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

This is a wonderful opportunity to expand on the comments I did not have time to make because this bill has been so outrageously gagged by a government that seems far more interested in extending and meandering through the address-in-reply process than allowing a focused debate on such an important area of policy. It is clearly the case that this bill was cognately debated as one of 11 bills proposed by the government to dismantle the clean energy package introduced by the former government. As a result of that, there was no opportunity at all to allow members of this place to talk about the merits of the suite of renewable energy policies that had been put in place by the former government.

These policies expanded on a bipartisan commitment initiated—to their credit—by the Howard government in 2001 with the introduction of the mandatory renewable energy target. So with all of the froth and the bubble around the so-called carbon tax over the last three years, there was never a peep from the then opposition—now the government—that the bipartisan commitment between the major parties, which had endured over four elections, to start to drive a transformation in our electricity sector would no longer be abided by by the new government.

As I said earlier, the then shadow parliamentary secretary for the environment, Senator Birmingham, made a very clear statement to the clean energy conference only a week or two before the election that the Abbott opposition, now the Abbott government, remained committed not only to the aspiration of a 20 per cent renewable energy contribution to electricity by 2020 but to the precise generation figure of 41,850 gigawatt hours by 2020. It is clear from all of the advice that we received when in in government, and all the advice that anyone can receive if they talk to this sector or to an authority like the Climate Change Authority, that with the existing suite of policies remaining in place—with the work that ARENA does with its $3 billion budget to support emerging technologies like solar thermal and geothermal, which previously had bipartisan support from the two major parties; and with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in place—Australia would comfortably reach the target of 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020 and reach the broader aspiration known as 20 per cent by 2020.

There was never any indication from the Abbott opposition that they were going to move away from a policy area initiated by John Howard—not initiated by us, but by John Howard—but I must say that it was very much built on by us. Again, this is something which starts to move Australia away from the global mainstream. We are seeing it broadly in climate change policy. The Abbott government is trying to take Australia backwards while the rest of the world is moving forwards. They are stuck in the atmospherics of the Copenhagen conference in 2009, when it was quite clear that there was not any global consensus to start to move forward. The world has moved on since 2009; the world has significantly moved on.

The United States and China concluded a memorandum of understanding only in the last couple of weeks committing them to drive momentum towards a global agreement in Paris next year. We have had the, frankly, quite embarrassing situation of the US quite publicly trying to prod this government into taking seriously the statements that the Prime Minister and the minister made that the G20 would be a forum in which they could encourage constructive debate around climate change, yet there is no commitment by this government as chair of the G20 this year to include climate change as a topic of discussion in the pre-eminent economic forum of the world's leading economies.

This bill is but one detail of a broader problem that this government presents to the country. The country has an opportunity to move to a clean energy future and to finally be a part of some global momentum for an agreement next year that will start to deal with the very serious threat of climate change to Australia and every other nation. Instead, the government is playing politics; it is stuck in the atmospherics of 2009. For that reason, we will be opposing this bill.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Ryan, I will ask the Clerk to formally read the second reading title. I think that there was general shock that there was no vote on the second reading but there was only one voice in the chamber, so we will now move on to the member for Ryan.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2] yet again because of the inability of those opposite to listen to the Australian people and respect the decision they made at the last election. This bill repeals the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012, thereby abolishing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, as the coalition promised to do prior to the 2013 federal election as part of the carbon tax repeal. It is unfortunate that while in government those opposite refused to follow through on their 2010 election promise, and that now even from opposition they are standing in the way of the coalition government fulfilling ours. One must ask if those opposite purposefully enjoy misleading the Australian people. This bill will see the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's assets and liabilities transferred to the Commonwealth by statutory novation and managed by the Treasury. Abolishing the CEFC will save more than $6 billion in borrowed money to the end of the forward estimates, to 30 June 2017, and $350 million in interest costs alone.

I have spoken in this place many times before on the fact that a whole-of-economy tax and risky financial expenditure will not reduce our carbon emissions, nor will they have a positive impact on our environment. The effect of the carbon tax on everyday Australians can be felt everywhere in our community. It is everyday Australians who are footing the bill for the carbon tax, not the so-called 'big polluters'.

The Labor Party told Australians at the 2010 election, once again, that there would be no carbon tax under a government led by whomever the Labor Party and the caucus happen to like on that day. But just last week, after telling Western Australians yet again that they oppose the carbon tax and on the very day they told the public that they oppose the carbon tax, they voted our bill down in the Senate. The hypocrisy of those opposite to mislead the Australian people's on their stance on the carbon tax time and time again, election after election, is a blight on our nation's history. They are a disgrace. Those opposite are in this place supposedly to represent the Australian public, yet when Australians speak clearly and loudly against the carbon tax those opposite refuse to listen and refuse to represent their constituents. Every day that the Labor and the Greens toxic alliance in the Senate continues to oppose the repeal of the carbon tax is another day Australian people pay more for their electricity prices, more for their gas prices, more to run their businesses and more at the supermarket for food for their families. Labor introduced a whole-of-economy tax on the Australian people. They even acknowledge that it was the wrong thing to do—apparent by the continued false statements and promises at each election to repeal the tax. When it comes to walking the talk, though, Labor votes to keep this toxic tax.

Today marks yet another day that the coalition government is delivering on our election promises. Within the first 100 days of government we introduced the carbon tax repeal bills, and today, after they were voted down by the Senate, we are trying yet again. The coalition promised we would repeal the carbon tax and we are following through on that election commitment. It is clear that the only side of the chamber Australians can trust to tell the truth and to follow through on the promises taken to the election is the coalition. I am proud to stand on this side of the chamber and I commend this bill to the House.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2] abolishing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is bad public policy at its best. This is public policy well and truly stuck in the 1970s and, after the announcement of the return of dames and knights, it is evident that this is a government that is well and truly stuck in the 1970s.

The abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will stifle research and development into clean energy in our country. It will put a hold on commercial investment in clean energy projects in Australia. Most importantly, it will guarantee that we leave our kids an economy and an environment that is worse off because of the decision that the parliament will make if we abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The CEFC was established to provide sustainable clean energy finance into the future, investment in clean energy in Australia on a commercial basis. The process of the CEFC was to also leverage private sector investment to overcome barriers to investment in renewable energy in our economy and it was to do that on a commercial basis. The research and the evidence from the CEFC's activities so far demonstrate that that is exactly what is occurring. It is leveraging finance on a commercial basis and returning, and will return, dividends to Australians in the short term.

So far the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has been able to catalyse over $1.55 billion in non-CEFC private capital investment in projects and programs while it has only committed $536 million. These projects that the CEFC has commercialised will account for a reduction of 3.9 million tonnes of carbon in Australia. So a very small investment by the CEFC is leveraging a greater commercial investment from the private sector in clean energy and will return a dividend to the Australian people, in particular the next generation of Australians. And yet it is a project that the government is comfortable knocking off today. It is knocking over a vehicle for investment in clean energy throughout Australia. If this goes through, that is something our nation will pay for for many, many years.

And what are they going to replace it with? They intend to replace it with a scheme of government grants—government handouts—to all and sundry on a whim and with the hope that they will invest in projects that are commercially viable and will result in carbon reductions in our economy. One would think that we are living in a parallel universe. I was always under the impression that the Liberal Party of Australia were all about the market and market-based mechanisms providing the best outcomes in our country. And here we have the Liberal Party knocking off a market-based mechanism for investment in clean energy in Australia and replacing it with what? A scheme of government grants—going completely against their own ideology and philosophy, simply because they are opposed to a Labor initiative that is good public policy.

What are some of the projects that a program like the CEFC will commercialise? I am fortunate that in my community we have the University of New South Wales, which has done outstanding work in research and development of photovoltaic cells. Just two months ago the university's ARC Photovoltaic Centre of Excellence took out the AF Harvey engineering research prize for the Institution of Engineering and Technology for the team's discovery of a mechanism to control the charged state of hydrogen atoms to correct the deficiencies in silicon—the most costly part of solar cell technology. That will revolutionise photovoltaic solar cell development, and that is the sort of project that will get commercial backing under the CEFC. But it is being knocked off by those opposite for short-term political gain, and our kids will pay.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak in the consideration in detail stage of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013. There is a very clear question before the chamber contained in the terms of the bill we are debating this afternoon: whether the Clean Energy Finance Corporation should be maintained or whether it should be abolished, as schedule 1 to the bill would have the legal effect of doing.

It is the policy of the Abbott government that it should be abolished. The first reason why the parliament should support this bill is that we were very plain, we were very clear, we were very explicit when in opposition that we did not think the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was a good idea. We said very clearly that we intended to abolish it. We took that to an election, and we were resoundingly supported. Let there be no doubt in this House: we have a very clear mandate to give effect to the policy that we took to the 2013 election, which was that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation should be abolished.

Why did we take that policy to the election? If you listen to the previous speakers opposite, you would think that what we were proposing to do was to strangle a marvellous vehicle that was going to produce an endless stream of commercially viable, profitable and wonderfully environmentally supportive ventures, and that we are turning our back on this economic and environmental nirvana that the previous Greens-Labor coalition had invented. We are very sceptical that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation would work as it was intended to, and we have expressed clearly our scepticism from the outset.

Let us consider what the fundamental business model of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is. If I quote from a press release issued by the then Treasurer on 12 October 2011, the mission is to:

… act as a catalyst to private investment which is currently not available—

and apparently was going to:

… overcome capital market barriers that hinder the financing, commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency and low emissions technologies.

The business model of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is for the taxpayer to be the mug who comes along and invests in projects that the private sector has passed on investing in. The business model here is that when the private sector has examined the opportunity for investment and has determined, on the basis of that examination, 'We do not intend to put money in here because it is too risky and we are not going to get a return,' then apparently the taxpayer should come along and invest money to do that. And by the way, where was the taxpayer going to get that money from? Where was the government of Australia going to get that money from? Of course, it was going to borrow that money because of the chaotic state in which the public finances of this nation have been left by the Rudd Gillard Rudd governments.

This was a proposal from the previous government, this was a measure from the previous government that was predicated on a deeply unwise assumption that a government-owned corporation would do a better job of investing in risky ventures than the private sector would. It was predicated on the deeply unrealistic assumption that you could establish this venture and that it could invest in a way that was not subject to any kind of political pressures, that did not expose it to any kind of expectation on the part of Labor and the Greens who set it up that money would flow to all kinds of projects that they thought were virtuous. It is a venture that has been set up in ignorance—in clear and studied ignorance—of the tragic track record of these kinds of investments and ventures around the world.

In the brief time I have available, let me mention Solyndra, which was the US example of a new photovoltaic solar panel manufacturing facility, a $US535 million loan guarantee given by the Obama government. And guess what? Within just a few months the expansion was postponed; three-quarters of that guarantee was called on. The taxpayer there was left as the mug, and under this venture the taxpayer would always have been the mug. That is why we have opposed this ill-judged venture from the outset.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Abbott government are not just living in another century, they are living on another planet. They are living on a planet where, apparently, global warming does not exist. They are living on a planet where you can ignore what every scientist in the Climate Commission and elsewhere around this country is telling us, which is that if we are to protect the Australian way of life from the impacts of global warming, which will include more severe and more frequent droughts and bushfires, then we have got one or two decades at most to get this country to be a zero-pollution country—and that means running on renewable energy. That is a big task. It is a huge task to do in a short period of time, but it is a task that we have to do if we are to protect Australia and its way of life.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is one of the best initiatives of the last parliament. It was never on the table in any of the schemes that had been put forward to deal with global warming under previous parliaments, but it happened in the last parliament because we had a parliament where Greens, Labor, city Independents and country Independents were able to come together and ask: 'What can we do to advance Australian industry in the clean and renewable energy sector?' And the answer, in large part, was the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The idea that this is some unstudied, back-of-envelope development bears no examination because what I can tell the House is that when we developed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation we looked around the world at what else was going on and we took our lead from the Conservative government in the United Kingdom. The Conservative government in the United Kingdom has a Prime Minister who is not like our Prime Minister; he is a Prime Minister who says: 'When I see science I believe it, I don't say it's crap. I believe it when I see the science.' In the United Kingdom they had said, 'What can we do to support our local manufacturers and to ensure that we have world-leading renewable and clean technology?' and they set up the United Kingdom Green Investment Bank. It is successful. And that model, together with the rest of the world's best practice, is now operating here in Australia.

What we have in Australia is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that has spent only $500 million-odd of its own money and, from that, has leveraged over $2 billion worth of investment in clean and renewable energy around this country—and that is happening now. That means that this bill from the Abbott government is an anti-Western Australian bill and an anti-jobs bill, because right now in Western Australia the CEFC has proposals for projects with a total project investment value of more than $1 billion, with only $400 million of investment from the CEFC. There are projects in solar photovoltaics and in wind. Twenty-one per cent of that investment is happening in the agricultural, forestry and fishing sector, with the rest of it in solar, wind and across the board in areas such as biofuels. This is happening right around the country. There are success stories of wind farms in Victoria and solar plants in New South Wales that are actually happening now, that are being built or in the pipeline to be built, because this corporation is using money wisely to leverage private sector investment.

It was because this piece of ideology from a government trapped in another century and on another planet is so wrong-headed that it was rejected by the Senate. It was not just Labor and the Greens saying that this was an important thing we achieved in the last parliament. There are actually conservative independents and people from across the political spectrum saying, 'Hang on, this Clean Energy Finance Corporation is actually working.'

Every speaker from the other side who has got up so far—and I bet there are going to be more—to talk about the carbon tax should be struck out of this debate because this bill is not about the carbon tax. This bill is about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Whatever you think about putting a price on pollution, you have to look at the evidence and you have to say that putting money to supporting private sector investment in clean and renewable energy is a very good thing for this parliament to be doing. (Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take great pleasure to rise in this consideration in detail stage of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013, take 2. It is take 2 because this bill has already been to this House. It was debated in this House and it was passed on 21 November last year, and we did so to meet one of our election commitments. The coalition went to the last election with a very clear policy that we would abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We did so on the clear basis that we do not support taking $10 billion of taxpayers' money, actually borrowing $10 billion of taxpayers' money, putting the government further and further in debt, to spend on projects that the private sector has deemed too risky.

We heard the opposition leader in this chamber this morning whingeing about the government keeping our promises. But he, with his senators hand in hand with the Greens, has prevented the coalition government from keeping our promises. We know that the previous Labor government broke promise after promise. We know what they did on the carbon tax. In 2010 they went to the election with the then Prime Minister promising there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. Of course, they broke that promise. Then in 2013, only last year, they went to that election making out to the Australian public that they had abolished, terminated, the carbon tax. And now they come in here and whinge about the government not keeping our promises when we are keeping our promises in this House, the bill goes over to the Senate and they reject it. That is why we are here today.

I have heard many of the speakers on the other side and I see the good member for Rankin and the good member for Scullin over there ready to speak on this consideration in detail. I am sure one of the points they might raise is how wonderful this Clean Energy Finance Corporation has been and how it is actually making money for the government.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good point!

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, if it is making that money for the government, why aren't you investing your own money in it? If you think this is so good, how much of your own money are you putting in it? Why are you prepared to put taxpayers' money at risk when you won't put your own money in it? That is the ultimate question. That is the ultimate question, because they know as well that this scheme will waste and lose taxpayers' money. That is the reason they wouldn't put one cent of their own in it. They want the Australian taxpayer to wear a risk that they are not prepared to take.

We have seen an example of why the taxpayer is not needed with Mr Flannery's Climate Commission, which this government also abolished to the great howls and cries of members of the opposition. But what then happened? They then went and said: 'Look, this is terrible. This evil government has closed us down.' They were then able to receive donations from the public. So we in government today are able to receive the benefit of the wise, insightful opinions of Mr Flannery and listen to his predictions without it costing the taxpayer one cent, because it is funded privately!

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a win, win.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a win, win situation, as the parliamentary secretary says. Any speaker that stands up and says how wonderful this scheme is and how it is returning a great return to the taxpayer should also state why they are not prepared to invest their own money in it.

We have seen examples overseas of the dangers and the risks to taxpayers. We have seen in the USA the massive $700 million failure of the Solyndra project—US taxpayers' money flushed down the toilet and wasted. That is what we should be learning from. We have also seen it here. Many people may remember the Bligh Labor government in Queensland's ZeroGen project in which they invested $100 million of taxpayers' money. They said how wonderful this was, how it was going to create all this renewable energy and why the taxpayer should put their money in—and anyone who objected to it was said to be on drugs. We know what happened. That project failed and $100 million of taxpayers' money was wasted. We are in such a dire financial situation that we cannot afford to put any more taxpayers' money at risk. (Time expired)

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation because it is a vital piece in this nation's armoury to combat climate change. I am going to go back to some facts that seem to have passed the previous speaker by. The consensus in science now is that man-made climate change is as certain as the fact that tobacco causes cancer. They are that certain now, but that fact is rejected by those on the other side. Another fact is international action. Over a billion people now live in nations or provinces where there is a carbon price of some form. By 2016 there will be three billion people. Those on the other side are condemning us to trade retaliation if we do not put an effective carbon price on to combat climate change. The third fact is that every decent economist—none on that side—has concluded that a market based system, principally either an emissions trading scheme or a fixed price, is the most effective way of combating climate change—a market price complemented by adequate industry and innovation policy measures to support this transition. If we go back to the basis of all this, we are living in a carbon-constrained world. The nations that succeed in the future will be the ones that decarbonise their economies—countries like China, where 200 million people now already live in provinces where there is an emissions trading scheme. By 2016 the entire nation is to have an emissions trading scheme driving their economy.

Economic history shows that the countries that take advantage and move first are the ones that benefit from industrial revolutions, whether it was the English during the first industrial revolution based on steam and textiles; the second industrial revolution based on chemicals and electricity, being the United States and Germany; or the third industrial revolution based on electronics and the transistor in particular, driven by Japan and the United States. The next one will be about decarbonising our economy. I want my daughter to grow up in an economy where we have invested to make that transition so that our industries have a chance to compete globally, our industries are not horse and cart industries in the era of the automotive car.

This is a great debate to have because it shows how the other side just don't get it. We had a previous speaker, someone on the front bench, talk about risk. They wilfully misunderstood the innovation cycle—that the first-of-type projects often do not get a full commercial rate of return. They can still get a decent rate of return, but they do not often overcome the barriers to reach the 10 or 15 per cent that the private sector demands to take a risk. It is entirely appropriate that the Commonwealth support innovation and industry policy, support the first-of-type projects, for example large-scale solar thermal, very revolutionary energy efficiency projects. Not only are they important for being the first-mover types that demonstrate to the private sector that they can take action; they also can have a rate of return.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has already invested in $2.2 billion worth of projects, where the average yield is projected to be 7.33 per cent on average. That is well above the long-term bond rate. Yes, it is below the internal rate of return that some in the private sector demand, but it is return which is well and truly paying back the debt that is being taken on to fund these important projects. This covers 39 projects already in play. A further 170 proposals with a cumulative investment of $15 billion are approaching the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for investment.

I return to the substance of this, which is: how best do we combat climate change? We have the command and control over there by Comrade Abbott, a return to central planning that Lenin and Stalin would be proud of. This is what the Liberal Party has degenerated into: state directed investment of the worst sort that we have not seen since the 1930s in Russia. This is versus a market based system that every economist worth their salt—Ross Garnaut, Lord Stern, people supported by both sides of politics—supports. The member for Wentworth supported it in a previous life. Market based systems are the most efficient way of tackling climate change—backed up by sound industry policy that makes the Commonwealth money and that has first-of-type demonstration effects for the rest of the economy. This is the sensible way. This is what those on the other side are voting against, because they are economic philistines. As former Treasurer Peter Costello said of Tony Abbott, 'He just doesn't get economics.' He just doesn't get economics and with his knighthoods he just wants to return to the past, condemning our future. (Time expired)

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2] consideration in detail stage. The government is reintroducing this legislation in an identical form to the bill that was first introduced to the House of Representatives on 13 November 2013 and rejected by the Senate on 10 December 2013. The bill repeals the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012, the CEFC Act, thereby abolishing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the CEFC, and it makes a number of consequential amendments. The CEFC's assets and liabilities will be transferred to the Commonwealth by statutory novation and will be managed by the Treasury.

It should not be the job of the government to operate banking services for industries which are already supported through commercial banking services. It is very unusual for a government to be operating banking services for industries, but this is what has been occurring since the CEFC was established on 3 August 2012 under the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012. In the few cases where the government does operate such investment services, these are limited and targeted. Examples include the Indigenous Land Corporation and Screen Australia. But the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is certainly a different case, not least because it is providing assistance to projects that would already be going ahead in order to meet the renewable energy target. The coalition predicted this would be the case when the CEFC was introduced by the previous Labor-Greens government, and it has been proven correct, with the CEFC board choosing to lend to large-scale commercial wind farms.

This potential duplication also calls into question the claims by the CEFC that the existing projects they have financed have resulted in 3.88 million tonnes of emissions reductions each year. Two-thirds of the claimed abatement comes from the Taralga, Portland and Macarthur wind farms, which are already supported through the renewable energy target, so these emissions reductions would have happened without the CEFC and indeed will continue without the CEFC, at no cost to Australian taxpayers.

This, of course, is not the only example of the Labor government being only too keen to throw money at any sector in the hope it solves the problem without doing the research to see if it is truly needed. Too often the Labor Party instinctively reach for the chequebook without seeing if the money is really needed. For them it is all about the headline in the paper the next day and not about sound treatment of taxpayers' money.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cadbury!

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjection from the Greens member for Melbourne, who says that this bill is a threat to the way of life. The Greens would have us go back to horse and cart and burning wood, destroying the livelihoods and lives of Australians purely through their own ideology.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'What about Cadbury?' is what he said.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Swan has the call and will be heard in silence.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll fund chocolate but not solar power.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, righto. Anyway, to talk again of the Rudd government, in the 42nd Parliament Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of the time, introduced funding for solar projects and asked for submissions from all around Australia. I know there were some very good submissions put in from Western Australia that were actually commercially viable. But guess what: the five projects that were awarded funds were all in Queensland. And guess where the Prime Minister's seat was: in Queensland. So none of them went to Western Australia at all. This is another example of the Labor-Greens alliance working against the Western Australian economy, including by keeping this carbon tax. You said I would bring it up and I did; I have brought the carbon tax up. So this is another perfect example of how the Greens-Labor alliance works against Western Australia.

In 2011 I went on the ASEAN delegation, and in that time we went to Singapore. We had the previous member for Braddon there. We also had the previous member for beef stroganoff—sorry, the previous member for Reid. We met with the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, and these two members spoke to the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and said, 'What do you think about investing in renewable energy programs and things like that?' The Singaporean government official just said, 'We will not invest in non-sustainable projects, so we have not invested in any renewable energy targets at all.' So there is a perfect example of a sensible government leaving it to industry to drive that part of the sector.

Of course, this bill was part of the carbon tax repeal bills, and I mention that just for the member for Melbourne. This bill sits within that context. I support the bill. However, in one moment the Labor Party chose to make the parliament's focus the introduction of a carbon tax without any mandate—in fact, with a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax—and with it other possibilities were extinguished.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in opposition to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2], and I want to speak on some concerns of process as well as some matters of substance. On the process, it is extraordinary that, in a week when we have heard so much cant about freedom, again we see a major debate in this place gagged. Going to that point, I should congratulate the member for Swan, because he did in fact talk about the legislation that is before the parliament, unlike the member for Hughes. He talked about Labor rushing to get the chequebook. I think what we are doing here is rushing through this legislative process when there is some significant evidence we should be considering, not least the rationale adopted by the Senate in rejecting this legislation late last year and the important work done by the Senate committee, which I will turn to briefly.

It is telling that the broad attitude of the coalition can be summed up by two things here: (1) a failure to engage with the fundamental challenge that is combating climate change; and (2) utter lack of interest in the substance of the bill that is before us. It is quite extraordinary that the member for Hughes spent most of his time talking about the investment decisions the member for Rankin and I can make. He obviously has great confidence in our financial capacity to make these investments—misplaced confidence—but he has nothing to say about the legislation that is before us.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear! It is misplaced confidence. I've got no confidence, for what it's worth, especially in Rankin. You make a compelling point. You've almost got me convinced.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, listen a bit longer. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation facilitates comprehensive commercial loans for both renewable energy and cleaner energy technology investments and is set to fund emissions reductions at a negative cost to government—to turn a profit. This government's alternative plan for an Emissions Reduction Fund—I do not think that was very well understood by the member for Hughes, but I am sure the parliamentary secretary can take him through it—will consume billions from consolidated revenue. It is simply bizarre that a government supposedly obsessed with reducing debt and deficit would oppose a market-orientated scheme that turns a profit. Clearly the motive here is purely ideological and not for financial, much less environmental, reasons.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has been a success and will return real dividends. In its first months of operation it has been strikingly successful in providing loans to organisations. Over time we see the capacity to make investments that would account for 50 per cent of the five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020, at a profit to the taxpayer of $2.40 a tonne. In 12 months we have seen great success, but, despite these successful operations, through this bill the government is seeking to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This government has been unable to see past its ideological blinkers and appreciate the role the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has been playing in facilitating investment in renewable energy that would otherwise be missed by normal commercial banks.

I touched earlier on the Senate inquiry. Many stakeholders gave evidence to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee regarding the work to date and argued strongly and persuasively that the CEFC should be retained. The CEO of the Investor Group on Climate Change, Mr Nathan Fabian, summarised the need for the CEFC in evidence to the committee:

The CEFC is one example of what are now 14—

I emphasise 14—

co-financing institutions around the world. These organisations are needed for five reasons. Firstly, governments cannot sufficiently finance low-carbon alternatives to meet a two-degree outcome and private capital is needed. Secondly, the low-carbon investment market is relatively young and so deal flow needs to be supported. Thirdly, capacity in the finance sector must be increased through the experience of financing investments. Fourthly, financial participants welcome investment opportunities presented in a new market by an objective third party, even more than by investment banks. Lastly, co-financing organisations can actually earn financial returns for governments, delivering abatement at negative costs—and we think this is appealing and makes sense to all parties. Given the government's infrastructure agenda, we think that dismissing co-financing as a useful policy instrument may be premature.

Those are five very strong arguments that should not fall on deaf ears but seemingly will.

In the northern suburbs of Melbourne, energy efficiency gains are already being realised at the Labelmakers printing services store. The CEFC has helped finance three new energy-efficient presses that operate at twice the speed, using half the energy, of the old presses, while allowing a broader range of higher quality printed materials to be manufactured. It has supported jobs in the communities I represent, as well as environmental outcomes. This is just one of many projects the CEFC has helped bring to fruition. It makes a mockery of the Treasurer's claim in his second reading speech that investments were made in high-risk ventures. The second reading speech, as ever, was strong on rhetoric, low on detail and utterly unpersuasive.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you listened to the Labor and Greens contributors to this debate, you would be scratching your head and wondering how on earth the world ever reached the stage that it has reached. If it were not for these grandiose schemes funded by taxpayers, there would be no innovation. We would still be living back in the dark ages. I wonder how the first aircraft became airborne, how the first ship or the first submarine sailed, or indeed how any of the advancements that have been made with respect to medical technology, computing, IT and communications were made. The government must have been at the epicentre of every single one of these innovations! If it were not for the government, how on earth would the private sector have ever innovated in any particular way? For goodness sake. I have got to say I am not surprised, because that lot over there have always been exceedingly generous with other people's money. There has never been a time when the Labor Party have said, 'No, we don't want to invest taxpayers' funds in that.' There has never been a deal that has been put to the Labor Party, or to the Greens, that they have not wanted to sign up to with taxpayers' money.

But the unfortunate thing about all of this debate is this. The Greens and the Labor Party wring their hands and stand over there with their faux concern about the next generation of Australians and they say, 'Why won't the Liberals and the Nationals do something to ensure the safety of the next generation of Australians?' If only they had 10 per cent of that concern for how the next generation of Australians are going to pay back all the debt that Labor and the Greens left. If only they had the smallest bit of concern for the fact that it will be our children that will be paying back Labor's debt for the next 20 years. If only they had the smallest bit of concern for the fact that, in five years, they managed to indebt the next generation of Australians for decades. Then maybe we on this side of the chamber would take them a little bit more seriously. Maybe they should have considered and recognised the fact that they have effectively put a ball and chain around the ankle of every Australian for the next 20 or 30 years, instead of just focusing on the fact that Australia does contribute about 1½ to two per cent of global CO2 emissions and saying, 'If only we had renewable energy and if only we had mass-scale investment then we could probably shave off about 0.001 per cent,' or 0.0012 per cent or 0.015 per cent or whatever the number is. For goodness sake; it is no wonder the Australian people woke up to the Australian Labor Party.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want to do nothing!

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now we have got the member opposite saying we should do nothing. Well, I have got a newsflash for you, buddy: it is called the Direct Action Plan. Under the Direct Action Plan, the coalition will deliver five per cent reductions on CO2emissions, which, incidentally, is more than Labor was going to do. Under Labor modelling, CO2 emissions were going to go up. The only way they were going to actually achieve a reduction was by buying permits.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not want to hear the truth, do you? They do not like it when the facts stand in the way of—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat. The member for Isaacs on a point of order.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member opposite should pay some attention to the subject matter of the bill that is before the parliament. He is making no attempt to be relevant and should return to the subject matter of the bill.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary has the call.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the fact that the shadow Attorney-General had been in the chamber for about a minute before he jumped up in many respects reflects the baseless nature of that point of order.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. He should withdraw. I have been here for the entire debate, and the member, who has not been here, should not be making reflections of that nature.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask the parliamentary secretary to withdraw.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am actually not prepared to withdraw that, because the reality is that that is simply untrue. I have been here for the entirety of the debate. The shadow Attorney-General comes wandering in and then he makes an allegation. It is simply unsubstantiated. I seek your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary has the call.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians see straight through the Australian Labor Party and straight through the Greens. That is the reason why they said, 'After six years of reckless spending, after six years of fiscal abuse, after six years of having all the wrong priorities, we think it's time for a change.' We are working to implement our policies. This was one of our pre-election announcements, and once again you are stopping us delivering our policies. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I go straight to a couple of the remarks that were just made by the member for Moncrieff. He said that the opposition is exceedingly generous with other people's money. Perhaps he should look very carefully at the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the returns that it will provide to the Australian public. It is very clear that this is not being exceedingly generous with other people's money but rather providing a return to the Australian taxpayers on the money that is going to be expended—a return in the order of some seven per cent, or $200 million a year, over the next few years.

I want to go to another point that he made which, I think, is even more critical. He made the point that we are going to burden future generations with this so-called debt. I ask the member for Moncrieff: what kind of burden would he have us leave future generations if we, as a society, do nothing about the impacts of climate change? These are impacts which, I might say, have been confirmed time and time again by the scientific community of the world. The most recent reports, including reports from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia, confirm the predictions made years ago that our climate is changing, it is changing in a very severe way and the impacts of that change are going to be very severe for future generations, who will have to wear those costs. In fact, in the last summer alone, my recollection is that there were 156 records broken in terms of the climate of this country.

Also, on the subject of his government's direct action policy, I quote to him a comment from the member for Wentworth, who said:

… the farce that the coalition's policy, of lack of policy, on climate change has descended into … You cannot cut emissions without a cost … Somebody has to pay.

Those are comments from one of their own members, not from people on this side of the House but from someone who at least has the decency to acknowledge that that science in respect of climate change is right. But I will go further. Lord Deben, a former Tory minister and now the head of the UK's independent Committee on Climate Change, described the Abbott government's approach to climate change as being:

… so unintellectual as to be unacceptable; I mean, it is just amazing.

This legislation that the government seeks to repeal was put in place as part of a total package to manage the concerns that society has about climate change. Part of that strategy is, in fact, not only to have a mechanism by which polluters will reduce the amount of pollution that they create but also to encourage investment in innovation in areas where we will reduce the amount of carbon that is emitted into the atmosphere. You can only do that if you invest in new technology. Members opposite say, 'Are you prepared to invest your own money into the new technology?' I say to them: how can you expect anyone to invest their money in new technology when they have no certainty of policy because members of the government on that side said that, if they got elected, they would change the policy as they are doing right now? You cannot get certainty of investment if you are going to change your policies from one election to another. If they were prepared to be honest about this whole issue and at least agree to stick to the commitments around the renewable energy targets and the targets to reduce emissions by five per cent by 2020, at least that would provide some level of certainty to those people who are prepared to invest in new technologies because they know that, ultimately, we have to do so.

The Abbott government is clearly showing that it is prepared to turn its back on the science of climate change, and, in doing so, is turning its back on future generations, who will, indeed, have to pay dearly because of the inaction of this government. We are not only seeing it through this legislation; we are seeing it across the board. In fact, yesterday in question time the Minister for the Environment could barely utter the words 'climate change'. I think he did it once in response to a question about the very subject. That is how committed the government is to climate change. We saw it also with respect to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill—again, deletion of all reference to climate change. They want to hide it away and bury it away because, that way, they can pretend it does not exist. Well, the truth is: it does exist. If this government is prepared to turn its back on this kind of initiative, then what it is really saying is that it does not care about future generations. It is prepared to capitalise on profiting today so that others pay dearly in the future. (Time expired)

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see the member for Melbourne rose. I am sorry to take this opportunity off you to speak, but I just thought that I would like to continue with my comments. One of the things that the member for Makin—and it is good to see him quoting Tory politicians—talked about was changes of promises. If we go back to pre-2010, we can remember the changes of promises that every Australian remembers. The Greens and Labor broke the promise not to introduce a carbon tax. The people in Western Australia will remember that next Saturday when it comes to the election. The Greens-Labor alliance lied to the Australian people about the carbon tax that they said they would never introduce under their government.

Of course, this bill was part of the carbon tax repeal bills. This bill sits within that context. The coalition went to the election with the clearest possible position on the subject of the carbon tax. We announced a policy many months—if not years—out from the election. The policy was communicated in budget reply speeches, in press releases, in debates during the campaign and in the election material of every single Liberal and National candidate across the country. The leader of the coalition at the time, Tony Abbott, was bold enough to declare that the 2013 federal election would be a referendum on the carbon tax. This was an accurate description of what the election turned out to be. But the people on that side of the chamber want to ignore the will of the Australian people.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. This bill is not about the carbon tax. This bill is about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the leader of the coalition, Tony Abbott, was bold enough to declare that the 2013 federal election would be a referendum on the carbon tax, and this was an accurate description of what the election turned out to be. Again, as I said, people on that side of the chamber just seem to have totally ignored what the will of the Australian people indicated on 7 September 2013.

Kevin Rudd recognised that it was a referendum on the carbon tax, because, during the campaign, he said he had terminated the carbon tax. What a misrepresentation that turned out to be! And now we see the WA Senate candidates in Western Australia saying that they are going to terminate the carbon tax. They are not. They have been here and they have voted against terminating it. The Western Australian people need to know that when they go to the polls next Saturday.

Most members in this place would agree that, for better or for worse, the carbon tax became the key issue of the 43rd Parliament. It was the major issue, because the Labor Party made it a major issue. It became so the moment the Labor Party decided to break the infamous promise that there would be no carbon tax under a Gillard government. The 43rd Parliament did not have to be about the carbon tax. If Labor had showed some spine and not been jelly-backed and had stood up to the Greens and said, 'No, we will honour our commitments,' the last parliament could have been about better things. It could have been about the welfare of the Australian people. It could have been about delivering the infrastructure of the 21st century. It could have been about rebuilding our national finances, about stopping the boats, about delivering on broadband for the Australian people or even paying for a national disability insurance scheme.

We heard the member for Charlton say that he wants Australian companies to be able to compete internationally. But, if we talk to most manufacturers in Western Australia—particularly in the concrete sector—the carbon tax and the mining tax are the things that are stopping them being competitive internationally. We are seeing concrete products being imported into Australia and into Western Australia because of the deficiencies of the carbon tax and the negative aspect it has on business for people in Western Australia.

We also heard comment about providing a return on investment from the CEFC, but what about the NBN? The Labor Party also said that the NBN would provide a return. Well, we know that is not true. What about the $64 billion black hole that the Labor Party have left with the Australian to pay off? They have taken a disgraceful attitude towards this bill. It is the second time that we have presented it. They need to tell their people in the other chamber to get onboard and vote for the repeal of this bill.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It now being two minutes past one, the hour set aside for this section has concluded. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the time allocated for the consideration in detail stage has concluded. I now put the question that the bill be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The Manager of Opposition Business has informed me that he is prepared to call this division off on the basis that they will vote against the third reading rather than this motion now. So I declare that the bill is agreed to.