Senate debates

Monday, 2 December 2013

Bills

Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013, Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013, Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013; First Reading

7:45 pm

Photo of Christine MilneChristine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to support the motion put forward by Senator Wong to say that the bills ought not to be debated together but should be separated out. There was a very good reason for this. It is not about voting differently from the Greens point of view. It is about actually separating the issues and giving the coalition some opportunity to change their own mind. That is the critical way I would present this.

I want to go back through the history of why you would separate these out into three separate packages of bills. Currently we have an emissions trading scheme in Australia. It is legislated and it is operating as an emission trading scheme with a fixed price period for three years, designed to go to flexible pricing in 2015.

Why is it that there was a fixed price period for an emissions trading scheme? The reason goes back to the debate we had through the parliament from 2007 onwards right through to 2009, when the former Labor government's legislation was defeated. That was because, if you have an emissions trading scheme—a cap and trade scheme—you have to put in a cap and you have to make a determination of what appropriate cap that should be. That means: what level of emissions reduction is appropriate for Australia, the highest per capita polluter in the world? What is the appropriate cap for us in a world where we are trying to constrain global warming to less than two degrees? What is the burden share of the global task that it is appropriate for Australia to shoulder? Therein lies a fundamental difference of opinion, back in 2007, 2008 and 2009, of this parliament.

Whilst the Labor Party and the coalition agreed to a target of five per cent emissions reduction on 2000 levels, with the possibility of going to 25—that was the agreed target then—the Greens pointed out that in 2007 at the Bali United Nations Convention on Climate Change, at the COP, it had been agreed that developed countries like Australia needed to reduce their emissions between 25 and 40 per cent on 1990 levels, because that would leave headroom for developing countries to be able to continue to develop. In other words, we shoulder the responsibility for the historical contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere to enable the developing world to be able to develop.

That was the agreement. So an agreement by both the coalition and Labor back in 2007-09 to stick with a five per cent emissions reduction target flies in the face of what was a globally fair share. The point I make is that it was never going to be resolved at the political level as to what is the appropriate target for Australia. So when the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee was formed it was agreed that we needed a mechanism to depoliticise the target that would be set—the cap that would be set—for an emissions trading scheme. So the link between these bills is this: it was decided to legislate an emissions trading scheme, set a price and set up a climate change authority whose job it was to take into account the latest science and take into account what other countries were doing and make a recommendation to the Australian parliament on what the cap should be when Australia moved to flexible pricing.

So the climate change authority was an important piece of infrastructure to de-politicise the targets for emissions trading. It was modelled on the experience in the UK, where they had set up a climate council that had enormous respect through academic institutions, the community and broadly across Europe. It was the job of the climate council in the UK to recommend to the UK parliament what an appropriate level of emissions reduction would be for the United Kingdom. It was headed up by some extraordinary scientists, including an Australian, Robert May. I want to pay tribute to the work he has done globally in the context of addressing climate change.

It was that new piece of infrastructure—or institution—that was a huge improvement on what we had before. The worth of it was demonstrated this week when at the hearing into the abolition of these bills the Investor Group on Climate Change, giving evidence, said that with all the political shenanigans going on the investment community has to have a sense of what is really the task at the global level in terms of emissions reduction and what is the sort of parameter that Australia might have to be engaged in in bringing down emissions so that they can plan their investment strategies accordingly.

Mr Nathan Fabian, from the Investor Group on Climate Change, said quite clearly that they had really valued the draft report of the Climate Change Authority, which said that there are two scenarios that Australia should consider: one is reducing emissions by 15 per cent, by 2020; the other is reducing emissions by 25 per cent, by 2020. To go from that at 2020 up to 45 to 50 per cent by 2030 is a huge jump in a decade. The Climate Change Authority has that role.

I believe that when the coalition goes out into the community and talks about 'Axe the tax,' the community has no idea that encompassed in that slogan is the abolishment of a new and important institution that has really just begun its work. It has brought down a draft report and will bring down its final report in February next year. The timetable that had been established was for it to take—and it is now taking—submissions on its draft report, bring down its final report in February, make that recommendation to the parliament and have the parliament decide whether to accept that recommendation and incorporate it as the cap so that we can go to flexible pricing in 2015. That was the timeline, all set out and understood. In the meantime, the linkage with the European Union had been determined to start in 2015. That is the way the institutional structure was meant to come together, with the recommendations to the parliament to set the cap, and then go to flexible pricing in 2015. That is how it fits together, but I do not believe the community has any idea that the excellent work of the Climate Change Authority and the report that they have brought down is included in the abolition of these institutions.

If we were to vote for the abolition of these institutions we would not get the final report of the Climate Change Authority next year, which is making the recommendation on the appropriate cap. The Climate Change Authority has embraced the notion of carbon budgeting—that there is a limited carbon budget we can put to atmosphere—and Australia's appropriate contribution in terms of that budget. It is not an unlimited budget. We have already gone through a large quantity of the emissions that have been catered for in that budget. That is why we should be looking at this and saying that we are dealing with three separate things here: one is the Climate Change Authority, one is the emissions-trading scheme and one is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. That came out of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee as well.

The reason it was set up is this: the Greens secured $10 billion to go into the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to fund renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean-energy technology. This is because the price was not going to be high enough in the current emissions-trading scheme, the fixed price period, to drive the transformation in renewable energy at the scale that will be necessary to see the kinds of cuts by 2030 that I just spoke about. In the 45 to 50 per cent range of emissions cuts on 2020 levels, you need to have large-scale renewables and heavy investment in energy efficiency to give yourself a chance to meet that. To get those large-scale renewables built, you need to have an attractive carbon price that will make those large-scale renewables competitive with old fossil-fuel models. That was not going to happen on a $23, $24 or $25 price. That price is based on a 550-parts-per-million scenario and not a 350- or 450-parts-per-million scenario, which are the ones you need for a safe climate.

We recognise that you need not only a carbon price with an emissions-trading scheme but also complementary measures—that includes the renewable-energy target, which already exists, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It would enable co-financing and the convening of financial institutions and so on to get money out the door to build large-scale renewables in the necessary time frame. That is how these institutional structures fit together and how they are interrelated. That is why they need to be looked at separately. What is interesting is that absolutely no-one has been able to make the case for the abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This corporation have spent less than $550 million—because some of that fund came from the low-carbon fund—and they have leveraged $2.2 billion in private-sector investment. That means jobs across Australia as well as emission reductions.

We heard from Senator Abetz that this is vain and ideological, but I would suggest the only vanity and ideological bent here is from Senator Abetz and the coalition. Some of the projects that clean energy finance corporations have invested in are the Taralga Wind Farm, the Macarthur Wind Farm, the Moree Solar Farm and Sundrop Farms at Port Augusta in South Australia. Their current portfolio mix is 56 per cent in renewables, 30 per cent in energy efficiency and the remainder in clean technology. They have 179 projects in their pipeline, with a project value of $14.9 billion. That is investment in Australia; that is jobs in Australia; that is clean energy for the future.

Senator Abetz said that the carbon price has meant there is not as much investment as we should have had. In fact, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is leveraging huge amounts of investment and the role that it is playing as the convener, as a co-financier, cannot be underestimated. It is giving the banks and financial institutions the confidence to now go and invest in the technologies of the future. What we are seeing here with this attempt to rush through a repeal of these acts is condemning Australia to a rust-bucket economy, because it is saying that, as the rest of the world moves to reduce emissions, Australia is going to go in the opposite direction, which means we will lose any competitive advantage from the sun and the wind—great resources that we have in abundance here in Australia. We are going to lose that competitive advantage.

Already we have seen that Beijing and Shanghai last week started their emissions trading schemes, and on 10 December Guangdong province, with 100 million people, will start its emissions trading scheme, linking up to a national Chinese emissions trading scheme in the near future. Just as California and China are moving to emissions trading, Australia is going backwards, condemning this country to shoring up the old fossil-fuelled economy when we should be moving to the transition to the clean economy.

I think the reason we need to split these bills up is for the coalition to be able to stand up and explain to people in depth what is wrong with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, because there was no evidence given to the committee to support the abolition. In fact, all the evidence from the investors, the NGOs and the whole business community was to recognise what a fantastic job the Clean Energy Finance Corporation have done. From the board level, with Jillian Broadbent as the chair, through to the executive officer, Oliver Yates, and the whole staff, they have done an amazing job. I want to hear, and I think the Australian people deserve to hear, from the coalition exactly what is wrong with an organisation which is creating jobs, leveraging private sector investment, reducing emissions and making money for the government. What more could you ask from an institution? It is a raging success.

So I would suggest the only vain and ideological position on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is the one being adopted by Tony Abbott and Eric Abetz, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I would like to have them explain to the Australian people why they will not support the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and I am hoping that separating out these bills will give the coalition an opportunity to rethink its position on maintaining the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority, because Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, has asked Australia to put on the table, by September next year, an increased level of ambition to go into negotiations for a global treaty in 2015. Those global treaty negotiations are now on. The one institution in Australia that is now best positioned to give sound advice to government in relation to the appropriate contribution Australia can make is the Climate Change Authority. To the suggestion that the Department of the Environment has those skills, I respond by suggesting that a large number of those skills were lost as so many people lost their jobs in the Department of the Environment and the department of climate change. We as a nation will have to step up. We have made a fool of ourselves in Warsaw; that cannot continue. The environment minister said that climate change was going to be central to the G20. We took over the chair of the G20 yesterday. If Australia is going to chair these global institutions and play our role in negotiating a global treaty, we have to have the level and depth of expertise somewhere, and it is no longer in the bureaucracy; it is in the Climate Change Authority. It was in the department of climate change; it is now in the Climate Change Authority. That is why it simply cannot be abolished.

I would call on the coalition, through this debate, to regard those issues separately. They had better have a rationale for getting rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ending the role of the Climate Change Authority pending the G20, the Ban Ki-moon summit next year and the negotiations going into the COP in Lima next year, leading into the COP in Paris in 2015, when the global treaty is meant to be negotiated. I do not think Australians are going to be very impressed with a government that is saying to the rest of the world that Australia has become a laggard and a shirker and we are not going to play our role or live up to any kind of global responsibility.

That is why the bills need to be split. That is why they need to be debated separately, because this can no longer be a debate of cheap slogans. Let us have the debate about the merits of these institutions and the roles that they are playing and get across the detail. If you have a sound argument, let us hear it, but it has to go beyond, 'Axe the tax,' and, 'We said the Australian people voted for this.' I do not think the Australian people know that encompassed in the slogan, 'Axe the tax,' is getting rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and renewable energy investment or getting rid of the only institution which is giving independent advice on the appropriate level of effort from Australia on behalf of future generations. That is why these bills should be split and the debates held in that way.

Comments

No comments