Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

According to official government documents, Australia's actual emissions in 2020 will be 577 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent. This is actually eight per cent above the minimum target of minus five per cent. In fact, the only way we will get to the cumulative abatement target is through projection improvements, which I will return to, carryover of credits from Kyoto period 1 and a hopeless Emissions Reduction Fund that only today has been reported that the Clean Energy Regulator has confirmed was not tested for additionality. Just imagine this for a moment: the Emissions Reduction Fund, the centrepiece of that Direct Action dog, has not been tested adequately for additionality when it is paying for supposed abated emissions. In fact, regarding the Emissions Reduction Fund, the Prime Minister has said that it was a 'fig leaf' over doing nothing and, worse, 'fiscal recklessness on a grand scale'.

Returning to the improvement in the projections of Australia's emissions, which really is the heart of our abatement improvement, the minister's own department has stated that projections have fallen due to lower electricity demand, worse than expected agricultural conditions due to drought, lower manufacturing output due to industrial closures and weaker growth expectations from local coal production due to the fall in international coal prices.

So, in fact, this government is claiming credit for a revision in our abatement task because they have killed manufacturing, particularly in the automotive industry, we have a drought that has reduced agricultural production, consumers are responding to higher electricity prices by reducing electricity demand and coal production was not as strong as expected because of lower coal prices. So we will probably achieve the minus-five per cent target, but we will have an economic structure of plus eight per cent which will make reaching for the 2030 target so much harder.

I have five questions for the minister. I ask that if he does not know the answers he take them on notice. Firstly, has any country or the UN questioned the additionality of the Emissions Reduction Fund and therefore the legitimacy of the abatement claim? Secondly, doesn't the latest revelation from the Clean Energy Regulator demonstrate that the Emissions Reduction Fund is a gigantic fraud? Thirdly, what happens if the coal price rebound is sustained and emissions projections have to be revised upwards? Fourthly, would this cause a blow-out in the cost of the Emissions Reduction Fund or simply allow the target not to be reached? Fifthly, how can the government be proud of reaching the minus-five target, if we do in fact reach it, through the deindustrialisation of Australia and the drought?

I will turn briefly to renewable energy. The renewable energy industry has faced relentless attacks from this government. The most recent example was the Prime Minister following his fossil of a Deputy Prime Minister in claiming renewable energy caused the South Australian blackout. Again, that was disproven today by the AEMO report. I ask again: what is this government's policy to support the development of renewable energy projects after 2020? The minister—and the Prime Minister—failed to answer this in the House of Representatives chamber. If he fails again to answer it now, I ask that he take it on notice.

Also, can the minister answer the question regarding the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. What is the total dollar value of all concessional loans issued by the CEFC? What is the estimated return above equity in dollar terms that the CEFC has booked in its operations? Furthermore, given that there is very little additional cost to the taxpayer in maintaining the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, will the government consider retaining the Clean Energy Innovation Fund to complement ARENA and the broader CEFC?

See this speech in context