Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two things we humans are not very good at dealing with, and they are related, are risk and uncertainty. In our everyday lives we constantly see examples of this lack of understanding. We happily buy billions of dollars worth of tickets in lotteries that statistically we have no hope of winning. We pay for insurance on things that are extremely unlikely to occur but leave other, more likely risks uninsured. We have particular difficulties coming to terms with those risks that have a very low probability of occurring but that have catastrophic consequences if they do occur. Earthquakes, cyclones, floods, droughts, bushfires and man-made disasters like coalition governments are all things we would rather not spend our time thinking about. As Australians, we also have that well-known tendency to think ‘She’ll be right’ and then head off to the beach, the footy or the cricket. We are often only jolted out of our complacency when one of these events actually happens.

In my own state of Victoria, I have never seen as much preparation going on at the start of a bushfire season as there is this year. This, of course, has been prompted by the tragic events of Black Saturday last February, when so much destruction took place. Unfortunately, this particular reassessment of risks and implementation of contingency plans is too late for the many lives that were lost on that day.

Our inability to get our minds around the complex issues of uncertainty and risk concerning climate change is made even harder because of their magnitude and the very long time frame over which they are happening. But there is no escaping the fact that the fourth assessment report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the largest assessment of climate science ever undertaken—concludes that warming of the earth’s climate is unequivocal and that it is 90 per cent likely that this warming is being caused by human activity. Given this, ‘she’ definitely will not ‘be right’ unless we take action while we still can to reverse these effects. The impact on our environment and on our economy is not something we can just brush aside. We live in the hottest and driest continent in the world and we will be among those hit hardest and fastest by climate change. By the end of the 21st century, global warming could see irrigated agriculture production in the Murray-Darling Basin fall by more than 90 per cent. By mid-century, heat related deaths in Australia could increase by 5,000 a year.

Just last week we received more warnings about the potential consequences with the release of a report on the risks to our national coastline. This report provides new scientific analysis on projected rises in sea level, coastal erosion, and storm surges, and the risks they pose. The science tells us that our climate is changing faster than previously thought and that the impacts are likely to be more severe as rises in sea level, extreme storms and floods become more frequent. These changes are already happening, and we cannot afford to ignore the findings of that report. It details the homes and other assets at risk from climate change, including major coastal infrastructure that underpins our economy, such as airports and ports. Its findings are truly frightening. Between 157,000 and 247,000 existing residential buildings will be at risk from inundation by the year 2100 if the sea level rises by 1.1 metres. The replacement value of these homes at risk of inundation is about $63 billion. The report also lists infrastructure, such as airports and ports, that are at risk, including Sydney Airport, the largest airport in the country.

We know from modelling work by Lord Stern, Professor Garnaut and the Australian Treasury that the costs of delaying action are greater than the costs of taking responsible action now. Countries that act early to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions will face costs lower than those of countries that do not act until later. Economies that defer putting a price on carbon will become more emissions intensive and when a global carbon price is introduced they will face even higher costs. This explains why the world’s leading developed and developing economies are moving to take action now. The time for prevarication in this country is well and truly over. The continuing demands from climate change sceptics for certainty about the science before acting are patently ridiculous. Do we wait for certainty that our house will burn down before we take out insurance against fire? Do we wait until we are sick before taking out health insurance? Do we demand certainty before we bet on the Melbourne Cup? Of course we don’t, because, as Benjamin Franklin famously said, the only certainties in life are death and taxes.

Instead, we assess the risks and probabilities and make our decisions accordingly. We take a precautionary approach. We follow the precautionary principle, a principle that is well established in international legal systems and is followed by the United Nations in matters concerning climate change. The declaration from the 1992 Rio conference, or Earth Summit, says:

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

This precautionary principle is also well established in the Australian courts. In the 2006 case of Telstra Corporation Ltd and Hornsby Shire in New South Wales, Justice Preston said:

The principle permits the taking of preventative measures without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of the threat become fully known.

Any credible preventative measures to tackle climate change rely on two fundamental elements: limiting the carbon pollution that causes climate change and putting a cost or price on that carbon pollution. By implementing these two elements we will not only start to slow down global warming; we will also open up new opportunities for investment in low-carbon technology that will drive the clean-growth economy of the future.

We can tackle climate change and grow our economy at the same time. But this requires difficult, but necessary, decisions, and leadership from all sides of politics. We need to fundamentally change the way our economy works, so it no longer relies on the carbon-intensive energy and processes that have fuelled it until now. We know what we need to do. We know we need a price on carbon pollution. We know we need a cap and trade system for emissions trading.

On this side of the House the Rudd government is providing the leadership that is needed after more than a decade of inaction by its predecessor. We are providing the leadership necessary to address what Lord Stern described as a failure of markets, a failure to factor in all the costs that climate change is imposing on the planet and the world’s economies. Turning this around requires an unprecedented global economic transformation. Only when the cost of climate change is reflected in a price on carbon will we be able to achieve the massive change that is required. We need to give an economic value to the planet by putting a price on the things that are doing harm to it. Doing this means changing the way we do business. It requires putting a price on carbon because only then will there finally be the incentive that is needed to drive investment in a low-carbon, clean economy of the future.

But time is running out. If we do not make this change now there will be no economic penalty for polluting until it is far too late. Our children and grandchildren will pay the price of our inaction and our prosperity will suffer if we let other nations take the frontrunning in building a low-carbon economy of the future. The only way we can deliver the scale of reductions we need is with legislation that puts a limit on carbon pollution and makes those that produce carbon pollution pay for it.

We on this side of the House know what needs to be done. We need the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] will deliver. Addressing the consequences of a warming planet is far too important to be derailed by a few recalcitrant climate change sceptics. This is not the time to gamble with our future and with the future of our children and others who come after us. On this side of the House we believe Australia’s future is worth too much to take that risk. Now is the time to follow the lead of the United Nations and follow the precautionary principle. I encourage the Leader of the Opposition, and others opposite who know what needs to be done, to support this legislation. I will be voting for this bill and I urge them to do likewise for the sake of our country’s future.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on possibly the most important piece of legislation that has been introduced in this place since I was elected in 2001. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] is significant, far-reaching and progressive legislation that is evidence that this government is serious about tackling climate change. The bill before us today is not only proof that the Rudd Labor government is serious about confronting the harsh and challenging realities that this country, along with the rest of the world, is faced with; it also serves as a reflection of the government’s commitment to our children as well as to future generations of Australians. The world’s leading climate scientists, along with Australia’s most respected scientists, are increasingly telling us that we need to act with greater urgency when dealing with the crucial issues of climate change. The CPRS is the first step on the road to a low-carbon future, but it is only a first step. The Copenhagen summit, due early next month, will provide the world with the opportunity to dramatically reduce its carbon emissions. As such, the CPRS Bill before the House today will make Australia one of the few nations in the world with legislated carbon emission targets. As a highly industrialised nation with the largest carbon footprint per capita, this is a hugely important and timely statement. With this bill this government is again demonstrating that Australia is prepared to take the lead on the international stage when leadership is most needed.

The science of climate change is being updated all the time and we now know significantly more than we did in 2007 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was released and the Garnaut report was commissioned. The latest scientific evidence on climate change from this year is telling us that the pace of climate change is much faster than we expected and that the severity of its effects are matching our worst-case scenarios. There are of course many in this place who have closed their minds, their ears and their eyes to the realities of climate change. Although differences of opinion are a healthy part of our democratic debate, there is a point you get to on some issues—and this is one of them—when, faced with overwhelming evidence, that scepticism needs to give way to the realisation that something very real and significant is happening to the Earth’s climate and that it is incumbent on us, the inhabitants of this great planet, to resolve to do something about it. But there are people in this place who display a blatant and misguided denial, a denial that is an ideologically driven blindness, which seeks to obstruct our collective capacity to move forward as a parliament and as a community, thus holding future generations hostage to the short-sightedness of those in the coalition who will not be moved.

When I speak to my children about the challenges that global warming creates, I have to be honest with them. I have to tell them that, if realised, the worst case scenarios of climate change could result in a dramatically changed environment and that this dramatically changed environment will have consequences for all aspects of their lives. I have to tell them that there will be increased displacement of people in our region as a result of more extreme weather events; that many people in this region and around the world will be displaced by rising sea levels; that there will be increased conflict in our region and around the world as a result of water, food and resource shortages; that Australia is highly exposed to the impacts of climate change and these international, regional and domestic effects will not result in the happy, healthy and prosperous Australia that they know today. And that is why I then tell them that it is beholden on this government and on parliamentarians to make tough decisions—that in acting now, we will be able to ensure that their generation and their children’s generation will have the opportunity to enjoy the same quality of life that we have been lucky enough to enjoy. Like many young people, my children understand this. They understand the urgent need to act now.

As I engage with my electorate of Calwell, I have been consistently impressed by how young people in particular have a heightened sense of the need to protect the environment. They understand almost instinctively that we need to preserve the finite resources of our planet; these matters are very much a part of their psyche. It gives me great hope when I see their level of understanding. I know that we can feel optimistic about a future in their hands. But the reality is that at this moment their future is in our hands. We are the generation that actually has the power to make the important decisions on their behalf. In effect, they rely on us. We are the generation that needs to overcome our own prejudices, our crystallised perspectives, even our day-to-day habits and we must break free from our old paradigms to act to address this urgent issue.

We must remind ourselves that this challenge is an intergenerational challenge. The decisions we make now are not just about ensuring Australia’s short-term financial and overall prosperity, but about ensuring that this prosperity is sustainable into an uncertain future. And we must not underestimate just how uncertain that future may be. The alarm bells are ringing. The recently released government report Climate change risks to Australia’s coast clearly states that rising sea levels place at risk of inundation up to 250,000 Australian homes. These findings are based on a sea level rise of 1.1 metres by the turn of the century that could result in $60 billion worth of residential property facing flooding, and 120 ports, 1,800 bridges, power stations, water treatment plants and airports close to the coastline being under threat—a dire prediction for a country like Australia whose major population centres are located along its coastlines.

I welcome the government’s appointment of Professor Tim Flannery as the head of the newly formed Coast and Climate Change Council. While the opposition is unfortunately wracked with dissent and obstinacy, this government is moving forward. We join with leading scientists and indeed the Australian community who are increasing their passionate calls to action. Many leading scientist are now warning that unless dramatic action is taken immediately we are facing worst-case scenarios, with the world carbonising at an unprecedented rate. Advances in climate science are painting an increasingly grim picture.

Critics, and in particular coalition MPs, continue to press the charge that an emissions trading scheme will hurt the economy and destroy jobs. They claim that, being nothing more than another tax, an emissions trading scheme would lift costs for consumers and businesses while doing nothing to halt climate change. Some simply assert that climate change is not an issue, in fact that it is just not happening at all. Research from both Australia and the recent international research conducted by the World Wide Views on Global Warming project found that Australians are more likely to support paying for the cost of climate change through higher petrol and electricity prices than any other developing country. This research involved a survey of people in 38 countries and it found that Australians want the federal government to take tough action on climate change here at home and they want the government to take a strong position at the Copenhagen summit in December. If ever there was evidence of the clear will of the Australian people, this is it, and coalition MPs would do well to heed this will.

The government is responding to this call from the Australian people, but it also understands that while we must act now, we must not do so at the expense of our most vulnerable. In my electorate of Calwell there are many low- and middle-income households. As is the case around the world, it is the working class, the less fortunate or the disadvantaged that are going to bear the brunt of the impact of climate change and it is in their interests that we must also act. Under this legislation, low-income households will receive additional support above indexation to meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme.

This will also be the case for middle-income households. For middle-income families receiving family tax benefit part A, the government will provide assistance to meet at least half those costs. As part of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2], households will be protected from higher fuel costs through a mechanism to provide cent-for-cent reductions in fuel tax for the first three years of the scheme’s operation. Also, while this government is willing to make the hard decisions and face these threats and challenges, it is also able to recognise the opportunities that present. This government is very well placed to grasp those opportunities. We are committed to innovation at a time when innovation is sorely needed. There are opportunities for broad-ranging innovations across a range of industries and opportunities for job creation, both in green jobs and in traditional sectors. They are opportunities that marry the need to act now with the economic imperatives that we all recognise are essential to Australia’s continued prosperity.

In closing, I would like to say that, yes, there are costs with the substantial changes that the CPRS will bring upon its implementation, but they are costs that we have to resolve as a parliament to bear. I would like to ask members of the opposition who are wavering to reconsider and understand the important moment that has befallen this chamber and the decision that it has to make at some stage this week. With these bills before the House we are executing our moral duty, our obligation to future generations. We should be proud of our determination and commitment, not shun it. We cannot allow ourselves to become victims of our own progress, so by acting now we are taking control over our and this planet’s destiny. I commend the bills to the House.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very hard for one to focus this morning on the work in this place after having attended the apology to forgotten Australians this morning in the Great Hall at Parliament House. My heart goes out to all of those Australians who were affected as child migrants in this country. I thought it appropriate to mention that given that I have just come from that place to speak here. It is a sobering moment and I hope we all continue to reflect on it in the years to come and to be sure that the decisions we make in this place always have a basis in humanity and we genuinely seek to do what is right for the people, particularly the children of this nation.

I am pleased to have another opportunity speak on this matter, in this case in relation to Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the cognate bills. Earlier this year I wrote a report to my electorate, and I thought it might be worthwhile reflecting on some of the points I made in that article. At the time that I wrote, there were two packages of proposed legislation before the House of Representatives which, as I put to my constituency, are hugely significant in their implications for the national destiny—the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009. Apart from the legislation we debate today, I recall few bills since I entered this parliament in 1993 that have engendered more anxiety in the community. Like so many of my Liberal colleagues, I have endeavoured in anticipation of the legislation to cast my reading has widely as possible with a view to offering a responsible and reasoned viewpoint to the political debates in this House and in the community at large.

There seems no escaping the view that, on balance of probability, human induced, or anthropogenic, activity is a prime contributor to change—change which will wreak catastrophic effects on our planet if nothing is done. I have said it in other speeches in this place: I am not a climate change sceptic. I do think that the public expect a responsible parliament to take some action, but it is important that that action is taken with care and consideration and in the full spirit of robust debate that brings us in this place so often to improved approaches to legislation.

Furthermore, I believe the time has come to revise the convention that our economic wellbeing must continue to rest on industrial and commercial practices that historically have led to environmental degradation. Of course, with a change of such magnitude, there will be significant cost and not a little pain, and the best of our scientific and socially innovative brainpower will need to be enlisted to mitigate difficulties before they arise. The worst outcome, it seems to me, is to do nothing, for that will exact the highest penalty of all. The next worst outcome is to act impulsively and, therefore, prematurely. That is the crucial error of judgment that is the besetting sin of the government’s current approach to climate change and emissions control. It is deeply regrettable that the government was initially unwilling to negotiate the passage of this legislation with the coalition, the Greens and the Independents, all of whom voted against these bills when they were before the Senate.

While a carbon pollution reduction scheme may send important price signals and lead the push to a robust renewable energy future, conservation and adaptation should share the centre stage. Much more can be done to reduce emissions from motor vehicles, to build energy-efficient buildings and to ensure the retrofitting of solar panels on existing structures where that is feasible. This was a strong policy initiative of the coalition government which, I think, has now been cynically compromised by the current administration. Promoting energy efficiency to the maximum makes good sense all around: it reduces costs, boosts the economy, conserves finite resources and reduces emissions. Equally, we should firmly limit the destruction of our forests and promote more revegetation projects so as to reduce atmospheric carbon while simultaneously conferring benefits to the environment and to soil quality.

The government’s initial decision to tie the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill, which aimed to increase the use of renewable energy in Australia to 20 per cent by 2020, to its flawed and highly contentious CPRS legislation was, I think, a major mistake—which, thankfully, we saw undone. As is well known, the coalition totally supported the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill and, if the government had not taken the perverse path of linking it to the CPRS legislation, it would have had a much smoother passage through this place. But, thankfully, common sense prevailed and we are here today debating the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2].

It is little wonder that potential investors hesitate to lend to CPRS exposed industries and that significant projects promising much-needed employment are left in limbo, because around this suite of bills has come a great deal of confusion and I do not think the government has been very clear in the way it has put these measures before the Australia people. Given the crucial importance of this legislation to enable our country to make its contribution to a cleaner and greener planet, one would hope that the government will see fit to review its current tactics and negotiate an acceptable compromise that will provide greater certainty. Australia’s contribution to the world’s CO2 emissions is 1.4 per cent. While we should, and undoubtedly will, make a genuine contribution to emissions reduction through self-amelioration, our greater and most serious mission must be to lend our voice and our effort in global forums to facilitate global resolutions with global outcomes.

Like so many of my coalition colleagues who have eloquently explained the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme and highlighted the fact that it can and must be improved, I support the amendments that have been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and, in good faith, these amendments have been negotiated and are being negotiated at this current time. It is not out of vanity that we bring these amendments but out of a sense of duty to the people of Australia, to do the right thing by them and to consider what could be described as the most important piece of non-wartime legislation in our history. The coalition is seeking to focus on a number of key areas in Labor’s CPRS. I feel one of the most important of these is agriculture. Fortunately, we have seen again today commonsense prevail. I think those in the agricultural sector have a great opportunity to participate in a very major way to reducing our carbon emissions, but they need clear guidance and direction from the government and from the opposition and they need to know that they are supported in the work that they do. These are people who know the cost of not acting to preserve the environment. Their livelihoods depend upon it.

The coalition moves to permanently exclude agricultural emissions from the CPRS while obtaining government agreement to the introduction of an agricultural offset scheme in line with similar offset schemes to be introduced in comparable economies such as the United States and the European Union. This is a logical decision, as the difficulties in including agriculture in any carbon accounting system relate to measurement and accountability. Firstly, methodologies for measuring and monitoring emissions from most agricultural activities are inaccurate. There are also significant variances in emissions levels associated with the techniques and technologies employed.

The Prime Minister once said he did not want to be the Prime Minister of a country that did not make anything. If we do not protect our agriculture, then that is exactly the kind of country we could live in. That does not mean the agricultural sector does not have a part to play in the low-carbon economy. Mr Crombie, President of the National Farmers Federation, asserted in the Countryman that agriculture has the potential to be a major player, reminding us that the only reason the Australian government can currently say it came close to meeting its Kyoto targets is on the back of agriculture’s contribution.

In conclusion, under the approach that has been outlined by the coalition in its amendments, the CPRS would be amended to allow farmers to generate emission permits equal to the amount of carbon that is sequestered through their activities. I commend to the House the amendments that have been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and that are currently being negotiated because, while I think that most Australians expect we will do everything possible to deal with this problem, we need to do so carefully and with consideration for all the implications for Australian industry and Australian agriculture.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in support of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and cognate bills. The Rudd government is introducing these bills because we have a mandate to act on climate change. It was an election promise we made to the Australian people. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the Rudd government taking action to tackle climate change. These bills are a gateway to a low-carbon economy for our future and our children’s future. We know climate change is a global problem caused by carbon pollution. The Australian people expect us in this place to address this growing threat. They expect leadership on this issue—not bickering, fighting, disagreement or even disbelief. The Australian public want to know that the planet will be saved for future generations and that we in Australia are all doing our bit.

Climate change is a real threat. It is a threat to people and property and is a threat to our way of life. It will impact on rich and poor, young and old and those living in both developed and undeveloped countries. Climate change will not discriminate. To reduce our carbon pollution today will help the generations of tomorrow. We must act. Carbon pollution is causing the world’s climate to change. It is resulting in extreme weather, higher temperatures, more droughts and rising sea levels. Globally, 13 of the 14 hottest years in history have all occurred in the last 14 years. Australia has experienced warmer than average mean annual temperatures for 17 of the past 19 years. The average temperature in Australia has increased by 0.9 degrees Celsius between 1910 and 2007. CSIRO projects an increase of one to five  degrees Celsius by 2070.

We are already experiencing extreme weather conditions. We have droughts, floods, storms, water shortages and changes in rainfall patterns that are already impacting on our people and property. Climate change will impact on agriculture. Exports are projected to fall. Our sea levels are rising. Some Pacific atolls are slowly disappearing. In Australia, climate change will result in storm surges and rising sea levels, putting at risk over 250,000 homes around our coastline. Tourism, a vital component of Australia’s economy, will be affected not only on an economic level but sadly on a level that means we could also lose many of our natural wonders. On the health front, a small increase in temperature will impact on the number of heat related deaths in our capital cities. The prediction that deaths will double by 2020 and triple by 2050 is dire indeed. The cost of inaction around climate change may well be incalculable. We literally cannot afford to ignore it any longer.

With one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia’s environment and economy will be one of the hardest and fastest hit if we do not act now. Australia pollutes at very high levels for a country of its size. In fact, we are the sixth largest polluter on a per capita basis in the world. It is not really a title we should be proud of. Australians understand that climate change is a threat, and they worry about it. They understand that this problem impacts not only on the environment and our flora and fauna but also on Australia’s economic prosperity.

The CPRS is scheduled to start in 2011 and for the first time will put a cost on carbon pollution, which will encourage major polluters to lower their emissions. The funds raised through the sale of permits will be used to help households and businesses adjust to the scheme. The CPRS will build on the Rudd government’s investment in renewable energy to create low-pollution jobs of the future. Solar energy, wind energy and new technologies like clean coal and geothermal energy will see the renewable energy sector grow to 30 times its current size by 2050. This will create thousands of green-collar jobs. If we do not act, Australia’s economy will be left behind. Australia is not the first country to introduce a CPRS or a carbon cap and trade system. Schemes are already operating in 27 European countries and 28 states and provinces in the USA; also, Canada is introducing schemes, as is New Zealand.

I would like to give you a local perspective on the potential costs and impacts in my home state of Tasmania if we choose to do nothing. For those of you who have not visited Tasmania, it is a unique place with a unique environment, but like many places in this country Tasmania will be exposed to more extreme weather events due to climate change. It is predicted that Tasmania is likely to experience moderate rises in temperatures. Rainfall is likely to increase by seven to 11 per cent in the west and central areas, while in the north-east there may well be a decrease of around eight per cent. This year we have just experienced one of our wettest winters in 50 years. Changing rainfall patterns will be a constant worry for our farmers and small business operators and owners who rely on consistent weather patterns to produce crops, and there are those who require a reliable water source to continue their businesses. Tasmania boasts viable primary industries: agriculture and aquaculture. Scientists predict that climate change will impact on Tasmania’s output.

Now I want to talk about something quite bizarre in relation to my electorate. A couple of weeks ago we had a visit by a rogue iceberg that was visible from Macquarie Island. Macquarie Island is part of my electorate. So, from part of my electorate you could see a large chunk of Antarctic ice, around 50 metres high and 500 metres, floating by.

A report released last weekend showed that three out of the four local government areas worst affected in Tasmania are in the electorate of Franklin. Seventy-five per cent of Tasmanians live in local government areas on the coastlines. The report estimates that between 8,700 and 11,000 residential buildings could be at risk. The current value of these buildings is between $2.4 billion and $3.3 billion. Between 1,850 and 2,000 residential buildings in the city of Clarence may be affected by 2100. This is equivalent to approximately 10 per cent of existing residential dwellings in the city. The city of Clarence has 191 kilometres of coastline and much of that is low-lying. That is why it is going to be affected badly.

Nobody said developing a carbon pollution reduction scheme was going to be easy. There is a challenging balance between reducing carbon pollution and supporting economic growth. To delay implementing a carbon pollution reduction scheme would be irresponsible for our economy and environment. We have been upfront with the Australian people: acting now to introduce a carbon pollution reduction scheme will cost money. But in saying this, if we act in five, 10, 20 or 30 years time, it will cost Australians much, much more. There will be some costs to Australian consumers as we transition to a low-pollution economy, but we will provide assistance to those who need it most: pensioners, seniors, carers and people with a disability will receive additional support. Low- and middle-income earners will also receive support. Motorists will be protected from higher fuel costs for the first three years. Community organisations and small businesses will be eligible to apply for assistance to invest in energy-efficient equipment and Australian workers will be supported through targeted assistance for industry and investment in the green economy. So it is not just about putting in place a carbon pollution reduction scheme; it is also planning, developing and implementing other supportive measures that will assist us to move forward towards a low-carbon economy. Our renewable energy targets will also support the introduction of the CPRS.

The Rudd government is establishing the $75.8 million Australian Carbon Trust to help all Australians to do their bit to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution and to drive energy efficiency in commercial buildings and businesses. We will also take into account the contribution of individual households that purchase accredited green power in setting carbon pollution reduction scheme caps.

I put on the public record that I am a firm believer in the science around global warming, the impacts of climate change and the urgent need to reduce our carbon pollution. Reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the right thing to do. Australians know there are significant challenges ahead. Regardless of these challenges, Australia needs to be part of the global climate change solution, not part of the problem. I urge those opposite to support these bills so they can tell their children that they were part of the solution, not part of the problem. Otherwise I believe it will be hard for them to face the Australian people who have given their trust to their federal representatives to act decisively and immediately on climate change. We should not leave this place in the knowledge that we could have made a difference but did not. These bills give certainty to the Australian people and Australian businesses. It will not be easy, but we must act and act now. I commend these bills to the House.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related legislation. Let me say that as a rural and regional member you can understand how deeply concerned regional and rural Australians are that we agree to a scheme which does not destroy the opportunity for future generations of food producers and fibre producers to be competitive and which, on the other hand, gives them a sustainable future in terms of climate management, soil fertility and protection, biodiversity protection and so on. We have to come up with a solution that is win-win for this country and at the same time contributes to a better global outcome.

I personally have no doubt that we are in times of extraordinary climatic variation. In the state of Victoria we have very bad fires. We have had them before, a century or so ago, and there were times when we saw the Dandenongs and Gippsland burn. In the last 12 to 18 months we saw vast areas of our forests burn and we are looking at a potential burning of the Dandenongs this summer. Mercifully, they were saved last year. We look at the potential of that with great horror and expectation of great devastation.

What I am most concerned about, as a rural and regional member, is that agriculture and food processing are not rendered noncompetitive through the unfortunate extra impost of costs—that there will be no capacity for these two great industries to compete in the future with their competitive international opposition from places like the EU and the USA and from places that are even closer, such as New Zealand. We must have a complementary set of conditions that will help improve the capacity of agriculture to survive intergenerationally but will not render our own sector even less able to compete because costs are imposed upon them, with no capacity for them to do their best through, for example, offsets in the future.

I am pleased to hear where some of the current negotiations are going and that the government now recognises that agriculture was going to be devastated and beggared through its CPRS program. It is absolutely almost beyond belief that agriculture should have been put on the shelf in the way it was by the Labor government. But that comes as no surprise because we have seen agriculture hit for six by water policy failures and the complete absence of any future for the exceptional circumstances program when we have vast numbers of people in irrigated agriculture still dependent on exceptional circumstances to get through their seventh year of drought. They are being told to sit and wait, and perhaps they will have a new program to do with climate change coming through. Meanwhile, they have no means of support, whether to put food on their table or to pay their debts, while they wait for some sense of future security.

We are concerned that this government does not understand the realities of what it was proposing, which in fact would not have produced a better environmental outcome and would not have changed the planet in ways which we were told must be the case, given that it was a Labor Party putting up the CPRS. We were very suspicious, and we remain so, that the business of Copenhagen was used as a device simply to bully and pressure much of the Australian public to think that there was a time frame here that was important and significant. We are now told that nothing much will come out of Copenhagen, given that other countries have also pulled back on all but a political decision to say, ‘Yes, this is a problem,’ with the detail to come down the track.

I hope that this government listens very carefully to the amendments proposed by the coalition. They are amendments based on the fact that we represent small business and large business. We the coalition represent those who generate the employment and wealth of this nation. We represent the men and women who are actually the custodians of the environmental services of this nation. These are the people who risk their own hard effort and family capital to try to make sure that environmental biodiversity, water quality and so on are protected for generations. These are the people whom the coalition represent, and we know from them that what was being proposed by the Labor government would have done nothing more than export jobs and carbon emissions and create extraordinary additional costs in the very near and long term in this country. So we are very hopeful that, while negotiations continue, there will be a series of improvements to this legislation. We will then look very hard at it, and let us hope we can march forward, hand in hand, to a win-win scenario for a better future for Australia and the planet.

Debate (on motion by Dr Emerson) adjourned.