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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The g overnment’s failure to take climate change seriously.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

It is good to see the member for Herbert staying here. I am sure he is on the speaking list with the opposition! On Sunday, which was a beautiful day in Melbourne following a rather tragic preliminary final the day before, I had the pleasure of attending a rally that I am told had up to 30,000 people present. It was the flagship event for Australia of the People's Climate March. It was the first of a series of literally hundreds of thousands of events that spread from Melbourne—following the sun—to New York 14 hours later, where the largest march in history against climate change took place in New York City.

There were up other marches around Australia. There were marches in my city of Adelaide; there were events in pretty much every other capital city and in some regional centres. Effectively, what was seen in that outpouring of hope and expectation was really a great sense that the New York City summit—convened by the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon—would start to galvanise and catalyse action in the lead-in to some very important negotiations next year.

There were more than 120 leaders at the climate summit that was held on Tuesday, in New York time, this week. President Obama attended, obviously. There has been a great deal of media coverage of the President's speech at the UN General Assembly during the summit. Prime Minister David Cameron from the United Kingdom, President Yudhoyono from Indonesia and countless other world leaders were there.

The Australian Prime Minister did not attend the climate summit in New York on Tuesday. He is not the only world leader who did not attend the summit, but I am not aware of another world leader who arrived in New York within hours of the summit. He could have quite easily rearranged his diary to be there. The Prime Minister said that he was busy and that he wanted to attend parliament instead. I am sure that had this clashed with Monday's sitting day, where the Prime Minister had to make a very important statement on national security, everyone would have perhaps forgiven him for not attending the summit on Tuesday in New York time—which is effectively Wednesday.

But it was quite clear that if the Prime Minister had attached any sense of priority to the climate summit being attended—as it was by some other very busy world leaders as well, including the President of the United States and Prime Minister Cameron, who has been fairly busy over the last couple of weeks—then rearranging his diary to arrive in New York City a few hours earlier might have given some sense to the rest of the globe that this Prime Minister takes climate change seriously.

The Prime Minister has form in this area. Only a matter of weeks ago, when the Prime Minister was in Canada with his soul mate, the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, he very bravely announced the creation of a coalition of the unwilling, of like-minded states, who would band together and fight against this progress, this sense of momentum leading up to the Paris conference next year. The Prime Minister announced that Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand would be a member of this coalition and that Prime Minister Cameron from the United Kingdom would also be a member. Of course, as we know, it took both of those prime ministers only a matter of hours to rush to a press conference to disassociate themselves entirely from the Australian Prime Minister's attitude to global climate talks and to reinforce their countries' commitment, their Tory governments' commitment, to domestic action on climate change and to the international momentum building towards the Paris conference next year.

There could not be a greater contrast between the Australian Prime Minister's regular public utterances about climate change and the speech that was given by the US president, President Obama, in the last day or two of the UN General Assembly, where he said that the 'urgent and growing threat of climate change' was an issue that would 'define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other'. It is utterly impossible to imagine the Australian Prime Minister talking about climate change as a threat or something in any way close to it.

Even if the Prime Minister had been able to rearrange his diary for Tuesday, one can imagine why he would not have wanted to attend the Climate Summit. He set the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has performed very admirably on the world stage over recent weeks and months, a very, very difficult task: to front up to the rest of the world and explain what this government has done on climate change in its first 12 months. And what did the foreign minister have to say to the rest of the world? She had to say, as the Prime Minister would have had to say, had he turned up: 'We've abolished the cap on carbon pollution; there is now no restriction on the amount of carbon pollution that can be produced here. Also, we've abolished any legislative targets to reduce carbon pollution either in the short term, for the 2020 target, or in the long term, by 2050.' The foreign minister professed to reaffirm the five per cent reduction by 2020, but we know from the Prime Minister's appearance at the Press Club during the election campaign that, at best, this is a very soft target for this Prime Minister.

We know the Prime Minister has not mentioned once the conditional targets that were supposed to be bipartisan, the 15 per cent and the 25 per cent targets, either. He would have had to front up there, as well as at CHOGM, and say, 'I and the Canadian Prime Minister decided to withdraw from the Green Climate Fund,' apparently associating it with the ideas of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation here. The Green Climate Fund is a fund set up to assist the poorest countries, including nations in own region, adapt to the impacts of climate change—a very proud act by the Australian Prime Minister!

Mr Hunt interjecting—

The Minister for the Environment, who is going to speak in this debate, I imagine, intends to convene a rainforest summit later this year. This is a worthy idea, and I look forward to some details about that summit, because we know the impact that deforestation in our own region, including in Australia, can have on a range of things—on biodiversity and conservation but also, obviously, on climate.

We know that pretty much all of the heavy lifting in Australia during the Kyoto protocol period was done by changes to deforestation in Queensland, particularly the land-clearing laws put in place by the Beattie government which are now in the process of being reversed by the Newman government in Queensland.

Government members interjecting—

Some of the Tory MPs are saying, 'Hear, hear!' We would like to know, if the minister is convening a rainforest summit to talk to other parts of the Asia-Pacific region about deforestation, what he is saying to the Newman government about the deforestation underway in the Gulf Country there.

The Prime Minister could also tell the rest of the world about the ambush on the renewable energy target that was put in place earlier this year. We have had lots of opportunities to talk about the renewable energy target. I am hopeful that media reports that the Minister for Industry and the Minister for the Environment have been brought back in from the cold and given some authority to try and get this thing back on the rails, because, frankly, what has happened over the last several months is an utter atrocity, an utter atrocity, in a sector that had attracted billions of dollars of investment. I am quoting from the Warburton review here. The RET had created billions of dollars of investment, created thousands of jobs, driven down carbon pollution, would help to keep power prices lower over the next 15 years—Dick Warburton's own findings—and had been a bipartisan policy for four election campaigns, including 2013, when the minister sent his parliamentary secretary to the Clean Energy Council conference and reaffirmed the Liberal Party's commitment to the 41,000 gigawatt hour target. They then tried to junk it by setting up this ridiculous review.

We know what that has done to the sector. Over the first six months of 2014, only $40 million has been invested in large-scale renewable energy, because of the massive blow to investor confidence from this Prime Minister's reckless attitude towards renewable energy. This is the wonderful story the Australian Prime Minister could have told to the rest of the world, had he bothered to turn up in New York just 24 hours earlier!

The Prime Minister has described himself as a weathervane on this issue. He has famously described himself as a weathervane. He probably pats himself on the back for having won an election about the dreaded carbon tax. This is a serious issue, though. This is a serious challenge for Australia and for our partners in the region and the rest of the world. It is time for the Prime Minister to reflect on his attitude to the challenge of climate change and to get with the rest of the world, who are moving forward to an ambitious global agreement in Paris next year.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the shadow minister for the environment! For him to appear at the dispatch box and talk about the environment is something of an achievement, because, after 500 questions, 12½ months and numerous question times, he is yet to ask his opposite number a single question on the environment—not one, not ever

I think he is quite a nice guy, but when he took on the title of 'shadow minister' I suspect he took the shadow part of it a bit too seriously.

This is a question about the seriousness of climate policy. Let me remind the House of a few words: 'pink batts', 'green loans', 'cash for clunkers', 'citizens assembly' and 'carbon tax'—which they were never going to have. These are the realities and legacies of what they did in the name of climate policy. Let me run through these things in order. Let's remember what a tremendous success the pink batts scheme was. We have recently had findings from Commissioner Ian Hanger, and what did he find? He found:

The reality is that the Australian Government conceived of, devised, designed and implemented a program that enabled very large numbers of inexperienced workers—often engaged by unscrupulous and avaricious employers or head contractors who were themselves inexperienced in insulation installation—to undertake potentially dangerous work.

He went on to find, sadly, in relation to the tragedies:

… each death would, and should, not have occurred had the HIP been properly designed and implemented.

He went on to find that:

… despite electrical safety issues being raised squarely as an issue after the death of Mr Fuller, insufficient action was taken to prevent further tragedies—had it been, I am satisfied that Rueben Barnes' death could have been avoided.

There are numerous findings—findings that go on for page after page—and I am happy to table them for members of the opposition to read. This was a program done, inspired and delivered in the name of climate change, but it was a singular failure. It was a catastrophic failure and it was done in the characteristic style of chaotic management which embodied the way in which the previous government went across not just climate policy but almost all areas of policy.

I mentioned the Green Loans scheme as well. It was a $100 million farce: on average it worked out at $100,000 per loan for each loan that was actually delivered. It was an incredible failure which resulted in business destruction, confusion in the sector and virtually no change in emissions whatsoever. Cash for Clunkers—you only have to say the name, 'Cash for Clunkers', it says everything—was a policy which was so bad that they never got it off the ground. I should ask the member for Charlton: were you the designer of that? Are you going to put your hand up? Was this your baby? Or are you going to handball it to somebody else?

Mr Conroy interjecting—

In other words, not even the member for Charlton will own up to Cash for Clunkers. Then we go to the citizens' assembly—that was another beauty. You will remember that they went to the election in 2010, saying: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but there will be a citizens' assembly.' Their entire policy was going to be a citizens' assembly—this was the grand, majestic belief that the Labor Party had. But after the election, of course, everything changed. I will say something on this front: I was reading the Australian today and there were two articles jumped out at me. The first one says:

Gillard on Kevin Rudd: a man desperate for applause.

There are no great surprises in that, but almost entirely opposite that story was a come back article, ' Rudd on Gillard: a coup plotter and a backstabber'. What is interesting in this renewed battle is that Mr Rudd is reported as saying of his nemesis:

"(Gillard) sent me a written communication saying that under no circumstances could she, or would she, support an emissions trading scheme going to the next election," Mr Rudd wrote.

…    …    …

While recognising "the postponement" of the CPRS was "wrong", Mr Rudd said it was necessary to "prevent a total split in the government in an election year led by (Gillard's) implacable hostility to the ETS."

They were so serious about climate change—it was such a fundamental issue—that the government of the day was entirely split. He goes on to say that Ms Gillard and '"the faceless men" who supported her, including Bill Shorten,' should be absolutely chastised 'for ripping the party apart'.

This issue about which they huff and puff and provide a great degree ad hominem commentary today was one which was of such fundamental importance that they were in complete denial of it at the 2010 election. Then, three years later, what was their policy going into the 2013 election? It was 'to terminate the carbon tax'. So, their policy in 2010 was not to have a carbon tax under a government they led; their policy in 2013 was to terminate that same carbon tax. Except for the fact that when they lost the election and when the vote came up, they did not vote against it once or twice; they voted against the repeal of the carbon tax six times. So it is a system that Gillard did not believe in, that most of her supporters—I am happy to say, 'G'day' to the member for Port Adelaide—did not believe in when she was campaigning for the leadership and it was a system they were happy to abandon in name prior to the last election. What we see is a degree of farce and a degree of pomposity, which accompanies everything they say.

When you go to what they did—they terminated the solar rebate. They talk about renewables but they terminated the solar rebate—they terminated the solar hot water rebate. They created a phantom credits program which to this day has left a catastrophic flaw in the renewable energy target. I have mentioned pink batts, green loans, cash for clunkers, citizens' assembly—this is a record not of proud success, but one about which you may feel a little disappointed and a little embarrassed.

What have we done by comparison? We are doing practical and real things. On the international front, we have recommitted to our targets and we are committed to a solid, real and ambitious post-2020 agreement and just today we announced that Australia will be hosting an Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit in the coming months in Sydney. This is a chance to do something real and profound in terms of protecting the forests of the world, to enhance the reductions of emissions, to ensure that both biodiversity and climate change are addressed in a real and significant way on a grand global scale.

Domestically, instead of a system which costs $7½ billion a year and which largely failed to have any significant impact on emissions, we are going to ensure that there is an emissions reductions fund and a carbon purchasing fund which uses the existing Carbon Farming Initiative, which cleans up waste coal mine gas, cleans up power stations and cleans up waste landfill gas—real things which actually reduce emissions. This will engage in energy efficiency on a large, significant and broad scale. It will engage in the regeneration of our farmlands through work which improves soil carbon, which reduces deforestation and which reduces land clearance. These are actual incentives to do real things to reduce emissions on the land and in our cities. Add to that the regeneration of urban forests through the 20 Million Trees Program, and add to that what we are doing with the Green Army, which will allow for riparian recovery, the stabilisation of riverbanks, the replanting of mangroves and the recovery of threatened species. These are things which improve the environment in a real way, as opposed to extraordinary programs. Is there one person on that side of the chamber who will put their hand up and proudly say, 'I was responsible for the home insulation program'? Not an author. Is there a single person who will at least say, 'I was responsible for the Green Loans Program'?

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Who came up with the cash-for-clunkers program? Member for Charlton, you were playing a significant role. You are a great climate change warrior. Not yours? What about the citizens assembly? Any responsibility for the citizens assembly? Is there one of you who will claim responsibility for these programs?

I will claim responsibility for the Emissions Reductions Fund, for the Asia-Pacific rainforest recovery plan, for the 20 Million Trees plan, for the Green Army plan. These are real things that do real things. (Time expired)

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a pathetic effort from a minister without a shred of credibility left. It is like being flogged with a wet thesis. I will spare the minister a recounting of the numerous times that he has been rolled by his own cabinet on environmental issues: the solar roofs plan and the RET. Instead, I will go back a bit further to Australia's history as a middle power, which is an area where we have a significant record of international leadership and influence. From Billy Hughes at the Paris conference in World War I, to Doc Evatt at the San Francisco conference establishing the United Nations, to Bob Hawke's leadership in the creation of the Cairns Group in the Uruguay Round of the GATT, to Paul Keating's advocacy for the creation of an APEC heads of government meeting, we have long punched above our weight in international debates on the global issues that will shape our domestic security and prosperity. But today, the pugilist in chief, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, refuses to even get in the ring in the global fight against climate change. It is the biggest international fight for our nation's economic security, and the Prime Minister is missing in action.

The Prime Minister has refused to attend this week's UN Climate Summit, a summit attended by President Obama of the US and Prime Minister Cameron of the UK—members of the Prime Minister's beloved Anglosphere—as well as more than 100 other world leaders who will outline their nation's commitments to taking climate change seriously. The Prime Minister would rather live in a state of denial than confront the real challenges of our nation's future. Our Prime Minister would rather live in a fantasy world constructed by the undergraduate culture warriors opposite than face up to the challenges identified by the careful and diligent work of scientists from around the world.

As the Member for Wentworth so aptly said:

The fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human-caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion 'climate change is crap' … Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing.

The extent to which this is a crank position that isolates the Prime Minister from the rest of the world is truly extraordinary.

While our Prime Minister dissembles about wanting to wait for the international community to move on this issue before Australia acts, our international peers and major trading partners are already making major strides. South Korea, with whom Australia recently concluded a trade agreement, and China with whom negotiations for such an agreement are ongoing, are both moving towards emissions trading schemes. Countries representing half the world's population now support a carbon pricing mechanism.

Lord Deben, the former chair of the UK Conservative Party and a cabinet minister for Margaret Thatcher, has noted:

Australia’s actions are appalling. While the 66 countries that account for 88 per cent of global emissions have passed laws to address global warming, Australia is repealing them.

Even Thatcherite Tories think our Prime Minister is an extremist kook on climate change! The Iron Lady might not have been for turning, but the weathervane sitting in the Prime Minister's office just keeps spinning in whatever direction the winds of short-term political advantage are blowing.

This is a Prime Minister who has at various times advocated blocking the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme, passing the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme, passing it subject to amendments and then blocking it again. This is a Prime Minister who told Australia:

If you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?

He said that in 2009, and then between 2010 and 2013 he ran around Australia promising to 'axe the tax'. This is a Prime Minister who purports to believe in free markets and then proposes a 'direct action' climate change policy straight from Soviet Central casting. This is a Prime Minister who told voters before the last election that he supported Australia's renewable energy target, and then, after the election, appointed a well-known climate change sceptic to undertake a review of the scheme.

In contrast, Labor's position on climate change is clear. We accept the science of climate change and we believe we need to do something about it. We do not run away from our nation's challenges and we do not shirk the big issues. We get in the ring and we fight for our nation's interests. We do not think our nation's future economic security and prosperity is something that is worth sacrificing in the name of pathetic political point-scoring in the culture wars. We do not care about their student politics; we care about our nation's future economic prosperity.

It is worth returning at this point to the insightful comments of the member for Wentworth on this issue in the time remaining to me. The member for Wentworth noted:

Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions.

The member for Wentworth is right. Unfortunately, our country is currently governed by a Prime Minister whose only conviction on climate change is short-term political gain. So long as the Prime Minister thinks there are votes to be won from acting as though climate change is 'crap' he will continue to sacrifice our nation's economic future to do so. We on this side of the House take a bigger picture approach to Australia's future, and we will fight in international forums from here and into the future to secure our nation's prosperity.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak on this matter of public importance because I have had a deep concern about climate change for over 30 years. I have watched the snowline rise south of here, and it is something that I have thought hard about for over 30 years. That has meant that I have come to the conclusion that there are three things that taking climate change seriously really means. The first is effective and consistent policies that actually contain global atmospheric concentrations. Secondly, that you bring the Australian people along with you. Thirdly, you protect the Australian economy so that we can pay for all of this. Let me tell you what I believe it does not mean. It does not mean throwing lots of money at the problem for the sake of it. It does not mean passing encyclopedias of legislation. It does not mean putting endless programs in place. It does not mean establishing a cavalry of so-called independent advisers and advisory boards. It does not mean turning up at lots of global meetings.

Let us look at how the ALP did on the things taking change seriously do not mean. First of all they supported a carbon tax costing $15.4 billion over two years and which, if it had stayed in place, would have cost $1 trillion by 2050. It cost $700 million across 75,000 businesses and $550 per household. They created encyclopedias of legislation and we heard from the Minister for the Environment about the endless programs they put in place: pink batts, cash for clunkers, the citizens assembly. They established reams of authorities and independent advisers—CEFC, ARENA, CCA. God knows how many of their lapdogs were on the payroll telling them what they wanted to hear. And, of course, they turned up at endless global meetings, including the former Prime Minister at Copenhagen, and achieved absolutely nothing with it.

Let us look at how they actually performed on the things that matter. How did they contribute to reducing global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? Their own Climate Change Authority told us that emissions went up under their policies and were going to continue to go up from 590 million tonnes per annum in 2010 to 620 million tonnes per annum by the end of the decade. Perhaps even more frighteningly, they pushed carbon emissions offshore. We know from studies done across the world that putting a domestic price on local carbon production just outsources carbon emissions. Since 1990 the production of carbon in Europe has dropped but consumption of carbon has gone up by something like four times more than they have been able to reduce. So what have they achieved? They have simply outsourced their carbon emissions to China, India and the developing world. We see this pattern repeated many times across the developing world. In fact, The Economist tells us that across the developing world in fact all carbon policies have simply pushed carbon emissions into China and India and achieved absolutely nothing in the process.

In my own electorate I have seen this in action. One of the biggest employers in my electorate, the Tahmoor colliery, by its own admission, in all likelihood would have shut down if the carbon tax had stayed in place. What we would have seen if it had shut down was that coal production replaced by coal production in Indonesia or in China. We would have lost the jobs for absolutely no gain. It gets worse, because the Indonesian and Chinese coal produces more carbon than we would have from the coal coming out of the Tahmoor colliery—destroying jobs and not reducing global carbon emissions. Not making any difference at all.

Their position was never coherent. Worse, it cost the Australian economy. Outsourcing emissions meant outsourcing jobs, mining and manufacturing. Of course, we know that their carbon price, their carbon tax, was the highest in the world. That, of course, was having a dramatic impact on the Australian economy. In contrast, our policies are about incentives, not penalties; they are broad based, not narrow; and we are bringing the Australian people along with us. Labor has only ever pretended to take climate change seriously, because they mistook bureaucracy, consultants and spending for outcomes. We will never make that mistake.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All governments bring different priorities and different focuses to the task of setting and pursuing a national agenda, but there is always a set of core issues whose immediate and long-term significance demands the attention and application of any responsible government. Here, now, in 2014 climate change has to be at the very top of that list. Some would say that national security is at the very top, but let us remember that, according to the US defense department's Quadrennial Defense Review this year and Australia's current National Security Strategy, climate change will create grave and complicated security challenges, including a number that are specific to our region. Some would say that the economy is second only to national security—and that is a point many would accept. But, again, climate change represents a severe future cost and risk to our economy. I know a lot of people who would say health is the greatest priority, and it was heartening to hear from Professor Fiona Stanley at the climate change day of action rally in Perth that I attended on Sunday, when she spoke about the severe health impacts of climate change, especially for vulnerable members of the community, including the elderly and children.

Remember that in 2009, The Lancet and University College of London issued a statement that said:

Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st Century. Effects of climate change on health will affect most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk.

The reality is that action on climate change is action to improve security, to strengthen a sustainable economy and to protect the health and wellbeing of Australia's and the world's people and the environment. Indeed, climate change remains the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation. It is a known existential threat to all life on this planet, but it is particularly serious for small island states, such as our friends and neighbours in the Indo-Pacific region, who are already facing increased cyclonic, drought and storm surge events, and sea level rise eroding precious land and polluting crops and freshwater with salt. There is nowhere for them to go.

That is why this government's approach to climate change is its greatest flaw. It is why the coalition's abandonment of the bipartisan commitment to addressing climate change that emerged between 2007 and 2009, and that was sacrificed on the altar of political ambition, is the most damaging political development of this century to date. If this government's only failure was to not take climate change seriously—to perhaps look in other policy directions while nevertheless leaving the Clean Energy Future reforms of the Labor government to proceed on track—then you might accept their preference for sticking to their knitting, as the PM would have it, in terms of a conservative wind-back of progressive social reforms and the promotion of an anything-goes, free-market, big-business oriented program.

Instead, unfortunately, it has made the dismantling and destruction of Australia's carefully established and effective climate change action architecture a key part of its general program of nation un-building. In the first twelve months of government it has: removed the price on carbon; defunded the Climate Change Authority and a range of renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; and indicated its intent to undermine the Renewable Energy Target. An article in Crikey this week by Paddy Manning responded to a sobering report from the Climate Institute on the extent of effective subsidies to our hydrocarbon-dominated energy sector by noting:

Putting a price on carbon—the most efficient way to tackle climate change—was an attempt to "internalise" these costs so that purchasing decisions would forever more take into account the impact on the climate. Energy from fossil fuels would get more expensive; renewable energy wouldn't. That's not a subsidy. That's a level playing field.

…   ……

Now the carbon price is gone, the government is proposing to pay polluters from a taxpayer-funded Emissions Reduction Fund as part of its Direct Action plan, and the public also have to pay for the damage done by climate change.

As he says, the level playing field is being torn up. Our economy is being returned to an artificial state of affairs where emission-heavy energy production and other industries operate on a cushion of direct and indirect subsidies, shifting the economic health and environmental costs to the Australian public, the Australian taxpayer, to the future generations of Australian people.

As I have mentioned, last Sunday I attended a rally in Perth as part of a global initiative to mark a day of action on climate change. Tens of thousands of people around Australia joined this effort as did hundreds of thousands of people around the world including the UN Secretary-General himself. The Prime Minister, by contrast, chose to convey an opposite message. He chose to abdicate his responsibility when it comes to one of the most important policy issues facing this country and the planet by refusing to attend the United Nations Climate Summit in which President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron participated among more than 100 other world leaders.

The failure of this government to take climate change seriously is a failure to take science seriously; it is a failure to take economics seriously; and it is a failure to accept the responsibility for the health, security and wellbeing of Australians and our living natural environment now and in the future.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does anyone else get a feeling of déjà vu, the feeling that we have had this debate before over and over again? My colleague here, the shadow minister for the environment made some comment about the Prime Minister being a weather vane. I have just got a few quotes here and we might guess where they came from. 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'

We will go a little bit more current. How about this: Mr Albanese told Labor MPs on Thursday at an ALP caucus meeting that Labor should offer the Abbott government a deal to reduce carbon tax to zero immediately if the coalition would agree to introducing an emissions trading scheme. And here we have the member for Port Adelaide saying that Labor supports terminating the carbon tax. It is all well and good to say that you want to terminate the carbon tax, the relatively high price on carbon, immediately—on that we agree, member for Adelaide.

I have got a few more here, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. We had the member for Fremantle speaking about the victims of climate change. I can tell you who the victims of climate change policy have been. They have been the people in my electorate. They have been the farmers. It was costing them a bomb to keep their milk refrigerated and to irrigate their crops. It has been the pensioners that sit under a doona all winter because they are not game to turn on the heater because of the cost of electricity.

And what about the cement workers at Kandos who no longer have a job, because on the very week that the carbon tax was introduced it closed down. Are we using less cement? Indeed the wind turbines now in the same area are being secured to the ground by cement that comes through Sydney Heads from Asia. The member for Hume in his usual eloquent manner mentioned the fact that we have shifted these emissions offshore, and that is exactly what has happened. We have outsourced to the poorer countries.

The thing that really frustrates me is that when we look at who is going to pay the price for putting a price on carbon and saving the planet, it is always people that I represent. We have the member for Melbourne—and it is a pity that he is not in here—and the people who live in the most concreted and altered environments in the country who take great joy in putting in policies that affect the people they do not represent. That is why we had such a focus on land clearing. Somewhere along the line in the 1990s there was a decision made that this environment had to look exactly the same now and for evermore. So we have an expanding global population and we have got places like the Walgett Shire that are 20 per cent developed and are frozen at a point in time.

But we would wear the pain. Professor Garnaut said that regional Australia would wear double the cost of introducing a price on carbon of their city counterparts. The people in my electorate would accept that as fair enough and wear that pain if it was going to make some difference. But it was making no difference. I think that it would be much easier if we decided that maybe we would paint our front doors blue, because the answer we get from the Labor Party when we talk about the carbon tax or the emissions trading scheme or whatever, is that they say, 'At least we are doing something.' That is the idiot's excuse for putting petrol on a fire—'At least I am doing something!' If we want to do something, just paint your door blue—or green—because it would have just as much effect as this carbon tax. We saw the bizarre schemes of the pink batts and other such government policies from the previous government that cost Australians billions of dollars and made no difference.

The member for Makin is sitting down there. He was responsible for one of my favourite speeches in this place. In 2008 we were debating the original emissions trading scheme and he said, 'It's 43 degrees in Adelaide. We need to pass this bill today. It is 43 degrees in Adelaide and we have got no time to waste.' I presume that he had a barbecue planned for Sunday and he thought we could get the policy through on Thursday and cool things down for when he got home! It is one of my favourite times, when a member of the Labor Party has confused the climate with the weather and has got it all wrong. (Time expired)

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

What a bizarre effort. You know they are in trouble when they get the National Party to talk about economics. This is an economic issue and they have the cockies talking about economics, which is indeed troubling. Let's apply some facts to this debate, because the other sad and troubling part of the previous member's contribution is that he did not spend a single second talking about what they would do to help combat climate change. I do not know whether it is because they do not know what to do or he is ashamed of his own policy, or whether, like many on that side, he does not actually accept the science of climate change. He thinks he knows more than 97 per cent of climate change scientists around the world. What a pathetic effort.

Let's look at the facts. What happened after we introduced the fixed price emissions trading scheme? We heard lots of doom and gloom on that side about what happened. What did happen? In the first year alone, 160,000 jobs were created. The stock market went up 33 per cent. National emissions were 40 million tonnes lower than they would have been otherwise. The Department of the Environment, under the current government, says that, due to the emissions trading scheme, emissions in this economy are 40 million tonnes lower than they would otherwise be. We saw renewable energy production of 37 per cent and, most impressive of all, we saw emissions from the national electricity market, our single biggest polluting sector of the economy, fall by 17.2 million tonnes, a 10 per cent fall. This was all concrete action in the first two years of the scheme alone, and it would have been more efficient if we were successful in shifting it towards a flexible price emissions trading scheme, which was our plan.

This was all based on us acting in concert with the rest of the world. Those on the other side like to spread another myth, another untruth, that we are somehow leading the world in this area. Nothing could be further from the truth. By 2016, three billion people around the world will live in countries or regions where there is an emissions trading scheme. Two hundred million Chinese live right now under emissions trading schemes. By 2016, China plans to have a national emissions trading scheme. What we saw in the last three years was the most mendacious and disgraceful scare campaign ever pursued by a desperate, hypocritical opposition leader in the current Prime Minister. We had the $100 leg of lamb. We were told that Whyalla would be wiped out. We had the wrecking ball, the cobra strike and the python squeeze. We had the weather vane. We had, 'Climate change is crap.' We had, 'Carbon dioxide is weightless.' He discovered a gas that had no physical properties—it was remarkable. And he made ridiculous claims that global warming had stopped. This effort would not have been good enough for a humble opposition backbencher, let alone the alternative Prime Minister.

Yet again, we see those on the other side debasing themselves with empty rhetoric instead of talking about the real issues. I did a count. In the 20 minutes of their contributions to this debate so far, we have heard 30 seconds on Direct Action. The member for Wentworth is entering the chamber. He has spent more than 30 seconds on Direct Action in his political career—he said it was a fig leaf and various other things. He was a remarkable truth teller in that period. We have heard 30 seconds on Direct Action from those opposite during this debate, and the truth is that it is the most fundamental rejection of markets we have ever seen, led by a Prime Minister who is not a Liberal; he is not even a conservative; he is a DLP reactionary, an acolyte of BA Santamaria who rejects the notion of markets—and Direct Action reflects that philosophy. It is the worst aspect of a command-and-control economy. It would make Comrade Lenin proud to see Comrade Abbott introducing a command-and-control method to try and reduce emissions.

The sad thing is that they cannot even name a single economist they are not paying to support their policy. Not a single independent economist says that Direct Action is a reputable policy. The Grattan Institute has said it will cost $100 billion to reach the five per cent target. Treasury's own costings of their policy said it will cost $48 billion to hit their target. Not one single economist will support it.

On this side of parliament, we have introduced a policy. Our policy for 2016, a flexible price emissions trading scheme, is a recommendation of pre-eminent economists. The entire Treasury is in favour of an emissions trading scheme. Professor Paul Krugman, Ross Garnaut and Lord Nicholas Stern—the most pre-eminent economists in the world—when they look at the problem of climate change, say, 'Let the market solve it. Use a flexible price emissions trading scheme to target it.' That is Labor's policy. Those on the other side are divided between those who do not want to do anything because they do not accept climate change is real and the other half, who just see a political opportunity. They are failing not only future generations but this generation as well. I am confident they will stand condemned by history for their horrible, horrible work. (Time expired)

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

It is truly mystifying how, in a modern society, with all of human history and knowledge accessible through a device in our pockets, those opposite still believe that a tax is going to magically affect climate change. Those opposite must be deluded to believe that to take climate change seriously you need to tax people—families, community groups, single parents and pensioners—and somehow emissions will be reduced. The previous Labor-Greens government tried to incubate this insane, irrational and irresponsible notion, hoping it would grow in popularity with the Australian people. But this is not the first time that Labor and the Greens have underestimated the intelligence and common sense of the Australian people. Australians know that the rate of emissions continued to increase under Labor and, along with it, the cost of living. The Labor-Greens coalition government misled the Australian people when they said that the world's largest economy-wide carbon tax would not affect the cost of living.

This is evidenced by the fact that, now that this toxic tax has been repealed, costs are coming down. The Brisbane City Council is responding to the removal of the carbon tax by refunding the carbon tax element of this year's rates and removing existing carbon tax related fees and charges, while still leading the nation with its environmental initiatives. Brisbane City Council will provide a one-off refund to all ratepayers to cover the $17 million of carbon tax costs in the 2014-15 budget as well as the $7.1 million collected for future emission costs. That is right: with the removal of the carbon tax we are actually seeing the cost of living go down. Now that the carbon tax has been removed, the cost of power has decreased by nine per cent. Now that the carbon tax has been removed, the cost of gas has decreased by seven per cent. Now that the carbon tax has been removed, council rates have decreased and been refunded. Now that the carbon tax has been removed, public transport costs across Queensland have been reduced. Now that the carbon tax has been removed, unnecessary pressures placed on small businesses will be released, meaning savings can be passed on to consumers. Now that the carbon tax has been removed, Australians are all better off.

Yet those opposite still insist on re-introducing this toxic tax. The blind faith of those opposite in a policy which still resulted in emissions increasing, obviously not tackling climate change and instead placing a whole-of-economy burden on Australians, is horrifying.

On this side of the chamber we have taken a realistic approach to tackling climate change. We are committed to our target of reducing emissions by five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. This is expected to be 22 per cent lower than if we had not taken action. The coalition government has committed $2.55 billion to the Emissions Reduction Fund, which supports Australian businesses to improve their productivity and reduce their energy costs rather than taxing them and making their operations more difficult—which would force them to lay-off staff—and somehow expecting them to reduce their emissions.

Australia is committed to a new global agreement that establishes a common playing field, for all countries, to take action from 2020. Australia has joined the summit declaration on the phase down of hydrofluorocarbons. The coalition's approach to climate change is about practical action, actually getting in there and helping large emissions contributors change their practices, to see a positive environmental impact. It is not about imposing a tax that increases the cost of living. It is not about spending billions of dollars on 'renewable-energy' facilities that are not yet economically or environmentally viable and indeed are incredibly damaging to the environment, and are inefficient and unreliable sources of power so that coal-burning power plants must always be on standby to account for drops in energy output. This means that fossil fuels are being burnt anyway. It is not about announcing renewable-energy schemes that sound exciting yet take 20 years to break even for the fossil fuel and environmental cost of building them.

Unlike those opposite, the coalition believes in taking real action, not participating in marches protesting against the use of fossil fuels while setting up nylon tents made from petroleum derivatives, or writing on signs with pens using ink derived from petroleum, or marching in shoes derived from petroleum, or selling climate-action tee-shirts printed with petroleum based plastic paint or shouting into megaphones made from petroleum based plastics and powered by fossil fuels. The irony is astounding.

Unlike Labor and the Greens, the coalition is not about screaming and shouting. We are not about announcing scientifically baseless policies. We are about action. The coalition stands for reducing emissions in a way that will not hurt everyday Australians already doing it tough.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be speaking on this MPI, as the matter of climate change is an issue of grave concern to people in my electorate of Richmond, and I am proud that Labor's position on climate change is very clear. We accept the science of climate change and believe we need to do something about it.

Over this past weekend we saw globally more than 600,000 people take to the streets demanding action on climate change. We saw thousands of people at these rallies throughout Australia. Despite this, the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National parties will not act. The fact is, they are climate-change deniers, as we heard today. Their record and lack of action on climate change is reflected in their abysmal record on all issues related to the environment.

This is particularly true on the North Coast of NSW where we see the National Party not only denying climate change every chance they get but also destroying our important marine parks, allowing shooting in national parks and expanding harmful coal seam gas mining in our region. Locally there is grave concern about the government's plan to destroy the renewable-energy target. The fact is that the science on climate change is very clear, with over 97 per cent of published climate scientists agreeing that climate change is real and driven by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

We all have a responsibility to act on this advice. Climate change will not go away by simply pretending it is not happening. It is in Australia's national interest to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and work with international partners to cut global carbon pollution. The Prime Minister refuses to accept the need for urgent and serious climate action, but this is not the view held by the rest of the world's leaders. It is very disappointing that the PM refused to attend this week's UN climate summit, where President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron, along with more than 100 other world leaders, outlined their countries' commitments to serious climate action. We see world leaders make strong commitments, yet our PM insists Australia should not play a role in global climate action.

Some of the actions include China and South Korea moving to emissions-trading schemes—the very system this government set about dismantling here in Australia. Emissions-trading schemes are being adopted in many other countries too, including the UK, France, Germany, Canada and parts of the United States. But this government's policy allows the big polluters open slather. Instead of polluters paying, this government is setting up a slush fund of billions of taxpayer dollars to hand to polluters. Make no mistake about it: this will cost households more, while failing to cut pollution. We need to move towards a clean-energy future and Labor is committed to renewable energy, serious investment in the industry and creating jobs.

The renewable energy target was an important part of the former Labor government's policy approach to clean energy. The renewable-energy target is driving investment in the sector, creating jobs and reducing Australia's carbon pollution. Under Labor, the number of Australian households with solar power increased from 7,400 to over 1.1 million. Jobs in the renewable-energy sector tripled, providing a significant economic boost. In fact, in my electorate we have one of the highest take-up rates of solar panels, and there is a strong commitment and investment in renewable energy. The industry currently attracts around $18 billion of investment and is expected to see another $18 billion through the life of the RET. I strongly support the retention of the RET and have been approached by many businesses, locally, that are very concerned about this government's reckless actions in this area.

We know the Liberal-National government is made up of climate sceptics, and they do not believe in renewable energy. The vandalism that has been done to the renewable-energy industry in Australia by this government is, quite frankly, disgraceful and appalling. They are putting in jeopardy thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment. They are nothing more than a pack of climate sceptics, vandalising the renewable-energy industry. When it comes to regional and rural areas, people know that the National Party is to blame for these reckless actions on the RET. Rural communities will hold them to account and punish them for this. Regional areas are very reliant on jobs and economic growth from the renewable sector.

Recently, the report by the Abbott's government's hand-picked Renewable Energy Target review panel was released. The review paves the way for the government to break yet another promise, this time in relation to renewable energy. The panel recommended either scrapping or cutting the RET. The recommendations of the review panel will decimate the renewable-energy sector and associated jobs and investments.

The panel's report is just a political document, not an independent review. The climate-change-denial endemic in the coalition is written throughout this document. This is a report written by climate-change deniers for climate-change deniers, and it shows. If the government implements these retrograde recommendations it will be breaking another promise and killing off billions of dollars of investment in Australia. The government needs to disown the report. I am dubious about this, because we know this government does not accept the science of climate change.

The Prime Minister has previously described climate science as 'absolute crap'. I hear National Party members in my electorate saying the same thing, all the time. This government is out of step with the rest of the world by refusing to accept the need for urgent and serious climate-change action. It is environmentally and economically reckless to not take action on climate change, and this government is condemned for its inaction.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If anybody can tell me what the member for Richmond said, I will give you 50 bucks right now! You might think that because someone speaks really fast they have a lot to say but I am certain that, listening to the Labor Party's back bench over several years on this debate—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. I would be happy to take up the member's offer. The member for Richmond said that the Nats have gone missing in representing their constituents in the bush.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is an abuse of the standing orders. The member for Hunter should know better.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over several years we have heard this kind of drivel that passes for debate on climate change in this chamber. I will make another bet with the member for Hunter. I will give him 100 bucks if any member of the Labor back bench can name five elements of the periodic table right now. Of course they cannot, but they are quasi scientists. We are supposed to listen to them on the science of climate change. If they could name one climate scientist—any climate scientist—right now other than an activist, I would give them 150 bucks.

They do not know any climate science. These scientific debates are, in fact, completely non-scientific. And that is the criticism that most people have about the standard of climate science debate in politics today. It is pure political activism and not science based on factual evidence.

What is the record of governments in this country in relation to climate based policy? We have seen graphic failures at state and federal level. They have made a real hash of climate change. That is why people used to rate the environment as one of their top five priorities and today they do not rate it within the top 10. Governments have really made a hash in leveraging political activism and have not used real science about what is going on on our planet.

It was never better expressed than by the man who they dare not speak the name of—the Gillard government's handpicked appointee on climate change. Who was that? It was Tim Flannery. He was paid $180,000 by the taxpayer to make pronouncements. Is there one member of the opposition who has mentioned their former government's handpicked expert, climate change commissioner Tim Flannery. There has been not one mention.

We heard from the member for Fremantle. Her authority—her bible on climate change—was Crikey. Her one quote was from the Crikey website. I have no doubt that those on the other side of the chamber are experts on what is on Facebook and twitter and that they are experts on what was said at the local rally of ALP branch members. They are experts about what Tim Flannery or Al Gore might say but they know nothing about climate sciences. They know nothing. And for them to say that the government knows nothing and has a set against science is completely wrong.

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

What does Lord Monckton say?

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Charlton, I would not be spruiking your scientific credentials in this chamber. You are no rocket scientist. I will put it this way, member for Charlton: you are no rocket scientist. I just want to make that clear.

But this is a serious issue that deserves attention, and the government came to office on a pledge to remove the carbon tax because, as my colleagues and the government has pointed out, the Australian taxation system is not going to solve climate change. I know that the Labor Party believes in taxing and spending, and that that is the solution to all problems in life. Those opposite believe that if you have a problem the government has a taxation and spending plan to solve your life story. But taxation cannot and will not solve climate change.

It is a real problem and it deserves real scientific solutions—real evidence based solutions. We have seen state Labor governments do the same as the last federal Labor government. They have made a hash of climate change policy. We have seen them introduce solar bonus schemes that pay such a whacked out price that people who sign up to them make a hell of a lot of money and these schemes have to be abandoned, giving renewables a bad name.

We have seen Bob Carr in New South Wales—who described desalination as 'bottled electricity'—build a desalination plan on the advice of people like Tim Flannery, who said that all dams in capital cities would be dry within five or 10 years. He said that the rivers would not run and that the dams would be dry. Now, everybody in Sydney is paying a premium on every electricity bill, for a desalination plant that produces no water ever and has no benefit to anybody but uses a lot of people's capital. That is the bad name that the Labor Party, state and federal, has given to climate policy in Australia. They have made a real hash of it.

And the public are not mugs. They are more scientific than members of the opposition back bench, I can assure you. Scientifically, they have looked at it. They have looked at the rhetoric and the in-fighting and squabbling. They have listened very carefully to people like Tim Flannery, who said that even if every country in the world stops emitting carbon today it would take almost a thousand years before we saw any temperature difference.

I ask the member for Charlton: does he believe that? His government paid this person $180,000 a year to tell us that there is nothing we can do on climate change. I do not believe that there is nothing we can do on climate change; I believe there are scientific responses we can make. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion has concluded.