Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change) Share this | Hansard source

We have an interjection from the member for Flinders, the shadow minister for the environment. He is also on the record as clearly indicating support for an emissions trading scheme. In fact, to quote Mr Hunt from 17 July, he said:

… we support the idea of emissions trading. We proposed it … Basically what they’ve done is they’ve dusted off the document that we had …

That is an interesting contribution to the debate—and somewhat contrary to the MPI that has been moved today. The trouble with the coalition is that it is difficult to divine exactly what is going on. Some coalition members dispute the science. Some suggest a carbon tax is the go. Others support an emissions trading system. The shadow minister for climate change has indicated that perhaps 100 per cent of permits should be issued under an emissions trading scheme. I am not sure how you get a carbon signal in the economy out of that.

We do not know what the coalition’s position on targets is. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that the five to 15 per cent target that the Commonwealth government has established is in fact a very significant target, yet others are suggesting, as we have heard in the contribution to date, that that target is far too stringent for the economy. So it is very difficult to divine exactly what the position of the coalition is. The trouble is that in this area important and strong leadership is needed to take action to deal with the effect of climate change. The coalition will face a very clear choice in the not too distant future as this legislation comes through the House and through the Senate. Will you support it or not? Easy question—we don’t know what the answer is.

For the government, there are very important foundations for the policy that is enunciated not only through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme exposure draft legislation but for many of the other initiatives that we have taken. I have pointed already to the science. The policy responses include three main pillars, the first of which is the reduction of Australia’s carbon pollution levels, and the CPRS is the key policy initiative to address that. Our long-term target is to reduce carbon emissions on 2000 levels by 60 per cent by 2050, and the CPRS has associated with it a medium-term target of reducing emissions on 2000 levels by between five and 15 per cent by 2020. In conjunction with that and in particular to provide investment in certainty in the renewable energy sector, we are establishing a target of 20 per cent of renewable energy by 2020 to be supplied within our electricity market. We are also driving a clean energy revolution with policies such as a $500 million Renewable Energy Fund, a $150 million Energy Innovation Fund and a $500 million national Clean Coal Initiative—extremely important initiatives to underpin employment in that key part of the economy.

The second key pillar of our policy is to support adaptation to the impacts of climate change. This is especially important in agriculture and land management areas and tourism. We need to secure our future water supplies. We need to help coastal communities adapt. We are supporting our farming future by providing $130 million over four years to help primary producers adapt. We have established a $200 million Great Barrier Reef rescue plan and we are providing $8.9 million to support the Great Barrier Reef in the Climate Change Action Plan.

The third pillar of our strategy to address climate change is to help shape a global solution. We have ratified Kyoto, something the Howard government failed to do. We are playing an aggressive and constructive role in global negotiations to establish a new international agreement.

The Treasury has found in its modelling that countries that defer action face long-term costs that are around 15 per cent higher than those that take action now. By doing nothing, which is the position of the coalition, more jobs will be lost. We must act to support jobs in lower emissions technology. We must act to protect the environment. We must act to support jobs. (Time expired)

See this speech in context