Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow Senator Joyce. When I read Senator Joyce’s motion I was intrigued by the hypocrisy that is implicit in it. You have to ask: where does the hypocrisy lie in this debate about Australia’s low-emissions, low-carbon green future?

It is true that after taking government from the Liberal Party in 2007 the Rudd Labor government continued with the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program because it was a useful program that provided financial support to increase the use of renewable generation in remote parts of Australia that otherwise relied on diesel and other fossil fuels for electricity supply. However, since the dramatic rise of diesel prices, particularly in the last year, the government has seen a significant increase in the number of applications for the program and, in approving the qualifying applications, the government has exhausted its budget allocation for the program. Ultimately, it became too successful a program for the government to continue to provide it in an affordable and responsible fashion. The industry had been aware for some time of the increasing number of applications for funding under this program just as the industry was also aware that the program had a finite budget, and the industry was also aware that that had rapidly been fully committed. I acknowledge also the concerns of industry about the notice given for the cessation of funding for the program, but because of the huge increase in recent applications it was imperative for the government to give notice of the end of the program without encouraging even more applications which could not be supported.

Focusing on the achievements of the program in the seven years that it has been available for remote Australian homes and communities, not-for-profit organisations, businesses, governments and industry, we acknowledge that more than $300 million was committed to renewable energy generation in remote and regional Australia. Additionally, more than 7,000 residential and medium-scale projects up to 20 kilowatts in size went ahead, almost half of them being approved in the last 18 months. Residential and medium-scale projects, plus renewable energy water pumps, with a total power capacity of more than 10,600 kilowatts of solar, wind and microhydro, which are estimated to have saved more than 24 million litres of diesel fuel each year, have also been implemented, and the program is still supporting 31 major projects with $52 million in funding, saving more than seven million litres of diesel fuel each year as well as other fossil fuels. One hundred and seventy renewable generation systems for Indigenous communities were installed. What the opposition probably will not tell you is that there are still more than 1,100 applications remaining in the pipeline for this program. It is estimated that that will result in at least another six months work for the industry, and there will be continued support for industry training, accreditation, inspections, testing and standards development.

Those opposite will of course claim, as they always do, that the government is not supportive of remote and regional communities. However, what they fail to tell you about is the range of initiatives that the government has and its ongoing commitment for a cleaner and more energy efficient future throughout Australia. The motion that we are debating fails to recognise that and the number of other options that people in businesses in remote communities can still take advantage of in the fight against climate change. These include support for households, businesses and community groups for the first 1.5 kilowatts of small-scale installations completed under the program on or after 9 June 2009—that is, of course, if the renewable energy target legislation is passed—and access for homeowners to free, tailored advice for their homes, and interest-free loans of up to $10,000 through the Green Loans Program. Homeowners can benefit from Australia’s most comprehensive rollout of energy efficient rebates in history through the $4 billion Energy Efficient Homes package. There is also the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative, which provides rebates of up to $500 for households to install rainwater tanks or greywater systems.

Businesses, community organisations, not-for-profit organisations and governments will all receive support under the government’s $2.75 billion Climate Change Action Fund. There is also the government’s $2 billion Caring for our Country program, which is available to regional natural resource management organisations, not-for-profit organisations, Indigenous organisations, community groups et cetera. As well, there is the government’s Solar Flagship program, a $1.6 billion commitment which will rapidly accelerate the deployment of commercial-scale solar technology in Australia. That funding will be used to construct large-scale power stations in Australia, targeting 1,000 megawatts of electricity generation. Funding will be allocated under a competitive process, with the intention of funding projects across a range of solar technologies designed to move solar into mainstream energy supply. That will be a cooperative program between the federal government, state governments and private investment—a very significant initiative which will do a great deal to improve the availability of renewable energy sources across Australia.

Additionally, the government will continue to provide $2.2 million over the coming two years to support the not-for-profit Bushlight program, a renewable energy program devoted to assisting Indigenous communities with energy advice and renewable energy support services. As has been often mentioned by government senators, the government is committed to closing the gap of Indigenous disadvantage in remote and regional Australia and through a whole-of-government approach a range of additional education, health, housing, employment and family and community services are being implemented to do just that.

As I mentioned at the outset the whole thrust of this motion that we are debating today is pretty extraordinary given that it is sponsored by a climate change sceptic—a senator who vehemently opposes the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This motion, like so much of the activity that has happened in this chamber over the last couple of days, indeed the last week, is another hypocritical and low-rent political stunt by an opposition that are divided and dysfunctional and will do anything that they possibly can to delay the debate and a decision being made on the single biggest environmental initiative by any government in Australia. Those opposite want to delay the debate and the decision on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because they cannot work out what their position is on it. It is clear though, I think, that the Nationals will vote against the CPRS. Yet Senator Joyce and others still insist on playing these games and moving these ridiculous motions to prevent that debate from even continuing.

There are two significant factors which stand out as reasons that this MPI today is a pointless waste of Senate time. Firstly, there is the alleged hypocrisy in the government’s action of ceasing funding for one renewable energy program, while we are trying at the very same time to pass an even greater program through the Senate, a national initiative of the kind that the nation has never seen before. Senator Joyce and all of those opposite do not want to see the CPRS pass through the Senate yet the motion has been lodged today here in this pathetic attempt to divert the debate from what the debate should be about—which is nation building and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the importance of that to Australia’s clean green future. You would have to ask why someone who is so dead against actually believing in climate change is so adamant on this motion. The hypocrisy there is breathtaking.

The second reason that the MPI is a waste of time is the fact that the Renewable Remote Power Generation program has ceased to be funded because it came to the end of its budget allocation. The government has made a wise decision that to go on funding it beyond the budget allocation would be fiscally irresponsible. The government has made a decision that the funding that would otherwise go to programs such as this can be much better used on more comprehensive, strategic and effective programs. This program was always going to be a capped program and the government has reached the limit of that cap. So now we have this ridiculous MPI from the so-called bush accountant over there who says that we should ignore budget realities and ignore our budget responsibilities.

We have had endless hysterical utterances from those over there since the announcement of the government’s 2009-10 budget—hysterical claims that the Labor Party is sending the nation into debt and accusations of reckless spending and record debts. They have condemned our successful economic stimulus packages that have saved jobs and reduced debt. In fact, they voted against those responsible economic stimulus packages. And yet when we act in a responsible manner, as we have with regard to this program, to reduce debt then suddenly the same bush accountants over there are up in arms and accusing us of being hypocritical. I know who the hypocrites are in this particular chamber and I think some of you over there do too.

I have already mentioned a number of programs which rural and regional communities have access to to continue the fight against climate change. If the opposition stopped acting to delay the passing of the renewable energy target bill along with the CPRS legislation in the Senate this week, further options would be provided for an energy efficient future. When the government came to office some 18 months ago we did inherit a collection of ad hoc and uncoordinated climate policy measures and programs. Few of them though there were, they were not part of any strategic plan on the part of the former government. In fact, the former government did no comprehensive planning for the future of our environment. Indeed the former government neglected to comprehensively deal with climate change at all and, as we know, were constantly in alliance with the former United States government to stop any global action on reducing carbon emissions. While they were in government, they refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and they failed to engage with the global community on the debate on climate change.

I have said many times in this chamber how pleased I was when one of the first actions of the Rudd Labor government was to ratify the Kyoto protocol and to take the step up to engage with the rest of the global community to address the very significant effects of climate change that we are feeling everyday in this country. The former government neglected to invest in renewables; they failed to see the importance of investing in creating new jobs in environmentally-friendly industries. They neglected to improve our rivers. And I cannot conclude this speech about the environment without once again mentioning that in the whole of the term of the former government they failed to purchase a single litre of water to put back into our rivers.

Many of their climate change policies, of course, hinged on voluntary actions on the part of the nation’s residents who, with goodwill, wished to do what they could. But it is time for the nation to take the next step up. We need a comprehensive national strategy to address climate change, and the core components of that are the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the Renewable Energy Target. It is about time those opposite addressed the really important issues in this debate and stopped wasting the Senate’s time with ridiculous MPIs.