Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share 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.