Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

) ( ): It is probably no surprise to the House that the opposition still does not support this hopelessly flawed bill, in spite of the minister's valiant advocacy for the bill post the amendments in the other place. It is still very clear that the best response to climate change in this country would have been an emissions trading scheme—the emissions trading scheme that the Labor Party has been advocating since before the last election. I would invite members to go and examine the difference between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme, and examine the views of economists and climate scientists here in Australia and around the world, who—almost to a person—agree that a legal cap on carbon pollution that reduces over time, in accordance with our international commitments, that lets business work out the cheapest and most effective way to deal with that cap, is the most effective way to respond to climate change.

It is an irony that this bill returns to this House after the government has had an absolute shocker of a fortnight in this policy area—an absolute shocker of a fortnight. Frankly, the Prime Minister has only himself to blame. He could have facilitated an adult, mature conversation around climate change in the context of the G20, where leaders were able to come together and debate their differences of view. Obviously, when you are talking about the 20 largest economies in the world, there are diverse views about how best to respond to this global challenge. But, no; instead of facilitating an adult, constructive dialogue among the 20 largest economies in the world, the Prime Minister tried to shut it down. He tried to shut it down for months.

And didn't that work wonderfully! Didn't it work wonderfully as country after country—some of our closest friends and partners—lined up to say Australia should do more? They lined up, for example, to say that maybe Australia should contribute to the Green Climate Fund, which I think has about 23 nations contributing to it now, including pretty much every one of our closest developed trading partners: all of the G7, including Japan, as well as New Zealand and South Korea. Even Canada, who the Prime Minister likes to enlist as a fellow traveller on the issue of climate change, is contributing to this GCF.

But apparently Australia—through the Prime Minister—and Saudi Arabia were the two nations within the G20 seeking to exclude any reference to the GCF from the G20 communique. Unfortunately, the foreign minister got roped into being a part of this shocker of a fortnight that we have had. Against what was quite an unextraordinary set of comments that the President of the United States made about the one of the seven natural wonders of the world, what did the Minister for Foreign Affairs say?

The foreign minister said: 'No, no; the Great Barrier Reef is not under threat from climate change'—in spite of the advice that we get from pretty much every single reef scientist. I say 'pretty much' to be generous. I have not come across a reef scientist who does not agree that the greatest long-term threat to the Great Barrier Reef is the threat of climate change. You only need to read page 1 of the GBRMPA Outlook Report, which the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority published this year. It is a five-yearly outlook. As always, this government not only seeks to shut down debate within a forum like the G20 but also seeks to downplay the impacts of climate change, including on one of the seven natural wonders of the world, for which Australia has such a clear and direct responsibility.

As I said, this bill remains a hopelessly inadequate response. Carbon market analysts RepuTex repeated their view that only as much as 20 to 30 per cent of Australia's abatement task—just assuming a five per cent target by 2020—will be achieved through this policy. Ross Garnaut, supported by Ken Henry, the former secretary of the Treasury, earlier this year said that to get to the five per cent target the government would have to spend $4 billion to $5 billion each year of taxpayer funds, handed over to companies, just to get to the five per cent reduction target—an additional $20 billion or so on the Commonwealth budget by 2019. It is no wonder that the member for Wentworth described in memorable terms this policy as 'a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale'. This bill, even with the amendments that the minister is proposing today, will simply not achieve its objectives.

See this speech in context