Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am incredibly pleased to be following the Minister for Agriculture, whose contribution was spectacular in its incoherence and in its complete misunderstanding of economics. And I am glad I followed him because he has been writing the coalition's climate change policy since 2009. This repeal bill marks the death of liberalism. It marks the death of Deakin's Liberal Party. It marks the ascendancy of the DLP and of reaction within the coalition. This bill is a repudiation of using an efficient, market based mechanism to combat climate change and instead resorting to incredibly inefficient, Soviet-style command and control that would do comrades Lenin and Stalin very proud. They would be very proud that Comrade Abbott delivered that legislation.

The truth is that this legislation to repeal the clean energy future package is built on multiple lies. These lies include that the jury is still out on climate change, that there is no link between climate change and extreme weather events, that climate change is not a priority for world leaders, that there is no international action around emissions trading schemes and that the carbon price is a wrecking ball through our economy. I intend to touch on all five in my address.

We saw the first one again from the Minister for Agriculture, who did not quite come out and say it but is well on the public record as saying that he does not accept the science of climate change. That has been confirmed by people like the Prime Minister, who has said, 'Climate change is complete crap.' We have also had other contributions such as talking about 'grapes growing on Hadrian's Wall' and other spectacular contributions that demonstrate that the coalition's policy is premised on the fact that they do not accept the science of climate change. They stand on the side of the climate sceptics, such as Monckton and Alan Jones; we stand on the side of reputable scientists around the world, such as CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and NASA.

Let us repeat the pertinent fact here: 97 per cent of published scientific papers on climate change—of peer- reviewed papers—have found that climate change is occurring and that it is man made. Let me repeat that—97 per cent of peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change have found that it is occurring and that it is man made. Those on the other side do not accept that. They might pay lip service to it, but they demonstrate that they do not accept it by their actions. Scientists have now said that they are as certain of this link between the actions of man and climate change as they are of the fact that tobacco and smoking cause cancer. That is how certain they are of this link; yet those on the other side continue to repudiate it.

They also do not accept that there is a link between climate change and extreme weather events. No responsible person would claim that one extreme weather event is specifically caused by climate change, but what reputable scientists have said is that climate change—the atmosphere and sea temperature warming—drives an increase in the number of extreme weather events and increases the severity of those weather events. We are already seeing that now, where we have got an unusual number of extreme weather events occurring around the world today. Those on the other side repudiate that because they cannot face the truth about the significance of climate change as a global challenge.

Thirdly, they claim that taking action on climate change should not be an international priority. We saw the Prime Minister's ridiculous attempts in Canada—or 'Canadia', as he referred to it—to form a coalition of the unwilling, where all these conservative governments would stop international action on climate change. That was notable for two reasons. Firstly, that acknowledges that there is international momentum on climate change—because why else would you try to stop it? Secondly, it was notable because he could only find one conservative friend to join his coalition. The UK government, a conservative government, and the New Zealand government, another conservative government—both of whom have market mechanisms in place to combat climate change—repudiated and rejected Prime Minister Abbott's ridiculous attempts. They repudiated them because the world is moving towards action on climate change.

Right now, one billion people live in nations or provinces where there is an emissions trading scheme. By 2016, that will be three billion people living with emissions trading schemes at a national or subnational level, and they include 13 of our 20 top trading partners, including our top five trading partners. China have trials of emissions trading schemes in seven provinces and cities that cover 250 million people, and they have plans to have a national emissions trading scheme by 2015 or 2016. That is our number one trading partner right there.

Within the United States, we saw the ground-breaking announcement by President Obama very recently of a 30 per cent reduction on emissions from coal-fired power, and he is leaving it up to each state to achieve that cut. A very significant number of states, including California, the eighth largest economy in the world in its own right, will use an emissions trading scheme. President Obama has stated that his preference is for a national emissions trading scheme, but the Tea Party reactionaries in congress prevent that, just as the Tea Party reactionaries over the other side of this chamber are opposing concrete climate action. In Japan, there are carbon prices in existence right now. South Korea has a legislated ETS that will start next year—it is the law of the land in South Korea and it will begin next year. The truth is that, by 2016, three billion people will live in nations where there is an emissions trading scheme. So we are not leading the world—we are not even a first mover—but we need to be part of the solution rather than being part of the problem.

The fifth lie that this repeal legislation is built on is that somehow the clean energy future legislation is a wrecking ball destroying the Australian economy as we speak.

See this speech in context