Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say that I do commiserate with the member for Macarthur and the member for Moreton as I reflect on the floods that have occurred in all of our electorates over the past six months and also back in 2017. I know that, for the member for Macarthur, they have occurred a couple of times this year as well.

I enjoy studying history because history can be very, very instructive. I would pull up the member for Macarthur on the term 'climate change' because I would call it something different. I would call it a 'change in climate' because, as the member for Moreton well knows and given the floods that we've had in my electorate of Forde, we have had worse floods historically. As the member for Parkes would know, they've had worse droughts historically in the member for Parkes's electorate. So it's not to do with the term 'climate change'; it's actually to do with a change in climate. And one of the reasons we have the impacts in our electorates that we do—as the members for Macarthur and Moreton well know and as I have said on the public record a number of times—is that our state governments and our councils have allowed housing projects and industrial developments to be built on flood plains that have historically flooded on a regular basis. The consequence of that is dire because, over time, as our population has grown, as our industrial developments have grown and as the value of our assets have grown, the impact of those events, financially, has been greater to our communities.

We are obviously having a very important discussion about the financial impacts of a changing climate. That is perfectly valid. But we are not having a discussion about the practical measures that could be taken to mitigate the effects of a changing climate, because we have failed to properly plan for future development in our communities.

I will put on the record that I am proud of the fact that the previous coalition government—and I believe the current government is continuing this in Queensland at least—had a $750 million fund to allow property owners to relocate, build back better or modify their properties. I think that is a fantastic initiative. That is the sort of stuff we should be pursuing as practical measures. I saw the other day a discussion about the floodplains around Western Sydney and the future of development there and maybe relocating some towns. As the member for Moreton would know, after the events in Grantham in 2011 the town was actually substantially relocated. That is the practical stuff that we should be doing to mitigate the impacts of a changing climate in the future.

We are going to get floods in the future. We are going to have fires in the future. We are going to have cyclones in the future. All of those things are guaranteed to happen. The reason I say that is that they have happened in the past. But if we think that just focusing on reducing our CO2 emissions is going to be the silver bullet that solves this problem we are seriously kidding ourselves. Those things happened when the CO2 levels in our atmosphere were far, far lower than they are today. So let's learn from history. That's not to say the climate isn't changing. I'm not saying that we don't have a responsibility to look after our environment and make it a better place for the current generation and also ensure that we leave an environment that is in better condition for future generations. I absolutely have no problem with that argument whatsoever.

There is much we can do in that space. I remember having a discussion with a former environment minister, the former member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, about riparian corridors on waterways. One of the great advantages of riparian corridors on waterways is they slow down floodwaters. You reduce, then, the transfer of silt that would impact on waterways further down the course or, in the case of North Queensland, you reduce the level of silt that would go out into the Great Barrier Reef. It is these practical measures, in my view, that we should be looking at. We know as well that riparian corridors become a source of CO2 sequestration. There are arguments from some scientists for this. There is a scientist in Queensland by the name of Bill Burrows who wrote a submission to a parliamentary inquiry suggesting that, with our forests and rain plains, we continue to develop and grow those out. Those measures will greatly assist with getting to or even ensure that we are net zero rather than other measures we are currently discussing.

I hear those opposite say regularly that the 43 per cent reduction is a plan. The 43 per cent isn't a plan; it's a target. It's a target, by the way, that doesn't have to be legislated, because the government has already signed up to it. The government has already signed up, so there's no need for this legislation. The worst part about this legislation is that there is no plan attached—zero. There is nothing in this legislation that creates a plan to achieve that 43 per cent reduction. As I look at what—

I will take the member for Moreton's interjection, because he's a good friend. The government proposes to rewire the nation, in their words, at an investment of—I believe climate change minister said this today in question time—$131 billion in total. Given that that is a regulated asset and requires a return—the regulator return is somewhere around five to 5½ per cent. That's a return of somewhere in the order of $6½ billion to $7 billion, in round numbers, per annum. Ultimately, who's going to pay for that? It's a regulated asset. The consumers of electricity are going to pay for that.

Those opposite have said that they are going to reduce electricity bills by $275 through to 2025. At a cost of $7½ billion across 25 million people it's going to cost the Australian consumer $300 a year, because of that investment in a regulated asset. How are those opposite going to reduce electricity bills by $275 a year when their exact plan is to increase electricity prices by $300 a year? It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up.

I am very pleased—in the last 40 seconds of this contribution—that the opposition has put nuclear energy on the agenda this week, because if those opposite and those on the crossbench are serious about achieving a net zero target by 2050 nuclear energy is the only solution—in addition to a range of other things that are already being done.

I am proud of the record of the coalition government in getting us to where we are today. We met all of our international targets and obligations in our time in government. I stand by our track record.

See this speech in context