Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continuing my contribution to this debate from earlier today, for me it is the lost future economic opportunity that makes removing a price on carbon so wrong. For some time now the coalition and its friends have been spreading the message that Australia was 'going rogue' by putting a price on carbon and that this was a silly, risky decision that left us alone, out on a limb. This is not the case—in fact, far from it. The fact is that economies all over the world are putting a price on carbon right now or have already done so. There are over one billion people currently living in carbon constrained economies. They live in a country, a state, a province or a union that has initiated some form of carbon pricing, such as a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.

The European Union, of course, has had an ETS since 2005. The EU ETS is now the largest carbon market in the world, operating in 30 countries including the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The EU is Australia's second-largest trading bloc, which is why linking Australia's ETS with the EU's ETS was a long-term goal of the Labor government. It is also why, when in August last year the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency announced that the Australian carbon price would be linked with the European Union ETS when Australia moved to a floating price ETS, it was applauded as the best possible outcome for Australia.

The EU is not alone; far from it. California, which is the ninth largest economy in the world in its own right, has introduced an emissions trading scheme around the $20 mark. In China alone, 200 million people are living in provinces where there is an ETS either in place or in development. And, most significantly, there are plans for a nationwide emissions trading scheme in China later this decade. Closer to home, our friend and neighbour, New Zealand, has had an ETS in place since 2009 with bipartisan support. This is something that has really stunned me in this whole process. In speaking to diplomats from Europe, in particular, they cannot believe the partisan approach that has been taken to tackling climate change in this country.

We heard yesterday from my colleague the member for Charlton, in his first speech, who said that by 2016 over three billion people would be living in countries where there are emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes. That is three billion people. So the idea that Australia is somehow being foolhardy or going it alone is simply false. In fact, if Australia were to move to an ETS right now, we would still not be able to call ourselves a global leader, because the rest of the world is already taking action. This is no longer about being a leader; as I said before, this is about not being left behind. And what would being left behind look like? I hate to think. First of all, our trade relationships would be at risk. Our biggest trading partners are putting a price on carbon, and they will not idly stand by and watch if we do not take action. If we act now, we will have the time, the resources and the imperative to prepare our economy to operate in a carbon constrained future. If we act now, we can be world leaders in renewable technologies and leaders in low-carbon industries. If we repeal the price on carbon and do not replace it with an ETS, we cannot.

The fact is that the government's so-called 'direct action plan' will take very little action at all. Direct action does not put a cap on carbon pollution and it does not provide the price signal, the market-based imperative that is required to move away from carbon intensive actions. Direct action is a system of taxpayer funded subsidies to polluters. It asks ordinary, working, tax-paying Australians to subsidise big polluters. It is a policy that is rejected by climate scientists and economists alike. Direct action does not guarantee a reduction in carbon pollution, either. The simple truth is that without a cap on carbon there cannot be any such guarantee. It is an expensive system that pays taxpayer-funded subsides to polluters, with no guarantee of success.

I know that there are members opposite who agree that an ETS is the most efficient and effective way to reduce carbon pollution. The fact is that in 2007 there was bipartisan support for an ETS. It was the policy that both major parties took to the 2007 election and supported beyond the 2007 election. On tackling climate change, then Prime Minister John Howard said, 'Australia will more than play its part to address climate change, but we will do it in a measured way, in full knowledge of the economic consequences for our nation.' He was not talking about direct action, he was not talking about using taxpayers' money to subsidise polluters; he was talking about the introduction of an ETS. Following the election, then opposition leader Brendan Nelson also put the coalition's support behind an ETS. In July 2008 he said, 'We believe in an emissions trading scheme. We believe in a cap and trade system.' And of course, famously, Dr Nelson's successor as Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, is the No. 1 fan of the ETS. He put it very succinctly when he said, 'You won't find an economist anywhere that will tell you anything other than that the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon.'

Sadly, the most recent change in leadership of the parliamentary Liberal Party heralded a policy backflip, and for reasons unknown an ETS has fallen out of favour with the coalition. Today I ask those opposite to consider whether or not direct action is really the policy they want to implement. I ask them to listen to the experts, the scientists and the economists, and to listen to their own comments made not so long ago to commit to a market-based solution to climate change, a cap-and-trade ETS. I ask them to walk away from their policy—a policy which no serious economist believes is efficient and which is not serious about actually having a significant impact on climate change.

There has been a lot of talk in this parliament so far about mandates. Well, the fact is that I was elected by the people of Canberra on the basis that I support moving from a fixed price on carbon to a cap-and-trade, floating price emissions trading scheme. I was elected by the people of Canberra because I support a strong, market-based solution to climate change. People were out in full force on Sunday on the national day of action on climate change. There were some 2,000 Canberrans who rallied in Garema Place in Civic to show their support for strong action on climate change, for real action on climate change. They are concerned about their children's future, they are concerned about their grandchildren's future. They were young and old. There were students there, there were Labor students there, there were students from the ANU, there were the usual International Socialists there—there were people from all walks of life, many of my constituents of all ages: retired Canberrans, people in their middle ages and students. There were people from right across Canberra who were there to support real action and strong action on climate change. I thank those Canberrans for coming out and showing their strong support for action on climate change . I thank them for giving up their Sunday, because I know that time is very precious these days for families, but they wanted to get out there. I know they were keen to show their support. A number of them wrote to me to ensure that I was going to be there to rally for that support and I thank Canberra for being out there.

As I said, I was elected by the people of Canberra because I support a strong market-based solution to climate change and many Canberrans also do. Since the election, I have been contacted by many of my constituents on this matter, and their pleas to me have been united: 'Please don't undo the good work Labor has done on climate change, please maintain a price on carbon.' So if those opposite are going to talk about mandates, I would like to say to them that the mandate that I hold is from the people who elected me, the people of Canberra, those people who were out on Sunday showing their support for strong, real action on climate change, young and old, from all walks of life, from all professions, from all backgrounds. The people of Canberra are united in their support for a strong market-based solution to climate change and that is the mandate I will uphold in this parliament.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the night of the election the Prime Minister elect got up and said, 'The people have spoken and the government has changed.' The policies we took to the election were very clear and one of the cornerstone policies was the abolition of the carbon tax. This was not some side issue; this has been at the centre of the political debate in this country for the last four or five years. If you are concerned about jobs then you cannot support a carbon tax. If you are concerned about the impact of cost of living on families then it is crazy to support a carbon tax. The carbon tax has been a direct hit on the hip pockets of families. The message at the last election was very clear and voters were very clear about what was being offered, that a vote for the coalition was a vote to abolish the carbon tax.

The Leader of the Opposition wants people to continue to pay 10 per cent more on their electricity bills. He wants them to continue to pay more on their gas bills. The carbon tax is a $9 billion hit on the economy this year alone and it hits every home, every hospital, every school, every charity. In my own state of South Australia we heard about the impact on Penrice Soda and the impact on Adelaide Brighton, iconic South Australian companies. We heard about the impact this would have on manufacturing and we heard about the impact this would have on small businesses, including refrigerating businesses but all small businesses. In my electorate the Belair Hotel received one of the first itemised electricity bills after the carbon tax, and what that bill showed clearly was that the increase in their off-peak power rate was 44 per cent as a direct result of the carbon tax. Their January electricity bill was $15,494.83. When they got their July bill, the first bill under the carbon tax, it was $19,092.65. A large part of that came from the leap from 4.5c per kilowatt hour to 6.51c a kilowatt hour in the off-peak power rate. The reason on the July bill was 'carbon adjustment'. Belair hotel director Brett Matthews stated that the extra cost would mean either jobs or prices at this popular hotel which employs about 75 people.

We have already introduced into parliament the carbon tax repeal bill. This is a central part of the coalition's plan to build a stronger economy and to help address cost-of-living pressures on families. Scrapping the carbon tax means that households will be $550 better off in 2014-15 alone. It means that electricity bills will be $200 lower a year and gas bills $70 lower a year. Families in my electorate of Boothby are really feeling the pinch of increasing cost-of-living pressures.

Household budgets are suffering, and one of the best things that we can do in Canberra to help them is to abolish the carbon tax immediately. As I said before, the people of Australia spoke; the people of Boothby, my electorate, spoke as well and they were very clear about what they voted for. One of the main things they voted for was the abolition of the carbon tax. That means that it is now up to parliament to repeal this tax.

The Leader of the Opposition has already said that Labor will vote to keep the carbon tax. What this demonstrates—and I think it was the Minister for Agriculture who put it so well—is that we have government change deniers.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just climate change deniers!

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, member for Shortland—there are government change deniers in the ranks of the Labor Party and in the ranks of the opposition. They just have not accepted the result of the September election, and they do not understand the impact that this has on jobs and the impact that this has on household budgets.

I know that amongst a lot of people there is a bit of cynicism: 'Well, prices just continue to go up, and will you really see prices come down as a result of removing the carbon tax?' The ACCC have been very clear on this. They have said that they will have the powers to ensure that cost reductions from the repeal of this carbon tax are passed on. Rod Sims said:

I think this is really quite a straightforward issue. Prices went up by nine per cent. There's not much doubt about that number. It was the number that people have had for some time. That's what happened when the price was introduced, and of course, when you take it away, you reverse that. I really it's quite straightforward.

So repealing the carbon tax will help families, it will help jobs and it will help households with those cost-of-living pressures by taking electricity down and by taking gas down. It will help the economy and it will demonstrate that Australia is open for business again.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Boothby. I find it extremely interesting listening to him talking about electricity prices, particularly coming from New South Wales, where there have been massive increases in the price of electricity—not because of the price on carbon but because of the state government ratcheting up the price of electricity. It is to do with the poles, the wires and the fact that the state government does not shy away at any stage from increasing the price of electricity. Nine per cent with the price on carbon and something like 50 per cent at the hands of the state government in New South Wales. And I believe that similar events have happened in other states. So I think it is very interesting that the member for Boothby can argue that there is going to be a massive deduction in electricity prices, when all we have to do is see where the major increase in the price of electricity comes from—not from the price on carbon but from the ravages of the state governments.

I would argue that there is no guarantee that prices will be reduced. That was really brought home to me when I was listening to the ABC, where there was a fact finder presentation. It showed that it is very dubious as to whether or not the price of electricity will be reduced as a result of this legislation. But we will see that in time to come, and I will be interested to hear the excuses that those on the other side of this House put forward.

The legislation that we have before us today, the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills, is based on flawed assumptions, with disregard for the science of climate change and disregard for Australia's future economic prosperity. We heard the member opposite speaking a moment ago—obviously, a climate change denier. This legislation is regressive and lacks any vision whatsoever. It will fail to deliver a reduction in carbon emissions, and modelling shows that it will in fact lead to an increase in emissions and cost more for Australians.

The estimate is that Direct Action is going cost all Australian households $1,200. We heard the previous speaker talking about a reduction of $200 a year, and yet we are looking at introducing legislation—the government's 'vision', if you could call it a vision, a 'vision' that takes us back to the past—that will cost the Australian people $1,200. So we have before the House legislation that is not based on any science, and it will cost more. That is not good legislation, and I am sure that there are many on the other side who are quite embarrassed about the fact that this legislation is being put to the House.

We on this side of the House accept that there is such a thing as climate change. We believe that it exists and that this is demonstrated by the increase in temperature that has been evident over the last five decades. Since 1950 the temperature has increased in each decade. It has also been made quite apparent by things like the melting of the polar ice caps, and I also refer to a number of extreme weather events: we have had flooding, we have had cyclones and we have had a number of extreme events.

In the electorate that I represent, over the last very short period we have been faced with torrential rains, storms and adverse rain events that have been greater than at any other time. I believe that over yesterday and going back into Sunday there was the highest rainfall that has ever been recorded in November and yet, a month earlier, the electorate was on fire. There were bushfires ravaging both the Central Coast part of my electorate and the southern part of Lake Macquarie. I would really find it hard to stand in this House and say these extreme weather events are normal. They are not. We have had the highest temperatures recorded for this time of year. We have had adverse weather event after weather event after weather event, and this year is set to be the hottest year on record.

Labor's position is that we accept climate change. We really believe that Australia needs to do something about it. Unfortunately, Tony Abbott and members on the other side are intending to remove the legal cap on pollution and allow big polluters open slather, instead of paying for pollution. So on the one hand there is a policy designed to be a disincentive for people wishing to pollute and on the other hand there is legislation such as we have before us today that will encourage people to pollute. The Prime Minister and his colleagues are setting up a slush fund of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money and that money is going to be handed to the polluters—putting money aside to pay the polluters and taking away all the incentives that have been put in place to reduce pollution.

Before I moved sideways to talk about the opposition's policy I was talking about the extreme weather events and the impact that climate change has had in my local area. One very tangible way that has been demonstrated in the electorate I represent is that the local council and the New South Wales government have made it a requirement that people living near the sea have to elevate their buildings. There has been a change to the building code, and insurers are refusing to insure people living in areas around the lake and lower coastal areas. This is a direct result of climate change—and still we have the deniers on the other side of this House giving money to polluters, paying people to pollute, rather than tackling climate change. I think that is an absolute disgrace. I am sure there are many members on the other side of this House who are very embarrassed about the direction things are going.

This month the OECD released a report confirming that countries could achieve higher levels of emissions reductions at much lower cost if they relied on an emissions trading scheme. We agree that it is time for the current scheme to be repealed, but it should be replaced with an ETS. It is by far the best scheme that you can put in place to reduce carbon. It has been noted worldwide and accepted as the best approach to reducing carbon emissions and, as such, dealing with climate change.

As I have mentioned, we know that those on the other side of this House do not accept climate change. They talk much about former Prime Minister Howard in this House. He went to the 2007 election with a plan to introduce an ETS. I might add that we went to that election with a similar plan, we had a mandate from the Australian people to introduce that plan and the legislation was voted down by those on the other side of the House. They did not respect the mandate that the people of Australia gave us to introduce that scheme. But John Howard has reverted to form—he told an audience recently in London that those who accept climate change is real are a bunch of 'religious zealots'. I think that probably reflects the feelings of many of those on the other side of this House, at a time when 97 per cent of scientists worldwide believe that climate change is a reality and 97 per cent of scientists believe it is imperative that we address climate change and reduce carbon emissions. But I look to some of the statements by authority figures on the other side, starting with the Prime Minister. In July 2011 he said:

One of the problems with emissions trading schemes is policing the non-delivery of an invisible product to no one …

Doesn't that demonstrate what a climate change denier that man is? It shows that our Prime Minister just is not across the science and does not understand climate change. It is no wonder that in 2009 he referred to climate change has 'crap'. Minister Joyce has said:

Australia accounts for 1.5 per cent of emissions worldwide, so 5 per cent of that is three-fifths of five-eighths of nothing. It's nothing but blatantly ridiculous tokenism.

In other words, another climate change denier sitting on the front bench in the government. Another choice statement by Minister Joyce is:

I never believed that science is settled. If the science was settled, Copernicus would be dead. Sorry, he is dead—he would have been killed!

Honestly, quite nonsensical! And back in December 2009, Malcolm Turnbull, somebody who has had a very sensible and science based approach to climate change in the past, stated:

… Tony himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated blocking the[emissions trading scheme], the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing it, and now the blocking of it. His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weathervane on this, but …"

In other words, what it shows is that the Prime Minister of Australia does not understand the issue. He does not understand how imperative it is that we address this issue. This is an issue that will impact on many, many future generations of Australians. This is an issue that we cannot sweep under the carpet. This is an issue that is based on science. The science of this shows that climate change is a reality and, until the government recognises that climate change is a reality they are putting not only our environment and our future at risk but they are also putting at risk the prosperity of our country. The government may like to pretend that climate change does not exist; it may like to pretend that direct action will be effective, but the bottom line is that climate change does exist and direct action equates to little action, which will be ineffective. It is not difficult to understand why the Abbott government has introduced the legislation that is not based on science or on delivering economic prosperity to Australia. When you read and listen to those statements made by the Prime Minister, you understand that he does not understand the issue. In conclusion, this legislation is flawed and it will not deliver a reduction in carbon emissions. It will cost Australian households more and it is not based on science.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. Before the 2010 election, the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised she would not introduce a carbon tax under the government she led. At the time, the former Treasurer and member for Lilley supported this statement with this line:

No, it is not possible that we bringing in the carbon tax. That is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the coalition.

We all know what subsequently happened to those infamous words.

On 11 October 2012 the then Prime Minister and her fellow government members cheered in this chamber as they legislated the very thing they promised the Australian people that they would not. They legislated despite the fact that Australia is responsible for less than 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, despite concerns from Australian business both big and small that they would be put at a competitive disadvantage relative to their global counterparts, despite the fact that costs would go up for business and households, and despite the fact that the government's own modelling revealed that emissions would continue to rise by 77 million tonnes between 2010 and 2020 even with a carbon tax. In legislating for a carbon tax, Labor Party members were cheering for increased electricity prices, greater cost-of-living pressures on Australian families, a less competitive environment for Australian businesses and more complexity and regulation for those charged with administering it.

In the time available to me this evening, I would like to discuss three things: the impact that the carbon tax has had on individuals, businesses and not-for-profit organisations in my electorate of Higgins; whether a carbon tax in Australia does in fact reduce domestic and global emissions; and finally, how we compare to other countries in tackling this global challenge.

First to Higgins. The carbon tax had a direct impact on household electricity bills, increasing them from anywhere between 10 to 15 per cent. But the impact has not been felt by households alone. One of the great small businesses in my electorate of Higgins is the Malvernvale Hotel. The Malvernvale is a quintessential Australian pub and bottle shop, the like of which can be found in any electorate across the country. The first electricity bill that they received after the introduction of carbon tax had a whopping surprise for them. It showed an increased bill from $6,005.38 in June to $7,635.37 in July, a rise of $1,359.99. For the month of July the 'carbon charge' was $1,162.87, which represents 85.5 per cent of the increase and 15.8 per cent of the total bill. This is money that could otherwise have been reinvested in the business to employ more people and to help grow our economy. Instead, it was money spent—on what and for what?

The second example in my electorate of Higgins relates to Sam, a family man who runs his own small business, a popular restaurant and bar. When Sam's refrigerator broke down and he called in the repair man post the implementation of the carbon tax, he was not prepared for what unfolded. When he received a bill for the broken carburettor he noticed that the price for replacement refrigerant gas was more expensive than the carburettor itself despite it being a fraction of the cost previously. This is because some refrigerant gas had increased in price under the carbon tax by up to 300 per cent. This is on top of the increase to electricity prices. Sam absorbed this cost in his business where he was very conscious that customers are price sensitive and he said that he was completely unaware that this would be one of the unforeseen impacts of the carbon tax.

The third example in my electorate of Higgins is the impact that the carbon tax has had on one of my not-for-profit hospitals based in my electorate, a hospital that helps thousands of people each year with serious illness. After the introduction of the carbon tax, I was told by the chief executive of that hospital that their electricity bill went up by $345,000 per annum. This of course inevitably leads to the increased cost of health car These three local examples alone are damning indictments on this Labor-Greens' carbon tax experiment.

We must never lose sight of the justification provided by the previous government when they introduced this tax. They said the tax would reduce domestic and global emissions yet, according to the former government's own modelling, even with the tax domestic emissions will rise from around 560 million tonnes in 2010 to 637 million tonnes in 2020. Worse than this is the fact that, despite a carbon tax that was set at a price roughly five times higher than its European equivalent, Australia's carbon tax will potentially also increase global emissions. Take, for example, the production of ammonia. According to the TNO report commissioned for the European Commission, it is 35 per cent more energy intensive to produce ammonia in China than in Australia. So it follows that, if it becomes less competitive to produce ammonia in Australia and production is shifted offshore to places like China, there will be a greater output of CO2 per tonne of production that if that production were to stay in Australia. This is the ugly but inevitable truth—the truth that is not told by those opposite—of the carbon tax. By putting Australian businesses at a competitive disadvantage it has the potential to actually increase carbon emissions.

Australian industries have been innovators and pioneers for cleaning up their carbon emissions. The Australian aluminium industry has cut its emissions by 26 per cent since 1990. Since 1990 the Australian cement industry has cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent per unit of output and reduced the carbon intensity of its product by 24 per cent per tonne. All of this was without a carbon tax and without a price on carbon. If your mission is to reduce global carbon emissions, it does not make any sense to apply an unemployment tax in the form of a carbon tax on the very country that applies some of the world's best practice to manufacturing. It is not true to say that the carbon tax is the only factor having a negative impact on Australian manufacturing, but it is naive, irresponsible and plain wrong to say that the carbon tax does not negatively impact upon industry, which is why we have brought in these bills to remove it.

How is the rest of the world tackling this global challenge? The Productivity Commission told us that no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS. In fact, compared to the European ETS at around $7 a tonne covering 45 per cent of total emissions and the New Zealand ETS at around $3 a tonne and covering 50 per cent of emissions, the scope and scale of Australia's $9 billion carbon tax that only goes up and that covers everything is dramatically different. Recently Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, stated:

Our government knows that carbon taxes raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries, and electricity.

…   …   …

… greenhouse gas emissions are down since 2006, and we've created 1 million net new jobs since the recession—and we have done this without penalising Canadian families with a carbon tax.

It now rests upon the coalition in government to clean up the mess of the carbon tax imposed by the previous Labor-Greens government. The previous government were so proud of this tax but it was so ill thought through that they needed to significantly change it on more than 10 occasions within a 12-month period. This tax is so burdened with inefficiencies and hidden costs it is widely accepted that business compliance costs alone are expected to fall by around $87.6 million per annum upon its removal. According to Treasury modelling, the removal of the carbon tax in 2014-15 will help Australian households be better off by around $550 a year.

Those on the other side of the chamber know that the carbon tax has hurt families, hurt businesses and hurt our economy. They said so on multiple occasions during the recent election campaign and even claimed that they would terminate it. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared:

The Government has decided to terminate the carbon tax to help the cost-of-living pressures for families and to reduce costs for small business.

Well now they have that chance. Yet, according to the Leader of the Opposition, they will again break their election promise and frustrate the mandate that we on this side of the chamber have been given.

We have a plan to reduce carbon emissions. We have a plan that we took to the election. We will meet our target to reduce Australia's carbon emissions by reducing them by five per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 through a direct action plan designed by our environment minister. This is a plan that is costed and capped and that will at its heart provide incentives for business to reduce emissions and will also support practical environmental measures. This will not harm Australian families, this will not harm Australian businesses and this will help our environment. I urge those opposite to listen to what the Australian people have said about the impact of the carbon tax and to repeal it. I commend these bills to the House.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These bills will repeal, amongst other things, the carbon tax. If it were as simple as that then you would see many members on this side of the House voting in favour of the legislation. Unfortunately, it is not. The legislation goes much further. It removes the legislated cap on carbon emissions, a legislated cap that had bipartisan support until the introduction of this legislation into the House. By removing the Climate Change Authority in one fell swoop it attempts to silence the critics of the government when it comes to economic and scientific advice on the best way to deal with carbon emissions. It removes millions of dollars granted to businesses to help them deal with reducing their carbon emissions through grants that were put in place by the previous government, and does much, much more indeed.

Speaker after speaker on this matter have stood here and asked that those on our side of the chamber respect a mandate. The truth is this: each and every one of us who have been lucky to be returned or freshly elected to this place comes here with a mandate: a mandate to implement policies that they put before the electors in their electorate. I did this, and I can tell you that the mandate I have is to ensure that we take strong action on reducing our carbon emissions, and that we do that through the repeal of the carbon tax and the implementation of an emissions trading scheme. Our proposition before the parliament does exactly that.

Let me say something about mandates: no government ever has a mandate to ignore expert advice. No government has a mandate to ignore the advice of scientists. No government has a mandate to turn its back on the public interest. Yet in bringing these bills before the House that is precisely what the Abbott government is doing, and what a terrible legacy for each member on that side of the House to vote in favour of. When they vote for these bills, they will be going down in history as people who are voting to wreck a perfectly good scheme. When they vote for these bills, they are putting themselves on the wrong side of history as wreckers of our economy and wreckers of the future of our children.

We know that our climate is changing. From 2001 to 2010 we have had the warmest decade on record. In fact, every decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the decade before it. We know the average global surface temperatures have increased by around 0.85 per cent since 1880, and that average ocean surface temperatures are rising. We know that the World Meteorological Organisation has advised that sea levels are rising twice as fast as they did on average during the 20th century. And we know that there is an accelerating loss of Arctic and Antarctic icesheets and an increasing acidification of our oceans. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released in September, shows a strong international consensus on climate change. The world's climate scientists are 95 per cent certain that the process of global warming has been underway for some decades and that the major cause of this is human activity—in particular, the burning of fossil fuels. The conclusion of this expert advice is that we need to limit overall global warming to two per cent above pre-industrial averages.

After coming through some of the summers that we have just been through—after experiencing the early onset of ravaging bushfires throughout New South Wales and some of the worst floods in living memory; after experiencing the early onset of terrible typhoons in countries to the north of us—we do not need to just read the advice of the scientists, we can base our opinions on our own experiences. We know that something drastic is happening to our environment. Whether it is the droughts, whether it is the floods, whether it is the terrible bushfires, whether it is cyclones or the typhoons, we know that our climate is changing. Action is more urgent now than ever. We know that if we do not act, and if we do not act decisively, children in future generations will look upon us in shame and wonder what their parents and grandparents did—or more truly did not do—to address this terrible scourge. What sort of Prime Minister would want that as their legacy? What sort of Prime Minister would ignore the urgency of this advice?

Instead of accepting this advice, the government is replacing a policy that is working with a policy that every expert says will not work, and that is the great tragedy of these bills that have been brought before the parliament. Industry was talking up the opportunity to invest in clean energy technology to help secure its long-term future. Businesses were moving ahead to lower their emissions, embracing energy efficiencies that will keep them competitive in a carbon constrained future. The renewable energy sector has grown strongly as a result of Labor's investment. It is crying out for certainty. In 2012-13 renewable energy grew its share of the national electricity market by 25 per cent; wind energy has trebled; jobs in the renewable energy sector doubled from over 24,000; and the number of houses with PV solar panels rose from 7,000 to more than one million.

According to the Climate Institute, the carbon price is helping to make renewable energy competitive with the energy from fossil fuels. We can have a clean energy future, but it will not happen without a financial incentive through a cost to industry for polluting. Business knows this; Australians know this. In fact, it is a simple concept that you can explain to the most naive kindergarten child. If there is no charge on water, people will leave the taps running; if people have to pay money for the water they use, they will think about the way they use it. This is a concept that the most naive kindergarten child can understand. And so it is with carbon: putting a price on carbon makes polluters think about the way they are using it and think about ways they can economise and reduce their carbon emissions.

The coalition argument for these bills is built on a great deception. Those opposite pretend that the abolition of the fixed price on carbon will lead to lower electricity costs. They pretend that taxpayers will somehow be better off; they pretend that this legislation is somehow business friendly; and they pretend that their policy can achieve the same environmental outcomes as Labor's. Nothing could be further from the truth. The coalition's policy is a hoax on the Australian electorate. It is a hoax that pretends planting trees and cell carbon technology alone will somehow make up for the devastation that results from unconstrained burning of fossil fuels. You would have to plant the entire state of Tasmania with trees to ensure that you could reduce carbon by the rate that would be necessary to meet the 2020 targets.

I think the member for Wentworth nailed it when he wrote on this issue, after he was deposed as Leader of the Opposition:

Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing.

He wrote that there was a very good reason for this:

After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all.

There it is, in the words of the member for Wentworth, now a senior frontbencher in the government: the real purpose of this bill is to be a fig leaf, to hide the fact that the majority of the coalition party room do not believe in human induced climate change. This is a very expensive way of doing absolutely nothing.

Labor supports ending the carbon tax, but we do not agree with ending the legislated cap on carbon pollution. This measure in particular is, in effect, an admission of failure by the coalition. It is an admission that their policy is an environmental fig leaf—'greenwashing'.

There is no doubt that electricity prices have been rising in recent years, but half of that rise, at least, is due to the cost of network upgrades—that is, to the cost of improving the poles and wires that deliver the power. This is a fact that is well known to those opposite. It is the gold-plating of the electricity networks, mostly by state-owned utilities, that is delivering the record power bill increases that households and businesses are experiencing. Those opposite know that household electricity bills will not come down by anywhere near the $200 claimed by the Prime Minister. This is nonsense and it is all part of a vast coalition policy hoax. When you see the other bills that have been brought before the House, you can be left wondering. A low-paid worker who is now going to be hit with a $500 increase in their superannuation tax could be forgiven for thinking that what the coalition is trying to do is say: 'Look over here! Look at the $200 that your electricity bills might go down by and don't be concentrating over here on the $500 whack that we are about to introduce to your superannuation tax.' It is a great hoax.

Once the coalition stood for market forces. Once they stood behind sensible economic policy—but no longer. A truly responsible parliament would commit to work together to come up with the best scheme for Australia's future. That cooperation was on offer and remains on offer. That is what Labor did, even in a minority government. A truly responsible Prime Minister would want to be at the forefront of such a process. Sadly, we have no such Prime Minister.

There is no argument from Labor that the fixed price on carbon should end by 30 June next year. Let me repeat that: there is no argument from Labor that the fixed price on carbon should end by 30 June next year. But it should end on the commencement of a transition to a floating price for carbon. This is the policy that I and every Labor member on this side of the House and in the Senate took to the last federal election. Sadly, the bills before the House today abolish the entire framework for an emissions-trading scheme, something which is known to the economically literate on that side of the House to be the lowest-cost way of abating carbon emissions, of reducing carbon pollution. Though they deny it now, the economic merits of this low-cost market-driven scheme have been acknowledged by some of those opposite.

Abolishing the Climate Change Authority is another one of the objectives of this legislation. It is nothing more than silencing the critics. There are some countries where it has been the habit of governments to dig out opposition to their policies and their politics and silence it, to close the critics down, to put them out of work, to incarcerate them. Happily, for most of the history of this democratic country, it has not been the policy of either side of the House to silence our critics. We believe in a robust debate and a robust democracy. In abolishing the Climate Change Authority, the Liberal coalition government are departing from this history. We know that there has been no place in their cabinet for science. We know that there has been no place in their policy for science. But to abolish the Climate Change Authority is a mean-spirited attempt to close down the critics. You would think that, if you were going to go to the bother of ensuring that we had a position of Chief Scientist in this country, you would listen to their advice. In closing down the Climate Change Authority, the government is refusing to listen to the advice of leading experts, economic and environmental, including the advice of the Chief Scientist of Australia.

The authority has been a statutory body charged with providing strong and independent advice to the government about matters, including the Renewable Energy Target as well as caps and targets for carbon pollution or emissions. This measure is consistent with an emerging pattern of behaviour by the Abbott government—secrecy and shutting down information that conflicts with their political spin and refusing even to come into this place and answer the simplest of questions on their policy objectives. However, in this they have been thwarted. I am very pleased to see that the Climate Change Authority has been crowd funded with $1 million to enable it to continue to provide quality information to the Australian public. It will continue to provide the advice that the Australian people need. It will not be silenced. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.