Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7443 together:

(1) Title, page 1 (line 1), omit "repeal", substitute "amend".

(2) Clause 2, page 1 (line 7) to page 2 (line 6), omit the clause, substitute:

2 Commencement

     This Act commences on the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 70 (line 21), omit the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 1—Amendments

Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011

1 Subsection 66F(2) (paragraph (c) of the definition of prescribed amount for the financial year in which the compliance deadline occurs )

  Repeal the paragraph.

2 Subsection 66F(4) (paragraph (c) of the definition of prescribed amount for the financial year in which the compliance deadline occurs )

  Repeal the paragraph.

Clean Energy Act 2011

3 Section 4

  Omit ", 1 July 2013 and 1 July 2014", substitute "and 1 July 2013".

4 Section 4

  Before "1 July 2015", insert "1 July 2014,".

5 Section 5 (paragraph (b) of the definition of fixed charge year )

  Omit "2013; or", substitute "2013.".

6 Section 5 (paragraph (c) of the definition of fixed charge year )

  Repeal the paragraph.

7 Section 5 (paragraph (a) of the definition of flexible charge year )

  Omit "1 July 2015", substitute "1 July 2014".

8 After paragraph 14(2)(b)

  Insert:

  (ba) if the regulations declare the carbon pollution cap, and the carbon pollution cap number, for the flexible charge year beginning on 1 July 2014—must have regard to any report that:

     (i) was given to the Minister by the Climate Change Authority under section 60 of the Climate Change Authority Act 2011; and

     (ii) dealt with the carbon pollution cap for that year; and

9 At the end of subsection 15(1)

  Add "(other than regulations that declare the carbon pollution cap, and the carbon pollution cap number, for the flexible charge year beginning on 1 July 2014)".

10 After section 15

  Insert:

15A When regulations must be tabled—2014 -15 flexible charge year

Scope

  (1) This section applies to regulations that declare the carbon pollution cap, and the carbon pollution cap number, for the flexible charge year beginning on 1 July 2014.

When regulations must be tabled

  (2) The Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the regulations are tabled in each House of the Parliament under section 38 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 not later than 31 May 2014.

  (3) The regulations must not be made, or tabled in a House of the Parliament, after 31 May 2014.

Reasons must be tabled

  (4) If, on a particular day (the tabling day), a copy of the regulations is tabled in a House of the Parliament under section 38 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, the Minister must:

     (a) cause to be tabled in that House a written statement setting out the Minister's reasons for making the recommendation to the Governor-General about the regulations; and

     (b) do so on, or as soon as practicable after, the tabling day.

11 Section 16 (at the end of the heading)

  Add "—later flexible charge years".

12 Subsection 16(3)

  Omit "made for the purposes of section 14", substitute "to which section 15 applies".

13 Section 17 (heading)

  Omit "2015-16", substitute "2014-15".

14 Subsection 17(1)

  Omit "1 July 2015", substitute "1 July 2014".

15 Subsection 17(2) (formula)

  Repeal the formula, substitute:

16 Subsection 18(1)

  Omit "1 July 2016", substitute "1 July 2015".

17 Section 93

  Before "1 July 2015", insert "1 July 2014,".

18 Subsection 100(1)

  After "following table", insert "(other than an exempt item)".

19 Subsection 100(1) (table items 5 and 6)

  Repeal the items.

20 Subsection 100(1) (table items 7, 8 and 9)

Repeal the items, substitute:

21 Subsection 100(1) (note)

  Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

22 At the end of subsection 100(1) (after the note)

  Add:

Note 2: For exempt item, see subsections (13A), (13B) and (13C).

23 Subsection 100(2)

  Omit "item 7, 8 or 9", substitute "item 7, 8, 9 or 10".

24 Subsection 100(3) (heading)

  Omit "items1, 3 and 5", substitute "items1 and 3".

25 Subsection 100(3)

  Omit "item 1, 3 or 5", substitute "item 1 or 3".

26 Subsection 100(4) (heading)

  Omit "6, 7, 8 and 9", substitute "7, 8, 9 and 10".

27 Subsection 100(4)

  Omit "item 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 or 9", substitute "item 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 or 10".

28 Subsection 100(6)

  After "subsection (1)", insert "(other than an exempt item)".

29 At the end of subsection 100(6)

  Add:

Note: For exempt item, see subsections (13A), (13B) and (13C).

30 Before paragraph 100(9)(a)

  Insert:

  (aa) the eligible financial year beginning on 1 July 2014;

31 After subsection 100(13)

  Insert:

Exempt item

  (13A) The regulations may declare that item 8 of the table in subsection (1) is an exempt item for the purposes of this section.

  (13B) The regulations may declare that item 9 of the table in subsection (1) is an exempt item for the purposes of this section.

  (13C) The regulations may declare that item 10 of the table in subsection (1) is an exempt item for the purposes of this section.

32 Subsection 100(14)

  Omit "31 May 2014", substitute "1 July 2014".

33 Subsection 100(15)

  Repeal the subsection.

34 Before subsection 101(1A)

  Insert:

  (1AA) Subsection (1) does not apply to carbon units with the vintage year beginning on 1 July 2014 that are issued as a result of auctions that are conducted by the Regulator during the financial year beginning on 1 July 2013.

  (1AB) The Regulator must ensure that not more than 40 million carbon units with the vintage year beginning on 1 July 2014 are issued as a result of auctions that were conducted by the Regulator during the financial year beginning on 1 July 2013 if there are no regulations in effect that declare the carbon pollution cap, and the carbon pollution cap number, for the vintage year.

35 Subsection 121

  Omit "first 5 flexible charge years", substitute "first 6 flexible charge years".

36 Subsection 123A(3)

  Omit "1 July 2015", substitute "1 July 2014".

37 Subparagraph 123A(6)(a)(i)

  Omit "1 July 2015", substitute "1 July 2014".

38 Subparagraphs 123A(6)(b)(i) and (ii)

  Repeal the subparagraphs, substitute:

     (i) if the eligible financial year begins on 1 July 2014—6.25%; or

     (ii) if the eligible financial year begins on 1 July 2015, 1 July 2016, 1 July 2017, 1 July 2018 or 1 July 2019—12.5%; or

     (iii) if the eligible financial year begins on or after 1 July 2020, and the regulations do not specify a percentage for that year—12.5%; or

     (iv) if the eligible financial year begins on or after 1 July 2020, and the regulations specify a percentage for that year—that percentage; and

39 Subsection 123A(7)

  Omit "(6)(b)(ii)", substitute "(6)(b)(iv)".

40 Subparagraphs 133(7)(a)(i) and (7A)(a)(i)

  Omit "1 July 2015", substitute "1 July 2014".

41 Subparagraph 133(7A)(a)(ii)

  Omit "4", substitute "5".

42 Subparagraph 133(7E)(a)(i)

  Omit "1 July 2015", substitute "1 July 2014".

43 Subparagraph 133(7E)(a)(ii)

  Omit "4", substitute "5".

44 Subparagraph 133(7F)(a)(i)

  Omit "1 July 2015", substitute "1 July 2014".

45 Section 160

  Omit "each of the next 3 financial years", substitute "the financial year beginning on 1 July 2014".

46 Subsection 161(2)

  Omit all the words from and including "On each" to and including "the following formula", substitute "On 1 September in the eligible financial year beginning on 1 July 2013, the Regulator must issue a number of free carbon units equal to the number worked out using the following formula".

47 Subsection 161(3) (formula)

  Repeal the formula, substitute:

48 Subsection 196(1AA) (heading)

  Omit "31May 2015", substitute "31May 2014".

49 Subsection 196(1AA)

  Omit "end of 31 May 2015", substitute "end of 31 May 2014".

50 Subsection 196(1AA) (definition of number of units issued as the result of auctions )

  Omit "May 2015", substitute "May 2014".

51 Subsection 196(1AA) (definition of total auction proceeds )

  Omit "May 2015", substitute "May 2014".

52 Subsection 196(1AB)

  Omit "May 2015", substitute "May 2014".

53 Paragraph 196(1)(a)

  Omit "May 2016", substitute "May 2015".

54 Paragraph 196(2)(a)

  Omit "November 2015", substitute "November 2014".

55 Paragraph 196(3)(a)

  Omit "1 July 2015", substitute "1 July 2014".

56 Subsection 196A(18) (paragraph (a) of the definition of designated 6 -month period )

  Omit "May 2015", substitute "May 2014".

57 Subsection 196A(18) (paragraph (c) of the definition of designated 6 -month period )

  Omit "November 2015", substitute "November 2014".

58 Subsection 212(2) (paragraph (c) of the definition of prescribed amount for the financial year in which the compliance deadline occurs )

  Repeal the paragraph.

59 Subsection 212(3) (paragraph (c) of the definition of prescribed amount for the financial year in which the compliance deadline occurs )

  Repeal the paragraph.

60 Subsection 289(8)

  Repeal the subsection, substitute:

Report

  (8) The report of the first review must set out recommendations relating to the level of carbon pollution caps for each of the following flexible charge years:

     (a) the eligible financial year beginning on 1 July 2015;

     (b) the eligible financial year beginning on 1 July 2016;

     (c) the eligible financial year beginning on 1 July 2017;

     (d) the eligible financial year beginning on 1 July 2018;

        (e) the eligible financial year beginning on 1 July 2019.

The bills that we are debating here have been dressed up as bills to terminate the so-called carbon tax. Indeed, the bill that we are addressing now is principal to that endeavour. If that were really what they were, the opposition would be in a position to support them, but they do so much more than simply terminate the carbon tax. For that reason the opposition cannot and will not support the bills without them being substantially amended. I make no apology for the substantial effect that the amendments we have circulated will have.

As just a taste of what these bills would do beyond simply terminating the carbon tax, they also remove the legislative cap on carbon pollution, an essential discipline in ensuring that we meet our 2020 target to reduce Australia's emissions. The bills abolish the entire framework for an emissions trading scheme, a scheme which caps and then reduces our carbon pollution while letting business—not the minister or his bureaucrats here in Canberra but business—work out the cheapest and most effective way to operate within that limit.

The amendments that I am moving introduce an emissions trading scheme from 1 July 2014. They ensure a cap on pollution and they ensure that Australia moves towards a clean energy future. Across the world it is recognised that the most effective long-term response to climate change is an emissions trading scheme which places a legal cap on carbon pollution, reducing over time, and allows business to work out the cheapest way to operate within the cap. This is the model in place or being introduced from Germany and the UK to California, China and Korea, amongst many others.

The introduction of an emissions trading scheme in Australia, along with strong policies to drive the expansion of renewable energy, has been a longstanding policy within the Labor Party. There is now a point of agreement between Australia's two major parties: the carbon tax should be terminated as soon as practicable. But—and I stress 'but'—there is profound disagreement about what replaces the centrepiece of Australia's action on climate change. These are not easy questions to answer. As the OECD Secretary-General, a few weeks ago, said:

It would be hard to imagine a more complex risk management issue than that posed by climate change.

Indeed, this is why the Senate is still considering Direct Action and why many questions remain about what the alternative may be. There are many questions that my colleagues and I will address in the Senate committee's report but indeed should be addressed as part of this discussion as well, because, while the removal of a carbon tax is one element of the picture, what replaces it is absolutely critical.

An emissions trading scheme is the cheapest way to achieve that objective because it creates a genuine market. The ability to trade pollution permits means that business works out the cheapest way to operate within the national pollution cap. One of the more recent of a long list of falsehoods argued by the Liberal Party is that an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax are the same thing. They are not. This is far from the truth. It behoves the Liberal Party to say that, but they have been happy to further this confusion.

Those arguing this case are either deliberately trying to mislead the community or simply do not understand the basic economics of the two models. A carbon tax seeks to change behaviour by imposing a price signal without any other legal discipline on the behaviour—in this case, carbon pollution. An emissions trading scheme, on the other hand, changes behaviour through the discipline of a legislative cap on pollution and then lets business work out how to operate. The effective price on a tonne of carbon pollution under an ETS would be only one-quarter—I stress 'one-quarter'—of the current carbon tax. The different paths before us are, on the one hand, an emissions trading scheme and, on the other, the Liberal Party's so-called and fairly vacuous Direct Action policy.

Let us look at some of the history. I mentioned in my second reading contribution the comment the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, once posited:

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

This highlights how ludicrous some of this debate is now. The backflips that have occurred in the positions of coalition members is what is, in fact, ludicrous. Those opposite have done an about-face for political reasons, but the emissions trading scheme model is still recognised as the cheapest and most effective way to tackle climate change.

The Liberal government is trashing Australia's efforts to tackle climate change at exactly the same time as the scientific community is warning that climate change poses a real and serious risk to our precious Australian environment. We are committed to putting a cap on pollution through an emissions trading scheme. An emissions trading scheme was what both major parties committed to back in 2007, when the Liberals accepted the science of climate change. How swiftly things have changed. In July 2009, the now Prime Minister said, 'I am hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science of climate change.' In October 2009, he famously described the science as 'absolute crap'—excuse my language, Mr Temporary Chairman. In March 2010, he said: 'I don't believe that the science is settled.' In March 2011, he suggested:

… whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven.

To suggest that climate scientists have not reached a settled view about global warming is simply misleading.

If these bills are passed unamended, an emissions trading scheme for Australia will disappear. The Prime Minister will truly get his way in throwing the baby out with the bathwater—no legislated cap on carbon pollution and no market mechanism for business to tap into. Labor is willing to cooperate in terminating the carbon tax. The obvious way forward for Australian business and households is for the Prime Minister to swallow his pride and for the parliament to work together on an emissions trading scheme. We have called for this again and again and have been stonewalled completely. This is the point that needs to be highlighted in this debate. This is, indeed, what these amendments will do. These amendments will move us to an emissions trading scheme from July 2014, introducing a cap on the amount of carbon pollution that can be dumped into the atmosphere and allowing business to work out the most effective way of reducing that pollution.

We will join countries such as Germany, France, the UK and other major trading partners, including—and I stress this—China, South Korea and parts of the United States, who have embraced emissions trading to cut carbon pollution. This is no unilateral folly, as I think Senator Cormann was suggesting earlier. The argument that has been pressed publicly by the coalition that Australia stands alone in tackling climate change is simply wrong. It is wrong on two levels. It is factually wrong; it is also wrong in the myth it propagates that has been attached to a scaremongering campaign.

As a rich country with a high level of carbon emissions, we have a responsibility to reduce our pollution output. Labor has already demonstrated the balance of sensible, positive actions necessary to reduce carbon pollution, tackle climate change and protect our environmental resources. The case that has not been made is one for dismantling many of those measures that we know from the debates before the Senate and other sources have been working well and at no or little cost. What is unjustifiable is that many of the measures in this package of bills will dismantle what we know is working, all under the guise of removing the carbon tax.

I will go back and stress the point I made at the outset, which was that, if removing the carbon tax was all that these bills were about, the opposition would be able to join the coalition and support these bills. But of course this is not what this package of bills is about. It is about dismantling even workable measures to further the case that this Prime Minister has consistently propagated, arguing against the science. This is the settled science that tells us we need some significant action. The saddest component of this package of bills is what is not included. We have sought to substitute for that.

But by the same token we should highlight what direct action is not. I earlier described direct action as 'vacuous' because I think that is a fair description of what that policy slogan captures. That we are proceeding with these bills while the Senate is still considering direct action is highly concerning. I know my colleagues and I will have some questions now to highlight to the government our ongoing concern that direct action is simply that—a slogan. It does not replace the measures that these bills will remove. It compromises progress in renewable energy and other measures that have taken place to date. It compromises the consensus that has been built around not only the science but the need to take action.

This government's suggestion that we should proceed in removing the carbon tax without any substantive policy position beyond that is not only irresponsible but dangerous. Simply using slogans like 'direct action' as a substitute for measures that have been introduced, that have started working and that will be trashed if these bills proceed is highly irresponsible. It is very concerning, and I look forward to this committee stage not only to deal with the amendments that I have moved and as I have outlined but also to address what the case will be in their absence. That is the vacuous Direct Action.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to defend the existing emissions trading scheme, which is the law in Australia. What we are now seeing is the logical conclusion to the fundamental mistake made by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I remember this with absolute clarity. It was 24 February 2011 in a 7.30 interview with Heather Ewart. Heather asked the Prime Minister whether she conceded that what had been legislated was a tax. She said:

…I am happy to use the word tax, Heather.

Therein lies the massive problem that has resulted ever since and has led us to this ridiculous position that we are in tonight, where the Labor Party is trying to defend a strategy developed by the next Prime Minister after Julia Gillard—that is, Kevin Rudd.

So Prime Minister Rudd in trying to distance himself from the carbon tax—so-called by the Leader of the Opposition of the day, Tony Abbott—said that he would get rid of the carbon tax and instead bring in an emissions trading scheme. The whole thing is a complete fabrication. From day 1, what has been legislated in Australia is an emissions trading scheme, with a fixed price for three years, moving to a flexible price in 2015. That is what is legislated, that is the law and that is as it stands.

Now, because the former Prime Minister Rudd in an election campaign decided to pretend that there was a carbon tax and conceded what should never have been conceded in the first place, this has now let us into this ridiculous position where we have the Labor Party pretending that what they want to move for is emissions trading. We have the framework. It is the law in Australia. We have an emissions trading scheme. It is due to go to flexible pricing on 1 July 2015 and the first auctions were meant to being held right now. The only reason they have not been is because Labor joined with the coalition and refused to support the Greens' disallowance motion, which would have maintained the scheme as we currently have it.

Let us get it completely on the record from the start of this debate. Far from shifting from a tax—and in basic terms you would have to say that a tax would have to come under the taxing powers in the Constitution, and this legislation does not do that—what we have now is a situation where all Labor is doing with these amendments is bringing forward everything in the emissions trading scheme by one year. That is why these whole amendments are around bringing forward the dates. The overwhelming majority of the document with the amendments circulated is all about bringing everything forward by one year.

That is essentially what it is doing and it is foolish. That is because if you are committed to reducing emissions and if you are serious about understanding the science—that we are on a trajectory for at least four degrees of warming—then the last thing you would want to do is actually bring down the carbon price. Let me put this to you, Mr Chairman: if the European price was currently $50 a tonne, would Labor be now moving to bring forward flexible pricing by 12 months? The answer is 'no'. Would GE have been out today, talking about flexible pricing? No, they would not. The only reason that anybody is talking about bringing forward flexible pricing is because of the low price in the European Union.

The reason we went to linking the Australian emissions trading scheme with the European Union was because Rob Oakeshott, in the former parliament, would not agree to the amendments that would have guaranteed the floor price. He reneged on that part of the deal. So the upshot of that was that we had to move forward with the linkage to the EU, always on the understanding that the EU price would recover. At that time the EU was moving to backload the emissions permits, because they had an overallocation of permits. The EU was supposed to be taking out large numbers of permits to backload the auction scheme so that it would increase the price, so that by 2015 we would see a recovery of the European price such that there would not be significant dislocation in Australia in going from the $23, $24 and $25 price and then to the flexible pricing with the EU.

As it turned out, the European price has collapsed, but I am pleased to say that on 24 February this year the council gave the green light to the European commission on regulation concerning allowances to be auctioned between 2013 to 2020. It has agreed that 900 million allowances in the third trading period of the EU's emission trading scheme would be able to be backloaded. So the European Union has made that decision.

But if you were actually serious about carbon pricing—driving the transition to the low-carbon economy, making sure you did not get dislocation in Australia and making sure that we stepped up our efforts with the level of ambition that is required—there is no way that you would be seeking to bring forward a flexible price just so you can drop the price in Australia. You would not be doing that if you were serious about the climate. But, quite obviously, this is not a serious addressing of the climate crisis; it is simply a political manoeuvre that started on that fateful night on 24 February 2011, when former Prime Minister Gillard conceded that a carbon price was a carbon tax. That led Minister Rudd to his position, and that has led to the Labor Party position here tonight—and the whole thing is a nonsense. We have a perfectly good framework for emissions trading. We have a well-considered progress towards flexible pricing, and I stand by that.

Secondly, we had set up the Climate Change Authority to in order to determine what the appropriate emissions reductions target for Australia should be. I tested this today in the second reading debate, where I put the Climate Change Authority's trajectory into an amendment saying we should be adopting a target for 2013 of 40 to 60 per cent below 2000 levels—and Labor voted it down. And nothing in Labor's amendment tells you what target they are adopting for the scheme. Yes, they are saying they want to go to flexible pricing on 1 July this year—but what is the cap? Why have we not got an amendment that tells us what Labor's cap is? It is because they are happy with a five per cent default cap. They are not moving to implement the Climate Change Authority's cap. Just a few weeks ago, Labor came out saying that the 2020 target should be 19 per cent below 2000 levels and that the 2030 target should be the 40 to 60 per cent trajectory. If Labor were genuine about this, they would have moved to amend the cap. They have not done that. They have simply said it has to be taken into account. But the way the Labor amendment is worded means that we would end up with the default cap being five per cent. What we have here is not a serious attempt to do anything other than save face from a series of disasters of Labor prime ministers who have not understood either the challenge or the emissions trading scheme and how it would actually work.

That is why the Greens are not going to support these amendments. We think the scheme as it is currently designed—which goes to flexible pricing on 1 July 2015—is the way to go. That is why we moved to disallow getting rid of the auctions which would have allowed business to start preparing for that transition. That is why we put up an amendment today to incorporate the 40 to 60 per cent reduction by 2030 in the legislation so that the serious effort to reduce emissions is legislated as part of the cap. But we are not seeing that from the Labor Party. This is very little more than a stunt. Apart from anything else, even if the Labor amendment were to be passed in the Senate, it would be rejected in the House of Representatives. This is not a serious effort to address the climate crisis.

I would like to go back to first principles: we are on a trajectory of four degrees or more of warming. We are living in a climate emergency. Every scientific report—and they are coming out regularly—is saying the same thing: in Australia, there will be more extreme weather events, more intensity in those events and more people dying. There is a greater likelihood of the spread of diseases like dengue further into Queensland and even into New South Wales. We are hearing reports of the coral reefs dying. We are seeing every kind of scenario that has been predicted by scientists for a long time, in terms of the impacts of global warming, actually happening and being recorded—and yet we have denialism from the government, and we have a failure by the Labor Party to recognise the seriousness of the climate crisis and a failure to build that into the targets.

I would put to the Labor Party as it moves these amendments: why have you not put a cap in the legislation? What is the cap you are proposing for when you want to go to flexible pricing on 1 July this year? And why do you want to drop the price? If you are serious about the transition to the low-carbon economy, why would you not delay moving to flexible pricing until we get a recovery in the European price so that we would see less dislocation in the Australian economy? It seems to me that what we have here is just a playing out of an election scenario from the former Prime Minister.

I also want to go to this idea that it is a logical consequence of the election that, post the change of the Senate on 1 July, carbon pricing will automatically be going—that is not a foregone conclusion at all. People in Western Australia are going to have something to say about that on 5 April. But, apart from anything else, nobody in this Senate can possibly be looking at the abolition of carbon pricing without looking at what is being proposed to take its place. Nobody has said that the Direct Action Plan proposed by the government is anything other than a joke. We have Ken Henry, Bernie Fraser, Ross Garnaut all out there saying, 'Direct Action cannot be scaled up' and 'Direct Action is a joke in an economic framework'. Why would you be abandon the polluter pays principle and instead tax the Australian people in order to pay polluters? That makes no sense whatsoever. There is not a single economist who is out there saying (a) that it will work or (b) that it can be scaled up. How are you going to implement Direct Action for a 40 to 60 per cent reduction in emissions on 2000 levels by 2030? It is impossible. It is a vast amount. We are talking billions in the budget context. It makes zero sense to go down this path—so I would not be making an automatic assumption that people landing here in the Senate on 1 July are going to be condemning Australian taxpayers to the kind of impost that Direct Action is going to mean. And there are others who are already here in the Senate saying that, whilst they do not support the existing trading scheme, they are not going to vote for something which is inferior. Frankly, what is on the table is inferior.

I challenge the automatic assumption that carbon pricing is going. I will do everything in my power to maintain the existing carbon-price mechanism. We have an emissions trading scheme. It is legislated. It is the law. I will do everything in my power to maintain it. These foolish games only undermine public confidence in the scheme which we have already worked through and legislated. I am not going to stand by and let that happen.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is direct action? There are lots and lots of questions about this, and I am concerned that the coalition government has no intention of ensuring that Australia meets our internationally committed target of a five per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020. Our climate policies must be capable of achieving Australia's maximum internationally committed targets of up to 25 per cent reductions by 2020. Notably, a failure to demonstrate a credible plan weakens our ability to play a constructive role in the new agreement that will cover all major emitters from 2020. Australia's existing policies give certainty in this regard.

The key feature of the existing carbon-pricing legislation ensures that Australia can meet its targets and stronger post-2020 targets if it chooses to do so. Australia's existing carbon reduction policy suite has a greater capacity to meet our current and future targets because it features a legally binding cap on emissions. These features are the ability to set legally binding annual caps on carbon emissions and for liable entities to access international carbon permits to comply with these caps. These features provide confidence that Australia's carbon policy framework is sufficiently robust to manage the risks and uncertainty of future emissions drivers at reasonable cost. These features also allow significant flexibility. The government can choose to adjust Australia's emissions trajectory through the caps, or companies can choose within certain limits how best to fulfil their obligations, whether by reducing their emissions, by producing domestic and international permits or by a combination thereof. Meanwhile, direct action has no commitment to targets beyond 2020 and there is uncertainty within the policy about how it can even achieve these 2020 targets.

The government is currently yet to demonstrate that its alternative policy can achieve Australia's minimum commitments, and all independent analysis to date indicates that emissions will continue to increase under its current proposed framework. The coalition government's lack of long-term funding commitments under direct action further confirms Labor's view that the coalition government has no long-term commitment to meaningful action to address climate change. Mr Anthony Wood from the Grattan Institute, in evidence before the committee that I participated in, highlighted how direct action can have no longevity as a policy without further significant budget appropriations. Mr Wood said:

My understanding from every conversation I have had with the senior representatives of the government is that direct action has been targeted directly to achieve the five per cent target by 2020. That is shorthand obviously. Many have criticised whether it might even to that but just focusing on your question there is fundamentally no reason why the emissions reduction fund, which is the centrepiece of direct action, could not be expanded but because it is funded on budget, which is by its very nature of the instrument different from an emissions trading scheme or of renewable energy target, it would require additional budget appropriations in future times to be able to achieve that outcome.

The source of funding for the direct action policy was raised as a concern by the Australian Council of Social Services. Its submission to the committee highlighted that there is no benefit for low-income Australians from one year of reduced power prices if the direct action policy is funded by reducing programs on which these people rely. This has been the centrepiece and one of the main points that the government has relied on in trying to trash this program. Of course, programs that low-income Australians rely upon are right in the coalition's sights, with moves already to scrap the income support payment, schoolkids bonus and low-income super contribution.

A 2010 Auditor-General's report into the administration of climate change programs raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of a direct action policy:

The Emissions Reduction Fund is a grant/tender scheme similar in structure to several previously implemented in Australia.

The 2010 Administration of Climate Change Programs report of the Auditor-General evaluates the success of a range of programs aimed at reducing Australian greenhouse gas pollution. The assessed greenhouse gas pollution reduction policy that most closely resembles the ERF was the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program. The Auditor-General’s finding was that the actual abatement achieved by the GGAP program was substantially less than originally planned, with only 30 per cent of planned emissions abatement being achieved.

This underperformance was partly due to delays in finalising funding agreements, but also because of the termination of 40 per cent of funded projects—largely due to organisations bidding with unsustainably low quotes for pollution reduction, before abandoning projects when costs were higher than anticipated. The OECD considers that capital subsidies, as per the direct action policy, were among the most expensive ways of reducing emissions. The CEO of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Mr Oliver Yates, in evidence to the committee highlighted concerns with financing emissions reduction programs with grants rather than loans:

Our experience is that providing people with debt creates discipline and ensures that the person who is borrowing from the state uses that money carefully. Our own view is that, if you are given money for taking an action, you are less likely to be as cautious as you would be if you were borrowing the money to achieve that outcome.

That evidence highlights the major concern that the coalition is not serious about reducing Australia's carbon emissions. The direct action policy has no guarantees of funding and no guarantees of reducing emissions. The Australian Conservation Foundation said:

If it passes into law, the Clean Energy Act Repeal Bill will remove Australia’s legislated cap on pollution. Government has indicated the—

replacement—

Emissions Reduction Fund scheme will have no legislated cap on pollution, nor any mechanism … to ensure that Australia’s pollution reduction targets are satisfied. Government has also committed to capping spending on the ERF scheme.

The Senate inquiry also made clear that the coalition government has no clear policy rationale or evidence base to support its direct action policy. The policy is being developed in the absence of economic modelling. This was made clear by both officials from the Treasury and the Department of the Environment during hearings of the inquiry.

I understand that Treasury has previously done extensive work examining emissions trading schemes but has done no work under this government looking at direct action. Previous work done by Treasury supported emissions trading as the most efficient policy framework for Australia, over and above that of direct action policies.

So my question to the parliamentary secretary is: what is the direct action? What is the government's direct action replacing, given that you will not consider the Labor Party's view on the ETS?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought the filibuster was going to continue there and I have little doubt that it will. I was going to respond to the amendment, previously moved by Senator Collins, so I will touch on that amendment now.

The amendment before the committee stage of the chamber really demonstrates the lie of the Labor Party's position on the carbon tax and the lie they took to the last election. One lie is: what they are now proposing through this legislation is what they claimed to have done at the time of the last election.

The Labor Party ran around Australia at the last election, saying, 'We have abolished the carbon tax.' But they never brought legislation, reflecting the amendments they seek to introduce today, into this parliament. It was a complete and utter lie that they took to the election.

That is but a small point in the general debate around the carbon tax. Labor are attempting to play semantics with the Australian public and attempting to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes. Frankly, they cannot, have not and will not succeed on this. People know full well that the carbon tax is exactly what Labor put in place. It was a scheme that ran well out into the future. It does not matter that they might be proposing and might have come up with, under Mr Rudd, some crafty little scheme to tweak—and that is all this amendment does—by one year what they had put in place, because the Australian people voted emphatically and deliberately against the carbon tax.

This amendment does not get rid of the carbon tax. It changes the terms of its application by one year. It changes the legislation that the Labor government brought in under a lie at the 2010 election, when they promised not to have a carbon tax. It brings in one year's worth of changes. That is all it does.

There will still be a carbon tax if this amendment were to carry through and become law. There would still have been a carbon tax if the Labor Party had got their way at the last election. Our government went to the last election with a very clear position, crystal clear: that we would repeal the carbon tax lock, stock and barrel, fixed or floating. No ifs, no buts—we would repeal the whole show. That is exactly what the legislation before the Senate does and exactly what the Labor Party promised or tried to make the Australian people believe that they would do. It shows that that was a lie and that they were only ever interested in tweaking it. It also shows that they remain committed to having a carbon tax forever into the future.

In the future—in Western Australia shortly—at the next general election and beyond, the Labor Party will have to explain yet again why it is that they still stand by this policy of a carbon tax. More than 1½ million Australians voted for the coalition than the Labor Party at last year's election. That should have sent a very clear message to those opposite. But, clearly, it did not.

Rather than accepting that the prime focus of the coalition's campaign, the abolition of the carbon tax, was overwhelmingly accepted, they instead slink into this chamber and propose these tricky little amendments that do not repeal the carbon tax but just simply seek to rebadge it.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Slink!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not into word games, Senator Collins.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, you will ignore the interjections.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not into word games; we are into doing what we were elected to do and what we promised we would do. And what we promised we would do is abolish the carbon tax lock, stock and barrel.

The amazing thing about these amendments is that they are not even complete. The amendments before the Senate do not even deal with all aspects of the fixed-price period of the carbon tax. So whilst Labor proposes taking the fixed-price component away for some parts of the carbon tax application, these amendments in fact do not deal with the impact on synthetic greenhouse gases. They do not terminate the carbon tax in fuels and synthetic greenhouse gases. If Labor's amendments were carried through to become law, we would have an even more perverse circumstance where some parts of the economy would have a floating or variable carbon tax and other parts of the economy would have, after 1 July this year, a fixed $25.40 per tonne carbon tax equivalent. That is how much thought and work Labor have put into the policies which they went to the last election on, claiming they had already enacted. They cannot now even bring in amendments that make sense or apply consistently.

What is more, by shifting to the variable price and claiming, as Senator Collins does, that this is all about putting a legislative cap in place, Labor come into the Senate without even proposing what that cap would be. So they expect to have a capped emissions trading scheme carbon tax in place on 1 July this year, under their legislation, but they do not have the guts or the courage to tell the Australian people, Australian businesses or Australian industries just what that cap would be. It is shoddy legislation that the opposition is proposing. These are shoddily drafted amendments, and of course they do nothing about getting rid of the carbon tax. They are simply a sneaky, tricky way of attempting to rename it. That is not what this government will accept. We know that only through abolishing the carbon tax will we be able to remove the impost on Australians, on Australian businesses and on Australia's competitiveness overseas. In terms of revenue for this financial year, about $7.6 billion is generated through the sale of permits, through the tax on aviation and non-transport fuels and through all of the different aspects of the carbon tax that are applied to around 75,000 Australian businesses. That $7.6 billion is stripped out of their business competitiveness and passed on to Australian households to have to foot the bill.

Labor want to pretend that they can end all of that pain through these amendments, that they can end all of that pain by going to a variable carbon price. But that is just not true, because the Treasury modelling undertaken by the government—when the Labor Party were in power—demonstrated that the carbon tax under Labor's model of a variable price would grow not just to $25, as the fixed price is forecast to go to next year, but all the way to $38 per tonne by 2020. So the lie that Labor have proposed tonight is that, if this amendment were to succeed and become law, they would not be scrapping the carbon tax; they would simply have a scheme in place whereby the carbon tax would be even higher by 2020 than it is today. The carbon tax would be $38 per tonne by 2020 compared with where it is today.

Senator Collins comes in here with her tricky little amendment, which she pretends is getting rid of the carbon tax. But, in reality, if this amendment were to go through, the carbon tax would keep going up and up and up, just as it was forecast to do under the government which Senator Collins was a member of. Ultimately, we will see far more than that $7.6 billion per annum paid by Australian businesses. We will instead see $8 billion, $9 billion or $10 billion. It will keep going up and up by a billion dollars every single year and it will be paid for by Australian businesses. It would be irresponsible for this chamber to do; and it would be irresponsible for a government like ours, which campaigned very clearly to get rid of the carbon tax, to do.

This is also a remarkable act of inconsistency by the Labor Party. In the last week of the previous sitting, the Labor Party came in here and supported the government in abolishing scheduled auctions in relation to the carbon tax. There were future auctions scheduled for the floating-price period of the carbon tax. The Labor Party supported us in abolishing those auctions. Yet, tonight, in the following sitting week, they come in and propose amendments to try to have a floating carbon tax that would require auctions. What are you? Are you for auctions or against auctions? You voted against them a couple of weeks ago, and tonight you are moving amendments to keep them—and you are not even moving complete amendments in that regard.

The government rejects these amendments outright. During the committee stage we will not be playing the Labor Party's game of having speaker after speaker on this matter. I can see them all lined up over there. They will all read, as we saw Senator Urquhart do just before, a 15-minute prepared statement. It will be like another second reading stage that will go on and on, as long as the Labor Party choose to play this little game. We will not play it. I will not be having much more to say in this debate, and I am sure that other members of the government will not either, because we want to get on with repealing the carbon tax as we promised to do, as the electorate voted for and as the Australian people endorsed us to do at the last election. I invite those opposite to have the courage to actually let this matter come to a vote some time soon.

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

I have a number of questions that I would like to put to the 'Dorian Gray of climate change', the parliamentary secretary, who we know previously supported an emissions trading scheme but has obviously been rolled into supporting what nearly everyone in this country believes to be a dud of a policy, and that is Direct Action. I have a couple of questions, but I think it is important to point out that Senator Birmingham, in his response, did not answer any of the questions that have been put to him.

He may want to say that people are filibustering but the senators in here have put relevant questions to the parliamentary secretary, and what he did in his contribution of 10 or so minutes was just to again slur the opposition. This is the MO of the government. This is what they do. They do not have robust policies. They use one-liners or they embark on personal attacks. That is what we see here tonight.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman Fawcett, on relevance: Senator Brown is supposed to be posing questions to the minister about the legislation that is before the chamber, speaking to the amendment or making a contribution relevant to the debate. She can take her pick of those three, but at the moment she is doing none of those.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. It has been a broad-ranging debate on both sides.

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

I think at the outset I said that I would be posing a number of questions to the parliamentary secretary—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll believe it when we see it.

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

Or hear it! Whatever. But I think it is important, given the parliamentary secretary's contribution or response—or nonresponse, in this case—to again put on record the Labor Party's position because it is—

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

I will ask you a number of questions, Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Brown, just resume your seat; you will address your remarks through the chair, and senators on both sides of the chamber will remember that under standing order 197, regardless of the fact that you may disagree with the person speaking, they have the right to be heard in silence.

I appreciate that and I will try to ignore the parliamentary secretary. One of the things I wanted to ask about was the Emissions Reduction Fund and a number of other initiatives that are planned under the Direct Action Plan. But, as I said, I think it is also very important, given some of the comments by the parliamentary secretary, to restate the Labor Party's position. We have been very clear about our position on climate change. We accept the science of climate change and we believe that something needs to be done and that something real has to be done. I personally think that the parliamentary secretary agrees with that as well.

The Labor Party believe that the most cost-efficient 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 most effective way to reduce emissions while encouraging business. Labor accept the science and the fact that we cannot afford to leave the challenge of climate change to future generations. We know that climate change is real and that something must be done—and, as many of the contributions that have been made here tonight and on other days in this debate have said, it has to be meaningful action. It is a simple, basic logic. It is a logic that we must listen to in the interests of our children, their children and future generations of Australia and of all countries around the world.

If the government continues down this path and has its way in terms of the Direct Action Plan, history will not be kind to it. It is a government that will look foolish for ignoring the science. It is a government that has ignored the biggest problem of this century because it has lacked the courage to tackle the real issues.

Carbon pollution changes our weather and harms our environment. That is the best available science that we have. The experts agree. All the reputable scientists say it is a fact that the climate is changing and humans are accelerating that change. That is why governments from all around the world are taking action, meaningful action—and that included the previous Labor government. Labor argue 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 would be proud to be able to look back on this period of history and see that Australia made a difference. Instead, they are likely to read about an isolationist Australian government that shrugged its shoulders, paid a bit of lip-service, tore up a policy that was making meaningful change and established a slush fund of billions of taxpayer dollars to hand to polluters.

The coalition, as we have heard, want to replace the clean energy laws with this dud of a policy, Direct Action, that nobody with any economic or environmental credibility thinks will work. As I have indicated, they want to—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman Fawcett, on a point of order on relevance: this is not a contribution to the debate. This is just tedious repetition and filibustering, and I think is very important that those who may be listening to these proceedings know that those opposite are making no attempt to make a constructive contribution to this debate. They are simply seeking to fill time for the sake of filling time and to delay this legislation, this package of bills, coming to a vote.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Brown, I do draw your attention to the question before the chair, which relates to opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7443.

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

I understand the amendments that are before the chamber—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, mention them!

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

but I also would like to—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Provide context?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order!

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

point out that—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't put words in her mouth!

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

I am responding in part to the parliamentary secretary's—

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Brown, please resume your seat. I again remind senators on my left and my right that Senator Brown has the right to be heard in silence.

As I was saying, I was responding in part to the parliamentary secretary's contribution, and I think that is also my role—that I should be able to respond to the parliamentary secretary's nonresponse to questions that have been asked by the opposition. He went into very little detail. So, if I may, I will continue. I will of course get to a number of questions that I would like the parliamentary secretary to answer.

What I think is important to understand, though, is that the policy the coalition is seeking to replace the current law with is a dud of a policy. There are many reputable, highly credible scientists and economists who do not support their policy—people whom the government would normally take notice of. No less an authority than Mr Alan Kohler sums it up by saying:

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 parliamentary secretary to respond to that assertion while responding to the other questions he has so far failed to respond to in this debate. I also ask the parliamentary secretary when we can expect to see the release of the white paper on the Emissions Reduction Fund.

Mr Kohler went on to say:

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

According, therefore, to one of the most respected economic voices in Australia, there is no chance of meeting the minimum target under the Direct Action Plan. Mr Kohler also says:

… 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 …

He further suggests:

… 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.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to respond to those points made by Alan Kohler.

I have a further question to put to the parliamentary secretary. In doing so, I also seek more information about the Emissions Reduction Fund. My understanding is that the coalition's approach to reducing carbon pollution is focused on the creation of the $2.9 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, which will pay Australian companies to reduce pollution. Labor's focus, in contrast, was to cap the amount of pollution permitted to enter the atmosphere and to have a system allowing businesses to find the cheapest way to reduce their pollution. The coalition's policy is to use taxpayers' money to pay big polluters.

My understanding is that there has been independent research and modelling undertaken by Monash University's Centre of Policy Studies. Their study showed that the ERF will see pollution increase by eight per cent to 10 per cent above 2000 levels by 2020, will reduce pollution by nearly one-third less than Labor's policy and will require significant additional investment of between $4 billion and $15 billion to achieve the 2020 target of a five per cent reduction on 2000 levels. I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary's views on those findings.

The same research and modelling says that costs and pollution both increase over time under the coalition policy. Even with spending increasing, over the period from 2014 to 2050, to about $88 billion dollars, pollution was still estimated to rise by 45 per cent over this time frame. Up to 2020, the cumulative effective subsidy to businesses that do not make changes to their pollution was estimated at $50 billion.

A final question I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to relates to the 20 million trees initiative. Can the parliamentary secretary provide more information about the 20 million trees initiative? For example, can he tell us where these trees will be planted, when the program will be rolled out, how much is budgeted for it and how much abatement is expected from the 20 million trees? I have also been asked by a number of constituents whether the Green Army will be involved in the 20 million trees initiative.

Senator Fifield interjecting—

I would have thought that these questions would have been something that Senator Fifield would like to respond to. It is, after all, an initiative of his government. I know they are not much on letting out information but, considering they have brought this legislation to the Senate here today, I think they should have been prepared to answer some very basic questions, and I am sure that Australians around the country would be very interested to hear those responses.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will keep my responses brief, as I promised. For Senator Brown's interest, I will quote from the green paper released on the Emissions Reduction Fund:

The latest estimates of Australia’s future greenhouse gas emissions reflected in Australia’s Abatement Task and 2013 Emissions Projections confirm that on current trends, Australia faces a cumulative emissions reduction task of around 431 MtCO2-e from 2014 to 2020 …

This is significantly less than the coalition built its Direct Action policy on, and we are confident we will be able to deliver on the funding for the Emissions Reduction Fund. I reject outright the assertions made in some of the statements that Senator Brown was relating, some of which she attempted to relate to Mr Kohler. He can speak for himself. The coalition built a budget which we stand by and which we believe will achieve the abatement challenge required, which is now less then when we originally developed that budget.

The white paper will be released in due course, in the coming weeks or so I would anticipate, but it is going through the proper processes. However, we are committed to the Emissions Reduction Fund being ready to commence next year, and that means progressing through that white paper process relatively quickly. The 20 Million Trees program guidelines will properly be developed around that, unlike Senator Brown's government, which asked for the full costings proposal of the home insulation program in two days, it was revealed in the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program today. We will go through the proper process, and I expect you will hear more about that in the budget context.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part of the government's so-called plan to tackle climate change deals with solar roofs, solar schools and solar town programs. On the face of it, you would think that the opposition would be supportive of the government's plan in that vein, because it was the former Labor government that was very innovative in its reforms around solar energy and the way in which solar power was encouraged and induced through its reforms and programs as part of the package of clean energy bills that went forward. Of course Labor supports solar energy. It supports solar power promoted through the use of small- and large-scale solar PV installation through a range of means, including the renewable energy target, which has, until now, had bipartisan support. I remember that Senator Birmingham was supportive of the renewable energy target, which had both small- and large-scale subtargets as well. We had the support of the then opposition for that particular part of the former Labor government's clean energy package, but unfortunately that is no longer the case. In relation to solar energy, which my questioning is about—which I will get to, Senator Birmingham—another component was to do with ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which also provides funding for new technologies and projects that provide large-scale—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. To assist Senator Singh, it might be helpful if she knew that amendment (7), yet to be moved and not before the chair at this stage, is the opposition amendment that deals with ARENA.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order, Senator Collins! Senator Singh, you have the call—

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To give some context, I will just outline the fact that ARENA is relevant to this part of the committee stage because we are talking about renewable energy. My question to you, Senator Birmingham, is about your particular solar roofs program. So we are certainly talking about renewable energy, and ARENA is certainly a part of renewable energy, which this particular part of the committee stage is about. ARENA has played an incredible role when it comes to renewable energy. If there is one thing you would think we would still have some bipartisan support on, it would be in the renewable energy space. You would think that this government would still be supportive of ARENA but, no, we know that Senator Birmingham is very uncomfortable with any other senator in this place raising issues about the government's handling of ARENA, because we know that recently, in the MYEFO, there was a huge cut to ARENA of $450 million.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Singh, I will just draw your attention to the fact that the question before the chair is opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7443.

Thank you, Chair. I am very well aware of that.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senators Collins, Birmingham and Fifield, I remind you that it is disorderly for you to interject.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. My questioning is in regard to the Million Solar Roofs program that this government has as part of its program that it has put forward. I am trying to give some context and to understand where the government is coming from with this solar roofs program. I was raising ARENA as part of that because the Australian Renewable Energy Agency is an agency that provides funding for new technologies, like solar projects. In fact, there were some 70 different projects in an array of different types of solar energy technology developments which I think is available on their website. It shows very much the way in which ARENA plays an active role in ensuring solar energy is part of the mix of renewable energies, which I think this government would be interested in because, in its Direct Action Plan, it has outlined that solar energy is part of that. It has outlined a solar roofs program. That is what I want to get to in this particular component of the committee stage.

I raised ARENA because I am concerned that nearly $450 million has been cut from it in MYEFO. What I want to know is: where is the funding going to come from for these programs that are being raised by the government in relation to its One Million Solar Roofs program? On the one hand, they want solar energy for renewal energy, and on the face of it that does sound positive for the country—a One Million Solar Roofs program sounds like a good thing; but, on the other hand, they have cut from it in MYEFO which is going to have a detrimental effect on how that program can be rolled out.

The public want to know, the opposition want to know, if the government is genuine in putting forward these bills in the area of renewal energy, particularly this solar roofs program. In contrast, I know what the expenditure was when we were in government, when the Labor government introduced its clean energy bills. I know the incredible investment that was made in ARENA that ensured ARENA could provide solar energy across the country and which led to so many incredible solar energy projects. I could list 70 from right across the country but I do not have the time.

If this government is genuine, it will explain how it can ensure its One Million Solar Roofs program will be rolled out when there has been a cut to MYEFO. On top of that, I would like to know if low-income households will be targeted at all, and exactly how the solar roofs program will be rolled out. Will there be some kind of copayment arrangement with the solar roofs program or will it just be a straight subsidy from government? How much abatement is expected from the program? One would expect there would be some analysis going on to see how the One Million Solar Roofs program could have some positive impact on abatement. Also, where will funding for the solar towns program come from? Again, it sounds like a good thing, a solar towns program, but where is that funding going to come from? This is especially when, I understand, there could be regional towns, suburbs and local government areas. It is not clear.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman Fawcett, on a point of order: I ask you to again draw Senator Singh's attention to the question before the chair. We have been incredibly tolerant about the length of time taken, but not a single question, comment or otherwise from Senator Singh has related to the question before the chair or, frankly, even the legislation before the chamber.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman Fawcett, on the point of order: Senator Birmingham needs to be appraised of the advice that was provided to the opposition on this matter in terms of how we proceeded with the amendments. The first set of amendments—and indeed we would have been happy to remove them as a whole—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry you couldn't adjust your tactics!

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not an adjustment of tactics, Senator Birmingham—in fact, your whole manner and demeanour does you no credit this evening.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Collins, you will address your remarks through the chair.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address my remarks through the chair. Chairman, to sit in this chamber—and I will respond later—and be accused of having no guts, no courage, to be slinking around, to be sneaky, tricky—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Collins, you will come to the point of order.

I will come to the point of order—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure you can slink with the best!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order, Senator Fifield!

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because, aside from Senator Birmingham's poor parliamentary behaviour, he needs to understand that in this committee stage of the debate we are dealing with the first set of questions—which are moved in one set because of the way in which the question is cast. The remainder of the questions will be on the motion that matters in the bill stand as printed. The advice the opposition received from the Clerk was that senators could raise and move through issues throughout all of the amendments. If you want to challenge that advice, Mr Temporary Chairman Fawcett, that is all well and good. But for Senator Birmingham to be making cheap, snide remarks about how senators are addressing a routine—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Collins, you have made your point; you will resume your seat. Senator Singh, you have six minutes and 36 seconds remaining.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been on my feet now for a good eight minutes, so for Senator Birmingham to now say that what I have been addressing, the questions that I have been raising, are not pertinent to his sense of what is compatible with this section of the bill is a little bit late, quite frankly. But he knows very well my line of questioning. I have been talking now for some eight minutes about solar energy. I have been talking specifically about the government's One Million Solar Roofs program and where the funding for that program is going to come from. You would think that in the last eight minutes he would have started to think about how he is going to respond to some of these questions, when in the next five minutes he will get the opportunity to do so.

To make points of order, pretending he has no idea what is going on and that I am in some other world with regard to this section of the bill, is a little bit ordinary, quite frankly. That is especially the case because, having been on the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications with him for the last 18 months or so, I know that he is quite engaged in this portfolio. I think I am right in saying that he is actually quite passionate about renewable energy and about the area of climate change—as opposed, perhaps, to some of his colleagues in the government. Senator Birmingham actually understands this issue and is on the record as being supportive of an emissions trading scheme. At that time he was adamant that that was the way that his party room was going to move. In fact, he said that they were going to do it better than the then Rudd government. But now they are not going to do it at all. They are going to introduce a direct action scheme and pretend that they never even imagined the emissions trading scheme.

It is on the record that Senator Birmingham was very much supportive of an emissions scheme but we will let that aside. Hopefully, Senator Birmingham will listen to my questioning in relation to the bill that is before us—that is, my questions in relation to solar roofs, solar schools and solar towns programs. Specifically, my questions are: where will the funding for the one million solar roofs program come from? Will low-income households be specifically targeted in a program of that sort? Will there be some kind of co-payment arrangement for households? How much abatement is expected from such a program?

Also, where will funding for the solar towns program come from? There is a solar roofs program, I understand, but there is also a solar towns program. Will there be regional towns? Will there be suburbs or local government areas in regional areas? Also, how much abatement is expected from that program?

There are the solar roofs program and the solar towns program. My final questions are in relation to where the funding for the solar schools program will come from. I am specifically interested in the solar schools program because that is an area I am very familiar with, having understood the over-$217 million investment that the last Labor government made in providing 5,310 schools to install renewable energy systems, rainwater tanks and a range of energy efficient measures into their schools.

Where will that funding for the solar schools program come from? Will it go exclusively to public schools or will it go to schools in low socio-economic status areas? How will it be determined which schools will get that funding? Like the questions in relation to the solar roofs program and the solar towns program, how much abatement is expected from the program?

I have been talking about three programs. I am sure that Senator Birmingham is very aware of the three programs that are part of his government's package. I am sure he is able to answer these three questions in great detail. I know he has great interest in this area, having been a supporter of the emissions trading scheme, and that he is, therefore, aware of all of the benefits that renewable energy provides by encouraging changes in behaviour—which is what occurs through an emissions trading scheme.

I will finish my remarks by highlighting that I, too, am interested in and passionate about renewable energy. I think it is the way of the future. I think that it is something that the opposition and the government could have some bipartisan agreement on. Where we differ is probably on how it is delivered and, certainly, on how it is funded. Cutting $450 million in MYEFO from ARENA is certainly going to leave the government very short in being able to deliver these three programs. So I will be very interested to hear from Senator Birmingham exactly how this is going to occur.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to ask a question about the amendment that is before the Senate. In particular, I am referring to amendment (3), subsection 8:

After paragraph 14(2)(b)

  Insert:

  (ba) if the regulations declare the carbon pollution cap, and the carbon pollution cap number, for the flexible charge year beginning on 1 July 2014—must have regard to any report that:

     (i) was given to the Minister by the Climate Change Authority under section 60 of the Climate Change Authority Act 2011; and

      (ii) dealt with the carbon pollution cap for that year …

Labor is moving to bring forward the flexible-pricing period. That is what this amendment does. This amendment means that the regulations need to be in place by 31 May 2014. It is now 17 March. That means, according to the Labor Party's amendment, we will be going to flexible pricing in 3½ months, with the regulations having to be tabled in a matter of 2½ months, maximum. So I put to the Labor Party: given that the Climate Change Authority has now made its recommendations to government about the target, and that the recommendation is a 15-plus-four reduction on 2000 levels—that is, 19 per cent by 2020—with a trajectory of 40 to 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2030, what is the cap that the Labor Party is proposing? Since they are saying the Climate Change Authority report must be taken into account, what is the cap that the Labor Party is proposing with this amendment, that they would expect to be introduced on or by 1 July 2014 with regulations in place by 31May?

I put this question very clearly because the way the amendment is written—I asked this question before and did not get an answer, so I am asking it again—it assumes a default of five per cent. It does not take into account or implement the Climate Change Authority's recommendations as released in its report a few weeks ago. This goes to the crux of why we actually have a fixed price period leading to a flexible price. If people cast their minds back, the Labor Party and the Greens could not agree on the emissions reduction target in Prime Minister Rudd's first attempt to introduce an emissions trading scheme. The cap that he proposed was a five per cent emissions reduction target on 2000 levels by 2020, when all of the science said that was woefully inadequate. In fact, at the Bali UNFCCC conference, the Bali Road Map was a 25 to 40 per cent reduction by developed countries by 2020 to enable developing countries to have a window of opportunity. That was the Bali Road Map. The Greens supported the Bali Road Map. We said it had to be a minimum of 25 per cent, and that was back in 2007.

Seven years later, the climate science is far more settled, but it is far worse. We are now on a trajectory of at least four degrees, if not more, in a climate emergency. Clearly, five per cent is woefully inadequate. When the clean energy package was designed, five per cent was a default. It was not an acceptance that five per cent was adequate. It was to protect from the fact that, if the Climate Change Authority made a recommendation to the parliament to have a certain target and the parliament rejected that target, the scheme would not stop. It would continue with a default of five per cent until the parliament determined what the cap would be. That is why there is a default in the scheme—not that anyone expected the default to be effective but, rather, that the default would enable the scheme to continue.

I put the question very clearly to the Labor Party: given that you want to go to flexible pricing starting 1 July 2014, what is the cap you are proposing under this amendment?

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to my rising, one of the opposition senators was seeking a response on solar changes—solar roofs, Solar Schools and solar town programs. I am equally seeking some responses from Senator Birmingham with respect to the questions that were put to him on those particular issues. It is good to be in the chamber with two fellow senators from the Sunshine State that I think understand and appreciate the importance of solar powered energy. I can use one example: Chinchilla. When we were in government, in the state of Queensland we had a program with one of the largest solar powered energy areas in the town of Chinchilla, west of our capital, Brisbane, which has been canned by the Liberal-National Party in Queensland as a result of the inadequate position they take on climate change and solar powered energy.

I would like some response on how the modelling has been arranged with regard to selecting those particular towns for solar town programs. Is it going to be a case of some sort of cooperative, some sort of tripartisan arrangement with local councils, given that there are broad ranges of regional councils in Western Queensland? What is the arrangement that they will be successful in through the modelling? Would it be a tendering process or a case of granting an area that is considered relevant, subject to reaching solar powered arrangements through our far and great western areas of Queensland? Regarding the Solar Schools program, I would like some feedback and some answers on how the modelling is going to be conducted on the selection of schools, given that the state LNP government is now selling schools in Queensland as a result of their cuts in order to balance the books in Queensland. I would like some responses around those particular areas.

I would also like a response on funding and the selection of socioeconomic status areas. Is it going to be the case that we are going to examine areas such as parts of Logan? Are we going to look at housing commission areas? What is the criteria in the selection process with regard to particular areas of low socioeconomic status? Is it going to be a case of examining the wages of families in those areas? Is that the modelling that will be applied or are there other measures with respect to how those places are going to be selected?

Also, I would like some guarantees around how the sustainability of solar power will be continued with respect to the likes of the example I gave earlier, where state governments are going to shut down their solar powered energy programs. Is the partisan arrangement to be met? I am making an assumption here with regard to having arrangements with the state or local governments. Is the partisan arrangement going to be guaranteed or is it at the whim of a state government or a local council to decide whether the program is sustainable? Or is the federal government going to make some application that there are guarantees to ensure that the state government or local councils continue the arrangements to ensure that the programs are sustainable and will continue to supply energy to the power grids?

While we are at it, with regard to Direct Action as a whole, I would like some feedback in terms of the modelling done on the 20 million trees plantation process. What sorts of trees are going to be planted? Which areas are they going to be planted in? Are we looking at the eastern seaboard or the southern areas of our nation? Are we going to be looking at the types of trees for plantation? Are they going to be drought-proof, given that we are moving to a warmer environment and the climate is changing in areas? That side of the chamber, the government, does not accept the science with respect to climate change. I would like to have some understanding of what the government is intending to do—what types of trees it intends to plant among those 20 million—

Senator Gallacher interjecting—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind senators to address their remarks in an orderly fashion.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was listening to an interjection that I thought was relevant to the particular subject, and it was with regards to what sorts of trees will be considered for planting as a result of the Direct Action program. As we know, there are certainly areas in the northern state of Queensland now that are subject to climatic change as a result of increasing cyclone activity. In fact, I was just up north the other week when there were three cyclones bearing down on the cape of Queensland.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of them was only a rain depression.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to know how the government intend to address that particular issue. If there are going to be increases in climatic change and more intense cyclones and cyclonic wet weather, how are they going to maintain those types of trees? Senator Macdonald would know very well what happened with Cyclone Larry, when it came through that particular northern part of Queensland. It stripped the forests up there and left them bare. If the government are going to go to all this trouble planting trees, are they really wasting their time in doing tree plantations in the areas of North Queensland where there is an increase in cyclones?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have a look now; the trees are growing beautifully!

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have driven through there quite extensively. Climate change critics and the climate sceptics across the corridor here, like Senator Macdonald, know very well what happened to those trees in those rainforests. Maybe he would be able to explain what sorts of rainforest trees are going to be planted in North Queensland as a result of having some answers forthcoming from the relevant senator responsible for this legislation.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

If I want nonsense from you, I will come over there and squeeze your head!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Furner, would you please address your remarks through the chair.

It is pretty straightforward. I do not know why some of these answers are not forthcoming. There are a broad range of trees, as you might be familiar with, Mr Temporary Chairman Edwards, that it is possible to plant in areas of Queensland. But, once again, there are certain areas that should not be considered as a result of climate change, particularly in North Queensland; we have seen the effects of climate change up there, with significant weather extremes and cyclones. I would like some responses with regards to how that tree planting will be conducted and how many people they intend to introduce in the program to ensure that the program is successful.

Once again, relying upon my earlier questions about partnership arrangements with local councils, will it be a program that is a partnership between federal government and local council to ensure that the tree program is successful and sustainable? What are the conditions of employment as a result of those tree plantings? I heard some time ago that the LNP government proposes to cut the minimum wage by half for those people that are going to be planting those trees.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are you going on about?

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what you read in the media, Mr Temporary Chairman. I do not know whether it is true or not.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Please ignore the interjections.

It would be a concern if the program were not sustainable—if it could not plant the required number of trees because it had reduced the minimum wage for those people willing to go out there and plant the trees. They are the sorts of questions that I propose the government respond to to ensure that their Direct Action program is successful.

We only need to consider what happened on our watch with regards to our programs in the particular area of renewable energy targets. Certainly, on Labor's watch, we went from around 7,500 households, for example, with solar PV systems to one million. Our credentials have been clear in respect of our delivery in renewable energy, so I would like that commitment from the government in terms of what they are proposing, to ensure that those renewable energies are sustainable.

It is important that the public know where their tax-funded dollars are spent and how that funding is going to be reached with regards to partnership funding from the local councils and partnership funding from the state governments, given the position of the LNP state government.

Progress reported.