Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

While I acknowledge that appropriation bills are normally opportunities for laps around the electorate with particular significance because of the release of money, and while I recognise the significance of the many good aspects of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and cognate bill, I certainly raise some concerns about aspects of this legislation, so much so that, on balance, I will be asking for the bills to be returned to the House for a division when all the speakers are done.

I will do that for the following reasons. One is an issue of process in a key area, and it concerns the $14 million being allocated through this legislation for climate change advertising and promotion for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. For me, it is a case of that cliche in politics, the cart before the horse. You only need to read any of the media in the past week to see that there is plenty of politics to be played out with regard to both the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme following the white paper process and the process of steering it through the parliament. I think the government have to do a fair bit of work to get it through in the form that I am sure they want. Therefore, for me, it is odd and also inappropriate for the question to be put for $14 million to be released by Finance for a national advertising campaign to raise public awareness of climate change. That in itself is questionable because there is certainly a heightened awareness within the community about climate change, but in particular I question the use of taxpayers’ dollars to ask the community to participate in a scheme that we as members of parliament have not even seen and are yet to debate. We are certainly looking forward to that, but at this stage the ‘for sale’ sign simply cannot go up. Maybe we could consider it in four months time if the CPRS gets through in the clean form in which the government wants it to get through. But I think it is a classic example of the cart before the horse to ask us to agree to a significant advertising and promotion campaign. Fourteen million dollars might not sound much around these hallways, but in the community’s mind I think that is substantial dollars and deserves a revisit once the CPRS goes through, if it does, in the form we are expecting.

On a similar topic, there is an issue about the inconsistencies in the narrative on climate change contained within this bill. Whilst in general there are some fantastic aspects in this bill, I want to highlight some that are of concern. The first one is the AusAID commitment. I have family who work for AusAID and I am certainly not one to bash international aid dollars, because I think we have global responsibilities. But there is an allocation here of $150 million to the World Bank, with $50 million for the trust fund established to respond to the global food price crisis. That is one of the first acknowledgements I have seen in my short time here that government does recognise it has a role to play in addressing an increasingly difficult and challenging area for government policy and global consideration—that is, the global food price crisis we are facing. Yet at the same time, in the same bill, we see an allocation of $37 million for the ethanol production grants program, with the development of the concept of food for fuel within Australia. As that concept has developed over recent years, I have to say that from my point of view it looks to be largely driven by vested interests within the various agricultural sectors. This allocation is entirely inconsistent with the $50 million allocation being made to the World Bank. For West Wing fans, you only need to see the episode called ‘The Pledge’ to know exactly where my cynicism is coming from about grain ethanol production and the $37 million allocation. Sitting alongside that in the legislation is the allocation to the World Bank to recognise Australia’s responsibilities and role with regard to the global food price crisis. As I said, that is an inconsistency within this legislation. I hope the coalition and the non-executive members of caucus will give further consideration to that inconsistency in the narrative we are currently working through on climate change.

The second inconsistency in narrative, to me, is this allocation of $100 million to the Clean Technology Fund—again through the World Bank—which ‘will offer development finance at highly concessional rates for transformative investments in low-carbon technologies by developing countries in the transportation and power sectors and in energy efficient buildings, industry and agriculture’. Again, the rights and wrongs of international aid can be debated by others, but this does show that government recognises the need for transformative policy and investment in transformative policies overseas. Yet, within Australia, the allocation in this bill is $99 million—no small bickies—for the carbon capture and storage institute. I certainly hope that is a success. I fully recognise that my vote against this legislation is not going to stop this legislation going through, so I certainly hope that institute succeeds in proving the concept of carbon capture and storage. However, it is an unproven science. I would hope that most of us recognise that.

See this speech in context