Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today’s MPI shows yet again how hopelessly divided the opposition are on the very fundamental issue of climate change and its causes, let alone how we deal with it and what our response should be. Now it seems that, if one is to take the proposition literally, they are against an emissions trading scheme. Yet it was not too long ago that the Leader of the Opposition was claiming credit for the Howard government’s promotion of an ETS, and I recall the shadow minister was also in that category. But it seems today not only that we cannot get one line of reasoning from the opposition as to the science of climate change but also that they are all over the place insofar as an ETS is concerned. I point out to the member for Flinders that the ETS is only one of a suite of measures that the government will have in place to deal with the issue of climate change. There are other measures to do with energy efficiency and advances in technology that are part and parcel of our response.

The problem for the member for Moore and others who genuinely understand the science of climate change is that they have an opposition bench full of climate change sceptics. Well known in that regard is the member for Tangney, who has long proclaimed his scepticism about the science of climate change and the contribution of human activity to it. Very recently, the Nationals, in Senator Barnaby Joyce, had this to say:

The view across the National Party is that the reasons put forward to justify an emissions trading scheme are just a load of rubbish.

The member for Groom, who was smiling at the table just 10 minutes ago, has form on this issue, dismissing the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth as ‘just entertainment’. The only sense I have heard in the debate has been in the contributions of the member for Moore and the member for Sturt, who is not often known for wise contributions. However, on this occasion he said:

We—

meaning the opposition—

need to embrace the reality that climate change has occurred.

Hallelujah! I wish the member for Sturt, the member for Moore and others who have sense on this issue all the best in their aim to try and convince the sceptics among their ranks that climate change is indeed happening. If the opposition cannot agree on the fundamentals, it is no wonder that they cannot agree on what response there ought to be.

Let us look at today’s MPI. The opposition claim that our proposed scheme will have adverse effects on employment and the economy, as if we had not taken those factors into consideration in devising our scheme. There are a few fundamental truths that I think shadow ministers need to comprehend in this debate. First of all, in the words of Sir Nicholas Stern:

Climate change is … the greatest market failure the world has seen.

When we have market failures, such as the one we are witnessing now in the global financial crisis, there is an important role for government to take action. That is what we intend to do, because all the science and all the economic analysis tell us that taking early action costs less than delaying action. As those of us who believe in the science of climate change know, delay means risking irreversible consequences. If you do not believe me, have a look at the Treasury modelling, which shows us quite clearly that we can sustain economic growth while at the same time reducing carbon pollution. Their modelling shows that annual economic growth will be only marginally lower with an ETS—they calculate it at one-tenth of one per cent.

As for the opposition’s claim that we have not taken into account the employment impacts, let me say, as a member representing a region heavily reliant on the export of coal and steel, nothing could be further from the truth. Our ETS will provide substantial assistance to support today’s jobs. In that regard, we are mindful of the possibilities of carbon leakage. That is why we have corralled today’s employment and today’s jobs against that possibility. How are we going to do it? We are going to do it by giving particular consideration to emissions-intensive trade-exposed firms. Firms like BlueScope Steel in my region, along with many others, will be entitled to the allocation of free permits. Many of them are likely to be at the 90 per cent assistance level. In my region the proposed coal sector adjustment package will help tackle the issue of high fugitive emissions in some of our local mines. We are committed to a substantial investment in clean coal technology, realising the importance of that. We will also have a climate change action fund to assist regions like mine in the transition. So we are mindful of the jobs of today while planning for the low-pollution jobs of the future. Again, I point to Treasury estimates that that sector will grow. (Time expired)

See this speech in context