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

I speak on this motion moved by Senator Milne and in particular to the urging of the government to inform its understanding on the basis of evidence, which this government, both in its previous term and this term, is proving again and again it is incapable of doing. That is despite the promise of previous Prime Minister Rudd that the Labor Party would formulate and implement evidence based policy.

On climate change and climate science, Senator Cameron could have saved, firstly, himself and, secondly, us from having to hear his regaling the Senate. He must think that there are people in this place that think that something should not be done about climate change. I think he misunderstands. There are very few people, particularly in this place, who think something should not be done. The difference lies in whether or not we are prepared to agree that anything—just anything at all—will do. This government is hell-bent on policies that sound good without proving that they will do any good. In the words of Malcolm Turnbull, if I may borrow them—he applied them to the National Broadband Network but they apply here as well—this government seems to think that it can go about designing and implementing policies, including policies on the environment, where the end ex post facto justifies the means, rather than building from the means up to the end. This government believes that, with its policies, the ends will suffice to justify the means.

We agree with this government on the ends. That is why this parliament and the coalition have agreed with the government about reducing targets for emissions. We agree on the ends, but where we very, very much disagree is on the means to get to those ends. So, where this government would tax the Australian people and this government would increase electricity prices paid by the Australian people, the opposition would go down the route of direct action to make a practical difference to achieve those ends.

We believe that we have produced the evidence that demonstrates that our means to get to those ends will work, whereas this government, particularly in respect of environmental programs, have not demonstrated this by again and again supporting policies that sound good but do little good. They do not seem to be able to understand what should be a connect between formulating the means to achieve the ends rather than thinking that the Australian people will be fooled into accepting the other way around. A recent Senate Environment and Communications References Committee report into the Green Loans program recommended, amongst a raft of other things:

… that the government not implement any environmental programs without prior completion of an evaluation which shows either net environmental benefits and/or a program cost which gives taxpayers value for money.

That recommendation was largely born out of frustration of a number of members of the committee with this government’s apparent failure to understand the basic wisdom of evidenced based policy. They have demonstrated that in their programs time after time—for example, with the Home Insulation Program. Under the Green Loans program itself, around 360,000 home assessments were done. There are a lot of carbon miles in those home assessments, yet at the end of the abysmally failed program only about 7½ thousand out of the original 200,000 interest-free green loans were taken up. How is that an environmentally beneficial use of some 360,000 home assessments?

We still do not know how many of the Home Insulation Program insulations were dodgy. There has not been an audit of every home, but we do know that the government embarked upon the Home Insulation Program supposedly to stimulate the economy, to create jobs and to benefit the environment. The economy has been stimulated more by the government having to fund mopping up the mess than it has been on the input side of the equation. As for jobs, any jobs that were created were smashed overnight, at the stroke of a ministerial pen, with the suspension and then the cancellation of the program. As for environmental benefits, how can a home insulation program provide any environmental benefits when, because of the failings in the administration of the program, things happen like putting the wrong sorts of insulation in the wrong ceilings in the wrong sort of climate? Dangerous and dodgy insulation was installed and then had to be either neutralised with a safety switch or removed. Indeed, when some of that insulation was removed, depending on the nature of it, it was not biodegradable. Not only were there the excess carbon miles created by putting stuff in and then taking it out with a nil result but also there was the disposal of the insulation at the end of the day.

We still do not know how many carbon emissions will be saved as a result of the Home Insulation Program. Indeed, I suspect they are more likely to be created. The Hawke review found that the level of deficiency in the installation and removal of insulation under the program would suggest that the departmental estimate of 1.65 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per home insulated saved each year is overly optimistic and will need to be revised downwards. This government needs to get with the program, get with the evidence, get with policies that do good—(Time expired)