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

The interjection is that, because it is unproven science, that is all the more reason to have the centre. I am throwing the opportunity now to the coalition to read the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald today where biochar was put up as an option by the coalition and the comment in response from the minister for agriculture was that it is an unproven science that has potential and deserves further consideration. If this is unproven and recognised as unproven, a $99 million allocation of taxpayers’ dollars as a response, sitting alongside a fund overseas that is getting $100 million for transformative investment in low-carbon technologies, again has inherent inconsistencies in its narrative for Australia. That is my view in regard to the Clean Technology Fund. I think that is a direction that the world needs to be heading in, not just developing countries, and I would love to see more clean technology being funded within Australia.

I do note at the same time with regard to the carbon capture and storage institute some lovely semantic name changes also happening. We saw it with the concept of ‘global warming’, where that took a name change because it was seen as too harsh. It was, I guess, softened to take on the new name of ‘climate change’. We are now seeing the ‘National Clean Coal Fund’ softened to the ‘National Low Emissions Coal Initiative’. Again, that is hopefully a recognition by government that some of what I consider to be vested interest claims on the climate change debate are not successful in capturing community expectations and community wants in regard to solving real problems at a community level. The concept of clean coal, in my view, is also one that should be questioned and that we should all be sceptics about. Hopefully, the debate is moving from one on sceptics about climate change to one on who is and is not sceptical about certain responses to climate change.

In my view we deserve, as a community and as a country, to have high levels of scepticism about what is driving particular responses by government to issues such as clean coal, and carbon capture and storage. We should be sceptical because, unless there is a part of this story that is not being told, the response looks to be driven by vested interests rather than governments genuinely dealing with real problems on the ground within communities like the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. There are huge opportunities, whether they are in clean technologies, solar technology or solar thermal technology. There is a whole raft of engaging opportunities at a community level, yet the big bickies look to be going elsewhere.

The third reason to go against this, with regard to the overall appropriation bill, is not climate change but related issues. I hope, again, that everyone in this place might think of reviewing the $28 million allocation to the Australian pavilion at the Shanghai Expo in 2010, bearing in mind what is clearly a tsunami going through world economies. If we try and look forward to 2010, I am not sure whether that $28 million spend is necessarily the best message or the right message for Australia to be sending. I think of David Jones putting on tea and scones this year at their fashion expo rather than the champagne and all the bells and whistles. Maybe a statement from Australia that we are conscious of the importance and value of money in the current climate would be a strong domestic message and might even be a better international message for consideration.

As well, an issue for concern—it is not a reason to oppose the legislation—is the further $21 million allocation for Australia’s financial regulators to ‘maintain the strength’ of Australia’s financial system during the global financial crisis. I recognise that we have a strong economy; however, I think there is some work to be done with regard to some accountability trails and some strengthening of the regulators that we have in this country today—not necessarily the regulators of the private sector but those that regulate the public sector.

This has been well positioned as a private sector crisis; however I think the untold story of the last 18 months is the public sector crisis. There is an amount of taxpayers’ money at the three tiers of government, and in all the various roles that those three tiers play, that has been lost or at the very least exposed. I think it would be—and this is being conservative—in the hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. I have a council in my region that has $25 million exposed due to their taking on questionable CDOs. Importantly, the council argues that they were within the state Treasury Corporation guidelines. And there have been reports from councils in other locations. I understand there is a council in WA that has an exposure in the $80 million class.

This is the untold story where we need to start to see some good work done in going down the accountability trail to find out who is exposed and to what extent, who is accountable and to what extent, and who is in breach of investment guidelines and to what extent. And probably of more concern is that, if no-one is in breach, how on earth did we end up with so much exposure? Were people with taxpayers’ money in the public sector taking due care in protecting capital or were people chasing risky investments with taxpayers’ money in order to try and make a buck for services, such as those run by local councils, which are already stretched?

You can include in all of this semistatutory and non-statutory bodies. You can think of the non-government education sector. There is exposure all down the trail of the public sector, yet the story has yet to be told or explored. I think it is the role of the federal parliament to take a lead on that, to start to call to account those who were in breach of regulatory investment strategies in particular and, if there were no breaches, to start to clean up those guidelines throughout the country to make sure that taxpayers’ dollars are treated with the premium that they deserve to be treated with.

Having said all that, in the remaining time I am very conscious to welcome many aspects of this legislation. The Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, I think, is excellent. I went along to the ‘gift of life’ ceremony this morning with the Prime Minister, and I congratulate the government on the work they are doing in regard to organ and tissue donation and transplantation. In my particular area, it will be something that is promoted to try and get as many organ donors as possible involved in the national campaign. That is good work being done by government. The Prevocational GP Placements Program is one that is really important to the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. The breast cancer drug initiative is good. The Job Capacity Assessment program is good. These are all incredibly relevant to various aspects of life within my region and, I suspect, around the 149 other electorates in Australia. The Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program is good. I think the local government study program and the centre of excellence at a university are also timely—in fact, in many cases well overdue considering what I was just talking about, the exposures at a local level in regard to financial planning.

I also put on the record, in that regard, a separate council that I represent, Greater Taree City Council, which has just had Percy Allan, who would be known to many people in this room, go through the backlog of maintenance just on local roads and bridges within its area. The figure that it now has to deal with is $140 million of backlog. For those who are going to be critical of me being antsy about various moneys going here, there and everywhere, I hope you understand that I have a maintenance backlog of $140 million for local roads and bridges; that is the standout problem for the southern part of the electorate of Lyne. It is not, at the moment, part of the responsibility of the federal government, but the reality is that it is the problem that my communities face and therefore it is the problem that I and, I hope, government at all levels are willing and, hopefully, able to assist in addressing over time.

I know there are a lot of speakers who have emerged on the list. When the time comes—probably in a few weeks—I will certainly be calling for this to be returned to the House of Representatives and will be voting against this legislation unless those changes are considered by all and relevant changes are made.

See this speech in context