Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about and oppose the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax) Repeal Bill 2013 and related bills. I am not quite sure when the government is actually going to stand up and tell the truth about what Labor believes in and what Labor is opposed to—because Labor's position on climate change is clear. We made our position clear before the last election. We are prepared to repeal the carbon tax, something the government just cannot accept. We are prepared to repeal the carbon tax, but the government cannot accept that and it tries to paint a picture that we do not want to repeal the carbon tax. Why does it do that? Unlike us, the coalition does not accept the science of climate change. Labor does—in government we were prepared to do something about it and in opposition we are going to defend it.

The Prime Minister of this country does not want to do anything about climate change because our Prime Minister does not believe in climate change. The Prime Minister's policy removes the legal after cap on pollution. Removing the cap will give the big polluters open slather. I think most Australians would agree that, if you damage something, you pay to fix it. Australians stand for a fair go, and a fair go says that you pay your share. It is about taking responsibility for your actions. But this government wants to let the big polluters off the hook. Instead of polluters paying, the PM is setting up a slush fund of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to hand to polluters.

Labor have acted. We tackled climate change, and we want to do that into the future. We will support the sorts of moves that tackle climate change in the most cost-effective way possible. That is why Labor support terminating the carbon tax. We have all put it on the record. But the government wants to continue to play its political games and pretend that, somehow, Labor have never agreed to repeal the carbon tax—and we did it before the last election. But—and this is the but; this is the bit the government turns a blind eye to—we will only do it if it is replaced by something such as an emissions trading scheme, if it is replaced by a scheme, not a slush fund, a scheme which puts a legal cap on carbon pollution, a scheme which lets business work out the cheapest and most effective way to operate within that cap.

The OECD has recently released a report confirming that countries could achieve high levels of emissions reductions at a much lower cost if they relied on an emissions trading scheme. Emissions trading schemes are already being adopted in many countries around the world, including the UK, France, Germany, South Korea, Canada and parts of the US and China. We in this place and those in the community know that the Liberals do not accept the science of climate change. Former PM John Howard told a London audience that those of us who accept that climate change is real are a bunch of religious zealots and that he will trust his instinct rather than the overwhelming evidence of over 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists. Our Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of Australia, accused the United Nations climate chief of talking through her hat. What a disgraceful thing to say. Our environment minister used Wikipedia to contradict her opinion on the BBC.

But, seriously, the Australian people have a right to ask just what this government stands for. Many of the current ministers and the PM are on the record as either outright supporting an emissions trading scheme, a price on carbon or some other form of economic instrument. None are on the record as supporting a slush fund. Let's start with Minister Pyne, who, in 2009, said:

Let's not forget it was the Opposition—

he means the Liberal opposition—

that first proposed an emissions trading scheme when we were in government.

He means the Howard government. He continued:

The idea that somehow the Liberal Party is opposed to an emissions trading scheme is quite frankly ludicrous.

Do we have a government which is quite frankly ludicrous? Other coalition MPs and senators, not just Minister Pyne, are on the record as well. The current Treasurer, Joe Hockey, indicated:

I am mindful of the decision of the Party, but I am also someone who sticks with my principles …

He claimed that he was one who had considered crossing the floor. But apparently not. He is prepared neither to cross the floor nor to stick to his principles. At various other stages, people who are now ministers—Turnbull, Macfarlane, Hunt, Robb, the Attorney-General Senator Brandis—supported an ETS, a price on carbon or other sorts of economic interventions. They are on the public record. And wait, there's more. Ministers Bishop, Morrison, Truss and Ley all talked about an ETS and the need for a price on carbon. What has happened? Where is the truth here? What does the government stand for? That is a question that the voters of Australia are certainly entitled to ask. Why this sudden denial of science and of a need for a price on carbon?

This is clearly a government who says one thing in opposition and does a complete backflip when in government. Why? Because the government cannot bear any success unless it is their own. They cannot bear anything that they did not invent for themselves. They want to tear down Labor's record on the environment and Labor's record on climate change. They want to tear down Labor's record of action. That is the only reason the government could have for their amazing backflip, because neither the Prime Minister nor any coalition members have been able to come up with one credible scientist or economist who is willing to stand up and back their direct action policy—not one.

We know that 86 per cent of economists back an emissions trading scheme as the cheapest and most effective way to tackle carbon emissions. Former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry called the coalition's policy a bizarre strategy which involves the government paying big polluters from their slush fund in a scheme that will cost more and will reduce productivity. Labor's plan, which again the government has criticised in this place and in the media, was to split the bills. We wanted to do that because we wanted to try and make sure that the Climate Change Authority remained in place and that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—a money-making venture from the government who every day is looking for money—remained in place.

They were part of a suite of policies that the former Labor government put in place. The creation of the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation were two of the most important parts of the work that we did. In its inquiry into the government's carbon tax repeal bills, the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee heard from a number of stakeholders about the value of these bodies—not Labor politicians, but independent experts. The value of the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation extends beyond carbon pricing and they should be retained regardless of the headline policy approach that we end up with.

But the government cannot help itself. It has to say, 'Labor will not repeal the carbon tax.' But actually what we will not repeal and what we do not want to see repealed are these two really good agencies. We do not want to see the carbon tax repealed and replaced with nothing. The government has nothing. Let us be clear about that: they have nothing.

The Climate Change Authority provides expert, transparent advice. What we have seen from this government is that it does not value experts and it is certainly not about transparency. The Climate Change Authority provides advice on carbon pollution and climate change issues to the government, to business and to the public. The CCA's advice is well respected and Labor doubts that its functions can be performed in-house by the Department of the Environment. That is if, after the Commission of Audit, we still have an environment department. We certainly do not have a science minister.

The role of the Climate Change Authority in providing information and advice should continue, because it adds value to the climate change debate in Australia—even if the Abbott government succeeds in foisting its policy con on Australians. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation provides innovative, money-making projects right across this country. I cannot believe that members of the National Party are so ready to take it down. It has been an absolute boon for businesses in the bush by providing opportunities for new business ventures.

It is renowned across the world in the sorts of reforms it has put forward. It is about one of 14 organisations that exist across the world that act as a catalyst for investment in renewable energy and clean technology. Why on earth would the government want to repeal that? It fills an important role in mobilising capital for investment. It is not a slush fund.

The CEFC facilitates comprehensive commercial loans for both renewable and clean energy technology. I have spoken in this place before about some of the innovative technologies that the CEFC has funded across this country. It is something to be proud of and certainly not a corporation that any sensible, mature and adult government would repeal. Over time, the CEFC has the capacity to make investments that would account for around 50 per cent of the five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020—at a profit to the taxpayer of $2.40 per tonne. That just falls on deaf ears. Why does it do that? Because it was Labor who put it in place and the government cannot bear that. It cannot bear that; it has to rip it down, destroy it and put in place a policy that no credible person in this country supports.

So since being created by Labor as part of the Clean Energy Future package, the CEFC has itself committed $536 million of its own budget while mobilising over $1.5 billion in private capital. It is a success in anybody's terms, except the Abbott government's. The average return on investment is seven per cent, a clear argument for retaining it. This CEFC has the potential to return $200 million per year or $1.5 billion to 2020 to government coffers while reducing carbon pollution. But the government is deaf to that, because it cannot bear the success of any government other than itself.

The bills seek to repeal and to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. So when the government is out there in the media saying that Labor will not repeal the carbon tax, they are forgetting to tell the Australian public about all the other parts of the bill that are worth keeping and that are worth retaining, because they are good for the environment and they are certainly good our budget bottom line. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has been and should continue to be a clear success in driving investment, reducing carbon pollution and boosting the government's bottom line. For this reason, the bill that seeks to abolish it needs to be taken out and swept under the carpet. We need to keep the CEFC.

What we know internationally is that the world is acting on climate change. Ninety-nine countries worldwide—including Australia, and covering over 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the global economy—have made formal pledges to the United Nations to reduce carbon pollution. Under Labor, Australia made significant contributions to global action on climate change. The first act of the Labor government was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. We subsequently committed Australia to a second commitment period. We are one of the largest per capita polluters in the developed world—we are in the top 20, in absolute terms. Australia's actions are globally significant and we are watched closely by our international partners. Free riding is not an option.

As one of the world's largest polluters, Australia can play a key role as a progressive force for global climate action or we can return to the Howard government mould—and I think we are seeing that already—as a spoiler, a country that buries its head in the sand and denies that climate change is real. So what will Australia say and what will our actions be in providing momentum for a global climate agreement scheduled to be agreed in Paris in late 2015? I shudder to think.

The world's major international economic institutions have firmly lined up in favour of a carbon price. The OECD says consistent carbon pricing must be the cornerstone of government actions on climate change. The OECD's position was supported by both the IMF and the World Bank. China has started seven ETS schemes in regions covering more than two million people, with the aim of having a national trading scheme in place at the end of this decade. Following this move by China, our two nations agreed to set up a joint carbon trading expert group to reflect our shared commitment to serious action on a based approach to climate change. China has made it clear that it will put a cap on coal consumption that will be equivalent to even the most ambitious climate reduction targets envisaged by the international energy agency and the United Nations.

Reports show that Australia is on track for its hottest year yet. Yet here in this parliament we hear the government saying, 'We've had hot days for hundreds of years. It is just the way it is in Australia.' But plenty of expert groups agree with us. That is why Labor accepts that we need to take strong action on climate change. We owe it to our future generations. But the Abbott government just wants to make political capital and has no thought, no consideration, no care about future generations. All the experts agree: Tony Abbott's policy con will not reduce carbon pollution; it will cost households much, much more.