Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Hansard source

I am responding in part to the parliamentary secretary's—

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Brown, please resume your seat. I again remind senators on my left and my right that Senator Brown has the right to be heard in silence.

As I was saying, I was responding in part to the parliamentary secretary's contribution, and I think that is also my role—that I should be able to respond to the parliamentary secretary's nonresponse to questions that have been asked by the opposition. He went into very little detail. So, if I may, I will continue. I will of course get to a number of questions that I would like the parliamentary secretary to answer.

What I think is important to understand, though, is that the policy the coalition is seeking to replace the current law with is a dud of a policy. There are many reputable, highly credible scientists and economists who do not support their policy—people whom the government would normally take notice of. No less an authority than Mr Alan Kohler sums it up by saying:

Tony Abbott will have to either drop the promise to cut emissions by five per cent or the promise to repeal the carbon tax - both together will be impossible without massive Government spending under the proposed "direct action" policy of paying companies to reduce emissions.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to respond to that assertion while responding to the other questions he has so far failed to respond to in this debate. I also ask the parliamentary secretary when we can expect to see the release of the white paper on the Emissions Reduction Fund.

Mr Kohler went on to say:

The liquefied natural gas (LNG) export boom will make it virtually impossible for Australia to meet the Government's carbon emissions reduction target.

According, therefore, to one of the most respected economic voices in Australia, there is no chance of meeting the minimum target under the Direct Action Plan. Mr Kohler also says:

… not trying to reduce carbon emissions at all would put Australia at odds with the rest of the world, including China and the US, and endanger trade agreements …

He further suggests:

… the Prime Minister and Treasurer Joe Hockey will be, or at least should be, desperately hoping that the Senate never allows the repeal of the emission trading scheme legislation, so it's not exactly a broken promise—at least they tried.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to respond to those points made by Alan Kohler.

I have a further question to put to the parliamentary secretary. In doing so, I also seek more information about the Emissions Reduction Fund. My understanding is that the coalition's approach to reducing carbon pollution is focused on the creation of the $2.9 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, which will pay Australian companies to reduce pollution. Labor's focus, in contrast, was to cap the amount of pollution permitted to enter the atmosphere and to have a system allowing businesses to find the cheapest way to reduce their pollution. The coalition's policy is to use taxpayers' money to pay big polluters.

My understanding is that there has been independent research and modelling undertaken by Monash University's Centre of Policy Studies. Their study showed that the ERF will see pollution increase by eight per cent to 10 per cent above 2000 levels by 2020, will reduce pollution by nearly one-third less than Labor's policy and will require significant additional investment of between $4 billion and $15 billion to achieve the 2020 target of a five per cent reduction on 2000 levels. I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary's views on those findings.

The same research and modelling says that costs and pollution both increase over time under the coalition policy. Even with spending increasing, over the period from 2014 to 2050, to about $88 billion dollars, pollution was still estimated to rise by 45 per cent over this time frame. Up to 2020, the cumulative effective subsidy to businesses that do not make changes to their pollution was estimated at $50 billion.

A final question I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to relates to the 20 million trees initiative. Can the parliamentary secretary provide more information about the 20 million trees initiative? For example, can he tell us where these trees will be planted, when the program will be rolled out, how much is budgeted for it and how much abatement is expected from the 20 million trees? I have also been asked by a number of constituents whether the Green Army will be involved in the 20 million trees initiative.

Senator Fifield interjecting—

I would have thought that these questions would have been something that Senator Fifield would like to respond to. It is, after all, an initiative of his government. I know they are not much on letting out information but, considering they have brought this legislation to the Senate here today, I think they should have been prepared to answer some very basic questions, and I am sure that Australians around the country would be very interested to hear those responses.