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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Ludwig. I refer the minister to Australia's May 2012 submission regarding the application of a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which states that Australia:

… has consistently maintained that a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol must be balanced by an agreement with legally binding mitigation commitments by all major economies.

I ask the minister whether such an agreement with legally binding mitigation commitments by all major economies has been reached and ratified by all such major economies.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Birmingham for his continued interest in climate change—perhaps the only one from the opposition.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has changed his tune, though. He has changed his tune.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He may have backflipped. A recent report published by the Climate Commission dispels once and for all the myth pushed by those opposite that Australia is acting alone with the carbon price and that our policies will make no difference to greenhouse gas emissions. The commission concluded, and I think this is very important to consider, that every major economy is tackling climate change, including Australia. It finds that 90 countries, representing 90 per cent of the global economy, have committed to reduce their carbon pollution and have policies in place to achieve those reductions. Many of these countries are relying on market-based mechanisms such as Australia's. The commission's report concluded that a carbon price is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions and is more efficient than other direct subsidy policies. That is why next year 1.1 billion people will be living in a country, state or city with an emissions trading scheme in place. They include countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Carbon trading is also operating at the subnational level in the United States, Canada and Brazil. Of course, the momentum is growing. Japan just introduced a carbon tax last month. California commenced its emissions trading schemes last week. China is developing pilot emissions trading schemes in seven cities and provinces and in Korea an emissions trading scheme will commence in 2015. If you look all across the OECD, 94 per cent of members have, or are implementing, emissions trading at the national or sub-national level. That is the commitment that is happening on the ground as we speak.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the conclusion and ratification of—quoting the government's own submission—'an agreement with legally binding mitigation commitments by all major economies' remains at best a distant aspiration, why has the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency ditched this requirement for binding action, which was restated as recently as May this year, and instead declared Australia ready to join a second commitment under Kyoto as soon as the end of this month?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Birmingham for his second supplementary question—for his helpful comment.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wishful thinking—you don't even know which sup it is!

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. It is clear when you look at the coalition themselves that the carbon price did not have the impact that they suggested. Senator Barnaby Joyce I think continues to support the proposition that a lamb roast will cost $100 due to the carbon price. On Meet the Press, on Channel Ten, he reiterated again that promise that that would be the outcome for lamb. It is not—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order. The question went very particularly to the government's position about a second commitment period under Kyoto, as did the supplementary question. We have got through all two minutes of the first answer and 53 seconds of the answer to the supplementary, and not once has the minister actually mentioned the Kyoto Protocol or the second commitment period. I urge you, Mr President, to ask the minister to be directly relevant to the question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister needs to address the question that has been asked by Senator Birmingham.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. As we know, on 9 November 2012, the minister— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the government introduced a carbon tax despite promising not to do so, axed its floor price of that carbon tax despite saying that a floor price was central to certainty and signed on to a second commitment period under Kyoto despite putting in previous submissions that doing so was conditional upon legally binding action by all major economies, how can anything this government says about climate change policies actually be believed?

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind senators on both sides that the time to debate this is after three o'clock.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia joins those countries around the world that are taking action on climate change. That is why Greg Combet, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, announced on 9 November that Australia is ready to join a second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol.

What is unbelievable from those opposite, if we want to talk about believability, is that they opposed income tax cuts and family tax cuts for business. Tripling the tax-free threshold, tax cuts for more than seven million people, was opposed by those opposite, unbelievable if you are a family; and a company tax cut—unbelievable if you are a company. Increasing the Medicare levy surcharge threshold—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order, again on the matter of direct relevance. For the last 30 to 40 seconds of the minister's answer he has talked about anything but climate change policies or the second commitment period under Kyoto and is traversing a range of completely unrelated policy areas. I ask you to draw the minister's attention to the question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister needs to address the question. The minister has 16 seconds remaining.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, it is unbelievable that they would oppose household assistance with the introduction of a carbon price. It is unbelievable that they would do that, but it is true. It is embarrassingly true that that is precisely what those opposite did, and they cannot bring themselves to— (Time expired)