Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills and to reiterate the call by the Leader of the Opposition for caution and delay before moving to the vote. The issue of climate change is no doubt a significant issue, wherever you sit on the spectrum. It is, though, a scientific and an economic issue. It is not about zealotry and it is not about religious fervour. I remind the member for Forde that terms such as ‘deniers’ and ‘sceptics’ add little to the debate.

Mr Rudd wants this to be a political issue. Mr Garrett wants this to be an issue of fervour and hype. I would rather—and I know the coalition would rather—that we focused on the science. I would rather that we identify what we do know and, importantly, what we do not—that we identify our knowledge gaps, that we seek new information where we have a paucity and, importantly, that we manage risk where we do not know. Whether Australians believe that mankind is causing climate change or not, the role of this parliament is to do everything it can in the best interests in our nation, to contribute in a most positive way to managing our planet and to ensuring we do not leave future generations burdened down with either enormous government debt in cash terms or a damaged land in environmental terms.

In considering the information we have today—what we have now—notwithstanding the growing body of dissent, what we know now is that the planet must be given the benefit of the doubt and we must respond to the science we have in front of us. I say to our nation: regardless of whether you believe that climate change being caused by mankind is true or not, surely, the goals of any coordinated strategy—such as less or zero reliance on Middle Eastern oil, cleaner air, higher organic content of soil to achieve higher crop yields and a greater reliance on renewable energy to ensure our own domestic energy—are worthy goals, regardless of where you as an Australian sit on the spectrum in respect to climate change.

The coalition’s record on climate change is strong. We established one of the first greenhouse offices in the world. Over the last 12 years, Australia has reduced its greenhouse gases by over 85 million tonnes of CO2, allowing Australia to be one of only a few countries out of 178 states to meet its Kyoto targets. Former Prime Minister Howard may not have signed up to Kyoto, yet he was one of only few world leaders that actually met its targets. What is best—to vainly sign a document with no intention of meeting it, or to stand by your principles and do what is right? In the last 12 years the coalition led and funded a global initiative on forests and climate. We introduced a renewable energy development fund to support emerging technologies and we provided support for individuals and community groups taking action through programs such as the solar rebate, Solar Cities, solar hot water rebates, community water grants and green vouchers for schools initiatives. The coalition has much to be proud of in respect to its record on climate change.

Yet Mr Rudd seems intent on rushing in where even fools have dared to tread. He now wants this parliament to vote on an ETS, even though, of his own admission, it will be not be implemented for at least 18 months as a minimum and more likely for two years. He wants this parliament to vote on an emissions trading scheme even before the United States of America, which contributes 30 per cent of greenhouse gases, have their bill finally worked out and we know what they are going to do. The Waxman-Markey bill is currently being negotiated in the US House of Representatives in the Congress as we speak. And, whether we like it or not, the US legislation will set the benchmark across the globe, as you would expect it to, cognisant that its GDP is of the same size as the GDP of the next four largest nations.

The US will set the standard, yet Mr Rudd seems to have the arrogance to think that we should go ahead first, regardless of what the US is doing—even though they will set the standard. I am sure that may be good for Mr Rudd’s aspirations to be Secretary-General of the United Nations, but it makes no sense whatsoever in the debate on climate change. Mr Rudd wants to go forward with an ETS, notwithstanding that it is to be not only before the US do but before even the Copenhagen meeting to thrash out what the environment looks like post-Kyoto. Copenhagen should spell out the direction for the global community as to how global agreements will move forward. Mr Rudd wants an ETS before those global agreements are even decided upon.

We have suggested that the ETS must go to the Productivity Commission for a full, frank disclosure of exactly what the impacts will be. Mr Rudd does not want this. He is hiding from the Productivity Commission. If you have to hide something, may I suggest, there is something to hide. If you look at the ETS bill of over 400 pages, there are eight pages on the mechanics of the ETS—only eight pages; that is it. How the ETS will work out across industry and what the impact will be upon hundreds of thousands of jobs is apparently to be worked out by regulation, with the bill before the parliament simply giving a framework. Mr Rudd is telling us to take him on faith.

See this speech in context