Senate debates

Wednesday, 12 February 2014

Bills

Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013; Second Reading

6:15 pm

Photo of Anne McEwenAnne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate today on the government's legislation, entitled the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013. This bill is part of a package of bills intended to undo all of the good work done by the previous Labor government to reduce Australia's carbon emissions—to reduce the amount of pollution that we put into the atmosphere, pollution that causes global warming and that global warming adversely affects our climate and results in things like extreme weather conditions. It affects our weather so that our agricultural and horticultural industries are severely affected by pests and diseases that once occurred in one area of our nation and now turn up in other areas because the climate is warming.

There is no good to come from carbon pollution and there is only good to come from reducing carbon pollution. Personally, I thought the whole issue of carbon pollution—how it causes global warming and the effect of that on how a nation lives its life—was fairly simple, but then I am influenced by science and experts in this field. I do not pretend to be a scientist or an expert myself, and so I am happy to take the advice of those who know what they are talking about. I am happy to take that advice because I do not want to see our nation riven by bushfires and floods or our crops or industries devastated. It is disappointing that every time we talk about carbon pollution reduction here, we again have to acknowledge that, unfortunately, the Abbott government has been hijacked by ideologues who do not believe the science and do not believe in climate change. The government is led by a person who himself does not believe in the science or climate change and is dismissive of those who do. It is extraordinary that we have to keep pointing that out. The rest of the world understands well and truly what the science is and accepts it. We have a government that thinks they know more than the scientists and hence we have this package of bills of repeal legislation before us. The Prime Minister is arrogant in thinking that he knows more than scientists.

This particular bill dismantles the independent Climate Change Authority. That authority was set up by the Labor government to provide advice independent of government—advice from scientists and experts to government on matters like meeting carbon emission targets and the appropriate level for the RET. It was set up with Professor Tim Flannery as the initial chair; he is certainly independent of any government. People who know Professor Flannery would be prepared to say that it was a statutory body intended to provide strong and independent advice to governments. The Abbott government immediately wanted to shut it down because it was a strong and independent authority and because they do not like to take advice from experts when that advice conflicts with their own ideology. It was interesting that, when the Climate Change Authority was targeted for demolition by the Abbott government, the reaction of Australians was one of horror. Professor Flannery and others associated with the authority acknowledged the reaction of the Australian people and embarked on a process to recreate, if you like, the Climate Change Authority. Knowing that they would never get any money from the Abbott coalition government, they sought crowd funding to continue the organisation—with extraordinary success, I understand. They raised their target of $1 million within a fortnight. It goes to underline and demonstrate that, while the current government might not be committed to climate change, many Australians certainly are and are prepared to put their hands in their pockets to help.

That was a great response, as was the response of ordinary Australians to the various climate rallies, which a number of senators from this side attended in November last year. There was a very well-attended rally in my home state of South Australia, in Adelaide. It was especially great to see so many young people turning up there and speaking about how devastated they were that the new government was not committed to addressing climate change and was going to undo all the good work that the Labor government had done.

The coalition government are mindful of the fact that not all Australians share in their ideology and that not all Australians are in the camp of the loony right who think that climate change is some sort of conspiracy concocted by the left. The coalition realise that, to have any kind of credibility, they have to make a token effort to indicate that they still support the carbon emissions reduction target—that is, reducing emissions by 2020 over year 2000 emissions levels—to which Australia is committed. So they have come up with their ridiculous Direct Action Plan. Mirroring the minister who concocted the plan and who is trying to introduce it in Australia, the plan is lightweight, without substance and ineffective; it is what you would expect from the Minister for the Environment, Mr Hunt.

Anyone with half a brain knows that the best way to stop behaviour which causes pollution is to put a price on pollution. That is the fundamental economic basis of the emissions trading scheme to which Labor wanted to move. It is a sad truth that, if you put a price on doing something, people think twice about doing it. Every credible economist in Australia and elsewhere in the world knows that an emissions trading scheme—in particular, a global emissions trading scheme—is the most appropriate way to reduce harmful carbon emissions. It works. Not only does it work but also it can be done on a global basis. It institutionalises in a society such as ours the mechanisms to make sure that carbon emissions reductions are done on a continuing basis in a way which: spreads the cost across the whole community; enables income to be generated to compensate industries which do not pollute; encourages polluting organisations not to pollute; and encourages companies to embark on energy efficiency measures and new technologies which will replace the dirty, carbon-emitting fuel technologies on which we rely at the moment.

The Labor government was committed to an emissions trading scheme; the current government is committed to a Direct Action Plan which nobody credibly supports. The former Treasury secretary Mr Ken Henry called it 'bizarre', and that is how it is viewed by pretty much every credible economist, environmentalist and scientist who works in the area of climate change. The Direct Action Plan is still fairly light on detail from the current minister, but we do know a couple of things about it. One of them is that its centrepiece is carbon sequestration in the soil. Basically, the Direct Action Plan sets up a fund providing money to people who own property to grow trees and sequester carbon. Hopefully, this method will work; realistically, it is still unproven. There is uncertainty about its viability in the long term. Is it the right thing to do to invest so much money and effort into this particular method of abating carbon when forestry can be so vulnerable to climate change or pests or other things which might affect the ability of trees to sequester carbon? Any reading of the science about carbon sequestration reveals that it says, 'We hope it works, but at the moment we're not really sure it's going to be the answer—and, of course, it's not a broad, far-reaching method for reducing carbon emissions, as an emissions trading scheme would be.'

Another thing we know about the Direct Action Plan is that part of its focus is to provide funding to organisations to introduce energy-efficiency measures—for example, green buildings and similar measures. Such measures aiming to reduce carbon emissions are incredibly expensive. You have to ask: where is the government going to find the money to pay for this Direct Action Plan? They are fairly silent about that. They will have to either increase taxes or cut spending somewhere else. We know that the government is good at cutting spending, so you would have to worry about that.

We also know that the Direct Action Plan will increase costs to Australian households by approximately $1,200 per year. When the Labor government introduced the carbon tax, we were very careful to ensure that the additional costs to households arising from the implementation of the carbon tax were offset by various measures—which are, of course, going to be undone, not by this particular bill but by the associated package of legislation. But there is no indication from the government how they intend to compensate ordinary families for the costs of their so-called Direct Action Plan.

What they are going to attempt to do is replace the potential for an emissions trading scheme with a direct action plan that is light on detail, unproven, and not supported by any credible economist or decent environmental scientist. Overall, you have to question the commitment of this government to Australia's target for reducing carbon emissions. You have to question their commitment to direct action at all, given, as I said earlier, that the coalition is stacked with people who do not actually believe that carbon emissions caused by human beings are causing damaging climate change. The Direct Action Plan of the government is currently subject to an inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee. I had a look today at some of the submissions that that committee has received as part of its deliberations. I looked very hard to try and find a submission that actually supported the Direct Action Plan, but I could not find one. I think that is fairly indicative of what people who really understand what they are talking about think about the Direct Action Plan.

I would like to make note of some comments made in one of the submissions to that Senate inquiry. Those comments are from another independent and very well regarded organisation, the Climate Institute. I would recommend people read the submission by the Climate Institute, because it is very comprehensive and also very balanced. It says, for example, that 'no independent analysis to date has shown that the policy framework as outlined'—by the coalition government—'can achieve Australia’s international obligations and emission commitments'. No independent analysis at all supports what the coalition government's so-called climate change Direct Action Plan purports to do. The submission also says that 'international and Australian experience bears out concerns that a central policy mechanism of the nature proposed by the government will not drive substantial absolute emissions reductions'—so, it will not work. It goes on to say that 'under all scenarios Australia’s emissions continue to increase to 2020 and beyond'—again, it will not work. And worse, carbon emissions will continue to increase. You have to ask: is there anything salvageable out of the Direct Action Plan? The Climate Institute says that 'to achieve domestic emissions reductions that would deliver the five per cent target, the government’s policy requires additional taxpayer expenditure of at least $4 billion to 2020'—for it to meet even the modest emissions reduction targets that Australia has signed up to would cost us an extra $4 billion.

So it does not work—under the plan, emissions will increase—and it is going to cost more money. You would have to say that the Direct Action Plan is not worth the paper it is written on—but we knew that, because it is a document prepared by a government that is not really serious about addressing carbon emissions, or pollution, or the terrible impact that climate change is having on Australia right now and, if not addressed, will continue to have. I can only say I wholeheartedly oppose this particular bill in this package of legislation. It is unnecessary, and it will do nothing to address the issue of pollution and the importance of tackling climate change in Australia.

Comments

No comments