Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to ask a question about the amendment that is before the Senate. In particular, I am referring to amendment (3), subsection 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 …

Labor is moving to bring forward the flexible-pricing period. That is what this amendment does. This amendment means that the regulations need to be in place by 31 May 2014. It is now 17 March. That means, according to the Labor Party's amendment, we will be going to flexible pricing in 3½ months, with the regulations having to be tabled in a matter of 2½ months, maximum. So I put to the Labor Party: given that the Climate Change Authority has now made its recommendations to government about the target, and that the recommendation is a 15-plus-four reduction on 2000 levels—that is, 19 per cent by 2020—with a trajectory of 40 to 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2030, what is the cap that the Labor Party is proposing? Since they are saying the Climate Change Authority report must be taken into account, what is the cap that the Labor Party is proposing with this amendment, that they would expect to be introduced on or by 1 July 2014 with regulations in place by 31May?

I put this question very clearly because the way the amendment is written—I asked this question before and did not get an answer, so I am asking it again—it assumes a default of five per cent. It does not take into account or implement the Climate Change Authority's recommendations as released in its report a few weeks ago. This goes to the crux of why we actually have a fixed price period leading to a flexible price. If people cast their minds back, the Labor Party and the Greens could not agree on the emissions reduction target in Prime Minister Rudd's first attempt to introduce an emissions trading scheme. The cap that he proposed was a five per cent emissions reduction target on 2000 levels by 2020, when all of the science said that was woefully inadequate. In fact, at the Bali UNFCCC conference, the Bali Road Map was a 25 to 40 per cent reduction by developed countries by 2020 to enable developing countries to have a window of opportunity. That was the Bali Road Map. The Greens supported the Bali Road Map. We said it had to be a minimum of 25 per cent, and that was back in 2007.

Seven years later, the climate science is far more settled, but it is far worse. We are now on a trajectory of at least four degrees, if not more, in a climate emergency. Clearly, five per cent is woefully inadequate. When the clean energy package was designed, five per cent was a default. It was not an acceptance that five per cent was adequate. It was to protect from the fact that, if the Climate Change Authority made a recommendation to the parliament to have a certain target and the parliament rejected that target, the scheme would not stop. It would continue with a default of five per cent until the parliament determined what the cap would be. That is why there is a default in the scheme—not that anyone expected the default to be effective but, rather, that the default would enable the scheme to continue.

I put the question very clearly to the Labor Party: given that you want to go to flexible pricing starting 1 July 2014, what is the cap you are proposing under this amendment?