Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013. I would first like to commend opposition senators on their fine contributions to this bill—well thought out arguments against these pieces of legislation. It is simply not good enough to stick our heads in the sand and leave the next generation to tackle the issue of climate change. Climate change is real, and the Labor Party supports real, meaningful, effective action on climate change. As I have said in previous contributions on climate change, something must be done; we cannot sit back and do nothing. Our parliament, as leaders of our country, must send a clear message on this issue, which is so important to our children and future generations.

The most cost-effective way to deal with carbon pollution is an emissions trading scheme. An emissions trading scheme—a market based mechanism with a legal cap on carbon pollution—is the cheapest and the most effective way to reduce emissions, while encouraging business. Labor accepts both the science of climate change and the fact that Australia cannot afford to leave the challenge of climate change to future generations. Mr Abbott and his environment minister, Mr Hunt, and the coalition do not. No credible expert argues that the coalition's direct action policies will work. The government do not even want to put a cap on how much pollution is allowed in Australia. It shows that they do not have the political will or the nous to actually effect meaningful change to reduce emissions. Big polluters, who put out high levels of carbon emissions, should not be subsidised by the taxpayer. Treasury has estimated the cost of Direct Action at $10 billion a year; that is, money paid as taxes by ordinary Australians then siphoned off into the pockets of big polluters.

I ask you: how can that sit well with anyone? It is certainly not sitting well with the Australian people. A Fairfax-Nielsen poll at the end of last year showed just 12 per cent of Australians supported Direct Action. Don't hold your breath, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you expect Mr Abbott to take any notice! This is a government that did not even bother sending any ministerial representation to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Warsaw, a government that was not represented by a minister at this significant worldwide conference. It is a government that barely pays lip-service to one of the greatest challenges our planet faces this century.

Emissions trading schemes are already in place in the UK, throughout Europe, Korea and parts of Canada and the United States. Almost every credible economist or expert says Direct Action will not work. Direct Action is not sustainable due to the cost. Most direct action plans cannot be scaled up, and those that can prove too expensive. So why do the Prime Minister and the Treasurer set about slashing services to schools, hospitals, roads, community grants and whatever else they can get their hands on? Mr Hockey and Mr Abbott are bracing themselves for huge bills into the future so that they can pay the biggest polluters.

It is as laughable as it is tragic. The local school goes without much-needed money, but the government pays highly profitable multinationals that money instead. Carbon pollution, which causes climate change, is a problem, both environmental and economic, a problem that we must tackle. But, as we have heard in public reports and in the media, Mr Maurice Newman—one of the Prime Minister's most trusted advisers and known climate change sceptic—thinks money spent on science and cutting carbon pollution is wasted. When Mr Newman speaks, it appears that Mr Abbott not only listens, but he acts. It is deeply alarming to have someone so influential holding views on climate change that are so at odds with the Australian people, let alone with the mounting scientific evidence. It is really little surprise that with advice like this, the coalition offers such an ineffective and ill-conceived policy.

We know that climate change is real and something must be done—meaningful action must be taken. It is simple, basic logic. It is logic that we must listen to in the interests of our children, their children and for all future generations of Australians and all countries around the world. The UK, Europe, Korea and parts of North America are already using emissions trading schemes. In our region, China has also started pilot ETS schemes and, as reported in the Age on 2 December last year, China's largest problems with a population of more than 100 million will be greenhouse gas emissions. It began to issue carbon permits to big polluters from last December. This was after China introduced emission trading schemes in Beijing and Shanghai in late November 2013. In terms of size, those carbon markets will be second only to Europe's trading scheme.

Australia must live in the real world and stay the course towards an ETS. Labor will continue to listen to the best available science and it does beggar belief that any political party would not. Yet we have those opposite shouting down the experts and sticking their fingers in their ears and, in fact, trying to put legislation into the parliament to repeal some of that expert advice.

Those who do not have their fingers in their ears should be crossing them. History will not be kind to this government. It will be a government that will look foolish for ignoring the science. It will be the government that ignored the biggest problem of this century because it lacked the courage to tackle the real issue. The climate change deniers will look as foolish as those who once argued that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer. But Mr Abbott is a denier and wants to tear down the progress made by the previous government. If Mr Abbott wants to scrap the so-called carbon tax, it must be replaced with something that works. It is accepted that an emissions trading scheme will work by putting a cap on carbon, but there is uncertainty about what the Liberal Party's policy will do. When pushed, the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, could not explain it in parliament and Mr Hunt has been unable to explain how it will actually work.

Carbon pollution changes our weather and harms our environment. That is the best available science. The experts all agree. All reputable scientists say that it is a fact: the climate is changing and humans are accelerating that change. That is why governments around the world are taking action, including the previous Labor government. But this government, under Prime Minister Tony Abbott, has effectively put taking meaningful steps into the too-hard basket. Instead, we have a toxic policy from a government out of step with society both in this country and on a global scale.

Labor argues that we should tackle the problem and that Australia should back itself to compete with the rest of the world by still acting responsibly for future generations. Those future generations should be proud to look back at this period of history and see that Australia made a difference. Instead, they will read about an isolationist Australian government that shrugged its shoulders, paid a bit of lip-service, tore up policy that was making meaningful change and established a slush fund of billions of taxpayers' dollars to hand to polluters. What sort of legacy is that? Rather than feeling pride, they will be ashamed that a coalition government tore down the progress that was already made, put in laws that nobody wanted, caused economic and environmental upheaval and gave up on tackling such a huge issue.

The coalition wants to replace the laws with this poorly-thought-out replacement, Direct Action, that nobody with any economic or environmental credibility thinks will work. As I have indicated, they want to replace that with a scheme that will cost taxpayers an estimated $10 billion a year. No less an authority than Alan Kohler sums it up:

Tony Abbott will have to either drop the promise to cut emissions by five per cent or the promise to repeal the carbon tax - both together will be impossible without massive Government spending under the proposed "direct action" policy of paying companies to reduce emissions.

I ask the Senate: which of those two options—repealing the carbon tax or reducing emissions by five per cent—should we expect Mr Abbott to choose? With advisers such as Mr Maurice Newman in Mr Abbott's ear, it is safe to say that he would prefer to ditch the price on carbon and damn the consequences if we do not need the absolute minimum emissions target reduction.

Mr Kohler also says:

The liquefied natural gas (LNG) export boom will make it virtually impossible for Australia to meet the Government's carbon emissions reduction target.

So according to one of our most respected economic voices in Australia, under Direct Action there is no chance of meeting the minimum target. Mr Kohler says that not trying to reduce carbon emissions at all would put Australia at odds with the rest of the world, including China and the US, and endanger trade agreements. But as Mr Kohler writes:

… the Prime Minister and Treasurer Joe Hockey will be, or at least should be, desperately hoping that the Senate never allows the repeal of the emission trading scheme legislation, so it's not exactly a broken promise—at least they tried.

At least they tried! Already, the coalition—Mr Hockey, Mr Abbott and senators in this place—might just wash their hands of the issue altogether.

The coalition has given up—it is too hard! They have put in place Direct Action as an alleged alternative policy, but it will not achieve anything meaningful. This is a government without a map to navigate the country into the future. It is a government refusing to live in the real world. It is a government refusing to listen to the experts. It is a government claiming that it knows best but with no actual idea of what it will do when the hard questions are asked of Direct Action.

Businesses with foresight are already leading the charge, using clean, green technologies of the future to secure the long-term future of their businesses. Governments that claim to have foresight would be wise to follow their lead. We cannot afford to be left behind. Treasury said in its Blue Book, prepared prior to the 2010 election:

A market based mechanism can achieve the necessary abatement at a cost per tonne of emissions far lower than any other alternative direct-action policies.

That advice on Direct Action from Treasury hardly sits on its own.

The poorly-thought-out Direct Action policy is also at odds with industry. In a submission to the government the Australian Industry Group said:

… there is a risk that the Emissions Reduction Fund does not deliver the abatement outcomes sought. As currently understood there is no equivalent to an emissions cap or other legal guarantee that the targets will be met.

The AiG, which speaks on behalf of about 60,000 businesses, wants the government to adopt a market mechanism—an ETS. he AiG says it is the cheapest and most effective way to drive down carbon pollution. This is a 60,000-strong industry group urging the government to put in place a market mechanism, not its Direct Action Plan. This respected industry group says that 'bureaucratic or political decision making are usually poor substitutes for the judgements of market actors responding to price in light of their own circumstances'. And, along with Mr Kohler, the AiG also raised fears over the consequences of not matching the emissions reduction targets of other major economies around the world.

The AiG says that consistent global action is fundamental to preserving Australian competitiveness. Economists and climate scientists across the world all agree that an emissions trading scheme—a market-based mechanism with a legal cap on carbon pollution—is the cheapest and most effective way to reduce pollution and provide certainty for business, again, as we have seen with the AiG, representing over 60,000 Australian businesses, telling the government not to push forward with Direct Action. So I ask: is this the government they voted for—one that would not listen and jeopardise economic growth? In 2011, accounting and audit expert Ernst & Young said that Direct Action has key problems that could 'hinder Australia's participation in a deeper and globally consistent response to climate change'—yet more evidence that Direct Action will leave Australia at odds with other economic powers.

In June 2012 the global chief executive of Shell, Mr Peter Voser, told 7.30 that the company already includes carbon pricing in investments and that his company took a longer term view than the next two or three quarters.

This longer term certainty is not provided by Direct Action. To quote Mr Voser:

… Shell as a company is actually very much advocating that we need a price for carbon on a worldwide basis and we want that to be on a market mechanism.

This is the head of a massive multinational company calling for a price on carbon through a market mechanism—an ETS. The list goes on. The former Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, called on the coalition to scrap its Direct Action Plan. He said:

The easiest cut you'll make is the stuff you never go into.

And then in August of last year a leading researcher on emissions markets released detailed modelling on Direct Action and found that Direct Action would leave emissions 16 per cent above 2000 levels, would require an extra $35 billion to meet the target, cannot meet higher targets and needs to pay polluters $58 per tonne by 2020.

But, as we have heard, Mr Abbott and Mr Hunt are not listening to these respected voices. Mr Abbott is not listening to the Australian people. The recent Nielsen-Fairfax poll released on November 25 showed that only 12 per cent of people polled supported Mr Abbott's direct action policy. That says loud and clear that the voters of Australia—the hardworking taxpayers of Australia—do not want their tax dollars being shelled out by this coalition towards those who need it least: big polluters. Just 12 per cent of Australians, according to the poll, are backing Mr Abbott. This is not the government they told Australian businesses and families they would be. Australia should be setting a standard on the global scale and working with the major economies of the globe.

Mr Abbott should show leadership. This 44th Parliament will be judged by the history books on this issue as much as on any other. Labor is comfortable with our position: climate change is real, and we must not stall on acting on it. Labor supports an emissions trading scheme. We do not support Direct Action. Australians agree that there is something happening to our climate. They want action. They want meaningful action. That is what the ETS delivers. It is better for the economy. It is better for the environment. Our summers are getting hotter. Our weather is changing. That changing weather affects our economy. It affects our river systems, our reefs, our farms, our cities. It affects the entire country. We must take a stand. We cannot leave it for the next generation, the next parliament. We have to act and act now. The experts have spoken, and we must listen to them. To do nothing is unforgivable.

Labor introduced an emissions trading scheme that is working. It was cutting dirty power generation and increasing clean energy generation. Are Mr Abbott, Mr Hunt, Mr Hockey and their colleagues comfortable about facing up to future generations with their feeble excuses for having done so little at best, and having caused harm at worst, to limit emissions and protect our environment? Instead, Mr Abbott wants to plough ahead with Direct Action.