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

It is always remarkable to listen to Senator Milne's contributions in these debates, to hear the passion that I acknowledge she brings to the debates and for some of the facts that she may highlight. But when it come to this topic there is always, it seems, a complete absence of discussion about the global nature of the issue at hand—the global nature of emissions and the global challenge of how we deal with those emissions profiles—and the relatively small role of Australia in a very large global issue.

Senator Milne knows well that there will be a debate through to 2015 about where future emissions targets might be set. That debate is set around global time lines: where in fact the rest of the world will go in 2015 and to what extent we will or will not see from the rest of the world action in 2015 to commit to binding emissions-reductions targets. The Australian government has been crystal clear that our position—supporting the unconditional five per cent reduction, as we have for some period of time now—is that as those global discussions unfold in 2015 we can take the longer term view of the role Australia can play to complement global action on emissions.

But let us not be under any misapprehension: if there is no fundamental change to the way global discussions and agreements happen in 2015, if there is no binding global agreement in place in 2015 where we can see major emitters take major steps towards major commitments, then Australia's actions will make no difference. That is the sad reality of this debate, a reality that seems to be sorely lacking in the contribution from Senator Milne and others.

But I stray—I do not wish to stray, because I wish to be brief in my remarks on this bill. This bill, the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013, is of course just one piece of a long legislative package that has been irresponsibly separated by the Labor Party and the Australian Greens. The Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill is a small piece of a complex package. Earlier today and over the preceding days we spent 10 hours and 46 minutes dealing with the previous bill, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill. We saw virtually every member of the Labor Party line up to give an identical speech. It was an enormous level of time wasting that has taken place, and I do not wish to contribute to it on this matter.

What I want to highlight is that the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill does logically sit with the remainder of the carbon tax repeal bills. They should be considered as one; it is disappointing that they are not. But it would be foolish for us not to see the end of the Climate Change Authority if we see the end of the carbon tax. This is because the core function of the Climate Change Authority is to advise the government—and I think Senator Milne essentially acknowledged this—on key aspects of the carbon pricing mechanism, such as the setting of emissions reduction targets and caps, the setting of the price ceiling in the period from 2015 to 2018 and the acceptability of allowing international units into the carbon pricing mechanism or carbon tax. They are the key, core, central functions.

This Senate will make its decision when it has the debate on the carbon tax repeal as to whether the carbon tax stays or goes. If the carbon tax goes, the Climate Change Authority should go as well. It is ridiculous and nonsensical to say that it should stay. Its other functions in relation to statutory roles and reviews around the renewable energy target or the Carbon Farming Initiative can and, if this bill passes, will be adequately performed by the Department of the Environment.

We have well and truly within government the resources to provide every level of advice that is necessary, without having yet another quango, bureaucracy or statutory body sitting there chewing up a few more million dollars just to provide another layer of advice. We have the Bureau of Meteorology providing its advice on climate trends and climate science. We have the CSIRO providing advice on the environmental effects of climate change, on climate science and on the most appropriate technological and scientific responses to it. We have an entire department in the Department of the Environment providing advice on the appropriate government responses to issues around climate change. We have all of those factors built in at the core of government.

We have been elected to government with a very clear mandate not just to get rid of the carbon tax—important though that is—but also to get government spending under control, to get the size of government under control and to move to a position where we actually have a chance of once again delivering balanced budgets. The Climate Change Authority in the grand scheme of the costs associated with running the carbon tax is but a small cost—$22 million over the forward estimates. But that $22 million saving is important and it can certainly be money better spent or debt not incurred rather than simply having another level of bureaucracy in government to essentially duplicate the advice that can be sourced and should be sourced from elsewhere.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I am not going to detain the chamber any longer. I do note that there is a second reading amendment from the opposition. It seems peculiar to me that Senator Pratt apparently read an amendment that differed from the one that was circulated in the chamber. It obviously shows that in opposition the Labor Party have the same level of consistency in their approach as they had in government, where they flip-flopped over emissions pricing and carbon taxes and promised not to do one thing and did the other. Obviously, even now, they are coming into the chamber and proposing amendments that are not even the same amendments that they circulated.

There is a simple question before the chamber, and that is: do we want to have another quango, do we want to have another bureaucracy, do we want to see the continuation of this? If the carbon tax is going, the Climate Change Authority should go. For the sake of the Australian economy, the size of government and the budget, both should go.