Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I disagree fundamentally with the arguments Senator Di Natale has made in relation to the target set by this government and to the motion before the chamber. We have outlined a strong, credible and responsible target. It is a very clear target that sets Australia not as a lagger, nor as a leader, but as one of the responsible citizens of the world, complementing and comparable to the rest of the world. Our target, that Australia will reduce its greenhouse emissions by 26 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and by up to 28 per cent should circumstances permit, is a very appropriate target. It is especially appropriate and in fact is world leading when you shift beyond looking at the raw figures to look at the relativities of its impact on a per capita basis or on an economic basis. Our target will see per capita emissions at least 50 per cent lower than by 2030. Emissions per dollar of GDP will be at least 64 per cent lower. In terms of emissions intensity reductions around the world, the target the Abbott government has set is the largest for any developed country. This is a target range that people should strongly support. It has been set by a government that has put in place the policies to meet our current 2020 target of five per cent reduction, which we will meet, which we may well exceed and, as a country, will be another demonstration that when Australia makes a promise and a commitment in relation to emissions reduction targets we will deliver on it. That is not the case for every other country around the world but when Australia made a commitment in relation to the Kyoto protocol, we delivered on it without a carbon tax. When we make a commitment in relation to 2020, it is one we will deliver on and without the need for a carbon tax because we can deliver with the sound policies that achieve effective reduction in our emissions profile at appropriate low cost to our economy.

I look forward in this debate to hearing the Labor Party's position. Are they committed, as indeed their party platform indicates, to a 40 per cent to 60 per cent target for reductions?

Is that the Labor Party's policy? It is certainly what the platform indicates, so we assume that indeed that is the range the Labor Party supports.

If that is the case, we know from modelling that the Labor Party themselves had done when they were in office that it will deliver a $633 billion hit to the Australian economy. It was modelling produced for the then Labor government by the Climate Change Authority, established by the then Labor government. Effectively, it is their modelling and it demonstrates that the type of target range they are talking about would result in a fall of per capita national income in the order of six per cent—a six per cent reduction in per capita incomes! It would see a reduction in the order of $4,900 in take-home pay, and to be met it would require a carbon price of more than $200 per tonne.

We think that a responsible target is one that sets Australia to play its part on the world stage, to make a sensible contribution in Paris and to make a sensible contribution in achieving the right outcomes in addressing climate change, but which is not one that provides an excessive impact on Australia's economy, on the competitiveness of Australian businesses, on jobs and, of course, on the cost of living for Australian households.

We are committed to meeting this target by building on our existing successful policies. Our Direct Action plan is proving successful and is delivering emissions reductions that will meet our 2020 targets, and it can be part of the package of measures that will meet our 2030 targets. The very first auction of the Emissions Reduction Fund secured 47 million tonnes of abatement. That is a great result but, most importantly, it secured that at a price far below the Labor Party's price for their carbon tax at a much cheaper cost to the Australian economy and, in fact, is an investment in making sure that Australian businesses who are most able, cost effectively, to reduce their emissions are the ones who are supported to do so.

We stand by a policy of this nature—the Emissions Reduction Fund—as a way to continue to achieve the reductions required. In contrast, those opposite want to bring back the carbon tax on which they were so roundly rejected at the last election. Labor propose a carbon tax that, to meet the targets that are set out in the platform that they signed up to at their recent national convention, would see enormous prices and a far greater impact on the Australian economy, on the cost of living and on the competitiveness of Australian businesses than has been the case under their previous tax. It is remarkable that they were rejected by the Australian voters for having a carbon tax of $24.15 and yet their proposal is now to have a carbon tax that, to meet the targets they are talking about, would have to skyrocket to some $209 per tonne—$209 per tonne!

The Labor Party's impact on Australian households of that order would be enormous. The impact would be in terms of lower wages, lower incomes and a lower GDP—a GDP that would be 2.6 per cent lower in 2030 than would otherwise be the case. Compare that with the target range that our government has committed to, which has a GDP impact in the order of 0.2 to 0.3 per cent, but which still sees us signing up to contribute in the range that puts us as a leader in terms of per capita reductions and reductions on the basis of GDP, and in the middle of the pack in doing more than Korea and Japan and comparable amounts to other countries.

Frankly, I am staggered that the chamber can be debating a motion that is critical of the target that Australia has set under the Abbott government and will take to the Paris discussions, because our target is one that everybody in this chamber should be very supportive of and should recognise as a strong target—an ambitious target, but an economically responsible target as well. It is a target that, as a country, we are well placed to meet and that we will meet, as we have done before.

But, instead—of course—we have this carping from the Greens. The Greens, we know, would not have been happy with any target set in relation to climate change reduction. They would have expected, I am sure, and would only have supported complete elimination of emissions and economic activity. And even that probably would not have been enough for them. So maybe I should not be surprised that they put this motion forward. But I do look forward to those opposite and their contributions on this motion, because they need to give clarity in this debate about whether they support the position that this government will take to Paris or whether they support the position in their policy platform of a 40 to 60 per cent reduction range by 2030.

Their position on that will dictate what their carbon tax actually is under the models they are talking about. It will dictate just how high that carbon tax has to go and it will therefore dictate what the impacts on Australian households and the economy will be. So I look forward to Labor being crystal clear with this chamber and in this debate about where they are going. The Abbott government has been clear: we have outlined a target that is competitive in the world and that puts us in good stead to go to Paris and make a sound-- (Time expired)