Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was speaking to this motion when the Senate adjourned last night, and I was indicating that I will be one of the few government speakers on this debate. We are trying to get this bill to a vote. It is part of the election commitment made by the coalition. It was an election commitment which was warmly endorsed by a clear majority of all Australians. I cannot understand the Labor Party, in particular, opposing it. I can understand the Greens opposing it, because the Greens are rabid when it comes to anything to do with their favourite project of inflicting on Australia the carbon tax and all the paraphernalia around the Climate Change Authority that this bill seeks to abolish.

The Labor Party should understand the voice of the people. There can be no misunderstanding: as Tony Abbott said many, many a time, the last election was to be a referendum on the carbon tax. The people of Australia spoke very, very clearly on what they wanted to do with the carbon tax. They wanted it abolished. Why? Because they, like me, realised that having the world's largest carbon tax does not save the planet, it does nothing at all to reduce carbon emissions around the world. In fact I emphasised, when I spoke before, that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon. If, with this carbon tax, we do reduce our emissions by five per cent, which is the goal, then five per cent of 1.4 per cent is not going to make any difference whatsoever, not one iota of difference, to the changing climate of the world if man's emission of carbon is the cause of that.

Before my opponents malign me and keep saying that I do not believe in climate change, I repeat, for probably the 500th time in this chamber, that I do acknowledge climate change; of course the climate is changing. We were once covered with ice. Once upon a time the centre of Australia was a rainforest. Of course the climate changes. But I get sick of hearing the Greens saying that all of the floods and the cyclones we have seen in recent times are because we did not have a carbon tax early enough. Every time the Greens say, 'Look at these awful floods. They are the worst floods we've ever seen in Australia, in South-East Queensland,' I keep pointing out to them that that is only since 1974. They are not the worst. They are only worse than anything since 1974. There were bigger ones in 1974. I am sure that was climate change that caused them in 1974.

Similarly, Cyclone Yasi up my way was the worst and biggest cyclone we have ever had in Australia—since 1917, when a bigger cyclone struck the coast of North Queensland. It is all relative. The climate does move in cycles and, as someone who lives in the north, I know that cyclones are cyclic. Perhaps that is why they are called 'cyclones'. Every 10 or so years we will get a very severe cyclone. I know in my town of Ayr we had three cyclones in two years back in the late 1960s, I think it was. Fortunately, touch wood, we have not had any since then. We have seen the cyclones come and I regret for the people of Cardwell and Mission Beach that it hit there, but I have to say I was glad that it did not hit my town.

The point I make is that these things happen. They have always happened. Yet if you took any notice of the Greens—which, fortunately, very few Australians do these days—you would think that all of this was because we did not have a carbon tax early enough. They say, 'We're going to stop Australia's emissions by five per cent'—that is five per cent of the 1.4 per cent—and suddenly that is going to cure every cyclone and every flood in the world. I heard Senator Waters on the radio this morning and learned there is a new reason for climate change, and that is the fact that Mr Hunt has today, fortuitously, given approval for the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion. It is news that I was delighted to hear. At last common-sense has prevailed. Senator Waters even claimed that this decision is going to ruin the Barrier Reef—mind you, if Senator Waters had a look at a map she would see that Abbot Point is a long, long way from the Barrier Reef. According to her, it is going to destroy not only the Barrier Reef and the tourist industry but, from the way Senator Waters was going on, you would think it is going to destroy mankind. But it is also going to cause climate change, according to Senator Waters. These are the sorts of wild accusations you get from the radical environment movement. They have no interest in science and proper process.

In the case of Abbot Point, the approval is given subject to the most stringent conditions—conditions that have been imposed by scientists and people who understand these issues. You will have the Greens and Greenpeace and everyone protesting. The Greens always love the standard of living that Australia's wealth brings, but they want to stop the process that brings the wealth to Australia. It brings wealth to Australia in a sustainable way that is environmentally conscious. The conditions that Mr Hunt has imposed are pretty stringent. I just hope they do not frighten away the proponents. I am hopeful that those developments will go ahead, because it will mean so much to the people in the small township of Bowen, just south of where I live. I recently attended a seminar in Bowen when the whole town was anxiously awaiting approval for this expansion. There were small business people and people wanting jobs in that area who were desperately keen for a decision to be made. I congratulate Mr Hunt on his decision to proceed with that, and with the Gladstone and Mackay proposals as well.

You will hear a lot from the Greens and the ABC over the next week or so on how this is really going to destroy mankind, but I ask those who might be interested to have a look at the conditions, to understand that these approvals are set with the interests of Australia and Australians in mind. You will hear the Greens saying, 'This will bring so many more ships through the Barrier Reef and that will destroy the Barrier Reef.' I am sorry, but ships have been coming through the Barrier Reef for over a hundred years and any problems that the Barrier Reef has have not been caused by ships sailing between the reef and the mainland or through one of the channels there. I am delighted that Mr Hunt has made that decision, and I will do everything in my power to support that decision and support the people of Bowen.

The workers and the miners who have been losing their jobs in the Queensland coalfields do not know where the Labor Party are when it comes to the loss of workers' jobs because of carbon taxes and mining taxes. You never seem to see them. They are only interested in the miners and the workers when they pay their union fees and can allow the union bosses to do whatever they do do these days with union fees. We only have to look at Mr Thomson to understand some of the things that are being done with union fees. But that seems to be the only time the Labor Party are interested in the jobs of workers.

I am interested in the jobs of miners in Central Queensland. I am interested in small businesses in Bowen and Mackay. I am interested in those wanting work there. I am interested, more than any, I might say, in our tourist industry and our fishing industry and in making sure that our greatest national asset, the Great Barrier Reef, is protected. I am confident that the decision made today, with all its conditions, will continue to protect the Great Barrier Reef. I remind the Greens and the Labor Party that, if they look back through history, it has been the Liberal Party in government that have taken all the significant measures to protect the Great Barrier Reef, because we have always understood how significant it is. It is a win-win situation on Abbot Point.

I have digressed, I have to say, a little bit from the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill, but it was important to bring things into perspective and to reject Senator Waters' claim, which I heard her make on radio, that the approval for Abbot Point will hasten climate change around the world. This just shows the stupidity of the comments.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Coal exports will.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate your protection, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would rather have the debate with Senator Whish-Wilson, because, as with so many things that the Greens say, it is all based on scaremongering and certainly not on science. You just have them saying anything on the basis that the end justifies the means. I know the Greenpeace attitude: tell any lie you like, as long as you get the result you want. Isn't it the Greenpeace motto: tell any lie you like, misrepresent any fact, as long as you get the end result you want? All lies and misrepresentations are in order.

Getting back to the bill before us, it is essential that we are allowed to honour the commitment we made to the Australian people, and that the Australian Labor Party made to the Australian people as well. I re-emphasise to the Australian Labor Party and to people who might be listening to this debate: it was the Australian Labor Party, the ALP, the Gillard government, that solemnly promised before the 2010 election that they would not introduce a carbon tax. Yet, today we hear from Labor speakers that it is so good. If it is so good, can you tell me why your leader prior to the 2010 election promised not to bring it in? Because of that promise, she got herself elected. Before the 2013 election, the Senate spokesman for the Labor Party was handing round pamphlets in her campaign saying, 'We've already got rid of the carbon tax.' How is that? This is a pamphlet from the opposition spokesman in this chamber on the environment before the election saying, 'We've got rid of the carbon tax.' Well, they hadn't. But here is her chance now. She can retrospectively honour the promise that she was making then that they had gotten rid of it.

The government will be well advised in relation to climate matters by the CSIRO, whose science and understanding we greatly respect. We will be advised by the Bureau of Meteorology—Australia's weather experts, who are world-renowned. We do not need a Climate Change Authority made up of Labor Party friends, with hundreds of public servants and huge costs, giving the previous government the sort of advice they wanted to hear. I have to say it was more political advice than it was climate change advice.

We do not need that, and the Australian people do not need to have to pay for that. We have some of the pre-eminent scientific organisations in the world—the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO—there to advise us. We also have very expert people in the Department of the Environment to advise the minister. We have a minister who understands these things, unlike previous ministers, and who appreciates what is what and, more importantly, a minister who is determined to ensure that the promises we made to the Australian people before the last election are honoured.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013. We are here today to discuss the Abbott government's continued attack on science and on the Public Service. We are here today to witness the continuation of the Abbott government's tactic of destroying agencies whose expertise does not match with the ideology of the new government. We are here today, yet again, to be dismayed by the Abbott government's continued attack on openness and transparency. And we are here today because those on the government benches do not wish for frank and fearless advice from the Public Service, just hollow echoes of their own thought bubbles. This is a disappointing development in Australian politics, and it is not in the interests of the nation.

This attempt to destroy the Climate Change Authority comes on top of the government's closure of the Climate Commission and AusAID, the abolition of the science portfolio, the loss of hundreds of jobs from CSIRO and the earlier attempt to destroy the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. While in this place we often disagree on policy, never have we disagreed upon the need for public debate to be informed by expert advice—that is, never before the election of this current Liberal-Nationals government. We may disagree on whose expert advice is best, but never before has a government in this country sought to destroy agencies simply because their expert advice is not to the liking of the government's blinkered, narrow-minded belief system. That is what we are witnessing today. The Liberal-Nationals government is seeking to destroy the Climate Change Authority because it does not like the advice it provides and it does not want any government authority at all to be able to measure how well or—more likely—how poorly its Direct Action policy is or is not working.

The Climate Change Authority, in a measured and sensible manner, provides expert knowledge about action to counter climate change both in Australia and internationally, the efficacy of those actions and the adequacy of those actions. The Climate Change Authority completed its first review of the Renewable Energy Target in December 2012, recommending keeping the renewable energy target at 41,000 gigawatt hours. The Climate Change Authority has commenced work on the first review of Australia's emissions reduction goals. The targets and progress review will recommend short-, medium- and long-term emission reduction goals and assess Australia's progress towards its medium- and long-term emissions reduction targets.

In its targets and progress review report to the government, due to be released in February 2014, the authority will review Australia's progress towards its medium- and long-term emissions reduction targets; recommend a 2020 emissions reduction target; recommend a national carbon budget and indicative national emissions trajectory; discuss how Australia might meet its trajectory, budget and target, including how different sectors of the economy could contribute and the role of international emissions reductions; and, as required by legislation, recommend caps on emissions under the carbon-pricing mechanism. In framing its recommendations, the authority draws upon existing and new analysis of a wide range of issues, including the accumulating body of science and underpinning concerns about climate change; the extent and nature of ongoing international arrangements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; how any global efforts to reduce emissions might be shared among nations; and the economic and social implications for Australia of different targets for reducing emissions.

The Liberal-Nationals government do not want to hear the outcome of this report because they know it will say things that their members in the 'climate change is crap' brigade do not want to hear. They do not want to discuss how Australia might meet its trajectory, budget and target because they have no intention to meet any of these.

Even in the draft report, which is publicly available on the climate change agency's website—and I am sure the Liberal-National government will try to hide or expunge it as they tried to expunge the Gonski report—there are a number of points they do not like because these points expose how dishonest they have been when debating climate change science and climate change economics. The draft report highlights that significant action is being taken on climate change by the international community. China has pilot emissions trading schemes planned for seven provinces and cities. The first began in 2013 and there are plans to design a national emissions trading scheme—that is right: China, the world's most populous nation, a Communist nation, is adopting a market based emissions trading scheme while the Australian Liberal-National government, the Abbott-Truss government, is introducing Marxist-style direct government intervention into the economy.

On this issue the Chinese Communist government are acting more liberal than the Australian Liberal Party itself. To put it another way: on this issue the action by the Australian Liberal Party is more Marxist than the actions of the Chinese Communist government are. I am surprised that Minister Abetz can keep from choking when trying to explain this direct action policy. China has renewable energy targets, feed-in tariff support for solar, wind and biomass power, a policy of closure of inefficient small- and medium-sized coal plants and industrial facilities, appliance and building standards, an energy efficiency target, industrial energy efficiency retrofits and vehicle fuel efficiency standards.

The United States of America has subnational emissions trading schemes in California and nine north-eastern states, subnational renewable energy targets, financial incentives supporting renewable energy, proposed national regulations limiting emissions from fossil fuel power plants, appliance and building standards, industrial energy efficiency assessments, vehicle fuel efficiency standards and vehicle emissions standards. The European Union has an emissions trading scheme amongst its 28 member states and Norway, a renewable energy target and support for cogeneration, feed-in tariffs for renewable energy, appliance and building standards, an energy efficiency target, vehicle emissions standards and renewable fuel production incentives.

India has a coal tax, an energy efficiency trading scheme for the power sector, renewable energy targets, vehicle fuel efficiency standards and vehicle emissions standards pending. Japan, Canada, South Korea, South Africa and New Zealand have taken substantive action to tackle climate change. There ends the furphy that no other nations are doing anything about climate change.

When you combine all those countries you can see that substantive action is being taken by countries representing an overwhelming majority of the world's population and carbon dioxide output. You can see why the government do not want an agency that explicitly collates and releases that data, because it is not in the Liberal-National government's interest for that information to be widely distributed amongst the Australian population. Mr Abbott and his friends are happy for there to be a widespread belief that there has been no international action on climate change. Indeed, they have dishonestly pushed that view strongly over the last six years. The Abbott-Truss government is not going to like the Climate Change Authority's targets and progress review report because it will recommend a higher target than five per cent on 2000 levels. That can be clearly seen in the draft report which is already released. The draft report says:

The Authority presents two options:

The Authority will recommend a single 2020 target and a single 2030 trajectory range in its Final Report.

Either of these recommendations the Abbott-Truss government will find extremely embarrassing. That is because Tony Abbott has recently confirmed that his government has abandoned its longstanding policy to reduce Australia's emissions by between five and 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020, a crucial and internationally scrutinised goal that had retained bipartisan support since 2009, despite significant international action, as I outlined. It is no real surprise to see Tony Abbott walking away from his early support for Australia's commitment—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask you to refer to the members in the other place by their proper titles.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tony Abbott? That is his name.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prime Minister?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can refer to him as Tony Abbott.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Abbott.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, Mr Abbott.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You get worked up when I have a go, so do it properly this time.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, a little bit precious over there.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just ask you to adhere to the standing orders.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anyway, it is no real surprise to see Mr Abbott walking away from his early support for Australia's commitment to reduce carbon pollution. He has made it clear on a number of occasions that he sees no particular problem with carbon pollution. But it is disappointing that, rather than listening to the expert advice given by the Climate Change Authority, he will close down the agency instead.

The explanatory memorandum for this bill gives an explanation of why the Climate Change Authority is being scrapped:

The Government has a long-standing commitment to abolish the Climate Change Authority (CCA) because it is not needed.

…   …   …

Abolishing the CCA will make a significant contribution to delivering a smaller climate change bureaucracy.

What a hollow attempt at an explanation. I would say the government do not think it is needed because they do not intend to achieve any tangible outcome from their Direct Action policy—not even the 5 per cent reduction on the year-2000-level target that they appear to be walking away from.

This bill also scraps the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board, although you would not know it from the short title of this bill. There is very little about the scrapping of the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board in the explanatory memorandum, which does not even give a fig leaf of an explanation as to why this board is to be scrapped. There is not one word. I find it utterly bizarre that the government, especially the National Party with their alleged concern for rural Australia, is scrapping this board.

This is not a tin-pot board that meets once a year to discuss something of no importance. This is a board that has administered tens of millions of dollars of grants, and yet the Liberal-National government do not give one word of an explanation in their explanatory memorandum of why they want it scrapped. It is utterly remarkable. Talk about lack of transparency! Were you all too busy backflipping on education to finish writing the explanatory memorandum?

For senators and those listening who may not be aware, the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board was established under the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 to provide advice to the Australian government on the implementation of the Land Sector Package, which is part of the previous Labor government's Clean Energy Future plan. It has funded and supported a large number of projects since its inception.

From its 2011-12 annual report we can see some of the projects that the board has funded:

The first round of the Filling the Research Gap program has provided multi-year grants to 58 projects to the value of $47.3 million to support research into emerging abatement technologies, strategies and innovative management practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the land sector, sequester carbon and enhance sustainable agricultural practices.

The first round of the Action on the Ground program has provided multi-year grants to 59 projects to the value of $25.2 million that are supporting more than 420 farmers from across the county to trial on-farm practices and technologies to demonstrate how farmers can reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions or increase the sequestration of carbon in soil on their properties.

These round one Filling the Research Gap and Action on the Ground projects cover a broad range of farming practices and climatic and geographic conditions associated with the dairy, livestock (grazing and feedlot industries), horticulture and cropping industries and will help farmers become more sustainable and resilient. The funding for these projects is an investment in the future of Australia’s agricultural sector.

I am surprised—and pretty disappointed, quite frankly—that the Nationals are agreeing to the abolition of a board that is providing tens of millions of dollars of funding to projects in rural communities around the country. I am disappointed that the Nationals are agreeing to the abolition of a board that is making farming more sustainable and more environmentally friendly into the future. They really need to have a good hard look at themselves and have a think about what they really believe and who they really represent.

Can Senator Nigel Scullion explain to the farmers of the Northern Territory why the Nationals are agreeing to abolish the organisation that, through the Action on the Ground grant program, provided funding of up to $548,303 to trial and demonstrate practices to reduce nitrous oxide emissions associated with horticultural and cropping industries in Northern Australia? Can Senators Fiona Nash and John Williams explain to the farmers of New South Wales why the Nationals are agreeing to abolish the organisation that, through the Action on the Ground grant program, provided funding of up to $394,000 to trial minimum tillage practices, including controlled traffic and use of mulches, to reduce nitrous oxide emissions and increase sequestration of soil carbon during the production of vegetable crops in New South Wales? Can Senator McKenzie explain to the farmers of Victoria and to my home state of Tasmania as well why the Nationals are agreeing to abolish the organisation that, through the Action on the Ground grant program, provided funding of up to $540,909 for increased nitrogen use efficiency by cropping farmers in the high-rainfall zones of Victoria and Tasmania? Can Senator Ron Boswell and Senator Ian Macdonald explain to the farmers of Queensland why the Nationals are agreeing to abolish the organisation that, through the Action on the Ground grant program, provided funding of up to $534,364 to improve cattle-grazing practices to reduce methane and benefit soil carbon?

I think the farmers of Australia should be extremely concerned and disappointed at the decision of the National Party to vote against the projects funded under the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board that are improving knowledge and farming practices across Australia. I think those that vote for the National Party as a separate entity from the Liberal Party need an explanation of why they continue to act against the interests of the people they claim to represent.

I am surprised that the Liberal-National government want to destroy a board that now has significant expertise in agricultural science, economics including environmental economics, conservation ecology, greenhouse gas emissions measurement and reporting, greenhouse gas abatement measures, public administration, business management and the management or care of Indigenous-held land. I am surprised that the Liberal-National government want to destroy an organisation that now has significant expertise in overseeing carbon sequestering, enhancing sustainable agricultural practices and planting trees when these are all parts of their own Direct Action policy. You are abolishing the board that has the expertise to push your own policy agenda. That is crazy. It is just remarkable.

The government have come into this place with this bill and the previous bill on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation without presenting a clear case for the abolition of either of these bodies. They have made no argument other than a hollow ideological fig leaf of reducing bureaucracy, while at the same time advocating for direct government action on climate change. How much bureaucracy will it take to administer their Direct Action policy? They have stated that they have a policy to 'cut bureaucracy' in the Climate Change Authority, the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, yet will create a massive bureaucracy to administer their Direct Action policy. It is utterly ridiculous, honestly. Ironically, the expertise they will need to administer their Direct Action plan is already possessed by people in the Climate Change Authority, the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board and—you guessed it—the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This Liberal-National government will make them redundant and pay their redundancies, only to find that they will need to rehire them through the Department of the Environment when they realise their Marxist Direct Action policy will need considerably more bureaucracy than those that they have sought to destroy over the last few weeks.

Senators in this place should be extremely disappointed with this bill and indeed many of the bills that have been brought to this place under the Liberal-National government. Proper debate in this place should be based on fact, not on ideology. The Australian people should be greatly concerned about the Liberal-National habit of destroying agencies and boards whose advice they are opposed to merely for ideological reasons. As I said, this attempt to destroy the Climate Change Authority comes on top of the government's closure of the Climate Commission and AusAID, the abolition of the science portfolio, the loss of hundreds of jobs from CSIRO and previous attempts to destroy the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The Liberal-National government are seeking to destroy the Climate Change Authority because they do not like the advice it provides and they do not want any government authority at all to be able to measure how well or how poorly their Direct Action policy is or is not working. I just find it a bit of a joke. It is a joke, unfortunately, at the expense of the Australian people. I would urge all senators, but particularly those National Party senators who are voting to destroy a board that has granted tens of millions of dollars to Australian farmers, the people they claim to represent, to think again and to vote against this bill.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak against the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013. One of the things I want to take up from Senator Bilyk is trying to encourage the National Party to have a separate view from the Liberal Party. That is a long bow, quite frankly. They are truly the doormats to the Liberal Party. We have not seen them spectacularly stand up for anything much at all, quite frankly.

Getting back to the point, though, not only is this bill, along with the proposed repeal of other clean energy acts, environmental vandalism at its very heart, but at best these bills will if passed ensure that Australia's reputation as a progressive economy will fail. The rest of the world will view us in a negative way if we remove not only the Climate Change Authority but also the other work that has been progressed for a very long time. Moreover, our ability to effect real change in the economy to deal with the negative effects of climate change will be lost.

Abolishing the Climate Change Authority shows the contempt that the Abbott government has for independent advice on climate science and how it views our society and the economy. If you look at the latest series of attacks by the Abbott government on the scientific community in Australia—the cuts to the CSIRO and the abolition of the Climate Commission—what really underpins that is this base view of a complete rejection of grounded scientific research—so much so that what they are going to do will take the work that is being done by an independent umpire and stick it in the department. Incorporating the functions of the CCA into the Department of the Environment will mean ultimately that the minister will control the message and will be able to influence the content. It will mean, given the current history of this Abbott government, less transparency. We will not be privy to the work that they do, which is the hallmark of this government to date. It has not been able to move away from a negative agenda masked in secrecy.

The course of action by the Liberals will mean that the work done so far to lower emissions and have a cleaner energy future and a stronger economy will not happen. The Liberals and the Nats—I much prefer just to use the word 'Liberals', because I think the Nats are as one with them—will argue that this action they are taking is designed to address the perception that electricity prices have risen as a direct result of the clean energy legislation of the Rudd-Gillard government. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Climate Institute correctly identifies that, one year on from the introduction of the legislation, the electricity sector emissions have fallen, the economy is growing and the cost of living has not ballooned as the Liberals argued it would. We can all remember what Mr Abbott said would happen: the sky would fall in. He then went to a python squeeze and ultimately bellyflopped with the rhetoric that he used to describe how the economy would be destroyed as a consequence of believing in climate change.

The good news is that the annual carbon emissions have fallen. The regulated carbon limits have fallen by at least 12 million tonnes. It is rubbish for the Liberals to continue to spread the lie that electricity prices have risen as a consequence of this legislation. But they will continue, I suspect, even in this debate to argue that electricity prices have risen. Consumers know it, households know it: they have risen as a consequence of network upgrades, replacing ageing infrastructure. Around 40 per cent of the contribution of the carbon price has accounted for only nine per cent of power bills in 2012-13 according to the Climate Change Institute. No wonder the Liberals want to get rid of an independent umpire that provides facts and figures about the economy and how we are addressing climate change. They do not want the consumer or households to be aware of it.

The economy has continued to remain relatively strong, unlike the doom and gloom the Liberals in opposition argued would happen. The impact of the carbon price has been barely discernible according to the ABS, again, an independent body. When you move the climate authority into the department, can you have the same confidence that it will be an independent voice of reason? I doubt it. The great majority of Australian consumers have not been impacted by the carbon price. For those households that have been impacted, it has been a very small effect and there has been an assistance package there to assist. Of course it has not stopped the extreme language of the Liberals in talking down the economy, exaggerating the effects of putting a price on carbon and ignoring the reasons for the need to address climate change using the best market based mechanisms available.

The Liberals demonstrated in the last 100 days or so that they have forgotten how the market works. It can be the only explanation for the Liberals to justify why they are moving from market based mechanisms to regulatory planned models that really hark back to the 1960s, which was the last time we saw them in this country. One wonders what did happen to the Liberals and free market? You only have to go back to the 2007 federal election under Mr John Howard, who effectively was supporting an emissions trading scheme as part of their platform. There has been an enormous transformation, it appears. Instead of progressing forward with market based economic solutions, we have gone back 20 years to the 1960s under the Liberals who support a planned economy. I guess next we will be hearing them champion Stalin.

What did the Liberal Party of Australia become? Now it looks like champions of a centrally planned economic policy. To give you some feel for that, the so-called Direct Action policy is widely discredited. Let me go to some of the black holes that it is. The government, I suspect, will be required to put significant funding into the Direct Action policy if it is ever to work. We will move from that question as to whether they want it to work or whether it is just a face saver for true climate deniers. It is, quite frankly, an odd policy when you look at the content of it—if we could. Of course they have not put that on the table.

We can assume what direct action means. They have made some statements about it. It does look to date, though, to be politically convenient but ideologically incongruous, financially expensive and probably irrelevant to the future. It certainly will not fit into the global action on climate change. But none of this has stopped the Liberals on their relentless march towards political expediency by effectively, I think, being captured by the climate change deniers within their own party, who are now seeking to tear down a market based solution and replace it with the regulatory model which effectively consists of a two-word slogan of 'direct action' with no details behind it, a call to arms perhaps by the Liberals to try and find a bit more meat on the bone.

Let us be honest: the real reason they want to repeal the clean energy bill including the Climate Change Authority and replace it with a policy with no details is, ultimately, the climate change deniers captured the Liberal Party. They do not believe in climate change. They do not want to effect change and they will continue to use Direct Action. Without a model to look at to see how it will work, it seems to be a system that will use taxpayers' money to fund big business in an attempt to reduce emissions—a very poor way to try to reduce emissions. Maybe those on the other side will be able to enlighten me in this debate how that Direct Action policy will work, how it will achieve the most efficient reduction of emissions through the use of taxpayers' money in the first place and why they would replace it with a market based mechanism. But we have not heard from them about that. There will be plenty of excuses later as to why Direct Action fails but let us not get ahead of the debate here.

The coalition have promised that their flawed clean energy policy rests on two things: the repeal of the carbon legislation and the implementation of Direct Action. What we have before parliament is only half the policy. It is true that they are attempting to do the repeal today, but I think that they, even in government and true to the Liberal's DNA, can only say no to sensible policy which will achieve a clean energy future and, through a market based operation, the reduction of carbon emissions while maintaining a strong economy.

While they say that they accept climate change, that it is real and that humans are contributing to it, I am not convinced that they are truly saying it with conviction. The Liberals have not told us how the other half of their Direct Action policy will achieve real and meaningful change. They promised to be a consultative government, a stable adult government and a government that would work with others, and I think this is where the public have been misled by the coalition while in opposition and when they came to government. The government's first actions have been to abolish what they can see, to abolish what they do not understand, to say no to things that they are unsure of and to continue to cut harshly into the Public Service and the economy. They explained none of that in the lead-up to the last election, and I think the public have a right to ask whether this is the government that they elected.

Any responsible government would have put their credentials on the table and indicated how they were going to achieve their reductions through direct action. The coalition said that the action plan would coincide with the introduction of their Direct Action Plan to tackle climate change. That is what they have said. Where is it? It is not on the table. Let us be clear about the coalition's position. They are now asking us to abolish the Climate Change Authority, an independent umpire that provides an independent voice. They want to remove the market mechanism to reduce emissions. They want to do all of the above, without putting their bona fides on the table and without indicating what will replace it, while continuing to be a negative and carping government.

The economic impact of this has not been modelled. One of the things that Senator Cormann became famous for, without verballing him too much, is asking for modelling. Where is the modelling to show that Direct Action will achieve the outcomes? Have they done the modelling? Have they provided the certainty that removing a market based mechanism such as the ETS will be less efficient than their Direct Action program? I am not going to embarrass Senator Cormann by asking for the modelling. Quite frankly, I think we all know that it does not exist.

It is more likely that a Direct Action program will simply be a transfer for dud harebrained schemes that big business dream up to suck money out of the Australian taxpayer to support their attempts of reducing emissions. I think any and all of that will be on the table for the Liberals.

The unstated problem with this Direct Action Plan is: where is the money going to come from? How are they going to fund it? Some of the critical elements of their Direct Action Plan are simply not there. More importantly, where is the modelling to show that they will be able to purchase sufficient domestic abatement to meet Australia's bipartisan 2020 emissions reduction target of five per cent compared with the 2000 levels, based on the work done by the Department of Climate Change? Will we achieve the targets or will we simply be provided with an excuse as to why there will be a shortfall? That is the crucial bit.

If we look at the evidence to date, the size of the suggested shortfall—that is, the difference between what the emissions trading scheme under Labor would achieve and what Direct Action could possibly achieve—will be the difference between the target of 159 million tonnes of CO2 abatement and about 40 million tonnes, which is the amount Direct Action will achieve on average by 2020 according to some of the best estimates. So there will be about 119 million tonnes missing. Where are they going to find it? One of their Direct Action proposals is to plant trees. They are going to be busy painting trees to achieve that.

The Liberals will say that greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes are not world's best practice. But, if you look at the evidence to date, there are schemes operational in several countries around the world. Schemes are operational in Switzerland, New Zealand and South Korea, and subnational schemes are legislated in the US, Canada and Japan. The Kyoto protocol also provides for emissions trading across nations. China has also moved with a network of seven pilot schemes planned to begin in 2013. You get the sense that the world is moving one way and Australia, under Tony Abbott, is moving the other way. It seems impossible to consider Direct Action as being a viable, workable and effective scheme in an international setting.

One of the most telling criticisms of Direct Action comes from someone who would have direct knowledge of the matter. Mr Turnbull offered this advice in February 2010 when he spoke of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010:

Until 1 December last year, there was a bipartisan commitment in Australia that this carbon price, this exercise in reducing emissions, should be imposed by means of a market based mechanism—this emissions trading scheme.

…

As we have seen in recent days, alternatives such as direct regulation or subsidies will be far more costly to the economy, no matter how hard their designers seek to argue the contrary.

I will leave it that I agree with his words.

Mr Turnbull went on to bell the cat. He recognised that the subsidy schemes, like the Direct Action proposal, will encourage government to pick projects for subsidies, which will be a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale. This will result in more costly and less effective abatement of emissions.

In conclusion in this debate, and coming back to the main scope of this bill: again, it is simply a negative, retrograde step by a government that has no clear policy and that can only see its way to say 'no', to abolish things and to cut things. It has no positive plan for Australia's future, and this is but one example of where removing the independent umpire also gives it the ability to hide the truth and not allow it to be put into the public domain—to control the message.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013. We have said it, they have heard it and former Prime Minister Rudd announced that we would abolish the carbon tax. Done and dusted.

But this government is playing political games with the carbon tax. The carbon tax is all it talks about. You would think that what is before the Australian parliament is one bill to abolish the carbon tax. But what this government is trying to do is much more than abolish the carbon tax, and they are trying to hide that fact from Australian voters. In fact, the only time we hear the coalition government talk about all of the other parts of its abolition bills is in response to Labor putting the success of our climate change policy on the public record.

The coalition government wants Labor to support much, much more than the abolition of the carbon tax. The coalition government would have us believe that it has a mandate, that the federal election was all about the carbon tax, when the facts are that the carbon tax did not rate as a top five issue. The coalition government thinks Labor should just fall into line with its wishes and its wants. Well, what the Labor opposition is doing is acting responsibly. We are siding with the Australian public, with Australian voters, because they want action on climate change.

Recently, the PM, Mr Abbott, invited Australians to let their elected representatives know loud and clear about their views on the carbon tax. And I thank Mr Abbott, because Australian voters are letting us know what they want—letting us know loud and clear that they do not support the abolition of the carbon tax without replacing it with an emissions trading scheme. This is exactly Labor's position, and despite Mr Abbott taking a gamble and inviting voters to email politicians with their views I have not had one—not one—email supporting the coalition government's position. Not one email supporting its Direct Action plan.

So I say to the coalition government: keep your heads buried in the sand, ignoring the views of Australian voters, ignoring the views of experts and abolishing authorities such as the Climate Change Authority because they produce reports based on science and rigorous analysis which lead to outcomes that do not support the government's rhetoric and do not support the government's instincts on climate change. And they do not support the views of the climate change deniers who now make up this coalition government.

This government does not want independent expert advice. It treats advice based on science or facts with hostility. It has nailed its colours to the mast of the rotten ship SS Direct Action and is not letting go, no matter what the science says and no matter what Australian voters think. This move by the coalition government to abolish the Climate Change Authority demonstrates this government's complete hostility—complete hostility—to independent expert advice.

There is no reason to abolish the Climate Change Authority. In fact, there is every reason to keep it. And again, Senator Abetz and the government showed their complete lack of understanding of the Climate Change Authority when Senator Abetz said in the Senate on 2 December in relation to the Climate Change Authority:

… in relation to the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill—why are we putting that forward? Because if you remove the carbon tax there is no real need for this authority, …

Again, the government demonstrates that it has not done its homework. It does not know what it is talking about when it comes to climate change, because the Climate Change Authority undertakes reviews and makes recommendations on a range of matters, including emissions reduction targets and carbon budgets.

The renewable energy target—how will we measure that without an independent authority? And there is the Carbon Farming Initiative—something that I would have thought the National Party would want to know about and receive advice on—and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System.

The Climate Change Authority board—I do not know if the coalition has had a look at who is on this board—are leading experts in industry, in economics and in science. They are an extremely well-qualified board that all Australians should be proud of and they are an experienced board. Why would any competent government ignore their advice and shut them down so their voice can no longer be heard? The Climate Change Authority has nothing to do with the carbon tax. The reason the government does not want to keep it and wants to abolish it is quite simple: it does not want to be held accountable on its Direct Action Plan. It does not have a single supporter for this policy, which has been around for three years—not a single supporter in the scientific or economic fields. When direct action does not work, the government will not be held accountable for its actions because it is stripping away any authority which might hold it to account. This government, despite its rhetoric, does not want to be held accountable.

This government just wants to lick its finger, stick it in the air and see which way the wind is blowing. That is the extent of its interest in science—relying on its instincts rather than on the overwhelming evidence from 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists. Dr Dennis Jensen, the federal member for Tangney, told interviewer Jonathan Swan that just because 97 per cent of research papers published in scientific journals agree that humans are causing climate change this does not necessarily mean they are right, because, he said:

… the argument of consensus … is a flawed argument.

So Dr Jensen does not accept the position of the world's science academies and Australia's CSIRO that climate change is caused mainly by humans burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees. Instincts are an absolute trait of the coalition government. Former Prime Minister Howard told a London audience that those of us who accept that climate change is real are a bunch of 'religious zealots' and that he will trust his instincts.

It has been a while since Mr Howard was the Prime Minister of this country so one would have hoped that the coalition might have updated its knowledge and might have looked at some science—but, no, that trust in instincts and gut feelings continues in the current coalition. Prime Minister Abbott, the person who wants us to scrap any policies which put a price on carbon and to scrap the job of experts such as those who work in and manage the Climate Change Authority, told us two years ago:

… whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven.

Mr Abbott obviously has not availed himself of the work of 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists. The Australian public know it, Labor know it, the Greens know it, but it seems the coalition is living in some kind of climate sceptics vacuum.

More recently and, quite frankly, more embarrassingly, Prime Minister Tony Abbott accused the United Nations climate chief of 'talking through her hat'. That quote has been repeated quite a lot in this house and elsewhere. It is embarrassing than our Prime Minister, the supposed leader of our country, accuses the United Nations climate chief of talking through her hat. It just shows that ignorance about climate science is alive and well within the coalition. The classic, of course, was a comment by Minister Greg Hunt, the Minister for the Environment, someone who is expected to know everything about his portfolio. I accept that as a minister there are some views you take and some views you do not. But when you are so in the public eye, when you have such an important portfolio as the Environment portfolio, you should be able to quote the science or the economics. Whether you agree with it or not, you should know what is out there. Yet what did Minister Hunt confess to using? Wikipedia. With all of the resources the minister has in his office, in the department, in the Climate Change Authority, he turns to Wikipedia to contradict the United Nations climate chief. And he contradicted her opinion in a BBC interview. Again, oh dear me, how embarrassing. First the Prime Minister of our country and then our environment minister—how embarrassing for Australia.

I have a message for Mr Abbott and Mr Hunt: it is proven. I have another message: there exists an authority, the Climate Change Authority, which is a group of independent, and ethical, experts in their fields. These people know that the science is proven. Why do they know it? Not because of their instincts, not because they stick their finger in the air to find out which way the wind is blowing, not because somebody told them; they know it through rigorous research , rigorous analysis, checking their facts, conferring with other scientists—that is how they know it. They provided the former ALP government, the 43th Parliament, with recommendations and guidance—and with evidence, Mr Abbott and the coalition government, not instincts, but real evidence—and provided expert advice to allow the Australian government to set up effective climate change mitigation initiatives, and not an unsupported direct action policy.

The coalition government is attempting to hoodwink the Australian public and shut down credible authorities, such as the Climate Change Authority. This government is more and more lining up with the climate change deniers, ignoring transparent and independent information that goes against their political wants and against the political outcomes that they want. Australia was such a leader of positive reforms in the past, and it was a leader with our current climate change legislation. But now under the Abbott government we are embarrassing ourselves internationally. Do we really want to line up with the likes of Monckton, who says:

Science should only be practised by people who adhere to a religion, preferably of the Christian variety.

Or there is this one from Monckton again, who says:

The world's climate scientists and advocates for action are just trying to "stamp out democracy".

Is that what the coalition is trying to do in lining up with the likes of Monckton—to 'stamp out democracy'?

Or what about this one from Monckton:

Young climate change campaigners are like the "Hitler youth".

Monckton goes on and has a go at one of our credible scientists, saying:

Professor Ross Garnaut's views on climate change are "fascist".

And there is last one, perhaps the best:

Climate change scientists should be prosecuted and locked up

The sorts of instincts that the coalition government are lining up behind are the views of the likes of Monckton. This government must separate this bill from the wider carbon tax debate, just as Labor has done—and we got a lot of criticism from Senator Abetz as to why we would want to separate these bills. We want to separate them out because we want Australian voters to know that this government wants to shut down a credible organisation, a credible, factual, well-resourced organisation with an expert management board, the Climate Change Authority. Why? Because it might not always agree with what the government is saying.

But we want to assess the Climate Change Authority on its merits and we want to assess the merits of the abolition bill that is before us. Leave aside differences on the views of carbon pricing, forget about the 'carbon tax', as nobody campaigned to keep it, and tell us and the Australian people why you want to ignore the Climate Change Authority, an authority which provides bipartisan and transparent information to government.

The campaign by this coalition government of shutting down credible scientists and climate change organisations started with the firing of the former Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Blair Comley, who dared to be more honest about the state of climate change than the coalition was willing to accept. They do not want frank advice; they tell us that they can get the advice elsewhere. But departments are not best placed to give free and fearless advice; independent bodies are best placed to do that. But this government does not want any expert to advise on Australia's international targets.

The Climate Change Authority said in their October draft report that Australia should aim for a 15 per cent cut in emissions by 2020. The CCA believe that leaving our emissions target at its current level will prove to be inadequate into the future. This is an example of the Climate Change Authority's frank and fearless advice. Repealing the legislation and abolishing the Climate Change Authority is a demonstration of the government completely disregarding this information. The establishment of an independent Climate Change Authority to advise on the operation of a carbon pricing scheme or a direct action scheme is critical but, again, this government wants to go backwards and turn back the clock with no assessment of whether the authority is good, bad or indifferent, and with no transparency. It is a case of: let us just get on and continue to try to hoodwink people, as this government continues to rely on instincts and not facts and not scientific evidence. I do not support the abolition of the Climate Change Authority.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great shame that we have to speak to this matter today in the chamber, but there are many issues that seem to be confronting us with this new government that seek to undo the visionary work and to pull apart things that were established during the 43rd Parliament for the greater good of this community and, certainly in the long term, with a vision for all Australians, not just an expeditious view of the moment but a proper, mature and adult view of our responsibility to the future.

In 1990, an aspiring environmental lawyer by the name of Greg Hunt put the finishing touches to his honours thesis. It was titled A carbon tax to make the polluter pay and its conclusion was to propose the wide use of pollution taxes as a means of both raising revenue for environmental agencies and compelling polluters to decrease their emissions. Oh how the mighty ideals have fallen.

While the coalition pretend their farce of a policy that is Direct Action is a 'no regrets' solution, we all know that they are kidding themselves. Deep down there is at least one of them who must regret it—the minister for Wikipedia himself. It is rumoured that on the particularly quiet nights in Canberra you can hear him crying, overcome by the shame of his complete about-face. Day in, day out he tries to sell a policy designed by a Prime Minister who is on the record as describing climate change as 'absolute crap'. It is enough to drive one to tears. The very fact that the minister put in charge of dismantling Labor's market-based solution wrote an honours thesis advocating for one exposes this government's climate change policy as a sham.

The government is deceiving the Australian people on climate change. It is deceiving this parliament and it is also clearly deceiving itself. Action on climate change requires a market-based solution, and Labor's emissions trading scheme is certainly the most effective means of delivering it. Business knows it, the public knows it and—though he is loath to admit it—the environment minister himself knows it.

So I call on the coalition: if you really want to stop the waste, stop wasting this parliament's time by moving to repeal the most effective means of reducing carbon emissions. The coalition would do well to work with Labor—the real adults in the room—to move from a fixed price to an ETS by 1 July 2014. Future generations will not look kindly on this coalition government for dismantling our nation's commitment to develop a sustainable economy through market-based solutions, especially when its alleged policy alternative is nothing more than a glint in the environment minister's eye. It is a 'trust me' stance from someone who cannot even be trusted to stand by his very own words.

We have already seen on display in this parliament the fact that the government does have a trust deficit. They promised to stop the boats and buy the boats, but all they have done is hide the boats. They promised to end the waste, but instead they have spent close to $1 billion extra each week since coming to office and have removed all parliamentary oversight of how much more they can spend. There is no limit on their credit card now—so much for a budget emergency.

They promised that Australia was open for business, but instead they have blocked investment into the struggling GrainCorp and left Qantas and Holden flapping in the breeze. While I am sure that Qantas appreciates the airfares for Mr Abbott's flight to Johannesburg, it is not exactly going to cover the hundreds of millions of dollars shortfall in revenue or make up for the coalition's inaction.

For a government that promised to be the adults in the room, they are certainly acting like toddlers in the midst of a tantrum. The coalition's economic impotence has been on prominent display during its short time in office, and it is on display again here today in their efforts to replace Labor's comprehensive market-based solution with their own 'watch this space' command and control, white elephant Direct Action policy. It is laughable to think the coalition is demanding the repeal of Labor's solution to climate change with nothing more than a thought bubble as an alternative. No green paper, no white paper—nothing. Just, 'Trust us. We know what we're doing.'

But here we are, nonetheless, at this point. Labor has separated the government's legislation to give the coalition a chance to recover at least a shred of credibility on climate change by retaining the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority. We do so because the nation demands action on climate change, and the initiatives of the CEFC and the CCA, though complementary to it, are not bound by the retention of a price on carbon.

I just want to put on the record some of the commentary that came out of the very short Senate hearing into the CEFC to make this point even more clearly. 'Rather than ''crowding out'' the private sector, the CEFC was ''crowding in'' banks that would not otherwise lend'. These were the words reported by Peter Hannam in his article 'Victim of a changed climate' in the Sydney Morning Heraldon 30 November. Jillian Broadbent, who is the chair of the CEFC, said to the committee, 'When you have a $10 billion fund, you can … have a discussion with the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank. If you did not have a $10 billion fund … you were just there to have a powwow.' That is the impact of having the CEFC. Similarly, to show how short-sighted this current Liberal government is, I want to put on the record John Hewson's view that the scrapping of the CEFC, along with the carbon price, was merely short-term politics. He says, 'It's not necessarily an economic or business position. It's a political position.' And it is a very bad political position.

I do not think that Jillian Broadbent could be declared as a great friend of Labor. Her role is as a specialist consultant for the Anglo-South African investment bank, Investec, and she actually said, 'I think we probably all know more Liberal Party people than we do Labor people,' when she was speaking to the Senate inquiry. She also made this statement, which I think is absolutely telling: 'If the bipartisan mood existed, everyone would be very excited about what the CEFC was doing.'

The problem is not with the CEFC or with the CCA. The problem is with the bloody-mindedness, the ideological bent, the denial of fact and the absence of a care for the future that is on show, with shame, for all to see in the legislation that is being pushed through this parliament by this shameful government that we are having to call to account today. The CEFC was doing its job of providing low-cost capital to stimulate investment in emission reduction, and the CCA needs to continue to do its job of providing independent advice to the government on the best climate change mitigation initiatives. You would think these two issues alone would easily garner bipartisan support but, as is too often the case with the Abbott coalition, you would be wrong. Put simply, this is not a government that sees climate change as a threat. It is not even a government that accepts the science of climate change, as my colleague in the Senate, Senator Lines, has just made so clearly evident in her speech. This government appears wilfully oblivious to the fact that consensus among climate scientists now is at 97 per cent. I do not know about you, Madam Acting Deputy President, but when I took home a test, having got 97 per cent on it, I used to be reasonably happy. I did get upset occasionally when I would get the reply, 'But what happened to the other three per cent?' There is a difference being on the 97 per cent side of the equation and deciding, as a government of a sovereign nation, to line up with the three per centers. There is something terribly wrong.

In 2009, the coalition walked away from climate change by electing a climate change sceptic leader, who is on the record saying he is 'hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change'. That was on the 7:30 Report on the ABC. Needless to say, it leaves little hope that this parliament can reach a bipartisan consensus when the coalition is led by someone who seems to have wandered far away from the truth and has perhaps just departed a flat earth society convention.

The Climate Change Authority's brief, to provide expert independent advice on climate change mitigation initiatives, is hardly revolutionary stuff. Labor set up the authority to ensure both the government of the day as well as the Australian public have the most comprehensive advice on how to expand Australia's renewable energy industry. It is chaired by a very reputable person, the former head of the Reserve Bank, Bernie Fraser, and it has a board of considerable expertise, consisting of highly qualified scientists—including Australia's Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb—economists, academics and professionals—just as the Australian people would expect: the most celebrated in the land gathered together to help us face the most significant challenges of our time. As a statutory body at arm's length from government, the CCA is able to provide an important independent voice to assist Australia's actions to mitigate the effects of climate change, without fear or favour.

But, perhaps, that is where the real problem lies for the Abbott coalition, because we have seen already this is a government addicted to secrecy and intrigue and seemingly obsessed with abolishing sources of independent advice which they cannot tamper with, distort or intimidate before they give their advice. Indeed, the government's first act in office was to sack senior public servants who had the temerity to do their job—that is, to provide frank and fearless advice for the government of the day. Sacking departmental heads Andrew Metcalfe, Don Russell and Blair Comley—as well as giving marching orders to Martin Parkinson from next year—clearly demonstrates the exact value the government places on frank and fearless advice. That is clearly none. What a dangerous stance to take—a government that refutes science, rails against fact and ignores or dismisses independent advice.

The Abbott coalition is trying to intimidate public servants and entire departments into submission. They do not want independent advice; they want an echo chamber. Greg Hunt is on the record stating his desired avenues for advice are from august bodies: the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and the environment department. But these are all bodies which are subject to government funding. Under the government's plan, they can censor, bury and distort findings from these departments at will. They have already gutted the funding for the CSIRO in a clumsy and very short-sighted effort to disrupt the work of some of our top scientists who are in the midst of producing critical research to benefit the nation. How can public servants at the environment department and the Bureau of Meteorology keep the public properly informed when their jobs are under constant threat from a government that seeks to remove anyone who dares to hold them to account?

The Abbott coalition has already dismantled the Climate Commission and is now going for the last body which still has the ability to publish independent advice, all because they do not like the headlines generated by its findings. This is the Abbott carbon con—dismantle the bodies that provide independent advice and smother all departmental advice before it sees the light of day. And it is not just departments. We have seen recently on display the coalition, in conjunction with sections of the press, running a campaign of intimidation against the independent national broadcaster, the ABC, for daring to publish reports that Australia spied on Indonesia. From the Prime Minister down, the coalition has criticised the ABC, with government ministers calling for its privatisation, break-up or funding to be cut—all for fulfilling its public duty of informing the public. Clearly they are not content with censoring the Public Service; they want to censor the press as well.

But, of course, when we take more than a moment to assess what passes as climate change policy in today's coalition, you can almost pity the government for wanting to hide its shame. A Fairfax Media survey of 35 economists found that only two economists supported the coalition's Direct Action plan—that is a fail on anybody's watch—and one of those was a self-declared climate change sceptic. Australian economist Professor Justin Wolfers, of the Brookings Institution in Washington and the University of Michigan, said:

Direct Action would involve more economic disruption and have less environmental payoff than a trading scheme—

BT Financial's Chris Caton added:

Any economist who did not opt for emissions trading should hand their degree back—

so clear is his message about how wrong the Direct Action policy is! The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development found:

Emissions trading systems provided the lowest cost for reducing carbon pollution among the different approaches available—

But what would the OECD know by comparison to this government, who know everything, are the font of all wisdom and are not in need of independent frank or fearless advice as they have got it all figured out so we should just trust them! Somehow that does not ring true. Another claim from the OECD saw it dismissing Direct Action as a policy that 'entails higher costs to society per tonne of carbon dioxide abated—in many cases, substantially higher'.

The Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group have also both questioned the viability of the direct action scheme. It is getting to the point where you have to think that they are very brave to even speak up and say anything at all in opposition to this new rule of government that we are seeing. The Ai Group bravely states that the direct action policy is 'unlikely to produce any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions'. And I suppose that is okay if you are not here to do meaningful things. If you are here to play the game of being in power, that perhaps is an explanation of why you might follow the path of direct action. The Business Council of Australia says that 'direct action is likely to put a very high impost on Australian taxpayers'. That is very concerning. That is intolerable—that is, not only pulling apart well-informed policy, agreed policy by experts, but to also put a burden on Australian taxpayers.

In the muddy mess that is the coalition's Direct Action Plan there is only one thing that is clear: it clearly fails even the most cursory of inquiries. By the government's own admission, direct action is a command-and-control scheme that places the government front and centre. Greg Hunt is on the record stating:

The Government will simply buy back the lowest cost abatement instead of having to tax the whole economy.

And Tony Abbott claims direct action will operate as:

… a fund enabling the government to buy the most cost effective means of reducing emissions through a tender process.

The Liberal Party, the self-proclaimed party of capital, has lost the economic plot.

When one considers the coalition's direct action absurdity, comments made by Malcolm Turnbull come to mind.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind you to address members in the other place by their correct titles.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wentworth comes to mind:

… we know that picking winners is hard enough for the private sector, and well nigh impossible for the public sector. We know that when tax revenues are handed out to one firm or industry they come at the expense of all the other firms and families that paid that tax.

With direct action, the Abbott coalition is going to attempt to pick winners. It is paying a subsidy to its most preferred polluters at the taxpayers' expense, all at an extravagant cost for no meaningful reduction in carbon emissions. It is game-playing of the most dangerous kind—that is, with the future of this country. In so doing, the Liberal Party is abandoning any credible claim as the party of capital; it is now, very clearly, the party of economic vandalism.

Stewardship of our great nation requires governments to have the vision to deliver policies that ensure our way of life is sustainable. From my home on the Central Coast, I can see the ocean as I look up towards Newcastle and down the coast to North Head. I cannot help but take in the sheer beauty of my surrounds. In this, I am sure I am joined by hundreds of thousands of residents who also call these places home, places that are at risk from climate change. Increased temperatures will alter our landscape and our natural environment and impact on our flora and fauna.

Considering the Abbott coalition's approach to climate change, it is little wonder it has systematically moved to close down, censor or intimidate independent sources of advice and information. This is at the heart of its decision to abolish the Climate Commission and to shut down the Climate Change Authority. Labor will vote against this shambolic policy, and we will not allow the coalition to silence expert advice— (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate my opposition to the government policy in relation to the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013. What you have to understand, when you look at this little part of the coalition's anti-climate-change policy, is that this is about government secrecy. This is about ensuring that there is no independent authority having a look at the shambles of a policy called direct action—the policy that would require twice the area of Victoria to be planted out with trees to gain some of the climate CO2 reduction that they claim they will achieve. It is about ensuring that that short-term policy, which has been roundly criticised from within the coalition as well as externally both by scientists and by economists, hides the incompetent development of this policy and the incompetence of the policy itself. It is about trying to shut down critiques. It is about saying on the one hand, 'We are about small government, we are about ensuring that the country gets value for money, we want a smaller bureaucracy', but on the other hand, because they were in trouble with the climate change policies, having to then establish a bureaucracy to hand out grants to polluters in this country.

The reason for this bill is the ongoing secrecy that just completely envelopes this poor, incompetent government. It is saying: 'We do not want the public to know how incompetent we are in delivering this policy, how incompetent the policy is itself. Therefore, we will not have any analysis; we will not have any independent critique. We will have public servants out there arguing the government's position, and we will then describe them as the experts in this area.'

We all know how that works in Canada, where the scientists have been closed down. The scientists have not been allowed by conservative governments in Canada to make any critiques of the Canadian government's position on climate change policy. They must clear every public statement through the Canadian minister. And who was one of the first governments that the Abbott coalition cosied up to? The Canadian government. You can just imagine the two conservative leaders sitting around a table, exchanging views on how you close down economic and scientific critiques of government policy; and the Canadian government telling the Liberal coalition here that you shut them down by making sure that a public servant cannot speak out on the environment, cannot speak out on science and cannot speak out for the public good.

So that is what the alternative is. There is no alternative to the Climate Change Authority being an independent authority and actually analysing what is going on. The alternative is the Canadian model, and that is the model that the coalition government will try to implement—a model that is about secrecy and closing down analysis, closing down scientific critiques and closing down any advice to the public that does not match what this incompetent government wants to put out to the public.

We have had only a short period of this government. I have to say that, if ever a honeymoon period came to a shuddering halt, it was with this coalition government. The public know they cannot trust the coalition: they cannot trust the coalition to look after them when they are in trouble; they cannot trust the coalition to look after the public good when they are facing bushfires in the Blue Mountains; and they cannot trust this government to provide proper support to communities in trouble. That is the short-term approach of the government.

In the longer term, dealing with climate change and carbon pollution, this government cannot be trusted either, because this government is prepared to push the science aside, push the economics aside, come up with some stunt labelled 'direct action' and try to perpetrate a con job on the Australian public. The Australian public are onto this government. They have never been onto a government so quick as they have been onto this government. They understand that the government is incompetent. They understand that the government is untrustworthy. They understand that the government has got no policies in a whole range of areas. They now know that it has to set up 50 inquiries to try to develop some semblance of a government program moving forward, because there were no government programs in place other than three-line slogans on issues that are really about short-term political advantage and not the national interest.

You see it writ large by this government day in and day out. Abolishing the Climate Change Authority so they can maintain their secrecy and antiscientific approach is just one of the ways that they deal with this. Let us look at them on education. How incompetent has any government been in this country? Talk about a double backflip with a pike. The coalition government have invented a new high-diving manoeuvre. I do not think anyone has ever seen contortions like the contortions of the coalition on this issue.

It is no wonder that the Australian public are going: 'We've been conned. We've been absolutely conned by this conservative government. They told us they would do all these things and, after they came to power, the issues that are important for the Australian nation are ignored and the issues that are pushed are part of the ideological agenda of the extreme right wing of the coalition, who don't believe in climate change, who don't believe in scientific endeavour, who don't believe in proper economics and who at one stage were talking about the market being the way forward.' The market is only the way forward for the coalition when it suits big business, but the market is not the way forward when it comes to trying to deal with climate change.

In fact, what the coalition want to do is put their hand in every person's pocket in this country—they want to take money out of your pockets—and hand it over to their big business mates, who are busily polluting this country with CO2. That is what direct action is about: them putting their hand in your pocket, handing the money over to big business and pretending that that is what is going to deal with the climate change challenges for this country.

We know that every economist of any standing—other than the pet economists, the tame economists, of the coalition—says that you need to put a price on carbon to deal with CO2 pollution not only here but around the world. That is why there are states in the United States that are picking up carbon pollution programs that deal with it through a market based system. They are putting a price on carbon. There is a price on carbon going in China. There is a price on carbon in the UK. There is a price on carbon in Europe. Why do they do that? They do that because they understand that, if you want to leave your economy dragging behind the rest of the world, you will not deal with carbon pollution, you will not have your industries adjust to a low-carbon economy and you will not create the new jobs that are demanded by a low-carbon economy. That is the problem we have with this coalition. They are not looking forward. It is about short-term political advantage pitted against the long-term economic reality of what is needed for a strong economy for the future. They deny the economics and the environmental science.

So we have a situation here where the government are untrustworthy and incompetent. They would rather see this economy stay in the past. They would rather see this economy not move forward while other economies are developing the technology and the jobs of the future, based on a low-carbon-footprint economy. And what are we going to have? We are going to have this nonsense called Direct Action that even the coalition members with any honesty recognise will never deliver for this country. The coalition are prepared to sacrifice future generations for their short-term political gain. They are prepared to sacrifice future generations to make sure that their electoral funds keep coming in from the mining companies and the power companies around this country—because that is what is driving it: their short-term political gain, the money that is pouring into them from the big business end of town, who do not want to have to address climate change. It is all about them. It is nothing about this nation. It is nothing about the economy.

You can see that clearly when you look at the position that the government have adopted on a range of major challenges, not just climate change and not just making sure that we are an economy for the future. In the car industry, it is their ideological bent that is driving their position. They do not like unionised, high-paid workers. So what do they do? They actually dare Holden, GMH, to leave the country. Day in, day out, they are goading one of the biggest employers in the country to pack up and go home. I do not know how that is in the national interest. I do not know how that can be seen to be a competent approach. It is simply being driven by the ideology of the coalition. They do not like unions. They do not believe in climate change. They do not want working people to get a fair go. They really would like to go back to Work Choices in industrial relations. We know that. They have reintroduced the ABCC, with draconian powers against workers. This is a government that is driven by ideological hatred. It is not driven by what is good for the country; it is driven by ideology.

When people have recognised that, they have turned off very quickly, because you cannot trust the coalition. They are secretive, they do not want any accountability and they are prepared to do whatever they can to make sure that short-term politics drives their agenda. You see it every day in here. It is about short termism. It has got nothing to do with the future of this country. You see weak, sycophantic coalition members not prepared to stand up for their communities if there is a bushfire, not prepared to stand up for their communities when jobs are going to be destroyed. They are the weakest, most sycophantic backbench I have ever seen in this place. They will not stand up for their communities, they will not stand up for jobs, they will not stand up for the environment and they will not stand up for future generations. They are really a weird mob. They have got no values and no principles and they are prepared to drag this economy down if it means that they can go on some talkback show and get a pat on the back from Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt. That is what they are all about. They are going for a view that we should simply be a backward economy, with a backward government. This is the most backward government we have ever seen.

Governments fight hard to make changes. We say we want a fair go for the public school system in this country. What do the government do? Apart from setting about to destroy our environmental agenda, an agenda that is important for the long term, they say that, if you are a child of a rich person in this country then you will get looked after, you can go to a rich school and they will keep pouring money in there, but, if you go to a school in Penrith or you go to a school in the Blue Mountains or you go to a public school in Windsor, where I live—

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Queensland?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand why the Tasmanians are getting a bit agitated about this, because the Tasmanians are the ones that have got probably the weakest backbench in here. They will not stand up for Tasmania, will not stand up to get a fair go from the federal government. They capitulate—from the leader in here to Senator Bushby. They are vacillating, weak backbenchers, with absolutely no interest in what is here for the future. So what they are prepared to do, if, for example, it is a bushfire in the Blue Mountains, is to say, effectively, 'Never mind getting the same rights for the community in the Blue Mountains; we will give you government spin. We will put the government before the community.' It does not matter if it is jobs in the car industry: 'We will put the government before car industry workers.'

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cameron, I remind you that, under standing order 193, imputation of improper motives to members is inappropriate.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are the improper motives? What does that mean?

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

About the motives for their actions. Continue, Senator Cameron.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I think you need to read it carefully, Chair. The actions are clear from the coalition. They do not care about their local communities. They do not care about the education system. They do not care about the climate. They do not care about anything else other than themselves. As long as the money is pouring in from Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest to make sure that their election coffers are kept well and truly balanced, then they do not care about anyone else. It does not matter if you have leaky roofs in the schools in Penrith. It does not matter if you do not have decent conditions in schools in Penrith; as long as the money goes to the private school system, they are happy. So we know what they are all about: they are all about looking after the big end of town, not anyone else.

That is why they want to get rid of the Climate Change Authority. That would be a check and balance on this terrible government the community has already said is no good, on a government that is one of the poorest ever to start off in this country. The public are onto them and onto them early. All these policies they said they would deliver are not going to be delivered unless it means crashing jobs for unionised workers in the car industry, unless it means destroying the environment for their short-term political gain. That is what they are about. They are the most hopeless government that has ever come in here. They have had the shortest honeymoon period of any government in the history of this country. They want to destroy the environment for the sake of their mates in big business. They have no capacity to stand up for the local communities. They have no capacity to stand up to big business. They will continue to run a position here that is economically illiterate and environmental vandalism. So I take the view that, the sooner we get to the next election and the sooner you lot are gone, the better, because that is in the interests of this country.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 debate. Like my colleague Senator Cameron, I do so with a sense of frustration and anger at the thought that, through no other reason than an ideological obsession and political point-making exercise of the coalition, the Abbott government is attempting to undo the architecture that has been put in place around climate change and carbon pricing in this country. That ideology is not based on science or economics and, further, is damaging our reputation as an international player on climate change policy in the world.

It is that issue that I would like to first draw upon. The Climate Change Authority has provided high-quality, independent advice since its establishment in 2012 using expert scientists and economists in the domestic and international arenas. The Climate Change Authority has been referred to as similar to the Committee on Climate Change in the UK—something which is an independent statutory body established by the UK and had its stated purpose, similarly, to advise the UK government and its devolved administrations on emissions targets and report to parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change. That is very similar to the role that the Climate Change Authority has been carrying out. It has been providing vitally important information for tackling climate change and accelerating the roll-out of clean-energy jobs and clean energy itself in Australia.

But already we know that the coalition has abolished the climate commission. It has already, as we know, attempted to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Now it is attempting to abolish the Climate Change Authority.

As I said, like the UK, this organisation is set up independently to provide expert advice about emissions reductions targets and the scope for ongoing emissions reductions in Australia. We know the international community is watching Australia, and has been watching very closely since 7 September, because of this fixation of the new government on repealing all the climate change architecture that was put in place by the former Labor government under the stewardship of the then minister, Greg Combet. They are watching because Australia will soon take over the leadership of the G20 and, when it does that, it has the ability to have strong and effective action in its leadership role against the issues of ongoing emissions, global issues of climate change and the like. So countries are recognising that Australia is going to take over that leadership role and are concerned that their hopes of any kind of strong and effective action on climate change will not be there under Australia's leadership, will be incredibly diminished under Australia's leadership as opposed to the position Australia took to the various international fora on climate change it participated in during the last government.

Despite that, of course, Prime Minister Tony Abbott apparently does accept that climate change is happening. I think he said as much in a recent press conference in November. He said he accepts climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it. So, if the Prime Minister can say clearly now that he has been converted into this space that says climate change is happening—and I have to say I am pleased he has—then surely he needs to recognise that, in being the leader at the G20, he needs to take strong and effective action on climate change. If the coalition and the Prime Minister think Direct Action policy—which is the only thing they still have lingering somewhere on the table; it might be under a few documents and books, but I think it is still there as a coalition policy—is strong and effective action to take to the G20 table when we take over that leadership role, I think that the Prime Minister would be laughed out of the room, quite frankly.

There are already scientists, economists and a lot of independent think tank contributors in this space, who probably know a hell of a lot more than many of us here, coming out very clearly and saying that the coalition's Direct Action policy is simply not going to do anything near being effective or providing strong action on climate change. Many economists and scientists for some time now have been telling the coalition that their Direct Action policy is not good enough. They have been telling the coalition that an emissions trading scheme is the most efficient and effective way to tackle climate change, and in fact we know that there are members of the coalition government who think so themselves. Yet the coalition will continue to believe that Direct Action will be the best way forward, despite those economists and those scientists saying that Direct Action will not work.

The other very disappointing part of where we find ourselves with this bill before us is that it also shows that the coalition not only want to repeal the various parts of the architecture of climate change policy that we have in this country but also are now turning away from any kind of participation in international forums on this issue. I want to raise one particular one which has occurred recently, and that is of course the United Nations climate change talks in Warsaw in Poland. The Australian government was unable to send a ministerial representative to those talks. With negotiations from all over the world taking place in Warsaw, what kind of message does it send to the international community when Australia cannot even send a minister or a parliamentary secretary to those climate change talks? It is snubbing the international community on this issue. We all know that climate change is an international issue. That is why we were playing our part in introducing a climate change policy that included carbon pricing, moving to an emissions trading scheme: so that it would be part of an international economic framework for tackling climate change. Yet here Australia is, not even at the negotiating table. So it is not even that we are repealing the architecture we have; we are even turning our backs on the rest of the international community.

It is simply embarrassing, yet here we will be next year, at the G20, taking over that leadership, with all of those countries being very aware that since this government has come to power we have not participated on the international stage on this issue of climate change. I think that is absolutely appalling and shows how far backwards we have come from where we were prior to 7 September this year. I can only think of what the EU would be thinking of Australia right now. I know that it would not be in a very favourable light on the issue of climate change.

Of course, it is not just economists and scientists who have come out very strongly about Direct Action not working and about an emissions trading scheme being the best way forward for tackling climate change. The chairman of the Climate Change Authority, to the abolition of which this bill pertains, has clearly come out calling on government to retain this independent body and not to abolish the Climate Change Authority. He has challenged some of the arguments put by government—I think by Environment Minister Greg Hunt—on the issue of closing this authority being about reducing bureaucracy and moving climate change advice into either the federal environment department, the CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology. He has challenged that, because this was about frank, fearless, good and independent advice coming from an independent body. That is what this authority is still able to provide, and that is what the Australian government will be giving up if they abolish it. I quote from the Chairman, Mr Bernie Fraser, who says:

On a subject as complex as climate change, I would have thought every government—whatever its complexion—would want to get good independent advice … I find it a bit frustrating this opportunity … seems to be foreclosing a bit with the present government. I think that's a disappointment.

That is very much a disappointment and it is very similar to what we heard from the chairwoman of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, who similarly made an appeal to government to not axe the CEFC. So you have very respected, intelligent, well-known people in this climate change space in very important roles as chairpersons both pleading to government not to undo some of this architecture of climate change policy.

The comments by Minister Greg Hunt in relation to abolishing the Climate Change Authority and having the ability to get that same advice from inside bureaucracy from the CSIRO is quite bizarre because it was not long ago that this government was announcing cuts to the CSIRO. Not only is it expecting public servants to give independent advice but it is also asking for that advice from a body of the public service that has recently had an announcement of job cuts. That shows again that this government has certainly still got its training wheels on. I do not think those training wheels are going to come off for a very long time. In fact, I think more training wheels will need to be added.

When we talk about climate change policy, this government is all over the place. It is stuck and hell-bent on this ideology that it is against carbon pricing, that it is not going to have anything to do with being an effective leader on climate change policy. It is stuck on that approach. Despite the economists, despite the scientists it continues to trot out this mantra. Yet we know very well that there are key members of this government, some of whom are around that cabinet table, that were once very much for an emissions trading scheme, just like their then leader, Prime Minister John Howard.

It was actually the Howard government—the only thing I would give credit to the Howard government for—that had the foresight to look ahead and think, 'We need to be a part of this international fray. We need to act on climate change and the best way to do that is through the introduction of an emissions trading scheme.' Key members of this government were part of that belief with then Prime Minister John Howard. They are still there now yet they are continuing day after day to trot out this mantra that they are against pricing carbon, they are against an emissions trading scheme. They want put their heads in the sand into some direct action hole, which leads to nowhere. We have been told it leads to nowhere by the economists and by the scientists. All it does is leave Australia as a laughing stock in the international community. We came so far. We created the architecture for tackling climate change and for doing our bit in the international community. We were ready to start trading permits with the EU and were ready to have an emissions trading scheme, like so many parts of the world have introduced or are introducing. Now we have gone tenfold backwards and it is an embarrassment.

As I said at the outset, when we do take that leadership position at the G20 next year, it will all come to the fore that Australia's leadership will be lacking on climate change. This very serious issue has overwhelming evidence and the global issue of climate change needs to be taken seriously by our generation for the next generation and so on. That leadership will be lacking at the head of the G20 table by Australia and that is a sheer embarrassment.

There is time for this government to reflect upon what it has done, to move from its fixated ideology and recognise it needs to play a role in effective and strong leadership action on climate change. That action of course is not Direct Action. Direct Action is going nowhere and it is not just me saying this. So many independent thinkers in the community are saying this.

The Climate Change Authority acts very similarly to the UK's committee on climate change, which has also been providing independent advice on the issue of emissions reduction. To abolish this authority would be another step backwards, just as it was a step backwards to abolish the Climate Change Commission and just as it was a step backwards to attempt to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We need the architecture that we have in place on climate change so that we can play our part in the international community and, ultimately, reduce carbon emissions in this country.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you are aware, Acting Deputy President Fawcett, you were on the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee which held an inquiry into this very piece of legislation, the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013. Senator Singh said, 'Yes we need international action.' That is exactly right. I wonder if Senator Singh can recall a former Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, just before the election, saying the carbon tax is costing people, is adding to the cost of living and is adding to the cost of doing business. He was correct.

You will recall, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, that during the inquiry the National Farmers Federation said that the carbon tax was costing the average farm in Australia about $10,000, yet farmers have to compete in international markets where many—even most—have nowhere near that cost put on them for any climate change action. The dairy industry, which is competing in a domestic dollar-a-litre-for-milk war, is hurting financially and trying to survive. The truckies—the very people who literally carry our nation and transport everything from exports to the waterfront to supplies to our country towns around our nation—were going to be hit with another $515 million diesel tax on their diesel fuel under the former government's proposal. This was to occur just as the trucking industry introduced the Euro 4 and Euro 5 motors, which are far cleaner than, for example, the older Detroit diesels and the 14-litre Cummins I used to drive many years ago.

Then there is the refrigeration gas. This is amazing! An IGA owner in Central West New South Wales had a gas leak in his large refrigerator. He had to put 65 kilos of refrigerant gas back into it. Instead of costing him $26 a kilo, it cost him $150 a kilo. Instead of costing him around $1,650, it cost him $9,750. It cost him $8,000 more to top up the refrigerant gas after fixing the leak in his refrigeration system. I wonder who pays that $8,000? Of course it goes onto the price of the foods and groceries he sells, and the consumers pay for it.

The cement industry is another industry that was hit very hard. We run the risk of shutting down our industries in Australia and see them moving to places like China where they emit more CO2 when they process cement. The current scheme is not working.

I was not amazed to read the column by Samantha Maiden in Sunday's paper, which said that we have virtually had no reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in Australia. In fact, the committee heard that the forecast of around 580 million tonnes of CO2 a year will rise to in excess of 620 million tonnes by the year 2020. There is no reduction. It will just go into the world scheme of emission trading where we will buy about $3.5 billion worth of permits from overseas, from countries who may well defraud and commit fraud in setting up their so-called carbon credits.

We have the Department of Environment and, of course, it will remain. We have the CSIRO and we have the Bureau of Meteorology. We do not need this organisation, which is simply another cost to the taxpayers of Australia, especially businesses. I go back to Samantha Maiden's comments on Sunday that since the carbon tax was introduced—the tax that we were never going to have according to the commitment by former Prime Minister Ms Julia Gillard and former Treasurer Mr Wayne Swan—it has cost $24,000 per tonne of CO2 abatement. That is what it has cost the people of Australia and the industries of Australia.

We now have all of these troubles with the motor vehicle industry. The cost to them and to industry everywhere is unfair. It is currently at $24.15 a tonne, which is the most expensive carbon tax in the world. As I said, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd admitted that in run-up to the 7 September election. He said, 'The carbon tax has got to go. Let's have a cheaper emissions trading scheme for a little while until it goes up to a projected $38 a tonne by the year 2020.' Since the previous government, under pressure from the Greens and Independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, introduced a scheme that is not working, it has cost Australian business and the Australian people $24,000 a tonne. It is not getting rid of CO2 emissions; it is getting rid of jobs. That is all that it is doing.

As I said thousands of times, the Australian people were quite clear about how they voted on 7 September and what our policies were. One policy was to abolish the carbon tax, and another was to abolish the mining tax. That is exactly what will happen. We will go back to the people if it does not. So come to accept that the carbon tax is not working, is a cost on our nation and our businesses, is transferring business and jobs overseas, is having no effect in Australia and is hugely expensive. That is why this bill that we are debating now is part of the carbon tax abolition policies that we went to the people with and that they clearly voted for. This was in a case where the Australian Labor Party had its lowest primary vote for 110 years, dating back to 1903. If they are going to stand in the road, the people will decide.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having listened to the recent contributions of Senator Singh and Senator Williams, I too have decided to make a short contribution to this debate on the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013. I am very concerned, and I think all senators should be very concerned, that if this bill is passed and if the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill becomes law, it would significantly weaken Australia's ability to understand and tackle climate change.

Of course we need to acknowledge that climate change is a complex issue for all governments. Not just the Australian government, but for the entire international community. It is complex in relation to its environmental aspects. It is complex in relation to its economic aspects, and it is complex in relation to its social aspects. As the scientific case for climate change grows stronger and stronger, so does the importance of taking responsible and effective action to minimise its impacts.

The truth is that the facts are that dealing with climate change is assisted by an agency like the Climate Change Authority, so that all the elements, all the key strands of environmental, planning, economic and social research can be brought together and so that quality, expert advice can be provided to government. The Climate Change Authority should remain to provide the highest quality advice on climate policy, to take into account expert scientific and economic advice and to take into account developments in the international arena. I say that expert advice should be treasured, not junked; climate change policy should be directed by evidence and facts rather than by fear and prejudice and political opportunism.

The Climate Change Authority was designed to take all the short-term, mindless and silly politics out of the climate change debate. In this regard, of course, the Climate Change Authority in Australia has many similarities to the United Kingdom's Committee on Climate Change. I think it is worth the Senate noting that successive British governments, governments of differing political persuasions, have benefited from such advice. Australians, in my view, deserve an approach to tackling climate change that respects the scientific and economic consensus, where facts, not fear, set and drive public policy. Of course, the Climate Change Authority here in Australia is already providing this advice—providing strong advice based on scientific and economic evidence.

Of course, we can acknowledge that it is for government and for the parliament to decide how they might respond to the advice they receive. We all accept that. However, I fear that, without such advice, government strategy and government decision making about climate change will be less than adequate—will be ad hoc and will be uninformed. Of course, I suppose to some extent the risk is that it will be informed, but by focus groups and the ignorant, not by experts. Abolishing the Climate Change Authority is a short-term political gesture that is simply not in the national interest.

It is true, I think, and fair to say, that the Climate Change Authority has a strong record in providing independent, frank and fearless advice to government on a range of critical matters: matters such as Australia's emissions reduction targets and caps for carbon pricing; matters such as progress towards meeting our medium- and long-term emissions reduction targets; matters such as the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System; matters such as carbon farming; and matters such as the renewable energy target. The advice that is provided on these critically important aspects of climate change policy must be based on scientific and economic research and it must be independent, and that is the advice received from the Climate Change Authority. That is the advice; that is its nature. I say that independence is essential.

The Climate Change Authority's board has an excellent scientific, economic, industry and also academic pedigree, making the authority well placed to deliver considered and expert advice to government. We must acknowledge in this debate that the Climate Change Authority uses evidence based policy. The Climate Change Authority is an important tool in the battle to avoid dangerous climate change. It is an important tool for any federal government, whatever its political persuasion, so the government can be assisted in developing and reviewing climate change policies. I say that the Climate Change Authority is the right body to do this job.

I note that the opposition whip in the Senate has a close interest in this, so much so that she is waving her hands. Were you waving them at me? It is rare in the chamber, as you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President Stephens, to have such a level of support that the opposition whip would enter the chamber and wave her hands in support of a speaker. I suspect even Senator Williams and Senator McKenzie have never seen such extraordinary support provided by the whip of any major political party to a mere humble backbencher on his feet in a debate like this. I am really knocked over by that level of support.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Flattery is the word.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am flattered. Flattery, as you know, Senator Williams, will get you everywhere in politics.

Getting rid of the Climate Change Authority would mean that Australia would no longer be taking the battle against climate change seriously. It is as simple as that. Despite the scepticism of some, the reason temperatures are rising is not an issue of serious debate. As I have on so many occasions now over many years, I want to stress the issue of climate change science, because the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that human activity is the principal cause of climate change. The evidence is in: humans are responsible for climate change. The evidence is compelling, it is unequivocal and it is growing.

I know that there are some who wish to argue a different position. I accept that opponents of the scientific basis of climate change are entitled to their view, but I do not expect such views to be taken seriously, because global warming is not a giant conspiracy. It is not an abstract theory, but part of a new reality that we all face—that Australia faces; that every nation in the world faces. As I say, I have spoken for many years now on many occasions about the science of climate change. It should be a guide to what we do because the science of climate change is becoming surer, not less certain.

I would refer interested senators to the International Panel on Climate Change and its most recent report. I do not want to traverse the ground that I covered in a recent speech in the Senate about that report. Suffice to say the IPCC predicts that if carbon dioxide emissions only increase at the minimal rate, then global average temperature could rise by 0.9 degrees to 2.3 degrees Centigrade by the end of the century. But, if the worst-case scenario is met, this could be as much as 3.2 to 5.4 degrees Centigrade.

Let's look at our most recent experiences in Australia—not what might happen, but what actually has happened. Australia has just experienced its warmest September ever; its hottest summer day on record, 7 January 2013; its warmest winter day on record, 31 August 2013. And this year, 2013, is on track to be the warmest year on record. According to the World Meteorological Organization, all the warmest years across the planet have occurred since 1998. Even the coldest years are warmer than anything before 1998. This means we are committed to a warmer future—so you better get used to it. These numbers cannot be fudged, they cannot be spun, and nor should anybody try to do so. Increasing average temperatures is affecting human health; it affects animals, it affects plants, it affects agriculture, it affects industry—it affects so many parts of our lives. It is also having knock-on effects on the weather, as we know, with a warming ocean increasing the intensity of storms and melting the polar icecaps.

Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. So I say yet again: it is crucial that we focus on the science of climate change and that we consider the most efficient methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To do this Australia needs long-term bipartisan strategies in place, based on expert advice, so it is so short-sighted to abolish the Climate Change Authority. That is why the opposition opposes the legislation.

Debate interrupted.