Former Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has demolished Tony Abbott’s climate action plan and backed the Government’s amended CPRS legislation in a long speech explaining his decision to cross the floor in support of the Government’s ETS bills.
Last week Tony Abbott launched a climate action plan that rejected any market-based emissions abatement mechanism in favour of $10b worth of handouts for businesses and farmers to reduce emissions. Turnbull rose in the chamber early this afternoon to speak on the Government’s CPRS bills, reintroduced as promised last week. Watched by colleagues Petro Georgiou, Russell Broadbent, Paul Fletcher and, interestingly, Joe Hockey, Turnbull tore apart the proposed plan as economically inefficient, environmentally ineffective and unable to meet the task of reducing Australia’s emissions by 5% by 2020.
After quickly discussing the need to address climate change, including that the 2000s had been the hottest decade ever after the 1990s and 1980s, Turnbull emphasised the similarity of the Government’s CPRS with the Howard Government’s intended CPRS, declaring that the bills were “as much the work of John Howard as it is of Kevin Rudd” and outlining why the Howard-era Shergold taskforce had rejected non-market approaches like regulation or subsidies to address climate change.
Without mentioning the new Coalition plan or Abbott by name, except with an indirect reference to “as we have seen in recent days”, Turnbull attacked a subsidies-based approach, warning it was “a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a vast scale… a slippery slope that can only result in higher taxes and less effective abatement.” As a Liberal, Turnbull said, he supported a market based solution that allowed businesses and consumers to determine the most effective means of reducing emissions. A price signal was critical in order to drive the large-scale transition of the Australian economy necessary for lower emissions.
“In the absence of a clear carbon price,” Turnbull said, “no new investment will be made or investment will be made in new carbon intensive infrastructure.”
Turnbull also took aim at soil carbon, which would under the Coalition scheme provide most of the reductions needed to ostensibly meet the 5% target. As leader he had supported soil carbon, Turnbull said, and he believed it had great potential, but much work needed to be done before it could play a significant role. Moreover, its benefits would be more easily obtained through an ETS, and he had negotiated amendments to the CPRS that would allow exactly that. He quoted one biosequestration expert who said he supported soil carbon initiatives but was “horrified by the prospect of a fund from which public servants hand out money to grow trees.”
Turnbull also directly undermined the Coalition’s campaign to portray the CPRS as a tax, saying that the impact on prices would be less than the GST and that the CPRS was not intended to operate as a tax but return revenue to households and businesses. He also attacked the argument that Australia should wait for the rest of the world to take action, noting that progress had been achieved at Copenhagen by getting developing countries to commit to emissions abatement and that the Howard Government had been much further away from global action when it committed to an ETS. “How can we credibly expect China or India to take out call for global action seriously if we a wealthy developed nation are not prepared to act ourselves?” Turnbull asked.
The CPRS, Turnbull concluded, was the “only policy on offer that will enable us to meet 5% emissions target” and move to higher cuts if a global agreement to do was reached.
Turnbull spoke for longer than the usual 20 minutes, and the Government readily allowed him extra time to continue. The only downside for the Government was Turnbull effortlessly put the case for the CPRS far more eloquently and coherently than Kevin Rudd or any of his ministers has so far managed – a result that says more about the Government’s failings than Turnbull’s rhetorical gifts.
29 Comments
Good post Bernard, not many people will have seen that I guess.
I caught the second half of it and thought it a terrific speech. References to the Shergold report were very useful. Abbott’s policy goes directly against the recommendations from a report commissioned under Howard. Also enjoyed the comparison that the GST decreased GDP by 2.8%, while the CPRS is likely to be 1.1%.
Also enjoyed him tearing apart the Great Big Tax meme. Something like ‘it is not a tax because any revenue raised by the Govt will be returned to voters. The Intent is not to generate revenue’.
Also on the GBT, (not to be confused with G&T) I wonder how Abbott and the other Liberal members voted on the GST when it was intruduced. Such idealogical opposition to taxes would surely have lead the current members to vote against it.
After pricking his conscience, the member for Goldman-Sachs has just played his trump card.
And lost.
He’s destined to be another poisonous liberal dwarf like John Hewson and Malcolm Fraser.
“…In the absence of a clear carbon price…no new investment will be made or investment will be made in new carbon intensive infrastructure.”
Would that be the A$23 per tonne Bob Brown’s Greens are demanding or the US10 CENTS per tonne I can currently ’sell’ carbon for on the CCE?
Hilarious stuff.
Don’t let the door hit you in the arse on the way out Malcolm.
@Evan
“…it is not a tax because any revenue raised by the Govt will be returned to voters. The Intent is not to generate revenue’…”
Less costs and an adminstration fee, right?
Just like the GST.
Rudd has already built a 150-person strong bureaucracy in Canberra to “administer” an ETS that won’t even go ahead.
Now there’s an effective use of ‘voters’ funds.
Turnbull has more credibility and courage on this issue than most on his side put together. No wonder his side hates him so.
So MPM you are saying the same about Howard as you are about Turnbull, for what Turnbull is talking about is mostly Howard’s scheme after all.
It would have been interesting to have seen your comments praising the CPRS to the heavens if a Howard government had introduced it instead of the current Howard in all but name government.
That was coherent, Malcom, hope the media don’t brush your comments aside.
Jesus christ, most peculiar mama, it’s easy for you to debate, you just redefine everything you want to as what you mean it to, never mind conventional usage of a term, and off you go.
A GST is a tax, because it raises revenue to go to the consolidated fund, for government to spend . An ETS is not a tax because there is the trading of property rights, and no intention to raise general revenue (in fact it was entirely revenue neutral till the Turnbull Libs got into it). I’m not explaining this for your benefit, there’s no way you’ll ever see logic, but jsut to make sure no one out there reading this is confused.
@Mobius Ecko
I’ll make it easy for you: a CPRS, ANY CPRS is BAD policy.
I could care less who trys to bring it in.
@wilful
“…An ETS is not a tax because there is the trading of property rights, and no intention to raise general revenue…”
Such simplistic nonsense…and wrong to boot.
Both the Green & White Paper FAILED to provide a detailed cost impact of the ETS on the Australian economy. Kevin and Penny still studiously avoid the question to this day. Any financial impost as a direct result of the introduction of this scheme is a tax.
That’s pretty simple to understand.
To pretend that overcompensating poor people is some magic (”revenue neutral”) pudding is a joke which means an ETS is little more than a thinly-disguised tax grab that robs Peter to pay Paul.
Your irrational defence of this consumption tax makes you sound like one of the public servant ‘architects of the scheme.
Care to declare your interest?
“…but jsut(sic) to make sure no one out there reading this is confused….”
Sounds like a great idea if it can be so easily confused and misconstrued. Pffft.
I agree about Turnbull being more eloquent than Rudd. Perhaps Kevin should get a few
tips from someone like Don Watson about how to speak more coherently.
Abbott’s plan is obviously a nonsense but there are enough ratbag journos to give it credence.
The Green’s idea might be a goer if Rudd swallows his pride and takes it on.
I heard the last half of Turnbull’s speech today and found it refreshing to hear a Liberal talk like one, clearly and dispassionately with logic and principle. It sure put the bloviating Barnaby into stark perspective.
If the freak show that Abbott has put together thinks Turnbull isn’t talking to a sizable proportion of their prospective voters they should think again.
OK, MPM, you tell us all how you’d define a tax. Are you suggesting that “any financial impost” resulting from any government policy is a tax? In that case, pretty much every cost that we have in life is a tax. Or is it just this policy, and if so, what’s so special about an ETS that means it magically becomes a tax? Please, enlighten me, because wilful’s explanation made more sense than yours.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Labour have mangled the attempt to bring in an ETS as badly as Hewson mangled GST v1. But I don’t buy the argument that it is ‘a great big tax’, and if you want to talk about “robbing Peter to pay Paul”, then you need look no further than Abbot’s scheme, which really does just hand money out (taxpayers money, raised through…well, taxes I guess).
If you’re going to accuse others of “simplistic nonsense” you have to do more than say pffft.
(Oh, and before you mount an unjustified ad hominem attack on me as well, I am not a public servant and certainly not an architect of this or any other policy).
MPM or JamesK or whatever your name is, I get more insight from a bloodfart than your ramblings….
MT is proposing market based carbon pricing so why any reference to the greens static pricing der? CPRS is no different to market instruments employed in the electricity industry in Victoria, oh wait, lets just do handouts and make it super efficient like NSW.
I know lets give out millions for individual solar panel installations for middle class twats like yourself who can afford surplus cash and make the other taxpayers (the working folk) pay for it, yes thats better
Gawd you’re boring when you’re not clever enough to dissect actual policy…..
DON”T FEED THE TROLL
Indeed. Particularly not a professional hate machine.
Turnbull stood up and said his piece. It takes courage and integrity to do that. Whatever else goes on, he has done the right thing. Well done!!!
Nice to see Pure Poison give Murdoch’s altar boy, –Andrew Bolt a serve there on Bolta’s website. Gee don’t his imposters idols, spit green bile, his Asian moderators have been docked a day’s wages for letting that comment through—which is about @ $1 an hour. Bolt is spewing because Rudd won’t front up on ABC Insiders—sob-sob-sob they have taken my chair—laments Bolt and all his rightard bloggers feel his pain, as they sob-sob-sob to his requirements. I see that “dark side virus” is back! Keith is not my real name.
Rudd’s inability to really connect with an audience was on display on Q & A last night. He was so focused on being ‘well-behaved’, getting certain stock lines out and avoiding being trapped into making any commitments on the run that he forgot to reach out to his physical and TV audience.
The only thing that really stuck from the whole thing was his grating repetition of certain stock phrases:
“Evidence-based policy”
“We’re not perfect” (every time he said this there was the patronising tone of a parent speaking to an angry ten year old)
I could present another dozen tedious examples but the overall point is that Rudd is very hardworking and leading a solidly competent reformist government but his boring manner in these contexts will eventually alienate enough people to give the government some serious electoral worries. Turnbull, and even Abbott in a slightly odd way, do have that ability to connect and Rudd must learn how to do it.
“… know lets give out millions for individual solar panel installations for middle class twats like yourself who can afford surplus cash and make the other taxpayers (the working folk) pay for it, yes thats better…”
Nobody does incomprehensible babbling and class envy quite like the Jezztards.
Rinse. Repeat. Yawn.
DON’T FEED THE TZZzzzzz….
Best to ignore MPM no matter how tempting it is to respond to her provocations. Responding to a troll only feeds her peculiar psychological needs
You say he doesn’t miss… but who is Turnbull aiming at? Who is Abbott aiming at?
David, the thing I love the most is that when she is pinned down by a carefully considered post like MD’s she goes MIA.
Her modus operandi is restricted entirely to throwing bombs with gay abandon, then disappearing faster than a rat up a drainpipe when the blowtorch is turned up.
@David Sanderson
“…the overall point is that Rudd is very hardworking and leading a solidly competent reformist government…”
Riiight.
Even Tony Jones’ Youth Forum last night spotted the spinning fraudster and charlatan a mile away.
Maybe he should have given each of them a T-shirt with your catchy slogan on it.
That would surely have won them over.
@MD
“…Are you suggesting that “any financial impost” resulting from any government policy is a tax?…
Of course it is. Name one that isn’t.
Then answer a simple question:
Isn’t a “carbon price” just a tax on “carbon”?
BTW, I’ll leave the stupid ad-homs to the legion of stalkers who trail me around this site carping for my attention.
MPM: “BTW, I’ll leave the stupid ad-homs to the legion of stalkers who trail me around this site carping for my attention”.
Yes that’s the idea, to keep you occupied with slanging matches rather than objectively dissecting the real issue, thus preventing you from showing the errors of the mad lefties. IT’s a leftie conspiracy that seems to be working a treat in most posts you do these days….Lefties 1, Neo-Cons 0
“…Neo-Cons…”
This is Australia. No “Neo-Cons” here.
You’ve been reading too much Janeane the Gruffalo…and I’m fresh out of “stupid” emoticons.
Stick to the topic.
@Rohan
“…David, the thing I love the most is that when she is pinned down by a carefully considered post like MD’s she goes MIA…”
Maybe you can answer my question to MD then…it seems he’s gone MIA.
Is MPM related to MPD Limited?
MT make a good case for doing something on climate change, but the insistence that a market based cap and trade is the only way is nonsense, (and he provides no evidence that anything other than a market based system would not also work).
It’s no coincidence that the investment bankers of the world have been pushing cap and trade systems for over a decade – they can see a huge pot of money there for the picking.
A much simpler system is a tax and keep the greed heads out of the loop. The limit of a cap and trade (i.e. where the cap is zero) is a tax anyway. In any case, where a big polluter cannot buy a permit, there is a penalty to be paid, which is a tax by any other name. If the Government had followed something like the ACF’s submission to Garnaut (http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/ACF_Garnaut_ETS_Sub_Final_180408.pdf), maybe a CPRS would work, but the way it is now, the only ones who will benefit are investment bankers.
If the CPRS is introduced, I’d bet a bankers bonus that in a decade from now there will be a parliamentary inquiry into why the CPRS was consistently rorted and manifestly failed in any of it’s stated aims (although I’m sure it will be a runaway success in the _real_ aim of enriching investment bankers).
S is for spineless, anonymous troll.