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 support for discredited policies on climate change and renewable energy.

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

This is a matter of very significant public importance and has been for a considerable period of time. There has been a growing sense of despair within the Australian community about this country's direction on climate change policy and the spread of renewable energy. Frankly, that sense of despair is no wonder, given the track record of this government over a short period of only two years.

To recap, this was the government that abolished the legal targets, the 2020 and 2050 targets, to reduce Australia's carbon pollution and to start to decarbonise Australia's economy. This was the government that abolished the legal cap on carbon pollution that would act as the discipline on the natural growth in emissions that would otherwise occur in a growing economy with a growing population like Australia's. This was the government that attacked the renewable energy target and talked down every possible expansion of renewable energy—particularly the expansion of wind power—and this is the government that continues to seek to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, in spite of the Prime Minister's gentle words today in question time, and to abolish the Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, in spite of a clear election promise to the contrary.

The despair has become even more pronounced as it has become increasingly clear to the Australian community and to the international community that there is growing global momentum in the lead-up to the Paris conference in December—a global momentum particularly led by the two largest emitters, the two largest economies, the two most significant powers in the world today: the United States and China. It has been quite clear for a good 12 or 18 months that those two nations, under the leadership of President Obama and President Xi Jinping, are committed to Paris reaching an ambitious agreement to reduce global carbon emissions.

A great number of Australians held out very significant hope that a change in leadership on the other side, a change in Prime Minister, would mean real substantive change in these policy areas. It was hoped that the change would drag the Liberal Party back to the sensible centre on climate change and we could get to a position, like the one you see in places like the United Kingdom, where there would be a broad consensus between the alternative parties of government that would underpin the real change that we need to see in the face of climate change and in the long-term investments that businesses are going to have to make. Australians were perfectly entitled to hold out that hope, given what the member for Wentworth had said about climate change policy for many, many years—particularly in that painful change in leadership from the member for Wentworth to the member for Warringah only five or six years ago.

It has become increasingly clear in recent weeks just how high a price the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, was willing to pay to achieve his lifelong ambition of becoming Prime Minister. There is no price higher than the price the member for Wentworth has paid in the area of climate change and renewable energy policy. It is now clear that this Prime Minister has adopted the member for Warringah's climate change and renewable energy policies hook, line and sinker. This is no trifling matter. This is not an academic issue for broad debate. In two short years these policies have already been having a very real impact on our ability to deal with the threat of climate change—a very real impact that no amount of kinder, gentler, more florid language from the member for Wentworth, the new Prime Minister, will be able to change. That impact started very quickly following the election of the Abbott government.

Bear in mind that Labor's policies were driving down carbon pollution levels. They were starting to work significantly. In the last full year of the Howard government Australia's carbon emissions were about 600 million tonnes. In the last year of the Labor government, those emissions had reduced to 548 million tonnes—a reduction of eight per cent in six short years. Since then, all of the trends across the economy have been bad. Most obviously, trends in the electricity sector have been particularly bad as the former Prime Minister launched an all-out attack on the renewable energy industry, in spite of taking to the election in 2013 a promise to keep the renewable energy target in place and a promise to keep the Renewable Energy Agency in place as well. Unsurprisingly, renewable energy investment collapsed last year—it collapsed by 88 per cent in the large scale sector, which obviously led to an increase in coal-fired power and an increase in carbon emissions from the electricity sector, our largest source of carbon pollution. In 2014-15 alone carbon pollution increased by four per cent—four per cent in one year alone in the National Electricity Market.

In the land sector as well, massive reductions in carbon pollution were achieved because of the historic land clearing laws that were put in place by Premier Peter Beattie, with the support of Prime Minister John Howard—Prime Minister Howard understood how important those reforms were to achieving our commitments under the Kyoto protocol in the first commitment period. Unsurprisingly the LNP government of Campbell Newman reversed all of those reforms and we have started to see emissions rise again in that very critical sector. I can go through other sectors where emissions have continued to rise.

The parliament does not need to take my word for this. As we pointed out in question time today, the Department of the Environment's own official projections show that emissions will rise from the time of the election of the Abbott government to 2020 by 20 per cent. Page 32 of those emission projections shows that in 2013-14, when we left government, emissions were 548 million tonnes, and the department's projections are that by 2020 emissions will be 656 million tonnes—more than 100 million tonnes higher.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

The minister says I am behind the times, but these are the latest projections published by the minister's own department. I will be more generous to the minister and just refer to the RepuTex projections which were published in August. The minister had a go, as is this government's wont, at shooting the messenger; the minister had a go at RepuTex yesterday but RepuTex's projections are much more generous than his own department's projections. RepuTex says that by 2020 emissions will only be 12 per cent higher than they were when this government took office, or about 10 per cent higher than 2000. There is no surprise in this, because this is what analyst after analyst after analyst said would happen. All through the five- or six-year history of this policy being in the political marketplace, the policy that the member for Warringah directed the now minister to go and cook up over a summer in 2009-10, this is exactly what every analyst has said would happen. We know the Emissions Reduction Fund is a waste of money. It apparently bought 47 million tonnes of abatement in the first auction, but the minister does not often say that three-quarters of that was from projects that existed before the auction. Some of them were projects that had been in existence for more than 10 years. There were landfill and waste gas projects that had been established under GGAS under the Carr government for more than 10 years.

This week RepuTex has confirmed that not one single company—not one of the country's largest polluters—will be obligated at all to reduce their carbon pollution levels by the safeguards mechanism. Such is the headroom given to every large polluter in Australia and such are the ways in which companies can renegotiate their baselines under this safeguards mechanism that not one company will be obligated to reduce their pollution levels. That is why Climate Action Tracker, an international NGO that compares policies and the nationally determined contributions that nations are taking to the Paris conference, has found that Australia has the largest gap of any nation between the target it is taking to Paris, which admittedly is a back-of-the-pack target, and the policies that are in place. That is why an emissions trading scheme is the only policy that is going to deliver meaningful reductions in carbon pollution levels in a country like Australia with a growing economy and a growing population. That is why Labor will continue to advocate the interests of an emissions trading scheme up to and during the next election. But the Prime Minister knows all this. He has known it for many years. He has just been willing to pay the price to assume his lifelong ambition of becoming Prime Minister, and that is a terrible shame.

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

I am delighted to take on this matter of public importance. What we just had confirmed is a very simple proposition—that the opposition leader and the Labor Party want to take to the next election higher electricity prices as their policy. Let me repeat it: they want higher electricity prices. Let me make it clear that we want lower electricity prices, and we have delivered them. It is as simple as that. If they have a different view, let us hear them categorically rule out higher electricity prices. We have achieved the double of lower emissions and lower electricity prices. They have the ignominious distinction of having had higher emissions and higher electricity prices. How do we know this? Because our fuzzy friend opposite is delighted to quote the environment department, but he has missed one small fact—the latest quarterly inventory from the Australia's Department of the Environment shows that we have just had the lowest quarterly emissions in both trend and seasonal terms since 2004.

What does that mean for our future projections? It means we have come down from a gap of 1.3 billion tonnes, which the ALP said we had to achieve in 2008 for the period 2012 to 2020. When the coalition came into government, we inherited a supposed gap of 750 million tonnes, which I said while in opposition was wildly overstated, which they ridiculed. Based on the analysis they had been doing while in government, strangely enough, we discovered that gap was down to 431 million tonnes. When we did the analysis this year, we found that that gap was down to 236 million tonnes. The latest advice from the environment department is that we will not just close that gap completely but turn, at the 2020 target date, with a surplus in hand. So the whole premise of the ALP's latest foray into this space is flat, plain wrong.

What has changed in the last six months? There are four things. Firstly, that trend in emissions continued downwards, so the write-downs have continued and will be confirmed before the Paris climate conference. Secondly, we have set a renewable energy target which also returns considerable emissions reductions to the national inventory.

Thirdly, we have had the first Emissions Reduction Fund auction, which alone produced 47 million tonnes—and there are already 500 registrations for the second auction. I think that is important to understand. The market has spoken: 500 projects have been registered for the second auction. They cover an enormous range of activities. They cover savanna burning, waste coalmine gas clean-ups, waste landfill clean-ups, soil carbon, and energy efficiency on a grand scale across this nation.

The emissions reductions through the Emissions Reductions Fund are tenfold those ever predicted by the vast majority of pundits. The report which those opposite cite said that the maximum from the first Emissions Reduction Fund auction, the greatest possible outcome, would be nine million tonnes. Do you know what? It was 47 million tonnes, 500 per cent higher than their much-vaunted modellers said. Their modellers also said there would be a shortfall of 300 million tonnes of emissions that we would have to make up. We know that every credible source already realises that we will achieve our targets, and in fact beat them, for 2020.

Fourthly, we have also struck an arrangement with the Landfill Owners Association.

When you put those four things together, over the last six months—as I predicted at the time—we have closed the gap. We have brought it down. When we came into government, there was a gap of 750 million tonnes, then 431 million tonnes, then 236 million tonnes and, by the time we get to Paris, it will be zero, and we will turn with emissions in the bank. In other words, we will achieve our goals.

At the same time, we have taken the pressure off families in terms of electricity prices. We have seen the largest fall in electricity prices in Australian recorded history. We said that we would take the full cost of the carbon tax off electricity and we did. The ACCC has confirmed it: every single electricity retailer in the country has, to the best of my advice and to the best of my knowledge, a clean bill of health when it comes to passing on the full cost of reductions.

What does that mean as we go forward? It means that we now have a system in Australia that is working—and it is not just in Australia. When we look around the world, we see that the Clean Development Mechanism, the principal system in the world today, is based on the same fundamental principles as the Emissions Reduction Fund. We see also that the World Bank has recently adopted a $100 million pilot auction facility which has extraordinary similarities to the coalition's approach. The Australian approach has become the World Bank's approach. But you would never know that, you would never imagine that, if you were listening to the opposition today.

Most interestingly, I recently met with Qantas, and one of the things they said—apart from 'thank you for removing over $100 million from our annual bill and helping us to return to the black in our Australian operations'—was that IATA, the international aviation industry body, is looking at adopting a model with extraordinary similarities to the Australian approach to emissions reductions under this government.

So we have the Clean Development Mechanism, the World Bank and IATA all advocating or adopting systems remarkably similar to this government's approach. It is truly 'an inconvenient truth' for the opposition that our emissions are down, our electricity costs are down and the world is increasingly adopting the approach on our watch, in our time.

By comparison, what do we see as the proposed future approach by the ALP? The people who brought us pink batts, Green Loans, cash for clunkers, citizens' assemblies and the carbon tax, which they pledged to terminate at the last election, now say that we should look to them for best practice in environmental design. Go figure. Their 'best practice'—it has been modelled using the targets that they have said are their targets—is a $600 billion bill for Australian families. Who did the modelling? It was the Treasury of Australia. On whose watch did Treasury do it? It was on Labor's watch. What were they looking at? They were looking at the low end of Labor's current target range, and the accumulated cost to the Australian economy by 2030 was $600 billion. What does that mean for families? It means a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices. What does it mean in terms of their annual family budget? It means a $5,000 hit overall.

This is not our modelling. This was their modelling of their policy on their watch by the Treasury of Australia. So these are their figures in their times. It is an exceptionally inconvenient moment. If they have different figures, let's see them, because at this stage they have set a target and they have said the tax is coming back. At the low end of their target, their own Treasury modelling shows a $600 billion cost, a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices and a $5,000 average hit on total family income. These are not trivial numbers but these are their numbers of their policy. So this is serious.

On this occasion, we are playing for sheep stations. We are reducing emissions. We do have the lowest quarterly emissions since 2004 in trend and seasonal terms. We are on track to meet and beat our 2020 targets and our 2030 targets. But, by contrast, they want to bring back higher electricity prices, and it is time they were honest about it.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a government which has been trashing the future, selling out future generations for short-term gain. This has been true of its cuts in education and health, true in terms of rising unemployment, true in terms of running the car industry out of town, but nowhere has it been more true and more serious than in its attacks on renewable energy and its lack of action in relation to climate change.

This is a government which has attacked and undermined the renewable energy industry to such a point that it has been an embarrassment both domestically and internationally. Investment in large-scale renewable energy projects such as wind farms has fallen by 88 per cent. Under this coalition government, investment in the industry hit its lowest point since 2009 and, as our shadow minister has pointed out, both the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Renewable Energy Agency are on the chopping block under this government. We have a government which will not commit to a renewable energy target.

This afternoon I had the privilege of meeting up with people from the University of Queensland Global Change Institute at a forum which they had on climate science, with experts such as Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor David Karoly, Professor David Griggs and others. The sorts of points they were making were that carbon emissions have risen from 280 parts per million in pre-industrial times to 400 parts per million now and that, as a consequence of this, our temperatures were at the highest that they have ever been in recorded history in 2014, will be the highest they have ever been in 2015 and will rise again in 2016. The climate consequences of that are extreme weather events, droughts, bushfires, cyclones and floods. They will be very serious for Australia.

We will also be impacted on by climate events in other parts of the world, too—our Pacific Island neighbours, whom I believe we have a responsibility to look after, but certainly places like Bangladesh. If you have Bangladesh made uninhabitable for over 100 million people as a consequence of sea level rise then the consequences of that in terms of people movement are likely to make the present influx of asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East into Europe look like a picnic.

We need to understand what is happening and be prepared to take action—evidence based, science based action—to meet the challenge. We need to transition to renewable energy. I am really proud of the opposition's target of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. That is a really important initiative and everyone should get behind that initiative. It will be good for our economy and it is essential for future generations. The second thing we need to do is to be flexible at the Paris conference and be prepared both to push other countries and to make bigger commitments for ourselves. If we do not have commitments at Paris that take the world below the two degrees Celsius increase then the climate consequences of that—the possibility of melting the Greenland and the West Antarctic icesheet—are unknown and uncertain. We have an international responsibility to do everything we can to make sure that that does not happen. Third, we have to support science and technology. We have to support the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We have to support the Renewable Energy Agency. These are the ways in which we can make change work for us both economically and in terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

It is regrettable that this is a government of climate change deniers who have had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards taking action at all and it is also regrettable that we have a Prime Minister who has effectively sold out on climate change action. We know from his past history that he believes in climate change action, but he has sold out on climate change action in order to attain the glittering prize of the prime ministership. That is a dreadful sell-out of this generation and future generations, and the Prime Minister and this government should stand condemned for it.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I acknowledge the member for Port Adelaide for bringing this motion forward, I disagree with much of the premise of the motion. In many respects—and I say this not in any way questioning the science—the notion of climate change is somewhat of a tautology, because climate has been changing for many, many millions of years. It is just unfortunate that we drag into this situation the politics that those from other side bring with it—a sanctimony, a righteousness, that seems only to be visible to those on the other side. I have learned in the short time that I have been in this place to judge those opposite by what they do, not by what they say. Indeed, the carbon tax, home insulation and cash-for-clunkers are the record of the previous government that we have endured.

The MPI has, I think, been framed as somewhat of an attack on the Prime Minister for believing in climate change. Well, I will tell you what the Prime Minister is. He is indeed a pragmatist if nothing else, and he is very much focused on outcomes. Indeed, we are seeing that the Emissions Reduction Fund, as was highlighted before by the Minister for the Environment, is actually working. Electricity prices are indeed lower. It has been confirmed by the department that the quarterly department data—both trend and seasonally adjusted—is the lowest it has been since 2004. Our 2020 target is well ahead of the curve and does not include the reduction of 47 million tonnes that has been achieved under the Emissions Reduction Fund.

Of course, I come from the island state, where 98 per cent of our electricity is, indeed, generated by renewables—be that by mini hydro schemes or the large scale hydro schemes that generated so much wealth and opportunity for our state during their construction between the 1940s and 1980s. Indeed, the Emissions Reduction Fund has been a huge benefit to my state—as it has been to regional Australia more broadly. In the first auction that was held, agriculture was absolutely the big winner—whether it be soil carbon projects; whether it be, in my own state, avoided deforestation projects that were able to bid into the Emissions Reduction Fund; or whether it be the inclusion, I am very pleased to say, within the negotiated renewable energy target of bioenergy sourced from waste from native forests, which is very important indeed from my state's perspective.

Under the first auction, 47 million tonnes of abatements were achieved. As I mentioned before, the Prime Minister is nothing else if he is not a pragmatist. He understands—and I have heard it from constituents in my own electorate, such as Peter Downie, who, within a consortium, bid into the first Emissions Reduction Fund auction—that the competitive tension that you would expect in an auction, in this case a reverse auction, was absolutely there. They achieved a result that they were very happy with. They achieved a little bit more than $13.95, which was the average. It was a fantastic result for them. It has emboldened them, and I am sure that they will bid into the subsequent auction, as Minister Hunt said. It is interesting to note also that the World Bank has just recently launched a $100 million program which very much replicates many of the aspects of the Emissions Reduction Fund.

Australians want consistency. This government—in opposition and now in government—has had a consistent policy in respect of addressing our emissions target for over five years; whereas those opposite, the Labor Party, have had five policies in that same time. I recently had the pleasure to be down at St Marys in my electorate with Peter Troode. I was invited down there by a passionate group who are looking at expanding solar in their community. Of course, one of the other ways of reducing emissions is through energy efficiency. This is an area that I will be exploring further with the minister, because I think that there are great opportunities for small communities and small businesses to be able to reduce their emissions and, potentially, bid into the Emissions Reduction Fund. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

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

This is an incredibly important matter of public importance, and I thank the member for Port Adelaide for bringing it to the House. Let me first deal with a couple of facts, because facts are very inconvenient for those on the other side. Under the first two years of the fixed price emissions trading scheme that we introduced when we were last in government, we saw a 10 per cent fall in emissions from the national electricity market—the equivalent of taking four million cars off the road. We saw 130,000 jobs added to the economy in that two-year period. Whyalla was not wiped off the map; it still existed.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No $100 legs of lamb?

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

We did not see any $100 legs of lamb, and we saw the stock market rise by 33 per cent. So jobs up, stock market up and pollution down in the first two years of the emissions trading scheme. It would have been even more efficient when it transitioned in the third year to a variable price emissions trading scheme, joining us with the three billion other people in the globe who, by 2016, will live in countries or provinces where an emissions trading scheme operates. That is the sad truth of this entire debate: the coalition, led by that quisling Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth—that quisling on climate change—are moving away from where the rest of the world is heading. The rest of the world is heading towards emissions trading schemes but the quislings on the other side are going in the opposite direction with their farce of a policy.

We heard before the ridiculous contribution from the member for Lyons talking about consistency in policy on climate change from the other side! We have a Prime Minister who has said about their current policy that it is 'a farce', a 'fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing', a 'con', 'fiscal recklessness on a grand scale', and 'bulldust', to use a polite term. So this is the consistency on the other side. They have a Prime Minister who has poured nothing but scorn and derision on the policy that he is now proudly implementing. What has changed? Just one thing: a dirty deal with the conservative wing of his party to get into power—a quisling who has junked all his beliefs in order to attain power.

The truth is that the first round of their Direct Action dog was a joke. It failed utterly. They spent $660 million to buy abatement, and $200 million of that $660 million went to operations that were already capturing emissions—landfill operations and mines collecting methane. These were operations already going on—some for as long as 15 years. So they paid $200 million to operators that were already reducing their emissions. Another $300 million went to ensuring that farmers who had already promised not to clear the land were paid to not clear that land. So another $300 million was paid to farmers who had already promised not to clear the land to ensure that they did not clear the land. So $500 million of the $660 million in this dog of a scheme was spent on things that were occurring anyway.

Once you exclude that abatement, what you got was a carbon price not of $14 per tonne; you got a carbon price of $66 a tonne, confirming the member for Wentworth's early assertion that it was 'fiscal recklessness on a grand scale'. A carbon price of $66 per tonne of abatement versus $8 per tonne under an internationally linked emissions trading scheme are the choices here. It is no wonder that the Australian Industry Group—hardly a socialist mouthpiece for the Labor Party—have said that, if you want to achieve the 2030 abatement task by direct action, you are looking at a fiscal cost of between $100 billion and $250 billion. Let me repeat that for the members opposite. This is not some wide-eyed greeny group. This is not the Labor Party. This is not the trade unions. This is the Australian Industry Group saying direct action will cost the balance sheet, cost taxpayers $250 billion to achieve the abatement task. Yet they stand by it because, ultimately, they are driven by division. Half the party room do not accept the science of climate change. The other half, the quislings under the member for Wentworth and the joke of an environment minister, will do and say anything to stay in power and do not want to upset the conservative party room.

The truth is the people at the next election will have a clear choice. The Labor opposition stand by an emissions trading scheme that is the least cost way of tackling climate change, because cost absolutely matters in this. We stand with the three billion global citizens who will live under an emissions trading scheme. Those on the other side stand for a dirty dog of a deal that pays polluters to pollute and will cost taxpayers $250 billion. They will stand condemned by history for betraying future generations and for betraying the Treasury.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a great pleasure to follow my good friend the member for Charlton. He has actually added to my extensive education in this place. I did not know what a 'quisling' was; I had to look it up. Unfortunately my public school education did not extend to 'quisling' so I now have a better understanding of what he is talking about but it is a very small understanding, I must say.

I had to sit through the contribution from the member for Port Adelaide as everyone in the chamber did. He spoke about the Prime Minister paying a high price. Certainly under the Labor policy, the high price that will be paid will be by the people in my electorate in electricity prices because it will drive up electricity prices—there is no doubt about that at all. Labor's policy will simply drive down jobs as it did previously. I was actually very surprised for him to bring up the smiling assassin, former Premier Peter Beattie, the former Labor premier in Queensland, who was very well known for the things he did in terms of stopping land clearing, particularly on regrowth—you could not clear regrowth or noxious weeds. As a result of that, we lost jobs in the timber industry in places like Eidsvold, Allies Creek and Mundubbera—all in the member for Flynn's electorate. In Bundaberg, we had two sawmills which are now closed as a result of those policies. They were good hardworking people and I would suggest many of them were members of the AWU. So where were their unions then? They were nowhere to be seen. They were happy to see those people lose their jobs, and I think that was a terrible outcome for those people.

The member for Wills spoke about science based action. I think that was a great contribution actually. I would like to see everything based on science. I think that would be a good position for us to put forward. It is a shame the Labor Party does not agree, because one of their last actions before they went out of government was to close the entire Coral Sea to fishing, almost a million square kilometres, something the size of South Australia. Apparently you cannot fish there any more. It is far too hard. I am absolutely certain there was no science to back that up.

When members opposite talk about renewables needing support, well, that equals subsidise. They are asking for more taxpayers' money to subsidise this method of generating electricity. If we speak about electricity generation, the most recent report from the national electricity market actually states that we do not need any more generating capacity for at least 10 years under any risk scenario whether it is low, moderate or high. We need no more generating capacity. But if we are to talk about improving emissions—this is an open debate and this should be debated—if we are to talk about zero emissions then we should talk about nuclear technology. If we look at things like the old mobile phone brick that you used to put in your car that cost $4,000 and compare it to a modern phone, technology has moved on. We need to at least look at nuclear as an option.

I would like to note Senator Sean Edwards from the other place and his most recent contribution he put forward in the public arena. He spoke about this modern technology and in particular PRISM reactors from GE. They are a building to burn previously used waste from other nuclear reactors. This is a real opportunity for South Australia as the good senator has put forward. It is capable of reusing spent uranium, as most of the old technology only uses around 96 per cent of the uranium. There is four per cent left which can be burned in modern nuclear reactors. There is more than 240,000 tonnes of spent uranium out in the world which could be used if we actually looked at the technology. What would that do? That would provide the ability for us to keep us keep jobs, jobs for members of the ETU, jobs for members of the metal workers union, jobs for members of the AWU, who are in existing power stations, who work predominantly in rural and regional Australia. The location of most of our power stations is close to a source of coal. You could replace the steam producing elements of those power stations with a nuclear reactor. There are options there and we should look at them. The South Australian royal commission is doing that right now as an option for South Australia. If we are to have an adult conversation in this place, we should consider nuclear energy. This should not be off the table simply because things have moved on. There are opportunities for us and this would certainly be an outcome for the environment because it would go to zero emissions—there are no emissions from nuclear technology—and certainly I think there is the capacity to do that.

Currently in Queensland, in my electorate, the price of electricity is unsustainable. We cannot continue to pay more for power. We have farmers right now in very dry conditions who simply cannot afford to pump. As a nation, we have invested billions of dollars in water infrastructure so that we can irrigate, so that we can have rural water use efficiency. All of those things have been thrown out the window so that we can change the method of generation for power. We now have the situation where we have farmers looking to pump water who cannot because they cannot afford to pay power and, if they do, they have to do it during the day when they have the least efficiency for the water that they are using. It is not a good position to be in.

My final message in the brief time I have left is to the children of this country and the people who might be listening: the east coast of the Australia is not going to fall into the sea. It is a terrible position for them at the moment because that is this exactly what they think will happen and we should stop promoting it.

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

What an extraordinary end note from the member for Hinkler, whose contributions I normally enjoy. But I guess it shows the gulf between the parties and within the parties when it comes to action on climate change. Really, the nub of this MPI as demonstrated by the member for Port Adelaide, the member for Wills and the member for Charlton is not really the debate about whether or not we should have regard to the science, as the member for Hinkler suggested but then seemed to reject through the actual content of his remarks, but whether we should stay clear to our principles. Because I have no doubt that the new Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, like members on this side of the chamber, believes we should have regard to the science and we should also have regard for the advice of economists. He knows that. He knows what he should do but he has chosen not to do so. That is the tragedy at the heart of this debate.

So I think of that famous remark attributed to John Maynard Keynes when he said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind.' Well, the Prime Minister of Australia has a very different aphorism in mind, it appears. He seems to think that he changes his mind according to political convenience, not in accordance with what he believes. He spoke at the outset of his government about leading a government in a thoughtful and considered manner. Nowhere is this less clear than in the area of climate change, where instead he is ruled by the lowest common denominators—by the meanest politics within his party room. I will give this to the member for Lyons: at least he is honest in expressing his views. He is wrong, but he is honest.

The Prime Minister knows better. So it is such a tragedy that, in his first press conference as Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth started as, it seems, he means to continue. On election night he said: 'The policy on climate change that Greg Hunt and Julie prepared is one that I supported as a minister in the Abbott government and it's one that I support today.' That is quite some fig leaf, isn't it! It is a long way from the farce that he said it was and which it continues to be today. It is a long way from the courage he showed in 2009 when he said: 'I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.' And now he has warmly embraced the farce that is Direct Action.

It is just so disappointing that the only shift, when it comes to climate change, is a change of style. We have moved from the cheap sophistry of the member for Warringah to the expansive, self-indulgent sophistry of the member for Wentworth. And we saw that in question time today, as he built on his first question time when he was so fond of weasel-word answers, ducking around his positioning—

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You keep focusing on the Prime Minister.

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

Yes, I am focusing on the Prime Minister because it is his job to safeguard our future. It is a pretty fundamental responsibility, and it is a responsibility he knows he should be up to, but he refuses to stand up for it. That is why this MPI is so important, and I hope those in his party room who also share our belief in the science will be paying attention to this MPI and paying attention to the Prime Minister living up to his responsibilities.

In question time today he spoke weasel words on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I hope people pay attention to the Hansard because that was an extraordinary contribution. It was almost as extraordinary as him deflecting questions to his climate-sell-out mentor—the assistant minister for resources, I think, is his formal title—the member for Flinders. He is his environmental mentor, because Greg Hunt, as we on this side of the House all know, and as he well knows, knows that the government's positioning is not just misguided; it is plain wrong.

The Prime Minister talks about his excitement about the future. But if he is serious about Australia's future prospects, he needs to be building a consensus around climate action. He needs, in the words of the member for Lyons, to be consistent. He needs to be credible. He needs to support an emissions trading scheme, as he well knows. But he has placed his personal ambition above all else. He has mortgaged our future to his ego—and doesn't he look pleased about that! The weasel words he loves employing dance around all the issues. He does not deal directly with them, but he continues to support policies that he knows are wrong. So I find myself agreeing with his climate mentor, the member for Flinders, the assistant minister for resources, on one thing. This is serious, but it is a tragedy because the minister is not serious about this and neither is the Prime Minister. Both know, unlike the member for Lyons, that there is a different way forward. Labor's approach is to listen to the science; to listen to the economy and to respect our future.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite have been proven comprehensively wrong in this area of policy, because you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, that they said that the Emissions Reduction Fund concept would not work. Well, it has worked. It has worked extremely well. You will recall that they said that Australia would not meet its Kyoto based target of a five per cent reduction on 2000 levels of emissions by 2020. Nobody really says that now. Nobody really says that Australia is not going to meet its five per cent emissions reduction target on 2000 levels by 2020.

Let us just reflect on that. The overarching thing at issue here is the reduction in emissions. As the Prime Minister says, it is not some sort of matter of religion of how exactly you must do it and that you must do it through a carbon tax because that is the only way that is politically acceptable. It is about achieving outcomes, as all things are. What this government has done, very clearly, is to achieve tremendous outcomes.

It is also worth reflecting back to the Kyoto era, because it turns out that some of the predictions back then of what emissions Australia would produce and, consequently, how much reduction would be required, were quite wrong. In fact, back then, it was expected that Australia would produce around 5,800 million tonnes of emissions in the 2013 to 2020 Kyoto period. For a variety of reasons—the success of the Emissions Reduction Fund; other successful policies of this government; technological change; improved energy efficiency—the conventional wisdom now is that the steady-state amount is about 4,800 million tonnes, not 5,800 million tonnes. So, in other words, the original projections of the amount were about 1,000 million tonnes overstated. So, as a consequence, what that means is: this area of policy is always evolving. It is about being practical and it is about responding in a practical way which minimises the impact on ordinary families.

You can take a sort of massive sledgehammer to this issue. It is called the carbon tax. The member for Charlton just spoke about that with great affection, moments ago. So you can do that, and you can sort of go around and say to every Australian family, 'You're going to have to pay $550 a year because of our policy indulgence,' or you can say, 'We're going to adopt practical measures that reduce emissions but have a minimal impact on you—that do not cost you hundreds of dollars every year.' I can tell you: if you spend some time in my electorate and if you talk to people in Riverwood or Padstow or Revesby or wherever you might be, that is something that people respect and appreciate. It is about achieving the outcome of a reduction in emissions. It is not about some sort of ideological pursuit of political goals—and that is what those opposite think this area is. It is not about ideology. It is about practical outcomes.

When the Emissions Reduction Fund auction occurred, you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, much scepticism from those opposite: 'It will not work;' 'No-one will bid;' 'It will all be terrible.' The result of the Emissions Reduction Fund auction substantially exceeded expectations, certainly of the sceptics opposite and, indeed, just about everyone. There was reduction of 47 million tonnes at a price of just $14 per tonne. It was a very significant inroad into our broader task of emissions reductions and at a modest cost to families.

We are in a situation where nobody really contests that Australia is going to achieve its Kyoto goals, and that is pretty significant. If the point of this policy area is to reduce emissions over time and nobody is contesting that that is occurring, that suggests that things are on the right track. We know that we are doing it at a minimal cost and we know that we have taken away from the Australian people the appalling burden of the carbon tax, which those opposite love and admire. They have a strong emotional bond with policy in that area, but it hurt families and it achieved very little. This government is delivering in this area and in a practical way that is good for Australia.

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

The question of whether the new Prime Minister intends to make a dramatic shift towards rational, long-term solutions to the big challenges will be answered in large part by whether he is able to turn around the government's disastrous approach to climate change and its short-sighted approach to renewable energy and energy efficiency. It is a relief to have a coalition Prime Minister who actually believes in climate change. However, as far as the climate is concerned, it will not matter whether the Prime Minister is Tony Abbott or Malcom Turnbull if there is no change in the policies, if there is no greater commitment to emissions reduction, if we do not provide more significant assistance to poorer countries though the international climate finance mechanism and if Australia does not support a strong and fair 2020 global climate agreement in Paris.

Labor has always understood that dealing with climate change is an economic challenge as much as it is an environmental problem. Our planet simply cannot survive the accelerating plunder of a limited supply of natural resources. It cannot survive the warming that will soon rise to dangerous and irreversible levels if global cooperation on significantly reducing emissions is not achieved. Economic growth must be decoupled from a growth in carbon emissions, especially as we work together to raise the living standards in those parts of the world that face disadvantage.

Unfortunately, in Australia we have one of the few governments in the world that has chosen to go backwards. As Christiana Figuerres, who leads the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said:

Where capital goes over the next fifteen years is going to decide whether we’re actually able to address climate change and what kind of a century we are going to have ... What we truly need is to create a ‘surround sound’ where, no matter what sector you turn to, there is a signal saying, ‘Folks, we are moving toward a low-carbon economy. It is irreversible; it is unstoppable. So get on the bandwagon.’

The Australian community is very much on that bandwagon, and that includes business as well as ordinary households, many academics, economists, scientists, local governments and others within the community.

In my electorate of Fremantle, there are many examples of individuals, businesses and local government taking the lead when it comes to reducing emissions and embracing the amazing potential of renewable energy. Fremantle has the first accredited carbon-neutral high school in Australia, at South Fremantle Senior High School. It has only the second carbon-neutral local government, at the City of Fremantle, which has also pioneered an Australian-first shallow geothermal and gas cogeneration plant for heating the pools at its leisure centre. And Fremantle is home to a world-leading wave energy innovator in Carnegie Wave Energy.

Last month Fremantle played host to a working group meeting of the United Nations Environmental Program's Environmental Assessment Group, which is part of the successful framework of action and analysis established under the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to save the planet from ozone depletion. Kofi Annan, the then Secretary-General of the UN, labelled the Montreal Protocol as 'perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date'. We need to follow that model and create an even more successful international agreement, and that process needs to be meaningfully advanced in Paris at the Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

Over the past few weeks, I have had a number of meetings here in Parliament House with young people concerned about what Australia is doing on climate change and the consequences of continued inadequate action, not only for Australia but, more urgently, for our Pacific island neighbours, who face the real and deadly impact of rising sea levels, more frequent extreme weather events, the destruction of crops and the salination of water. The meetings with Oaktree, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, the Micah Challenge's Voices for Justice, the Medical Students' Association of Australia and Oxfam all emphasised the importance of Australia committing to take stronger action on climate change in the lead-up to the Paris climate change summit, as well as committing to better climate financing of developing countries and support for renewable energy technology.

Today, 10 eminent scientists held a briefing in parliament on the science of climate change and to discuss the impact of Australia's decision to sign the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the upcoming COP21. It was pointed out that mitigation measures bring positive economic benefits through lesser climate change damage and lower risk and that low-carbon systems bring local co-benefits and economic opportunities. It was also noted that technology develops quickly and costs less than expected. The mood of the meeting was hopeful that this is something that can be achieved with the right attitude and the commitment of all people and governments. My community in Fremantle wants Australia to be a leading player in developing a low-carbon economy and participating in global efforts to get serious about climate change. I have no doubt the Prime Minister is aware that he has taken the wheel of a government careering down the path of climate change ignorance and denial. The question is whether he has the strength of belief and purpose to do something about it before Paris.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to speak to this MPI. I cannot believe that the Labor Party is actually serious in bringing this MPI into the House when they have had more than five different environmental policies. Our Direct Action policy has been policy for more than half a decade. As a government, we are playing our part in reducing global emissions without increasing electricity bills for Australian families. By implementing our policies, we are creating a cleaner environment without unfairly hindering businesses. Australia has a strong emissions reduction target and we are achieving it sensibly. As part of our policy, this target represents a reduction of 50 per cent in per capita emissions, the highest per capita reduction of any major developed nation. We have one of the most effective systems in the world for reducing emissions, and it has now been embraced by the World Bank. This shows that we have the world's best practice when it comes to reducing climate change.

After first promising to abolish the carbon tax, and then voting to keep it, the opposition has now decided it wants to bring back a carbon tax, and higher electricity prices. The carbon tax will bring more uncertainty for businesses and, even worse, more costs that businesses simply cannot afford.

Labor's carbon tax was a $15 billion hit to the Australian economy. Let's not forget that. The carbon tax failed to reduce emissions, and removing it saved families $550 a year on average. Worse still is what it did to Australian industry and businesses. For example, the Master Grocers supermarket group said at the time that its independent supermarket members would save $70 million a year. That is enormous. An average supermarket of 2,000 square metres will save $51,000. Also, there was an enormous hit to Virgin, which was headquartered in my electorate, of some $52 million.

Australia has a very proud record on renewable energy. My own electorate of Brisbane is absolutely filled with start-ups and innovative businesses at the absolute cutting edge of this renewable energy technology. Right across the CBD we have everything from high-rises to homes adopting green technology to reduce emissions. I want to pay tribute to the Brisbane City Council, which is one of the leading councils with their green policies, particularly their revolutionary building chiller project, which allows buildings to be cooled using a chiller technology that will reduce the demand for electricity.

Families and businesses are all doing their bit at the moment by reducing their electricity bills by investing in solar. This government has reaffirmed its strong commitment to supporting household solar. This has meant a huge influx of investment from overseas into Australia's renewable energies, reflecting strong business confidence both in and out of Australia.

Australia has the highest proportion in the world of households with solar panels: 15 per cent. The next largest is Belgium, with 7.5 per cent, and Germany, with 3.7 per cent. The Renewable Energy Target will see more than 23.5 per cent of Australia's electricity coming from renewables by 2020. This means a doubling of large-scale renewable energy over the next five years.

The department has costed Labor's plan and found that it will cost a staggering $85 billion. This means that Labor is more committed to debt and deficit than they are to reducing emissions. If we do not have a functioning and healthy economy we simply cannot have the funds to effectively battle climate change. Only the coalition has a responsible, credible and mature policy on renewable energy. Never has the hypocrisy of the Labor Party been as strong as it is now. One only needs to cast a cursory look back at the Rudd/Gillard years to see the never-ending list of discredited policies on climate change and renewable energy. So I welcome Shadow Minister Butler's raising of this matter, if only to take another look at their failed years in power. In government they left a legacy of waste and mismanagement of the environment—the carbon tax, the home insulation plan, green loans, clean tech grants, Solar Homes And Communities Plan, Solar Flagship, and let's not forget 'cash for clunkers', green cars, the solar hot water rebate, connectable renewables, carbon capture and Phantom Credits, just to name a few. We cannot be lectured by a party with such a dark history when it comes to the environment and the economy. Labor has categorically been rejected by Australian voters. When they offered a carbon tax at $24 they were rejected.

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

The time allotted for the MPI has expired.