Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Luckily I don't think Australians are going to get their environmental and climate information or misinformation from an individual, a senator, who thinks the Bondi shootings were a false flag operation.

I just want to state that 0.1 per cent of this budget went into protecting the environment. The Australian Conservation Foundation reported this morning—simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, which all of us can do—that at least seven times more was spent in this budget on damaging climate and nature than on protecting it. I did my own calculations. I think you can total around $10 billion, if you're really generous, that might have gone towards climate and positive nature allocations. But then you look at: the $13.6 billion subsidising liquid fossil fuel use; 153 million fast-tracked approvals for new oil and gas projects; $2.2 billion cut from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; $46.2 billion on fuel tax credits and rebates for fossil fuel companies; $1.9 billion for the Middle Arm fossil fuel development project; and so on.

The simple definition of sustainability that we teach schoolchildren is that we leave the joint in at least as good a condition as we found it, if not better. How can this not be borrowing from future generations? We know that we have no intention of ever repaying those borrowers if we do this year in, year out. I'm pleased that David Attenborough has been quoted by a number of speakers today. I remind the chamber that he said in his recent film Oceans:

After almost 100 years on the planet, I now understand the most important place on Earth is not on land, but at sea.

And 'If we save the oceans, we save ourselves.' While Senator Grogan talked about some money for the Great Barrier Reef, and I welcome money for the Great Barrier Reef—for the crown-of-thorns starfish project, for dealing with reef restoration projects—there was not a single cent for the Great Southern Reef in this budget, an arguably equally important ecosystem in this country. You weren't interested in the Senate inquiry into the longspined sea urchin—and I understand you have a real issue with the government doing something about that—but that is a good example of what the government could be funding that helps create an industry and solve an environmental problem.

I note also $28 million to facilitate native forest logging under the new environment laws—that is, $28 million to put swift parrots, one of the most critically endangered species in our country, at further risk, or Tasmanian devils. Then we have the Maugean skate where we funded the salmon industry to push species that to the brink of extinction. Come on, get serious. (Time expired)