Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes. Australia is in the front line of climate change and it is important that we act. This is a point that has been agreed by all scientists and the majority of Australian business leaders. They understand that, in an economy which is the highest emitter of carbon pollution per capita and has 80 per cent of its electricity generated by coal, we have an imperative to act and make the transformation.

My electorate of Throsby is also in the front line of a country that is in the front line, having traditionally relied heavily on manufacturing and coal as a significant contributor to gross regional product and for employment. We know that structural change hits working-class communities hard and it hits us harder the longer we delay. We saw that as we moved our community through the structural adjustments associated with the steel industry and manufacturing, and removing tariff protection. We know that if you do not act and act decisively there is some pain upfront but there is a lot more pain down the track. We contrast the steel industry, which is a very productive and efficient industry in our region, with those around the country in other regions which did not go through those transformations and act decisively and soon.

We believe in a market solution because it is the most effective way of reducing carbon pollution. We could, as the opposition suggest, adopt a market atheism on this issue alone—not in relation to other issues—and pick winners, providing grants and subsidies to some of their favoured industries, but we know that this is not as efficient as putting a price on carbon and introducing a market solution. It is something that is supported by every economist and every major industry group. It is something that many businesses are already factoring into their business plans. I quote from a statement by the Westpac Group dated September 2010:

… we factor carbon risk into our decision making processes and in consultation with impacted customers may require them to demonstrate risk reduction programs.

Our position has been to support flexible market-based mechanisms as part of a wider policy response to climate change.

That is a sensible position given domestic and international trends, a position that should be adopted by those opposite.

We know that the market mechanism is the most effective means of changing behaviour in households and business and, most importantly, as the minister has pointed out, changing investment decisions so that we can start getting investment into that critical area—the main game in this debate—electricity generation. Unless we send a signal to the market, there will continue to be a stall in investment in more efficient and effective means of electricity generation and, as has been pointed out, the cost of electricity will continue to rise because there is a shortage of supply and uncertainty in the market. Electricity generation is the main game.

In conclusion, I appeal to those on the opposition benches and crossbenches to put the interests of the country ahead of a position that they themselves know to be wrong and ineffective, to move beyond the silly ‘gotcha’ politics that we have seen in their contributions to this matter of public importance and get behind the only serious, rational and effective means for dealing with this important global problem.

See this speech in context