Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to 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—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t believe that!

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

to do so on win-win basis, Senator Ludwig—a win-win basis where we can achieve real environmental outcomes, improve the efficiency of our soils, improve the efficiency of our farms, improve the efficiency of our electricity generators, get some real benefit for Australia for the long term and focus on the five per cent reduction target, rather than taxing 100 per cent of emissions as the government proposes to do and in the process pushing costs up for every Australian family and every Australian small business.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It must be a cruel world over there in the Liberal Party for Senator Birmingham to have to make that sort of speech when only a couple of months ago he was an enthusiastic supporter of the government’s emissions trading scheme. In fact, he had been a supporter of emissions trading throughout his political career in this place. I am sure he was one of the proud supporters of the position that the previous government—John Howard’s government—took to the election. Let no-one forget that the Liberal Party went to the last election with a policy for an emissions trading scheme. That was a policy supported by those opposite right up until a number of months ago—a policy, a position, legislation that was negotiated to agreement with the Liberal Party. It was ready to be voted on after being negotiated with the Liberal Party, and Senator Birmingham was one of those senators who was enthusiastically going to support that legislation through the parliament.

Nonetheless, his preferred leader was rolled by a single vote, even though I think there were some votes missing or some votes filled out incorrectly. I think some people in the Liberal Party could not even find their way to actually vote for either of the two candidates—it is pretty hard task for some of them. But there we go, by one vote the leadership changed. Now Senator Birmingham finds himself on the front bench of the Liberal Party and has to do these cruel things. I guess that is a reflection of the cruelty of their leadership in this place, that they would make Senator Birmingham come in here and make a speech like that—a speech which he does not believe in, which about half of the Liberal Party do not believe in. What was really surprising was that I thought when the first speaker got up in this debate, after their lead questions in question time today, he would be promoting their scheme. As 4½ minutes went by I was wondering whether he would ever actually get to their policy at all. Then, with 30 seconds to spare, Senator Birmingham brought himself to acknowledge that today they announced a policy. But was there any detail of that policy? Did he try to sell it? No, because he knows it is a hollow policy, it is an absolute con job. It puts no cap on pollution. What it says is that you can continue to pollute as much as you like and we will get the taxpayer to pay by implementing regulation. There will be no market based solution but, simply, the taxpayer will pay for the costs of pollution on which we will put no tax.

I know Senator Birmingham is a little bit embarrassed about this whole thing, and I am not surprised that he is now leaving the chamber. I think we will be here at some point in time when the wiser heads in the Liberal Party have gone back to the policy that they know was the correct policy in the first place. They did know at one point in time that the cost of failing to act was to be far greater than the cost of acting. They also knew that the best way to control emissions was by putting a cost on pollution—making the polluters pay and then using that money to drive technological change and to subsidise the community for the extra costs that would be applied through making those substantial steps. That is what it was going to be: charge the polluters and subsidise the community. They have thrown that out. They knew at one point in time that that was the best way to achieve reductions in emissions—they knew that.

One of the other really disturbing and, I think, sad things about our legislation going down late last year was the behaviour of the Australian Greens. The Australian Greens, who say that they want to do something about climate change, stood shoulder to shoulder with the sceptics and the deniers on that side of the chamber and voted to do nothing about saving the environment. They voted to do nothing about reducing emissions in this country. They stood shoulder to shoulder in support of the deniers and the sceptics, and they ought to be condemned too. The Australian people ought not to be sucked in or fooled by the Australian Greens. When they say that they want to do something about the environment, that they stand for doing something for the environment, let no-one forget that in this place they had an opportunity to support this government in doing something about climate change but they voted to do nothing. They stood shoulder to shoulder with the deniers and the sceptics and voted to do nothing about climate change and our environment—and the Australian people ought not forget that. They will stand equally condemned as the Liberal Party.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to be back here and to see that the Labor Party feels that the most important thing before our nation right now—more important than the Haitian earthquake, more important than that we have some tremors once more on financial markets and that shares are starting to question whether China is closing down its credit, more important than any of that—is Labor’s ETS. That is the most important thing for the Labor Party. Let us make sure that we understand the Labor Party’s Maslow hierarchy of needs, what is most important in their lives. No. 1 is the Labor Party’s ETS. That is the most important thing.

They did such a great job at Copenhagen. Copenhagen was such a roaring success! Every night I turned on I could see the snow falling, I could see the canals freezing over and I felt like ringing up and saying: ‘Ease up guys. You’re going too hard. Pull back a bit on the reins. You’re too good at it.’ What did we achieve out of all of this? Imagine where Australia would be right now if that ridiculous policy had actually got through. We would be sitting out there as the most peculiar political object in the world, as an economic basket case brought into place by the Labor Party.

Let us go through some of the Labor Party hyperbole. First of all, they laud the process—‘This is a market based scheme.’ They are dead right; it is a market based scheme. It was designed to put up the price of goods so that you cannot afford them. That is what this was designed to do and that is what it would do to the pensioners of Australia. That is what it would do to the working families of Australia and that is what it would do to the farmers of Australia. You moralise about them putting up their prices but then you say, ‘No, tarry a while, because we will give you some of your own money back.’ This is supposed to be logical. So they take the money from you and then they give it back. That is not even market based; that is confusion, except to the point where you make people’s lives miserable, where you make the price of air conditioning out of the reach of the pensioner, where the transport price on food makes it out of the reach of the people who probably do not earn the wages we do. You start putting these imposts on their lives because of your pride and overwhelming desire by the Prime Minister and Minister Wong to be the omnipotent force. They know better than all of us; they know better than all the people who rang this building. They know better than everybody. If only people knew how smart they were, they would realise how blessed we are to have them! This is the sort of Labor Party we have.

I am going to quote your famous prime minister who always said, ‘If you do not understand a tax, do not vote for it.’ I say back to the Australian people quite clearly that: if you do not understand it, do not vote for it. Unfortunately, that would mean half the Labor Party cannot vote for it either because no-one understands it. It is worse than Kafka’s Castle. It is noodle nation. It is everything bound up into an environmental economic train wreck. That is what we are about to get. And then Paul Keating said, ‘If you did understand it, you would never vote for it.’ That, of course, is chapter 2.

I want to add another addendum to the wisdom of Paul Keating and this is it: ‘I’m glad you brought it back because I want to do you slowly.’ I want to do you slowly. I want you sitting over there every day talking about the ETS. I want it being broadcast that what you want to deliver to the Australian working family, to the Australian public, is a massive new tax, because that is all it is. That is your benevolence to them. I can see you all barging out of the chamber because you do not want to be here. You want to be a million miles away from this and the polling is saying the same. The voters are waking up to it because all of a sudden they have realised that this massive new tax is money in your pocket and a cost to them—a cost to working families, a cost to pensioners, a cost to everybody. The trouble is that in the long term people cannot afford it.

You want to talk about the coalition policy. It is quite clear. I will give it to you quite succinctly—$3.2 billion. For the greatest moral issue of our time I think we can afford $3.2 billion. Our policy is succinct and understandable; yours is just a complete and utter cluster. That is what we are going to do to you over the next few weeks. I hope you keep it here for as long as possible because I am going to really enjoy these next couple of weeks.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to be back, of course—back into the zone where you can stand up and say what you want to advance. From the contributions so far today we have heard that some people on that side of the chamber forget nothing, they learn nothing, they change nothing and they come to this debate as they came to it last year—with ignorance, with prejudice. Their solution is one of fearmongering and cost imposition.

One also has to say by way of introduction that there is a significant degree of inconsistency in the approach of the opposition. A little less than three years ago, then under the leadership of Mr Howard, the Liberal and National coalition committed to an emissions trading scheme and they maintained that commitment under successive leaders—Mr Howard, Dr Nelson and Mr Turnbull. Then, all of a sudden, because things were going so badly and they had to change their leadership and their approach, they changed their policy from that which they had had for the best part of three or four years and that which they had communicated to the Australian people to the position recently put by Senator Joyce—a nothing position which goes nowhere, a position which advocates no change and requires no significant change and a position which has no costings.

Climate change, global warming, and the need for action was an absolute priority last year, is a priority this year and will be a priority for this government for the foreseeable future. We know that climate change and global warming is having all sorts of harmful effects across this continent and around the world. We say there needs to be change. We say there needs to be action, and there needs to be an agreed position worked out at an international level to introduce and bring that change. That will have benefits for everyone in this country: the working families, farmers, small business, large companies, ordinary consumers. We need change that is going to assist them and bring benefits short-term and long-term into their lives. That was what we went to Copenhagen for. To a large degree, that was what was achieved at that conference.

We know—as outlined in today’s press—that a number of important steps were achieved and taken at Copenhagen. I will tell you what those steps were, because they are not a bad foundation for going forward across the world on an agreed basis to bring a solution to this issue of climate change and an emissions trading scheme around the world. What happened? For the first time, leaders agreed to hold any increase in global temperatures to at or below two degrees centigrade. For the first time, leaders of all nations—developed and developing nations—agreed to take action to deliver on that central core objective. For the first time, leaders agreed to a framework for national and international monitoring of what developed and developing .countries will do on this issue going into the future. Again, for the first time, leaders agreed on the need for considerable financial support for emissions reduction and adaptation in developing countries. Not a bad set of achievements achieved by hard negotiation and clear-sighted vision some weeks ago in Copenhagen. Not a bad set of achievements and not a bad set of foundations on which you can build an ETS in this country going forward. We know where we are going and we know what the costs are going to be. As I say, overall, a pretty neat set of achievements.

What is the government’s position? The government’s position is quite clear. It was outlined by Senator Wong in the press today; it has been outlined repeatedly by the Prime Minister in a set of interviews given today. Let us be clear. We do not say that climate change is easy. We do not say a climate change solution or addressing the problem of climate change is easy. We do not say it is going to be quick. But we do say that there is a way forward. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If ever you want to see a political party run scared over an issue, have a look at the Labor Party over the Emissions Trading Scheme, the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The speakers in this debate from the Labor Party do not even believe what they are saying. We happen to know that many Labor senators would dearly love to have had the courage to vote with us the last time it came before the Senate. The last thing they want to do is have to sit through another debate in the Senate on the same piece of legislation that most of them do not agree with.

The only thing that Copenhagen achieved—apart from proving what we on this side of the chamber had all been saying for months—is that it showed that Senator Wong and Mr Rudd and 114 other various bureaucrats and hangers-on had a lovely little holiday in Copenhagen for two or three weeks visiting the mermaid and having a jolly good time around the halls of some six-star hotels. It achieved absolutely nothing, as we predicted it would in the debate in this Senate in December.

What is worse for the Labor Party is that their policy is now in tatters—it is an absolute shambles; people are dropping off it as quickly as they can. To make matters worse for the Labor Party, today we had the next Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, releasing a practical, down-to-earth, direct action policy which will reduce carbon emissions by five per cent. It will cost the Australian people $3.2 billion over the next four years as opposed to Mr Rudd’s ETS—his big tax on everything—of $40.6 billion over the same period. Compare that! I will re-emphasise it. Our scheme, to get a five per cent reduction—$3.2 billion in four years. The Labor Party’s scheme to get a five per cent reduction in the same period—$40.6 billion.

Not only am I excited about the Emissions Reduction Fund, which we will talk about at length when we have a lot more time, but I am very excited that the other elements of our policy released by Mr Abbott today are great for those of us who live in Northern Australia. There is a lot of sunshine up my way. Under our policy, there will be $1,000 on top of what is now made available—a grant by the government for solar power and solar hot water. The solar towns and schools program—an initiative of the Howard government—is being enhanced under Mr Abbott’s policy. The significant tidal movements we have up in the north-west of Australia, particularly along the Kimberley coast—that tidal energy that has been spoken about for years—will now get a $50 million fund to fully investigate the initiative of tidal renewable energy and geothermal energy.

There is a $5 million fund, to be matched by the industry sector, to allow the testing of algae energy. I am pleased to say that is being pioneered at James Cook University in Townsville. This fund will be set up to confirm and ensure that that algal energy process does reduce CO2 emissions and does not impact on food production.

Our policy released by Mr Abbott today has 31 pages of detail and the Labor Party’s ETS policy that was released before the last election had three lines of detail—three lines of detail as opposed to 30 pages of detail. I re-emphasise in concluding that our policy will reduce emissions by five per cent by 2020 at a cost of $3.2 billion over the next four years and the Labor Party’s proposal, the carbon emissions trading scheme, will also reduce emissions by five per cent by 2020 but at a cost of $40.6 billion over the next four years.

Question agreed to.