Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I rise to speak on this motion, I reckon it should really be ‘the adverse effects of the coalition’s opposition to the government’s emissions trading scheme on employment and the economy’. The question is not only, ‘Will jobs be lost if we act on climate change?’ but, ‘How many jobs will be lost if we fail to act?’ That is the question that needs to be asked. We see the climate change sceptics on the other side obviously oblivious to what is happening to the climate in the world around us today. Perhaps it is because they are too focused on their internal party room brawling to actually take any notice of the climate around them or what has been said by the scientific community. Just as members opposite ignored for years and years—over a decade—the plight of the Murray-Darling Basin and stood by, watched its demise and did nothing, they similarly want to do the same when it comes to climate change.

There is a real similarity between the two issues. If you go back to their position with respect to the Murray-Darling Basin you will find that the now Leader of the Opposition had a view about what ought to be done, the National Party members in New South Wales and Queensland had another view, then the National Party members in Victoria had a third view about what ought to be done and, when you went to my home state of South Australia, the Liberal Party members there had a fourth view about how the system should be managed—in other words, they could not reach agreement on what they needed to do so they did nothing. That is exactly what is occurring right now when it comes to the issue of climate change. If you look at their track record on this issue you see it changes by the day.

A moment ago the parliamentary secretary quoted the member for Goldstein and others. I want to refer to—and I know that the parliamentary secretary did in his quotes—Senator Cory Bernardi, from my home state, who on public radio on more than one occasion has spoken on this topic. On 27 January he made a number of statements which clearly indicate that there is real division within his own party about where they stand on climate change. So in the face of disunity you do nothing because you cannot reach any agreement on what it is you have to do.

The Rudd government is not prepared to stand by and do nothing and jeopardise future generations in the face of overwhelming scientific advice. I refer to some of that scientific advice in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I quote from some very relevant parts in that report, and in doing so I point out that subsequent to this report being written the scientific community has in fact upgraded it and made it absolutely clear that these are conservative positions in the light of what is known today. The report says:

• There is now no question that the climate system has warmed.
• It is very likely that greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity caused most of the warming that has been observed since the mid-20th century. In their third assessment report in 2001, the IPCC had only considered it likely.

Now they say there is no question—

• Global climate change over the past 50 years is extremely unlikely to have been caused by natural variability alone.
• If greenhouse gas emissions continue at or above the current rate there will be further warming, and the changes that we will see during the 21st century would very likely be larger than those observed in the 20th century.

It goes on to say:

• Global sea level rose during the 20th century by 12-22 cm. By the end of the 21st century, sea level is projected to rise by 18-59 cm—

I could comment about that further in light of some of the evidence given to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts by some of Australia’s leading scientists. I will come back to that if there is time. The report goes on to say:

• The increases in greenhouse gases since 1750 are due primarily to emissions from fossil fuel use, agriculture, and land-use changes.

In other words, from man-made activities, and—

• Extreme climate events such as heatwaves and heavy rainfall are very likely to become more frequent.

Governments have a responsibility to act, and to act on the best possible advice they have before them. That is exactly what the Rudd government is doing. The risk to jobs and the Australian economy is to not act on climate change—to do absolutely nothing—which is exactly what the opposition would have us do. I repeat what the parliamentary secretary said: jobs that already exist in this country are at risk; jobs like the 63,000 jobs associated with the Great Barrier Reef and the $5.8 billion industry it sustains in tourism, in recreation and in commercial fishing.

Thousands of jobs are at risk, many of which we have already lost in the Murray-Darling Basin and in other agricultural areas. Those jobs are real jobs that are in place right now but which may be lost before our very eyes because we sat back and did nothing. The livelihoods of the people in Queensland are at risk, as we saw in recent times through floods and cyclones. Those extreme weather conditions have been predicted by the scientific community. They are not just something we should put up with and pretend we did not know were likely to occur. Those extreme weather conditions affect not only jobs but the future economic viability of this country. That is why we need to act, because if we do not there will be jobs at risk and there will be an impact on the economy of this country to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

On the flip side of that: there are jobs in transitioning to a green economy, and we have already seen those jobs created in a range of sectors. Just look at how many jobs today have been created in the solar panel industry. If you go around Australia and collectively add up those jobs you will see that they run into thousands. If you look at the number of jobs that in recent years have been created in the water and irrigation industries as a result of transitioning to a smarter economy, again, you will find thousands of jobs. If you look at the home insulation program that the government announced as part of its $42 billion package—which I might say members opposite opposed—4,000 jobs are expected to be created in that sector, if you listen to Dennis D’Arcy, the chairperson of the Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand. He said:

Clearly our members have a direct interest in the package which will create around 4,000 jobs…

There are jobs already being created and there will be more jobs created as we transition to a green economy.

With respect to transitioning to a green economy, Treasury modelling released in October 2008 demonstrated that economies that defer action face long-term costs that are around 15 per cent higher than those that take action now. In other words, for every day and every year that we delay, the cost to implement a responsible strategy will be more expensive. The Treasury modelling also says that the global market for environmental products and services is projected to double from US$1.3 trillion per year at present to US$2.74 trillion by 2020. Those figures were cited in a United Nations Environment Program Report in 2008. In other words, there is a huge industry out there waiting to be developed as a result of transitioning to the greener economy.

Let me say that it is interesting that, in America, President Obama has committed to a scheme being implemented in his country. I want to quote him:

… to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.

He said that in February 2009. That was only last month. That is how recently he committed to doing something in the USA.

It is also interesting to note that, whilst the opposition members say that we should be doing nothing and holding off, 27 European countries, 28 states and provinces in the US and Canada, and New Zealand are all looking at implementing, if they have not already done so, a similar scheme. They are prepared to take the lead on this, but we are being told that we should not do it. Well, that is not the position of the Rudd government, because the Rudd government is acting responsibly to ensure our kids and future generations are not left to clean up our mess.

I want to make a couple of other comments in respect of comments made by previous speakers the member for Goldstein and the member for Flinders. They said that we are rushing the scheme. (Time expired)

See this speech in context