Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (16:04): The member for Flinders has raised this matter today because what he fears most in this current debate is any independent voice on what the science of climate change means for Australia's efforts to reduce its own pollution. What we have heard today is a ringing independent voice, that of Professor Ross Garnaut. Professor Garnaut is, I repeat, an independent voice, and that is what the opposition cannot stand about the report that he released today. I add my thanks to those the Prime Minister expressed earlier today in question time to Professor Garnaut for the continuing excellent service he has rendered to our nation over the course of his working life. This debate today is not, as the topic chosen for it by the member for Flinders might suggest, about the role of government. It is not about the role of parliament, which will continue to be the body that has responsibility and accountability for the legislation that it makes. It is grossly misleading for the member for Flinders to come into this House and make any suggestions about what the government is proposing to do in relation to the carbon price scheme that we will be announcing in the middle of the year and introducing legislation for later in the year. It is grossly misleading for him to have made the suggestions that he has made about what the government is proposing. The fact of the matter is that the opposition is fundamentally opposed to any climate change policy that achieves the long-term reductions in pollution that we need to make. As outlined in his recent interview on the 7.30 Report, the member for Flinders has admitted that his polluter subsidy policy is only a temporary solution that has nothing to offer Australians for the long-term adjustment that Australia needs to make. The coalition's policy will not make a dent in Australia's emissions and fundamentally ignores the economic transformation that our nation needs to make. Far from being a long-term vision, which is what one might expect from a mainstream political party, the coalition's policy is a fig leaf to convince the sceptics who sit opposite and make up a large proportion of the coalition parties that, in proceeding with the direct action policy, they have committed only to a pot of money that can be quickly reallocated and abandoned once they gain power. As outlined by Professor Garnaut today, direct action is immensely more expensive than a price on carbon. To make it clear what our policy is, the carbon price that we aim to introduce in this country is a price on pollution, which will make dirty energy more expensive and clean energy like solar, gas and wind cheaper. The carbon price will apply only to the biggest polluters in our economy—fewer than 1,000—and they will be required to pay for every tonne of carbon pollution that they emit. It is the most effective and the cheapest way for us to build a clean energy economy and every single reputable economist has said that, in comparison to the fig leaf of a direct action policy that the coalition has put forward, it is absolutely clear that putting a price on carbon, a market mechanism, is to be preferred. I do need to make clear what the governance arrangements for the carbon price might be—first, by making clear that those governance arrangements are still under consideration by the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. No decisions have been taken on aspects of governance, which are those that have been raised in this matter of public importance by the member for Flinders today. All details will be announced once the deliberations of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee have been finalised, but it is apparent that it is necessary to correct a complete misconception that has been advanced today by the member for Flinders not about the government's proposal, not about what has been decided in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee but about Professor Garnaut's proposal for an independent committee. Ms Ley: Three committees. Mr DREYFUS: I am corrected by the member for Farrer, who says that Professor Garnaut in his report recommended as part of his proposed governance structure for the carbon price scheme some three independent bodies. But the particular independent committee that the member for Flinders has directed his attention to is one which, in his imagination, was going to set the price. I need to make clear—and I invite the member for Flinders to actually read Professor Garnaut's report before he next raises this, and perhaps other members opposite could read Professor Garnaut's report before they raise these sorts of allegations—that the independent committee as proposed by Professor Garnaut would not set the price. It is proposed that it would make recommendations on emissions reduction targets and that those emissions reduction targets would remain the prerogative of the government. The independent committee would not be setting the carbon price, because under the emissions trading scheme which we will be moving to after the fixed price period is completed it would become a market price. Mr Hunt: The target sets the price under the ETS. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): The honourable member has had his opportunity. I counsel him to remain silent. Mr DREYFUS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The independent committee would make recommendations to government and parliament concerning the implementation of targets under emissions trading. It would be up to the government and the parliament to respond to these recommendations. Despite Professor Garnaut making this crystal clear in black and white in his report, the coalition has wilfully misrepresented what he has proposed. We have heard it again just now from the member for Flinders. The member for Flinders seems to be suggesting that the entire carbon tax, including the carbon price, and carbon pollution reduction targets would be outsourced to unelected officials—indeed, he has just used that phrase, referring to unelected officials setting tax rates. That is a wilful misreading of this parliament and it is not what Professor Garnaut said today in his speech, it is not what he said in his report and it is not what he said in the summary of his report. I read to the House what Professor Garnaut says: … some of the governance functions related to the scheme, are by their nature, the prerogative of Government. These include decisions about establishing the scheme, setting the medium and long-term emissions reduction targets, deciding which sectors should be covered by the scheme; the broad principles for providing transitional assistance to emissions intensive, trade exposed industries, and the principles governing the point at which the scheme should switch from a fixed to a floating price. It is very clear, Professor Garnaut goes on to say, that the ultimate decision on recommendations put forward by the independent committee that he is proposing lies with the parliament. That is what he says: Should the Government wish to take an approach that differs from the Independent Committee's recommendations, it would be required by legislation to present to Parliament the reasons for its alternative decision. This approach is similar to the arrangements for setting carbon budgets or national emissions reduction targets in the United Kingdom. That is right: this is the approach that is followed by the Conservative led government in the United Kingdom, and that is why those opposite are so keen to misrepresent the proposal from Professor Garnaut. By the way, this is the same United Kingdom government, now led by the Conservative Party, which is continuing with the emissions trading scheme that has been established in the United Kingdom since 2002. It is the same Conservative led government which just two weeks ago adopted the most ambitious emissions reduction targets of any developed country. To make it clear what those are, it is a pledge, under the annual carbon budget adopted by the United Kingdom government, to cut emissions from 1990 levels by 50 per cent by 2027. It ought to be an embarrassment to those opposite that a Conservative led United Kingdom government, in a bipartisan fashion, has simply continued with the emissions reduction policies of the former Labour government. It has continued with the scheme. It has indeed adopted more ambitious targets. The suggestion which was made to us yesterday in this House that the United Kingdom government has said that there is going to be a review in 2014 is simply appropriate, cautious government. It is the appropriate, cautious government that would be brought by our government to bear on any emissions trading arrangements that we introduce, because the national interest must come first. That is why we are introducing an emissions trading scheme after a fixed price period, that is why we are moving to a carbon price, because it is in the national interest that we do so. The review update from Professor Garnaut could not have been clearer. This is the report that Professor Garnaut released today. Making it clear, he said that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity and it poses a serious risk to the prosperity and quality of life for all Australians. He said: Since 2008, advances in climate change science have … broadly confirmed that the earth is warming, that human activity is the cause of it and that the changes in the physical world are likely, if anything, to be more harmful than the earlier science had suggested. It is a view that is based on the advice of expert climate scientists. It is consistent with the advice that the government has received from sources like the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Climate Commission and the Australian Academy of Science. Of course, just last week the Climate Commission released its report, entitled the The critical decade. Any serious government—indeed any serious political party—has a clear responsibility to act in the national interest and, consequently, cannot ignore advice of that kind. Only an opposition which is more concerned with its own political self-interest than the national interest would choose to ignore such advice. I will say again, as was said several times in answers in question time, that Professor Garnaut could not have made it clearer that the appropriate response to the challenge of climate change is a market based mechanism. It is the introduction of a carbon price and it is not the so-called direct action policy that those opposite seem to favour. This is what Professor Garnaut said in his speech today about direct action: 'Direct action, or reducing carbon emissions, is likely to be immensely more expensive than a market approach.' That is consistent with the views of all mainstream economists. Mr Hunt: That's not true. There are three Nobel laureates who disagree. Mr DREYFUS: It is consistent with the views of former Liberal leaders. As has been accurately said, the only living leader of the Liberal Party, past or present, who does not support a price on carbon— Mr Hunt: That's not true either—Downer. Mr DREYFUS: Oh yes, Mr Downer, apparently. I have not heard from him. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! The honourable member for Flinders will restrain himself. Mr DREYFUS: But what has been made clear is that John Hewson favours a price on carbon. Malcolm Fraser favours a price on carbon. Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, favours a price on carbon and the former Prime Minister John Howard favours a price on carbon. That ought to give a pretty clear message, one would think, to those opposite that they are definitely proceeding on the wrong track with their direct action policy. I want to again commend Professor Garnaut for the great service that he has done to Australia with the update of his 2008 report. In the report that he released today he made very clear points, one of them being that in mainstream science the expectations of what will happen if we 'let emissions rip', to use Professor Garnaut's phrase, have become a bit more grim. A second point, and it is a somewhat optimistic point that Professor Garnaut made today, was that technology is advancing faster than expected. He gave us the example of the take-up rate for electric cars. The third important point that Professor Garnaut made today was that the case for action is stronger than it was a few years ago. We should have acted much earlier than we have. With every year that passes the cost of taking action will grow, and that is why it is important that we proceed now with as much speed as possible to introduce a carbon price in Australia, starting on 1 July next year with a fixed price. This is a reform which is in the national interest. It is a reform which will see Australia doing our fair share. It is a reform in which we will be able to show the rest of the world how to reduce emissions and, by doing so, urge the rest of the world—because we need the rest of the world to act—to reduce their emissions. It is a reform which will let us move our economy towards the low-carbon economy of the future, towards the clean energy of the future. We will withstand pressures from sectional interests because it is in the national interest that we continue to do so. (Time expired)