Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Isn’t it amazing that, in a time when the centrepiece is apparently about producing a more carbon efficient society, a society where if we reduce carbon it will have an effect on the globe, the only tangible thing that this Labor Party government has done is that it has made the situation worse. Every time there is some kerfuffle in this parliament or there is some issue in the other place, what happens is that either Mr Garrett or Minister Wong runs out of the joint and scraps a scheme. The latest is one that has been pursued through this place since 2001. It was the Howard-Anderson government that commenced the RRPG scheme. In fact, the program was revised again in 2004 by the Howard-Anderson government to be extended to 2012. It was the Howard-Vaile government that put in a further $123.5 million, offering 50 per cent rebates of up to $8,000. But ever since the Rudd government has been in we have had the paradox of the difference between what it intends to create for the planet and intends to deliver to Australia and what it actually has delivered to Australia, especially regional Australia.

Solar panels in regional Australia are an extremely effective and efficient way of delivering power to remote areas. Solar panels actually take out of production diesel engines. I thought it was the reduction in the reliance on fossil fuel which was the whole crux of the Labor government’s ETS policy. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot go through every day using rhetoric and the raving-banshee approach of, ‘The world is going to come to a screaming halt unless the emissions trading scheme goes through,’ and put up your authenticity on that issue, and take it to this chamber—with, you know, the serene looks: ‘We are going to save the world this afternoon with the emissions trading scheme’—while, at the same time, for something that really does have an effect, really does reduce carbon emissions and actually is working in the Australian economy, you pull the funding.

It was a complete surprise when one day, about a month ago, in the paper the people in the solar panel industry were talking about how good the industry was, and doing a great sort of promotion job for the government, and yet, the next day, Mr Garrett pulled part of the rebate scheme. And now, today, we have the cessation of the capacity of those in remote and regional areas to get access to solar panels to take the place of diesel generation. That has been pulled. We know exactly why they have done it—because there has been a torrent of media and the spotlight is on the other place. So, whilst it is, they are doing what they are always doing—running out and scrapping schemes because of the reality of exactly where they are financially.

Where they are financially, as we all know, is on the road to insolvency. This government is on the road to insolvency. It is very cryptic that it is today that we find out about this scheme being scrapped. My office has contacted the Australian Office of Financial Management to find out exactly what our bills and notes are drawn down to, and they are drawn down to approximately $99.9 billion. So we are about to crack the first $100 billion in federal government debt—and that is actually quite an increase from only about a month ago. In celebration of cracking that $100 billion in federal government debt in notes and bonds, we are going to scrap a scheme for regional Australia. It is a scheme for those people who are the most removed from the public service dollar that is so apparent in other areas, a scheme for those people to whom we are trying to deliver some semblance—if only a parody—of that standard of living by giving them access to a solar-generated power supply. It is peculiar that, on this day, the $100-billion birthday of the Labor Party’s debt, we are scrapping a scheme that has been so effective in so many parts of this nation.

This scheme was brought about by the side of politics that the Labor Party has always insisted are the sceptics, the people who do not want to do anything about the climate. But this was clear evidence of a policy that was part of a program to reduce carbon. A carbon pollution reduction scheme is completely encompassed in what this was. But it has been scrapped because it is not the type of scheme that the Labor Party want. The Labor Party want the broker-bureaucrat-banker scheme, in which we open up an absolute gravy train of largesse for certain people, who are probably very wonderful and well-meaning people, in the middle of town—brokers, bankers and bureaucrats—who will be the profiteers from the impediments that are going to be put on the productive side of our economy.

This scheme shows the conservative side of how we deal with this issue—investment in the areas that are the productive capacity of our nation, to assist them and, at the same time, reduce the carbon component of their footprint. It is the practical form of going forward with a policy of carbon reduction, which is the complete antithesis of the banker-bureaucrat-broker scheme that the Labor Party is inspiring.

Today is the $100-billion-debt anniversary of the Labor government—or $99.9 billion; that is what they have got us in hock for today. Remember, they always thought that this was going to happen in 2013-14. Well, here we are, on 23 June, and we are $100 billion in hock today. To celebrate that, to put the candle on the cake, they are going to turn off the solar program for remote and regional Australia! Why? If you wished to be authentic then you should have had the authenticity to continue with the schemes that are doing the job that, as you have so ably displayed in this chamber, is your ultimate wish. In your ultimate wish to save the planet, your desire is to reduce carbon emissions. How can you possibly keep a straight face when the crux of today’s ploy is to actually increase carbon emissions—to move people from solar back to diesel? What is the logic of that? The metaphor you are selling is completely and utterly confused. But you think you can get away with it because of the ruckus that is going on in other places—just like the last time Mr Garrett pulled the pin on one of these schemes. It was the same deal: ‘We wait for a ruckus and then we run out and pull the scheme.’

Well, Mr Garrett no longer has any credibility, I believe. Everything he has ever stood for has paled into insignificance. I can see members of the Labor Party nodding, so they are probably acknowledging that—the issue of Mr Garrett’s authenticity in everything he has done. I remember the times when I used to watch him at the Arts Factory at Byron Bay with Midnight Oil, and then at uni. I mean, who was that person? Who is the person we have got now?