Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In 2006, Nicholas Stern wrote a report which has formed the intellectual bedrock for what most countries around the world have embraced as a framework for addressing climate change. Nicholas Stern said:

Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen.

What he was referring to there, in part, is the fact that carbon pollution imposes negative externalities on our society. That's an economic term for something that has a very commonsense meaning, which is that in a free market people pollute more than they ought to because they don't bear the consequences of that pollution. That's why it is so critical that government action is needed to respond to that.

But what we're dealing with today is the flip side of that, and something which is becoming more and more prominent in climate change debates, which is that not only are there negative externalities from climate pollution but there are positive externalities from action to reduce that pollution. For example, the research and development that goes into clean energy is a positive externality. In a free market, it is underproduced, because the people who invent that technology don't capture all the benefits. So government needs to step in and fund that clean energy research and development. There are often networks—electric vehicle networks, for example—where, again, there are positive externalities. This is critical to this motion, because the government say they are 'for technology', as a cheap throwaway line, but they don't do what is necessary for society to benefit from all the positive externalities that energy, clean technology and clean networks will generate.

What are the three elements that are needed for these positive externalities? Firstly, we need to agree on a destination, on a purpose. What is it we are using technology to achieve? Secondly, we need the right environment for that technology to flourish. Thirdly, we need to put the resources in to create that technology.

What about the destination—something so basic? As many speakers have already outlined, this government can't even get that right. This government refuses to commit to zero net emissions by midcentury, when every economy in the G7 has done so. Time and time again, our leaders—our embarrassing leaders—go overseas to be pariahs yet again at conferences at which countries far and wide across the world have all committed to this destination. We all know that the research and development and the implementation of this complex technology require a long-term perspective. We will never implement or develop this technology if we can't even agree on where we are going. This government may end up committing to zero net emissions, but it will do so on the basis of a timetable for an early election, not on the basis of any genuine belief in the need for action.

What about the need to create an environment where this technology can be developed and implemented? There's no certainty. We don't have the environment we need. There have been 22 policies over the last eight years. It is an absolute disgrace and an absolute disaster. What about the Business Council of Australia? They are hardly rabid socialists and hardly greens. They say:

To create new jobs and lower our carbon emissions we need a laser-like focus on giving business the certainty they need to invest.

What about the International Monetary Fund? Hardly greenies and hardly rabid socialists. They say that Australia's 'energy policy should further reduce uncertainty for investment decisions'. We are talking about orthodox economic policy development and orthodox economic policy implementation. They all say the same thing: you need certainty to underpin the development and implementation of the technology. This government uses it as a cheap, throwaway line but will never implement it in this country. What about that hippy Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock? He says:

I have great optimism about the future of capitalism and the future health of the economy – not in spite of the energy transition, but because of it.

This is about the positive externalities. But then he says:

Given how central the energy transition will be to every company's growth prospects, we are asking companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy …

Again, this is about a plan, a path forward and a commitment. What about the funding? What about the resources?

We have seen, because of this government's failures, investment in renewable energy projects collapse by more than 50 per cent in the run-up to the COVID crisis, so we're going to snap back to a situation that was a failure, that was a disaster. What about the 2021-22 budget, which created $1 trillion in debt but almost nothing for clean energy? The Clean Energy Council rightly said it was a missed opportunity. This government say they're for technology, but there's no destination, there's no environment and there's no resourcing. It won't happen under them. (Time expired)

See this speech in context