House debates

Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges-Customs) Bill 2009; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges-Excise) Bill 2009; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges-General) Bill 2009; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009; Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Combet:

That this bill be now read a second time.

9:42 pm

Photo of Malcolm TurnbullMalcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and its accompanying bills represent the centrepiece of the government’s efforts, so it claims, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Australia. The legislation is distinguished by the fact that it has almost no supporters. The business community have almost unanimously complained about its job-destroying provisions; the environmentalists, on the other hand, have complained that it does not go far enough and is not effective in reducing emissions. It is a poorly conceived scheme, poorly put together in haste, with inadequate analysis and consideration.

The fundamental problem that the designer of any emission reduction scheme faces in any country is that this is a unique environmental problem. If we accept, as a matter of prudence, taking the precautionary principle that we should seek to reduce the world’s carbon dioxide emissions so as to slow the impact of global warming and undertake to do that—and that was certainly the policy of the previous government, as it is of this government and, indeed, almost every government in the world, to the best of my knowledge—then we have to recognise that, because of the global nature of this problem, if we reduce emissions in this country but in doing so cause emissions to increase somewhere else, there is no environmental benefit.

This is a very important distinction. We can in Australia say, ‘We choose as a society to have higher environmental standards than other countries,’ if that is our choice. And we can say to a business, ‘We will impose on you the cost of not polluting a river or a stream or a harbour and that will be an additional cost to you, but, nonetheless, there will be a benefit to our environment and an overall benefit to our community.’ But if we say to a business in Australia, ‘We are imposing on you a cost per tonne of CO2 emitted,’ and if the consequence of the imposition of that cost is that that business becomes uneconomic in this country because the businesses with which it competes in other nations are not bearing such a cost then the only consequence is that less CO2 is emitted from Australia and more CO2 is emitted from other countries. There are any number of examples of this right across the industrial spectrum in Australia, but probably the best, the most glaring, example is that of the coal industry. That is our largest export, and the industry is not being treated as other emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries are under this scheme for appropriate compensation or appropriate allocation of free permits. It is being treated very differently. Every major coal producer has said that the consequence of this treatment will be the destruction of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars worth of projects. They have been absolutely unanimous about that. This will devastate our single largest export industry.

We can ask the question: is that a price worth paying to save the planet? The answer is that it is not, because the only consequence of Xstrata or any other large coalminer in Australia being unable to mine coal profitably in this country is that they or other companies will mine more coal in other nations. In other words, we will mine less coal in Australia and there will be more coal mined in Indonesia or Colombia or South Africa—fewer jobs, less income, less tax revenue, less prosperity in Australia; more jobs, more income, more prosperity and the same, if not more, emissions in another country.

That issue of carbon leakage is the problem at the absolute core of this challenge of reducing global carbon dioxide emissions. It is a global problem. A tonne of CO2 has the same impact on the climate whether it is emitted in Sydney or Shanghai or Stockholm or San Francisco. Therein lies the problem.

All of our major trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries are unhappy with the proposals being presented by the government. Whether it is coal, as I have just discussed; whether it is steel; whether it is aluminium; whether it is cement—the list goes on; all of them point to the fact that they are already operating in a relatively high cost environment in Australia. We are a country that pays higher wages, we have higher costs than most countries with which they compete and we are now proposing to impose an additional cost, for no environmental benefit but with considerable economic harm.

So the bottom line is this. A global carbon cost can work equitably and effectively: if the whole world paid the same cost on carbon then it would not matter what the cost was; all the boats would rise or fall on the same tide. We know that that is not going to be the case. We know that our economy is particularly trade exposed. We are, more than most countries, certainly more than any other developed country, particularly dependent on emissions-intensive export industries. We have that particular vulnerability. Yet the government is determined to pass its legislation before we know what the world will agree to at the Copenhagen summit in December and, most remarkably, before we know what the shape of the United States climate change legislation will be.

This is a very rapidly developing scene in climate change. I had the honour in the previous government of being the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and represented Australia at climate change conferences, and I have to say that, going back less than two years, I would not have thought that the debate globally would have moved as quickly as it has. I would not have imagined that we could be in a position where emissions trading scheme legislation will be likely to be on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and voted on within a few months, and may well be law by the end of the year. That legislation—which of course addresses the central problem of emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, as every piece of emissions-trading legislation has to, wherever it is enacted—will inevitably be the global benchmark. Common sense dictates that Australia’s scheme should not be finalised until we know the shape of the US legislation, until we see what that US legislation is and until we see what has been decided at Copenhagen.

As the House knows, we are proposing that the consideration of this matter be deferred until after the Copenhagen summit in December, after the conclusion of the legislative process of the United States legislation—currently titled the Waxman-Markey bill; it no doubt will acquire other sponsors during the process—and, of course, after the Productivity Commission has conducted a thorough analysis. I will come to that in a moment and the shadow minister for the emissions trading scheme and infrastructure, Andrew Robb, will speak further about that when he addresses the House.

The US legislation, even in its draft form at the moment—and it is still going through the committee stages of the House of Representatives—is already markedly different from the government’s legislation in the way it treats emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. I might say, before I go on to speak in more detail about Waxman-Markey, that here in my hand is a copy of the principal Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill. It is a lengthy document of 428 pages. The key issue, as we all know, is emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. It is important to note that they are the subject of and are covered by about eight pages in this whole document—just eight pages, which are simply enabling legislation to permit the government to enact regulations. So the key issues about which industries will be protected, how much protection they will get, how it will be allocated, the decay rates and how the protection will reduce over time—all of that—are to be dealt with administratively by the government in regulations. None of the regulations have been published. We have had reports of them. The government has spoken about them. They are in the process, we know, of continuous and constant renegotiation by the government and yet they are the guts of the scheme. The guts of the scheme is in the regulations: that is the essence of it; that is the hard problem. The rest of it is just a framework, just really the bones. What price democracy if the parliament itself is not being asked to vote on that?

But we have been told. The government has described what it is going to do—although it keeps on changing its plan—so we have some idea of at least what it says it is intending to do, and already we see dramatic differences between the government’s proposal, on the one hand, and what the Americans are contemplating, on the other. Let me give you one example. The big issue is that if you give a trade-exposed industry protection—aluminium, cement or coal; take your pick—firstly, how much protection should you give it? Our view, when we were in government and Peter Shergold chaired the emissions trading task group, was that in principle businesses that fell into that category should be given complete protection until such time as the countries with which they competed had a comparable scheme. That is a commonsense, straightforward approach. While the American scheme is subject to the legislative process and will no doubt change, at this stage the position appears to be that, once an industry is given free allocations of permits—in effect, protection—because it is an emissions-intensive trade-exposed industry, that protection will continue until 2025 and thereafter will only start to decay once the US President determines that less than 70 per cent of the global output of the relevant sector—say, aluminium—is produced in countries that have a comparable scheme. So, in other words, until the bulk of the rest of the world catches up American industries will have that continuing protection. That has no counterpart in the foreshadowed regulations proposed by the Rudd government.

So we are faced already just at this stage with the undeniable fact that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, is disposed to give more protection to American workers than Kevin Rudd is proposing to give to Australian workers. The United States government—and its congress—is more committed to protecting American jobs as it designs its scheme than the Rudd government is concerned about protecting Australian jobs. That is just the tip of the iceberg. I see the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change sitting opposite me at the table. He knows that very well, he knows the force of these points and that is why he is, even as I speak, in intense discussions with some of these industries as the government desperately scrabbles to try to change the as yet unpublished regulations.

This is too important a transition to do in a rush; it is far too important. There are thousands of jobs, perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs, to be affected here. This is a global effort and anything we do in Australia is futile unless it is matched by global action. We know that. Having said that, I know we recognise that it is not defensible for Australia to say, ‘We’ll be the last one to move.’ Obviously, we want to move as part of a global movement. But, plainly, the country that will have the most influence in this exercise is the largest economy, the largest industrial country and the largest polluter in terms of its CO2 emissions—although perhaps now falling a bit behind China; nonetheless, it and China are the two largest emitters—the United States of America. That is the benchmark. Common sense says we should not finalise this legislation until we have seen what the Americans do.

Now what have the government been saying to business? Let us think about what the government have said to business. They have said two things. Firstly, they have said, through the parliamentary secretary last week, ‘Sign up now or what you’ll get next year will be worse.’ The parliamentary secretary was reverting to his old trade union approach, a bit of bullying. That was greeted with a raspberry from the business community. The other thing that the government are saying, the other part of their pitch, is said somewhat under their breath: ‘Oh, don’t worry. We’ll change all the regulations next year anyway.’ So what price certainty, because the thing that we have been told is that we must approve this scheme now to give business certainty. But how can there be any certainty if the essence, the essentials, of the scheme is in the regulations and the regulations, which have not been published, are in a state of constant amendment and negotiation and in any event will be amended next year after the Americans have legislated and the Copenhagen conference has concluded?

What then is the rush? Where is the rush? There was an argument for legislating this year because the Prime Minister had a self-imposed starting date for the scheme of 2010. It was going to start on 1 July next year, so common sense said it had to be legislated this year. The Prime Minister has now said it will not start until 2011 and when it starts it will not actually be a trading scheme at all because the permits will have a fixed price. It will be a carbon tax for the first year and the trading will not actually begin until 2012. There is now absolutely no reason at all to legislate for this this year.

What about Copenhagen? Does the Prime Minister need to go to Copenhagen with a legislated scheme? The answer is plainly he does not. The only thing the parties at the Copenhagen conference will want to hear from Australia is what sort of target Australia will support. The Prime Minister has laid out some targets. We have given him our bipartisan support for those targets to go to Copenhagen. That is all he needs.

The Danish Minister for the Environment was here in Australia recently and spent some time with several of my colleagues, and she was quite explicit in saying that her government did not expect, nor were particularly interested in, the details of any scheme we had in Australia. They simply wanted to know what targets we would support. That was the essence of it. That was what they wanted to hear.

There are many other flaws in this legislation. There is insufficient time and the hour is late, so I will not go through them all, but I will just touch on a key omission. In the fight against climate change, it is important always to remember the value of what we have often called in the past ‘least regrets’ or ‘no regrets’ policies. Ideally, if we can reduce or offset emissions by policies that have collateral benefits, we should plainly do so. That is common sense. Our greatest comparative advantage is our real estate—770 million hectares of it. Our massive land mass is our greatest advantage. We have the ability in Australia to offset hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions through improving the soil carbon across Australia, improving the productivity of our soils and improving the productivity of our agriculture, yet that form of carbon sequestration, of carbon offset, is not to be recognised in this scheme. It is recognised in the United States. Those credits generated by farmers through more sustainable tillage and other agricultural practices are traded every day on the Chicago Climate Exchange.

That is why we have proposed the establishment of a voluntary carbon market that can take advantage of credits of that kind and others, such as biochar, from the beginning of next year. We have so many opportunities, through avenues which we have called ‘green carbon’ or ‘biocarbon’, that are being ignored by the government for no reason at all. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry thinks he is a great fellow because he is proposing to spend $1.4 million on researching biochar. He can do that, but the reality is that biochar, which is a form of charcoal, once created from forest waste or crop waste and returned to the soil, sequesters carbon. There is no doubt about that. From the point of view of recognising it in an emissions trading scheme or a carbon trading scheme, there is absolutely no question about the science or the fact that that charcoal, once restored to the soil, does result in carbon being stored—just as much as if it is taken from a coal fired power station and pumped under the ground. Yet, despite that, the government declines to recognise it.

This is a poor scheme. It threatens jobs. It already has the potential of being dramatically out of step with the largest developed nation and the nation which will have the most influential benchmark, the global benchmark. I will mention just one other area because I know it is of great interest to several of my colleagues. One of the curious omissions from the Rudd government’s so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is recognising the value, as a carbon credit, of generating energy from coalmine methane—from taking methane out of gassy coal mines. That has been ignored, yet here it is recognised and deemed to be a renewable energy source under Waxman-Markey in the United States.

Photo of Greg HuntGreg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | | Hansard source

And Germany.

Photo of Malcolm TurnbullMalcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Flinders says, ‘And Germany,’ and there is no doubt that he is correct. Why would we want to be out of step with those countries? What possible argument is there for doing that? That is the problem with rushing into this scheme and trying to reinvent a carbon trading scheme without regard to developments overseas. There is a better way to go about this, and that is to defer consideration of the bill until the Copenhagen summit is concluded, we have seen the American legislation and the Productivity Commission has reported and done the analysis that has not been done by the government. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House defer consideration of the bill until the following have occurred:

the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit at the end of this year has concluded;
the Barack Obama administration in the United States has clarified its intentions in this area;
the Government has referred its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) to the Productivity Commission so that it may conduct a six-month review to:
assess the national, regional and industry sectoral impact of the CPRS in light of the global financial crisis;
assess the economic impact of the CPRS in light of other countries either not imposing a price on carbon comparable to that proposed for Australia or imposing such a price after different assumed periods of delay; and
conceptually and empirically examine the relative costs and benefits (including emissions reductions) of the key alternative scheme designs against the CPRS; and
the Productivity Commission’s reports on these topics have been publicly released”.

Photo of Ms Anna BurkeMs Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Photo of Andrew RobbAndrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Photo of Malcolm TurnbullMalcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

I heard the member opposite make a point about climate scepticism. Let me say this in conclusion: the basic flaw in the government’s approach to this issue is that they treat it as a political issue, not as a scientific and economic issue. The objective of an emissions trading scheme is not to prove that Kevin Rudd is greener than me, greener than John Howard or greener than anybody else; the objective is to effectively reduce emissions at the lowest cost—that is the objective. We must recognise that the key to that is design. It is not a question of being for or against an emissions trading scheme. There are few people nowadays that do not agree that a price on carbon is inevitable in the world in the years ahead. How we put that price on carbon is the critical question.

The parliamentary secretary can chuckle away. But he would not be chuckling if his government’s inept management of this issue, if it were to be fulfilled, resulted in thousands of jobs—by members of the unions that he used to be proud to represent. This scheme, if implemented in accordance with its terms, will be a job destroyer. The parliamentary secretary recognises that—that is why he is scrabbling to change it. We have the time to get it right. We have the means to get the expert advice, the objective advice that has been denied us, from the Productivity Commission. We have a responsibility to protect the jobs of Australians and not to sacrifice Australian jobs for no environmental gain.

10:10 pm

Photo of Mark DreyfusMark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It is a privilege to be addressing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills. This legislation provides the framework that will allow Australia to shift to a low-carbon economy. It will give businesses and households the certainty that they need while taking strong action to reduce the impact of dangerous climate change on our future. It is in the national interest to legislate as soon as possible, and no Australian should be in any doubt about the need for action on climate change.

I have listened to the speech just given by the Leader of the Opposition, and it confirms that the coalition is hopelessly divided on this issue. We have seen in the last couple of years from the opposition the full range of views on this topic, from those who believe that dangerous climate change is some sort of conspiracy theory, to those who grudgingly accept that it is occurring, through to those who believe, as do we on this side of the House, that we need to take action now. What we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition is more of the same—indeed, the only consistency we have had from the opposition, both when they were in government and now that they are in opposition, is their inaction. That is the position of the Liberal and National parties—inaction on the question of how to deal with climate change.

We have heard tonight simply the latest in a long series of excuses for that inaction. Last year we had: ‘We should wait for the Garnaut report.’ Over the summer we had: ‘We should wait for the Liberal Party’s consultant on climate change to come up with a report.’ More recently we have had: ‘Wait for the decisions to be made at the Copenhagen conference later this year.’ And now we have a confirmation from the Leader of the Opposition that Australia, according to him and the coalition, is to wait for the United States to pass legislation. To that long list of excuses for inaction we have had added tonight: ‘Wait for the Productivity Commission to report.’ What we see from those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, is excuse after excuse after excuse, putting forward anything rather than taking action on climate change.

Extraordinarily, we had a reference right at the start of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to prudence and to the precautionary principle, but it is clear that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor anyone in the Liberal and National Parties understand what the precautionary principle actually is. We are making a decision in the interests of the nation, not on the basis that there is complete certainty, as in complete scientific certainty, that there will be the predicted events, in this case, of dangerous climate change, but—and this is the precautionary principle—on the basis that the events which are predicted would be so cataclysmic in their effect that, if there is a probability of them occurring, action should be taken now. That is the precautionary principle. That is what is recognised as the precautionary principle, and that is why it was curious, to say the least, to hear the Leader of the Opposition refer to the precautionary principle at the start of his speech but then say nothing further about it.

Over the past year I have attended numerous hearings of this House’s Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, which is chaired by the member for Throsby. The committee is inquiring into the effects of climate change on coastal management around Australia. In the course of those hearings it has heard evidence that should put entirely beyond doubt the effects of climate change and that those effects are real and are occurring now. The effects of climate change will be to increase the severity and frequency of many natural disasters—including bushfires, cyclones, hailstorms and floods—to place increasing pressure on urban water supplies and to cause major declines in agricultural production. By the end of the century, the Great Barrier Reef will face catastrophic destruction and there will be severe health impacts felt across the population as a result of climate change. As the Prime Minister and other members of the government have often said, the high costs of inaction far outweigh the cost of acting now. Australia is one of the countries with the most to lose from climate change. Everyone knows that we are one of the hottest and driest continents on earth. Yet on a per capita basis we are the sixth-largest carbon polluter in the world.

To mention one of the dramatic predicted effects of dangerous climate change: it is predicted that there will be a 92 per cent decline in irrigated agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin by the end of this century if there is no mitigation of climate change. This is not some theoretical problem. If there is no mitigation of climate change, rising sea levels will affect communities around Australia. One community that will be most affected is the community in my electorate in south-east Melbourne. Along the bay in the suburbs of Mordialloc, Aspendale, Chelsea, Edithvale, Carrum and Patterson Lakes—which is a canal development—there is tremendous exposure to the effects of rising sea levels. Those effects involve not merely the higher tides that will result but the storm surge effects that can occur. Without action to mitigate climate change, we will see substantial rises in sea level in coming decades. The low-lying parts of my electorate will face inundation, just on the basis of the conservative estimates that have now been written into Victorian planning schemes. It is estimated sea levels will rise—and there is now a requirement in Victoria to plan on this basis—by 0.8 of a metre by 2100. This is not some small predicted effect on the community that I represent. Thousands of homes and quite probably large parts of the Braeside industrial area will be affected by inundation unless there is action to mitigate the effects of dangerous climate change.

What we see in this legislation is action being taken by the Rudd Labor government to deal with the effects of climate change both by taking action in Australia and by encouraging countries around the world to do so. I will say at least this for the Leader of the Opposition: he accepts that global action is necessary, and it appears that the opposition also accepts that participation by Australia in that global action is required. This legislation establishes the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which is to establish a cap-and-trade system to control the output of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that were included under the Kyoto protocol. The government has set target commitments, which I do not need to repeat. They are staggered commitments which envisage negotiation up to higher targets if there is action from developing economies and comparable commitments from advanced economies and a 25 per cent target by 2020 if a global deal is reached to stabilise levels of carbon dioxide equivalents at 450 parts per million. The government have recognised the impact that the global recession is having on Australian firms and households, and that is why we are delaying the start date to 1 July 2011. I do not need to talk about the other detailed aspects of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because they will be more than adequately covered by speakers who are coming afterwards.

This legislation is part of the engagement by Australia in building a strong international response to climate change. It is a fact that Australia cannot tackle climate change alone; the only solution is a global one. Our team of negotiators must have a package to take to the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. The government will be able to get the best deal for Australia if we can go to Copenhagen with credibility. I note, Deputy Speaker Burke, that you and I will be attending the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in London between 5 and 11 July. It will be an assembling of representatives of parliaments across the Commonwealth, including many countries from the developing world. The task of that conference is to consider the lead-up to Copenhagen. It is not only our government that recognise the need for all countries to engage with the Copenhagen process; other Commonwealth countries recognise that need as well. The best way for Australia to establish credibility in the forums of the world is for this parliament to pass this legislative package so as to establish that there is a framework in this country to set Australia’s response to dangerous climate change. As a nation which is particularly vulnerable to climate change, it is in Australia’s national interest that there be global action. The best outcome for Australia is a global agreement. I commend the bills to the House.

10:22 pm

Photo of Greg HuntGreg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | | Hansard source

As somebody who believes in the great challenge of climate change, as somebody who has worked in this space for many years and as somebody who comes to this chamber and this parliament with a belief that we need global action, I find the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 profoundly disappointing. I find it disappointing because it achieves a unique double. That double is that it sends global emissions up by sending our emissions to higher emitting environments—whether they are China, India, the Philippines or Indonesia—through the process known as carbon leakage. This is recognised throughout the world. At the same time, it is also sending global emissions up by sending jobs overseas, where there is no level playing field. It manages to destroy Australian jobs. As somebody who cares, as somebody who believes and as somebody who is passionate about the actions that we need to take to reduce global emissions, I find that this bill has a unique double. It sends emissions overseas—whether it is zinc, aluminium or even such things as cement or waste paper processing—to China, to India, to the Philippines and to Indonesia. Secondly, in so doing, it sends Australian jobs overseas and it takes down Australian employment. That is a unique combination for a bill which should be a point of hope, opportunity and a step forward. That is why, at this point in time and in this format, it is simply not acceptable, and I say that as somebody who wants a solution and who believes in a solution.

Let me make these points today. I deal, firstly, with the false dichotomy of the myth of action versus inaction put forward by the members of the government; secondly, with the reality of what we are proposing; thirdly, with the global reality; and, fourthly, with the fundamental flaws in this bill as it stands. At the heart of those fundamental flaws is the problem of a lack of a level playing field for Australia and Australian business and, in so doing, sending emissions offshore—zinc, aluminium, concrete, cement, waste paper and so many other sectors who want to do the right thing but who cannot compete in a world where they have both hands tied behind their back and their competitors do not.

Let me deal firstly with this notion of the myth of inaction. What we saw under the previous government was something quite remarkable. In a world with 40 billion tonnes of CO2, Australia, at approximately 560 million tonnes or 1.4 per cent of global emissions, was one of only five or six nations in the developed world to actually meet its targets. We were given to believe that we were somehow a pariah, yet it was Australia—not Spain, Japan, Canada, New Zealand or the United States—which was actually meeting its targets. The only thing that the atmosphere knows, the only thing that the planet knows, is what level of CO2 in parts per million is actually emitted by a country. That is all that the atmosphere knows; yet under the previous government Australia was one of a handful of countries to meet its international commitments. If you want a test of action, it is who lived up to their obligations—not who promised but who lived up to their obligations.

That brings us to what we propose. We propose four simple measures to make real reductions, to take real steps and to take real action to deal with this problem. Firstly, we have said that we will deal with targets of 25 per cent if there is a comprehensive global agreement, 15 per cent if it is between 510 and 540 parts per million as an outcome from Copenhagen or five per cent if we have to go it alone. But we contemplate all of those actions. We give bipartisan support so that the government may go in good faith to negotiate with the rest of the world and cannot use the issue of targets as an excuse for domestic political confrontation.

Secondly, we have said that we would immediately set up a voluntary carbon scheme on 1 January 2010. We would set up a scheme which would allow for bankable credits to be created, which means they could be tendered against any future carbon price. This means that BHP, Rio or Alumina—it does not matter what the company is—has a real and tangible incentive to begin action now; not in two years or 2½ years under the government’s scheme but to begin action now. In addition, the voluntary carbon scheme would also allow for voluntary action to be credited over and above whatever targets we agree to in Copenhagen. In other words, if you take voluntary action, if you are a mum or dad who does something, under the government’s scheme it will not be counted but under ours it would be in addition to the national target. Thirdly, we will embark upon a clean energy revolution. We have already said that we will put in place a solar continent vision, underpinned by what we do domestically in schools, communities, and also with base load solar. There is much more to come on that front. Fourthly, we have said that if there is a level playing field there is a fundamental role for a price on carbon. If there is no level playing field, then what will occur is very simple—there will be carbon leakage.

The next thing that I want to address is the international environment. The international environment is a simple concept. There are two fundamental steps that will occur over the next six months. There is the Copenhagen conference, and the Copenhagen conference, as the Danish climate change minister, Connie Hedegaard, has said to me and to the member for Goldstein, is targets, targets, targets—‘We want to know what your targets are.’ We have said 25 per cent if there is a global agreement, 15 per cent if it is between 510 and 540 parts per million or five per cent against our 2000 emissions if there is no agreement whatsoever. That is our unilateral commitment.

Yet there is a second key element, and that is the United States. What is it that the Obama plan proposes? It differs from the Australian scheme in five key ways. Firstly, it offers 100 per cent coverage for those sectors which fall within it on not just their direct but also their indirect costs. Secondly, it excludes agriculture on a compulsory basis but includes agriculture on an offset basis. In other words agriculture can be used to make the great green carbon savings which we propose. Thirdly, coal is out. Fourthly, 30 per cent of permits go to the electricity sector. We know that the electricity sector in Australia is about to face a balance sheet crisis. In other words it has not been dealt with properly under the current system, and that is a fundamental difference. Fifthly, the export sector in the United States is approximately half the percentage of the economy which it is in Australia, and if you exclude elaborately transformed goods or if you look solely at the commodities sector, the commodities sector in the US is a significantly lesser part than it is in Australia. What that means is that those sectors are better treated.

There is no level playing field between the US and Australia, and as we go towards Copenhagen we see this simple principle. What occurs in the US will have an impact on Canada, will have an impact on what occurs in New Zealand and will have an impact on what occurs most fundamentally in Europe. Copenhagen and the United States will coalesce. The systems will harmonise, and we seek simply to make the point that we must coalesce with the US system if we are to have a real impact on emissions and if we are to protect Australian jobs from the task of losing a level playing field.

Against that background fundamental flaws exist in this bill. Firstly, it does not provide business with certainty. Under any scenario there are three completely different outcomes—a five per cent, a 15 per cent or a 25 per cent scenario. The bill cannot give that certainty. Secondly, the regulations do not exist. Sixty industries? How many have we seen? How many will we see? We will be making fundamental changes not through legislation but through unseen regulation which affect people’s rights and which affect people’s jobs. Whether you are in Gladstone, Mackay or Rockhampton; whether you are in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia or Tasmania your lives will be changed by regulations which may be disallowable but which are never brought before the parliament for fundamental debate.

Then we see that this lack of a level playing field applies to everything: Zinc, aluminium, steel—any processing of commodities in Australia. LNG is likely to stop investing in Australia and we will simply see that China and Indonesia will develop coal resources, and not only will Australia lose the investment but the world will use a fuel which is three times the CO2. That is not good; that is not right. That is not what should be occurring.

We see another simple flaw. Firstly, there is no certainty under what the government proposes. Secondly, it is out of sync with the United States. Thirdly, there is no level playing field. Fourthly, from something as simple as the waste coal mine gas sector 85 million tonnes of CO2 could be saved between now and 2020. Under the Rudd scheme, under the government’s scheme, what we will see is 85 million tonnes of CO2 released because the standards that are in place in the US and in Germany are not in place in Australia.

For all of these reasons, because this bill achieves a unique double, because it achieves the double of sending up global emissions and of sending Australian jobs overseas, it fails in its fundamental purpose. For these reasons we have moved that it be delayed and deferred until after the United States and Copenhagen outcomes are known. I support the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, and I express the deep reservation that these bills will simply send global emissions up.

Debate (on motion by Mr Gray) adjourned.