Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Our national interest lies with our taking strong global action on climate change and strong and effective action domestically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Rudd government’s CPRS covers both bases; therefore, it serves the national interest and, therefore, that of our local communities, like my electorate of Page. The government’s CPRS is built around key principles and solid, agreed, international scientific evidence—not hocus-pocus, magic pudding or some sorts of fairyland scenarios.

Principle 1: reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. Principle 2: provide adjustment arrangements for industry most likely affected by carbon price. Principle 3: make arrangements to provide assistance to households—in particular, pensioners, carers, seniors and low-income households—and support for middle-income households and motorists. It is transition for our economy, transition for the environment and preparedness for our future challenges, thus securing our future.

Speaking of principles, the opposition leader, a few weeks ago, with yet another delaying tactic, issued nine rather vague principles on the opposition’s approach to climate change. I submit one position from the number and variety of positions of the Liberal and National party members. Yesterday, the opposition leader ditched the nine so-called principles and issued a report—but not a report that forms the basis of a coalition policy, so not an agreed policy. It is another non-policy in a long line of precedents set before the coalition would form a policy. All have come and gone—still no policy.

The time line: 2007, coalition policy to have a cap-and-trade scheme; December 2007, wait for the Garnaut report; September 2008, wait for Treasury modelling; September 2008, wait for the white paper; December 2008, wait for the Pearce report; April 2009, wait for the Senate inquiry; May 2009, wait for the Productivity Commission—forgetting, it seems, that the Productivity Commission had made a submission on emissions trading to the then Prime Minister Howard’s Shergold report—and now we are waiting for Copenhagen and President Obama’s scheme. There have been seven delays in all, and now there is an eighth delay, which is the report, but there is still no policy.

The other catchcry is about jobs. Going on about regional jobs on ABC radio today, Senator Nash was peddling those porkies about ‘jobs going’. But the Treasury modelling also points out that, by 2050, the renewable energy sector will be 30 times larger than it is today. Furthermore, a 2009 study by the Climate Institute shows that there are some $31 billion worth of clean energy projects already underway, or planned, in response to the government’s climate change policy. This will generate around 26,000 new jobs, mostly in regional areas. There will be 2,500 permanent jobs, 15,000 construction jobs and 8,600 indirect jobs in supporting sectors.

In the minute that I have remaining, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi was today sentenced in Insein Special Court to three years prison with hard labour in Insein jail in a suburb of Rangoon, or Yangon. The SPDC and General Than Shue, the head military dictator, has converted that to 18 months house arrest. It is still not clear whether that will be in Suu Kyi’s home, but I just want to say that it is the most shocking condemnation of their rule. It seems quite bizarre. I am sure that General Than Shue thinks he is doing something good, but doing something good would be releasing her and withdrawing the charges. The charges arose out of somebody swimming across the lake, supposedly to get to Suu Kyi’s home. She was charged. Her home was heavily fortified by the regime’s people outside. I am sure members would agree with me when I express my sympathy and feelings of disgust. I extend my goodwill to Suu Kyi.

See this speech in context