Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

(1)

censures the Government for its gross and systematic failure in the delivery of its climate change programs including home insulation, green loans, solar rebate, renewable remote power generation program and the renewable energy target; and

(2)

calls on the government to put in place a unified Ministry and Department of Climate Change and Energy.

I begin by assuring the Senate that this is done with great gravity. There has not been a motion of censure of a minister or of the government in the period the Rudd government has been in office. The use of the censure, I can assure senators, is not taken by me, after 24 years parliamentary experience, lightly at all.

However, as a nation we are witnessing one of the grossest episodes of mishandling of the public money and the public trust in recent governance history. The Rudd government came to office in a very large part on the basis of its commitment to the Australian public to address the issue of climate change. Two big election promises to that end were the 20 per cent renewable energy target and the promise that 150,000 Australian homes would be given green loans to improve both their water efficiency and their ability to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels and therefore help in the fight against climate change.

In the event, the 20 per cent renewable energy target program has failed, not least because of the government’s refusal to take note of warnings from my colleague Senator Milne. Instead of including photovoltaics and solar hot-water services within the target, Senator Milne advised to make them additional to the target. The government did not take that advice; the Prime Minister did not take that advice; the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts did not take notice of that advice; and, in this place, the Minister for Climate Change and Water did not take notice of that advice. Now we have a renewable energy target program which is in corrosion if not at the point of sheer collapse. The wind energy system in Australia, which had such promise of investment, job creation and clean energy creation, is in the doldrums, to say the least, with hundreds of jobs and the expectation of many small businesses and, indeed, some large businesses blighted by the government’s failure to take better advice, on this occasion from a Greens senator who knew much better and was much better informed about the state of that industry and the delivery of this program.

The second commitment to the Australian people, which attracted a great deal of voter approval, was the promise by the government of 150,000 green loans. In the event, 1,000 have been and will be delivered. This is a less than one per cent success rate on that promise. Amongst the blighted promises is the program rollout to skill people to be able to take part in this program, thousands of whom now are skilled with nowhere to go, with their investment lost and with no promise of future employment.

When we look at the now renowned Home Insulation Program, which was part of the stimulus package, there was a promise which led everybody in Australia to believe that they could safely have their homes insulated and their power prices brought down to make a contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In the event, we know that this is now an utter shambles. It has led not only to potential loss of life and injury but also to some 90 house fires and some 1,000 or more potential electrified ceilings. Many people around Australia who have had this insulation installed in their homes wanted to think they would feel good about this as a result of their contribution to climate change and their lower power bills; but instead they are worried about whether death lurks in their attic or ceiling. It is a terrible situation.

I quote from an article on the front page of the Age today which outlines one account of the outcome of this program:

LIKE a chain of dominoes, the once booming insulation industry was collapsing yesterday, with hundreds of jobs axed and thousands more expected to go amid warnings the sector could freeze for a year.

At the top of the insulation food chain, Australia’s biggest ceiling batt manufacturer warned that factories could close within weeks.

Several companies have been running their factories 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months, creating a huge glut of batts that are now largely unwanted in the wake of the rebate scheme being axed on Friday by Environment Minister Peter Garrett.

Fletcher Insulation makes about 40 per cent of Australia’s insulation, and managing director David Isaacs said he expected 8000 jobs to be lost from the industry.

It is an utter shambles. We have been left to wonder how the government could get into such a mess. One of the problems is that there was not due diligence from the top. We do know that the Prime Minister’s office is inordinately interested in what the various departments, including the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, and the Department of Climate Change, are doing in the delivery of infrastructure and public spending. As the Prime Minister himself has said in the last 24 hours, he takes—and Prime Minister Rudd must take—responsibility for the way in which this extraordinary failure of billions of dollars of potential investment of taxpayers’ money, and money from the private sector, has been botched. That is what has happened.

Then we discover that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts commissioned last year a report from Minter Ellison about the proposed programs and Minter Ellison reported to the department and to the minister—and no doubt to the Prime Minister himself—in April last year that there was great concern about the government’s ability, the department’s ability, to handle such a mammoth program. They recommended a delay of three months from July to the end of September. The report warned otherwise of the extreme risk of house fires, fraud and poor quality insulation, amongst many other things, and said that up to $195 million of taxpayers’ money could be wasted if delay, due diligence and prudent rollout were not undertaken. But we also now know that neither the Prime Minister nor the minister for the environment looked at that report until a couple of weeks ago. In other words, it was commissioned by the government and it gave a warning of things that were to happen.

We are not talking about hindsight here; those things happened because the government did not take notice, and the ministers, the Prime Minister included, must take responsibility. Now we understand that neither the minister nor the Prime Minister even read the report. We have it from the bureaucracy that government was told about the consequences coming from those reports. I am not going to split hairs here, but when ministers—even if they have not read a report they have commissioned themselves—get advised on the content of that report with such dire warnings and such horrendous consequences if advice is not taken, and they listen to neither, they have to accept that there has been a gross failure of governance by the Rudd government in this area of the rollout of a green program in an age of climate change which had such promise and should have had such a massive triple dividend—economic, employment and environmental—for the Australian people.

This censure is warranted. This government ought to be censured. This government stands censured, if this motion passes by the Senate, for a gross failure of governance which involves several ministers, not least the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and the Prime Minister himself.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has there been an agreement on speaking times?

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you just clarify?

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The normal 20 minutes is available for you.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Except the clock has been set for 10 minutes.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not been notified of any agreement.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Neither have I been notified. Mr Deputy President, could you clarify what is going on, because, as far as I know, there is no agreement. Equally, I do not want Senator Brown being prevented, if he thinks there is an agreement, from using his full time.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The leader has not been notified? His side, I can assure you, has been. I have no trouble with him speaking his full 20 minutes.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, the chair has not been notified of any speaking arrangements, so the normal speaking arrangements of up to 20 minutes apply.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown claims that we are in on some sort of arrangement. I have both the whip and the relevant minister here and they do not seem to know anything about it. Perhaps, Senator Brown, in doing a deal with the Liberal Party on this motion you forgot to include us in such arrangements. In any event, nothing turns on it.

Senator Brown in introducing this motion said he did it with some gravity. Quite frankly, I do not think he is serious and I do not think the Australian public will think he is serious. A censure is a very serious matter. It is something that has not been undertaken lightly in this chamber before. It usually has been treated very seriously by all senators and very seriously by the government of the day. This is not such an occasion. This reeks of an ill-conceived stunt and is not an appropriate vehicle for the sort of debate that Senator Brown wants to have.

As I understand it, because the Liberal and National parties have agreed to support this motion, it will pass, but I suspect it will disappear very quickly as an irrelevancy in the political debate in this country. The motion reflects poorly on the Greens and I think confirms that the Liberal Party are irrelevant and unfit to govern. It seeks to censure the government over delivery of all its climate change related programs, which is an interesting to do in a censure motion. It does not actually specify any of the alleged failings, so we have been censured in general. We have been censured for being the government; we have been censured because the Greens are unhappy with our programs.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Systematic failure’.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So systematic and broad failure, apparently, is what the problem is. It does not specify anything that warrants a censure. No argument was made by Senator Brown of anything that would warrant a censure of a minister, let alone the whole government. It goes on, in an unusual break from tradition, to call on the government to:

… put in place a unified Ministry and Department of Climate Change and Energy.

This is a very unusual Senate censure motion. I do not know who drafted this for Senator Brown, but he ought to look for a new drafter. I do not know who provided this advice on the understanding of parliamentary processes, but he ought to get some better advice.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s your opinion!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my opinion, and I am putting it very strongly because this is an absolute nonsense! You are not serious. You do yourself a disservice by seeking to move this censure. It is poorly worded, it does not outline its case and it reflects a poor understanding of the role of censure motions in the parliamentary process. This is more about the Greens trying to get into the limelight in this debate because they have been noticeably absent and removed in the debate over Minister Garrett and the programs he administers. This seems to be a belated attempt to get involved.

I would be more convinced of the seriousness of the Greens on this matter if they displayed that this week. The Greens get very few questions in this place. They only get one a day, I acknowledge that, and they do not have the opportunity to ask as many questions as I am sure they would like, even though the government has facilitated above pro rata representation in question time. This week the Greens have had two opportunities to ask questions: one yesterday and one today. If they were so concerned about this matter, if they thought the government warranted censure, then Mr Deputy President you would of course assume that both questions to the government this week would have been about these matters. But they have not been. Yesterday we were asked about toxins in forests. Senator Sherry was asked about that by Senator Brown. Today Senator Ludlum asked a question about nuclear waste dumps. So these are the Greens: really serious about this issue, absolutely concerned. This is a very grave issue according to Senator Brown, but not so grave as to warrant a question in the two opportunities they have had this week. It is not as important as a question about toxins in Tasmanian forests yesterday or as important as the nuclear waste dump proposition was today.

The Greens are not serious. This is more about relevance deprivation in this debate than anything else. If they were serious they would have been pressing this argument, this case in the parliament, much more forcefully than they have. And rather than do an MPI or another debate, which probably would have been a better vehicle for them to raise whatever concerns they have, we have a censure motion to which Senator Brown spoke for 10 minutes. They are not serious; it is not a serious resolution.

Quite frankly, I would urge the Liberal Party to rethink whether or not this is a road that they ought to go down. The Liberal Party, by supporting this, are saying this is serious, that it is one of the gravest things being considered by a parliamentary party that professes to be the alternative government, and yet they have signed up to this piece of nonsense that is illogical and poorly constructed. Quite frankly, I think it has a couple of hooks in it for them. I know the Liberal Party have adopted a policy under their new leader, Mr Abbott, that they do not need policies, they just need to dirty up the government, and that they are going to oppose everything for the sake of opposition. That is what Mr Abbott stated, and this is a classic case. They have signed up to the Greens’ censure motion because they are about trying to dirty up the government. It is not because, on any analysis of the motion, they should be voting for it—and they will regret voting for it. Interestingly, it seems to me now that the Liberal Party are endorsing a call for there to be a new ministry of climate change and energy.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we’re not!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that is contained in the resolution. So the Liberal Party are endorsing this.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You haven’t seen my amendment.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not seen the senator’s amendment. All I know is that he has signed up to this and it interests me because—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I divert for a second, Mr Deputy President. I table the transcript of Senator Birmingham’s interview today because I thought his personal explanation was disingenuous in the extreme. And, so as to set the record straight, I table the full transcript that I quoted from today. People can make their own decisions about whether Senator Birmingham’s explanation was disingenuous or not, but I am happy for the record to be there. Senator Birmingham, if he claims to be misrepresented next time, ought to be a bit more frank because the full record supports exactly what I said about what he said today. But I digress.

It is interesting that maybe the Liberal Party have now had a rethink about supporting a new ministry of climate change and energy. I was wondering whether Senator Minchin had thought through his agreement to abandon his Energy portfolio as part of his responsibilities, to be demoted to only being the shadow minister for resources. I would have thought that would be a fairly large fall in status for the senator. I wondered whether he was going out there to industry to explain how the Liberal Party now supported the Energy portfolio being part of a climate change department rather than being connected to Resources. I am sure the mining industry and the energy industry were very interested in this development from the Liberal Party in supporting this Greens’ motion.

This is nonsensical, this is poorly drafted and it reflects an attempt to try to get into the public debate in a way that does the Greens and the Liberal Party a disservice. The seriousness the Liberal Party are showing in relation to this is reflected in their lead speaker. As I understand it, their lead speaker in this censure motion will be a shadow parliamentary secretary, Senator Birmingham. I am sure he will do his case justice, but, quite frankly, if you are serious about a censure, you do not send in a shadow parliamentary secretary. I have never, ever heard before of a serious censure in this parliament that has not been supported by the leader of the government or the Leader of the Opposition, and to send in the shadow parliamentary secretary says you are not dinkum.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s the depth of our talent!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The depth of your talent? I am happy to discuss that some other time. It is a very shallow gene pool.

This is how serious the Liberal Party are: they support a motion that seeks to take Energy into a Climate Change portfolio, which as I say is not something that was reflected in their decisions about their shadow ministry structure in December, and now we find they treat this issue so seriously that they send in a shadow parliamentary secretary in a censure motion. I will go back after this debate to see when a major political party in this country failed to send a senior frontbencher into the debate when they were supporting a censure motion. I have not had time to check on that and I am happy to have a look at the record, but I would be amazed if an alternative government in this country sought to prosecute a censure against the whole government and did not actually send in one of its leadership group. That shows that the Liberal Party are not serious about it; it shows that the Greens are not serious about it. This is a joke. It is not taken seriously by this government. The nature of the motion and the nature of the approach clearly indicates that this is more stunt than serious attempt to debate the issues or make a case against the government. No case has been made, and Senator Brown did not attempt to make a case in moving this motion.

As my major response to this motion, I want to take up the reference to delivery of climate change programs. It is interesting that they left out the major climate change program that this government has introduced—the CPRS, and the move to try to set up an emissions trading scheme in this country. That was the largest measure introduced by this government to try to tackle the serious nature of climate change. The motion rightly refers to a range of other measures that this government has introduced: the government having made a serious attempt across a range of areas to tackle climate change and the protection of our environment. The list shows how serious the government has been by detailing some of those measures—by no means all, but some of them.

If you are going to be serious about a debate on the government’s climate change programs, you have to start with the CPRS. You have to start with our attempt to introduce an emissions trading scheme. That is left off the list provided by the Greens in support of the Liberal Party. Why? Because they have blocked the government’s attempts to introduce that legislation. They have twice opposed that legislation in the Senate and prevented us from implementing the major measure that we took to the last election to address climate change. So they are saying to us, ‘Oh well, we are concerned about these other measures,’ when in fact they have used every endeavour at their disposal to prevent us honouring our key election commitment in this area. That shows a level of hypocrisy in those supporting this motion.

We have attempted to work with the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens to fulfil our election promise to introduce an emissions trading scheme in this country. We are now having a third go at that, and we had a procedural stunt pulled yesterday to try to prevent us from proceeding to having it debated a third time. I am not a great one for mandate theory. I have heard people make outlandish and unreasonable claims about mandates for many years in this place, but I have generally resisted making some of those more extreme claims. But if there ever were a policy that came before the Senate where one could claim a mandate, I think the ETS would be it. At the last election it was the policy both of this government and of the former government, the coalition.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then it wasn’t an issue at the election.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You might say it was not an issue in that sense, and I suppose that it is right, in a way—there was not the complex debate about the detail of competing claims. But I do remind the opposition that they swore to the electorate that they would support the introduction of an ETS. I heard Malcolm Turnbull last night indicate that he supported the great, progressive former Prime Minister of this country, John Howard, in his determination to introduce an ETS. Malcolm Turnbull is still loyal to John Howard and his agenda and the commitments made by the Liberal Party at the last election. Unfortunately, the election commitment has been abandoned by the Liberal Party.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t still believe in nationalising banks, do you?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the last election, Senator Brandis, and that was your policy. It was your policy until about three months ago. Mr President, you cannot have a debate in this chamber about the government’s climate change programs without including the ETS and the CPRS more generally. The Greens conveniently forget that. It is conveniently dropped off the list of issues when they are talking about programs that this government has implemented to address the effects of climate change. I think there is a lot of cheek involved in the moving of this motion. There is not a lot of seriousness; there is not a lot of gravity. There has been no real effort to justify the very serious charge involved in moving a censure motion against a government.

This party, this government, is very proud of its record in environmental issues in its two years in government. We promised we would sign the Kyoto Protocol, and we did. We promised we would move to introduce a carbon pollution reduction scheme and emissions trading in this country, and we have consistently attempted to deliver on that commitment. In addition to those measures, we have introduced a whole range of other initiatives that have sought to improve homes by improving energy efficiency through increasing access to solar hot water systems and phasing out incandescent light bulbs, and there have been improvements in energy efficiency standards. No doubt Senator Wong will run through the many, many things we have done to improve support for our environment and improve and tackle climate change. This is not a serious attempt to deal with those issues. It is a stunt, and it is not one that should be supported by the Senate. The government will treat it with contempt because we do not take it seriously.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the Senate, and you are treating the Senate with contempt.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you go out and defend this nonsense in the public arena. I know what the view of the general public will be. They will regard it as a political stunt. I have already been out, on the weekend, talking to people and listening to what they had to say about some of the charges against Mr Garrett. He is getting a great deal of support out in the community. I spoke to an electrician on the weekend and had reported to me a conversation with a plumber. They know very well where the responsibilities for these matters of workplace health and safety lie. One of them referred me to a 1994 safety pamphlet that he had knowledge of that dealt with this question of safety with insulation and raised some of these concerns. My experience of dealing with the general public is they treat much of this as a political stunt. They do think the deaths of those poor young men are serious. They do think we ought to treat this seriously.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But they do not like the way, Senator Birmingham, that you and some of your colleagues have sought to use those deaths in pursuing a political point. It does you no credit. The Australian public do not like it. Holding a minister to account is one thing but accusing him of being responsible for deaths is quite another.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think, just like you did this morning, that you and the Liberal Party have overreached, just like you did with Godwin Grech. You do not show the judgement required in these matters and I think you will regret the excesses of this matter because you have sought to go beyond what is a reasonable attempt to hold a minister accountable for his portfolio. That is perfectly reasonable when the parliamentary opportunities are there to do that and Minister Garrett has had to come into the House of Representatives chamber and defend himself and defend himself publicly, and that is as it should be. But I think you have overreached and you have unfairly sought to take advantage of those tragic situations in advancing your case. That is regrettable. The Liberal Party ought to reconsider how far it has gone with some of the accusations that it has made.

This proposed resolution is a joke. I think the fact that Senator Bob Brown could not do more than 10 minutes in supporting it indicates how seriously he takes it. There have been no questions from the Greens on this issue this week. There has been no concerted attempt to argue that censure is warranted. I think the Liberal Party ought to think more carefully about signing up to this sort of stunt. They are increasingly getting a reputation of not being fit to be an alternative government in this country.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Evans, I think you were intending to table a document.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I table the document I referred to, which is a transcript of what Senator Birmingham said at the doors this morning.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I move this amendment to the motion:

That the paragraph “The Senate calls on the Government to put in place unified Ministry of Climate Change and Energy” be deleted.

At the outset let me address a couple of the comments that Senator Evans made. Firstly, in relation to the timing of speeches, let me be very clear that I have been advised by the Chief Opposition Whip and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate that there was no agreement with the Liberal Party or the coalition with regard to the timing of speeches. So any assertion that Senator Evans has made about some cosy agreement between the coalition and the Greens on this matter is quite plainly wrong. While reflecting on the timing of speeches, I would also note that I think Senator Evans has unleashed something at the end of his remarks by commenting about Senator Bob Brown only contributing 10 minutes. I am pretty confident that we all know what the consequences of that will be when Senator Brown rises to conclude this debate.

Senator Evans also sought to cast aspersions on who was leading this debate for the opposition. Let me be quite clear that I am very happy to lead the debate against Senator Evans or Senator Wong—or Senator Brown—on any day of the week, especially when it comes to the mismanagement of the government’s environmental programs. This motion has been moved by the Greens. It has not been moved by the opposition. Therefore as a censure motion it has not been moved by the opposition and taken up by our leader or deputy leader. It has been taken up by me as the spokesman on these issues in this chamber.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where are your senior frontbenchers?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy, Senator Wong, to debate you and to debate Senator Evans on these and other issues any day of the week that you choose, because your record stands as a testament of failure by the government in the management of these issues. That is why the censure component of this motion, its part 1, is commanding the support of the opposition. It is commanding our support because it identifies very clearly failure across a number of programs that this government has sought to implement, a number of programs where this government has got its implementation strategy seriously wrong, and the consequences of its errors in implementing those policies have been devastating. They have been devastating to the budget where hundreds of millions of dollars have been squandered, devastating to the lives of Australians, both families hurt by the mismanagement of programs and businesses hurt by the mismanagement of programs. These programs—the Home Insulation Program, the Green Loans Program, the solar rebate, the remote renewable power generation program and the renewable energy target—all stand out as beacons of failure by the government in their implementation strategy, beacons of failure to deliver on their promises or to deliver on their promises in a manner that actually gets those promises through rather than ending up in absolute disaster. This is a serious motion. It is a censure motion and the opposition considers its support or otherwise as to the censure of the government very seriously.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where’s Minchin? Where are your senior frontbenchers? Where are they while you are talking? Where’s Minchin?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not see too many people sitting around you either, Senator Wong. There are far more people on this side of the chamber than on your side of the chamber.

We know that there are more censure motions moved in the other place. Censure motions are moved with far greater frequency in the other place. In this place this is the first censure motion moved since 2005. Indeed, it has been moved after some weeks of debate about one particular program, the Home Insulation Program. That has been coupled in a less public way with a lot of angst and a lot of community concern about the Green Loans Program. There have also been concerns about solar hot water support that has led to problems with the renewable energy target. All of these issues have been brewing over a number of weeks. We, as an opposition, have sought to prosecute our case in the House of Representatives time and time again. We have sought time and again to bring to the attention of the House of Representatives the failures in particular of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, to act responsibly and to manage his portfolio appropriately and to manage his responsibilities in implementing these key policy areas appropriately.

He has failed to do so. The opposition, led by Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt, has highlighted time and time again the programs of Minister Garrett and the problems that are manifest in his portfolio. Given that the government has used its numbers in the House of Representatives to block our efforts time and again over the last few weeks, I welcome the fact that the Greens have accepted many of our valid points and criticisms. I acknowledge that Senator Milne and others have also been making these points and criticisms for some time. The Greens have decided to accept the manifest failure of the government and to bring a censure motion to this place to pass judgment on the government’s failings.

Judgment is an important thing. Senator Evans attempted to talk about judgment when he tried to bring into question the judgment of the opposition. Let us consider the judgment of the government in promising to introduce these policies. It has promised policies that are far from achievable and are far from sensible, measured or deliverable. The government has promised the world but instead has delivered chaos. That is this government’s legacy on its environmental policies. It promised the world going into the last election, but it has simply delivered chaos in the implementation of these policies.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the most calamitous government since the Whitlam government.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. It is the most calamitous government since the Whitlam government. By the way the Australian people are reacting to the failures of this government, it is evident that they—and, in particular, Minister Garrett—are in more strife than the early settlers when it comes to these portfolios.

Firstly, the story on the Home Insulation Program is an absolutely tragic one. Senator Evans acknowledged that. It is tragic because it has involved the loss of the lives of four young Australians working on installing insulation. I do not blame Minister Garrett directly for that loss of life; nor does the opposition. We blame Minister Garrett for failing to recognise, in implementing a government promise, the consequences of how the industry and the market would respond to workplace safety. That is the tragedy of this program. Associated with the House Insulation Program are around 93 house fires. We know from estimates of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts today that there are around 1,000 homes at risk of electrification as a result of dodgy installation and that there are more than 200,000 Australian homes estimated to have received inadequate or dodgy insulation. A number of them are at risk of fire.

These are serious issues and serious statistics, and these are things that could have been avoided had the minister acted appropriately when implementing the Home Insulation Program. Did Minister Garrett act on the advice that he received? We now know not only that there were multiple warnings—more than 20—coming from industry and state government sources and elsewhere about the risks inherent to this program but also that the government commissioned its own independent external advice. It commissioned not one but two reports from that esteemed law firm Minter Ellison, where my colleague Senator Brandis used to practise.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a member of the Minter Ellison alumnus!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, and I am sure you are a proud and well-recognised member of their alumnus. These two reports provided by Minter Ellison to government—the risk management plan and the risk register—identified a number of concerns that should have been recognised and acted on by the government. The Minister for Employment Participation, Senator Arbib, came into question time today and, in one of the rare instances where he has been questioned about these issues, attempted to provide some level of detail to an answer. He tried to go through the risk management plan and say that each of the issues had been adequately addressed. They quite clearly were not adequately addressed. The proof is in the outcome, and the outcome is the tragic statistics I spoke of before.

It is not just that the government did not act on the concerns. The government even had suggestions put to them by Minter Ellison that it failed to act on. It was suggested to the government that risks in certain areas were not tolerable. Minter Ellison, in documenting the risks of implementing this program, found that on 9 April 2009, when they delivered these reports to Minister Garrett’s department, the risks of going ahead and implementing the programs were not tolerable. They recommended, instead, that the government consider delaying the start date for the Home Insulation Program by three months. This was so there could be more time for the government to put in place appropriate regulations, registration, training, restrictions around procurement processes and the types of things that could have ensured installers were well trained and that the pink batts or other insulation materials they were installing were up to scratch. These are the things that the government could have done had it bought an extra three months to get the implementation right. Instead, it ignored that advice. The government ignored the advice in a report that it paid more than $20,000 to get which suggested it should just wait three months.

They ignored it because the great haste was on; the pressure to deliver quickly was on. They needed to be seen to be taking ‘decisive action’—which at the time was the buzzword from the government, the ‘well-focus-grouped’ term. The government needed to be seen to be a government of decisive action, so they wanted to rush this program through as quickly as possible. That was the brief, clearly, from the Prime Minister. It was the brief given to Senator Arbib when he was appointed into the executive. I note that the best excuse Senator Arbib could offer up today as to why he was not as culpable as Minister Garrett in the implementation of this program was that he was not a minister at the time; he was just a parliamentary secretary. Well, parliamentary secretaries are appointed with executive responsibilities, and his executive responsibility was to assist in the implementation of the stimulus package. He should have assisted in the implementation of the Home Insulation Program. Rather than saying, ‘Go faster, go faster, go faster,’ he should have been saying: ‘Hasten slowly. Take the cautious approach and make sure we get this right, because, if we don’t get this right, lives could be at risk.’

It is not just the Home Insulation Program for which the government stands condemned. Yes, that program has caused immense suffering to many families and immense damage to the insulation industry in Australia—damage that some businesses who have existed not just for 12 months but for 12 years or longer will struggle to recover from—but the government also stands condemned for the other programs that the Greens have highlighted in this censure motion. There is the Green Loans program. It is worth recounting a little bit of the history of Green Loans. Green Loans was one of those great election policies of Team Rudd back in 2007. It was one of those policies where they promised the world and we can see now that they have delivered chaos. What did they promise? Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett, in their 2007 policy document Solar Schools, Solar Homes, promised to:

Offer low interest Green Loans of up to $10,000 each to make 200,000 existing homes more energy and water efficient, with subsidised environmental audits and free Green Renovations packs.

That was the promise: 200,000 green loans of up to $10,000 each. How many have been delivered? At last estimates, it was 1,008 out of the 200,000. And guess what. In the changes announced by Minister Garrett last Friday, we discovered that the Green Loans program will no longer have a loans component. That is right. If it were not so serious, you would think it really was an episode of The Hollowmen: a Greens Loans program without a loans component.

Of course, this is not the first downsizing or change to Labor’s election promise on Green Loans. In the 2009 budget, the Labor government quietly downsized their promise. It went from being a promise to provide 200,000 green loans to instead providing 75,000 green loans. So they sliced more than 60 per cent of the loans off before they even started implementing the program. The loans were promised to be 20,000 this year, 20,000 each of the next couple of years and 15,000 in the last year. But, as I said, 1,008 out of the 20,000 budgeted for this year are all the government have managed to deliver.

The government promised to appoint some auditors to go into homes and conduct sustainability assessments of homes. They left the impression that there would be 1,000 auditors. In his 8 May 2009 media release—the one where he downsized the program from 200,000 loans to 75,000 loans—Minister Garrett said that there would be 1,000 home sustainability assessors. On 20 August 2009, Ms Kruk, the Secretary of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, told the Australian Economic Forum that the program would be delivered through training 1,000 home sustainability assessors. Guess what. Instead of training 1,000 home sustainability assessors, the government trained 3,648. That was the estimate given at estimates, although I note that the industry body is citing figures far higher than that as the number who appear to have been accredited.

There are some questions there that need to be answered which I have posed in correspondence to Minister Garrett. I hope that, when he finishes defending himself over the Home Insulation Program, he might address this issue, because again we have thousands of Australians who have invested their time, their money and their lives in becoming home sustainability assessors, on the premise that there would be 1,000 of them around Australia, on the premise that the work would be shared between 1,000 of them. Instead, the government has gone and at least trebled the number of assessors. Indeed, in the announcement made on Friday, the government said the number would be capped at 5,000. So 5,000—five times the number that was originally promised—is what the government has ended up putting into the marketplace.

Little wonder that assessors are complaining that there is not enough work, that when they can get work they cannot get through to the government’s booking service to book the assessment and that when they complete the assessment and they send the audit of homes back to the department it sits in the department for Lord knows how long. We have complaints from numerous assessors who say that these audits of homes have been sitting in the department of the environment not just for a couple of weeks but for several months at least—months and months of sitting there in the department before they get back to the homeowner. Of course, the homeowner wonders what is going on, blames the person who undertook the assessment, harasses the person who undertook the assessment and obviously is not able to take out a green loan even if they want to, because they have not got their audit back. It is another example of the gross mismanagement of these programs by this government.

On the issue of solar—very briefly—the government has flipped around time and again. It brought in, without any notice, a means-testing of the solar rebate. When the industry went mad in terms of the amount of rebates being claimed, the government decided to change the rules again. Again, it changed the rules without notice to industry, just ending the program overnight without warning. People got an email in the morning saying, ‘The program will end by close of business today.’ That is how this government treats the people in the solar industry.

The government also ended the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program earlier than planned and with no appropriate substitute, leaving people in regional areas reliant on diesel power instead. It is a litany of failures by this government in the way they have managed these environmental programs. In particular, Minister Garrett, who has responsibility for all of them, stands condemned. As a result, the government should be censured for its mismanagement on these issues.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support this censure motion of the government for its gross and systematic failure in the delivery of its climate change programs, including home insulation, green loans, the solar rebate, the renewable remote power generation program and the renewable energy target.

I heard Senator Evans, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, say that he would regard this censure motion with contempt. He did not take the censure motion seriously; he believed it to be a joke and that there was not a lot of gravity behind it. I hope that he will front the workers at Fletcher Insulation, Bradford Insulation and Loyastar Insulation; I hope that he will go and tell them, today, that they are a joke and that he will treat the censure motion with contempt. They have lost their jobs. They were called together in the last 24 hours and told that they no longer have work.

I happen to think that that is a serious matter. Senator Evans should go and tell the people who paid $3,000 to train as home sustainability assessors that they are now not going to be accredited and that they will not have work. I have hundreds of emails from people who have said that they borrowed $3,000 in order to get the training and to get the accreditation. People left well-paid jobs in order to go and do this because they thought it was a worthwhile contribution that they could make.

And then we had Senator Evans ridiculing the Greens because Senator Brown spoke for 10 minutes. Well, Senator Evans had better come back in here and apologise very shortly because it was a member of Senator Evans’s staff who rang the Greens and asked the Greens if we would restrict our time on this debate. And we agreed to that because we want orderly management of the business of this house. We agreed to that. Usually when that happens—when we agree—the government then organises the time with the coalition and with the other parties in here so that there is a proper allocation of time. That is what happened. So if there is contempt in this place then Senator Evans had better look a little bit closer to home.

I want to go through this, because the government is being censured here because its failure is systemic and has occurred over a long period of time—since its election, in fact. It has failed to take a whole-of-government internally-consistent approach to its climate change policies. What we have is one part of government advocating one thing and another part advocating another. On the very day that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was first introduced into the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister was in the Hunter valley turning the first sod on the expanded coal railway and coal export port facility. There was a very clear media management strategy: let’s get the press gallery in Canberra to tell people that the Rudd government is moving on the carbon pollution reduction scheme but let’s go up to the Hunter valley and give a wink-wink, nudge-nudge to the coal industry to say, ‘You’ll be all right; we will look after you. The Rudd government is not going to see any winding back in coalmining or coal exports whilst we get everybody else focused on a five per cent reduction in emissions.’

Only a couple of weeks ago we had the Premier of Queensland out there absolutely ecstatic about the opening of new coal mines in Queensland. The new coalmine in question will be exporting 30 million tonnes of coal to China per year—90 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from China via Australia. And we have national emissions of around 600 million tonnes so we think we are doing great strokes here—a five per cent reduction whilst exporting to China mega emissions way in excess of any of those reductions here.

So let us look at a holistic, internally-consistent government approach to climate change. What we have is a case of spin over substance. In terms of all these programs the government has never seen an opportunity to transform our economy—our way of life—to a low-carbon economy. If you were serious about it you would be looking at system change—whole-of-systems changes in transport, whole-of-systems changes in approaches to the built environment, and whole-of-systems change to energy in this country. There would be transformation away from fossil use into the renewables and into efficiency. But we do not have that. We have boom and bust cycles managed by the government when they roll out small programs—a few hundred thousand houses here and a few hundred thousand there—that go for short periods of time. Businesses are given a signal that there is going to be a shift in policy and then, without notice, it is wound back.

So, whether you are in an energy efficiency technology business, a renewable energy business—whether you are an installer, an assessor or whatever else—you never know from one day to the next what your future is going it be. It is all dependent on government programs and government largess. It is not as a result of a system-wide driver. That is why the Greens have argued strongly for the increase in the renewable energy target to be higher than it is, but also for a gross feed-in tariff so that you get away from industry and people being dependent on government largess and the decision, one day, to turn it on and, one day, to turn it off.

I want to go through the systemic failures here. Let me start with the solar rebate. It was an $8,000 rebate but suddenly it was stopped and we went to a means test. People absorbed that for a short while and then suddenly there was an announcement that the program was ending there and then on a particular day.

What happened to the photovoltaic industry? People in the industry said: ‘I’m having to put people out of work. I can’t deal with this. I ordered all this because of the rebate program, and now you have stopped it.’ So the government said: ‘Okay. We’ll look at the renewable energy target. When we bring that in, we’ll put a multiplier for photovoltaics into the renewable energy target.’ The solar hot water people and the energy efficiency people are now saying: ‘What about us? What about these technologies? They were included in the renewable energy target.’

Then the government came along and interfered with a mechanism like that by giving the rebates and completely flooding the renewable energy target with renewable energy certificates from solar hot water and from heat pumps and from phantom RECs. That stole from wind power, because the people who expected to make money out of the renewable energy target and to actually get a boost and an investment signal were those in the wind industry. But, no—it just pulled the rug out from under them.

Last week Pacific Hydro, opening their wind farm in South Australia, said, ‘That’s the last of the wind farms until the government fixes the renewable energy target.’ In Tasmania, the Musselroe Bay wind farm is now stalled, and people are losing their jobs there—another lot of jobs, Senator Evans. You might think it is a joke to talk about systemic failure, but people in north-eastern Tasmania—rural and regional Tasmania—do not think it is a joke. The people elsewhere in Australia do not think it is a joke, either—$20 billion worth of investment in wind sitting on the sides because the renewable energy target has been wrecked.

What about the renewable remote power generation program? This is a fantastic program which brought renewable energy to remote parts of Australia and in particular to Indigenous communities. One of the programs affected as a result of the Renewable Remote Power Generation program going west is the Bushlight program. That was an innovative renewable energy project to increase access to sustainable energy services in remote Indigenous communities across Australia. The project has gone west because of the restriction on the size of the solar systems for which there is a multiplier to 1.5 kilowatt hours.

I remind Senator Evans, who thinks this is not to be taken seriously, that, without reliable access to fresh food, refrigeration, fuel and qualified technicians, Australia’s remote communities are left in limbo. These remote programs actually assisted Indigenous communities in accessing technologies that made their lives easier and gave them the kinds of support for technologies like refrigeration that they had not been able to access on a consistent basis in the past.

I will now go to the Green Loans Program. Again, this represents systemic failure. We heard Senator Birmingham outline some of it, and I have been persisting with this for weeks. The fact that Senator Evans thinks that this is a sudden idea of the Greens shows that he did not listen when I, supported by the coalition, put a motion through the Senate only a couple of weeks ago on the renewable energy targets. The government clearly took no notice whatsoever on the RET. They took no notice whatsoever of the work I have been doing on the Green Loans Program for weeks and in Senate estimates—not to mention these other programs that we have persistently gone through, explaining to the government where the failure is.

Not only do we now have no green loans, but there are many people who have not received from the government their report on their assessment. Without that report they cannot go to the bank and borrow the money. The government has said that 21 March is the deadline. If you have not gone to the bank and asked for your loan by then, you cannot get a loan. But what if you are sitting at home and you had your assessment six, eight or even 12 weeks ago, and you still do not have your report? You are going to be denied a loan because the department has not issued the report. Whose fault is this? ‘Ask the department, not us’, they say. ‘Ask the minister, not us’, they say. ‘Ask the government, not us’, they say. And everybody goes out there and says: ‘The problem out here is dodgy people. Somewhere out here there are dodgy people. It is all dodgy people’s fault.’

It is not dodgy people’s fault that minimum, nationally accredited training standards were not in place before the programs rolled out. It is not dodgy people’s fault that registered training organisations were not the only ones offering training. Anyone could walk in off the street and get training, not just the registered training organisations that were providing that training. And where were the auditors? How many auditors were out there on 1 July when the insulation program rolled out? How many auditors are out there with the Green Loans Program?

Even worse, now that the government has abolished the green loans, you can now get a sustainability assessment. But since you cannot borrow any money at the end of it at no interest, in a lot of cases it is going to cost you substantially to buy the technologies. You would expect the report you get from these assessments to be accurate and to give you the information you need to make informed decisions. Now, however, we discover that the government or the department—somebody—has been fiddling with the calculator that weights the various parts of the loading to determine what the calculator spits out at the end as a recommendation for your house. These changes to the calculator have been going on on a fortnightly basis. If you change the loadings, what you get in the report is different each time. Because of the manipulation of the calculator that is used when you feed in the data in this green loans process, the community has a right to ask, ‘What confidence would I have in the report, when I eventually get it?’

What about the 5,000 people who had paid for training and will now not be accredited? What about the fact that the department promised people that the government would pay to have their training upgraded to certificate IV? What about the assessors who went into this thinking they were going to have a job and are now being told, ‘Five assessments a week, and that’s it’? That is less than two days work.

And what about the companies? I am one who has been critical of the fact that the government entered into discriminatory and preferential arrangements with certain companies that gave them access to a booking system that the self-employed person did not have. Nevertheless, contracts were signed with those companies. For example, I know that one of these assessor companies has spent nearly $1 million for training assessors, setting up a call centre, setting up support staff and making sure the occupational health and safety standards are in place. That company is now employing 525 people in this particular program. That company does not know if the five-booking limit now applies to them as well or to their assessors—how that is going to work. There has been no consultation, and there are at least five companies in that particular position with the government.

So, does this constitute gross and systemic failure? Does it say that the Rudd government does not take green jobs, green businesses and the green carbon economy seriously? I think that is exactly what it says. I think what it says is that the Prime Minister takes the old fossil fuel economy very seriously. He gets himself up to multimillion and multibillion dollar announcements when it comes to coal railways, coal ports and coalmines. But when it comes to transformation of the economy in energy efficiency, in fuel efficiency, in any of these programs, then the government is not prepared to let go of the fossil fuel economy and allow the shift to renewable energy, the shift to energy efficiency, to become systemic across the whole of Australia—no way. It is restricted to management by a department that has clearly shown it does not have the competence to roll it out. That is why this censure motion says the government has not taken it seriously. It is all spin over substance. It is all stop-start, boom-bust cycles. There are many disappointed, unemployed people across Australia today, and people whose businesses are about to go bust—and I happen to think that is a serious matter.

This government is also about uncertainty—no long-term investment signals, no nothing when it comes to the whole energy efficiency and renewable energy sector. That is why we need to take energy and put it together with climate change and have all these policies managed in a department which has the competence to do it, a department which actually recognises the issues. Does the Prime Minister, with his Department of Climate Change, want to transform the Australian economy to a low-carbon, zero-carbon economy? Or does he want a department which oversees photo opportunities and announcements for election campaigns while getting on with the real business of an ongoing fossil fuel economy? Because that is how it looks at the moment.

The Minister for Resources and Energy, of course, is totally focused on Gorgon gas, on big new development—all in the fossil fuel sector. He is prouder with his coal-to-liquids project for motor vehicles rather than actually getting on with the low-carbon, zero-carbon economy. That is the tragedy: consumer confidence that Australia can move to this new economy is at an all-time low, even though community enthusiasm for it was high. I hold the Prime Minister responsible for that. These programs have been oversubscribed many times over, because the Australian community really wanted to do its bit for this transformation. But now people are afraid, because if they open the door there could be a shonky operator standing there saying: ‘I’m here to deliver the government’s insulation program. I don’t have to come inside; just sign here—this will do for an energy assessment; I’ll just send it in and get the money.’ We have had endless reports of people who say that the assessor did not even come inside their house, yet we have had other assessors who have spent hours and hours, and have done a fantastic job, and consumers say: ‘This is the best thing that’s ever happened; I really understand my house now and what I need to do.’ There is that unevenness of quality, unevenness of audit.

Somebody has to be held responsible for this, and it is the government—it is not just one minister; it comes straight out of the Prime Minister’s office. We know, for example, that all these warnings that were given by Minter Ellison went to the project control board, which had on it a representative of the Coordinator-General. They were told about the risks embedded in the insulation program. We know the government knew that it could not roll these programs out effectively in the time frame. They were warned time and time again, and none of those shortcomings were fixed in the time frame—nor were they fixed before the programs rolled out, even though they were warned about the problems beforehand, including the RET.

So this censure motion stands. We want a new department that is capable of managing these programs, and we want some real effort and competence put into it—not what we have at the moment: ad hoc, internally inconsistent and contradictory policy and program delivery.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that, whilst I respect that Senator Milne does put some work into these issues, it is somewhat difficult to listen to a lecture about the need for a long-term price signal, a long-term transformation of the Australian economy, when it is the case that the Greens could have delivered precisely the price signal she is calling for had they not sat with Mr Abbott’s people and not sat with Senator Fielding, but with the government—and the two Liberal senators who showed the courage to cross the floor—to deliver a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. For the first time in this nation’s history we would have actually capped the carbon pollution we produce. That is precisely the long-term price signal that was required. Regrettably, we saw the Greens put politics over policy in a decision which I think will prove, when history looks at it, to be most unwise.

But I want to return to some of the issues raised. Senator Milne at least had some substance—whilst I disagree with it—in her contribution. Senator Bob Brown demonstrated the truth of Senator Evans’ contribution that this is about politics over policy. This is about the Greens party wishing to insert themselves into the current debate and the current attack by the coalition against Minister Garrett. The issue for the Greens now, and after the next election, is whether they will be a party of responsible parliamentarians or a party of protest. At the moment they are being a party of protest. That is fine if you are not actually interested in doing anything other than lecturing people.

I want to respond specifically to Senator Birmingham’s contribution. Whilst I do not mind Senator Birmingham—there are worse people on the other side! And he is not a bad debater—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn’t pointing at you, Senator Williams! Whilst he is not a bad debater—he has a few interesting hand moves, but I am prone to that at times myself—the fact that the opposition chose to bring to this debate neither the Leader of the Opposition in this place nor any frontbencher shows that they are not taking this seriously. It demonstrates that this is a stunt they are jumping on board with. They do not have the courage of responsible opposition to treat it seriously—or to simply not support the motion. They should know, as a former government, as a party of government, that censure motions are serious business. To not have anybody of any seniority on the other side leading off, or speaking at all, in this debate demonstrates how they regard it.

Senator Birmingham tried to defend the opposition’s credentials on the environment whilst in government. A couple of facts ought to be put on the record. The first is in relation to the renewable energy target, which he trumpeted as a Howard government achievement. Well, yes, it was, but let us remember, firstly, that it was only a five per cent target: 9½ thousand gigawatt hours by 2010. We are going to deliver four times that. More importantly in many ways, the coalition in government commissioned at least one review—the Tambling review reported in September 2003—which recommended increasing the target out to 2020, and what did the Howard government do? Absolutely nothing. They ignored even their own advice from the Tambling review, which included former Liberal senator David Kemp. So, when Senator Birmingham comes in here trumpeting the renewable energy target, he should also say: ‘And we ensured that we ignored advice about how we could make this better. We stopped at five per cent because we didn’t want to go any further.’

The senator also went on about solar panels. If those opposite want to have a go at this government for what it has done, let us remember that this government has put more solar panels on Australian roofs than any other government in Australia’s history—full stop. In 12 years, solar panels were provided by the Howard government to about 10½ thousand homes. In two years, we have funded, or are on track to fund, more than 120,000 installations. That is 10,500 in 12 years compared to 120,000 in two. In their 12 years, solar hot water rebates were provided to 4,000 households—in two years, 100,000 households have received a solar hot water rebate. So for senators from the other side to come in here and talk about their environmental credentials, citing solar panels and renewable energy, is kicking an own goal, because their record after 12 years in government is extremely poor.

I will turn now to a couple of points made by Senator Milne. Senator Milne talked a lot about coal, and I understand that the Greens have a view about wanting to close that industry. It is not a view shared by the government, and that is not because we are corrupt or we are in the pockets of anybody; we just do not agree. I want to take the following global perspective around the industry of coal. It is something which seems to have escaped some of the contributions to this chamber on this issue. If Australia chose to stop mining and exporting coal—which is not the government’s position—does anybody in this chamber honestly believe that the demand for coal in other nations would decline? Of course not. There are many other countries which already export coal, and the International Energy Agency’s prediction out to 2050 is that coal usage will increase globally. If you do not have a low-emissions solution for coal, you do not have a solution on climate change. The answer is not Australia deciding not to export it, because some other country would simply export it—it would have absolutely no effect on global emissions. That is the logical position: it would have no effect on global emissions if we did not export. What would have an effect would be to find, along with other coal-producing nations, a technology which reduced emissions from coal. I know that is a logical position that many on the other side of the chamber disagree with, but the facts are inescapable. You have to find a lower emissions solution for coal, and that is why we are putting in excess of $2 billion on the table: to help work up that solution, a solution the planet, the globe, needs.

I would also like to remind the chamber that we are not disregarding solar energy. The $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program is about substantial investment in developing the baseload renewable solar power that the world and also Australia needs. That is part of the government’s agenda. Frankly, to deal with climate change we need a whole range of policy mechanisms which will work. The proposition that seems to be being put—that somehow it is wrong for us to recognise that Australia is a coal-producing nation—is simply illogical.

The reality is Australia’s carbon pollution is rising, it will continue to rise and by 2020 it will be around 120 per cent of what we were producing at the year 2000. It is this pollution which is contributing to climate change. Carbon pollution is what causes climate change. The fact is that the Greens have made tackling climate change an explicit part of their platform for many years and they have had not one, but two, opportunities in this chamber to vote to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution. Not once, but twice, they decided that it was better politically for them to oppose that reduction. Not once, but twice, they sat with Tony Abbott or his senators and Senator Fielding, people who do not believe in climate change. Tony Abbott, who believes that climate change is absolute crap, is who Senator Brown voted with. The Greens voted to ensure that Australia’s carbon pollution would continue to rise. The question is now, and will be in the years to come: why did they do that?

It is well known around this place that some in the Greens have made the strategic decision that, if there were an election fought on climate change, they would gain more seats. I am only quoting from the Greens themselves. Drew Hutton, one of the Greens campaigners in Brisbane, is quoted in the Brisbane Times as saying that his party would be ‘the big winners’ in an ETS double dissolution and could expect to at least double their current representation of five senators as well as pick up lower house seats. The article reads:

‘We would be very confident of winning our first Queensland (Senate) seat,’ Mr Hutton said.

Senator Brown said on Lateline last year:

… if it could go to a climate change double dissolution, if you like, at the expense of the Opposition, it would try that, and the analysis is that the Greens will come out stronger in the Senate as a result of the next election, and if it's on climate change, we Greens will be the constructive opposition going to the Australian people …

If this is why the Greens have voted this way, it is a cynical political decision indeed—a cynical political decision to vote to allow Australia’s carbon pollution to rise. Let us remember that there were two Liberal senators who honoured the agreement we struck with Malcolm Turnbull and who crossed the floor to vote with the government and if the party that claims to be the party of the environment had also voted with the government Australia would now have a carbon price. It is regrettable that this party chose to stand in the way of that progress. It is an unfortunate reality that the Greens wasted that opportunity not just to do something very significant for our environment but to put in place the required changes to our economy.

This government is committed to tackling climate change. It is committed to a comprehensive strategy to tackle it and to support investment in renewable energy. As I said, we have delivered through this chamber a fourfold increase in Australia’s renewable energy sector by 2020 on top of the commitments I have already outlined on the Solar Flagships program. The government had a big ship to turn around. Let us remember that renewables actually went backwards under the previous government. Over the 10 years between 1997 and 2007, renewables dropped from 10.5 per cent to 9.5 per cent.

The reality is that some in this chamber who profess to be pro environment should think very carefully about whether they are prepared to take responsibility for the sorts of policies which are required to implement that change, because we have too often seen the members of the Greens playing politics without regard to policy. I recall being chided quite stridently in this chamber by Senator Hanson-Young, who demanded that I deliver the amount of water that a particular academic report was proposing for the Lower Lakes. I pointed out to her that that amount of water was in fact more than we had drawn at the time from the River Murray for Adelaide and for all the towns—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where’s your plan? You’ve got no plan.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that Senator Hanson-Young is shrieking at me again because she does not like the facts. If you were serious about the environment, you would responsibly address the facts. But you refuse to do that. The fact of Senator Hanson-Young’s position is that she was putting to me that we should shut down—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong has the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is really extraordinary. Senator Hanson-Young is honestly putting to me that it is somehow a green position to shut down all drawing of water from the Murray River, including for Adelaide. That is the position you put. That is not a responsible environmental position.

The Acting Deputy President:

Please address your remarks through the chair, Senator Wong.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: firstly, Senator Wong should address the chair but, secondly, I draw your attention to the motion and the complete irrelevance of Senator Wong’s current contribution to the debate on the motion that the Senate is considering.

The Acting Deputy President:

I think the minister’s comments are within the very broad range that has been covered in debate here, and I was in the process of asking the minister to direct her comments through the chair.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will attempt to address my comments through the chair. I was distracted by the interjections. My point is that there is more to delivering for the environment than simply trying to play politics. There is more to delivering for the environment than simply asserting something which is unachievable. It is not a responsible environmental position to say, ‘You should stop taking any water out of the Murray River,’ including for your own home town. It is not a responsible environmental position to sit with those who think that climate change is absolute crap and ensure that Australia does not get a price on carbon. It is not a responsible environmental position to simply move a censure motion because you want to get into the media debate.

I am very happy to have a discussion with the Greens or anyone else in this chamber about sensible policy. We will not always agree. I am happy to have a debate about policy, but I think it is incumbent upon the Greens to decide whether they are a party of protest or responsible parliamentarians. At the moment it appears that they are the former, as evidenced by the fact that they sat on the other side of the chamber when Australia could for the first time have put a limit on its carbon pollution. They could have delivered the bill. That is a stark reality that they cannot hide from. It is extraordinary that a party that says, ‘We’re pro tackling the environment,’ somehow also says, ‘We’re going to vote it down because it’s not perfect.’ It was quite an extraordinary position when the extreme ends of politics combined to stymie this reform.

As I said, this is an opportunistic motion. Senator Milne made some comments about jobs and Senator Birmingham made some comments about the tragic deaths. I know Senator Milne, and I do not think that she would have meant to suggest that the government does not care about jobs. I hope she would know that we of course do. I do not think anybody in this chamber—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you like to get up and speak, Senator, or could I finish? Of course, everybody in this chamber regards the deaths as tragedies. No-one on this side of the chamber regards them as anything less than that, and I hope there is no implication from that side of the chamber that that is the case. As Minister Garrett has said, they are deeply regrettable incidents, and our thoughts do go out to the families and friends of those involved.

I do not think this government has hidden from the fact that there are very significant problems with the Home Insulation Program. It was a very large program and there were problems with it—we have been upfront about that. The Prime Minister has said that quite clearly. The minister has outlined how he has taken action when advised to reduce the risks about which he was advised and the government has made a decision to close the program. The minister has made clear how he has acted appropriately on the advice he was provided and the government has closed the program as a result of the advice provided. Obviously, as I said, we do not shy away from the fact that there were problems in this program. That is why the program was changed and has been discontinued. The minister has been full and frank with the House as well as with the Australian people about the way in which he has approached that.

If you look at all that this government is seeking to do on these issues—unfortunately having been stymied by some in this chamber—you will realise it is a government that is serious about tackling climate change. It is a government that does have an ambitious agenda. I note that Senator Birmingham was critical of that. We are unashamed about that—we have an ambitious agenda because there are many things to be done. Whilst some of these policies may not have been perfect, there have also been many good things delivered. These include, as I said, a very substantial increase in investment in renewable energy and, of course, a whole range of other programs across government for businesses and households in terms of reducing energy use, reducing water use and assisting people to make this transition.

I come back to this very simple fact: we will not transform our economy in the way we have to if we are going to tackle climate change unless we put a price on carbon. Unless the Greens change their position or the opposition change their position, we will see the extreme left and the extreme right of Australian politics stop a very important reform.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of this motion as amended and to speak about what has indeed been gross and systematic failure by this government in the management of a range of its programs, in particular the Home Insulation Program. In so doing, because I will not go missing in action, I take head-on comments by government members in this place about a shadow minister not being present in the debate on this motion. I take head-on suggestions by members opposite that somehow this motion of censure is not serious. In respect of the Home Insulation Program, I believe that the Australian people are looking to the very government that has got them into this mess to now get them out of it.

Their comments about shadow ministers are the height of hypocrisy. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Where has Minister Garrett been at every step along the tortuous way of the Home Insulation Program? Missing, missing, missing—the minister has been missing in action. As recently as two weeks ago, when a meeting was held to consider restarting the rolling out of foil insulation, where was the minister? Missing in action. The headlines were ‘Garrett goes bush as batts keep burning’. He was inspecting creepy-crawlies, instead of being back at his home base attending to his program, which was unravelling as fast as it was insulating. If you are going to bother to insulate, Minister, insulate right, not wrong.

The minister has been missing in action at every step of the way—and there have been quite some steps, but it has taken us a while to learn about these steps because the government has not been particularly forthcoming about them until now. The minister has received more than 20 warnings about the failings of the Home Insulation Program, and where has he been? Missing every step of the way. He was missing every step of the way when warned by his department’s own experts, Minter Ellison, of some 19—let’s call it 20; let’s round it up; what’s an extra one?—risks that needed to be addressed in the rollout of the Home Insulation Program. Some 20 risks were identified by Minter Ellison as many as 10 months ago, of which the minister, we are led to believe, did not become aware until perhaps some 10 or so days ago. Where was the minister every step along the way when it came to identification of risk, risk assessment and risk management? He was missing in action on every one of those 20 risk management steps.

Is the opposition serious in supporting this motion to censure the government for gross and systemic mismanagement in the Home Insulation Program? Please! This is from a government that supposedly established the Home Insulation Program for three reasons: to stimulate the economy, to create jobs and to help the environment. Opposition not serious? Please tell that to taxpayers and watchers of the economy, who see this program not stimulating the economy but backing money right out of it. Not serious? Please say that to the workers who were told they would have jobs created for them and protected and instead find they lost their jobs at the stroke of the minister’s pen last Friday, whilst he manages to hang on to his. Not serious? Tell that to those who support good environmental outcomes and find instead this program doing just the opposite.

How is it that the wrong sort of insulation gets installed in the wrong places? In hot places we get insulation that keeps the heat in, instead of stopping it coming in in the first place. In cold places, it stops the heat coming in instead of the reverse. It is incubating houses in hot places, effectively, instead of cooling them. Guess what happens then? Householders utilise electricity or whatever they have got that supposedly ain’t good for the environment to neutralise the effects of the insulation that was supposedly put in there to help the environment. Not serious about censuring the government? Please! Tell that to those who really want to believe that the Home Insulation Program was going to stimulate the economy, create and protect jobs, and help the environment.

Not serious? Not serious about censuring the government? Please, please, please! Tell that to the taxpayer who finds out as a result of the recent Senate committee inquiry that they have paid Minter Ellison some $28,000 for a risk assessment and a risk register. Hey, what’s $28,000 in a $2.7 billion or so program? It is a fair bit of money to mums and dads. It is a fair bit of money, particularly when the minister seems to think he can go missing in action when it comes to hand. It is a fair bit of money, when, had the minister cared to have a look at the results of that fair bit of money, there is every argument that we would not be where we are today: we would not have homes of mums and dads with accidents waiting to happen; we would not have an industry with, at best, its reputation tarnished, particularly in the minds of the community; and we would not have workers who had a job and now they haven’t.

Tell that to the taxpayer who learns more once we see the Minter Ellison risk assessment and risk register—that is the sneaky, tricky bit we got out a couple of days ago from the government through the Senate inquiry process. The risk register identifies more fully those almost 20 risks faced by the government in rolling out the Home Insulation Program and then quantifies the cost of failing to adequately address those risks or failing to address them at all. It quantifies it. Guess what? Minister, hello! Minister, are you there? Minister, if you fail to address these risks, it could cost, says the Minter Ellison risk assessment, anything between some $250 million to $800 million to $900 million. Three times $900 million and you are pretty much hitting the supposed outlay of this program in the first place—$2.7 billion. Minister, hello! Are you still missing, Minister? I am not sure we are going to be missing you, Minister. Minister, remember that, had these risks been assessed and had you listened to the taxpayer funded risk assessment, the results might have been different.

Try telling the mums and dads who are now looking to the very government that got them into this mess to help them get out of it that the censure motion is not serious. Try telling that to mums and dads who want to know: ‘Had a guy my roof—in fact, had several guys in my roof. Is my home safe? How do I know? When do I know? Will you help me find out? Who will come to look? How long will it take? Will I have to pay for it? If they say it is not safe, what then? Who gets to fix it? The same rogue who stuffed it up in the first place?’

Not serious? Tell that to mums and dads who want to know what is going to happen to businesses that they have in the industry. What is going to happen to the reputations of those who have been in the industry for a long time and had livelihoods before the so-called Home Insulation Program and still hope they have sustainable livelihoods after the Home Insulation Program? Tell that to the long-term players in the industry. Tell that to the short-term players in the industry, who supposedly are all now fly-by-nighters and shonks because they obeyed the beckon of the government to, ‘Come in, come in and help us, please.’ Supposedly, if you have not been in the industry for long, supposedly if you are a business that set up in this industry after the start of the Home Insulation Program, you are shonk, you are a bad person. Tell all those people that the government has not failed to manage this program.

Not serious? Tell that to the workers in this industry who lost their jobs last Friday at the stroke of the minister’s pen. Not serious? Tell that, for example, to Mr Franz Mueller, who runs an insulation business in South Australia and has for many years. Tell that to Mr Franz Mueller of, I think, Insulation Matters, who until Friday had 30 workers. Now he has 12, because he had to act. Tell that to Mr Franz Mueller who has insulation materials on hand and laying idle—for three months, he reckons—until the government restarts the program. If you are someone thinking about insulating, why the hell would you bother to move in the next three months when there will probably be another government handout, if you can take Minister Garrett at his word. Oh, the minister is back in the action! Or is he, or will he be?

Not serious? Please! ‘Not serious,’ says the government—this from a government who got us into this mess in the first place and now expects us to trust them to get us out of it. Not serious? Who was not serious? It was the minister who was missing in action. We are expected to take him seriously when he says that the first bit of the Minter Ellison documentation, some 20 pages, which came to his department some 10 months ago, he saw about 10 days ago. We are supposed to take the minister seriously when now he apparently says that the risk register, which also went to his department some 10 months ago, he actually only read after it was tabled by his department as a result of the Senate inquiry a couple of days ago. We are supposed to take the minister seriously. Come on, Minister!

Extracting the risk register of the Minter Ellison report, the second bit of it, was like extracting blood from a stone. Why do you reckon that might be? Because the government machinery took that risk register pretty seriously. They know that the risk register is a bit different from the risk assessment document, the first document, which we have had for two or three days longer. They know that the risk register—this pretty thing here that identifies 19, call it 20, because what is an additional risk between friends—which identifies the 20 risks, also quantifies the cost of not addressing and not mitigating the risks. It talks about the bucks which are going to be backed out of the economy, clearly, if the government fails to mitigate and deal with risks identified.

More than that, it then has recommendations about what the government should do to mitigate the risks. Even more than that, it then assesses the strength of the mitigation tactic. Just take one risk out of the 19 risks as an example. Take the risk about procurement and licensing, the need for the program to be determined and fulfilled by 1 July 2009. The scale of the task is new to the department, yet this government imposed upon its departments—plural—the delivery of this program within government time frames. Why then does the Minter Ellison risk register effectively go on to suggest: ‘Minister, why don’t you delay the commencement of this program for three months?’ This was just one recommendation that the minister missed. Was that because the minister was missing in action or because he missed seeing this recommendation? We plan to find that out, but at least at this stage it is very clear that the government did not take heed of that risk and implement the risk mitigation strategy identified by its very own experts at taxpayers’ expense of some $29,000.

More than that, what else does the risk register say? In a convenient column—hang on, let’s go with the three columns. We have paid for it, so we might as well go for it all. No. 1, it says the risks of fallout from procurement and licensing are rated 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is ‘most likely to happen’. In a further column it talks about the letter ‘E’. Look at the key to the risk register and you will find that ‘E’ means the highest rating: ‘extreme risk’. Worst of all, most indictable of all, most serious of all, is the rating in respect of the particular risk of ‘weak’. But ‘weak’ is not so much the risk itself as the likelihood of the mitigating factor recommended by Minter’s succeeding at all. So translate that to English, which the minister might have been able to have done for him had he asked his department, from Minter to minister: ‘Mate, delay the implementation of this program by three months. It’s going to blow up and out if you don’t. And, by the way, even if you do delay, there is a very weak prospect of it helping this program to achieve the outcomes.’ Through all of that, the minister was missing in action, so the taxpayer funded risk assessment and risk register might as well have been likewise.

Opposition not serious? Please say that to the Australian community. Say that this is not a serious censure motion of this government for gross and systematic failure in delivery of a range of its programs, in particular the Home Insulation Program. Say that to the mums and dads who want to know if they have home insulation accidents waiting to happen and want to know, if so, what is going to be done to help them stop them. Say that to the industries and the businesses who now have their reputations tarnished. And, please, say that to the workers who supposedly were going to have their jobs protected and, instead, have lost them overnight at the stroke of a ministerial pen. Please say that, and please say that to an Australian community that knows that it is this government that got them into this mess and somehow they are supposed to be relying on this government to get them out of it.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the motion. In speaking against this motion I confront a familiar alliance, or one might say ‘axis’—that is, the axis between the coalition and the Greens parties. It is an axis that has unfortunately wrought an enormous amount of damage in terms of the capacity—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only rorts are in your program, sir! And that’s r-o-r-t!

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I endured the vaudeville of the last 20 minutes in courteous silence. What we have here is this Berlin-Moscow axis, this coalition of interests, which pits Green fundamentalists with climate change deniers. It is that coalition of interests which most fatally at the end of last year finally voted down the CPRS as it was then amended. So it strikes me that what we really have here in this censure motion is that after months of assiduous sabotage by the Greens party, by in fact delivering to the coalition and to the climate change deniers a spectacular victory on the CPRS at the end of last year, they now have the political hide to come into this place and complain about a lack of progress in advancing those important environmental interests that the government sets itself so determinedly to accomplish.

This is an extraordinary act of two-faced politics, where on the one hand the attempts of this government to introduce a carbon price is sabotaged, while on the other hand a censure motion is brought into this place complaining about the government’s lack of progress in these issues more generally. This is indicative of a party that would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. This is a party that will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. In striking down the CPRS at the end of last year, in delivering those five votes to Tony Abbott and his climate change sceptic party, the Greens stand accused and convicted of having sunk that piece of legislation that would have done so very much for this country, so very much for our continuing effort to deliver action on climate change.

My favourite component of the censure motion is not part (1) but, rather, part (2). Part (2) calls on the government to put in place a unified ministry and department of climate change and energy. I cannot help but suspect that here we have one small, cherished insight into what must be the grand reorganisation of government planned in the central presidium of the Greens party. It would be with wonderment and joy that I would observe the remainder of their plan—their ministry for truth, their ministry for no energy, their ministry for a command economy—because to introduce this unified ministry in this form is of course a nonsensical incursion into government and the business of government which, by their own admission, they are ill-equipped to handle. Whether they headhunt Yogi Bear or Hugo Chavez to head this glorious new department of theirs, it will not change the fact that the failure to make progress in the critical area of CPRS rests at their feet and not at the feet of the government. They made themselves the handmaidens to the coalition and its environmental policies, and they must now wear that crown of thorns through 2010.

I note that with the Birmingham amendment the coalition has quite correctly moved to extricate itself from the proposition that this grand new department designed in the Greens central presidium should go forward. Of course that is a correct separation—and perhaps the first chink in this Berlin-Moscow axis. There is of course one outstanding example of ‘gross and systemic failure’, and that is the actions and the words of Tony Abbott and his coalition.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Feeney should be directed to address Mr Abbott by his proper title.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Troeth.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry; the Leader of the Opposition. In considering the Leader of the Opposition’s spectacular rise to power at the end of last year, the whole of Australia, and most specifically we senators, was privy to an extraordinary series of events where those forces inside the Liberal Party who had laboured for so long to deliver a reasonable position, a position that accepted the reality of climate change, were struck low. They were undermined and ultimately brought down by the determination of a Liberal majority, and that Liberal majority does not believe climate change is real. In fact, to quote the Leader of the Opposition, it believes climate change is crap.

Since becoming Leader of the Opposition, we have now seen Mr Abbott deliver three clangers in this critical area. In November, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that the CPRS would cost average households about $1,100 each, and only one week later he was forced to admit that that number had been produced by the opposition on the basis of a Google News search rather than any true and exacting research on the part of the opposition. As we all know, Treasury found that the CPRS would cause prices to rise by 1.1 per cent by 2013, on average costing a household $624 a year, and of course, as the government has made clear again and again and again, there is an expensive compensation program at the heart of the CPRS which makes sure that working families are compensated for those increases.

But, undeterred, the Leader of the Opposition pressed on and in December of last year he made a $250 billion blunder in his climate change costings when he claimed that the total cost of permits to achieve a 15 per cent target to 2020 would be up to $400 billion. In fact, Treasury modelling released in 2008—that modelling that those opposite often cry for—suggested that the total cost of permits to achieve the government’s 15 per cent target over the 12 years to 2020 would be around $150 billion—$250 billion less than the Leader of the Opposition claimed. Finally, in December, we had that magical moment when the Leader of the Opposition declared that global warming had stopped. This is the kind of flat-earth viewpoint which is now prevailing amongst those opposite.

We perhaps should not be surprised that that view is prevailing amongst those opposite, but it does give pause to reflect on some of the utterances of the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malcolm Turnbull. In recent times Mr Turnbull’s blog has become a source of inspiration for many of us on this side, and today should be no exception. Malcolm Turnbull has said on his blog:

So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost it is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, ‘bullshit’. Moreover, he knows it.

...                                 ...                                 ...                                 ...

The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is ‘crap’ and you don’t need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing.

There we have it, from the former Leader of the Opposition—that the coalition’s con job of a policy on climate—

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Feeney, I am advised that using the term that you did, whether you are quoting or not, is unparliamentary and is not to be used even if it is used as a quotation.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very good. I have heard the term used in this place previously, Madam Acting Deputy President, and this is the first time this ruling has been brought to my attention.

The Acting Deputy President:

Nevertheless I think we need to ensure that we maintain decorum.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is a new-found determination to do that, I will of course abide by it.

The Acting Deputy President:

Thank you, Senator Feeney.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My pleasure. So we have the former Leader of the Opposition revealing clearly and starkly the fact that those presently in command of the opposition, those presently in command of the alternative government of this country, are engaged in a policy which is about doing nothing, a policy which is about buying them time. It is a policy which is about them pretending that, so trying to look like, they care about action on climate change while they hope the whole issue disappears. It is a climate change con job.

That kind of conduct from the coalition is not the kind of stuff that would generally shock those of us on this side. That is par for the course, one might say. But what should not be forgotten is that in this task they have found themselves unlikely allies of the Greens party, who, by coming into this place and producing censure motions of this kind, do nothing more than assist the coalition in its continuing attempt to avoid serious scrutiny on these important issues. It has been suggested that the Greens party is doing this in an effort to gain publicity. Having quickly observed the media gallery above, I think that strategy has failed. But that is a matter for regret, not celebration, because the Greens party should be made as well to endure that sort of scrutiny about how it is that the lack of a carbon price in this country stands at their feet, the fact that the failure of the CPRS legislation to be passed was due to a decision that was made and ultimately they must bear responsibility for it.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will!

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, I was talking about the Greens party, but I am pleased you will too. We come to some of the specifics. We are talking about things such as household energy efficiency measures. The assertion being put is that the government has made no real progress and that there has been, to quote the motion, ‘gross and systemic failure’. But there are important successes that this government can and does claim. There are important successes which in fact everyone in this parliament should take great pride in. The first that springs to mind is the household energy efficiency measures. These measures have been referred to in this debate, but what has not been referred to in this debate is the total effect that they are having in providing a more efficient use of energy and in contributing to action on climate change. These household energy efficiency measures are expected to deliver energy savings of 32,000 gigawatt hours per year by 2020. That is equivalent to 14 per cent of all electricity generated in Australia in 2006-07—a spectacular sum. These measures will prevent up to 19½ million tonnes of carbon emissions every year by 2020. They will save the Australian economy up to $22 billion over the next 16 years and, perhaps most importantly, they will save Australian householders up to $5 billion by 2020. These are real and tangible outcomes. These are outcomes that are measurable and demonstrable. As much as those opposite may loathe hearing it, the fact is that there are important successes in this area that have been achieved despite the program of opposition and sabotage that the Australian people have witnessed taking place here in the Senate. Millions would have benefited from the CPRS householder assistance and what we have is an example of how the gross and systemic failure was in fact in rejecting those bills and not accepting them.

Turning our thoughts to the Home Insulation Program, Minister Wong set out a few moments ago the fact that the government has accepted and takes responsibility for the program and how it has been administered. We have witnessed a minister who has acted honourably, a minister who has kept faith with his ministerial responsibilities. As the Prime Minister said earlier today, this is a minister who has commissioned and sought advice and then has acted upon that advice. He is a minister who has acted on that advice and has acted properly and prudently, a minister who is an honourable man, a minister who has behaved honourably and a minister who enjoys the complete confidence of his Prime Minister and his party.

The CFMEU had an interesting comment—I think it was made today—concerning occupational health and safety. The CFMEU is the organisation of employees that, amongst other things, represents workers in the construction industry.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne interjecting—

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne is referring to its forestry division, which happens to not be the division that I will be quoting in a moment. The CFMEU, like many of us on this side, chafed when listening to those opposite trying to pontificate to us about occupational health and safety. What a nonsense that those opposite have discovered for the first time occupational health and safety and now seek to try and beat us over the head with it! The CFMEU pointed out that on average one Australian dies every week in the construction industry in this country. That is of course an appalling statistic. It is a statistic that I am sure would appal every senator and everyone in this building. But in reflecting upon that statistic, Mr David Noonan, the divisional national secretary from the CFMEU’s construction division, had this to say:

“Mr Abbott presided over a government that slashed workers’ entitlements to safety in the construction industry, that brought in laws that made it harder for unions to police safety on construction sites …and everybody in the industry knows that it is unions that make workplaces safer in construction.

“Mr Abbott put in legislation which has seen an increase in deaths in construction. This is an industry which, on average, loses one worker ... every week.”

What we note is the fact that, firstly, those opposite, having cynically discovered occupational health and safety, are now being very selective indeed. Secondly, we on this side are not going to be lectured to about how a proper occupational health and safety process should be run.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You certainly need a bit of advice. You should have taken it a few months ago.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That advice is coming from the proper quarters, Senator. It is not coming from your nonsensical approach to public policy. Senator Milne made the assertion—which I think I could characterise as an allegation—that Senator Wong and this government take the old fossil fuel economy very seriously. That is true. We do take the old fossil fuel economy, as Senator Milne characterised it, very seriously. That is the economy which has built this country, and that is the economy which we are charged with the responsibility of managing and transitioning.

Australia is a trade-exposed and commodities-based economy. That makes it a particularly emissions-intensive economy and that means that the transformation challenge is very acute for all of us. We have a challenge which, I would submit, is greater than that confronted by any European country and I daresay by the United States.

Our great challenge is to change the trajectory of emissions so that we can bring our emissions into line with international obligations and agreements, and so we can try and achieve those targets that were set out at Copenhagen. In taking on this challenge, and accepting that challenge as real, we do understand the need for long-term investment signals. Long-term investment signals would have been set out clearly and effectively by the CPRS that the Greens party—the author of this censure motion—struck down.

The proposition that we destroy the coal industry is simply indicative of a mindset which is fundamentalist in its approach. It assumes that its opposition is always motivated by corrupt or vested interests, is always evil and is not simply comprised of persons who reach different conclusions in good faith. The proposition that we destroy the coal industry is ridiculous. The idea that we unilaterally dismantle our economy, our prosperity, our way of life is ridiculous. Unilateral disarmament was a ridiculous notion in the Cold War and the unilateral dismantling of our economy today is just as absurd.

This censure motion should be treated for what it is—a stunt. It is a stunt that has attracted no interest from the media and very little interest from those opposite. It has only attracted our contempt that a party which worked so assiduously to sabotage action on climate change now seeks to censure us on matters pertaining to the environment.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to say how surprising it was that in Senator Feeney’s remarks of approximately 20 minutes he devoted only eight minutes to defending his minister and his government. I compare it to the actions of the Prime Minister during the censure motion yesterday in the House, when he did not have the courage to stand up in the parliament and defend his minister, his program or himself. He left Minister Garrett to defend himself. It was a truly insipid and weak performance.

I recognise that this motion put forward by Senator Brown also covers other policy failures by the Rudd government, but I particularly wish to focus on the Home Insulation Scheme. By far and away, it is the most serious failure of a minister to undertake his most basic responsibilities that I can remember in my years in this place. This government and this minister have presided over a policy that has left four people dead, four families grieving and hundreds of thousands of homes at risk of burning to the ground, threatening the lives of the people living in them.

Today, the Prime Minister says he is ultimately responsible for the failures of this program. But as is usual with this Prime Minister, those words are hollow and very different from the reality—that everyone else can plainly see—around him. The Prime Minister has not even taken the responsibility to sack his incompetent minister.

These sorts of numbers are staggering. We now have in this country 240,000 homes with unsafe or substandard installations. We have 160,000 installations that did not meet product standards. We have 80,000 installations that did not meet safety standards. We have 1,000 electrified homes and we have had 93 house fires. And we have had the tragic deaths of four young men. Yet, in the last four days, the Prime Minster had the nerve to call Mr Garrett a first class and very effective minister. This is despite the fact that the minister received at least 21 individual warnings over safety and reports on the four deaths. This is despite the minister’s officials receiving the Minter Ellison report exposing deep concerns in April of last year and a further risk register, from the same firm, with a clear warning to delay the program for three months to correct the problems. He claims he knew nothing about it until 11 days ago.

I am a member of the committee that cross-examined the department on Monday morning and I will say again what I said then. It is astounding that the minister did not know of a report, detailing those basic mistakes, from a firm that is a household name in this country for high level professional advice. Everyone in the department seemed to know about it, but no-one mentioned the report to the minister. The risks were apparently detailed in other ways, but obviously not enough. That is a very convenient lapse in ministerial procedure.

As early as last year, the minister was warned in writing by the National Electrical and Communications Association that this program was a disaster waiting to happen. In late April he was warned by state and territory ministers that this program was a disaster. On 14 October last year we had the first death directly linked to this program. On 16 October last year the Master Electricians Association formally wrote to the minister, warning him that without an immediate suspension of the foil insulation program there would be further fatalities. In November, the Australian Council of Trade Unions—surely the bible as far as this government is concerned—called for the suspension of the foil insulation program. And yet he took no action. The New South Wales minister warned of the fire risk from this program. The South Australian minister warned of the fire risk from this program. These were Labor government ministers warning this minister of the risks inherent in this program—and still he took no action. It was only in February that he finally acted.

Without question this is a breach of the most basic ministerial responsibility, and yet the Prime Minister and the minister do not have the dignity, or the respect for the victims or the people who are at risk, to do the honourable thing. The fact that Mr Garrett is still calling himself ‘the honourable minister’ is a contradiction in terms at the moment. If this kind of incompetent decision making and its disastrous consequences do not get you sacked in the Rudd government, you would have to ask what does.

Given that I have a limited amount of time, I would like to turn to the Green Loans scheme. I want to read a letter I received from a constituent in Victoria who has been left very much out of pocket by the scheme. This person writes:

I first heard of this scheme in November—

last year—

& was interested in training to become a Home Sustainabilty Assessment Scheme assessor. I’m primarily a—

professional person—

… with an interest in this area, and was very careful to do my homework …

I was aware of the total up-front cost to me; about $3000 … so I proceeded carefully. I calculated I would have to complete about 15 assessments in 2010 to break even, and that the assessments after this would provide a small income for me this year. I did not expect this scheme to provide a new job for me, just a part-time income which I could possibly increase over time with extra training in the area. There is no way I thought it possible that I would be looking at losing my $3000 investment entirely, a prospect I am facing right now.

… I carefully checked the figures in late November on the Australian Building Surveyor’s Association website as to how many assessors had been registered. According to their website, 1500 assessors were registered at this time, and there weren’t many assessors registered in the area where I wanted to work. So I decided to continue with the process …

There were no statistics from the DEWHA—

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts—

available at this time as to how many assessments had been completed. I assumed, along with many others I guess, that if this scheme was running out, they would have let the general public and ABSA know.

I was gob-smacked in January when I found out, courtesy of ABSA, that 5000 assessors had been registered before the 24/12 [3500 in December alone!!] and that my application to assess was amongst another 5000 waiting for approval. The other shock was the fact that over half the 360000 assessments—

that were originally budgeted for—

had already been completed [in a scheme that was supposed to run till 2012!!]

Now, according to ABSA, I should get my accreditation in about a week’s time, but I am really wondering now if I’ll make even one cent from this whole government-sponsored endeavour!

There are so many assessors who have been intending to take this up that by, mid-February, this gentleman calculates:

… that leaves 80000 assessments to be carried out by 10000 assessors, an average of 8 per assessor [well below the number required to break even]

This is a tragedy for this gentleman. He says:

I know I’ll be lucky if I can even book a couple of appointments.

… I’ve blown $3000. Now, with 2 teenage children, we’re currently struggling to cope with the early year bills; school fees & expenses and bills from the Christmas period. And I believe there are 1000s more in the same boat as me.

Regardless of whatever answers the government provides to those questions, the broader question remains of how so many mistakes, along with negligence, lack of attention to detail and gross incompetence, can be tolerated. How much more can we take? The government should be censured, the minister should resign and the Prime Minister should stop trying to look like he has friends on Good News Week, try showing some leadership on a serious issue for once and sack his minister if he refuses to resign.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are debating a motion to censure the government for its gross and systematic failure in the delivery of climate change programs, including the Home Insulation Program—the pink batts or batty batts program. First of all, I would like to say: what did the government expect from holding hands with the Greens and rushing ahead with wacky policy ideas? It is unreal that you would hold hands with them. Maybe you were hoping they would vote for your crazy Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. But that completely failed, and this is what you get.

Maybe we should be having a censure motion of the Greens for their wacky policy positions that would actually wreck the Australian economy. I find it farcical that the Greens have moved a motion to censure the government, when it is their ideas that the government have rushed ahead with, trying to please the Greens. They are wacky policy positions. The renewable energy targets that they were putting forward were wacky. Sorry, but they were wacky. The government have been holding hands with the Greens over their wacky policy ideas, and now you have got yourselves in a heck of a mess. The Greens did not even support your Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Maybe we should just change this motion to say that the Greens should be censured for their wacky policy positions—renewable energy targets of 30 per cent. That would cripple our economy. It would absolutely spiral up electricity prices. Families could not even pay their bills. And here we have the government jumping into bed with the Greens. They have got themselves in a mess because they tried to rush ahead with their crazy ideas. When it came to the emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the Greens had a wacky idea again—of signing up for even bigger targets before Copenhagen. Gee, what an embarrassment that would have been for Australia. Copenhagen was a farce, a huge flop. We would have been embarrassingly and recklessly signing ourselves up for targets that would expose Australian jobs and our economy.

Yes, this censure motion is real. Yes, the government should be censured on this issue, but surely the Greens should also be censured. Their whacky policies would send us back to the horse-and-buggy days. It is ridiculous to think that they would jump into bed so quickly. What did you expect? You were that much of a fool that you did it!

Bob’s forest is a dangerous place. Lurking behind every tree is a whacky dangerous Greens policy position. Look at RET—the renewable energy targets. They would have wrecked our economy. Look at their position on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That position was whacky. It is crazy to think that you have, gullibly, let yourselves into this.

How many times could the coalition flip-flop on the climate issue? Maybe you should have gone to the Winter Olympics. You could have won an elegance award in aerial skiing for double backflips—with a smile on your face at the same time! How credible are you guys? How credible can you be? I do not think you can be credible. It was not that long ago when you were signing up for Copenhagen. You would have been elegant in the Winter Olympics doing your double backflips with smiles on your faces! We are all dizzy from how many twists and turns you have done on the ice-skating rink.

Let us look at Labor. Let us just think about this for a moment. Censure is harsh criticism or disapproval; to reprimand or rebuke formally. Labor should be rebuked. They could not manage themselves out of a wet paper bag! It is disgraceful to think that Mr Garrett has not got the decency to resign. If you could put aside the debt—which is hard to do—you would still hear about how much waste has gone on with this program. There has been up to one billion dollars worth of waste with ineffective insulation being used, some dangerous. It is incompetence at the highest level, and Mr Rudd has not got the guts. If the minister has not got the sense of decency to resign Mr Rudd should do something about it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Acting Deputy President Barnett. I am sorry for interrupting the flow of this speech but I ask that you ask the senator not to belt the desk. It is very hard for Hansard to be able to interpret through that.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brown. I note your comments and I call Senator Fielding.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Rudd, on The 7.30 Report, a month or two after being elected, was talking to Kerry O’Brien, beating his chest to the Australian public and saying, ‘I will hire and fire my ministers on performance.’ I kept that transcript, by the way. I then went to Senate estimates the following year and I asked one of the ministers—I cannot remember which one it was—‘Have you got your performance measures from the Prime Minister?’ The answer was, ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about.’ Bingo! They were not even given any performance measures to start with. How embarrassing that a minister did not even know that they were supposed to get letters from the Prime Minister of the day.

What is the performance standard for this minister? There has been up to a billion dollars worth of wastage and deaths and he says, ‘Not my fault.’ Does he know what is going on in his department? He thought saying that he had never read a report was a good excuse, but for me that made it even worse. Most Australian people on the street thought: ‘You didn’t read a report which you asked for and which was pretty significant! You didn’t read it!’ It is outrageous to think that he could stand there and get away with this.

The Prime Minister said on The 7.30 Report that he would hire and fire his ministers on performance but it is a disgrace. The Prime Minister has to show some real leadership on this issue. A $2.5 billion insulation program has gone belly-up. That is gross incompetence. If it is not the Prime Minister and it is not Minister Garrett it is even worse: you are trying to blame the department now. Someone has to own responsibility for this. If the minister gets away with this there is no responsibility for any ministers in the entire Rudd government. Mr Fitzgibbon must be really thinking: ‘Blimey, I got pinged! I got pushed for what? What about Garrett?’

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! You should refer to the minister by his correct title.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The issue at hand here is really responsibility. This censure motion is absolutely real. I have problems with this idea of a unified ministry and department of climate change and energy. I will not be supporting that. I really think that the word ‘censure’ in this motion means harsh criticism, disapproval; to reprimand and rebuke formally—and that is what needs to happen here. There has been gross incompetence with this program, and the Australian public are watching this issue. They may not be listening to this debate or watching it but they have been watching what has been happening with the Prime Minister and Minister Garrett about who is going to take ownership and responsibility for this issue. This issue is bigger than you think, out on the street.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the participants in this censure motion debate. I end by repeating what I said when I began: it is a very serious step for any Senate to censure the government and, inter alia, several ministers involved in the failure of due process, proper accountability and delivery of programs, and the ignoring of advice which could have prevented those failures. We have had from a number of speakers a reiteration of the litany of problems in the $2 billion programs that have led to this censure motion coming before the Senate. Those problems include the potential loss of thousands of jobs, the blighting of hopes of some 250,000 householders who have had their houses audited for potential green loans—and now only 1,000 loans will be delivered to households—and the massive loss of confidence among people who have skilled up to audit houses and to take part in insulation programs and other components of this spectrum of delivery of climate change programs.

The awesome failure of control and due prudence in the delivery of the Home Insulation Program has led to 92 house fires, which may be related to the deaths of four young Australians and which has resulted in a large number of investors coming into an industry that has now suddenly been faced with effective closure and a consequent huge loss for most people who did make the investment. When we look at the solar hot water rebate, which on Friday was reduced from $1,600 to $1,000, we have to ask: what are the businesses that have ordered systems for clients supposed to do with the cancelled orders?

This is a real problem for businesses now as a result of the mismanagement of this program by the government and the ministers involved. Who is going to cover their cash crisis? Is this indeed not systemic failure? Whether we look at the failure of the insulation program, at the collapsing of the renewable energy target program, particularly the wind energy component of that, at the application of photovoltaics out of solar panels, at solar hot water systems or at the other components of the program, including the delivery of renewable energy to remote communities in Australia, it is easy to go to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and say that he has failed. There is no doubt that in terms of due prudence and management he has failed.

But several ministries are involved. When it comes to the colossal failure of governance with these multibillion dollar programs, all roads lead to Rudd. It is at the Prime Minister’s office that the buck stops. This is a Prime Minister who controls his departments and the administration of governance with a great deal of personal interest for a lack of initiative given to people who are within his cabinet, I believe. The Prime Minister himself has taken responsibility for the circumstances in which the government now finds itself.

I cannot recollect ever having heard such a failure of defence of a censure motion as we have witnessed here today. The Leader of the Government in the Senate and then the Minister for Climate Change and Water and finally a backbencher all failed to address the central thrust of the censure motion. None of them addressed the massive incompetence, the failure of management and the failure to heed proper warning that has led to this problem. The nearest we got to it were 10 words from the Minister for Climate Change and Water when she said, ‘There were problems with the program; the government has closed it.’ There was no defence at all of what has been so eloquently put by Senator Milne and Senator Troeth and others as the problem and which, moreover, has been emblazoned across the newspapers, television and radio for weeks now in this country.

This is a massive failure of governance, and it requires the government to face this censure motion. We have found in the Senate this afternoon a complete failure to address the problems which the government was charged to defend. There is no defence. The government has no defence. It has put forward no defence. The best it could do was to go to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and blame the Greens and the opposition for the failure to get that scheme through this parliament. Given the record of every other climate measure that has gone through this parliament and that has ended up so manifestly mismanaged, one has to wonder how gross the mismanagement of the CPRS—with its more than $100 billion program—would have been had it gone ahead.

I also reiterate, seeing the government has drawn attention to the CPRS, that it was a determined failure before it began. This is a CPRS which aimed at a five per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in this nation in the next decade plus. But, when you take into account the ability of the big polluters to buy credits from overseas and do nothing about reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country, it could well have led to quite the reverse—not just less than a five per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions but an actual increase in greenhouse gas emissions while $24 billion compensation went to the polluters.

What I would like to have heard from the minister for climate change is a more coherent and positive reaction to the Greens proposal, which has been endorsed by Professor Garnaut and, I heard today, Mr Shergold, for a carbon levy to be implemented with an increasing price in the coming few years until a proper and responsible target system is brought into play. That system, which does not allow for external credits to be bought by the polluters, would ensure that greenhouse gas emissions in this country fall in the immediately coming years. That surely has to be the baseline test of any credible scheme that is going to tackle climate change.

I would have thought the Minister for Climate Change and Water, who chose to attack the Greens for voting against her prescription for failure in the CPRS, would have been much more positive, and maybe would have given to the chamber an account of why it is taking so long for us to get a response from the government on this positive program, which we Greens have brought forward—let alone acknowledgement of the fact that, while the opposition obstructed, it was the Greens who delivered the stimulus program which helped this country, during the last 12 months, avoid recession and massive job losses.

We are a responsible entity on this crossbench. We are determined to continue to act that way. We have brought forward this censure motion with a great deal of deliberation. We do not do it lightly; we certainly do not do it lightly to a government in its first term of office. But the failure of governance here is so gross, it affects so many tens of thousands of Australian citizens, the programs have been so manifestly poorly applied—despite the warnings of the government’s own consultants 12 months ago—that the government absolutely deserves to be censured in the way in which this motion puts it.

We will not divide on the matter of the motion’s call for a unified ministry and department of climate change and energy, but let me say this: I heard Senator Feeney, who diverted Labor preferences, unknown to Labor voters, who did not have a say in this, and helped Senator Fielding take a seat in this place—and I congratulate Senator Fielding—instead of another Labor or Greens senator, attack the Greens in here. Senator Feeney, the architect of that, was attacking the Greens in here today. I want to say this to him: he, like the leader and the minister, left the chamber after their speeches. That is the determination they have to defend the government in this place. But let me say this: five per cent was the target, with a $24 billion price-tag given to the big polluters, had the best outcome emerged from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme put forward by the government.

Senator Milne gave us the story of the Prime Minister being in the Hunter Valley in support for the coalmining industry. Prime Ministers and premiers of course will do that. But in the last few weeks we have heard Mr Palmer from Queensland announce this massive program for selling, from his one scheme only, 30 million tonnes of coal a year to China. That would lead to the increase of greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere—produced in Australia, burnt in China—equivalent to increasing Australia’s greenhouse gas output by 12 per cent. So in one fell swoop a massive coal export operation—not helping Australia but to be burnt in China—would more than double any gain made by the $24 billion compensation-to-polluters prescription that this government has put forward. You can see the problem, the muddled thinking that is within government.

If you do not bring energy and climate change within the same portfolio, you have the internal contradiction of the government, which on the one hand wants to put a $24 billion compensation program, producing a five per cent result, but at the same time wants to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to cancel that and give us a plus-12 per cent result in greenhouse gas emissions. You can see the inherent contradiction within this government. It is that sort of contradiction that we believe would be eliminated by the creation of such a department, were it to be properly equipped and financed and be headed by a competent minister.

So I commend this motion to the chamber. The government has been incompetent in the management of these massive programs, which use taxpayers’ money and ought to have delivered a marvellous dividend to this nation but, instead of that, at minimum, has delivered blighted hopes, expectations, business investment and job prospects for thousands of Australian citizens. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Birmingham’s) be agreed to.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being 31 ayes and 31 noes, I will read the following statement. The result of the division indicates that the amendment lacks majority support. The alternative interpretation is that paragraph 2 of the motion lacks majority support. In keeping with the precedent of the Senate, a proposition that lacks majority support is not carried. Therefore, paragraph 2 is omitted from the proposed resolution for lack of majority support. The question now is that paragraph 1 of the censure motion be agreed to.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 154, I move:

That the resolution censuring the government be communicated by message to the House of Representatives for its concurrence.

Question agreed to.