Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (12:44): Much was hoped for last night—for this government to finally address some of the major issues and embrace some of the opportunities we have ahead, but I am sad to say it is an opportunity missed. In fact, we are going to be miles behind the rest of the world on this kind of plan from the government. Locally, for Warringah, we did see, finally, after years of neglect when it comes to infrastructure spending, $75 million towards the much-needed upgrade of Wakehurst Parkway, which is scheduled to finish by 2025. And there are some important extensions to grant programs, like the popular Stronger Communities Program, that will support local organisations with facility upgrades. However, still there is no process on Beaches Link tunnel, major infrastructure required for the Northern Beaches, and also no meaningful funding for the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. We're talking about iconic locations at the entrance of Sydney Harbour that are important historically for all of Australia. What we do know is that this was a budget for the Nationals. This is not a budget for the nation. We now know what it cost to secure support for the posturing by the government prior to COP26 last year and to commit to net zero. That cost to the Nationals and Barnaby Joyce was in the tune of between $17 billion and $21 billion. This was a sellout of your children's future. The discrepancy in spending between porkbarrelling, targeted spending in electorates because they are marginal, because they want to secure that support, compared to where it is actually needed is just outrageous. It's hard to describe how disappointing this budget is. When we look at the situation that so many communities find themselves in at the moment, in particular on the east coast, in Lismore, which is facing a second flood—and only yesterday in question time the Prime Minister again repeated the fallacy that this is a once-in-500-year event: 'Don't you worry. We'll just help you clean up now and you won't face this again. You'll be fine; she'll be right.' In fact, Lismore is facing this disaster again just weeks after the first, and within the last 10 years it has been ravaged by disaster after disaster. This is a government with its head entirely in the sand, in the past, unable to prepare for the future or to protect our children's future and in any way embrace the opportunities of where the world is heading. Because it is under pressure with the poll coming in six weeks, we're seeing a measure around the fuel excise to try to help the cost of living, which I acknowledge is incredibly tough. But, if we want to actually address cost of living, we have to address the underlying causes. The government has decided to halve the fuel excise over the next six months. A 22 cents per litre cut is at the cost of over $3 billion to the budget. There is no long-term vision on addressing transport emissions or fuel security. What we're seeing here is that, on top of the $2 billion already handed out to oil refineries in last year's budget and the $7.7 billion in fuel tax credits to the fossil fuel industry this year, the fuel excise is approximately 12 times more than what has been given to a low emissions vehicles under the government's future fuels fund. Over just this next six months, absolutely nothing. To give you a comparison, $3 billion could support a $3,000 rebate for one million electric vehicles or could subsidise the cost of four million homes and business charges. What's worst about this measure is that there is no guarantee it will actually be passed on to consumers. Just as what happens when the Reserve Bank lowers interest rates, when more often than not the big banks don't pass on the full cut to consumers and it's only a percentage of that lowering that consumers get, the same is likely to happen here: there are no measures to ensure this cut actually goes to consumers. And it won't do anything to address the long-term exposure to oil prices or the reliance that we have on imported fuel. Ninety per cent of our fuel is imported each year, and that costs consumers $29 billion. There is nothing in this measure to mitigate long-term threats, volatility and global security challenges of imported oil, nothing to reduce emissions. Transport emissions are expected to increase from 90 to 125 million tonnes by 2030, which is eight Hazelwood coal-fired power stations. There is nothing in this budget that accelerates the transition to electric vehicles but there is over $3 billion to basically subsidise the fuel industry. ClimateWorks has modelled that, to reach net zero, we need some 76 per cent of new car sales to be electric by 2030. Under this government we are only projected to get to 30 per cent, and the current rate is less than one per cent. It is a joke. The states are pulling their weight. They are trying to move this, but the federal government has its head completely in denial. The irony is this measure will do so little to help families with vehicle running costs in the long-term. By going electric, families can save up to $140 a month of running costs and 10 tonnes of CO2. With home solar and battery, it could be as high as $160 a month. What we need in Australia are Australian vehicle emission standards. We need to require manufacturers to import vehicles that have low emissions. We need a government-funded network of chargers for highways, households and businesses. We need upfront rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles and to reform the luxury car tax and fringe benefit taxes, and we need the government fleet to be completely electric by 2023. But there was none of that in the budget last night. We have heard most commentators talk mostly about cost of living but there is actually nothing in this budget that truly addresses the cost of living. Whether you like it or not, climate change is the biggest threat to cost of living. All economists agree with that. It is the biggest threat to the budget bottom line and to household cost of living but it got—I measured it—55 seconds from Treasurer Frydenberg in his speech last night out of 35 minutes. It is clear from the Treasurer's words that he has hitched his wagon to the Morrison wagon. He is a denier. He is not at all committed to real action on climate change. So it needs to be very clear where people's commitments really are as people go to the polls in six weeks time. At a time when Lismore and Byron Bay's main streets are completely underwater, blowing out the cost of households, I would ask you: Is $250 in your pocket in the next few weeks really going to solve the problem for people who are losing their homes, for communities that are losing their main street? Businesses are gone. Food prices are already increasing. The disruption from these events is huge. The global food index finds that prices were up 20 per cent on last year already. The cost of house insurance is increasing, with many properties becoming uninsurable from natural disasters. Coastal erosion threatens our cities, coastline—including my electorate—with up to half a billion dollars in losses. But is there anything to address that in this budget? No. The costs of natural disasters to the budget bottom line are piling up. Let's get real: $6 billion so far for the Northern New South Wales and South East Queensland floods this year; $2.8 billion dollars for the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20; $1.5 billion for North Queensland floods in 2019. So do you think, in light of that bigger cost, there would be something in the budget that starts building resilience, that starts investing in adapting, that provides some resilience, some measures, some mitigation to keep those communities safe? In the face of the cumulative costs of natural disasters forecast to become $1.2 trillion over the next 40 years, according to Deloitte, we have a government allocate $210 million—you heard me right, there are not any extra zeros on that—to the Australian Climate Service for climate adaptation and is planning to cut over the next four years by some 35 per cent the funding to organisations that are primarily responsible for our transition to lower emissions. It is farcical. It is really hard to describe it in any other terms. At the same time, despite all the warnings, despite communities being devastated, despite having climate refugees, communities are asking the question: Where are we going to go? If our homes are uninsurable, unliveable, who is going to help us relocate? How are we going to rebuild? In the face of that, you would think that maybe the answer would be, 'Let's mitigate the issue and reduce it.' But no; the answer is, 'Let's keep accelerating this transition; let's accelerate the problem.' The government is going to spend $50 million on an acceleration of gas infrastructure and $300 million on gas expansion in the Northern Territory. That is added to the $6.3 billion sweetener for the Nationals on three dams that have no serious business cost and that are likely to, in fact, flow to coalmining donors and to run off and flood and cause more environmental disasters. So, if you want to talk about who the winners and losers are in budget, there is no doubt that our kids—future generations—are the losers. They will pay for this mountain of debt that has accumulated and this complete failure to invest in our future. To give you some contrast, the $6.3 billion that has been promised for these three dams could cover the cost of 26 weeks of paid parental leave for new parents. It would be a tax rebate of some $3,000, or over 2.1 billion electric vehicles, or you could build the equivalent of 11 Northern Beaches hospitals with 5,400 beds. You could cover a year's worth of cheaper child care. In contrast, there is $6.3 billion for three dams, in the face of devastating loss of biodiversity. We know that there's an extinction crisis when it comes to our natural habitats, fauna and flora. And there is $100 million for extension of the Environmental Restoration Fund. I mean, really: we couldn't have any clearer message from the coalition government that it does not care about the environment, that it does not care about the climate. It does not care about the environment in which our children and our society will live. All it's interested in is the next six weeks and how much more money can be pork-barrelled into the seats and the fossil fuel industry. The question is always, 'What's the alternative?' Let me give you a picture of the alternative. At just half of the $21 billion that clearly has been paid to the Nationals to placate Barnaby Joyce and get him to sign up to net zero—at just half—we could electrify 10 million Australian households. That would save families $5,000 per year by 2030, delivering $40 billion in savings over the next decade. It would also cut emissions by 33 per cent. So, if we're really having a conversation about reducing the cost of living, let's actually invest in measures that will provide long-term reduction in cost of living. A $5,000 saving is possible, if we invest wisely. There is nothing in this budget that addresses a commitment to net zero or long-term cost-of-living assistance for families. Child care was another loser—I mean, the tokenistic approach of saying, 'We're investing in child care but we will build 20 new centres in the region'—out of 151 electorates. I beg your pardon. Sam Mostyn, president of Chief Executive Women, said: 'The so-called cost-of-living budget ignores completely the reality that for many families early childhood education and care is one of the biggest outgoings in the family budget. There are women who reluctantly say no to extra days of work because they simply can't afford the cost of child care.' Paid parental leave changes are welcome, but it's just tinkering around the edges in getting rid of clearly discriminatory policies. And it still hasn't increased. We still have one of the smallest paid parental leave schemes among OECD countries. It's so insufficient. It's so disappointing to think that, at a time when we had clear warnings from economists of where the priorities need to be—warnings on inflation, cost of living, wages, and many in this place have made many arguments—ultimately all this is for nothing if we do not address long-term emissions reduction. We need to deliver at least 60 per cent emissions reduction by 2030. There is a clear plan to do it—the five steps to net zero that I've proposed. We can have a strong, new economy—sustainable, circular. But what we need is vision and leadership, and we don't have that with this government.