Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Since coming to this place in 2005, there have been very few opportunities to speak on climate change that I have not participated in. I have been in those discussions probably because before coming here, in my business dealings I worked very closely with the renewable and sustainable energy sectors. My involvement with these sectors was to assist in overcoming challenges to commercialising their new and innovative technologies, challenges in raising funds for research and development and challenges in demonstrating to the market that cleaner energy technology is commercially viable in a modern Australia.

The one consistent thing I have said in all my contributions associated with the climate change debate in this House and in business is that we do need to have an appropriate price on carbon. Without that we will not have effective change. Without a price on carbon there would be absolutely no incentive to move from a primitive and highly polluting energy source, as well as the cheapest power generation sources in the world—that is, relying on our brown coal stocks. People may not appreciate that, whilst it is all those things, we have 800 years supply of brown coal left. Why would we consider changing to cleaner energy technologies for this country—such as carbon capture and storage, clean coal, greater utilisation of gas fired power and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal as well as some of the cutting edge ones being developed in this country such as harnessing wave and tidal power? By the way, Australia is one of the leading researchers in these fields.

Why would we change when we already have the cheapest power in the world? The answer is pretty clear. Devoid of all the politics and the rhetoric, we know we must change our approach to protect the environment for our kids and for future generations. We know it is the right thing to do. As parents, we try to give our kids a better life than we had, a natural inclination of parents—and it flows through a few of us as grandparents. It is in our DNA to protect and assure the future of our offspring. In the same way this government is committed to delivering better environmental outcomes as well as positioning ourselves to take advantage of the emerging and highly competitive international economy.

Leaving politics aside, most people know that we need to engage in an effective methodology to address climate change. Most Australians agree that there is a need to act, not ignore the consensus of scientific opinion when it comes to our environmental future. The overwhelming majority of scientists report that climate change is occurring and that carbon emissions are the principal cause of these changes. The other major scientific consensus is that governments need to act to protect the environment. Simple research shows that as a parliament we have been talking about climate change since 1988. Since then there have been more than 35 inquiries as to the best way to tackle climate change. More recently we have seen the outcomes of the reviews conducted by Peter Shergold, commissioned by John Howard's government, and the recommendations and report of Professor Ross Garnaut. Despite being commissioned by different parliaments and despite their being of different political persuasions and different governments, the economic position both sides arrived at through those reviews was remarkably similar. The recommendations were remarkably similar—that the most effective, least costly and most efficient method of driving change in this regard is to have an appropriate price on carbon. It is not just members on this side of the House that have subscribed to that view. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition in his book Battlelines said:

The Howard Government … proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost.

This time last year, Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, said:

My views on climate change—the need for a carbon price, the fact that market-based mechanisms are the most efficient ways of cutting emissions—

and, he went on to say—

my views are the same today as they were when I was part of John Howard’s cabinet, and those views were held by the Howard government.

Indeed, last year, the shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, told the Sydney Morning Herald:

… inevitably we will have a price on carbon … we will have to …

But, given this debate, as we move to put a price on carbon while those opposite only want to talk about 'a new tax'—a very simplistic line—let me remind you of what Tony Abbot had to say about carbon pricing in July 2009. His contribution to the debate back then was:

I also think that if you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax …

That was the line of the Leader of the Opposition. You want to talk about hypocrisy? You have it in spades when it comes to the opposition's approach to dealing with climate change. I think this shows the level of concern of some of those opposite about finding the right thing to do to protect the future of our community. They will, every time, put politics ahead of community.

See this speech in context