John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Some people have accused me of hating the environment because of my opposition to wind farms—and I did vote for the repeal of the carbon tax. But, if we are not saving the environment for people, what is the purpose of environmental changes? I care about salinity; I care about smarter ways to do things; I care about the use of natural gas in our country; and I do care about the protection and preservation of our natural assets.

The Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014 establishes the government's $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund. It will replace the carbon tax and, hopefully, incentivise a host of new emissions-saving initiatives. The Emissions Reduction Fund achieves two objectives: it protects existing projects and it creates opportunities for new ones. There are currently 170 projects across the country, and, in my home state of Victoria, there are already 19 existing projects. These projects are doing the job that they set out to do—whether we like it or not—but they are relying on this $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund in order to continue. These firms and their workers went into this venture and—whether we like it or not—we cannot just turn off the switch.

We have not had any meaningful policy since July of this year. If we do not have some sort of policy soon, people will lose their jobs and people will lose their investments. People have borrowed money against their homes to finance these businesses. More than 170 projects across Australia could ultimately fail, and that means more jobs that will be lost as a consequence. I just cannot accept this, and I do not want it on my conscience. I repeat: 170 projects across Australia could fail if this bill is not passed.

There are about 22,000 forestry workers in my home state of Victoria, and there are more than 70,000 forestry workers across Australia. Earlier today, I asked Mr Hunt what would be the impact on those workers? I honestly thought that the ALP cared about working Australians, and I thought that the ALP cared about working families. Frankly, I do not understand the hypocrisy; how many people in this place actually understand this bill? When you jump on the climate bandwagon and have a hissy fit, you ultimately miss the details; you miss the key points that can decide support or failure. How many people actually understand the importance of this bill to manufacturing and people's livelihoods? How many understand the importance of this bill to jobs and to money on the table for Australian families? How many understand the importance of this bill in helping families pay school fees and mortgages? Whether you like it or not, those are the facts that we are dealing with. For me, this is ultimately not about ideology, and it is not about numbers in a ledger; it is about people and it is about jobs, and I make no apology for that.

I am no fan of managed investment schemes. They consumed valuable farming land and they attracted some dodgy operators. Currently in many areas, MIS trees are being bulldozed and burnt. What a waste and what a failure! How dispiriting for adjoining farmers to live and work next to such agricultural destruction. All of this has distorted farmland values. MIS schemes pushed up land beyond the reach of farmers. This land will ultimately come back onto the market, and prices will drop; this drop will extend to cultivated land. The consequences could be grim, especially for those farmers who are in debt to the banks. The whole MIS episode has been a debacle and remains so. It is my hope the ERF will keep some of these trees in the ground. It is my hope the ERF will bring social, environmental and economic benefits. The ERF will welcome new entrants while supporting more businesses to do more projects.

The government tells business to innovate. The government itself must innovate, and, by so doing, it must take some risks. If the government does not provide leadership, what is the point of having any government? Some would say, 'Let's just leave it to the market'. I say, 'What a furphy,' just like the LRET—another furphy. It is still dishing out renewable energy certificates to ineligible wind farm rorters. These are the same wind farm rorters ripping off electricity consumers.

The carbon tax was a money grab from big polluters who inevitably transferred the cost burden to the public. The carbon tax drove up electricity prices, which ultimately punished families, crippled Australian industry and cost jobs. I hope that this amendment will inspire innovation. I hope that it will encourage responsible behaviour. I hope that it will reward initiatives that result in tangible emissions reductions. This is a more positive, practical and sustainable environmental solution than the toxic carbon tax.

The ERF will promote energy efficiency in households and in retail and manufacturing businesses. The ERF will continue to support the capture of methane from landfills to contribute to the generation of baseload on demand electricity. It will capture the waste gas from coalmines. It will support projects that reduce transport based emissions. Hopefully, Direct Action will achieve the objectives of responsible and necessary emissions reductions. Taking up Direct Action will, hopefully, help clean up our environment. It will, hopefully, reduce energy costs. It will, hopefully, improve business outcomes for Australia's families, farmers and manufacturers.

I have listened to this debate, and I have heard many opinions. What I fear most is when fear is used to try to persuade and cajole people. I say that it is time to use leadership and vision. Do I think this bill is perfect? Nothing in this place is perfect. But, without a doubt, I hope that this bill is a step in the right direction.