Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to protect Australia’s natural environment.

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

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

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night we received the second decision in just a fortnight from the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO to reflect on this government's environmental record and it is high time for this House to debate what has emerged in nine short months to be an appalling record on our protection of the natural environment. Recently—and I think I had occasion to say this this morning—the Prime Minister in his new habit of modest self-deprecation, talking about himself, started to describe himself as a conservationist. Up there with his self-description as the best friend pensioners have ever had and the best friend that Medicare ever had, he started to talk about himself as a conservationist.

He road-tested this new self-deprecating moniker in Canada. We had occasion earlier this morning to talk about his trip to Canada and to other places to test the temperature of other nations as we build to the Paris Conference on Climate Change next year. As I said, he luxuriated in the warm embrace of the Canadian Prime Minister in a bout of climate scepticism and, after that experience, he let it be known quietly to Australian journalists that he was going to build a coalition. He was going to set about building a coalition of the unwilling to start to fight the Americans, the Chinese, the French, the Brits, the Germans, the Koreans, all those other nations who had indicated an intention, domestically and internationally to start to build the mood for change, to start to build momentum for climate action.

So confident was the Prime Minister that he would be able to do this, that he even let it be known to these Australian journalists who the members of this coalition for the unwilling would be. He let it be known that New Zealand will join and that United Kingdom would join. The problem was of course that he did not actually go and consult with the UK Prime Minister or the New Zealand Prime Minister, and the New Zealand Prime Minister had to admit only hours later that he was caught completely unawares about this new coalition of the unwilling announced by Prime Minister Abbott to Australian journalists in the warm embrace of the Canadian Prime Minister. The New Zealand Prime Minister confirmed that they were still committed to taking strong action on climate change in New Zealand domestically, and to being a responsible partner in the lead-up to the Paris conference. The UK Prime Minister and his spokespeople also confirmed and touted their strong record—a Tory government this is, Madam Speaker—on climate change domestically, within Europe and internationally.

After seeing this road testing, this new moniker of conservationist over in Canada and here, I think, in parliament as well, the Australian people could see clearly what was what. The Australian people are wise people and they judge their leaders and their politicians on their actions not on words, and this Prime Minister is no more a conservationist than John Howard was a Communist. The United Kingdom Independent newspaper got much closer to the truth earlier this year when in February they asked a question on the lips of so many Australians. On 4 February they asked:

Is Tony Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?

This question has been on the lips of so many Australians for the last nine months.

It must be said that the last nine months have been nine months of unwinding environmental protections and unwinding programs that are targeted at the conservation of Australia's beautiful natural environment and extraordinary biodiversity. In Australia it must be said, a continent with a beautiful natural environment but extraordinary natural resources as well, there is often a fine line between being the Minister for the Environment and being the Assistant Minister for Resources. For too long over this nine-month period this minister, this Prime Minister and this government have been way, way on the wrong side of that fine line.

I have had occasion to talk about a number of the decisions that this government has made in these nine short months and I want to go through a few of them before I address the one that was reflected in the decision of the World Heritage Committee last night. Very quickly, the government decided to delist the Murray below Darling as a Threatened Ecological Community, a decision that had been based on the advice of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee that had been working on this matter for some years, a decision based on a groundless scare campaign that had been run in the Murray-Darling Basin.

They have also decided in the budget to cut almost $500 million from the Landcare program, a program that results from the merger of the old Landcare program and Caring for Our Country, two programs that deliver extraordinary outcomes particularly to Australia's land sector through revegetation and a whole range of other programs led by farmers and conservationists across our continent. This cut has been made in spite of a clear promise made last year that the Landcare budget would not be cut.

We have seen the rolling back of management plans for the world's largest system of marine reserves, an extraordinary reform driven, as so many of these reforms were over the last few years, by my friend the Manager of Opposition Business, and, again, the decision has been based on the most groundless scare campaign. All around the country, and particularly in Queensland, we saw these scare campaigns about the interruption that these reserves would have to recreational fishing, notwithstanding that off the Queensland coast these reserves were several hundred kilometres away.

Again, we have seen so many different ways in which this government in nine short months has started to attack clean energy programs. We saw again from the member for Higgins over the course of the last 24 or 36 hours, the brazenness, the openness with which backbenchers are now quite happy to talk down the very clear commitments that the minister, his parliamentary secretary, other spokespeople within the coalition parties made in the lead-in to the election campaign about the bipartisan nature of the core components of Australia's clean energy program. Quite openly the backbenchers do not even bother to background journalists anymore. They quite openly and brazenly talk down the government's quite clear commitments made before the election campaign to continue Australia's proud record on clean energy. And I do not have time to address the debacle that is the solar roofs plan.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the pink batts?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister says that he will mention that because he has no record of his own in environmental protection to talk about. It is going to be a very long 10 minutes for this minister to try and talk about environmental protection over nine very short months.

This government is not content just to shut down environmental programs. It is also intent on shutting down community voices. We have seen this in so many different forums. This government is absolutely committed to shutting down strong, independent, expert and community voices. One of the first decisions that this government took was to entirely defund, from a Commonwealth perspective, the environmental defenders offices. This was a program that endured right through the Howard government. These offices are made up essentially of volunteers who provide legal advice to community groups who wish to object to developments in their community. What did this government do? It completely defunded them because the last thing this government wants—the last thing this Prime Minister wants—is a strong, independent, community voice voicing opposition to something that this government wants.

This fortnight, in the World Heritage Committee, we have seen the culmination of a couple of very serious problems that this government has around environmental protection. I am sure the member for Watson will address one of these issues in far more detail than I have time to. Last night, we saw the World Heritage Committee dismiss out of hand one of the most bizarre applications we have ever seen from the Commonwealth of Australia, a country that has been a responsible, leading citizen of the World Heritage system for the 40 years since it became only the seventh nation to join the World Heritage convention. It is a bizarre application to delist 70,000 hectares, which rightly has been dismissed out of hand by the World Heritage Committee, and it follows on from a decision by the World Heritage Committee only last week which called on this government to postpone and to hold back on the handover of environmental protection powers to state and local governments because it might impact on the Great Barrier Reef. This government has not even bothered to respond to that decision by the World Heritage Committee. There has been no response that I have seen to the World Heritage Committee's call to postpone the handover of environmental protection powers to state and local governments. Instead, what we saw was this government persisting in bringing forward legislation in blatant disregard of the committee's recommendation—an ultimate decision to push legislation through to hand over the environmental protection powers. It is the culmination of an appalling record on environmental protection.

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

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

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

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

A government member: It crashed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been questions in the parliament for some time as to whether we had an energy minister or an environment minister. I was wondering during the MPI speech we have just had from the minister whether he might name a single living thing. With 1½ minutes to go, he said the word 'reef'—so there was a moment in his speech where he named a living thing. But what we have seen from the environment minister is that, every time he has stood up, he has wanted to answer energy questions. He has not wanted to talk in any way about what is core business for an environment minister—certainly one of his predecessors, Robert Hill, regarded it as a core business—and that is to actually take a level of responsibility for the environment of Australia and its conservation.

What happened last night is no small deal. What happened overnight at the World Heritage Committee cannot in any way be simply overlooked. What happened at the World Heritage Committee last night was that Australia made an application to join the ranks of Oman and Tanzania, the only two countries that have sought the de-listing of an area of natural heritage. In doing so, they had an extraordinary response from the World Heritage Committee. I was watching it online last night. We had a speech from Colombia and a speech from Germany. But the speech from Portugal was extraordinary—and I quote:

The justifications presented for the reduction are to say the least feeble. Accepting this de-listing today would be setting an unacceptable precedent impossible to deny in similar circumstances in the future. If this committee cares for conservation according to responsible engagement of states parties to the convention when they submit their nominations, we cannot accept this requested delisting.

Last night the chair, having heard three speeches opposing what the Australian government was wanting to do, then asked if any of the representatives on the World Heritage Committee wanted to amend the draft recommendation to in any way support Australia's position. And there was silence.

Algeria, Colombia, Croatia, Finland, Germany, India, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, Senegal, Serbia, Turkey and Vietnam are all doing more to protect the environment of Australia than the Australian government. All of them are doing more to protect the environment of Australia than Australia's own environment minister.

And let us not forget the significance of the Tasmanian Forestry Agreement and the way it came together. Because let us face it: both sides of politics for years had played the same game with Tasmanian forestry and Tasmanian conservation. John Howard did it in 1996 and we, the Labor Party, did it on occasions. That is—they sat down and did deals directly with NGOs, to trade for election pamphlets that they then took to the election that stated that certain areas would be put into conservation and other areas would not.

Instead, for the first time this government decided—and did it work to political advantage; it did not work to political advantage, that is true, but it was the right thing to do—to sit down and to say to the forestry sector: 'If you reach an agreement with the environmental sector, we will back it in.' There were times during that process when we were bagged by the Greens. Please do not tell us that the Greens were backing us the whole way through that because anyone who looked at the news knows that that is not true. We said that if the parties reach an agreement, we will back it in. That is exactly why it happened and for very good reason. Those who understand modern forestry industries understand that you need your export markets, which, increasingly, require certification. The key to certification has been saved for export markets for Tasmanian timber, because the World Heritage Committee had a level of responsibility that the Australian government did not have. It had a level of responsibility of ensuring that the long-term interests of the Tasmanian timber industry to keep that agreement in place did remain in place.

That is why the forestry industry themselves wrote to the World Heritage Committee pleading to reject what the Australian government was trying to do. They had done the right thing by the Australian environment. The tallest flowering plants in the world get protected, the forestry industry gets protected out of this and the political game that the government tried to play is at an end. (Time expired)

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

I am pleased to make my contribution to this MPI about protecting Australia's natural environment. I would like to start by suggesting that the most important part of our natural environment is the air that we breathe, because we all have to breathe that air. I would also like at this time to explain how the carbon tax not only damages exports, the economy and job creation; it actually damages our natural environment through damaging the air that we breathe.

To start with, we all know that the carbon tax increases electricity prices. That is what it is designed to do. We know that those on the other side are quite happy to see electricity prices increase because it gives them that warm inner glow, that they believe that it will stop the seas from rising, will stop fires and floods and will prevent bad weather. But it also has an effect: the effect in New South Wales of increasing electricity prices for consumers. In 2012-13, 24,888 families had their electricity disconnected. In the last six months it has actually got worse. In the first half of this year, in New South Wales alone, 25,900 families had their electricity disconnected simply because they could not afford to pay those increasing bills. That is, 25,900 families in New South Wales alone that are seeing their electricity cut off because the electricity prices are too high.

So what happens in parts of Sydney, as we move into winter, when the temperatures fall in many parts of Sydney to zero or below, if people have their electricity cut off? They have to find alternative ways to warm their home. One way in which they can warm their home is to burn wood. Today on the radio in Sydney people are advertising wood for sale, for delivery. If you go to almost any garage in Western Sydney, there, piled up at the petrol station, are bags of timber, all cut up, which you can take home and burn. Of course, if you are fortunate enough to live next to some bushland, it is quite easy to go to the bush and collect a bit of wood to take home, to burn to keep your house warm. That is what we see happening.

When people burn wood, yes, you release carbon dioxide. But you also release, of much greater concern, particulate matter. That is the dust, soot and the particles that come out. While we know that CO2 makes plants grow, particulate matter is deadly. The World Health Organization has designated particulate matter as a carcinogen. It is our deadliest form of air pollution because it actually penetrates deep into the lungs and the bloodstream.

Our most eminent scientists have told us that it causes lung cancer, heart disease, premature death and asthma in children. A Danish study in 2003 found there were simply no safe levels of particulate matter and that, for every 10 micrograms per cubic metre of increase in PM10, lung cancer rates increased 22 per cent. It is even worse for the smaller particulate matter 2.5.

For every 10 micrograms increase, that study found a 36 per cent increase in lung cancer. A more recent study done earlier this year, reported in the British Medical Journal, estimated that an annual exposure of PM2.5 of just five micrograms per cubic metre is linked to a 13 per cent increase in heart disease.

So we are making electricity dearer, we are forcing people to burn wood, because that is all they can afford—they cannot afford to turn on their heater—and that is releasing particulate matter in Western Sydney. It is of particular concern in Western Sydney because of the unique nature of our topography. We know that particulate matter gets trapped in there for days and days. In fact, over the last few years we have seen a significant and dangerous increase in particulate matter in Western Sydney. In fact, last year in Liverpool we were above the World Health Organization's recommended standards for PM2.10. We were also above the World Health Organization standards for PM10. This is simple. The major component of that particulate matter as measured by ANSTO is people burning wood from their fireplace. There is a clear link. As we increase electricity prices through the carbon tax we find more people burning wood to keep themselves warm and we are getting more particulate matter in the atmosphere. That is causing death and disease; it is harming the environment. That is why the carbon tax must go.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Providing appropriate environmental protection is one of the Australian government's core responsibilities and, sadly, it is already emerging as one of the Abbott government's starkest failings. As I have said before, the national government is in the best position—indeed, the only position—from which to have holistic regard to the health of Australia's forests, rivers and oceans; our rainforests, temperate coastland and deserts; and the incredible but fragile cornucopia of flora and fauna that our ancient continent supports. The Australian government is also charged with the serious responsibility of leading our engagement with other nations and in multilateral fora that exist to ensure the planet we all share is properly protected.

Unfortunately, the abdication of this core responsibility is fast becoming a dominant theme in the coalition's approach to government. Those opposite seem to believe that our environment is an endlessly resilient and endlessly exploitable resource whose welfare can be left to the enlightened custody of those whose primary interest is profit, and, in many cases, whose long-term connection to Australia is tenuous. I am not someone who believes that farmers and miners and commercial fishers are ignorant or ambivalent when it comes to the environment—in fact, I know that workers and business owners are often acutely aware that sustainable economic activity only exists on a foundation of vigorous and high-standard environmental regulation. They know, as any sensible person knows, that an effective and robust system of environmental protection requires that government applies its resources, its scope of oversight and its regulatory mechanisms to guarantee the conservation and wellbeing of our natural world.

The greatest harm to the environment is currently being done through the coalition's approach when it comes to climate change—which itself represents the greatest danger to both our environment and our economy. Climate change, for those of a rational mind, is the ideal prism through which to see once and for all the false dichotomy that regards the environment and the economy as opponents or competing interests. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode that features a Troy McClure documentary titled 'Man versus Nature: The Road to Victory!' Is that the road we're on now? Is it really possible that a government led by a self-proclaimed conservationist is set on tearing down the environmental protection framework of the last 30 years en route to a victory against nature, against sharks, against the Beeliar Wetlands and the Great Barrier Reef and the Tasmanian forests? Is that the kind of road-building Prime Minister we now have? Only the most dangerously foolish of fools could take the view that degrading the environment, threatening the climate and taking species to the brink of extinction is justified by some localised, limited economic benefit—especially in a country like ours that is particularly susceptible to a warming, drying climate; in a country that has so much invested in agriculture, fisheries and tourism; in a country that has only recently begun to explore and leverage our enormous potential in renewable energy and energy efficiency. To go right back, as this government seems intent on doing, to a kind of mindless 'rip-it-up', 'anything-goes', 'take-what-you-can-while-you-can' mindset is not only environmentally negligent, it is also an act of social and economic negligence.

I hope that all members in this place give due regard to the Climate Institute's Climate of the Nation 2014 survey released this week. Some of its most salient findings include: the fact that 70 per cent of Australians recognise that climate change is occurring, 61 per cent want Australia to be a leader in pioneering climate change solutions and 57 per cent want the Abbott government to take climate change more seriously; the fact that more Australians support carbon pricing than oppose it; and the fact that 70 per cent agree that tackling climate change creates economic opportunities, and 71 per cent believe the Renewable Energy Target should be 20 per cent or higher. This is a message that I hope those opposite are starting to heed, because it's not too late.

I want to acknowledge yesterday's decision by UNESCO at its World Heritage Committee meeting in Doha to reject the Australian government's attempt to have 74,000 hectares of the Tasmanian Wilderness Heritage Area delisted. The committee apparently took 10 minutes to dismiss what one member described as a 'feeble' proposal. The decision follows the UNESCO consideration of the Great Barrier Reef's status in light of the government's move to amend the EPBC Act, and there is some likelihood that the government's move to devolve its responsibility for environmental assessment to state and local governments will cause UNESCO to reassess the reef as being 'in danger'. That would not be unexpected but it would be an eye-watering embarrassment for this government.

The Prime Minister has recently described himself as a conservationist and I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Australians would like him to make good on that claim. But actions speak louder than words, and on the evidence before us the Prime Minister and the government he leads are now seeking to accelerate down the road to long-term environmental harm.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Port Adelaide said that we could not find 10 minutes there to talk about our environmental record. I just wish we had 20 minutes each, because when you set the hypocrisy of the motion that has been moved today against the extraordinarily bad record of the Labor Party over six years, it must be with a sense of shame that the member for Port Adelaide stood up to talk about environmental management issues. Unlike those opposite, we are taking real action to address environmental issues in our community. That is clearly evidenced by the commitment of $2 billion in the recent budget in tight financial times for a broad range of natural resource management and environmental initiatives across Australia. That is $2 billion for things like $1 billion for Landcare, as the minister said; $2.55 billion for the Emissions Reduction Fund; a supercomputer for the Bureau of Meteorology to provide improved delivery of forecasting and warning; $50 million over the next four years for the 20 Million Trees program; a coastal river recovery initiative to protect our waterways; and a whale and dolphin protection plan. Our Antarctic strategy is back on track with a plan to replace the Aurora Australis and maintain our Antarctic bases, some $68 million to maintain our important Antarctic bases.

The member for Port Adelaide talks about real projects. Let me talk about some of the regional things that are happening that he might be interested in. There is a multiplicity of projects delivered through 15 regional natural resources management organisations across the country. They will ensure that that important nexus between community needs and resources is as strong as it can be, where those community level priorities are the things that drive project deliver That is unlike those opposite, where you had a thought bubble, a rollout of incredible amounts of taxpayer money and then very little policy effect resulting from the extraordinary expenditure. If he wants some examples I will give him some.

The member for Flinders, the environment minister, came to Tasmania about a year before the election and committed to $3 million of funding for a healthier Tamar River. That is going to do some important things for my community. It will fund a three-year program of raking to control silt in the Tamar River. Some form of silt removal has been a feature of that river's management strategy for over 100 years. So this is real money for a real effect. Compare and contrast that with the promises made by the state Labor government. I will not talk about my Labor opponent in the last election; he made no promises for the Tamar River. But the state Labor government, prior to the 2010 election, promised $6.65 million for the Tamar and delivered absolutely nothing in terms of a silt mitigation effect. We also have some money put aside for how we can turn the current archaic sewerage system around Launceston into something that is more First World so that, when there is a heavy rain event, sewage does not pollute the Tamar River. Some quick wins are going to be achieved there and we have a critical path to turning the current infrastructure of that sewerage system into something that is much more First World.

We have two valuable Green Army projects, one from King's Bridge to Duck Reach and another from King's Bridge to the Tailrace, to do things like biodiversity audits, seeding, fencing and making sure that young people who do that work gain some valuable skills they can use for their own purposes and future careers. We have a project that has been proposed by the George Town Council to capture stormwater before it goes into the rivulet and directing it, using a mixture of solar and wind power, to irrigate the playing fields in George Town. That is what you call a real local project.

There are so many good projects for my community that have both strong interest and support, and these things are long overdue. So how dare those opposite, like the member for Port Adelaide, come in here and engage in such rampant hypocrisy after six years of their policy record: the train wreck of waste and thoughtless ideology over substance; the carbon tax which cost $15.4 billion over two years, yet emissions go up; the Home Insulation Program, which resulted in four deaths, 224 home fires, 70,000 repairs and $500 million to fix the problems it caused; the bungled Green Loans program—and I can go on and on. What I ask the member for Port Adelaide and those opposite to do is spare us the lectures and hypocrisy, get out of our way and let us fix your mess. (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to speak on this matter of public importance about the Minister for the Environment's abysmal record for defending the Australian environment. I know the member for Bass, who has just delivered a speech, is only going to be here for a short time but at least when he is looking for a job in two years time he will have the record for giving the worst environmental speech ever from a Tasmanian. He did not mention in his speech the fact that the budget ripped half a billion dollars away from Landcare programs. I thought he might mention that. He did not mention the environment minister's promises of $600 million for solar roofs, solar towns and solar schools—a pre-election comment that was forgotten straight after the election. Only $2.1 million remains for solar towns. The member for Bass did mention some scientific research. However, the budget saw environmental research cut by $21.7 billion.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They can bray all they like over there. The reality is that I am quoting from their budget paper. I know, coming from Queensland, how important the environment is. I grew up at a time when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was the premier and was dedicated to doing sandmining on Fraser Island. It was the then Commonwealth government and a Liberal minister, in fact the now Premier Newman's father, who stepped up to defend Fraser Island. So I know the conservative side of politics does have some runs on the board for protecting the environment. Sadly, we saw in December 2009, when the member for Warringah became the leader, the polarisation on the environment when suddenly we saw the start of appeals to the selfishness that is inherent in some people. Rather than appealing for people to use their wallets and make a small change in their behaviour—putting out the lights, changing how things are done in factories and with transport—that will be to the benefit of the party, instead the Liberal Party has appealed to selfishness, to those lesser angels. It has been an incredibly effective campaign and some of them have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Sadly, it is the more moderate voices among those opposite who understand the economies of direct action which, let's honest, it is an absolute dog of a policy. No economist in the world can support direct action. Why? Because it will not work. Because we have already put a price on carbon, emissions have dropped; it has changed behaviour. We do believe in scientists and we would actually have a science minister. We are not trying to shut down and sack scientists, we believe in the science. Those opposite are environmental vandals, sabotaging the future and our economy, remember, because by putting a price on emissions we will be better prepared to sell our services and our green products to the world.

Government members interjecting—

Those opposite are braying unnecessarily, like in a scene from a Banjo Paterson poem. They have wrapped themselves around this husk of a policy but we know that the costs associated with direct action will be all but a waste of money. Their magic dirt policy will not create any reduction in emissions because all the good achievements have already been rolled out. Let's look at what has been happening. In Queensland, Jeff Seeney, the day after the election, suddenly said the Great Barrier Reef should be a smaller marine par. We have seen the incredibly shameful situation where the member for Flinders's feeble attempt to shrink the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area by 150,000 football fields was shown on the world stage to be sabotage.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

Obviously, we have some over there like the member for Bass, who has all the vision of the southern marsupial mole, lives in a burrow and does not really understand how things are going. (Time expired)

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is funny that Labor claims that the Liberal-National government fails to protect Australia's natural environment.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass is testing my patience.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is funny because their matter of public importance today really is a joke. It is a joke like one of those appalling jokes that you get inside a Christmas bonbon. Let me explain.

I live in Yeppoon, on the beautiful Capricorn Coast. It is a great place with a great view of the Keppel island group, which sits off the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef. Yeppoon is a great place to holiday, and in fact I invite all Australians to book a holiday and come to Yeppoon. You will love it. My position on living near the Great Barrier Reef is quite clear. There must always be balanced consideration for industry growth and job creation, our coastal lifestyle and the conservation of the reef itself.

When it comes to looking out for the Great Barrier Reef, a great natural wonder, this government has been working hard. We are doing what UNESCO asked us to do by limiting port development to key existing ports along the Queensland coastline. At the Abbot Point coal terminal, in North Queensland, the federal government has applied the strictest environmental standards in Australian history with regard to any future expansion activity. When they were in power, Labor wanted to dump 38 million cubic metres of dredging sand from Abbot Point into the water at the edge of the Great Barrier Reef. Our government, however, is far more responsible in caring for Australia's natural environment. The coalition government has limited such activity to three million cubic metres in the interest of the reef. Let's do the sums: Labor wanted to dump 38 million cubic metres of dredge near the reef; that is 35 million more than we will allow. What a joke!

But we are not the only ones that see Labor's bungling of the environment as a joke. Let me refer you to a brilliant article in a recent online edition of London's Daily Telegraph. It was written by Andrew Critchlow. It appeals to the British Prime Minister not to make the same mistakes on climate change as the Australian Labor Party. Let me quote directly from this article:

As flood waters across Britain continue to rise the calls will inevitably grow louder for Prime Minister David Cameron to take … action on climate change by imposing tougher green taxes on business.

In the current circumstance it would be easy for Mr Cameron to make a knee jerk response and fall into the political trap of raising taxes on emissions to counter global warming, which many experts already blame for causing the current deluge.

Before acting the prime minister would be wise to draw on the experience of Australia, where the call for major policy changes to counter adverse weather cycles have spectacularly backfired.

A series of environmental disasters Down Under coupled with the Australian Labor Party's reliance on an uneasy coalition with the Greens forced former Prime Minister Julia Gillard … to press ahead with a controversial so called "carbon tax" on emissions.

The tax—which almost cost the Australian government more to collect than it raised in actual revenue, or achieved in terms of a better environment—was … poorly thought out …

…   …   …

The tax was designed to hit the country's biggest emitters of carbon pollution such as mining and energy companies. Instead it added to the uncertainty hanging over the resources boom, the main driver for the Australian economy.

…   …   …

Ultimately, the tax failed in its political objective of holding together Labor's fragile minority government with the Greens, or winning over voters who faced higher costs passed on by the companies that had to pay it.

The London Telegraph went on to describe Labor's carbon tax as 'perhaps the most unsuccessful and ineffectual policy in the country's history'. It warned the British Prime Minister not to go down the same path as the Australian Labor Party.

Let me get back to the very first point I raised—that Labor's matter of public importance today is a joke. It reminds me of the last lines of that song. I will not sing it, but it goes like this: 'Send in the clowns, send in the clowns. Don't worry, they're here.'

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a pleasure it is to rise to speak about the environment in this place. I see that the purported environment minister is in the House with us today. Wouldn't it be nice if the purported environment minister ever got up and spoke about the environment in question time. Wouldn't it be nice if in question time there was ever a question about the environment to the so-called environment minister, but there is not. As I have said before, one day the purported environment minister will come in here and talk about the environment, and I am pretty sure that everyone will fall over in shock because here we have an environment minister who would rather speak about anything else but the environment. We have an environment minister who has been unable to deliver the solar policy that he spoke about, and we have an environment minister who is making some questionable decisions when it comes to climate policy.

Let's have a think about the Emissions Reduction Fund—what an amazingly ridiculous policy we are talking about. Here is a fund where polluters will be paid to pollute, where there will be no cap on pollution—

Mr Hutchinson interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Lyons is grossly disorderly.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and where there will be no requirement on any single person or any single company. There will be no requirement to reduce emissions. There will be no cap on emissions. There will be payments to polluters.

Why would the so-called Minister for the Environment want to introduce such a policy when the obvious difficulties with it are there for everybody to see? For example, how on earth could we be persuaded of the additionality of the measures that will be brought in and funded under the ERF? How on earth could we be persuaded that that is good value for taxpayer money? How on earth could we be persuaded that the same companies that are benefiting from the ERF would not be taking the same mitigation actions as they otherwise would be were it not for the taxpayer subsidising them?

Of course, the biggest question of all when it comes to the Emissions Reduction Fund is: why replace the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a spectacularly successful policy, with an Emissions Reduction Fund where taxpayers pay polluters? Why not keep the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a commercial lending operation where moneys are lent to people who want to take action to mitigate pollution and want to reduce emissions? And it is a win-win because the Clean Energy Finance Corporation runs at a profit. Money is made by lending money on appropriate terms to companies that want to reduce pollution and mitigate emissions. Why not have a Clean Energy Finance Corporation instead of this ridiculous ERF policy that has been universally panned? No-one in this place and no-one outside this place thinks that this government has any credibility whatsoever when it comes to the environment. We have seen the lack of credibility. You just have to look as recently as yesterday when the bizarre application to the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO was quite properly knocked backed by the World Heritage Committee.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you ever been to Tasmania?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyons!

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I have been to Tasmania. And, like the previous Labor speaker, I am from the bush as well.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you ever met a timber worker?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Barker!

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am from up north. I know all about the environment, and that is why I am so shocked by this mob and what it is prepared to do when it comes to the environment. Not only was this mob prepared to make an application to the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO to seek to delist 74,000 hectares of forest from World Heritage but, had the application been accepted, it would have made us only the third country to actively seek to delist World Heritage. It is ridiculous! And it is making Australia a laughing stock. All I can say is: thank goodness for the World Heritage Committee and the sensible decision that it made not to allow the application to delist those 74,000 hectares of forest.

We know that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to the World Heritage Committee. We have had to have the World Heritage Committee give the Queensland government a rap over the knuckles and give the federal government a rap over the knuckles when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef. As the purported environment minister well knows, the draft decision that was being—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will resume her seat. Now, the member for Bass on a point of order.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is the second occasion the member for Griffith has spoken in pejorative terms about the minister. I believe she should withdraw and refer to him by his correct title.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith might refer to the minister by his correct title.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I shall refer to him as the environment minister, thank you very much. (Time expired)

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise on this occasion. I speak to the gallery and to yourself in particular, Deputy Speaker Scott, and to those listening to the debate. You would think from the speeches that I have heard today—from the shadow minister through all the speakers—that the governments of today and in the past have served the nation poorly. And, actually, that is not the case.

In my experience, from when the former Prime Minister Bob Hawke said we were going to plant a billion trees until today, I have seen the nation, when it has had the money to do it, invest heavily in the environment for the betterment of the people—your children and the children to come. I have seen it in my own district. I was reminded yesterday by the Millennium Goals people how beautiful my electorate was. They had had dealings in Gippsland. They then began to describe my electorate to me. They described Wilsons 'Prom'; they described Mount Baw Baw and the hills; they described the farmland; and they described all the work that Landcare had done over many years that has transformed areas of the Strzeleckis. Through all of the governments down the ages, especially the Howard government, do you know what we saw? Because they had the money to do the job, as you would know, Deputy Speaker Scott, they poured money into the environment. We had the money to do it.

The difference with the previous government that we have just experienced is that the money was blown. It was gone. You cannot be green when you are in the red. Having said that, as a community, and, obviously, from the speeches that you have heard today, we care about the environment on both sides of the House. I am disappointed in some of the remarks that came from the Labor people today, because—and I say to the gallery—they are actually not true about this government. I would say about the previous government it was a good idea to put pink batts into houses across Australia. But the delivery turned into a monumental horror story and into sadness for the families that were directly affected.

Are some of the things that we do as a community good ideas? Yes, they are good ideas. We do not build houses now without insulating those houses. We make sure that there has been a massive change in the way that we build houses here, the way farmers think about their property, the way we have non-till ploughing, the way we have non-till sowing, and all the changes that have been made in Tasmania. It is one of the most beautiful places in Australia. One of my reps in the shop used to come in and say, 'Tasmania, mate, it is Australia's, if not the world's, best kept secret—Tasmania.' I know the three representatives that sit close by me here are passionate about their community. They show it in everything they do and in every approach they take. I want you to be proud of what has happened.

Now, you are going to say that I am right out of order here but I actually do not like international bodies making decisions about what happens here in this country. I really do not like it. I like the fact that local government makes decisions about what they do with their dogs and where you can walk them. I like the fact that state governments make decisions about how they are going to manage their police force. I like the fact that we make decisions here about defence and social security. I would like to think that the Australian government actually is clear about its responsibilities and how they are delivered. I really do not like somebody in an international body deciding what we do here, even though we have made application to that body. It is important that we keep, always, the responsibilities for the environment of this nation in Australian hands, in local hands, in state hands and in federal hands. I commend all of you speakers to the House and I look forward to the next speaker, if there is one.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, there is not. The discussion has concluded.