Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I certainly will. The Labor Party still have no idea what they're voting on when they talk about the Emergency Response Fund. Those opposite would rather politicise the issue of rural firefighting by making totally wrong and illogical claims about the Emergency Response Fund. To begin with, that fund was voted for by the Labor Party. They agreed with the establishment of this fund. They should have known about it—if they don't know about it, it would be very interesting to understand why they don't know about it—because the Emergency Response Fund cannot be accessed until advice is received that money from that fund is required and all other funding sources have been depleted. That's its purpose and that's what you voted for and that's what you agreed to. The ERF allows for $150 million each financial year to fund emergency response and recovery following natural disasters and—and this is the kicker—when the government determines that existing recovery programs are insufficient to meet the scale of the response required. You agreed to it. In addition, $50 million each financial year would be available from the fund to build resilience to and to prepare for or reduce the risk of future natural disasters when the government determines that funding over and above its existing suite of arrangements is required. You voted for it and you agreed to it.

Why haven't we accessed the $150 million that I've just listed? It's quite simple: the government has established the $2 billion Bushfire Recovery Fund. Some electorates, including the one I live in, which is represented by an ALP member, have received more than the total $150 million allowable under the ERF. So it's an interesting situation, and I guess the question is: why haven't we accessed the $50 million for mitigation?

Well, the government is already spending over $260 million in joint funding with state and territory jurisdictions on resilience and on mitigation activity. Of course the minister will always consider advice from Emergency Management Australia with regard to accessing the fund, if that is required, and, if so, what it should be spent on.

Of course we're preparing for the 2021 disaster season. I won't go into the detail at this stage; others will, and it was gone through in great detail by the minister and by others in the take note debate today. Just let me mention Defence; Services Australia; Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements changes; communications—and all in a COVID environment. And there's the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework, and, of course, a royal commission. This is what preparation is about, and this is what Labor should look at in order to understand preparation.

Labor's claim that we should be developing a national aerial firefighting fleet is totally misplaced, because the fleet's there. What a disgrace their claim is to the years of work by good people, and the financing by good governments, to produce a national aerial firefighting fleet. It's a bizarre claim. Go to a fire just about anywhere, and look up. If you see an aircraft, as you invariably will, it will be part of our national fleet. If you don't see an aircraft, it's probably because you can't see through the smoke or it's night time.

In each of the years that I was a director of the National Aerial Firefighting Centre, we had a minimum of roughly 100 aircraft in the national aerial firefighting fleet, from the roughly $11 million to $12 million that was, at that time, being provided by the Commonwealth government. There are vast additional costs to this: the $11 million or $12 million just starts the leasing process, with the additional costs paid for by the states and territories.

That $11 million has now become $24 million—some development! It's a bit like Labor's claims that health and the ABC's budget have been reduced. Compared to the minimum of, roughly, 100 aircraft when I was a director, guess how many will be actually leased this year? Guess how many can be deployed? If needed, 158 aircraft, in total, are available—some development, I reckon: double the money, and a significant increase in the number of aircraft. And, of those 158 aircraft, 128 aircraft are Australian based, owned and registered. I heard Senator Watt saying something today about him having been recently briefed or being about to be briefed on aspects of this. It must have continually slipped his mind.

And what about the royal commission? We've heard Senator Urquhart quoting the royal commission's recommendations, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3. On 8.2, research and evaluation: we are doing it. On 8.3, support and development: of course we're doing it. On 8.1: we have already done it.

I would prefer, in the few seconds I've got left, to move away from ideological climate change ex-commissioners and find some knowledgeable experts, and that is what I would recommend the Labor Party do. The Commonwealth is not and should not be going to get into aerial firefighting—except to coordinate and to fund, and that is what they do.

So we reject entirely the proposition in today's MPI. My colleagues will further argue the case on all of those points.