Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How will the National Reconstruction Fund help Australia's status as a renewable energy superpower and how has it been received? How does this build on existing programs to support investment in renewable and clean energy?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my honourable friend for his question. He knows that there is no city bigger or more important to Australia's manufacturing food bowl than Melbourne and its suburbs. He also knows that the National Reconstruction Fund will be key to ensuring that the world's climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity. That's perhaps why the creation of the National Reconstruction Fund has been supported by the Energy Efficiency Council, the Smart Energy Council, the Electric Vehicle Council and Origin Energy, who have all explicitly supported the policy.

The honourable member also asked me how the National Reconstruction Fund will build on other agencies and policies. There is no more important example than the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which has been so important in Australia's development of renewable energy industries and is now the world's most successful and largest green bank. That's very important. It is also important because, as the minister for industry has pointed out, he has based the design of the National Reconstruction Fund on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which is very important.

It's also relevant because the same arguments that are being used by the only groups to oppose the National Reconstruction Fund—which is the Liberal and National parties—were the arguments they used to oppose the Clean Energy Finance Corporation 10 years ago. They're exactly the same records on repeat. If you look at what they said at the time, the member for Bradfield said 10 years ago in this house—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. I think I know what the manager is going to say, and I will hear from him now.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is on relevance. I will concede it was a tightly drafted question: 'How is this program helping Australia's status as a renewable energy super power, how has it been received and how does it build on existing achievements?' There was absolutely nothing about: 'Would the minister give his usual incoherent spray against the track record of the previous government?'

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question also says: how does this build on existing programs. The minister can be relevant by referring to the former government, but I ask him not to make it the central part of his answer. I give him the call.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just trying to quote a bloke, Mr Speaker. The member for Bradfield said:

It is extraordinarily difficult to understand how anybody could imagine that this is going to be anything other than a spectacular financial disaster.

That's what he said 10 years ago. He's nodding! They say the same thing today. So devoid of imagination are they that they say the same thing today about the National Reconstruction Fund.

The CFC has invested $11.7 billion in projects worth $42 billion. Every dollar the CFC has invested has leveraged $2.6 of private sector investment. It has created thousands of jobs, produced 5.2 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity and reduced emissions by 240 million tonnes. But apart from that it has been an utter and complete disaster! The member for Bradfield had a point! This is what you get when you have an opposition so devoid of their own ideas, so devoid of a constructive approach and so devoid of acting in the national interest that they just oppose. They opposed it 10 years ago. They tried for years to abolish it and they failed. Now they are trying to stop the next phase, the National Reconstruction Fund. This is what you get when you have a leader of the opposition who is all opposition and no leader.