Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lyne proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The importance of engaging households on climate change

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the members staying behind to support this matter of public importance. As we have heard in this place throughout this session and throughout this year, the topic of climate change and the policy response from government have been an ongoing—I used the words in question time—political mosh pit. In a lot of ways the climate change debate and the 440 pages of legislation that form the basis of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the emissions trading scheme policies have to a large degree been distorted, grandstanded upon and grabbed by charlatans. There has been plenty of ‘Chicken Little’ about it—the sky is going to fall in—and there has really been a complete disengagement with the broader community on the reasons behind the climate change legislation and how the households of Australia can be involved in building more a efficient energy mix in the future.

The importance of putting this MPI on the table today is to reinforce to this place, on the last day before the four-week break, the very simple point that I hope everyone agrees with in this place—that people are not stupid. People will appreciate being engaged. They will appreciate logic and common sense, and if there is engagement by government on the range of issues at stake then they will support the creation of the energy mix of the future in response to climate change issues, arguably the greatest issues of our time. It has worried me in my first 12 months in this place to see the lobby groups grab the agenda, the various vested interests distort the agenda. It is almost a pity we do not have a ‘mum and dad alliance’ or a ‘homes of Australia union’ also trawling the corridors, defending the interests of the people and the households of Australia, as engagement with government initiatives is quite often taken away from the homes of Australia.

One example of that is the feed-in tariff legislation, a private member’s bill, that I spoke about earlier this week. From a logic and common-sense point of view, I would have thought it was a no-brainer that the Commonwealth of Australia should harmonise what is being done in various forms around the states of Australia and recognise what is being done in lead economies such as Germany. In Germany we are seeing returns to the household of a significance that lead us not to ask why we should have a feed-in tariff but to demand of government and the executive why on earth we do not have a feed-in tariff system in Australia today.

I encourage everyone to read this month’s National Geographic. It has a story of a German household right next to the Black Forest. The journalist had to wipe the snow off the photovoltaic panels the day that he went to visit this home. The guy produced his figures for last year’s return from government from Germany’s gross feed-in tariff system, and the equivalent in Australian dollars was $3,700—in an extremely cold location in the Black Forest. If the households of Australia cannot get a return that is double that in the Australian climate, we are not trying.

But what we need from government is recognition that establishing a feed-in tariff system and engaging the households of Australia in moving to the energy mix of the future are important parts of the response. A feed-in tariff system would sit nicely with CPRS legislation. It would sit nicely with renewable energy targets. I am stumped. I do not understand why this government has seemed to walk away from the feed-in tariff policy as part of the government response and left it to a mish-mash of responses from various state governments.

I urge the government, if they are serious about engaging the households of Australia in this debate, to reconsider the policy of the feed-in tariff system, in particular a gross feed-in tariff system, and I encourage the households of Australia—anyone who is listening—to start to put pressure on local members of parliament and on the executive and to ask: ‘Why on earth aren’t we getting a policy response that delivers the equivalent of $4,000 a year to me in my home? Why are we going for a policy response in another direction?’ I urge the households to lobby hard, because at the moment the vested interests—big business—are changing this policy debate to suit their needs. The mums and dads—the households of Australia—are missing out on feed-in tariff legislation.

I also ask this House to reflect on the broader policy issues that have been debated in this place. I want to call to account some, particularly in the Senate, who are blocking the emissions trading scheme. The point was made in question time that I am the only non-government member in support of the emissions trading scheme and the CPRS that the government is putting through, and I want to put on record why and encourage others to think about their position. I do not hear anyone saying to do nothing as a response. I do hear those saying that an ETS is not the way forward. I think the households of Australia are not stupid and can follow logic and common sense. If we are going to respond in some form—if we have moved from having a debate about who is and is not a sceptic—we have two choices. We can either have a market based response such as the scheme that is before the House today or we can have a publicly controlled response which in its most likely and logical form would be a carbon tax.

If we are going to get this legislation through, every member of parliament needs to be called to account on which of the three choices they support. Are they supporting a do-nothing response? I do not hear anyone saying that at all, so we are down to two choices. If they do not support a private, market based response such as the legislation going through, they are backing a carbon tax. From my point of view, following the logic and common sense of this debate, I would much prefer engaging a private-sector, market based response than I would backing a carbon tax. For the Chicken Littles saying the sky is falling in in the other place, I hope the households of Australia start to push and to ask whether they are saying to do nothing or to have a carbon tax and to ask why they are not saying to get this legislation through.

The other question I want to raise is the question about coastal erosion, which came up in question time earlier in the week. Particularly in the coastal areas of Australia, there are many households now starting to be directly threatened by the issue of coastal erosion. It is not only in Chepana Street in Lake Cathie or Lewis Street in Old Bar where we are starting to see houses go into the water. It is areas like Belongil at Byron Bay, where there are 25 houses that the council in that area is now looking to acquire for safety and environmental reasons: the coastline is now too close to the building block. This is a real issue. It concerns a lot of households around our coastline in Australia, and at the moment, yes, we are seeing from government a better response than what we saw 12 months ago, but at this stage it is still being left largely to a case-by-case response from the councils around the coastline, who in all reality do not have the resources to address what are substantial losses not only of public land but, arguably more importantly, private lands.

If we are going to engage communities on this topic, I urge government to take this issue a lot more seriously than we currently see. I hope that when the report of the inquiry that is being chaired by the member for Throsby is delivered those that are involved in that inquiry deliver some strong recommendations. From that, I sincerely hope that the executive takes those recommendations seriously and looks to a policy response that is strong and that starts to provide some national unity on the issue of coastal erosion, which is emerging as one of great significance. I want to give government a pat on the back with regard to the stimulus response through the hot water and insulation package. I think that is engaging households well. I do not know about others, but in my area on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales the uptake is significant and many people are very busy, particularly on the insulation side, to the point that supply of product is becoming an issue. I certainly hope government can keep an eye on that so that we can continue to engage households on that front.

I, therefore, remind government of the importance over this four-week period of engaging the homes and people of Australia, who will back this issue if they are engaged at a level which is one of logic and common sense. I remind those who are blocking legislation in this place that they are either arguing a case for doing nothing or arguing a case for a carbon tax. I sincerely want to drill down on the executive about why a feed-in tariff has dropped off their energy-response radar. I think it genuinely engages people in a good way and, on paper, delays any new coal or gas fired power plants. It engages the homes in the policy response. It gets some money in the pockets of the people of Australia rather than the businesses of Australia.

I was talking to the German ambassador last night. We were talking about how in many nations around the world the issue of climate change is positioned as one that only green idealists can participate in, yet in Germany it is those who want to make eight per cent returns over 20 years who participate, and that is most of the homes of Germany. I would certainly think that would be similar in Australia—if the offer through a feed-in tariff were an eight per cent return over the next 20 years I think we would get a great deal of engagement on the issue of better efficiency and a better energy mix for the future.

I congratulate the government on the hot water and insulation issues. Finally, I remind the government of the importance of the report from the member for Throsby with regard to coastal erosion. Coastal erosion is having a huge impact along the coastlines, not only on the mid-North Coast but also further north, and I am sure there are locations and hotspots all the way around the coastline. It is an example of climate change being real. The erosion has moved much more quickly over recent years than it has previously. It is challenging private title but also public lands, and I think therefore that there is a real interest for government to be involved and, hopefully, to respond to a very good inquiry report and to the concerns from the many households on the coastlines of Australia who are worried about the loss of lands.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a very important issue that the member for Lyne has raised—but, to enable the House to do some other business that we have to do before 4.30, and as advised to the opposition, I now move:

That the business of the day be called on.

Question agreed to.