Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important set of amendments that we have before us in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008. Before I illustrate some of the reasons why I particularly support these amendments, I say that it is a real privilege to be a member of a government and to stand in a parliament where these amendments are just one part of a very constructive and productive suite of policies that will address some of the very critical environmental issues that we not just as a nation but as a planet are facing today. The reality is that climate change exists. We have many people who are trying to divert the debate about how we actually manage and deal with the impacts of climate change, and there are still the sceptics who are trying to keep us all with our heads buried in the sand, hoping that we will pretend climate change is not there, that it will go away and that, if we do nothing, it will all be okay. But many in the community know that climate change is a reality, that we are facing severe environmental impacts because of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and that as a community, as a society, we have an obligation to address this.

The reality is that we have to acknowledge not just the fact that climate change exists but our part in that—that human beings as a result of their attempt at progress, particularly over the last couple of hundred years, not only have increased greenhouse gas emissions but also have increased the rate of the greenhouse gas emissions that are occurring. We have accelerated the amount of emissions that are going into the atmosphere. We have to be responsible for dealing with those impacts, but we also have to look at the way that we as a community can reverse that trend. It is possible to slow down the emissions, to reverse the impact and to reverse the rate at which we are producing greenhouse gas emissions.

If we do not, the consequences are dire. Although many say that it is the doomsayers out there who are trying to frighten everybody into doing something, it is not the case. There are some very credible and well-respected organisations and individuals across the planet, and in particular here in Australia, who have looked closely at the science of climate change and come up with some quite alarming but very realistic facts. If we look, for example, at a report into climate change that was done by those very well respected national institutions, CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, neither of which would be considered to be organisations particularly alarmist or extreme in their views, they have come up with some interesting statistics that are important in the context of this legislation and debate. They are saying that the average Australian temperatures have increased by 0.9 degrees Celsius since 1950. The frequency of hot days and nights has increased and the frequency of cold days and nights has declined. Many people would not consider 0.9 degrees to be a significant amount but, when you look at it as an average increase across the planet and consider that when the planet was only five degrees cooler than it is now it was the ice age, it turns that seemingly very small figure into a rather large problem that we have to deal with. The scale of the increase in temperature is very important and one that we should worry about if we do nothing.

Since 1950 most of the eastern and south-western sides of Australia have experienced substantial rainfall decreases. The global sea level rose by around 17 centimetres during the 20th century and by around 10 centimetres from 1920 to 2000 at the Australian coastal sites that were monitored. As the member for Bonner, which is on the shores of Moreton Bay on the coastline of Brisbane in South-East Queensland, I can assure you that there are many people in my electorate and in electorates nearby who have real cause for concern when we talk about sea levels rising to that extent. The new projections for Australia’s climate indicate that, by 2030, temperatures will rise by about one degree over Australia—less in coastal areas and more in inland areas—and rainfall patterns will change. It is projected that there is a 60 to 70 per cent probability that climate change will decrease annual rainfall in southern and central Queensland and a 50 to 60 per cent probability of rainfall decline in northern Queensland.

Droughts are likely to become more frequent. Under the current criteria for drought, most of Australia will experience 20 per cent more time in drought by 2030 and eastern Australia may spend 40 per cent more time in drought by 2070. I am rising to speak on this legislation not just because I fundamentally believe that we need to deal with environmental impacts and improve the way in which we address environmental issues but also because I directly represent an area of the planet—namely, South-East Queensland—which on these figures is facing some real challenges if we do not introduce measures to deal with climate change.

In particular I would like to refer to one of the most iconic sites in Queensland and, indeed, Australia: the Great Barrier Reef. Yesterday we passed legislation to improve our monitoring and environmental protection of that particular site. While I did not have the opportunity to speak, I would like to inform the House a little about the Great Barrier Reef and what would happen if we did not address climate change. Let us put aside the environmental aspects at the moment and look at the industry that is generated by the reef. There is tourism, fishing, research and public enjoyment—it is an area that many people not only from Queensland but also from around the world enjoy as a wonderful experience. Defence training is also carried out in the area. In fact, more than 63,000 people are employed in Great Barrier Reef tourism, fishing, cultural and recreation industries, which generate $6 billion in GDP each year. The greatest threat to the reef is climate change. Sea temperatures have warmed by about 0.4 per cent over the past 100 years and there have been eight mass coral bleaching events since 1979.

We are dealing with very clear impacts that we have an obligation to address. It heartens me that not only do we finally have a government that is prepared to act, but we have a community that is very prepared to support action—in fact, it is demanding action. The community made very clear its support for action on these issues on 24 November last year when it chose a government that would sign the Kyoto protocol and address climate change. Since then a number of opinion polls have demonstrated that the Australian community—individuals and organisations—is far ahead of the opposition in its support for measures such as the pollution reduction scheme. People are saying that they want Australia to act and to act now. They are prepared to support measures that will achieve changes in our attitude to environmental problems.

The Australian community should also be congratulated for the individual behaviour changes that have been made across the board. In my previous job as a Brisbane City councillor I was privileged to be part of an administration that introduced recycling. That has been taken up significantly by Brisbane residents and more than 30 per cent of waste is now recycled in Brisbane. In response to the drought, the council also introduced water restrictions, which were taken up with gusto. Residents have significantly reduced the amount of water that each household uses. People have also clearly stated that convenient and cost-effective public transport is a real alternative to using private cars. The community is prepared to act—people are reducing their energy consumption, they are turning off lights and they are installing water-saving devices. They are changing their household behaviour to reduce their carbon footprint. Many people also participated in Earth Hour. I enjoyed a wonderful candlelit hour with my children. It was a benefit not only to the environment but to the family as well to be able to sit around a table and talk for an hour with no distractions.

People also expect the government and the corporate sector to play their part and to make their contribution. They accept that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action, and they want the entire community to contribute to dealing with this very important issue. They expect the government to lead, but they also want measures that will ensure industry plays its part. That is why there is broad community support for the government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is clearly a way to encourage businesses to address their pollution reduction and to initiate measures within their companies and their industries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such a scheme will enable the market to balance itself so that commerce, business and industry continue but also add that very important cost of the impact of pollution. It will ensure that individual businesses change their behaviour and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Opposition members who have contributed to this debate have indicated that the opposition supports this measure in principle. Unfortunately, I think the ‘in principle’ bit is a little too late. We must act now; we must make difficult policy decisions that will work and achieve a real reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.

Someone pointed out to me that we are clearly adding yet another element to the way in which we cost our goods and services. It is accepted that any business will factor in its administration costs, its labour costs and its overheads in determining the cost of producing a good or service. It then applies a small mark-up to ensure that it makes a profit. Someone said to me recently that in the past we costed the production of goods and services from the time that we took the resource out of the ground to the time it came out of the factory. However, we did not cost what came out of the chimney. A reduction scheme will do that—that is, it will realistically cost the production of goods and services. It will ensure that industry and the community acknowledge that factory emissions are also a cost of production.

It is important that the opposition not only supports this measure in principle but supports it by voting for the reduction scheme. We have heard a lot of criticism this evening about the European Union trading scheme. As a government we are lucky because we have the benefit of hindsight. We can look at the different trading schemes that have and have not worked and then build on and improve them. We are not starting from scratch. In the United States and Canada, for example, more than 27 states have introduced trading schemes. Of course, the most notable is California—a significant state in the United States. I welcome the fact that both of the US presidential candidates, from the Republican and Democrat parties, have committed to introducing an emissions trading scheme. So we are not alone. We are part of a global solution and I am very pleased that this government is leading the way.

These amendments are so important because they provide for a national framework that will pull together the bits and pieces that are already occurring around the states and territories and establish a reporting scheme that will inform the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which I hope will come into being over the next couple of years. The reporting scheme will give us the information we need to make the trading scheme work. In order for this major change in the way that we do business to be effective, both economically and environmentally, we need accurate information. Business needs information to be able to understand how it can reduce its greenhouse gases and measure its emissions. Business needs that information so that it can prepare for a future reduction scheme. The community is very keen to understand the impact of industry on the environment and the sorts of emissions and the volume. With these amendments, information will be publicly available for the whole community to appreciate what is happening now. With this information we will be able to tailor a reduction scheme in a way that suits industry. That is what is so important about these amendments. These amendments will give us the data to get the right measurements in place and the right policies in place to produce a reduction scheme that will have a real impact.

The key thing about these particular amendments is not just the fact that we are bringing it together nationally and that we will finally have a single national framework but also that we are looking at providing the information in different ways. For example, we will ask corporations to provide information not only on what they are doing in terms of projects within their own sector, company or business to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also on whether they are actually investing in other ways in terms of offsets to balance out their reduction. We will actually be asking companies to report on both direct emissions and indirect emissions. But we will do that without putting an onerous administrative burden on those companies. We will provide an online automatic calculation for the scope 2 or indirect emissions so that they will not have any administrative burden.

This is all very significant and it will make a real difference when you consider that currently the reporting scheme involves 450 companies, but by 2011 it is expected that it will involve 700 companies. It is important that we acknowledge that a reduction scheme is difficult. It will require a change of attitude and behaviour. It will require both business and the community looking at doing things differently and addressing yet another concern in the production process—that is, their emissions. With these amendments we will get the right information and the right data and we will have the opportunity to work closely with business to enable a reduction scheme that will help.

I would just like to conclude with what I think is a very significant old proverb: ‘The earth was not given to us by our parents; it was loaned to us by our children.’ As a member of this government, I hope that my children will be proud of the earth that I have put on loan for them.

See this speech in context