Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. Why does Australia need to take action on climate change and what are the most effective and efficient methods of so doing?

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Throsby for her question. She has, of course, been a colleague of mine for many years. The scientific case for action on climate change is very clear. This country, as we know, faces huge environmental and economic costs from climate change and doing nothing or having pretend policies is not an option for this country. The fact is that an emissions trading scheme is the most cost-effective and efficient economy-wide approach to reducing emissions. This is a point well recognised by former Prime Minister John Howard, who had this to say on 27 May 2007:

It is fundamental to any response both here and elsewhere that a price is set for carbon emissions. This is best done through the market mechanism of an emissions trading system.

The Leader of the Opposition and the climate sceptics gang that got control of the leadership on the other side of this House have repudiated that fundamentally sound economic observation.

Understand that the coalition’s policy is not about serious public policy. It is not about seriously addressing climate change. It is all about politics, because what we know is that the new Leader of the Opposition thinks the science is absolute crap but that it is politically a problem for the coalition. So they have had to concoct a policy position that is not serious. It is a con job and we all know it. Their policy does not oblige a single emitter of carbon pollution to reduce their emissions—not a single emitter. It is based on a ‘business as usual’ scenario—that is, emissions can be allowed to grow. There is no obligation to reduce them. It involves no cap. Their policy involves no cap on emissions and it cannot guarantee that this country could meet any target. Instead, subsidies will be offered to favourite projects. They will be picking winners from their fund. It will be a more costly system of abatement and it will shift the cost burden from polluters to households. It offers, on that point, no compensation to households and it will not link with international efforts.

In the Sydney Morning Herald, the Leader of the Opposition himself conceded that business as usual emissions growth will attract no penalty under their policy. He said:

Business as usual does not result in any penalty.

On current projections, business as usual emissions growth can lead to an emissions level in this economy 20 per cent higher than year 2000 levels—and that, instead of a five per cent cut, would be considered a success under the policy they announced yesterday. It is absurd and it is a con job. But Senator Joyce, who can always be relied upon, has really let the cat out of the bag. Senator Joyce said:

The beauty of the scheme is if people do not want to participate in it, if they don’t want access to the funds, they don’t have to.

So nothing happens. He said that last night on Lateline, but incredibly he went further. He actually thinks that greed might be something of a motivation. This is what he had to say:

Because of the greed factor. People will see money on the table.

That is what we have with their policy—reward for greed. This is the underpinning policy that has been put forward—no cap on emissions and no reductions in emissions growth.

Just imagine when this fund is set up. The National Party is going to have a good time with it, isn’t it? It will be regional rorts all over again. That is all this policy amounts to. Already, as I indicated yesterday, algae fired power stations are on the agenda—no business case and no cost analysis, but that will be a good thing to hand out money for. That is what the Leader of the Opposition cited as a likely project that would attract funding under their new fund. It is ridiculous. It is not just a con job; the policy that you put out is a farce. It is not serious public policymaking; it is a con. Any member of this House who accepts the science and is serious about climate change and reducing our emissions will support the legislation that was introduced into this House last night. Let us not forget that, less than 10 weeks ago, that side of parliament supported the legislation. You should support it again.