Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked today.

Senator Wong this afternoon had an immediate opportunity to make a statement that would have immediate impact upon the state and the health of the Murray-Darling Basin system, and Senator Wong copped out yet again. It is very difficult to get any sort of an answer from Senator Wong to questions we ask in this chamber. But today she was given the opportunity of demonstrating that the Labor government could do something definitive to help the environmental health of the Murray-Darling Basin system.

There is only 13 per cent capacity in Eildon Dam at the moment—the dam on the Goulburn River, which is part of Murray-Darling Basin system. The Labor government in Victoria, because it has been completely neglectful of any alternative water supplies for Melbourne is now attempting to pinch that water from the environmental reserves in the Eildon Dam and to feed it into Melbourne, where it will water gardens and flush toilets of the citizens of Melbourne. They are doing that because they have been remiss in not providing sufficient other sources of water over many, many years.

This panic attack by the Victorian Labor government on these environmental reserves in the Murray-Darling Basin system should be stopped, and it can be stopped by the Commonwealth government—by Senator Wong and Mr Garrett—by refusing EPBC Act approval for the north-south pipeline, which is proposed to take water from the Murray-Darling Basin system over the range and into Melbourne. Senator Wong today had the classic opportunity to make a difference to the environmental health of the Murray-Darling Basin system, and she squibbed on it.

Senator Wong was also asked by my colleague Senator Kemp about the number of what she called ‘millionaires’ who would no longer be able to access the solar panel rebate that the Howard government had initiated. Senator Wong must know, and Mr Garrett must know, of the number of cancellations since budget night of contracts to install solar hot water panels. In Townsville on the day after the budget my office was inundated with approaches from those who install solar panels with evidence as to the number of cancellations of contracts by people who earn $100,000, $115,000 or $120,000—not millionaires, as Senator Wong called them yesterday, but ordinary average families. There was a plumber, whose partner is a schoolteacher. They would be earning a little over $100,000. They are the sort of people that wanted to do their bit for the environment by having solar panels installed. But, as a result of the Labor government’s budget and a commitment requirement that was not mentioned prior to the election, Labor have installed a means test which makes it impossible for those earning just over $100,000 to have these panels installed. I want to again make the point that people earning $102,000 are not the millionaires that Senator Wong was speaking about. She should know a millionaire when she sees one as her leader is a millionaire, so Senator Wong should be able to identify millionaires. People earning $102,000 are certainly not millionaires and should be entitled to avail themselves of the subsidy, the solar panel rebate.

On every front in the six months that Labor have been in power they have shown themselves not to be friends of the environment. In fact, they have been acting very much in reverse. They have destroyed many of the initiatives of the previous government that made a difference to the environment through the programs that we had.

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

I would like to respond to the comments made by Senator Ian Macdonald in relation to the answers in response to questions without notice given today by the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, particularly as to the initiatives that the Rudd government has undertaken in respect of environmental matters, initiatives that are desperately urgent. We have taken them because we have had to, because the previous government failed to address significant issues of climate change during its 11 long years in government. Senator Macdonald referred today to a ‘classic opportunity’. Well, a few classic opportunities have gone begging over on your side, Senator Macdonald; that is for sure. You have had the classic opportunity this week to pass the Rudd government’s budget legislation and deliver to Australia’s working families the budget initiatives that we promised them prior to the election, which they are waiting for. But, instead of taking the opportunity to assist Australia’s working families, you have taken the opportunity to go on strike in fact. We have had a lot of discussion by the coalition today about strikes. It seems to me that is what you over there have done by refusing to deal with important legislation, so jeopardising some $284 billion worth of initiatives that could have assisted Australia’s working families.

As part of our budget initiatives, we have numerous things to do with addressing the dire situation of the Murray-Darling Basin and Australia’s environmental issues in general. Senator Wong referred to one of the extraordinary things that we were able to achieve in the first four months of government: getting COAG agreement on what we were going to do about the Murray-Darling Basin. I take a particular interest in the Murray-Darling Basin because I live in Adelaide, which is towards the end of the Murray-Darling Basin, and I am well aware of the dire situation of the lakes at the mouth of the Murray. It was therefore heartening indeed to see, under Senator Wong’s leadership, the state governments and the federal government of Australia finally reach agreement on what to do about the Murray-Darling Basin. In this budget we have brought forward $384.8 million in funding to accelerate water purchases and to begin some infrastructure projects in the basin. That $384.8 million is on top of another $15.2 million that was brought forward during the 2007-08 estimates. That $400 million forms part of the Rudd government’s $12.9 billion Water for the Future package, a package that focuses on four key priorities including taking action on climate change, using water wisely, securing water supplies and supporting healthy rivers. The government has already started a $50 million buyback program and has secured entitlements to an additional 35 billion litres of water for the Murray-Darling Basin. I acknowledge that, while we have had water buybacks and the other initiatives that we have speedily implemented to try to save the Murray-Darling system, nothing can compensate for the necessity to have additional rainfall in this country.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but you’re letting water go to Melbourne.

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

While opposition members sit over there and make noises about how our initiatives are inadequate and how we should have done more, I do not hear Senator Macdonald say how he is going to make it rain.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, but I’d stop them taking water out of the Goulburn River. That is what I would do.

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

Instead he carries on about pipelines in Queensland and toilets in Victoria and he criticises a senator who has been appointed the Minister for Climate Change and Water. It is the first time ever in Australia that we have had a minister whose specific responsibility is to address these issues—an initiative that would never have occurred to the previous government to implement. Why wouldn’t that have occurred to them? Because the previous government, now the coalition opposition, were infested with climate change sceptics who did nothing in 11 years to address the dire situation of water in Australia, in particular that situation in the eastern states, particularly in my state. (Time expired)

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My goodness! Senator McEwen has just very strongly claimed that the coalition government did not recognise climate change and did not do anything about it. I wonder, Senator McEwen, whether you could explain, if that is the case, why the Howard government introduced the world’s first Greenhouse Office in 1996, at the beginning of our term. For heaven’s sake, do not peddle that old line of Penny Wong, because it does not have any credibility.

The Howard government had a wide range of environmental policies, the highlight of which was their concern for renewable energy. We had very strong incentives for people to take up renewable energy. Here in Australia our options are limited. We do not have mountains with lots of snow, so we cannot use hydro power. Wind power options around this country are not available as they are in places such as Germany and Greece. But what we do have in Australia is lots of sunshine.

One of the things the Howard government did was recognise that solar power was the most important possible source of renewable energy in Australia. Accordingly, we developed policies to encourage people to use solar power for energy supplies to their homes. As part of the Howard government’s comprehensive energy policies, we developed the photovoltaic rebate, encouraging people to put photovoltaic cells on their roofs and generate power for their homes in that way using the power of the sun. The rebate encouraged many people to take up the option of using solar power. In fact, in 2000, some $50 million was provided, facilitating the placement of about 10,000 systems on people’s roofs. It was a very successful program—so successful in fact that last year the Howard government doubled the rebate, from $4,000 to $8,000 per unit, which was given to people to encourage them to put in these units.

That program was very successful and led to a great increase in the uptake of solar panels. For you in the ALP to now means test that rebate at $100,000, which you claim is a millionaire’s income, is the biggest backtrack I have ever heard from any party in the history of Federation on a policy which they said was a key policy and was absolutely inviolable. The backtrack by the ALP on this policy is not only a broken promise of the last election but a complete break in faith with the people who supported you—a total breach of the faith put in you by so many people around Australia.

The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, has admitted that this policy was introduced without any consultation with industry; yet is has wrecked the solar power industry. As a result of your policy, apparently, production in photovoltaic panels is diminishing at an alarming rate. Orders have dropped by 80 per cent. There has been a loss of jobs in the industry, as well as a collapse in confidence. I am completely amazed that Senator McEwen, who has been here in the Senate for, I think, at least six years—

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

I wish! Three years.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That mitigates things a little bit, because I suppose you are not fully committed to following through on the policies of your party. But, nevertheless, for you and Senator Wong to claim that the ALP has not breached the confidence of its supporters and not to recognise the enormous contribution the Howard government made on this issue is quite incredible. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It comes as no surprise to the government side of the chamber that, of the 28 senators, many of us had a very colourful, rewarding and distinguished career in the union movement—and none more so than you, Mr Deputy President, me and Senator McEwen. I rise to take note of answers to questions today. I absolutely welcome the opportunity to talk about industrial relations with the opposition. I find it unbelievable that senators on that side of the chamber dare come in here and preach to us about Australia’s working families, their working conditions, skills shortages and the conditions which they are employed under.

How hypocritical of the conservative side of the chamber! They come in here and they preach to us about how worse off Australian working families will be under a Labor government. Like your good selves, Senator McEwen and Senator Wortley, I have seen the ugly side of conservative politics and the ugly side of the Howard-Costello industrial relations regime; namely—I should not mention it, Mr Deputy President, but I will—Work Choices. What a wonderful history you will have with the words Work Choices. I do not blame senators opposite getting up and slinking out of the chamber, because if I had voted for Work Choices I would slink out of the chamber. In fact, I would have slunk under my seat. Not one of them stood up and spoke against Work Choices. Like a bunch of cows they just followed their leader, all nodding in agreeance: how wonderful Work Choices would be for Australian working families.

Well, ding-a-ling-a-ling! In November last year, the Australian people spoke and firmly killed off Work Choices. So how dare you come into this chamber and lecture us about what we should be doing for working families, when we introduced 10 National Employment Standards—no less than 10. I could say it is 10 because there is one for each interest rate rise under the Howard government, but 10 is just a number that rolls off the tongue quite easily. Not only did we introduce fairness and balance in the Australian workplace and industrial relations scene, but we were rewarded. We were rewarded with an absolute majority vote to tip out the Howard-Costello regime and bury unfair and unjust industrial relations legislation forever.

I have the privilege of being a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and we received numerous submissions. About 129 submissions were put to the committee. We then travelled around Australia with our chair, Senator Gavin Marshall, and others to hear from employers, employees and interested community groups about what would add to a fair and balanced system, not the rubbish that we had in those last three years especially coming through this chamber. But what did come out of it was that the balance was tipped firmly in favour of rogue employers. Not good employers—and there are a lot of good employers in Australia—but rogue employers who could use those disgraceful laws to absolutely bastardise Australian working conditions and absolutely bastardise—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, I think you should use a word other than that, thank you.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw and I will use ‘decimate’. They could decimate not only working conditions but also fairness and competition. Before I go any further, it is a crying shame that Senator Mary Jo Fisher from South Australia is not in the chamber, because Senator Fisher asked the question about Labor’s policy and Labor’s fairness in the workplace. If I am not mistaken, Senator Fisher worked for former Minister Reith, I think it was. What was former Minister Reith’s main claim to fame? I will tell you what it was—it was shutting down Australian wharves and Australian waterside workers some 11 years ago. The workers went to go to work and they were locked out, confronted by huge, overweight, steroid-pumped security guards with balaclavas and german shepherds. That was the Howard-Costello regime. That is the main claim to fame of Minister Reith. Senator Fisher, you should be ashamed. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If anyone is steroid fuelled today, it is clearly Senator Sterle. He is very much steroid fuelled today. I wish to draw the chamber back to answers by Senator Wong today. The government’s handling of the solar rebates program demonstrates the total abject confusion of this government on its environmental policies and environmental record. It has its environmental objectives totally confused with social policy objectives, because that is what it has done by bringing in a means test. It has totally confused a means test that can be used for social policy outcomes with a means test that should not be applied to environmental outcomes.

The coalition recognised that the solar rebates program was all about the environment. It was about the environment first, second, third and beyond. It was about creating a surge in uptake in the use of this technology. It was about growing that industry strongly and it was about achieving real environmental outcomes. It succeeded and it excelled on all fronts, and we expanded the program accordingly and we are very proud of our track record there. But then the government’s razor gang comes stumbling on into this and decides that it is going to make sure that it limits this program and, in doing so, it applies a means test that is going to rip the guts out of the solar industry across this country. We have solar operators right across this country already saying how it has ripped the guts out of their business—that they are laying off staff, that they are losing money and that they have to close their doors.

One has to wonder where the wonderful Mr Garrett, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, was through all of this. Where was he during this? He got done over, done like a dinner, on solar rebates by the government’s razor gang. He could not stand up for the solar industry, and the government has failed it terribly. We come into this place and Senator Wong, representing him, dodges questions on this issue. She dodged questions today and even today has dodged yesterday’s question that she dodged yesterday, yet again. Yesterday, Senator Wong made a statement about millionaires receiving this rebate. But she refused to back up that statement today when asked very directly for evidence on that front. She refused to back it up because no doubt the evidence does not exist. This was just part of Labor’s class envy, and it was part of Labor demonstrating they have no idea about the value of this program—its environmental benefits. It is an insult to the many families earning just over $100,000. Many families with a working mum and a working dad, each earning about $50,000, are getting slugged and having the opportunity to be environmentally responsible and put solar panels on their homes taken from them. Senator Wong could not justify her own statement of yesterday here in the chamber today.

Much more disturbing, however, was the way Senator Wong handled Senator Milne’s very good question from yesterday. Yesterday, when Senator Milne very directly asked:

... can the minister tell the Senate how many applications have been received since the means test was introduced in the budget?

Senator Wong went on at length, soaking up all of the time, but not able to give one skerrick of data about the number of applications—not one skerrick. I draw your attention very closely to the word ‘applications’ here, because today Senator Wong stood in this place and referred Senator Milne to a website. She snidely referred to the fact that the data was uploaded at 2.15 pm yesterday, as though Senator Milne should have been watching the website live here in the Senate chamber so as to change her question some 10 minutes later. It was a very snide and unfair remark directed at Senator Milne by Senator Wong. But that is not the point. Senator Wong directed Senator Milne to the website, but the website does not contain application numbers. The website contains installation numbers. This is quite a different thing from that which Senator Milne asked about yesterday. Senator Wong has tried to misdirect Senator Milne in answering her question not just yesterday but again today. This data is available. It was given to us in Senate estimates.

In Senate estimates they could tell us in the weeks leading up to the budget and the week after the budget how many applications there were. Why can’t Senator Wong come in here, answer Senator Milne’s question and tell us how many applications there have been every week in the five weeks since the budget? It should not be that hard. If they could do it two weeks after the budget, why can they not do it five weeks after the budget? Why does Senator Wong have to try to cover under installation numbers on a website rather than give us the real answers? (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion to take note of the response of the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, to a question relating to the Murray-Darling river system. Today we had yet another report released on the health of the Murray. It should come as no surprise, to those of us in particular who have been watching the Murray, that it finds that only one of 23 river valleys of the Murray that were examined had good ecosystem health. Two had moderate ecosystem health. All the rest—that is 20—had poor or very poor ecosystem health. This comes on the back of the report that was released yesterday—well, it was not released; it was leak-released. On ABC radio the CEO of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wendy Craik, said that the report had not ‘not been released’; it just had not been released. That report, which had not been released but was not leaked, showed that scientists have said to the government that the Coorong has six months left. They have a six-month window of opportunity, and what is the ministerial council’s response? ‘Oh, we’ll commission some more work into that.’ That just happens to then be available in November. The window of opportunity to fix the Coorong, or to go to some measure to try to remediate the Coorong, closes in October.

The report that came out today shows yet again what a parlous state our Murray-Darling river system is in. And what is the government doing about it? Yes, it is buying some water and it is investing in fixing up infrastructure, but on a very ad hoc basis. It is like fiddling while Rome burns—‘We’ll set a new cap; we’ll put in place an authority, at some stage once we get the legislation back in, that will develop a plan for two years.’ But guess what? That plan does not come into effect until 2019. And the reason for that is that the federal government refuses to require New South Wales and Victoria to bring their water-sharing plans into line with the basin, into line with the sustainable cap. That means we will have a lovely plan, we will have planned very well, while the river is dying—because, unless we can curb water use and put into place sustainable water use in the extremely near future, we are going to be watching the river die. We will have a great plan, but we will have no water to put back into the river because we are not requiring the states to implement any changes to their plans until 2019. That means no action until 2019, aside from what the government might be able to buy back from willing sellers. It does not do anything about addressing, with a systematic and strategic approach, long-term land use in the Murray-Darling Basin. It does not address what we think is going to be sustainable, not only in trying to address a severely degraded system but also in the face of climate change.

The CSIRO reports that are gradually being released as the work is done in each catchment—excellent work, I should say—are showing, as Senator Wong correctly pointed out, that the catchments are facing very severe consequences from the impact of climate change. We have overallocated all the systems in the Murray-Darling system and we need to be addressing that now, not leaving it for some time off in the future.

Some of the ways that we can start addressing the issues around the Coorong now are to start looking at releasing water from the Menindee Lakes, to start looking at accessing some of the water that is currently held in storage in northern New South Wales and to start talking to farmers about loaning water—which, I would suggest, could be repaid with some benefits to the farmers into the future. But one of the issues that I understand is complicating matters there is the control of the New South Wales government over water in the Menindee Lakes. They control the water under 460 gigalitres, and the Commonwealth then gets to have a say in anything above, I think, 660 gigalitres. Guess what? If the level is kept below 660 gigalitres, where the Commonwealth get to have a say, it is all up to New South Wales. So New South Wales can theoretically keep allocating water from that storage to maintain a level below the amount that the Commonwealth gets to have a say in. And guess what? There is no water to release to the Murray and into the Coorong lakes. If we cannot solve this issue in the Commonwealth’s brave new world of management of the Murray-Darling Basin, there is no hope. We are absolutely in a crisis situation in the Coorong, and yet the Commonwealth is still sitting on its hands and cannot, it appears, get that water from New South Wales and actually do something to save their own icon. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.