Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the last couple of days we have seen Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton, two rather well-known actors, take part in an advertising campaign that was run by a collective of community groups. I have to say that some of the responses to this were rather odd. We saw Cate in particular personally attacked. There seems to be a view that because she has earned a reasonable amount of money—in fact, quite a good amount of money—in her life she is not entitled to call for a better and less costly future for her children, when there are people in the community now who would find the cost difficult to bear. It highlighted for me an argument that rages in the climate change debate which is exactly that: the argument between whether we wear some of the cost now or whether we leave the cost for later generations.

In every community, people individually place a different value on cost depending on when that cost is incurred. Some of us would consider that a cost today is far more devastating than the same cost if it were to appear in two or three weeks time. We vary across the community. Sometimes it is because of a cultural difference or a difference in background and sometimes it comes from circumstances. In my electorate there are many communities but two distinctly different ones in terms of the way the community operates. In some of the less affluent areas the people who go out and work for the community look into their community and see that people need assistance in the very basic needs of life. They focus on providing housing, food and clothing, on making ends meet and trying to find regular employment for members of the community. The focus of those communities is very much on meeting the day-to-day needs of their families. In other sections of my community, usually the leafier suburbs—not rich suburbs, but more comfortable suburbs—the focus of the community sector tends to be more on arts and the environment and on longer term issues like building art galleries and planning for the future, because they are the communities that have the capacity to trade off some of the benefits now for a benefit later. I have one community that does not have the capacity to say, 'Let's put something aside now for something in the future' and another community that can do that quite easily.

Any path we find through the climate change debate must take account of both of these perspectives on cost because both are perfectly relevant. A good parent who is struggling to support his or her child now is not wrong to prioritise the needs of today over the needs of tomorrow, because for some of them that is the only way they can get through the day. Nor is it right for us to put aside the argument that if we do not pay attention to changing things now, if we do not act fast, the cost burden on our children and their children will be much greater. Both arguments are equally valid. Finding a way through the climate change debate requires a response that satisfies both.

Oddly enough, if we decide to do nothing now and transfer the cost later we are only satisfying one of those arguments. But the path that we have chosen, the pricing of carbon, does satisfy both arguments. It recognises that if we as a community do not wear some of the burden now, our children will play a much greater cost. But it also recognises that there are elements in our society that need assistance in bearing some of that cost. The household assistance package that we are working on, that will compensate low- and middle-income households for the additional costs now, satisfies the need to balance both these arguments.

I am pleased to see my government acting on climate change. For most of my life I have been one of those people who looks forward and places considerable emphasis on costs and benefits in the long term. I am a long-term planner by nature and I am lucky enough not to have been hit by some of the catastrophes, disasters or inequities that others have faced. I have enough capacity in my life to put some aside now to make sure that the future is well taken care of. I am pleased to see us act but I am also pleased to see that this party is concerned with those who do not have the spare capacity to consider the future and with making sure that as we move down this path of ensuring a prosperous future for our children we protect and safeguard the circumstances of the less well off in our community through generous household assistance packages.