Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Senators Abetz and Birmingham today relating to climate change.

Over a period of time that has stretched not just days and weeks but indeed months—some would even say years—but particularly during the second half of last year, the government’s emissions trading scheme was exposed. It was exposed to the Australian people and exposed by the Australian people. It was exposed as being too costly and too complex for what Australia needs to do to take responsible action when it comes to climate change and how we address environmental issues. It was exposed as having numerous flaws. It was exposed—writ large, of course—by the time this chamber took a vote last year to defeat for a second time the government’s emissions trading scheme. By that stage, everyone across Australia increasingly understood that the government’s ETS was costly and complex, would cost jobs, would cost the Australian economy and would do all of those things for little or no environmental benefit. These are the reasons that Australia has been turning ever so strongly against the government’s ETS. I have seen it in my electorate office, as I know all of my coalition colleagues—and I am sure all senators—have seen it: the strength of opinion and the strength of opposition to this ETS and to the impact it would have on Australia.

15:06:49

As if there was not enough doubt already, as if there was not enough scepticism in the Australian community, along came the Copenhagen summit. Along came Copenhagen, and the scepticism and doubt that existed about the merits of the government’s ETS at that stage were exposed once and for all. It was seen to be the flawed scheme that so many had been saying it was. It became quite apparent that Australia was unreasonably getting ahead of the rest of the world and that Australia and Australian families and small businesses were going to end up paying a very, very high price, thanks to this government’s desire to introduce a very costly and complex scheme ahead of any form of sensible global action.

Of course, the Copenhagen summit saw the Prime Minister head off to Copenhagen like some medieval king who took his entire court with him. Senator Evans today gave some numbers of people the government had in Copenhagen. Reports suggest that up to 114 registrations were made for Australian delegates at Copenhagen. The minister provided figures showing fewer than that—perhaps some people did not end up going. Whatever the case may be, we had dozens upon dozens upon dozens upon dozens of Australian government, state government, local government and you-name-it hangers-on going to Copenhagen for the talkfest that it ended up being. What did it produce? It produced a flimsy three-page, non-binding accord. By my reckoning there were more than 30—probably 35—people there from the Australian delegation for every page of that accord. It took 35 people to write one page of that accord, and that is all Australia got for it.

As time has gone on, we have seen that the claims the government has made about the cost of its ETS are flawed. It claimed that electricity prices would go up by 12 per cent, yet the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal has recommended increases of between 21 and 25 per cent—double, or more than double, what the government says the price rise from its ETS would be for electricity. In Victoria there are reports that a Victorian energy company has asked the Australian Energy Regulator to permit it to increase costs that could see Victorian bills rise by 400 per cent in four years. Australian families and small businesses cannot afford the ongoing cost of the price rises that Labor’s ETS will impose on them. Instead, the coalition has today released a clear alternative, an alternative that will allow Australia to achieve a five per cent emissions reduction target, but to do so on a no-regrets basis—