Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

The government says Australia has a choice between the environment and the economy. The Prime Minister says he will not sacrifice Australian jobs on the altar of the environment. We say Australia does have a choice but it is not between the economy and the environment; it is between acting and not acting. We say it is between choosing to act now or being forced to act later at much greater cost. We will not sacrifice Australian jobs or the environment on the altar of an ideology which refuses to accept that climate change has an impact on the Australian economy.

The Prime Minister says we should not listen to Sir Nicholas Stern because he is from Europe. We say we must listen to Sir Nicholas Stern because he has a world view and the cost of not acting is just too high. Of course, it is politically convenient for the Prime Minister to paint this as a contest between Sir Nicholas Stern and the rest of the world, but it is not only Sir Nicholas Stern who says Australia must act and act soon, and act now, to deal with the economic impact of climate change on this country. It is not just Europeans who say we must act; it is Australians who say this too, and the government are just not listening. It is not just environmentalists who say we must act; it is business people and economists who say this—but the government just refuse to listen. They refuse to listen to the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, which consists of companies like Westpac, Origin Energy, Visy and BP.

Over a year ago, the business roundtable released a report called The business case for early action. They said:

As business leaders representing a cross-section of the Australian economy, we believe that climate change is a major business risk and we need to act now.

…            …            …

This research confirms that Australia is particularly vulnerable to climate change. The economic impacts are significant and widespread, affecting in particular Australia’s leading export earners, agriculture and tourism. This will have flow-on effects for the whole economy.

Those are not our words or Sir Nicholas Stern’s words but the words of the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change: Westpac and VP. They called for a carbon price signal, but the government were just not listening. The report compared two scenarios—acting now or waiting to act later—and they said the impact of acting later would be a ‘major disruptive shock to the Australian economy’, but the government were just not listening. They said waiting would destroy jobs and wreck the Australian tourism industry, but the government were not listening.

The government were not listening to the Economist magazine. I have to confess that the Economist is my favourite magazine. I am sure the member for Rankin looks forward to getting his weekly edition as well, and I suspect some members opposite like the Economist magazine—maybe even the member for Boothby—because it takes a free-market approach to most issues. I enjoy reading the Economist magazine. This is what their climate change special said:

... although the science remains uncertain, the chances of serious consequences are high enough to make it worth spending the (not exorbitant) sums needed to try to mitigate climate change.

That is the Economist, the bible of free market thinking around the world, and the government were not listening to the Economist.

Not only are they not listening to the Economist; they are not listening to economists generally. Just a couple of days ago, 271 professional economics academics, including 75 professors of economics, signed an open letter and said:

Global climate change carries with it serious environmental, economic and social risks and preventive steps are urgently needed.

…            …            …

The refusal by Australia and the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is undermining global efforts to tackle climate change.

That is what 75 economics professors said, but the government are just not listening. Even though they were quick to leap on one US economist yesterday, they will not listen to 75 Australian economics professors today.

Let’s look at what business is saying in the United States. There is a similar group to the business roundtable set up in the United States, called USCAP, which was formed in January to lobby to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 per cent, to create business incentives and to act swiftly and thoughtfully—not a coalition of environmentalists; a coalition consisting of companies like General Motors, BP, Duke Energy and General Electric. The Bush administration are not listening and their ideological soul mates here, the Howard administration, are not listening either.

People have been warning about this for a long time. The Kyoto protocol was written back in 1997—10 years ago. For 10 years the world has been looking at this question, and unfortunately Australia has had the Howard government all that time. In 2002, Environment Business Australia wrote a submission to the government saying:

… Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol for environmental, trade, health, and economic reasons.

But the government were not listening. We know now that, back then, the government were considering introducing an emissions trading scheme. Back in 2003 they had a cabinet submission to do so. They had the chance to act, they had the knowledge in front of them and they ignored it. They just were not listening. When four government departments supported a cabinet submission on an emissions trading scheme they did not even listen to them. I cannot put it better than Lenore Taylor, who says:

Turns out cabinet was being asked for in-principle endorsement of a domestic emissions trading scheme, to take effect after the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period ends in 2012, where the initial cost was to be kept low and the impact on big trade-exposed emitters was to be mitigated.

She goes on to say:

That’s right. After almost four years of indignation and inaction, we’re likely to end up right back where we were in 2003.

But they rejected it because they did not believe in climate change then, and they do not believe in climate change now—a government which comprises the ultimate climate change sceptic, the Prime Minister. And let us not forget the industry minister. Do you remember him—tall bloke, raspy voice? You might recall him. We do not hear much from him these days because his views are not very fashionable in an election year. Ian Macfarlane is a climate change sceptic who said that climate change was not really happening. Those views are not very fashionable when there is an election coming on, so he is in hiding. He is probably locked up in a room somewhere. We have not heard from him for months. But, when you have got a government with an industry minister who has those sorts of views, they are not going to act, because they do not believe it. They say it is because the economic costs are too high but it is because they just do not believe in climate change.

Do you remember when we were told as a nation that the economic costs of equal pay for women were too high?

See this speech in context