Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I rise as the 20th speaker on this debate before the parliament today. I am pleased to take the opportunity to make a contribution on not just a significant issue facing this parliament but a significant issue facing the world and, in particular, one in which I believe we, as policy makers, have obligations not just for this generation but for generations to come.

One thing that makes people disillusioned with politics is the tension between short-term political election cycles and the vision that is required for planning the long-term future. With climate change the problem and the solutions needed to address it extend not only beyond political cycles but beyond lifetimes. It is not just about whether children born today will ever get to see the natural splendour of the Great Barrier Reef. It is not just about ensuring that Kakadu maintains its splendour. It is not just about dealing with the water crisis which has particularly hit Australia now and will do so into the future. It is also about planning for our economic future, knowing that the costs of adjustment to a low-carbon economy will increase in direct proportion to the delay in action—and we know that that is the case. We have been advised as a government. But the previous government was also advised by Treasury and by every other serious economic body, not just in Australia but globally, including through reports such as the Stern report in the United Kingdom, which emphasised the cost of inaction.

What we saw exhibited in this debate today was extremely disappointing. What I am disappointed by is not the view of the member for Tangney, who predictably put forward his views. He has, to be fair, consistently put them forward. Indeed, on 15 February 2007 he proposed in this parliament some sort of shade cloth being put into orbit to deal with climate change. He essentially has been a climate sceptic from day one, as have many of those opposite, including the member for Mackellar and others, who have been consistent in their views in opposition to climate change. What is extraordinarily disappointing is the fact that there are some opposite who know that climate change is real, who know that we need to take action and who believe that market based forces are the appropriate method of achieving that change and that dynamic, yet they have stood up here and contradicted the views that they argued throughout last year—the views that they held whilst being in a minority position in the Howard government. It is a travesty that they do not have the courage of their convictions, because they know that their position is a nonsense. They know this government’s position, which has essentially three prongs to it, and why we need a carbon pollution reduction scheme.

Firstly, you need a cap. We propose one; they do not. Secondly, you need to ensure that the big polluters pay. Our system will do that; theirs will impose a cost on ordinary taxpayers instead. Ours, by using the payments of the big polluters to compensate working families, ensures that that protection is there. They provide no protection economically, let alone for the sustainability of our environment into the future. The market based system has not just come from nowhere. Indeed, what we are seeing now is that the climate sceptics of the Liberal and National parties have become market sceptics as well. They believe in a command economy solution that is not real. What we need to do is ensure that we use the push of the market as well as the pull of new technology to provide solutions to climate change. That is where the model comes from. Kyoto and its adoption followed the emissions trading model adopted in the United States for sulphur dioxide. It was agreed by Australia at the conference in 1997 that that was the way to go. Of course, this model came about through the Clean Air Act of George Bush Senior in the United States in 1990. This was hailed as being extremely successful in stemming the acid rain sweeping across the nation.

Since then, we have seen a number of emissions trading models adopted and in practice—not just in Europe but also in the United States, particularly through the RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is a cap and trade system covering states in the north-east of the United States. The debate has occurred within the global community about the nature of the way that we move forward, but it is important to recognise that Kyoto did not come about overnight. We had the Rio summit in 1992. It then led to the Kyoto protocol being signed, including by Australia in 1997, but it did not come into force until many years later. Indeed, in December 2005 I attended the conference in Montreal as Labor’s environment spokesperson. It took seven years of hard negotiation—and hard negotiation will indeed be needed on a global level. But all those opposite who, during the period of the Howard government, spoke about the need for international action are now walking away from that completely. They are walking away from that argument.

If you look at what has occurred, we know that we do need to have a price set on carbon. It is obvious that failing to price carbon restricts the demand for zero- or low-carbon technologies. If you do not have economic mechanisms, existing and new technologies will simply not be rolled out to the extent that is required. That is why this government introduced its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That is why we negotiated in good faith with the opposition on amendments to that scheme. Those opposite, including the member for Goldstein, sitting there on the front bench of the opposition, now say that they are opposed to this. Just last year he was the shadow minister assisting the Leader of the Opposition on emissions trading design.

See this speech in context