous public hearings.

I have also had a look at the number of questions that we have had in this House on the particular matter. Over 300 questions have been asked and in excess of 20 matters of public importance debates have been had on this in the last 12 months alone. In my estimation, on the parliamentary debates— (Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012. To start with, putting aside the carbon tax and the NBN, this legislation is one of the most economically irresponsible pieces of legislation that have ever been introduced into this parliament, for what this legislation actually does is to take $10 billion—that is $10,000 million—and hand it over to as yet unidentified groups to spend on so-called green investment projects—projects that the private investors would not touch with a 40-foot barge pole. Let us not forget that on top of that $10 billion there is an additional $57 million in the forward estimates thrown in for some sundry expenses. So where is the government going to get this money from? Where is the government going to find another $10 billion? It simply plans to borrow it—every single last cent, most of which will be borrowed from foreigners. What the people in the gallery need to understand is that every time you borrow money someone has to write the guarantee. So it is the Australian taxpayer who is writing the guarantee for this borrowing. In fact, every Australian family of four has to guarantee $2,000 to underwrite this legislation. That is the cost.

This bill, like many others, is destined to end in tears. Mark my words: when the carnage of the long-term economic damage arising from this government's policies is finally tallied and engraved on its tombstone, this boondoggle will be right at the top. It is not surprising when I look at the speakers list that there is a complete dearth of speakers from the government side that are prepared to come into this chamber and mark their name down in the Hansard as having spoken in favour of this bill, because they know that, like the long list of other failed so-called green schemes, this will end in tears and a very substantial part of that $10 billion will simply be vaporised in failed schemes. For those that have been foolhardy enough to come into this chamber and debate on this bill, if you think that it is really a good idea to invest this $10 billion and you truly believe that this money is going to be wisely spent, it is very simple: you should be putting your own money up. You should be writing the guarantees out to provide for these loans. Why don't you put your own superannuation savings up? You simply will not, because you know this is going to end in tears.

The absurd waste of resources that have so far been expended on so-called green energy in the delusion that we can take action to manipulate our climate should make us weep. Consider how many lives could be changed for the better if, instead of being wasted on this boondoggle, this $10 billion were invested to help our kids with disabilities and their carers, taken to fix up the mess of our hospitals or used to invest in our roads, in our public transport or in fast rail. Every cent that is spent has an opportunity cost.

I would like to refer to a few words in the explanatory memorandum to this bill which clearly demonstrate that the authors of this bill have not got a clue. It speaks of a government that knows little about the real world of industry and business and is simply determined to try to reshape it in its own politically correct image. The explanatory memorandum to this bill states:

The Corporation will finance Australia's clean energy sector using financial products and structures to address the barriers currently inhibiting investment.

The barrier currently inhibiting investment is that so-called green energy is hopelessly inefficient. No-one is going to invest in green energy unless they are guaranteed a huge taxpayer subsidy. The explanatory memorandum goes on:

The Corporation will apply capital through a commercial filter …

To talk of a commercial filter and to suggest that a commercial filter can somehow magically limit losses to 7½ per cent of its capital in unsuccessful projects is an absolute absurdity. It is the complete commercial naivety that you would expect from someone that invests in a Nigerian 419 scam. But sadly this is the type of commercial naivety we have seen over and over again from this government, from GroceryWatch to the BER to the set-top projects et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

In the time left, let us have a quick look at some of the past so-called green schemes that supposedly would have passed through a commercial filter. I am sure we can all remember the ZeroGen project in Queensland, promoted by their former Premier Mr Beattie. A press release from 30 August 2007 titled 'Smart state takes step closer to clean coal with ZeroGen' states:

Premier Peter Beattie welcomed news today that development of vital technology to help secure the future of Queensland’s coal industry and the thousands of jobs it creates had reached a major milestone.

We all know what happened to ZeroGen. When our then resources minister, Ian Macfarlane, warned that ZeroGen in Queensland would collapse, Mr Beattie accused Mr Macfarlane of being on drugs. Well, the only thing that went up in smoke was $50 million of taxpayers' money.

Then take an example of a project passing a commercial filter, with the example of Solyndra from the USA. Solyndra was meant to be the flagship of the Obama administration's effort to drive the clean energy industry. Back in May 2010, President Obama visited the solar panel manufacturer's Californian headquarters to celebrate the $500 million of American taxpayers' money that he had thrown at it. The President declared:

The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra.

How misguided. Solyndra is now closed. The $500 million of taxpayers' funds has been vaporised. But even worse, the so-called clean and green solar manufacturer has closed its doors leaving behind tonnes of toxic waste.

While the solar energy industry claims to be clean and green, the Solyndra debacle highlighted the fact that toxic waste is produced in the manufacture of solar cells. This has been a problem for years. Solar panel production creates many toxic by-products including silicon tetrachloride, an extremely toxic substance which renders crops infertile, causes skin burns and increases the likelihood of lung disease, and transforms into acids and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas when exposed to air.

The lessons from these debacles should be clear: when governments force taxpayers to subsidise any business it almost always leads to economic damage and collapse. Today, we see the green energy bubble bursting around the world. And around the world, the claims of those that prophesied for the IPCC are collapsing. Just take the recent statement from Professor Klaus-Eckart Puls, a leading German physicist and meteorologist:

Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.

…   …   …

Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.

He also said:

The CO2-climate hysteria … is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.

And that is what this bill does. It hands over lots of money—ten thousand million dollars.

We should be looking at what is happening around the world. In Germany, they have already given away $130 billion in green subsidies, mostly to solar power companies. Yet in Germany, solar power makes up a minuscule percentage of the German power supply while at the same time doing nothing towards the original objective of reducing German greenhouse gas emissions. So it is no surprise that, last February, Germany's Minister of Economy and Technology announced a pullback from green power subsidies, stating that such a cost was 'a threat to the economy'.

In Spain, where they have poured billions of dollars of cash into solar and wind power subsidies, they have little to show for this except a $25 billion increase in that financially crippled nation's debt, an unemployment rate of 25 per cent, and, for those under 30, it is getting close to 50 per cent. In the United States, where green power companies have received more than $4 billion to build wind farms, a recent Wall Street Journal investigation found that these projects have created only 7,200 temporary—temporary!—construction jobs at the amazing cost of US$600, 000 per job and only 300 permanent jobs at the unbelievable figure of US$14 million per job.

Around the world, the green energy bubble is bursting. Take the recent comments from Fiona Kobusingye, a director and coordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality in Uganda. Ms Kobusingye wrote:

Life in Africa is often nasty, impoverished and short. AIDS kills 2.2 million Africans every year according to WHO (World Health Organization) reports. Lung infections cause 1.4 million deaths, malaria 1 million more, intestinal diseases 700,000. Diseases that could be prevented with simple vaccines kill an additional 600,000 annually, while war, malnutrition and life in filthy slums send countless more parents and children to early graves.

And yet, day after day, Africans are told the biggest threat we face is – global warming.

…   …   …

It’s the almost total absence of electricity keeping us from creating jobs and becoming modern societies. It’s that these policies KILL.

…   …   …

Not having electricity means millions of Africans don’t have refrigerators to preserve food and medicine.

…   …   …

Not having electricity also means disease and death. It means millions die from lung infections, because they have to cook and heat with open fires …

…   …   …

Hypothetical global warming a hundred years from now is worse than this?

Ms Kobusingye concludes:

Telling Africans they can’t have electricity and economic development – except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels – is immoral. It is a crime against humanity.

The other reason the green energy bubble is bursting is the misguided theory that renewables will soon be able to compete with coal and gas, because coal and gas will become more and more expensive. That is how as the theory goes. But this overlooks the ingenuity of the free markets in developing new technologies—the very type of new technologies that this bill actually retards. In the last couple of years, we have seen the price of coal fall from a high of $140 per tonne down to, today, around $55 per tonne. Gas, back in 2008, was $125 per kilojoule; today, the price of gas has fallen to less than $25. So our conventional production of electricity should be getting cheaper. So it is no surprise that we have seen the failure of billions of dollars wasted on green energy subsidies that not only increase our power costs but also do absolutely nothing to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide.

An article titled 'Perfect storm hits green energy stocks' recently reported that 10 wind and solar energy equipment manufacturers in China, India, Europe and the USA have seen their share prices collapse by 86 to 98 per cent since 2008. That is why this scheme is destined to fail. But there is perhaps one thing that we could invest this money in. Perhaps this fund could buy 1,000 pairs of $2-pliers and send them off to every morgue in the country. The climate change commissioner, Professor Flannery, following his expertise in predicting endless drought, now wants undertakers to pull the fillings from dead people. He said the solution for undertakers was to remove them, adding, 'You just need a set of pliers.' It is a $2 solution.

This bill is a tragedy and a train wreck waiting to happen. The ultimate victims will be the ordinary working people of this country. (Time expired)

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the group of clean energy bills that are before the House. The bills include the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012, which will establish the long awaited Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and a number of clean energy bills which make improvements to the Clean Energy Act 2011, the Fuel Tax Act 2006, the Excise Act 1901, the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995.

These amendments will improve the working of the Carbon Farming Initiative, enhance the powers of the Clean Energy Regulator, improve working relations with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and amend the coverage of gaseous fuels under the carbon-pricing legislation. These are important bills because they take Australia closer to a low-carbon future. They are important bills because by establishing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation they will help us unlock our national potential by securing a strong and sustainable renewable energy industry.

The establishment of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will act to overcome market failures by providing financing for Australian based renewable energy technologies, low-emissions technologies and energy efficiency projects. This is nation building; this means jobs for Australians. These bills are an example of the best aspects of the Australian Labor Party being forward thinking and being unashamedly determined in our desire to reshape our nation for the better. It is a great honour to be part of a government that is putting in place such a substantial change that will create jobs and reduce pollution.

I know that there have been a great many speakers on this bill and I know that there will be more. But I would like to take the time to outline in a little more detail the shape of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation because it is such an important initiative. I think this is important because, as usual, we will see the same grab bag of untruths, misrepresentations and outright lies from the opposition. The speeches we had yesterday and today and the hysteria that we continue to see from the opposition simply underscore the vast gulf between the two main political parties. We are a party with an optimistic vision for the future. We are acting to put in place far-reaching legislation that will reshape this nation for the better. The coalition is a party with no vision and whose only reason for being is to oppose. They will say and do anything at all, no matter what the cost to the nation as a whole and no matter what the cost to the lives of all Australians, if the Leader of the Opposition believes it might take him closer to the Lodge. The latest example of this insistence on acting as wrecker, as opposer-in-chief no matter what the cost, is their opposition to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Let us go through the facts. It is clear that while the carbon price will provide a massive incentive to invest in clean energy, new technologies do face a range of obstacles in attracting financing. Because of this, the government is creating the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which will invest in renewable energy technologies, low-emissions technologies and energy-efficiency projects. The government will provide $2 billion in funding per annum for five years, and any interest earned will be available for reinvestment. This bill requires that the corporation have at least half of its investments in renewable energy technologies by 30 June 2018. The corporation will apply a commercial filter when making its investment decisions and will focus on projects and technologies at the later stages of development. This is to ensure that the corporation will invest responsibly and manage risk while also making sure the corporation values any positive externalities which are generated by financing.

Establishing the corporation will mean that we have taken a very large step towards reducing our carbon emissions. We must act now or be left behind. The need to establish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a pressing one. I am prompted by another ridiculous speech, the one that we heard just now from the member for Hughes, one of the climate change deniers of those opposite—and there are quite a number of them. We need to face this. There is a clear consensus among climate scientists that climate change is real and we will have significant future impacts if no action is taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

The world is acting to reduce carbon emissions and to create a global low-carbon economy. That is what the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is for. That is why the 195 nations of the world that are participating in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meet every year in one very large formal meeting and at a range of smaller meetings during the year. There is agreement on the end objective, which is to reduce the world's carbon emissions. Of course, as is always the case in large multilateral negotiations, there is not yet agreement on how the world is to go about reducing carbon emissions, but many nations are already acting to reduce national emissions. Australia, in the Clean Energy Future package and in this part of the Clean Energy Future package setting up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, is joining that global effort. If we do not act now, we will be left behind and we will miss out on the global jobs that will come from investing in clean energy and investing in renewable technologies.

A low-carbon global economy is coming and it is up to us to decide whether we help Australian business to take advantage of this or simply bury our heads in the sand. There are many countries around the world that are assisting their businesses to move on low-carbon technologies and to invest in low-carbon businesses. We should be doing the same. Many other countries have acted to put in place similar financing arrangements to this Clean Energy Finance Corporation to kick-start the clean economy. I can give some examples. These are some of the larger finance corporations, which countries around the world have, that invest in new technologies, that invest in sustainable technologies and that invest in low-carbon technologies. I would start with the example of the United States Department of Energy, which has issued loans and guaranteed loans to encourage early-stage commercial use of new or significantly improved technology and energy projects. The United States Department of Energy has given to around 35 projects, between September 2009 and September 2011, loans and guarantees worth around $35 billion, dwarfing the size of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that this legislation proposes.

Germany's main development financing agency, KfW, is also a significant financier of clean energy by providing commercial banks with liquidity at low rates. This same German agency has provided funding to 80 per cent of Germany's newly installed wind energy and 40 per cent of the solar panels installed in 2010. It is estimated that this agency will commit over €100 billion in the energy sector over the next five years. Another example of international action is Brazil. The Brazilian economic and social development bank, BNDES, provides long-term finance with a very strong clean energy focus. In 2011 this bank approved financing of approximately US$1.8 billion for the construction of wind farms, and there are a range of other projects. I have had a presentation from that Brazilian development bank and I know the range of clean technology projects that the Brazilian development bank is investing in.

The world is acting and many countries are putting in similar financing arrangements to those that we are proposing with this legislation for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It is time for Australia to play its part. As part of the clean energy future package we must look after people. I think it is worth talking briefly about the impact of the carbon price more generally and what we are doing to ensure that we are helping working Australians, mainly because it is an issue that the other side of this House raises again and again. They consistently and deliberately get it so wrong. Our whole reason for being in politics is to provide support to working families, to improve services and to make this country fairer. Apparently the reason the Leader of the Opposition is in politics is to help Clive Palmer.

Our budget—and our clean energy future package—contains important measures to help households make ends meet. More than 1.5 million families will benefit from increases to family tax benefit part A from 1 July next year, with nearly half of those taking home an extra $600 a year. A new supplementary payment will help the unemployed, students and parents on income support meet the cost of essential bills, worth $210 a year for singles and $350 a year for couples. Earlier this week pensioners started to receive upfront household assistance payments of $250 for singles and $380 for couples combined. These payments will be paid straight into pensioners' bank accounts over the coming few weeks. About 2.1 million pensioners who are on the maximum rate of the pension will be better off by $134 a year for singles and $201 a year for couples, on average—a buffer of more than 65 per cent against the expected modest impact of the carbon price. And 93 per cent of pensioner households will be at least 20 per cent better off, thanks to these new payments. Of course, we are putting in place tax cuts for all taxpayers earning up to $80,000 a year from 1 July through a tripling of the tax-free threshold.

By advocating to abolish the carbon price and scrap this assistance, the Leader of the Opposition wants to make millions of pensioners worse off and millions of benefit-recipients worse off. I think that when such an opposition engages in such negative scare campaigns—an opposition that opposes sensible measures like the bills that are before the House today—we should also look at the alternative that is being presented by that opposition. We should look at the opposition's so-called plan—a cobbled together policy that they have no intention of pursuing if they ever do hold office—its direct action policy. Do not be fooled. This is a plan which is not designed to reduce emissions. All the policy is designed to do is give an appearance of action, give some kind of appearance that the opposition care about this policy area. The member for Hughes, who spoke before me, needs clearly to take up with the leadership of his party this direct action policy, because it appears that he thinks that we should not be seeking to reduce Australia's national carbon emissions and, indeed, that the whole world should not be seeking to reduce carbon emissions. If that is so, he needs to take up with the leadership of his party the Direct Action Plan, the purpose of which is said to be to reduce Australia's national emissions.

Their direct action plan—if you can call it that—is even worse than this. It involves the purchase of abatement of emissions at taxpayers' expense. That method of attempting to reduce emissions has been tried before and has proved to be entirely ineffective and very expensive. Everyone looking at the alternative plan to reduce Australia's emissions, from those who like to badge themselves as the alternative government, needs to bear in mind that families will be worse off under the plan put forward by the Liberal Party. Families will have to pay $1,300 more in taxes and that money will be given straight to the big polluters. It is mystifying to think what the coalition's policy is in this area when one listens to speeches like that delivered by the member for Hughes or those regularly delivered by the member for Dawson or the member for Tangney. These are self-expressed climate change deniers who would assert that there is no purpose in seeking to reduce Australia's carbon emissions.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy, I would ask the member to withdraw the slur on those members. He knows full well the use of the term 'denier' has a connotation that he would be particularly familiar with and I would ask him to withdraw that.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The member for Cook will resume his seat.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is wasting the House's time with his nonsensical objection. I absolutely reject the suggestion put forward by the member for Cook.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Cook will desist from interrupting.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a ridiculous and I will repeat: these are climate change deniers on the other side of this House. It is an entirely legitimate phrase. It is an appropriate phrase to use about those on the other side of the House who do not accept the science of climate change, and they need to start accepting the science of climate change. The member for Cook is lending his assistance to the ridiculous suggestions put forward on the other side of this House. We are acting on climate change and will continue to do so. (Time expired)

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012 and the suite of bills to amend the Clean Energy Act 2011. This set of bills seeks to establish an incorporated entity under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to be known as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, CEFC. These bills will give CEFC substantial powers to invest in financial assets for the development of Australian based renewable energy and low-emission technologies along with energy-efficiency projects. The bills will also provide the CEFC with the power to enter into investment agreements itself, provide commercial loans and, as well, make investments for its subsidiaries.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is the brainchild of the Greens members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, of course. It is, however, nothing more than a slush fund for the Greens to grant funding to projects that fit within their green utopian view of the world. As the member for Mayo brought up earlier today, the CEO's salary is outside the Remuneration Tribunal's jurisdiction so what are we going to have? Are we going to have a union hack being the CEO, or are we going to have Mr Bob Brown himself coming back to head it up? If I were a betting man, I am sure that they know who it is going to be.

For the creation of the CEFC's special account, $10 billion will be appropriated over five years with the first instalment of $2 billion to be paid on 1 July 2013. The government intends the CEFC to be self-sustaining once it has matured. Any funds returned to the CEFC for its investments will be available for reinvestment. While this sounds wonderful and economically sound, the bill already predicts a loss to this monumental taxpayer investment. Indeed, Treasury officials have confirmed to a House of Representatives Economics Committee that around 7.5 per cent of the loans for investments made by the CEFC will not be recovered.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

Ms King interjecting—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Would the member for Macarthur resume his seat. It is very difficult to hear what the member for Macarthur is saying while the member for Cook and the parliamentary secretary conduct an ongoing exchange in light of the recent point of order.

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In yet another feat of tricky accounting, most of the lending is off-budget, yielding a deceptive budget surplus. This is risky business indeed. There will be operating costs and there will be write-offs, but the tell-tale signs that this scheme is yet another Greens inspired pipedream is the concessional component of the loans made by the CEFC to renewable energy projects. Only a Labor and Greens government would borrow money at one rate and then lend it out for incredibly risky projects at an even lower rate. This aspect of the CEFC will expose the belly of the beast to the world of heartache.

We have seen firsthand the problems created when a government backs a so-called winner. In Australia alone we have witnessed the monumental collapse of the Queensland government's ZeroGen project, costing taxpayers well over $100 million of losses. This was despite many warnings from the opposition as well as industry experts that this project was doomed to fail from the start. The government's $700 million Solar Flagships program in Moree and the Queensland Solar Dawn projects are struggling to gain industry support.

For international examples we only need to look at the United States with the monumental failure of their $700 million Solyndra project, a project that had been the President's shining example of a green-energy company. The failure of Beacon Power also occurred under a remarkably similar scheme to this one proposed by this government, as did Solar Trust of America which collapsed despite having a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the US energy department. History does not bode well for the CEFC. If the finance sector is not convinced of a project's economic viability, why does the government think that it should then expose billions of taxpayers' funds to these exceptionally risky projects.

Indeed, the Greens believe, as announced by Senator Milne, that the CEFC will be able to access finance from the private sector on top of its own taxpayer funding for renewable energy projects. Judging from the interest that the private sector has shown in our nation's largest renewable energy projects, this may not be as easy as the senator thinks. The corporation has a lofty aim to overcome the market barriers to big renewable energy investments. However, one point that this government seems to miss time and time again is that the private sector knows that money does not grow on trees.

Private investors in general part with their hard earned money wisely. The private sector will not often expose itself to anything that it sees as too risky, whether this be actual investment risk, the perceived risks of a new type of investment, or pressure from the tightening of purse strings by banks looking towards Europe's pending financial disaster. So where the private sector dares not tread, this government is blindly barging ahead with billions of taxpayers' dollars hastily shoved into its pockets ready to be thrown at risky and commercially unviable projects.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill also establishes a board of the CEFC. The board will be tasked with the statutory responsibilities for decision making and managing the corporation's investments. The government has gone to lengths to claim that the CEFC will be an independent body—indeed, the legislation stipulates that the CEFC will make investment decisions independently of the government. However, this independence is skin deep. The bill requires ministers to issue an investment mandate for the corporation. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum of the bill states:

The investment mandate may include, but not be limited to, directions on matters of risk and return, eligibility criteria of investments in renewable energy technologies, low-emission technologies and energy efficiency projects, allocation of investments, limits on concessional investment, types of financial instruments in which the Corporation may invest and broad operational matters.

It seems to me that this is one hell of a mandate for a minister to give an independent corporation. It is apparently clear that the government is happy to allow the CEFC to independently select the individual investments and projects for funding, but the criteria for investment selection as well as the suitability of a project will be tightly controlled by the minister and the government of the day. To further the government's grip on the CEFC's so-called independence, the investment mandate will take the form of a written non-disallowable legislative instrument. This is consistent with ministerial directions issued to statutory bodies such as the Future Fund. The bill also states that the CEFC will apply a commercial filter when making investment decisions. Business hopes to ensure that the CEFC will invest responsibly and manage risk so that it is financially self-sufficient and able to achieve a targeted rate of return. One of the objectives for the CEFC, as agreed by the CEFC expert review panel, is to apply capital through a commercial filter to facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector, thus preparing and positioning the Australian economy and industry for a clean energy future. Nobody would question the need for increased flows of finances into the renewable energy and low emission energy technology sector. However, this raises at least one very serious concern about the potential for the CEFC to have disproportionate impacts on the market and at the same time not stimulate tangible results for progress in renewable energy projects.

The board of the CEFC will have to be assiduous in their decision making to avoid creating chaos in the renewable energy sector. This concern has largely been ignored by the government in their eagerness to pick a winner and pull the renewable rabbit out of their clean energy hat. The renewable energy target is the best way to ensure that the private sector continues to invest in affordable and sustainable renewable energy. The coalition has offered bipartisan support to a commitment to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia's electricity supply will come from renewable sources by 2020. It is highly unlikely that the government's $10 billion slush fund will be invested successfully and even less likely that any new renewable energy above the 20 per cent target would ever be realised as there is no incentive for energy companies to purchase higher cost renewable power above their mandatory target.

The renewable energy target has been the driving force behind private sector investment in the renewable energy sector. The renewable energy schemes that have been able to show their viability and return on investment have, of course, secured finance. The private sector has identified the most cost-effective and efficient means to produce renewable energy. Through thorough risk assessments and extensive analysis of project viability, the market has supported renewable energy projects that will be financially sustainable. This outcome, which is undeniably a win for consumers and the environment, is in direct contrast to the objectives of the CEFC, which are to provide finance for technologies which the market considers to be unproven, too speculative or too risky for commercial financing.

Origin Energy hit the nail on the head in their submission to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation expert review. They assert that the CEFC could aid in the operation of effective markets 'if it is able to identify and address financial market failures to investment'. However, Origin Energy is very careful to point out the risks of the CEFC to the renewable energy sector if it only serves as another source of unsustainable subsidy or high cost technologies. For the government to now introduce this $10 billion slush fund will throw a spanner into the works for large-scale renewable energy projects that have already sought out and obtained commercial financing.

New projects that are fortunate enough to secure the concessional loans and finance from the CEFC will have the benefit of receiving direct subsidies and could, in turn, jeopardise the viability of current investments financed through far more expensive commercial lending. If the CEFC merely adds its $10 billion to the mix of high-cost technologies that are economically unviable in the long term, then all that will eventuate are higher electricity prices paying for unsustainably expensive technology. Programs very similar to the CEFC have experienced massive failure and controversy in the United States. Billions of taxpayers' money in loan guarantees have been lost because the United States government tried to pick a winner.

This bill is economically irresponsible and unlikely to achieve its stated aims. There is little doubt that the CEFC will end up as nothing more than a $10 billion slush fund to be spent on the whimsical dreams of the Greens, a waste of taxpayers' money and a waste of an opportunity to truly help the Australian environment in an innovative and practical way. That is the price you pay to stay in government.

I move on to the three bills which seek to amend the Clean Energy Legislation Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Clean Energy Act, the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act , the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act, the Fuel Tax Act and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting—NGER—Act. Amendments proposed in the Clean Energy Legislation Amendment Bill aim to extend the reach of the carbon tax to include fuels which are eligible for the opt-in scheme and the definition of carbon dioxide equivalence. This bill will effectively bring LPG, LNG and CNG directly under the carbon tax. There have been some reasonable technical amendments to the way the Carbon Farming Initiative, or CFI, is administered. These include the backdating of a methodology to enable greater access to the scheme for projects that were underway before the CFI came about. This will allow existing projects to benefit from the scheme.

The Clean Energy Legislation Amendment Bill also amends provisions in the NGER Act to allow people to nominate who has the operational control of a facility where it is not already clear. This amendment is necessary for organisations where there is no majority owner or where the entity may be controlled by a trust. Other elements of this bill seek to amend the Clean Energy Act and the Fuel Tax Act to apply the carbon tax to LPG and LNG rather than through fuel tax arrangements.

The Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill and Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012 amend the Excise Act and the Customs Tariff Act to provide that, from 1 July 2012, CNG used for non-transport purposes can be covered by the carbon tax because they are no longer subject to the effective carbon price through the fuel tax system. This system will be similar to the structure provided for the aviation industry to administer their carbon tax liabilities. This is yet another tax grab by the government and I cannot support it.

When I look at the amount of money that is being spent here and I try to explain this bill to people in my community, they say, 'We're a growth centre in south-western Sydney and under 16 years of a state Labor government we received very limited support for infrastructure in a growth centre.' There is nothing in this budget for the people of Macarthur. I look at the roads round my area like Narellan Road, Spring Farm Parkway, Camden Valley Road, Bagdally Road, Raby Road. These are all connectors to the growth centre, to Campbelltown city. There is also St Andrews Road, Denham Court and Campbelltown Road. There is not even a reasonable sports centre for Narellan or a PCYC for Gregory Hills.

When I explain these types of bills, which are slush funds for the Greens for investment in projects that are never going to get off the ground, my community say, 'What is going on with this government?' You go doorknocking and people say, 'This is the worst government I have seen in my lifetime.' I am talking to people who are 50 or 60 or 70 years of age who saw the Whitlam government and how bad that was. All of a sudden they are saying to me they have never, in their whole lives, seen a government that has wasted money like this government. The government allow growth centres to occur in north-western and south-western Sydney. The government does not give any funding towards these sorts of projects. They cannot build sustainable communities. There is a distinct lack of infrastructure. Then we give $10 billion away to a bunch of whackos and the Greens that are going to run these programs. The people of my community just go: 'What is going on here? How come they're getting $10 billion and we're getting nothing?' There is nothing in the budget for the people of Macarthur. They walk up to me day in and day out—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Macarthur will address the bill before the House.

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, when you talk about poor policy and poor political parties and when you have a government that is a hung parliament, take a look at the deal that has been struck between the Independents, the Greens and the Labor Party. My community are becoming so frustrated at the lack of funds that are going into building sustainable communities and the lack of infrastructure. When they ask me what is going on I say to them, 'Go along and watch question time. When we ask questions the questions are never answered. When we ask for money, the money is never delivered.'

The south-west growth centre was released for urban development all of a sudden, and then no infrastructure. Nothing in the budget for my community, nothing in the budget for Macarthur. They ask me, 'How does all this occur? There is all the pork-barrelling that occurs with the government and the Independents. All of a sudden there are billions and billions of dollars being given away because of a hung parliament and because people have the balance of power.' Other communities miss out because the Independents and the Greens are reaping all the money that was sown. It is put into their pockets and given to their communities and it is not being equally shared amongst the broader Australian community.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we just saw a very good example of why the people of south-western Sydney deserve better. It is a great shame to hear a discussion such as that, particularly given that the basis of this debate that we are having—and the clean energy bills are part of that—is that both sides of this parliament agree on the target in reductions: that of five per cent.

We have this extraordinary circumstance that has developed in this place, and I understand why it has developed; it is because the Leader of the Opposition decided very early on in the hung parliament negotiations that he was going to play the game as if there were a majority government. Rather than become part of a process for various determinations, whether they be about economics, regional development or clean energy, he decided—and his apostles have followed quite blindly; and I think that the speech we just heard is a classic example of that—that this was an issue where even though they agreed with the absolute target—the five per cent reduction and 1990 levels by 2020—that he would play the game of majority government and minority opposition. So rather than be part of a constructive process they have set out to develop a process that sounds as though they deny that climate change exists. And there is some discussion about that at the moment. Their policy position is that climate change is occurring, that as a nation we should do something about it and the target level is identical to the government's—that of five per cent. The method of achieving the reduction in the emissions is different.

I am a farmer; I have been working with soils all my adult life and if there is one thing that I think I might have a little bit of knowledge about it is soil humus and organic matter and the way in which it impacts on the productivity levels of soil, the ways in which the soil processes work, the infiltration rates of water et cetera and, obviously, the plants that grow in that soil.

I have been an advocate for soil carbon for many, many years—when the opposition just laughed it off, years ago when they were in government. If soil carbon were the answer to this I would be the first to say that the Abbott way is the way to achieve the outcome. Regrettably, it is not. That is not to suggest that we should not introduce—and the package of bills actually does introduce—incentives to encourage changes in farming technologies that do have an impact on soil humus and organic matter levels and that do have an influence on moisture infiltration that will have an influence on drought proofing soils. But it is unproven that in most of Australian soils there is the capacity to develop an increase in soil carbon levels that can be retained through dry periods as well as wet. It is unproven and probably will not be proven that our soils will be able to accumulate vast quantities of carbon and hold it. In some parts of Europe and parts of North America the soils will be able to do that and, hopefully, in the future we will be able to improve on our soils even if global warming ceases to be a debate. We should be trying to improve our soils.

The point I am making is that if you have both sides of parliament agreeing on the target, surely the most cost-effective way of getting to the target would be the way that we would go? The previous Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, could see that pathway. Obviously, he could see that a market mechanism was the way to go. We have this extraordinary juxtaposition in the sense of political philosophies: the party that believes in a market mechanism is arguing against it. Some would say that the party that historically has not agreed with a market mechanism would normally go the other way! So we have this circumstance that has developed where raw politics is being played in this issue—raw politics.

I think it is a great shame that the Leader of the Opposition did not take the opportunity to be involved in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. He was invited, or his representatives were invited, to be part of that process. I was part of that process and I was very proud to be part of it. I think there were some enormous issues to be dealt with and, in fact, it is going to be a hung parliament that is actually going to do something about it. The Leader of the Opposition, as I said, decided to play opposition politics in a parliament where he could have become part of the government, in a sense, in terms of the governance of some of the policy issues. The climate change debate is one of those significant issues.

From a regional perspective, and with the nonsense that is being peddled out there to create fear in the minds of people that the sky will fall in on 1 July because of this initiative—the carbon-pricing arrangement—many people are starting to recognise that there are extraordinary opportunities. And this investment fund that we are debating today is part of that. It is not the totality of the opportunities. There are enormous opportunities for renewable energy resources—wind, solar, geothermal, bioenergy; the list goes on. I would like to spend a moment talking about a few examples. Most of those opportunities will occur in regional Australia. They will not be located in the cities—because of landscape issues et cetera. The opportunities of the new clean energy future are going to be in the country. Some of them may be agricultural—biodigestion of waste, bioenergy from biomass and those sorts of processes. In fact, we could see some of our agricultural land turned over to the production of biofuel—not through the production of food and then into biofuel but the production of biomass and then to biofuel. Those are the opportunities that are going to be out there.

I will give you a couple of examples of the sorts of things that I am talking about, the real opportunities that are out there. James Cook University is not in my electorate but it is part of the deal that the last speaker spoke about between the Independents and the government. Part of that arrangement was that some money be put into research of biomass and biofuel. James Cook University has been doing some extraordinary work in terms of algae in water—and I think the minister for regional Australia, who is in the chair, would be aware of this. The university is showing extraordinary leadership in this debate and has been doing so for some years. Some of that money is going towards that research. Originally when they started off they were looking at the possibility of using algae as a source of biodiesel. As the research has gone on and been developed up in terms of the varieties of algae and how to actually farm algae—it is a farming process rather than an industrial process—they have found that the uses for algae are far greater than just biodiesel. The protein in algae can be used for food production. I am sure members have dogs. I imagine that the member for Cook, who is in the chamber, has a dog. He is shaking his head.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

Anyway, I am sure he has had occasion to have a tin of dog food in his cupboard. When you tip out a tin of PAL dog food the contents remain upright. It is the properties in algae that make it stand upright—

Honourable members interjecting—

The member for Higgins should make way for that great Treasurer of the past, Mr Costello. The former member for Higgins would not have interjected like that about a product of the future such as algae! Algae can be used for a whole range of products. For those who have not been to James Cook University, it is worth a visit there to see international scientists from all over the world, young people in their 30s, working on our future.

There is a lot of talk about food security into the future—how we are going to produce protein for a growing population et cetera. There is a lot of talk that we need clean energy, we need to reduce CO2 and we need to reduce greenhouse emissions in the atmosphere. There is a lot of talk that we need to clean up emissions from coal fired power stations. Well, this is just one example of how those sorts of things are happening.

As we speak, the people at James Cook University are developing pilot operations at two power stations. Why are they doing that? What they intend to do—and they have done this at quite large trial sites—is use the flue gases from the power station to grow algae in a confined environment. They use massive bladders that are half full of water. They put algae in them and then they harvest the algae. I asked them: what is the potential of this? We have coal fired power stations producing emissions and we are trying to come to grips with that through a whole range of options. Is it possible to capture the CO2 emissions, put that through an algae farm and convert it into protein products? The answer is yes. An algae farm of something like 10,000 acres, in theory at least, could ingest the flue gases of a normal sized coal fired power station.

That is why we need a Clean Energy Finance Corporation. There is an endless list of projects. The minister in the chair is aware of the activities that are going on in the meat processing business to convert their waste—not only the waste from the animals but also the paunch waste et cetera from the animals' insides—into an opportunity, into energy and into fertiliser. That is waste that they may well be charged $23 a tonne for if they have over 25,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. They want to turn it into energy, into fertiliser and into cleaner water to be used for other productive purposes.

I think what we need here is some degree of leadership. Those people are out there. They are at the cutting edge of getting some of this technology right and getting it put in place to produce renewable energy for the future, to produce a cleaner future for future generations and to produce the circumstances where food can be produced in a healthy world. We need to give them some leadership, rather than the nonsense that we are hearing in here about global warming and climate change. When both sides agree on the same target, surely we should agree that research for future generations of Australians is a worthy avenue for funding. These short-term political fear tactics have to stop if we want to be part of the future. We have seen a lot of our scientists go overseas in the last decade because of it and we need to stop it now. (Time expired)

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012 and related bills, the Clean Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012 and the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012. While the latter bills will see the scope of the carbon tax cover LPG, LNG and CNG, it is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill to which I will give my primary focus.

This $10 billion new initiative, colloquially known as the 'Brown Bank' given its genesis with Bob Brown and the Greens, is fervently opposed by the coalition as it is an indulgent, expensive, misguided, big government idea. Not only will it distort the market in the renewable energy technology space and put a brake on existing players in that market but it will also see the loss of billions of dollars of taxpayers funds at a time when this government's economic mismanagement is driving the country further into debt.

In the time available I want to make the following points. Firstly, I will analyse the inherent contradictions in the explanatory memorandum outlining the key features of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and shine a light on the devastating impact the CEFC will have on the government's bottom line. Secondly, I will explain how market distortion under the CEFC will actually occur. Finally, I will point to international experience with similar government-supported renewable energy investments as a warning sign of what the Australian taxpayer should expect.

Firstly, to the bill itself. The explanatory memorandum sets out that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has:

… the power to invest in financial assets for the development of Australian-based renewable energy technologies, low-emission technologies and energy efficiency projects.

It sets out the corporation's power to ensure:

… at any time on or after 1 July 2018, at least half of the funds invested at that time for the purposes of its investment function are invested in renewable energy technologies.

It also has:

… the power to enter into investment agreements itself, and make investments through subsidiaries.

A special account for the purposes of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 is established which will see this CEFC special account credited with $2 billion a year for five years. Funds returned to the corporations from its investment will be available for reinvestment. The explanatory memorandum explicitly states 'the corporation will make individual investment decisions independently of the government'. But this sentence does not sit comfortably with me, with the point made a few lines down in the explanatory memorandum:

The Bill gives the responsible Ministers powers of direction over the broad mandate of the Corporation …

It then goes on to say:

The investment mandate may include, but not be limited to, directions on matters of risk and return, eligibility criteria of investments in renewable energy technologies, low-emission technologies and energy efficiency projects, allocation of investment, limits on concessional investments, types of financial instruments in which the Corporation may invest and broad operational matters.

To any independent observer this must seem an incredibly broad mandate which is at the discretion of ministers. The potential here for political decision making is real and disconcerting. The explanatory memorandum goes on to say that in applying its mandate:

It is expected that the Corporation will apply a commercial filter when making its investment decisions, focussing on projects and technologies at the later stages of development. By adopting a commercial approach, it is expected the Corporation will invest responsibly and manage risk so it is financially self-sufficient and achieves a target rate of return.

Again, there is a contradiction. This commitment to applying a commercial filter does not sit comfortably with the government's explicit intention in setting up the CEFC, as announced by the Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in a press release on 12 October 2011:

The objective is to overcome capital market barriers that hinder the financing, commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency and low emissions technologies.

If the market will not take a favourable commercial decision to invest in these technologies then how can the government apply their own so-called commercial filter and reach a different decision—namely, to invest? It just does not make sense. You are either a commercial entity competing in the private sector or you are a publicly funded entity with non-commercial goals. You cannot be both.

The government goes on to say in the explanatory memorandum:

The Corporation is intended to be self-sustaining once mature.

Why, then, does the explanatory memorandum outline a hit to the fiscal balance of $1,346.4 million over the forward estimates, suggesting:

… a prudent recognition that some investments will not be recovered.

This includes operating costs of the CEFC as appropriated, loss provisions on loans from the CEFC to renewable energy projects and the concessional component of loans to renewable energy projects. If this corporation is to be so-called 'self-sustaining', why is it projected to lose so much money? I put it to this House that $1.346 billion loss may end up being the tip of the iceberg when the losses of this corporation are extended over its life.

This will extend to many billions of dollars falling on the taxpayers' shoulders. This is because even these numbers of $1.346 billion are predicated on the CEFC having a very high success rate with its strategy of 'picking winners'. In testimony before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics on 28 May this year, senior bureaucrats from the Department of Finance and Deregulation said they are predicting that only 7.5 per cent of investments each year are not recovered—when my colleague the member for Moncrieff, Steve Ciobo, put to them that a 92.5 per cent success rate was extraordinarily high and a 7.5 per cent default rate extraordinarily low, they said it was their 'best guess'. We have to remember we are talking about billions and billions of dollars. That will be spent on this new slush fund, and we deserve much more than the bureaucrats' 'best guess'. In fact, the Australian people deserve a lot more scrutiny of these bills than they have been allowed—particularly the bare 150 minutes which was given to the economics committee to debate this new $10 billion body.

When talking about the transparency and scrutiny of the CEFC, it is important to note that the government has hidden the corporation from its budget bottom line, just like with the $50 billion NBN, which was so-called 'off budget'. This $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation is also off the balance sheet because they are treating it as an equity investment in the forlorn hope that the government is going to get a commercial return. I will tell you they will not get these commercial returns.

The second point I want to make is about the distortions that this Clean Energy Finance Corporation will have on the renewable energy market. Both the government and the opposition are united in their support for a 20 per cent renewable energy target. This target has driven and will continue to drive investments in the renewable energy sector. But, by setting up this $10 billion fund to pick winners and assist technologies that the commercial markets will not support, they are basically saying to other players in this market who are existing under the funding constraints that we currently have, 'You will be disadvantaged.' It is these existing players who are going to be the real losers from the CEFC body. What is more, the $10 billion will not produce additional renewable energy other than what this existing 20 per cent commitment is going to. So you are going to have $10 billion spent by this government picking winners with no net environmental gain.

Third, I mention the overseas and domestic experience with governments stepping up to fund and finance renewable energy technologies. In the United States there was the failure of the $700 million Solyndra project, the collapse of Beacon Power after the US Department of Energy gave them a loan guarantee and the unravelling of Solar Trust of America after receiving a $2.1 billion line of credit from the US government. In Queensland there was the ZeroGen project collapse, which received $100 million of co-investment from the Beattie government. There was the $700 million Solar Flagships program, which has failed under this Labor government.

You see this is the government that gave us the Green Loans program. This is the government that gave us the failed Green Start program. This is the government that came up with the wonderful idea of cash for clunkers and the citizens assembly. And there was the daddy of them all: more than $2 billion wasted on pink batts and then another $500 million spent trying to clean up 70,000 roofs. Tell me if you believe that this government with their record should be trusted with $10 billion of hard earned taxpayers' money in picking winners. What about the roads that need to be built? What about the new ports to get our exports off to their markets? What about the hospitals? What about the schools instead of this $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which is about picking winners and a political deal?

Finally, in order to understand the context of this announcement you have to understand why it was agreed to in the first place. You have to look back to the formation of the 43rd Parliament, because the Prime Minister did not win an outright majority. In fact, we the coalition were the ones who deserved to form government. So this Clean Energy Finance Corporation is the product of the backroom deal between the Greens and Labor in order to win the Greens vote in this House and in the Senate. That deal is behind the Prime Minister's backflip on 'no carbon tax under a government I lead' and that deal is behind the government's decision to provide this $10 billion for this Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

In conclusion, this is an experiment—a $10 billion experiment—which Australia cannot afford to take. Born out of political weakness rather than a product of a considered policy process, this Clean Energy Finance Corporation will saddle Australian taxpayers with a huge financial burden as billions of dollars are wasted on uncommercial projects in the coming years. International experience shows that governments are not designed to pick winners, particularly in the renewable energy space. What is more, with this bill currently before the House there is scope for unwarranted ministerial direction in pursuit of political not commercial goals; there is the potential to distort the existing renewable energy market to the disadvantage of those players operating under the current constraints; and there is the inherent failure of this initiative to increase the production of renewable energy over and above the already bipartisan commitment to 20 per cent. It is for these reasons, as well as the obvious, blatant political manipulation which is behind the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, that I join with my colleagues in opposing the bills before this House.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Looking at these bills, in particular the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012, I get this eerie, creepy feeling at the back of my neck, and I am not sure if it is deja vu or a premonition. I get a horrible feeling that this bill is going to be a horrible disaster, and I am sure I have seen this train wreck before. We have a big-taxing, big-spending Gillard Labor government which has managed to turn wasting taxpayer money into an Olympic event and a giant barrel of money—$10 billion worth of taxpayer funds—and I am sure there was a similar situation when Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith, was Prime Minister. I would have thought that keeping these two things apart would be imperative for the sake of the country, because putting the Labor Party in charge of setting up and looking after such a barrel of money is like letting the wolf guard the flock—sure he is keen to do it, but you would be mad to trust him.

If I were a betting man I would go with the odds, and that means voting against this bill and keeping the wolf out of the lambing yard. Supporting this bill would be like backing a rank outsider—like having a three-legged donkey up against Black Caviar—because we know this nag of a bill is a loser before it even lines up in the barriers. Here is why: the bill itself tells us it is a loser. It sets out in the fiscal impacts the forecast of operating costs and write-downs. There will be failed projects, and this bill admits this before it even comes into effect. This bill is like the kind of horse that stands at the barrier and says, 'There are 13 hurdles out there, and I intend to trip over one; my plan is to trip over one.' This was pointed out very clearly in Senate estimates this week when Treasury confirmed that they expect that 7.5 per cent of loans for investments made in this barrel of money will not be recovered.

The plan is to take $2 billion of taxpayer funds ripped out of families' back pockets with the carbon tax and then to put the money into the Clean Energy Finance Corporation barrel, and Treasury is telling us that it expects to lose $150 million a year. That is even more than the Victorian Labor government lost in Victoria with the Cain-Kirner venture. They had their venture capital fund and they tried to pick winners, but they racked up losses estimated at $110 million. The Renewable Energy Venture Capital Fund already does the job proposed for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, so this is already a two-horse race. There is also the Emerging Renewables Program, and both of those seasoned runners make their intended loss public. These are not the sorts of horses I want to put my money on either. I do not like to back horses that have no intention of winning.

Two weeks ago, possibly Australia's worst racehorse, a horse called Vote For Lust, attempted to break through for its maiden victory in Mildura after 87 starts and no wins. Even with champion jockey Glen Boss on board, Vote For Lust managed to beat just two runners home. It was a great story about a horse that has a cult following for being a champion loser; but his title is in danger. At least Vote For Lust had a chance and his form is no worse than the bill we have before us today, but the clean energy bank has form that reads something like this: a maiden for little or no talent; needs blinkers, as it loses focus and is easily distracted; prone to changing jockeys mid-race; has no sense of direction; and has a habit of running backwards. Horses that run backwards are very rare.

This bill has a specific aim: it is supposed to create a barrel of money to invest in clean energy so that Australians produce fewer carbon dioxide emissions. But it has been designed by the Labor Party and by the Greens, and they have obviously turned the design template upside down, because the result of the bill will be the opposite of the intended result. This is what the Australian Institute, a friend of the people on that side, said about this bill:

In theory, complementary policies such as the CEFC should do one of two things: (a) realise cheap abatement opportunities that won't be picked up by the carbon pricing scheme; or (b) accelerate the decline in the cost of low- and zero-emission technologies. If a complementary policy isn't achieving one of these two objectives, it is wasting money.

The CEFC doesn't appear to have been designed with these principles clearly in mind.

That comes from the Australia Institute, a left-wing supporter of all things warm and fuzzy and clearly a supporter of the Labor-Greens carbon tax. Even the Australia Institute admits that the proposal in this bill is a waste of time and a huge waste of money.

Business journalist Stephen Bartholomeusz summed things up in the Business Spectatoron 17 April when he talked about the self-defeating nature of the CEFC. He wrote:

The key problem with throwing $10 billion of taxpayer money at subsidies for clean energy while the mandatory renewables target scheme remains in place, however, is that the fund won't actually reduce carbon emissions or lead to more renewable energy capacity being added—it will simply displace what would otherwise have occurred without subsidy. We'll spend $10 billion for no material benefit.

As we speak, there are companies out there in the real world investing in technology—they are investing in clean energy and investing in innovation. When the drunken sailors opposite start throwing around $10 billion on the open market, we have to expect absolute chaos. The CEFC will undercut finance in existing projects and kill off real innovation. Instead of a vibrant market generating creative energy solutions and low-emissions technology there will be a raft of lumbering, inefficient public-purse spongers sucking at the taxpayers teat in innovating ways so as to make sure that the free money keeps coming. Highly experienced and respected economist Henry Ergas wrote in the Australian in October last year a very interesting and informative article entitled, 'Billions will be wasted painting pork barrel green'. He wrote:

Having enjoyed their international junkets, the suits on the CEFC will hardly reject every proposal put to them. Rather, to justify their existence, they will make some high-profile investments, no matter how dubious.

As for the politicians, they will crave the photo ops from contract signings and factory openings. Since the CEFC's mandate includes helping existing manufacturers convert to "green energy", every constituency can have one, presumably with a billboard advertising the government funding. Ever alert, the rent seekers won't take long to cotton on. And with the CEFC excluded from the Productivity Commission's periodic reviews of the government's package, there will be little to slow the gravy train.

So Ergas is saying that no good can come of it—at least, no public good. Then he goes on to talk about cost, and this is really important. He said:

But none of this will come cheaply. Rather, analyses consistently conclude that each dollar spent on this type of government venture simply crowds out one dollar of private investment elsewhere in the economy. But that government dollar both achieves less than the dollar it displaces and costs more, because distorting taxes are needed to raise it. It therefore ends up costing two or more dollars in lost income.

So make that $20bn wasted on painting the pork barrel green.

He means $20 billion will be wasted rather than the $10 billion that Labor is initially putting into it. If the Labor Party is in charge of handing out money we would get a better result by sealing up the barrel and hiding it under the stairs.

Getting back to my metaphor of the form guide, this nag of a government has prior form. At this distance and on this track it is a loser. I refer the House to the Green Loans scheme, which allowed householders a free environmental assessment and interest-free loans of up to $10,000 to purchase energy-saving devices. The Green Loans scheme became a haven for rorting and shoddy service, a monument to bureaucracy and inefficiency.

In Queensland, a state with the misfortune of having a Labor government waste its money for 20 of the last 22 years, the Bligh government presided over the ZeroGen project. Despite clear warnings from the Liberal National Party—and from people on this side of the House—and industry experts, the then Queensland Labor government oversaw losses of $100 million on this project. No wonder the state racked up $85 billion in debt under Labor!

But there is more than just domestic form to go by. We can look at the overseas campaigns of similar nags. The United States, under a program similar to that of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, backed such spectacular failures as the $700 million Solyndra project, the Beacon Power Corporation project, and Enerl. All of them were spectacular failures.

More recently, we saw the collapse of Solar Trust of America, which had a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the United States Department of Energy to build a 1,000 megawatt power plant in the Mojave Desert. It was called the Solar Trust of America but what happened to the trust that America put into such a scheme?—collapse and waste.

While I criticise the 'horse' here—that is, the barrel of money that is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—we really need to look at the jockey and the trainer. There are elements of this bill that would have us believe that the ones who will hold the reins will be the board of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. But the board will be a puppet of the Gillard Labor Party. That is enshrined in this legislation. This bill stipulates that ministers will issue an investment mandate for the corporation. It says:

The investment mandate may include, but not be limited to, directions on matters of risk and return, eligibility criteria of investments in renewable energy technologies, low-emission technologies and energy efficiency projects, allocation of investment, limits on concessional investments, types of financial instruments in which the Corporation may invest and broad operational matters.

Does it leave anything out? Is there any point in having a board? If this bill sets up a board on the basis of, 'Do whatever you want as long as it is what I tell you to do,' then the lunatics are still in charge of the asylum.

One parameter that is a glaring omission from this bill is a guideline for efficiency. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation would not be required to invest in the lowest-cost technologies to produce the cheapest emissions reduction. It is as if the Labor Party accepts that it has a problem—the first step to recovery for any waste addict—and has written the rules to redefine it as no longer being a problem.

What is truly worrying about this dud of a horse, though, is the trainer, because even the Labor Party could not dream up anything so poorly constructed as this. The whole idea of a Clean Energy Finance Corporation comes from the Greens. We know it and they know it. The corporation comes as a result of lobbying from the Greens MPs and senators on the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, of which the now Greens leader Senator Milne was co-deputy chair. That alone should be enough to set off warning bells. With the Greens having their two cent's worth—actually, $10 billion worth—we are no doubt locking taxpayer money into technologies that are proven to be hugely inefficient and wasteful.

It is beyond me why the Greens cling so desperately to windmills and inefficient solar technology when they know, deep down in their hearts, that these are extremely costly ways to produce energy. The Productivity Commissioner said so. And what they will not tell you is how much energy is used and how many emissions are produced to generate the materials and to build, install and maintain these monstrosities. If you build your windmill really well and find a really windy spot it might produce just enough energy to build another windmill—perhaps a slightly smaller one—which you could use to produce another one. And on and on it goes. If backing this bill is backing a guaranteed loser, then backing windmills is backing a guaranteed waste of money, time, and effort.

What pains me the most, when I look at how much taxpayer money is going to be poured down this clean-energy drain, is what the Australian families who earned this money will be missing out on. What could we, as a nation, do with $10 billion over five years, instead of putting it all this nag of a horse? We are putting it all on the nose when we know is going to run a dismal last. We could use that $10 billion to pay for—well, a quarter of the funding needed for the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, over the next five years. We could use it on flood-proofing all of the Bruce Highway in North Queensland to mitigate extreme weather events. The Mackay ring road could be built with one-twentieth of it. We could supplement local roads funding for every local government in this country over the next decade through a boost to the Roads to Recovery program to $1 billion. But we do not have the chance to debate those lost opportunities here today. Instead we are debating a bill that is not even worthy of a glue factory.

I cannot support this bill because it is a licence to waste money. It is a bill that should never have been brought to the starting gate. It is a bill that is not worth the hay and oats that Australian families will have to feed it. Frankly, if this bill were a horse, I would have to shoot it.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the member for Dawson and his eloquent and common sense approach to this bill. I also rise to speak to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012, the Clean Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and related bills. Every day I am stopped in the street by people in my electorate—small business owners, teachers, parents, independent retirees, single mothers. All of them want to know a simple thing. They want to know why this Labor government seems to be doing everything in its power to make their lives more difficult. They want to know why this Labor government is making decisions that are causing their bills to be higher and the cost of essential everyday items to be more. I speak to families who are facing escalating cost-of-living pressures simply because of the poor fiscal management of, and the bad decisions made by, this Labor government. There is no secret in their minds. They know that their costs are going up because of this Labor government—a government that is plagued by waste and mismanagement. They know that this Labor government has shown itself to be unable to successfully implement any program it puts its hand to or to avoid massive cost blowouts in its failed schemes. The people I speak to have had enough. They want to know when the waste and mismanagement will stop. Unfortunately, I have no confidence, and those opposite have given us no hope, that government waste and mismanagement will ever stop while we are under this Labor government.

We are in this place today to debate a bill proposed by those opposite that is designed to make this situation even worse for Australians. It is a bill that will glorify waste and glorify mismanagement. It will give the cold shoulder to responsible fiscal administration. We are here to debate a bill that has the fundamental promise of sinking $10 billion of taxpayers' money into a massive black hole. Let me just say that again so that we can feel the full impact of what this bill proposes. This bill will flush $10 billion down the drain. That is $2 billion every year for five years, starting on 1 July 2013.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012 establishes the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that will have the power to invest in the development of low-emission technologies and energy efficient projects that the private sector will not touch. The goal behind this bill is a farce. The premise is that this bill will ultimately increase the amount of renewable energies that make up Australia's energy sources, that there will be better renewable energy options, that there will be more money going into renewable energy research and that somehow this will create better technology. But this premise is fundamentally flawed.

Bipartisan support exists in this parliament for a total of 20 per cent of all Australian energy to come from renewable energy by the year 2020. This is a target that the industry is already working towards. This bill will not increase this target; in fact, this bill pours money into something that will feasibly be achieved by the market without the interference of a government entity such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It is the renewable energy target of 20 per cent that is driving private market investment in the energy sector.

This bill will have no positive impact on this target whatsoever. There will be no new renewable energy generated as a resulted of this bill. Currently the market has been a very effective driver behind the development of renewable energy sources, and now this Labor government is, once again, seeking to meddle. This government is attempting to interfere in the form of a bill that installs an entity charged with the challenge of seeking out technologies that the market has already rejected—the technologies that the market considers to be unproven, too speculative or too risky for commercial financing.

This bill's sole purpose is to seek out those that were the last ones picked on the team, the proverbial pariahs of the renewable energy market, and put them in pole position for the renewable energies race. Not only will the government be effectively backing the losers, it will also adversely affect those existing, commercially-viable investments. What this will be is a subsidy for projects that the private sector will not touch because there is no security and the cost-benefit ratio is not economically sound.

If the market has determined that a technology is unviable then throwing more taxpayers' money at it is not going to help the situation. Throwing more money at it only hurts projects that are viable, that have potential and that already have the support of the market. It discourages, rather than encourages, future investment in the industry. Savvy private investors are not going to put their money into projects that, as a result of this bill, will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Under the framework outlined in this bill, the minister will be responsible for issuing an investment mandate for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the criteria for investment selection and suitability will be determined by the minister and the government of the day, providing the government with what is effectively control over the renewable energies industry.

At what point did governments cast aside their responsibility to spend taxpayers' money more efficiently and wisely? At what point did it become acceptable for a government to choose to believe that it has a right to waste taxpayers' money—to waste money on schemes that not only will not provide a return for the community but actually damage existing commercial industries? As I have said in this place before, it is up to governments, just as it is up to the responsibility of individuals, families and corporations, to live within their budgets and to make wise financial decisions. This is not what we have seen or what we are seeing with this Labor government.

This Labor government has thrown responsible, logical and sensible financial management out the window. We are seeing with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012 that this government wants to mandate that the entity it is creating needs to actually seek out irresponsible investments to pour Australian taxpayers' money into. It is trying to engage in speculative share buying that the market does not support. It is a high-risk move; a significant risk taken with taxpayers' money. In fact, those opposite are not even trying to pretend that this bill will pay off. Their own explanatory memorandum for this bill reads:

The fiscal and underlying cash balance impacts include a prudent recognition that some investments will not be recovered, and interest revenue.

Those opposite are predicting that 7.5 per cent of the $10 billion to be injected into the renewable energy sector is expected not to be recovered. That is $150 million each year for five years, equalling a total of $750 million. Unfortunately, with this Labor government's record on program blow-outs as well as debt and deficit, there is absolutely no certainty that this government could keep it at this level.

It is almost as if this government is seeking out more ways to waste taxpayers' money on failed quasi-environmental programs and increase the debt burden for the next generation of Australians. We have seen pink batts, green loans, Green Start and cash for clunkers, not to mention school hall rip-offs, set-top box cost blow-outs, the debacles of the East Timor and Malaysia solutions, the live cattle export catastrophe and a failed class war. This list goes on, and this government is determined not to learn its lessons.

This government is also determined not to learn the lessons of our friends who have tried and failed in similar programs. Whether it is the United States' Solyndra project, which alone cost $700 million, or Beacon Power, Enerl or even the Solar Trust of America, all of these catastrophes occurred under programs similar to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and all were massive economic failures. Where others have gone and failed and will not go again, this government is blindly forging ahead.

On our own home soil we have witnessed the devastating failure of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, which shared many of the hallmarks of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This should be a wake-up call for a government that has no intuition. But in the same way that this government disregards the views of Australians, it is dismissing what the market is saying about these technologies and stubbornly ignoring expert advice. Industry experts have offered a clear warning about interfering in the market process. In addition to clear advice against embarking on such endeavours, the industry also categorically rejected the Queensland Solar Dawn project and the Moree Solar Project. And with the help of the former Queensland Labor government, this Labor government has itself stacked up more than $100 million of losses on the failed ZeroGen project. With failures already under its belt, it is beyond comprehension why this government is ready and willing to put itself on the chopping block for yet another failure.

With such compelling evidence against interference in this industry and with demonstrated, proven examples of how pursuing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and its investments into renewable energy is simply disrespectful of the Australian public, pursuing this activity under these circumstances is nothing more than a flagrant disregard for the hard earned dollars of the people in my local community and in every other electorate in Australia.

If it is not bad enough to be pursuing a project that experts, evidence and prior experience reject, it appears that those opposite are determined to do everything they can to shut the Australian people out of having any say on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The government is attempting to push through this legislation without the time for scrutiny by the Australian people, as well as funding the corporation upfront so that the money cannot be withdrawn when the people have their say—and, inevitably, they will say no to this scheme. It is my firm belief that we are here in this place to represent the views of the people, not to exclude them from decision making about the future of our nation.

Senator Milne, the Leader of the Greens, would appear to be proud of these attempts to subvert the say of the Australian people and is even on the record as saying, 'With a legislatively guaranteed stream of funding outside the budget, no future government will be able to undermine it without changing the legislation.' It was interesting to hear what political and economic commentator Ross Greenwood had to say about this initiative. 'Frankly,' he said, 'if they have been rejected by the market in the first place they are going to be rejected by them in the second place also.'

Blind Freddy could see that this decision has no positive impact on the environment or on developing sustainable renewable energy alternatives. If the Labor Party and the Greens truly wanted to achieve these goals, they would have been better off giving tax incentives to private investors for them to invest in speculative energy companies. This would have been a far more mature and logical approach to developing this sector. Such an approach would have ensured that taxpayers' money would not be used to take on the risk of initiatives that the private sector will not touch. Such an approach would have been a far more responsible management of taxpayers' money. The point remains that for all the money spent and the effort and the time that go into this scheme, Australians will see no benefit for the environment. The point remains that the bipartisan supported target of 20 per cent by 2020 will not be positively impacted on as a result of this bill.

As long as I am elected to represent my community in this place, I will fight to defend their fair expectation that their hard earned taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately. This bill is just another tragic example of this Labor government wasting taxpayers' money. It is waste that I do not condone. For the reasons I have outlined I strongly oppose this bill.

Debate adjourned.