David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Those opposite have been proven comprehensively wrong in this area of policy, because you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, that they said that the Emissions Reduction Fund concept would not work. Well, it has worked. It has worked extremely well. You will recall that they said that Australia would not meet its Kyoto based target of a five per cent reduction on 2000 levels of emissions by 2020. Nobody really says that now. Nobody really says that Australia is not going to meet its five per cent emissions reduction target on 2000 levels by 2020.

Let us just reflect on that. The overarching thing at issue here is the reduction in emissions. As the Prime Minister says, it is not some sort of matter of religion of how exactly you must do it and that you must do it through a carbon tax because that is the only way that is politically acceptable. It is about achieving outcomes, as all things are. What this government has done, very clearly, is to achieve tremendous outcomes.

It is also worth reflecting back to the Kyoto era, because it turns out that some of the predictions back then of what emissions Australia would produce and, consequently, how much reduction would be required, were quite wrong. In fact, back then, it was expected that Australia would produce around 5,800 million tonnes of emissions in the 2013 to 2020 Kyoto period. For a variety of reasons—the success of the Emissions Reduction Fund; other successful policies of this government; technological change; improved energy efficiency—the conventional wisdom now is that the steady-state amount is about 4,800 million tonnes, not 5,800 million tonnes. So, in other words, the original projections of the amount were about 1,000 million tonnes overstated. So, as a consequence, what that means is: this area of policy is always evolving. It is about being practical and it is about responding in a practical way which minimises the impact on ordinary families.

You can take a sort of massive sledgehammer to this issue. It is called the carbon tax. The member for Charlton just spoke about that with great affection, moments ago. So you can do that, and you can sort of go around and say to every Australian family, 'You're going to have to pay $550 a year because of our policy indulgence,' or you can say, 'We're going to adopt practical measures that reduce emissions but have a minimal impact on you—that do not cost you hundreds of dollars every year.' I can tell you: if you spend some time in my electorate and if you talk to people in Riverwood or Padstow or Revesby or wherever you might be, that is something that people respect and appreciate. It is about achieving the outcome of a reduction in emissions. It is not about some sort of ideological pursuit of political goals—and that is what those opposite think this area is. It is not about ideology. It is about practical outcomes.

When the Emissions Reduction Fund auction occurred, you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, much scepticism from those opposite: 'It will not work;' 'No-one will bid;' 'It will all be terrible.' The result of the Emissions Reduction Fund auction substantially exceeded expectations, certainly of the sceptics opposite and, indeed, just about everyone. There was reduction of 47 million tonnes at a price of just $14 per tonne. It was a very significant inroad into our broader task of emissions reductions and at a modest cost to families.

We are in a situation where nobody really contests that Australia is going to achieve its Kyoto goals, and that is pretty significant. If the point of this policy area is to reduce emissions over time and nobody is contesting that that is occurring, that suggests that things are on the right track. We know that we are doing it at a minimal cost and we know that we have taken away from the Australian people the appalling burden of the carbon tax, which those opposite love and admire. They have a strong emotional bond with policy in that area, but it hurt families and it achieved very little. This government is delivering in this area and in a practical way that is good for Australia.

See this speech in context