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

In contributing to this debate, I would like to say to the opposition: unfortunately, most of the world, including the broader Australian community, already understand that there is no climate change policy that will not bear some cost to our community. We have heard speaker after speaker from the opposition talk about the fact that they are going to reduce emissions and produce this fantastic policy which will achieve all these wonderful environmental outcomes without costing anybody anything. I say to them quite clearly: that is not the case. There is a cost to dealing with climate change. There is a cost to acting on climate change. I also say to them that the cost of acting on climate change is nowhere near the cost of doing nothing. That is what we are faced with as a parliament, as a government, as a community and, indeed, as a global community.

19:21:59 Today we saw the coalition release its policy on climate change. The coalition is commonly and most often referred to as a coalition between the Liberal Party and the Nationals. Today we saw a coalition of climate change sceptics and political opportunists quickly cobble together a policy that acknowledged that they had to have some public response to what is the most significant debate in our community at the moment. It was a knee-jerk political response that was not really serious about dealing with the very difficult challenges that we must face if we are going to do something about reducing emissions.

This challenge, as I have already said, is being discussed and debated in parliaments, in communities and in households across the globe. The fact that world leaders have not necessarily come to an agreement at this point in time does not mean that it is not something that every government and community in the world is still discussing and trying to deal with. It simply demonstrates the complexity of the problem and the difficulty of the decisions that we must make. Nevertheless, I believe that we will get decisions and, as a result, we will get outcomes.

What does the opposition give us? As the Prime Minister has already said, it gives us a magic pudding of a policy. It is not going to cost us anything. It is not going to cause any damage but it is going to solve some of these most difficult problems. It is a policy that talks about some fairly important but nevertheless piecemeal issues in addressing the issue of climate change. We all know that putting solar panels on houses is obviously going to reduce energy consumption and cost. We all know that carbon sequestration—the storage of carbon in soil—is one way of looking at reducing our CO2 emissions. We all know that planting more trees is also another solution. But none of these things can possibly address the amount of pollution that is being put into the air at this point in time and none of those initiatives will reduce emissions to the point where we will see our community become more environmentally and, therefore, more economically and socially sustainable.

I was interested to see that one of the proposals is for underground power cables. The coalition’s policy talks about a $4 billion cost, roughly, over four years. In my previous job as a councillor on the Brisbane City Council, I was part of making decisions about underground power cables and I know how much that costs. In the particular area of Brisbane that I represented, it cost several million dollars to put power cables underground in one small shopping centre in one suburb in one city. They are talking about doing this across the whole country.

First of all, in addressing the concerns that I have about this particular policy, I think the costs are unrealistic and probably not achievable. I think that they will be borne by the taxpayer. I say, ‘I think’ because I actually do not know. With the level of detail that has been released by the Leader of the Opposition, we actually do not know, as yet, where that money is coming from and how much that will cost. Because they have said that they will not support a cap-and-trade scheme. we can assume that it will not be borne by the big polluters. We can only assume, therefore, that it will be borne by the very people who we are trying to protect: those who are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and who will bear the greatest social and economic costs if we do nothing. Fundamentally, they are large majority of working families in this country who contribute through taxes in trying to deal with this very issue. It is important that we acknowledge the effort that is already being made by those very people: individuals and domestic households across the country who are putting in water tanks, installing solar panels, turning off their lights and doing everything they can to reduce their personal carbon footprint.

We all know that this problem is not going to be resolved until we start to deal with the very difficult issues around the major contributors to carbon emissions—that, of course, is industry. We all know that countries across the world, new and old economies, have been successful because of industrialisation and that over a century or more we have continued to acknowledge that industry has to bear some cost if it is going to succeed. They now pay decent wages and they acknowledge that they have to provide good workplace health and safety programs. They know that they have to provide hygienic and healthy workplaces, and make sure that their place in the community in which they operate does not have too much of an impact. There have been hard-fought battles but it has been accepted over the years that business must bear some cost in order to continue to do its business. This is yet another acceptance. We cannot just stop at the chimney or when we talk about our waterways or when we talk about environmental impacts. We have to accept that industry needs to bear some cost and acknowledge the cost of producing pollution.

That is why the Rudd Labor government has introduced a cap-and-trade scheme. It has said to those people who are polluting that they must accept that there is a cost to that pollution. The government has said that it will put a price on that pollution, but it will enable those businesses and those industries through market forces to work out how best they can address those issues, reduce their emissions and continue to grow a successful business.

What is also important about the coalition’s policy is what is not in there. It is not what is in there; it is what is not in there. The glaring omission, as I have already said, is an acknowledgement that the big polluters need to play their part in reducing emissions. A glaring omission is how we can get industry to address that problem and deal with it through a price on carbon.

What is also not there is a cap. We have a policy here that costs billions of dollars, according to them. Who knows what the real cost is. It could be much more. But there is no guarantee, no commitment and no dedication in this policy to reducing emissions. They could do everything in this policy and emissions could still increase. Another glaring omission is the fact that they have not made a commitment to capping emissions—a significant and fundamental basis on which to develop a climate change policy.

It is also important to note that there is no point in them committing these billions of dollars, taxpayers’ money, if they are not going to take it seriously and introduce important and significant changes that everybody in this community can contribute to. The only way that we can actually redress the wrongs of the past and the only way that we can ensure a reduction in pollution is to have everybody playing their part and contributing in a way that is fair and that genuinely shares the cost.

I would like to emphasise once more how important it is that industry is involved in the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and that the major polluters take their fair share of the responsibility. There is nothing in the coalition’s policy that does that. It is piecemeal. It is a knee-jerk political response and it puts the onus unfairly onto taxpayers who are already taking individual action in their communities to try and do the right thing. They are being asked by the coalition to not only do the right thing themselves but also contribute their hard earned taxes to support some form of government funded program that gives no guarantees.

I have some real concerns about this policy. I do not think that it is workable. I do not think that it is realistic. I do not think it focuses on the need to ensure that the cost is borne fairly, because there will be a cost. As I said at the beginning, what is most concerning about the opposition’s comments is that they seem to think that this policy will develop out of thin air, that $4 billion will magically appear and never reduce, but will not actually be borne by anybody within the community. It is hard to take it seriously.

It is also important to note that since the coalition believe they have come up with such a great response to the government’s proposal, you would think they must have consulted with those people they usually require for support—for example, ACCI, whom many opposition members have quoted today. You would think ACCI might have been a little more supportive and complimentary of the coalition’s policy. All ACCI have said in their press release is that they welcome a debate, that they welcome alternative options. They have certainly not said that this is the way to go. They have certainly not said that the coalition’s policy is the best way to reduce emissions. They have not said any of that. They have once again reinforced their need for some certainty about how to move forward. All they have said is that they welcome a debate—hardly a ringing endorsement.

In conclusion, this policy talks a little around the edges about piecemeal changes. It does not go as far as some of the things that the Rudd government have already done when it comes to energy efficiency, promoting green jobs, promoting carbon storage and supporting agriculture, and a range of programs. In fact, $15 billion has already been committed by the government to programs that will see far-reaching results when it comes to agriculture, energy efficiency and support for domestic households. We cannot walk away from the fact that we have to move on and deal with industry in a way that is fair, that gives them some certainty but reduces the impact on taxpayers. The coalition’s policy is merely a con job. They have cobbled together a political response. The coalition have no real direction on or commitment to this issue. They have not made a considered, fair or genuine commitment to reducing emissions that would see all of the community take a fair share of the responsibility.

See this speech in context