HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CARBON TAX

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:46): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Environment a question regarding the repeal of the carbon tax.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I take this opportunity to record Family First's congratulations to the Hon. Tony Abbott MHR, the Prime Minister-elect of the federal government, and also to commiserate with the Labor Party and former prime minister Kevin Rudd for their loss.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Crossbenches.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It's pretty soft. One Labor Party member of parliament who has survived the electoral swing against Labor is the member for Wakefield, Nick Champion MHR, and I congratulate him on his win. Mr Champion, however, ruffled some feathers yesterday by backing the federal Coalition's call for the Labor Party to allow the repeal of the carbon tax by abstaining from voting in the Senate. Quotes attributed to the member for Wakefield include:

But look, let's not forget, emissions trading was really the product of the Howard government. It was the product of, you know, the Greens Party. It's been a product of a bipartisan consensus. That consensus is now broken down and I don't see why the Labor Party should necessarily stay wedded to this concept when everybody else has walked away from it in one form or another. That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle climate change and the Labor Party could have a range of policies based around regulation and lifting emission standards for instance in cars and the like, and wait in effect for the bipartisan consensus on carbon pricing to return.

My questions therefore to our minister in South Australia are:

1. Does the minister believe the Abbott government has a mandate for the repeal of the carbon tax?

2. Does the minister support the member for Wakefield's call for the Labor Party federally to allow the repeal of the carbon tax?

3. Can the minister clarify, with his portfolio perspective, whether there is any room for the Abbott government to shift to emissions trading and claim that it is an abolition of the carbon tax as such, as opposed to repealing any form of carbon pricing altogether?

The PRESIDENT: Before calling the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, I would ask him to be aware of standing orders when he describes our honourable colleagues in Canberra.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:49): Thank you, Mr President. I take your advice and guidance, as always. I just wonder, in light of the preamble of some of that explanation the Hon. Mr Brokenshire gave for his question, who was it who said, 'If you put a price on carbon, why don't you just put a tax on it?' Who was that, Mr President? Could you remind me? Was that the then leader of the opposition Tony Abbott, Prime Minister-elect? Were those Tony Abbott's words, 'If you want to put a price on carbon, why don't you just put a carbon tax on?' I think they were.

I understand the member for Wakefield has been on the radio articulating a view that voters should get a chance to see the effect of the Coalition's alternative direct action policy because it would be a disaster for the country. Mr Champion has, I understand it, in line with policy reports and analysis undertaken by a number of experts, concluded that it would see emissions rise and see us not meet our carbon target. I think that on the basis of the reports that I have seen from a number of experts Mr Champion is probably right.

I can go all the way back to June 2007 with the Shergold report released to the Howard government which rejected direct action and regulatory approaches over an emissions trading scheme because they 'would impose a far heavier burden on economic activity'. That is it, the policies of the Prime Minister-elect, Mr Abbott, would impose a far heavier burden on economic activity in this country.

On 31 July 2008, the Wilkins review looked at failures of direct action-style schemes which have been implemented in Australia, such as the failed greenhouse gas abatement scheme, and warned that 'project-based abatement is difficult to achieve through a grants program, further demonstrating why an ETS is a superior approach to achieving large scale abatement'. On 1 December 2009, Tony Abbott then defeated Malcolm Turnbull by one vote for the leadership of the Liberal Party—one vote—and this was shortly followed by an opinion piece written by Mr Turnbull on 7 December 2009 which made clear that the new policy would be 'an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing'. That was Malcolm Turnbull's expert analysis of the Coalition policy put forward by Tony Abbott at the time in 2009, now our Prime Minister-elect.

On 2 February 2010, the so-called direct action policy document was released and remained unaltered on Greg Hunt's website for over 3½ years. On 5 February 2010, Danny Price, the Coalition's climate scheme modeller, started to back away from the costings, I am advised, and admitted direct action is not sustainable in the long term in an article in The Australian. On 8 February in 2010, Mr Turnbull explained to parliament how direct action would be 'a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale'—Malcolm Turnbull in parliament saying that direct action would be a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale. In March 2010, the Department of Climate Change tabled a comprehensive analysis of the direct action policy which demonstrated it was not able to achieve the stated emission reductions, even on optimistic assumptions.

On 14 April 2010, again, Dr Shergold, the architect of former prime minister John Howard's emissions trading scheme, told the Australian Financial Review that direct action was a more expensive and less effective response to climate change, a much more expensive way than setting a framework and then letting markets drive those decisions.

On 21 April 2010, the failures of the Howard government's greenhouse gas abatement program, which was a version of direct action, were exposed by an audit report prepared by the Australian National Audit Office. On 22 February 2011 Geoff Carmody, now a Coalition adviser on costings, I am advised, makes clear in an opinion piece rhetoric on direct action is 'unconvincing bluster' which should be subject to Productivity Commission review. That would be a nice suggestion to put to the new incoming government.

This is nicely followed on 9 June 2011 by the Productivity Commission's international review of emissions reduction policies which found a much lower cost abatement could be achieved through broad explicit carbon pricing approaches irrespective of the policy settings and competitor economies. That was the Productivity Commission's view. On 3 June 2011, Barnaby Joyce made clear in The Sydney Morning Herald that the Coalition direct action policy is just a meaningless gesture for global climate change.

Again, in June 2011, expert analysis by Ernst & Young for the Australian Industry Group sets out the key problems for direct action which could hinder Australia's participation and a deeper globally consistent response to climate change. This was followed by the Australia Institute's detailed analysis of direct action, and building on past schemes suggests about $100 billion would be needed for the program. This makes it clear that no clear costing has been undertaken or backed by any economists, agricultural scientists or climate scientists.

I could keep going and perhaps I will. On 23 February 2013, Tim Lubcke from Monash University published a new analysis of direct action, demonstrating that it cannot achieve the scale of abatement promised. This was followed by a Lateline report on 18 April 2013, which showed that Greg Hunt's soil carbon plan would require up to two-thirds of the land mass of Australia—two-thirds of the land mass of Australia—to do what he said he wanted it to do. Again in April 2013, the Australian Financial Review reported how power companies urged Tony Abbott to rethink direct action as it would be difficult to operate.

In August, AECOM released a business survey analysis showing that only 7 per cent of businesses support direct action. The message here is pretty clear: there is barely any support for this incredibly poorly researched policy. With the latest detailed analysis suggesting a total cost of $41 billion to 2020, it is little wonder that Mr Abbott is now walking away from Australia's international commitments and action on climate change. That contrasts very nicely with what we are doing here in South Australia.

In addition to the initiatives of the federal Labor government, the South Australian government is taking action to help South Australians deal with the impacts of climate change, and it has demonstrated leadership across a range of areas. This dates again back to 2003 and 2007, when internationally renowned thinkers, Mr Herbert Girardet and Stephen Schneider, provided insight into what South Australia could do to address climate change.

In 2007, South Australia established the framework for rising to the challenge by enacting Australia's first dedicated climate change legislation, releasing a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in South Australia and beginning a climate change awareness-raising campaign. This enabled the South Australian government to support those desiring a better and cleaner future for South Australia and the world. We in this Labor government will not shirk the leadership required by governments on the issue of climate change, as we are seeing totally happening at the federal level right now.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! If there are further interjections I will ask the minister to repeat his whole answer because I can't hear what he is saying. We can all sit here and actually learn something. The minister has the call.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have another 15 pages of supplementaries, however, to contend with. Suffice to say—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Are you going to answer the question?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I think I have, Mr Brokenshire. As usual, Mr Brokenshire, you never listen to the answer.

The PRESIDENT: Therefore, minister, can you repeat your answer?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr President, Mr Brokenshire will do what he usually does and read the Hansard tomorrow and understand that the answer was clearly given in my opening statement.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT