Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes! Former leader, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, observed that any coalition climate change policy that did not contain an emissions trading scheme would:

… simply be a con, an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing.

After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the party room:

… do not believe in human caused global warming.

That is a quote from Mr Malcolm Turnbull. So, according to the member for Wentworth, any policy that the coalition produces relating to the environment is purely a policy for the sake of having a policy, with no intention to carry out or deliver on it.

Things are starting to become a lot clearer now. Certainly, we can see that Mr Abbott has not been getting his ideas on climate change from Mr Turnbull. But who has been most influential in shaping the Prime Minister's views on climate change? A study of the views of former Prime Minister John Howard, who Mr Abbott affectionately describes as 'his ideological father', proves enlightening.

During 2007 Mr Abbott stated his support for an emissions trading scheme and the then Liberal government went to the election with an ETS as part of its platform. This would therefore seem to be at odds with Mr Abbott's firm scepticism on climate science. However, Mr Howard has recently enlightened us as to what his views really were when he publicly promoted an ETS. In a speech to the climate sceptics' Global Warming Policy Foundation on 6 November this year, Mr Howard made it clear that he had not accepted the science on climate change and that his support of an ETS was purely for political expediency before an impending election.

The revelation of Mr Howard's views is important for a number of reasons. First, we now know that Mr Howard and Mr Abbott are in agreement on their views on climate change, confirming that once again Mr Abbott has followed the example of his mentor. But we also discover that Mr Abbott is not of the same political calibre as his hero. While Mr Howard was prepared to put his own views aside and accept that the Australian people were demanding action on climate change, Mr Abbott continues to show both indifference and a concerning lack of respect for the Australian public. It is clear that he does not view himself as accountable to the voters on this issue.

From long before the election campaign Mr Abbott has told us that he has a plan for the environment and that we can trust him on his commitment to cut emissions by five per cent. We all know about the coalition's direct action policy. It aims to cut emissions mainly using a 15,000-strong army to plant trees and using money to buy emission reductions from polluters who voluntarily sign up to the coalition's Emissions Reduction Fund. But, rest assured, Mr Abbott has a plan for 'real action', which confuses me. Why would you take real action against something that you don't think exists? Mr Abbott's policy removes the legal cap on pollution and allows the big polluters open slather. Instead of making the polluters pay, Mr Abbott is setting up a slush fund of billions of taxpayer dollars to hand to polluters. Experts agree this will cost households more, while failing to cut pollution. The direct action policy, a thought bubble of the Prime Minister and his Minister for the Environment, Mr Greg Hunt, is a token set of talking points used to fend off accusations that the coalition are unwilling to act on climate change, while at the same time ensuring a good deal for their friends in the big end of town. As we know from Mr Turnbull, this plan is a con and it takes the mickey out of the Australian people.

What is more, the creation of the Emissions Reduction Fund will come at a high cost to the Australian taxpayer, mainly through the planned axing by the government of climate change organisations including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which is one of the most important organisations established by the former Labor government. In a blatant political move, the Prime Minister is going to cut this program that is actually making a significant difference to the environment and to the economy, as we have heard numerous times from various speakers on this side of the chamber. The $10 billion CEFC was created to encourage industries and businesses to invest in green technology. The CEFC facilitates comprehensive commercial loans for both renewable and cleaner energy technology investments and is set to fund emissions reductions at a negative cost to government. The CEFC is one of about 14 organisations across the world that act as catalysts for investment in renewable energy and clean technologies. It fills an important role in mobilising capital for investment.

The North Queensland Register reported on 2 December that interest in and demand for the work that the CEFC conducts has led to the board meeting no fewer than 27 times in the past 15 months. The report went on to say:

As of August, the CEFC had 37 projects under discussion, which were seeking over $2 billion in finance, and it had received proposals at varying stages for 170 projects seeking finance of over $5 billion.

One of these projects involved the CEFC and the National Australia Bank working together to co-finance Australia's biggest beef company, the Australian Agricultural Company, to install solar photovoltaic units across 15 grid connected sites in Queensland. The North Queensland Register article said this allowed the Australian Agricultural Company:

… to cut its grid energy consumption and carbon emissions by just under a third.

How can the government ignore these results? Simply because they do not believe in the science and they refuse to understand that there is a link between better environmental management and what that can do for industry and business productivity.

The decision by the government to scrap the CEFC, therefore ceasing the valuable work that they do, highlights once again the Prime Minister's disregard for the science behind climate change and the work that the CEFC are achieving. If the Prime Minister and his government took the time to understand the science they would understand that emissions reduction targets simply cannot be met without increased investment in clean and renewable technologies. At a recent Senate committee hearing, Jillian Broadbent, the Chair of the CEFC, said that it would be antiproductive to shut down the corporation and that it would actually cost the taxpayer more for the government to do so. So far the CEFC has invested no less than $536 million in emissions abatements, which equates to around four billion tonnes. According to Ms Broadbent, this equates to over 50 per cent of the per annum rate of emissions reductions that the government has to achieve to reach its five per cent emissions target. The average return on the CEFC's investment is seven per cent, a clear argument for retaining the corporation.

The government's alternative plan, for an Emissions Reduction Fund, will consume billions from consolidated revenue. A damning report by the Climate Institute using modelling from Sinclair Knight Merz MMA and Monash University's Centre of Policy Studies has also said that it is going to cost in excess of a further $4 billion in order for the coalition to meet the five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020. Mr Abbott of course responded by saying that he did not accept the findings of the report—cop that! At the heart of the research, however, was a finding that without that extra $4 billion needed to reduce our emissions on time, as highlighted by the Climate Institute, Australia's emissions will actually increase to a total of nine per cent. How many times will Mr Abbott deny the science behind climate change?

Ms Broadbent expressed concern at the coalition's Emissions Reduction Fund model, and its time frame, which will give grants to businesses who bid for funding to carry out projects that target emissions reductions. The government is yet to reveal in detail how it is going to do this. These grants are a direct expense by the government to businesses, whereas the CEFC are actively investing in emissions reductions projects which earn on average $2.40 per emission and these earnings are returned to the government. Ms Broadbent believes that if the CEFC are allowed to continue, not only will they be covering their operational costs within 12 months but they will also be helping to deliver the reductions target while providing a return to the government of $2.40 per emission. Instead, if the government cuts the CEFC, as it says it will, it will cost approximately $200 million in lost revenues to the Australian taxpayer. Simply put, it will cost the taxpayer more to shut down this organisation than Mr Abbott believes that will save.

From the outcomes based data shown by stakeholders including Ms Broadbent, it is easy to see that the value of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation extends far beyond carbon pricing and that it should be retained regardless of the headline policy approach that we end up with. I want to hear from the government in detail why they want to get rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. During the inquiry into the government's carbon tax repeal bills, the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee heard from a number of stakeholders, and not one person, whether they be an investor or a representative from an NGO or someone from the business community, gave evidence as to why the CEFC should be shut down.

Epuron, a leading Australian renewable energy company, said:

The role of the CEFC is pivotal in enabling renewable energy projects, particularly solar PV, to reach financial close so that more are built and the market in Australia matures at a faster rate.

Mr Nathan Fabian, the Chief Executive of the Investor Group on Climate Change, highlighted:

Given the government's infrastructure agenda, … dismissing co-financing as a useful policy instrument—

as used by the CEFC—

may be premature.

The Responsible Investment Association Australasia, in their submission, strongly pointed out:

… the CEFC co-investment model is a prudent and cost effective way to allocate limited public funds to leverage private investment to do the heavy lifting in the investment into a low carbon transition.

Despite these endorsements from people within industry, and despite the real results that the CEFC is achieving, the Minister for the Environment, Mr Hunt, has arrogantly brushed them off and has labelled the CEFC as 'incredibly speculative'.

I agree with Ms Broadbent, the Chair of the CEFC, when she said:

It's disappointing a tool that is fiscally responsible and effective is being abandoned.

She continued:

It's also disappointing that it's so politicised. You just want to get on with what you think is in the public good, which is positioning Australia for a low carbon world.

In conclusion, I do not think any level-headed Australian—if I can refer to senators as being level-headed Australians—could disagree with that statement. I will not be supporting the bill.