Tony Smith (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 Prime Minister's capitulation on climate change and environmental policy.

I call on 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

I think we have seen again, over the course of this question time, that bit by bit, over the last 36 hours, hour by hour, Australians have been coming to understand the price that the member for Wentworth was willing to pay to achieve his long-held personal ambition of becoming Prime Minister. Australians are beginning to understand the extent to which the member for Wentworth, now the Prime Minister, was willing to discard—to throw away—so many long-held and deeply-held beliefs, particularly about climate change and the environment.

Nowhere is that price more stark and nowhere has that price been higher than in relation to climate change and environmental protection policy. This was, after all, going back to 2009, the signature difference between the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, and the new Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth. Many Australians, I know, and members on this side know, held out very high hopes that the member for Wentworth's return to the leadership of the Liberal Party would mean that the conservative parties of Australia would return to the sensible centre on climate change—that there would be the hope of Australia again regaining a bipartisan consensus that would allow us to move forward in the way that so many of our sister nations around the world are doing.

As Australians watch what the Prime Minister has been saying over the last 36 hours—going back to his press conference on Monday night—those hearts are breaking. All those Australians who thought that the return of the member for Wentworth to the leadership of the Liberal Party would actually mean something—that it would actually hold out the hope of a progressive, strong and sensible policy on climate change for Australia—have had their hearts broken, because this Prime Minister has taken the Direct Action policy, Tony Abbott's signature policy, hook, line and sinker. Apparently, he has not just taken it for the time being; he has taken it, affirmatively, for as long as he will ever be the Prime Minister.

I want to make it clear, from this side of the House: those Australians were entirely entitled to hold out those hopes. They were entirely entitled to think that a change of leadership from the member for Warringah to the member for Wentworth would mean something and would lead to some change in the governing parties' attitude to climate change policy. The old Malcolm had been so crystal clear about his belief that the Direct Action policy, in his words, 'was an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing'. We heard him again, in question time, move away from his strong advocacy for an emissions trading scheme as the cheapest, most effective and most efficient means of reducing carbon pollution. We have heard him say, so many times over the past years, particularly in that critical period of debate in 2009 and 2010, that a policy like the emissions reduction fund—in this very chamber we heard the member for Wentworth say it—would be 'a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale'.

Well, apparently it is all different now. You do not know whether to ask for lecture notes to be handed out or to take notes yourself, sometimes, when the new Prime Minister answers questions in question time, but apparently it has all changed. This is, according to his words in the press conference on Monday night, apparently now a 'very, very good piece of work'. Yesterday, the new Prime Minister said that this was a policy that was reducing emissions now. This was a policy, particularly the emissions reduction fund, that had had a first auction that was enormously successful.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

You will get your 10 minutes, Minister for the Environment. I advise the new Prime Minister to just catch up on some of the analysis that has been done on both of those counts. Let us talk about the first option of the emissions reduction fund. Forty-seven million tonnes were purchased under this first auction; a quarter of the money—$650 million-odd of taxpayers' money—handed out to companies and organisations that had bid under this. What the Prime Minister has not said is that, of those 47 million tonnes, three-quarters of them, 34 million tonnes, were from projects that already existed, and in some cases had existed for more than 10 years, including big companies like AGL—the largest polluter in Australia. This is taxpayers paying for things that those companies were already doing. This was apparently a 'stunning success' according to the Minister for the Environment and the new Prime Minister. Apparently that was all supposed to be supplemented by the safeguards policy—the great safeguards mechanism that will control emissions elsewhere in the economy, and, particularly, control emission rises from the big polluters, and see those emissions, hopefully, reduce over time.

We saw the design of the safeguards mechanism released only this month, and it exceeded everyone's worst expectations. In question time, I tried to put to the Prime Minister, but he ducked the question, the fact that RepuTex, the leading modelling agency in this area, has provided very clear advice that, under this safeguards policy, the biggest 20 polluters in Australia will not be touched whatsoever. The biggest 150 polluters in this country will increase their emissions under the Direct Action policy—which is a 'stunning success', apparently—by 20 per cent over the next 15 years. The Grattan Institute, everyone would accept, is a central, middle of the road organisation—not a lefty organisation by any means. Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute said in response to the release of the safeguards policy: 'It is called a safeguard, but it is not an environmental safeguard. Greg Hunt is not actually constraining emissions; if it is going to work it is going to have to have teeth, but all we have got is gums.'

So, particularly in combination with Tony Abbott's reckless attack on renewable energy, it is not surprising that we are seeing emissions starting to rise again. It is clear that the Direct Action policy will not achieve meaningful reductions in carbon pollution levels. It simply will not: 2020 levels on carbon pollution will be substantially higher than they are today, and substantially higher than they were in 2000 or in 2005. Whatever tricky baseline the Minister for the Environment wants to choose, they will be higher.

The government's own projections, the only projections or modelling it has been able to release, suggest that in 2020 carbon pollution levels in Australia will be 655 million tonnes against 559 million tonnes in 2000—so not five per cent below 2000 levels, 17 per cent above 2000 levels. RepuTex was more generous to the government than the government's own modelling. RepuTex said only last month that in 2020 carbon emissions will be 613 million tonnes against 559 million tonnes—so 10 per cent above 2000 levels. Not five per cent below, 10 per cent above under this new Prime Minister's policy of Direct Action. You ask why? Land clearing is increasing again, thanks to Campbell Newman's reversal of Peter Beattie's land clearing laws. Electricity sector emissions are up because of the attack on renewable energy. Fugitive emissions up, and they will not be capped at all because there is no discipline in the safeguard mechanism. That is why you need an emissions trading scheme. That is why you need a hard cap on carbon pollution that reduces over time and then lets business work out the cheapest and the most effective way to operate. The member for Wentworth, now the Prime Minister, understood that all those years ago.

You also need strong support for renewable energy, and it is very clear now that you will only get that strong support from a Shorten Labor government because this new Prime Minister dismissed out of hand a 50 per cent goal for renewable energy in this country by 2030—dismissed it out of hand, called it reckless, spat in the eye of all of those Australians who want bold ambition in this area around renewable energy. In his first 48 hours, he completely dismissed any ambition on renewable energy for the 2020s. Millions of Australians are now asking themselves, more in sorrow than in anger frankly, I suspect: how did it come to this? How is the member for Wentworth, who apparently had such deep beliefs around climate change and environmental policy, now a convert to a policy he rightly condemned all those years ago, and which experience has shown deserved that condemnation and that experience has shown will not achieve any meaningful reductions in carbon? The answer, unfortunately, is the answer that is so often the case in these circumstances: base personal ambition. Apparently, Australians are coming to understand that there was nothing that the member for Wentworth was not willing to trade off, not willing to sell out to achieve his long-held ambition to become Prime Minister. We probably still do not know it all. We know it is climate change policy, water policy, renewable energy policy, same-sex marriage policy. If he will sell out on this, how can Australians possibly trust this Prime Minister on anything?

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

I am delighted to take head-on the party that produced pink batts, green loans, cash for clunkers, a citizens assembly and a carbon tax that not one member opposite would support today. We gave them the chance in the House of Representatives, the Parliament of Australia, to support their own carbon tax, and not one member had the gumption, the courage or the honesty to admit that it is something they support. If it was such a fabulous success, isn't there just one brave soul, one little soldier willing to put up their hand? If it was such a success, why isn't there one of you?

What do we know? We know that it came at a cost of $15.4 billion and that in a best-case scenario, for $15.4 billion, they might have seen 12 million tonnes reduce at an average cost of $1,300 per tonne of abatement. So what does this mean? It means that Australians were paying higher electricity prices, with electricity up by 10 per cent, and higher gas prices. When we repealed the carbon tax, we took away two years of a $15.4 billion tax hit. Do you know what it came with? They like to talk about payments. It came with a $5½ billion gift to brown coal generators. Is there one of you opposite who will say that you think that is a good idea, giving $5½ billion to the very people that you demonised?

When we came in, we abolished that gift and we abolished the tax and we reduced emissions through the Emissions Reduction Fund and we reduced the cost of electricity and we reduced the cost of gas and the cost of refrigerants. That is the reality of this debate. We are doing it with an approach of a reverse auction, which has its antecedents in the reverse auctions that we see in Brazil and in South Africa and the ACT. The World Bank have recently, shock horror, adopted a pilot auction facility almost identical to our Emissions Reduction Fund. Of all the systems in the world that they could have adopted, the World Bank have adopted a reverse auction mechanism for payment on delivery of emissions reduction to those who would put up projects under the clean development mechanism. In reality, they have adopted an emissions reduction fund of $100 million, paid for by the United States, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland using a mechanism almost identical to the one here, that is operating and working at reducing emissions in Australia.

So what happens if the ALP gets its way? What does it mean for the Australian people? I know I am not allowed to lift above the table this headline, but it is entitled 'The report Shorten did not want you to see: ALP $600 billion carbon bill'.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much?

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

$600 billion! Power bills up 78 per cent, thousands of jobs lost, economic growth shattered—that is their policy in a nutshell, using their own modelling from their own Treasury at the very time they were in government. This was not our modelling; this was their modelling of their policy of their time in government. So if they come back, electricity prices go up, gas prices go up, they fail to reduce emissions in any significant way and what they do do comes at an enormous cost. It is symbolism over real emissions reduction. It is phoney environmentalism. It is faux environmentalism.

It is about an approach which does not work, which increases electricity prices and which fits within the grand tradition of pink batts, green loans, a citizens assembly, cash for clunkers and a carbon tax that not one member opposite would support today. The great policy that they seem to champion does not have a single supporter, someone with the gumption to put their hand up. But we know that is what their plan is, because the shadow cabinet proposal was leaked.

What is their other policy? Their other policy is a 50 per cent renewable energy target. What was it that the member for Hunter said though when interviewed only recently on 26 July? He said, 'It's not a policy; it's an aspiration.' Today it was a policy, apparently. If it is a policy, let's see their costings. When asked how much it would cost, what did the member for Hunter say? 'No-one knows—that's the truth of it.' The member for Hunter can be a truth teller from time to time. He was truthful that no-one in the ALP knew. They had not done the work. They had made a statement. He thinks this is an aspiration. Do you know what? The environment department did calculate what that would cost, because we were interested if we were going to introduce such a policy. What was their figure? $85 billion—that is the cost of the policy.

Mr Butler interjecting—

Of course it is going to cost that. That is not in dispute. It is well within the bounds of the modelling that was also put out by Deloittes. We find that they had a carbon tax that no-one will support. They had a pink batts program of which they are rightly utterly ashamed. They had a green loans program, which was a catastrophe, and cash for clunkers and a citizens assembly that could not get off the ground, and they want to give us environmental advice. These people were not just phoney or faux environmentalists; they were environmental wreckers and a disaster.

When we came into office, we inherited the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage watch list and on track to be declared endangered. Do you know what the World Heritage Committee did? They took it away from the risk of endangerment. They took it off the watch list. They returned it to the full highest level, and the chair of the World Heritage Committee said in front of the world that, because of our response, Australia was a global role model. That is what this government has done: the Reef, we have reduced emissions—

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

Thanks to Annastacia.

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

They have not even passed their legislation yet after all of this time. We have declared that dredge disposal in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has gone forever and we have put it in law. They are the things that we are doing.

Let me also turn to the Emissions Reduction Fund, because we have seen the reality that emissions are being reduced with a system that is being increasingly adopted around the world and by no less than the World Bank. It might be a little bit embarrassing for you to look at the World Bank's pilot auction facility—a system almost identical to the one we have adopted here in Australia. You know what? We have seen 47 million tonnes of emissions reduction at a cost of $13.95 per tonne, 144 projects right across Australia—real emissions reduction as verified by the Clean Energy Regulator, using the same methods and the same basis under the Carbon Farming Initiative which the ALP legislated. We used their model and their system, and the parliamentary secretary for the ALP demanded during the debate that we fund these very same projects through the CFI using the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund. It was your parliamentary secretary who demanded these projects be funded—it is there on the record.

Let me just deal with one other thing here, because I think it is important: the Prime Minister was asked about the comments of a particular firm, RepuTex, today. I would note this and I suspect they are right: they predicted that the Emissions Reduction Fund would achieve up to nine million tonnes of reductions in its first auction. In fact, we achieved more than 500 per cent of that outcome with 47 million tonnes—up to nine million tonnes or more than 500 per cent was the reality of 47 million tonnes. A year ago they said we would have a gap to fill of 300 million tonnes on top of the Emissions Reduction Fund between now and 2020. In an article on 12 June, they said Australia was now miraculously a year later highly likely to achieve our 2020 targets. On that occasion they were right: within a year they discovered that a 300 million tonne gap has evaporated.

We are going to achieve our targets. We are doing it on track. Their predictions were out by a factor of 500 per cent, and that is who you want to rely on? You guys are geniuses. You guys are absolute Einsteins. Honestly: pink batts and green loans—who is proud of them? Who is proud of the carbon tax? Because I can tell you: we are proud of having repealed it. We are proud of the Emissions Reduction Fund. The Prime Minister is proud of the fact that we are on track to achieve our targets in Australia, have ambitious international targets and reduce emissions in this country in a way which does not increase electricity prices for Australian families.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you wanted to wreck the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the first thing you would do is shift the portfolio from Environment to Agriculture. It might surprise the Minister for the Environment that, if he is going to be the Minister for the Environment, I would rather it was within his portfolio—I really would. Let's make sense—

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

We got the Murray-Darling Basin Plan signed.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I signed it myself. This is bizarre: he says they got the Murray-Darling Basin Plan signed when it was my signature on it. I reckon, if they are going to interject, they should come up with cleverer ones than that.

Let me explain a few things to the Minister for the Environment because, up until yesterday, there was bipartisanship on Murray-Darling matters. Up until yesterday, there had been cooperative work between government and opposition across a number of changes of government. But if you wanted to destroy that bipartisanship and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, step 1 would be to remove it from the Department of the Environment. Step 1 would be to remove it from the environment portfolio and shift it across to the agricultural portfolio for one simple reason. Ask the question: what is the problem you are trying to fix? The essential problem in the Murray-Darling Basin is that the river was dying. The essential problem in the Murray-Darling basin is an environmental problem. Dealing with and fixing that needed to be done in a way which optimised the social, economic and environmental outcomes. It had to take account of the agricultural interests, but the essential problem being dealt with by definition was an environmental problem, and the person who understood that to begin with was actually John Howard.

It was John Howard who transferred the powers for the Murray-Darling to the environment portfolio, and guess which minister he gave them to—none other than the person who is now Prime Minister of Australia. He was the first one to receive the water powers and he was also the first one who to get the job he got yesterday was willing to give that legacy away.

The Nats at least were clever with this: they only demanded he give up every issue that he ever held as a conviction. They only argued that in the agreement that he signed he sign away everything that he had ever said had mattered. If he had not said it mattered before then they did not ask for that to go in the agreement. They only asked for the issues that would destroy the character and reputation of the Prime Minister to be part of the deal.

And they did not miss. They went through each issue that the member for Wentworth had previously said really mattered and would define him and said, 'Okay, for you to be Prime Minister, you only have to give up the things you believe in,' and what did he say? 'Where do I sign an agreement like that?' That is what happened yesterday.

When we raised this in the House, it was clear that members of the cabinet were entirely unaware that this agreement had been made. The Leader of the House himself stood up and took a point of order, saying, 'Oh, this is all hypothetical,' not knowing that the first captain's pick had already been made, not knowing that the new Prime Minister had already, without even telling the Leader of the House, made a fundamental change which gave up every issue of conviction that he had stood for and handed it over in a deal forced on him.

I have to say that, if anyone has to give away everything they believe in, you wouldn't think it'd happen in a negotiation with Warren Truss! You would not really think that would be the moment. And yet we discovered, as we thought question time was being delayed for half an hour yesterday because the swearing-in was still going on, it was actually being delayed because the new Prime Minister needed to give up everything he believed in.

Murray-Darling reform will see the beginning of its end. Look at the resolutions that were carried at the last National Party conference at the weekend. What did they call for? They called for the water portfolio to be transferred from the environment ministry to the agriculture ministry—New South Wales resolution carried. And then the Farrer branch called for the Water Act to enable Commonwealth water holders to sell back the water to producers. When the Prime Minister was asked today if he would rule that out, he refused to answer.

Make no mistake: if the water entitlements that are now held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder are sold back, Murray-Darling reform is at an end.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a disappointing contribution from the member for Watson. What we have seen in the Nationals agreement with the Prime Minister is a party, along with our party, the Liberal Party, determined to stand up for regional Australia, something the Labor Party have never done. I support this deal and think it is fantastic for regional Australia. What a shame that the member for Watson was not able to take the same approach to regional and rural Australia when he was in government.

Just look at our mobile base station program as an example. When Labor was in government, there was not one dollar on mobile phone black spots—an absolute disgrace. We are proud to stand up for regional Australia. We are proud to stand up for regional communities, whether it is for the NBN, more money for roads or our fantastic mobile phone black spots program. And look at what members opposite are doing on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The attempts to rip that down just show how little members opposite care about farmers and regional Australia. It is an absolute disgrace. If this legislation is not quickly brought through the parliament and passed, it will cost agriculture and farmers $300 million straight away because they will miss out on two tariff cuts. Frankly, the record of those opposite in standing up for rural and regional Australia is an absolute disgrace, and I say 'hear, hear!' to more money, more investment and a greater commitment to rural and regional Australia.

And speaking of a disappointing record—I come from the proud city of Geelong. I represent the federal electorate of Corangamite very proudly.

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

At the moment—for another year maybe!

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look at the arrogance of the member opposite. Let me tell you: I can say right now that, if there is one policy that lost the faith of the people in the government under Labor, it was the carbon tax. The carbon tax was an absolute disgrace. The people of Geelong knew it, the people of Corangamite knew it and the people of Australia knew it. It cost each household, on average, $550. It cost manufacturing $1.1 billion, and members opposite did not even have the foresight to compensate small businesses, who paid the price of a reckless policy which did nothing to drive down emissions.

We have a very proud record on the environment. More than $2 billion over the next four years is being invested in managing Australia's natural resources, including our 20 million trees program and our National Landcare programs. We have achieved the lowest emissions in 10 years without the painful, job-destroying carbon tax that members opposite want to bring back if they win government. Let me reiterate: Australia's emissions have fallen to their lowest level for a single quarter in 10 years according to the Department of the Environment's latest quarterly update of the national greenhouse gas inventory. Emissions fell by half a million tonnes between the December quarter 2014 and the March quarter 2015. That is a 0.4 per cent reduction in trend terms and 0.5 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis. Our emissions per person are now at their lowest level in 25 years, so I say to members opposite: do not get caught up in ideology. Look at what we are achieving.

Opposition members interjecting—

There is laughter from members opposite. The fact is that our policies are working. The renewable energy target, an initiative of the Howard government, has helped 2.4 million homes with solar installations—delivering, on average, a $3,000 subsidy to every home. That has been an incredibly important program as part of our commitment to renewable energy. Now we hear the aspirations of those opposite: 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. What an absolute joke—they have no idea what this is going to cost. They just pluck a figure out of the air and they make it up as they go along. That is what the Labor Party does.

It is a disgrace. Even the unions know it. They are already calling for an agency to be set up to compensate workers—the thousands of people who will lose their jobs because of this reckless policy. Those opposite are all talk and no action when it comes to the environment, and their record proves it.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the last two years this country has been, at best, on pause and, in many cases, on rewind. The community has well and truly noticed it, particularly in areas like climate change, renewables—we have seen an 80 per cent reduction in investment in renewables—and the vision of where Australia will be as a modern economy in future decades.

For some time we have desperately needed a prime minister in this place who was there for the right reason; who was there because they had a vision for the future and the only way they could achieve it was by being the prime minister. In the previous Prime Minister we had the opposite. But there are many people out there who believed that when Malcolm Turnbull ascended to the prime ministership he would be that person, because he had said so. He had said over many years that he was a man of vision and principle, and they would have assumed that he had sought this top job because of the things he wanted to achieve. I would hope that everybody in this House holds their position for what they can achieve, and I would expect that most are disappointed in the performance of the Prime Minister in the last couple of days, because this is a man who is absolutely the opposite. This is a man whose end game—whose end goal—is to be the Prime Minister. All of the policies and the vision, all of the things that he will do as a prime minister, are all about getting that job and holding it.

This is a man who turns out to be the opposite of what this country needs. When you consider his performance in the last two days on climate change alone, it becomes absolutely as clear as anything that this is a man who will sell out anything to get this job. People believed him because he said it. Let's look at what this current Prime Minister said on his way to the Lodge: 'Liberal frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull, who lost the leadership over his support for Labor's emissions trading scheme, has described the coalition's climate change policy as "farce" …' and an unparliamentary term which I will not repeat in this House. That was on 10 May 2013. In 2011: 'Frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull compared climate change sceptics with people who refuse to admit smoking causes lung cancer.' Today he has joined them. On 22 July 2011 he said:

We have to get real about supporting and responsibly accepting the science. And if we want to challenge the science, we do so on the basis of peer reviewed work …

And today he has joined the sceptics.

On 21 July 2011 he said:

… the globe is warming and human greenhouse gas emissions are substantially the cause of it.

Yet today he got up in this House and supported a policy that has seen greenhouse emissions rise. They were falling under Labor government policy; they are rising now. And today he stood up in this House and said that that was fine. Today this man of supposed vision, this man who supposedly sought the top job because he wanted to do the right thing by the country, sold out completely. He sold out completely in order to get the top job. This is a man for whom being Prime Minister is the only point. This is a Prime Minister who you cannot trust to lead this country. This is a Prime Minister whose self-ambition is everything.

Leaders lead not just in terms of what they do, but in terms of character. When Tony Abbott became Leader of the Opposition we saw a dark cloud descend over the behaviour in this country—we saw the brawlers come out. Who are we going to see come out under this Prime Minister? Who are we going to see reflected by this Prime Minister, and think, 'Oh yes, we're back.' I will tell you who it is going to be: it is going to be the self-interested rent-seekers who come out behind this man in spades, because this is who this man is. This is a man who will trade any principle for his own gain. This is a man who has traded principles that he has espoused, in this House and outside it, for years as key beliefs, and he gave them all up in the last couple of days because he wanted the trappings of high office. He has high office for the trappings, not for the achievements. This is not the kind of prime minister we need at the moment. We have real challenges, but the challenges are in the nation, not in the Liberal-National Party caucus. We need a Prime Minister who can lift his gaze to the nation and stop pandering to in-house in-fighting in order to hold his position.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for this wonderful opportunity. In life, timing is everything. I understand the member for Parramatta holds her seat by 300 votes. Is she sounding just a little panicky today? I think she is feeling a little panicky today, and I reckon she has every reason to.

Let's get back to the matter at hand. This MPI gives me the opportunity to talk about my beloved Blues, the Carlton Football Club, who ended up on the bottom of the ladder. Do you know why? Because they turned up at the ground just about every week with nothing. I love them to bits, but they turned up with nothing—just like the Labor Party, who are turning up with nothing. Question time—nothing. They have got nothing to bring to the ground. They turn up with these MPIs and they use them as an excuse for a character assassination. They have got nothing. They are bringing nothing to the debate. They have been exposed for two years, and they have the spotlight well and truly on them now, and the heat is on. So I welcome the contribution of the previous speaker, and I would say she had better spent her time and energy focusing on her seat, just like I am.

Our emissions per person—this is a really important point to make here—now are at the lowest level in 25 years in this great country in which we live. Since 1990, Australia's population has grown by 39 per cent, yet emissions per capita have fallen by 29 per cent. The government's post-2020 target, announced recently, will see emissions per person fall by at least 50 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. How old will I be then? Too old! That is the largest reduction in the developed world.

Around the world they are looking on, in the midst of all the mocking from the other side, and they are actually saying: 'You know what? These Aussies cop a bit from their political opponents, but they actually get some of these things right.' The World Bank are reporting, 'Hey, we ought to take a look at what's going on down there in Aussie land because they're getting it right,' just like the rest of the world right now are wishing they had not mocked the border protection measures keeping that under control. We are now the pin-up people of the world when it comes to that.

So you can rush in and be cynical, but at the end of the day, as the Prime Minister said in question time, we are about getting results. It is not about ideology; it is about getting the results. If you want to reduce emissions, you get it the best way you can, the cheapest way you can. And that is what we are doing. What did you guys do? You brought in the big carbon tax. What did it do? It was a massive, $15.4 billion hit on the economy, and it worked out at a lazy $1,300 per tonne of abatement. What did we do? We brought in the Emissions Reduction Fund, a $2.55 million fund, and we got about our business. We have reduced emissions—have a guess how much. It is 93 times less than 1,300 bucks per tonne of abatement: only $13.95. We could chuck in a set of steak knives for that.

Really, you guys have got no idea. You go out after everything, like the member for Sydney today in question time. She always has a better plan for everything and wants to throw $18 billion at foreign aid because she wants to look like some superwoman in the global economy, but she has not put it on the hit list yet as a promise. She just wants to make political points on it.

We are getting about the job. Australia are playing our part in reducing global emissions. Let us not get ahead of ourselves. It is not our job to save the world. We are 23 million people. We are doing our bit. We are reducing global emissions as per the requirement that the people of Australia would have us do, but they want us to do it in a way that is affordable. They do not want the Leader of the Opposition to become the Prime Minister and introduce this great new turbocharged carbon tax that will just pillage away at the pockets of everyday Australians, just like the opposition did with every other tax they had. That is not what the people of Australia want. They want Australian leaders, the government of Australia, to do its bit, to lead our country to reduce emissions, but not at any cost. You will have it at any cost just because you are ideological. You want to make a political point. Well, knock yourselves out. But I suggest that, the next time you turn up in this place, whether it is at question time or it is an MPI, you pack your sports bag and you at least bring something to the ground.

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

Within one day of his being elected leader of the Liberal Party and being sworn in as Prime Minister, we have seen some major sell-outs by this new leader. What this shows is that changing the leader changes nothing about this government's policies on climate change or the environment, but it goes right to the heart of this new leader and the fact that he will sell out, any chance he gets, any opportunity he gets.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister promised 'traditional cabinet government' that included making decisions in a 'thoughtful and considered manner'. Yet, within hours of being sworn in, the new Prime Minister had already bypassed his own cabinet, and he was making desperate deals—with who? With the National Party, the Nationals, who are in fact the greatest environmental vandals we have ever seen. Handing the Nationals the water portfolio and refusing to take real action on climate change are the some of the dirty deals the Prime Minister has done to get his job. It is a very serious blow to the Prime Minister's credibility on the environment, and it shows that in fact he is just a hypocrite—a hypocrite who would do any deal to become Prime Minister. The fact is that he just cannot be trusted, and Australians know that he cannot be trusted. They know that is a fact.

We have a situation now where the Nationals, the greatest environmental vandals, have the greatest say about climate change policy and environmental policy. We also know that the Prime Minister has promised the right-wing extremists in his own party and the National Party that he will not change the former Prime Minister's policy on climate change. We know that.

The now Prime Minister once called Direct Action a 'farce' and a 'recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale', but, yesterday, what did he do? He pledged to support it. He sold out on climate change action to become Prime Minister, and now he is paying big polluters to pollute. It is truly shameful. When asked about Direct Action in question time, the Prime Minister reiterated his support, saying, 'The policy we have in place is very clearly costed and calibrated, and it is effecting reductions in emissions now and at a very low cost.' Well, according to RepuTex, under Direct Action, Australia's biggest polluters will increase their pollution levels by 20 per cent over the next 15 years. That is the fact. Having previously acknowledged how hopeless Direct Action is, the Prime Minister now is clearly pushing it. What a change. What a hypocrite.

Also, today in question time we had the Leader of the Opposition asking the Prime Minister about renewable energy and asking him to support our policy of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. What was his response to that? It was a 'reckless proposal'. He just disregarded it. Well, he has sold out again. First of all he sells out on climate change, then he sells out on renewable energy. I further note, in looking at some of the motions at the Nationals federal conference on the weekend, that there was one in relation to renewables. I note that, at their federal conference on the weekend, the National Party actually—

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Yes, most of them are here today. They actually voted down a motion to support renewables and projects in regional centres. The National Party voted down a motion to support renewables and projects in regional centres! It sounds a bit like what the Prime Minister was saying today, echoing what the National Party were saying, voting down and disregarding any action on renewables.

As I have mentioned many times before in this House, we have Liberal and National parties who, at every level, whether it is federal or state, are absolute and complete environmental vandals. Nothing has changed about that. I would like to remind the House that, when the now Prime Minster was the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in 2007, he had a plan to build a massive dam at Tyalgum, a lovely small village in my electorate of Richmond, on the New South Wales North Coast. This would have destroyed the village and surrounds, and it would have been an environmental disaster.

I remind the House that in 2007 I put questions to the minister calling on him to rule out the proposal for this huge dam and he responded by saying, 'All options should be on the table in order to find the most cost-effective means to supply this water.' He ignored the concerns of our community, and the community were outraged at the environment minister and they have never forgotten this betrayal. It was only the election of a Labor government that stopped these cruel, harsh plans, but locals remember what happened, they blame the now Prime Minister for that and they also blame the National Party for wanting to build that huge dam.

If our new Prime Minister is willing to sacrifice on climate policy, what else has he sacrificed; what other price has he paid; who else has he sold out? Clearly he has also sold out on marriage equality. He has refused to have a free vote in this House. That is another disgraceful act by this Prime Minister, a disgraceful act of betrayal by not allowing a free vote in this House on marriage equality. It just shows one thing: it is the same old Liberal-National party, the same old policies. The same old environmental vandals are here. What we have now is, yes, a new Prime Minister but a Prime Minister who has sold out. What else has he sold out on? The fact is he cannot be trusted, and Australians know that.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The last two hours have been a real insight into the future of Australian politics. We have glimpsed the future and we have just watched the past. We saw during question time that the Prime Minister did not engage in mud-slinging and having a go at individuals. Here for once was a Prime Minister at the dispatch box who, when given questions that were designed to do no more than political point scoring, actually explained politics and explained his own position. The honourable member opposite talked about gay marriage—and I know that had a lot to do with the environment and today's MPI! Well done for working it in. But the Prime Minister stood up and said, 'Yes, I have a position that's not the same as everyone on my side of politics, God forbid, and we have a way forward which we all agree on.' We saw the beginning of a new fresh approach which is not adversarial, which is not about aggression but is actually about explaining things to people.

Yes, you in the Labor party, in your partnership with the Greens, have a policy. What we have, though, with carbon emissions policy is a situation where we can actually look at two policies that have been put in place, we can compare their track records, we can contrast them and we can say what has worked and what the impacts have been. It is unlike when you go to an election, where people put up ideas and concepts and we all take them on faith and hope something will happen. With the Labor Party and their carbon tax fact, what do we know? Fact: it cost $24.15 per tonne to actually stop or reduce the carbon emissions. I ask the member opposite, when he gets up, to refute that. We know that, under the coalition's policy, which is different to yours, it cost, for exactly the same tonne of emissions, $13.95. The Labor Party is acting as if we are better off spending $24.15 buying a product which we could pay $13.95 for. I wonder why we owe so much money. I wonder why it is that we are bleeding to the tune of $93 million a day—because that is the economic rational view of the Labor Party. They get wedded to ideology and therefore they say, 'Our way or the highway,' when the reality is, as the Prime Minister pointed out at question time, that there is more than one way to deal with an issue.

We have chosen a particular path, and the proof is in the pudding. We can go back to the Labor Party and ask, 'What other effects did their policy have?' Yes, it increased the price of electricity for households and it made businesses less competitive, but it also drove a lot of our high-emitting industries offshore. It took the jobs, it took the economy and it took the tax offshore. It also took the pollution offshore to less regulated markets, which meant that that pollution still entered the one atmosphere that we have as a globe. It did not just disappear into a black hole. It is actually in our atmosphere, so the environment was not benefited, the economy was not benefited and jobs were not benefited. Why does the Labor Party persist with something that has proven to have already failed?

The broader aspect of this discussion today also turns on the issue of environmental policy and the so-called capitulation of the Prime Minister on environmental policy. He has done really well in 36 hours to capitulate on a policy. Let me just tell you something. I am going to deal with an issue dear to many of the members in this place, and that is the Great Barrier Reef. It is incredibly important to Queensland's economy and it is incredibly important to the ecology and the environment of the world. We know that. We are investing over $2 billion in the Great Barrier Reef. Like the members for Herbert and Leichhardt, the member for Dawson, who sits here, is a great champion of the Great Barrier Reef, because he has so many businesses in his electorate that use the Great Barrier Reef. We do not do deals with the Greens in order to send out environmental messages which are lies. What we deal with is fact. We have delivered for the Great Barrier Reef and we are delivering in our own electorates, with things such as the Green Army engaging people.

We are delivering a new, fresh approach to politics and that new, fresh approach to politics is: let's have a debate on ideas. Don't start slinging across the chamber about hypocrisy and point scoring, because that is yesterday. You are already being left behind. It is sad but true. So come and join the journey to the future and join with us in a debate of ideas. You will lose and you will be recognised by the Australian population for what you are.

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

I am going to start by referring to my great friend the member for Charlton. He said of the previous speaker, 'You have been in power for two years.' I have to disagree with him. What the evidence shows us—and it is the irony at the heart of this debate—is that the member for Fisher and many of the other conservative members of the parties opposite have been in charge for about two days. That goes to the heart of this matter of public importance: the craven capitulation of Australia's Prime Minister on matters he held out as matters of deep conviction because of his overweening ambition for this high office. It raises another question, and that is this: when did the coalition's climate policy descend into farce, as the member for Wentworth described Direct Action? Those were the words of our now Prime Minister. This is a really important question and there is a couple of options. Was it at the time the now Prime Minister described the position of the former Prime Minister or is it now when he lauds that same position albeit very unconvincingly? I say this to the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth: I like your old stuff better than the new stuff. Australia feels much the same way and Australia needs it urgently. As I am sure you are aware, Acting Deputy Speaker Whitely, the song, I like your old stuff better than your new stuff was by the band Regurgitator and that adds another layer of irony to this debate because what we have in the Prime Minister, far from a conviction politician, is someone who is simply regurgitating the thoughts of others, heedless of his views and heedless of the consequence. The worst part is the Prime Minister knows this but his ambition has conquered all. This is a tragedy and it is also a farce.

The Prime Minister says he will respect the intelligence of the electorate. Well, this debate shows that there is very little evidence of that approach from his government so far. He could, of course, in the climate debate make a good start and use the authority his party room has given him. He could choose to follow the advice of the scientists. He could choose to follow the advice of the economists. He could choose the side of the future, the side of our children and our grandchildren. But no, he chooses himself over all these things. He also chooses to take the views of reactionaries. I think of the extraordinary comments Senator Macdonald made yesterday about children being brainwashed to believe that climate change is being caused in part by human activity. Not a controversial contribution, you would think. It is the sort of thing the 'old' member for Wentworth would have jumped on. Instead, silence—and that is the measure of the man that he has become.

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

He has lost his mojo.

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

He has lost his mojo. Maybe he had to give it away in the garage sale he had with the Nats. And that is a point we should touch on because this is a man, the hero, who took on the English establishment. He won spycatcher yet he got rolled by Warren Truss. That is his journey writ small, isn't it? He took on the might of the security establishment of the UK, he took on MI6 and he won but he got rolled by Warren Truss like that, in the blink of an eye. The Nats put the ambit claim on the table and he just—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You will use the appropriate titles for members of parliament.

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

The Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party rolled the Prime Minister and he did not even have to try. I see the minister from the National Party. For once he does not look confused at the table because he had a great win. Congratulations on that and congratulations to all the National Party members. Commiserations to the people of Australia today, their children and their grandchildren, who will pay the price.

What a difference a couple of days has made. In question time today we saw it again—all sophistry, no substance from this Prime Minister, this shrivelled political figure. He talks of thoughtful and considered decisions but instead we see the reverse. We know and he knows that Direct Action is a joke. He knows it, RepuTex have shown it. Question time yesterday was interesting and telling. This perhaps gets to the nub of how low he has sunk as a politician. He talked in an answer about offending it the principle of this party, which it does, about climate change where every measure is turned into an article of principle. Prime Minister, for you, it used to be an article of principle; for us, it will always will be an article of principle. We are not here to satisfy our personal ambitions. We are here to serve the nation today and tomorrow and the days after that. The Prime Minister knows that is his duty. He should step up to the mark.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously the Labor Party is placating their guilty conscience about their lifestyles where they are walking around in their concrete filled jungles. It is interesting when they criticise the National Party. In fact, what those opposite have done today is sign up members to the National Party because they have simply pointed out to the Australian people just how powerful we are.

As I continue, I might make the point that the smog filled lungs of those opposite are obviously affecting their logic because if you look at the people who know about the environment, if you look at the people who care about the environment, they are people who live in regional Australia. Then you overlay that with: where are the seats that sit in this parliament? The people who live in regional Australia have chosen to vote for the coalition—country Liberal MPs or National Party MPs—and that is because they know what good environmental outcomes look like. They know what good environmental outcomes are in a practical sense.

The people I represent are very much invested in the environment. In fact, their core role in so many ways is to turn sunshine and water into wealth and food through their toil. I am probably one of the few members of the parliament who has real money in the game in this. Two million dollars of my assets are dependent upon the environment. Frankly, I know what it is like to farm through droughts. I know what it is like to farm through good times and I am not convinced that a carbon tax was the way to achieve good environmental outcomes.

They talk about the two-facedness. It is interesting. I remember a great line. What was it? 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Who said that? People in the gallery would remember. I remember, that was someone who was prepared to do a deal with the Greens to get anything. Look, they have all run away. They have got a lot to say but they have all run away when they could actually learn a little lesson from someone who knows about what it is to manage the environment.

When I was out there in the environment in the difficult times under that carbon tax, what did I see? I saw processing prices go up. I saw fuel prices go up, where I would get some stock transported and the guy would load a carbon tax price on to that. I saw power prices go up. I saw investment confidence go down. And I saw the uptake of technology go down because we know that it is very hard to be green, it is very hard to be environmental when you are in the red. If you are going to load costs up on business, you actually get a negative environmental outcome, not a positive one. That is the point to remember.

The people that I represent are humble decent people. They do not ask for a lot. If the farmers who I represent can afford to put a new kitchen in, to provide for their children and their education opportunities, to occasionally buy new ute, what do they spend the rest of their money on? They spend it on the environment. They spend it on the farm that they love and they care for.

If you want to meet people who are passionate about the environment, you will meet them in the people who farm Australia's country. Think about this for a moment—you want good environmental outcomes and good environmental policy—60 per cent of the landmass of Australia is managed by Australian farmers. We understand this and we understand that reducing their costs actually translates to good environmental outcomes.

I heard the member for Watson bellyache about water policy. Penny Wong, the former Minister for Climate Change and Water, and the member for Watson, the former Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, refused to sign off on the Sunraysia modernisation project and they shut down blocks. They shutdown irrigation communities and took away jobs.

In two years, this is what we have done. We have spent $120 million. We have returned seven gigalitres to the environment out of this project—that is seven times 1,000 times the size of a swimming pool; seven gigalitres of water. We have invested in people growing more crops. We have put confidence back in. We have given accelerated depreciation for people to put that irrigation technology in. We have achieved better river health, better productivity, better environmental outcomes as well as growing wealth and growing rural communities. So the outcomes should be the focus.

The Prime Minister said very clearly today that the outcome should be the focus. What we have is a case study for the opposition to learn from as to how we can do things differently, still have confidence, still have wealth and have a very sound and secure environment for generations to come.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the debate has expired.