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

by leave—I move:

That this House expresses full confidence in the work of Australia's science community and confirms that it believes that man-made climate change is not a conspiracy or a con, but a real and serious threat to Australia if left unaddressed.

Yesterday was a significant step forward. We finally have on the record both party leaders in this chamber in a bipartisan way expressing full confidence in the science community of Australia and their accepted advice on man-made climate change. At times it has been like pulling teeth—and I fully respect that, within the ranks of both major parties there are differing views—but it is important, if we are going to establish certainty for the future of policy and an economic debate that hangs off those foundations of acceptance of the very best advice from the very best scientists in this country, that this House, regardless of who has the government benches, accepts with confidence the advice that man-made climate change is real.

Both party leaders yesterday confirmed their belief in man-made climate change science. But I do raise with some hesitation some taunts that were made during events of yesterday from colleagues around me. When I did raise the opportunity for both leaders to answer the question around the science, two different members threw up the words, 'Ask us when we are in government!' and 'Wait and see when we are in government!' I hope that is not the position held by colleagues in this chamber. I hope that everyone is being fair dinkum about their belief in the science and the science community, their agreements around the minimum targets that have been agreed upon by 2020 and that everyone is being fair dinkum about the different views on economic responses that are coming forward.

Personally, I am sick of public servants and science being picked on, denied and accused, often when they are not in positions to defend themselves—and all for political expediency. Most, if not all, the people in the science community are lifelong committed scientists doing the very best they can in the most objective way they can and falling wherever the facts and the evidence take them. It is not the role of any of us to accuse them of cons or conspiracies but to accept the advice from the vast majority of scientists—the very best we have in the field—and to listen to it, so that when they say, 'Australia, we have a problem,' we should listen very closely to that and then respond.

In my view, we have spent way too much time pretending that the science of climate change is in dispute. We have spent way too much time pretending that the science of climate change is not bipartisan. As we saw clearly in this chamber yesterday in the middle of question time, the Prime Minister and the alternate Prime Minister reached bipartisan agreement on the climate science. By all means, we are going to have a wrestle over economic policy and the response, but there is bipartisanship on the science itself.

So, for anyone wanting to vote sceptically at the ballot box in four months time, I think there is only one option, and that would be the party of my friend next to me—if he were here, my imaginary friend—Bob Katter's Australia Party.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members will refer to members by their appropriate title.

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

The member for Kennedy. I think that he is the only one in this chamber—what is Peter Slipper's seat?

An honourable member: Fisher.

I am not sure where the member for Fisher stands on all of this, but the member for Kennedy is the only member in this chamber who, I understand, has a policy platform that is sceptical of the science. Everyone else in this chamber is locked and loaded—the science is confirmed. We have got shakings of the head by members whose own party leaders are saying that the science is real. We have members shaking their heads—members who are going to the ballot box with a party platform in response to the science that they are shaking their heads about.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is nothing about climate science. It is all about you, as per usual!

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Dickson is warned!

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

I hope Hansard has recorded that. I hope Hansard has recorded a senior shadow minister in a rage about bipartisanship on climate science, a position confirmed by their leader yesterday—today there is shaking of heads, rants and interjections. The position of party leaders is clearly not settled within party rooms. That is exactly why I think it is important for this House to call the bluff and see where some bums land when we actually have a vote in confidence on the science community and on the science of man-made climate change. It is real in our minds or it is not. We accept the science or we do not. It is time we actually tested that on the floor of the House and then we will have our arguments around how we respond to that science.

It is wrong to accuse scientists, including a former Australian of the Year only five years ago, of being con artists and wrapped up in some global conspiracy. It is wrong. That should not be Australia in 2013. By all means, argue the toss over policy but, when we go the man, when we go the personality, that is a step too far.

Again I see sneering from the front bench from senior shadow ministers—shaking their heads at a very simple point being made obviously cuts deep.

Opposition members interjecting—

You can whisper it all you like but, in the end you are going to be asked to vote in confidence for the science of man-made climate change. I would ask you all to consider your positions.

Opposition members interjecting—

Again we have further interjections. This should be a fairly simple point that should not have to be made in this chamber. But it is obviously cutting deep into the heart of a position that is being taken to the ballot box—to 'repeal the carbon tax' without telling the full story. That is not a repeal policy, it is a replacement policy. It is a replacement of something that is going to cost taxpayers more.

A true liberal believes in markets. A shadow minister for the environment would arguably believe in markets. We can get into the economics of that on the back of this debate, but we are talking now about the science and seeing who votes where, who abstains, who has the courage of their convictions—if they have run around electorates saying that this is all a global conspiracy—and seeing how closely linked they are to talkback radio hosts and to billionaires who are sceptical. Let us see how people vote and whether they trust the advice that has been given to them from the vast majority of the very best scientists in Australia.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good grief!

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

And, again, we have an interjection, saying, 'Good grief!' I look forward to this vote. On the back of this vote we can then start having a sensible discussion about the replacement policy, which is somehow going to cost less and do more than a market-based approach and which is somehow going to deny the very best of economic advice. It is one that I look forward to on the back of this vote.

The most offensive part of this debate to date is the policy process itself that is being challenged—not about climate science but how we as policymakers develop policy. When it is best delivered in all its forms, surely, regardless of where you start in this chamber, you rely heavily on the very best advice you can find. You rely on the experts in the field. We are kidding ourselves if we run around this chamber, saying, 'We know everything about everything; we are the absolute experts on all topics.' We are not. We are jack-of-all-trades and, in most cases, masters of none. We are generalists in the work that we do but, if we invest in the policy process, we have plenty of resources in the field and expert advice. We rely on that. Sure, we test it on the way through and challenge it but, in the end, if it is solid we do what we can in this chamber to turn that good advice into actual law and legislation. The offensive part of this debate to date is that that has been lost.

The very best scientists are saying: Australia, we have a problem. They are saying that there is clear evidence of man-made contribution to climate change and climate science. That seems to be denied by too many. At the next level, beyond this vote, we then listen to the very best economists in the field to find a response. We can do nothing. We can say: 'It's all a hoax and a con' and leave it as a risk for future generations. That is one of the options that is a risk too far for this chamber, if we accept the science.

We could choose another path, which is not actually what we did—that is, to introduce a tax bill through this chamber that is akin to increasing the GST, putting a direct cost on consumers and then using that money to kick money to clean up pollution. That is another model for introducing a carbon tax. Your leader, who was on YouTube talking about carbon tax as a real option, is the only one in this chamber I heard actually talk about a carbon tax as a model that could be a response.

The third option, Shadow Minister, is a market-based response, as per a very good PhD that everyone talks about.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You twerp, you undergraduate. You are a bleeding idiot and dishonest—

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

You will have a go. A market-based response seeks the lowest cost for the highest return. That is the Liberal philosophy of supporting a market. That was the Liberal approach until 2009. That is what former Treasurer Peter Costello took to cabinet in 2001. That is what former Prime Minister John Howard took to the ballot box in 2007: lowest cost for highest return, a market-based approach.

So here is the test—I do not need the full time—we either vote for it or vote against it. We can hear about all this carbon tax repeal stuff without talking about a replacement plan all you like. But, in the end, the test of this vote is nothing beyond whether you confirm, with confidence from this House, that the science community is right: that Australia has a problem. Let us see where the bums land, from all members of parliament, in support of the very best advice in the science community. Let us stop picking on them, accusing them of being part of a global conspiracy and being part of a con. The advice is real and the question for the House today is whether or not we accept it.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion that is before the House, moved by the member for Lyne, aims to do away with the first part of the argument that sometimes makes its way back and forth through the media and elsewhere in terms of determining what is the view of this House on the science itself. And it accepts that there has been a secondary debate, where one side of the House finds itself backing a market and the other side of the House takes a different view, but this is where we deal upfront with the starting principle of the science of climate change itself.

There is no doubt in the discussion of responding to climate change and carbon trading as a method that the debate in the public arena has been mixed up with a debate about whether we are responding to anything that is real. The references here go to the different scientific work that has been done generally. I will now talk very specifically about some work that is done by Australian scientists. As part of the role of the environment minister of this country you look after the Antarctic Division. I will never forget—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't have any flights!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I even offered for the shadow minister to go. The work of our scientists down there is extraordinary and the work that they do with ice cores is probably some of the most telling work that exists in dealing with the science of climate change. Effectively, these ice cores are time capsules for the history of our planet. The depth at which they are found tells us how old they are. The quality of the water particles within them tells us about the temperature of the period and the snowflakes, as they have fallen, have trapped tiny little bubbles which give us an exact time capsule record of what the atmosphere was like at the time.

The story is a simple one and found consistently with ice core records across the globe. It is this: that at the same time that the industrial revolution occurred, the level of carbon in the atmosphere massively increased, by proportion to what would have been natural levels and, at the same time, an increase in temperature. The science of climate change is that simple. People say, 'There have been other periods in our history; you can go to geological records and there were other periods when the globe has got warm.' That is true—it is true that there have been other times when the globe has got warm, but we are talking about a spike, unprecedented, that has coincided exactly with an increase in pollution going into the atmosphere.

I also, on this, refer to an argument offered by some sceptics where they say, 'Actually, carbon dioxide is a completely natural gas.' Most forms of pollution occur, in some way or other, naturally. They are called 'pollution' when you get them in massive concentrations beyond what would occur naturally. That is why we refer to 'carbon pollution'. That is why we refer to carbon dioxide being a pollutant when it is occurring at levels that would not ordinarily be natural. What about when you have an oil spill and you have oil going into the ocean? Oil itself occurs naturally, but the spill means that you get an environmental outcome which would otherwise be unprecedented. In the same way, the fact that carbon dioxide occurs naturally does not change for one minute the fact that we are dealing with a form of pollution when we are dealing with it in these sorts of levels.

There have been a number of members of this House who have chosen, on different occasions, in interviews and elsewhere, and quite publicly, some of them, to have a view that is quite contrary to the contents of this resolution. I hope they vote in accordance and consistent with those views when this comes to a vote in a few moments time. I am noticing a few of them currently are absenting themselves from the chamber, and I will see whether they are here—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many are there over there?

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only count one.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think those opposite understand that, when we are talking about sceptics, you do not find them on this side of the chamber at all. But over there, you could go to the different members, such as the member for Tangney; you could go to the people who have said that the solution to climate change is to use giant shadecloth as a way of dealing with it. People on the other side of the chamber have referred to it as a hoax or have referred to the science of climate change using the term 'crap'. Those opposite—I will go for the full 20 if that is what you want—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I note the lack of government members on that side of the chamber, and I draw your attention to the state of the House.

The bells having been rung—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Vasta! The member for Bonner will return to the chamber. The member for Bonner was in the chamber. You cannot leave during a count for a quorum.

(Quorum formed)

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And, as to those who come in, I just hope that the member for Tangney comes in during the discussion of this. I just hope that those who have gone out into the electorate and who have said that they do oppose the science of climate change have the courage to stand in this parliament and vote the way they say. There are those who have been so brave on talkback radio—who have had all the bravery in the world in being willing to say that they are opposed to the science and that they reckon all of this is rubbish and some global conspiracy. I say to those members of parliament: 'Walk in now,' because now is their chance. Now is their chance to let it be known whether or not they are going to vote the way of their official party platform, or whether they have any integrity in the views that they put out there publicly, because there will be a moment where this is put to a vote on the voices and there are no sceptics on this side of the House. There is no-one on this side of the House who would be voting no. But we will only divide if the sceptics on that side have the courage to be in the room for the vote. It is only if they have the courage to come in and put voice within the parliament to what they have been willing to say outside the parliament that will determine whether or not we have the division. And that is something that they will not be able to hide behind anymore.

I welcome the fact that the member for Lyne has brought this debate on. I welcome the fact that, much to the surprise of many members of the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition decided to grant leave to have this. I welcome the fact that we are able to have the discussion upfront on the science of climate change. To those members of parliament who, up until now, have sought to hide within the parliament but make all sorts of extraordinary claims outside the parliament, I say: if you believe that there is anything that backs up the global conspiracy theory on the science of climate change, walk into this chamber now.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the positive side, at least we should welcome the fact that the member for Lyne's speech was only 14 minutes this time. Let me be very clear, because it has been the position for a very, very long time: we accept the science, we accept the targets and we accept the need for a market mechanism; we just happen to clearly, absolutely, fundamentally disagree over the choice of those mechanisms. They chose a carbon tax, they chose an emissions trading scheme, they chose to increase electricity prices, they chose to increase gas prices and they chose to increase refrigeration prices but they did not choose to tell the Australian people that that was what they would do. Well, we challenge every member of the ALP to come clean with a very simple proposition: if the coalition does win the trust of the Australian people, if the coalition is given the opportunity to form government, will the members of the ALP respect the mandate given by the Australian people to repeal the carbon tax? That is a very simple test: will the members of the ALP respect the mandate of the Australian people, if we are successful, to repeal the carbon tax?

This is not a debate about science although let me say this: every person in Australia has a right to their views, every person should be able to speak without fear or favour, every person in a democracy should be able to give their views. Now I—and we—come down on a particular side, that there is a case to deal with, but everybody should be able to speak without fear or favour and express their views. That is what democracy is about. If there are members of the ALP who want to clamp down on people's rights to express their views then that is something which they should out themselves on.

So let us go back to a very simple proposition: whilst we agree on the science, we agree on the targets and we agree on the need for markets, we disagree absolutely and fundamentally on their market mechanism of a carbon tax which is the highest in the world and which is about to become the most volatile in the world after 1 July 2015. I do want to make one point about market theory here because we hear a lot of tripe from the government and from some who should know better about that. There are different types of market mechanisms. Three Nobel economics laureates, all of whom accept the science of climate change and all of whom are amongst the world's most pure and most eminent market economists—Finn Kydland, Thomas Schelling and Vernon Smith—ranked 15 different approaches to reducing emissions. Of those 15, there were three carbon tax mechanisms. The 15 included technology and work on forests but the three which they ranked as the worst and least efficient means of addressing the problem were the three forms of the carbon tax and as the price got higher you went from 13 to 14 and to 15. Finn Kydland, Thomas Schelling and Vernon Smith—three of the world's Nobel economics laureates from the last decade and all climate change believers and all pure market economists. So when we hear that there is only one way, perhaps—just perhaps—the government members and the crossbenchers may want to go and speak with three of the world's great Nobel economics laureates. So the answer is very simple: we agreed on the science, we agree on the targets and we agree on the market but we could not disagree more on the choice of market mechanism. For these reasons we are happy to let your motion pass but we will fight right up to election day to take away your carbon tax.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion of the member for Lyne and support the comments in relation to the scientific community and climate change. I think even thus far this debate has been quite significant and important because it has been allowing people to reaffirm their confidence in the scientific community. One of the great tragedies I think I have experienced in this particular parliament was the way in which we had—and some people in this chamber at the moment, some of whom have just been speaking, participated in this process—persecution of the scientific community.

The one thing that we should be very proud of in a democracy, particularly on the Australian continent, which has a very proud background in terms of scientific contributions on a whole range of levels, is that members of the scientific community are allowed to express their views and not be persecuted as if they were political representatives. Our job is to cop the heat occasionally, both from our own colleagues and from the broader community, and I think we all accept that. But we ask our scientists to go out to look for—and source, as the member for Lyne said—the information. We do not know it all. Some of us may think we do, but we do not know it all and we need people who are prepared to give us their objective information so that we can base decisions upon that information.

I saw what happened in terms of some of the people who were involved with the Independent Panel on Climate Change. I saw the persecution that went on of some of our people within the scientific community and I know some personally that were bitterly upset with the way in which they were treated. Some people were not prepared for the persecution that took place. I know a lot of it was aided and abetted by the Alan Joneses of this world and some of the nay-sayers who present that soup each morning so people can feel bad by the end of the afternoon. So I know they were out there but there were also people in the political process that were actually encouraging and inciting them and gaining kudos through participation with them.

Mr Schultz interjecting—

I do agree with the member for Hume that there has been a degree of guilt on both sides of the radio microphone.

As to the Prime Minister and the formation of this parliament and whether I am re-elected or not at the next election, one of the proudest things that I will remember about my participation in this parliament will be that I have actually been involved in something that has some long-term significance for Australians and the human race. Some members of this parliament have been so focused on the short term, the short term being the destruction of the government or the parliament of the day within days or weeks. On a continuing basis we have seen this profile gone through that 'It won't last till Christmas,' 'I'll be in the Lodge by Christmas,' 'It won't last for a year ', 'It won't last'. Well, it has lasted. So we have had the continuation of this constant bombardment by some within the parliament, and by many outside it, about this so-called lie that the Prime Minister told.

I have put it on public record before: I went to the last election on the basis of climate change. I proposed legislation in 2008—it was not supported by either side of parliament—that actually had the options of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme built into it similar to the English legislation, where there was bipartisan support on this issue. And until the start of this particular parliament, there was bipartisan support of this issue in Australia, and I was very proud of that.

During the Howard years, for instance, there was to be a price on carbon. I think John Howard was obviously aiming to have an emissions trading scheme, but he was aiming to establish the institutional framework. The same applied to Malcolm Turnbull during his term as leader of the Liberal Party. There was a period of time where, to get the institutional framework in place, there would have to be a fixed price on carbon—a fixed price. Now in economic terms, I am sure a Nobel laureate would know, a fixed price essentially means a tax.

Most of the people on the opposition side of the parliament, including the member for Hume, a very good friend of mine, participated in the parliamentary processes and their party processes to support a fixed price on carbon—for one year in one case, I think it was the Howard case, and two years I think in the Turnbull case. But nonetheless it was a fixed price, which was essentially supporting a carbon tax to get the institutional framework in place and then morph that into an emissions trading scheme or a floating price connected to global markets et cetera. This was not a tax. It could be exactly the same price, but technically it was not a tax. That is exactly the same as the current parliament is doing. This fixed-price carbon tax, as people refer to it, will be morphed into an emissions trading scheme and it will engage with the international marketplace. I think that is in July 2015. So we have seen all sides of parliament agree to the same process.

One of the most disappointing things in my view is what we saw when the numbers were so tight in relation to the formation of this parliament. If there is any blame to be handed out about having a price on carbon, I would like to take my share of it because I am proud to have been associated with it. I would like future generations to actually look back as we have, and there are a number of members in here who have looked at the Murray-Darling and participated—I thank the minister at the table, Minister Burke, for his involvement, and I thank the opposition members for their involvement in that committee process that I was involved in as well, and many others in various other forms. What we found was an issue that had been out there for 100 years: majority parliaments were unable to solve it; too much politics, state and federal. We at last engaged in a process, and the opposition and the government of this day should be congratulated for the way in which they addressed that particular process. So in 100 years time people will look back and say: 'Well, at least they addressed it. They may have addressed it a little bit late. They could've addressed it earlier. There were warning signs out there for decades, but at least they've addressed it. It wasn't perfect but it was a start.'

I would like to think that the climate change debate is of a similar nature. It is about the long term. It is not about us. It is not about who the next prime minister is or who the last one was. It is not about whether we are having a tax or a floating price or a fixed price, and that is what the bumper sticker politics has been about here. It is about the long term. It is about future generations. It is about people who have not even been born yet. It is about making a contribution to their futures, to the future generations. It is about the precautionary principle. What if the climate scientists are right? What if they do happen to be right?

I hope the majority of members in this parliament endorse the motion of the member for Lyne, but what if the climate scientists are right and we have done nothing? Do you think it would be cute to be on the Abbott side of the debate, where it is all 'no, no, no' for a short-term advantage so that you can get rid of the Prime Minister and a few other people and take short-term advantage of that? Do you think we will look back and be proud of that particular moment and say: 'We could've done something, but it was more important that we get rid of people, that we persecute people who were involved in the hung parliament. And on the way through, we'll just persecute a few scientists.' We did that with soil science many years ago. The member for Hume may remember that. The member for Groom would remember it too. A lot of the soil scientists were taken out and dispatched because they could not give results in agriculture that were politically saleable in the short term. And what do we have now? Suddenly soil is back on the agenda. Why is it back on the agenda? Because someone said something about humus and organic matter and soil carbon. The shadow minister and the opposition leader have been talking about soil carbon and the relationships with the water cycle and the carbon cycle et cetera and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. All of those things have suddenly come back into vogue—not because they are particularly interested in them, but because they are different to having a price on carbon. A price because of a statement that the Prime Minister made.

Part of the formation of government process—and I spent time with Ross Garnaut; I spent time with various international people. I actually went to France a few years ago and talked to the IPCC people about the economics of trying to do something about climate change.

Mr Schultz interjecting—

The member for Hume, in one of his classic interjections, is talking about the flatulence of kangaroos. You can hop off now, Alby. I spent time with those various global experts and many other scientists prior to the election. One of the terms and conditions of the formation of government was that this parliament, this government, address climate change. And it is one of the reasons why Tony Abbott was not selected. It is one—it is not the only one, but it is one of the reasons. He was not serious about this particular issue.

With this motion, the member for Lyne is actually finding out who is serious about our scientific community not only on this issue but on many issues where we ask scientists to put in years and years of work and academic research to find out various things that we need to know as a population. I am proud to have put pressure on the Prime Minister. I think the member for Lyne is as well. And there are others in the parliament who put pressure on the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition during that 17-day period to do something constructive about this particular issue.

If the Prime Minister had had a majority in relation to this issue, she probably would not have had a carbon tax. Institutionally, she would have been required to have one for a period of time to get the economic framework and the financial framework in place. But, after that, it would have morphed into an emissions trading scheme—and, potentially, she could do that today, or within a short period of time, if in fact that was an objective of government. It was a demand of the formation of government that climate change be addressed and that a market focus be part of addressing that particular issue.

The member for Lyne, myself and others were on the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee that spent many, many months examining how to put the institutional framework et cetera in place. During that time, I argued on a number of causes in terms of agriculture, soil science et cetera and on how to progress some of those issues. Through the various clean energy funds, some of the money has been pumped into soil science, some has been pumped into some biodiversity issues, some has been pumped into encouraging the adoption of no-tillage and various technologies involved in encouraging the development of humus and organic matter in our soils, and some has been pumped into encouraging the water cycle to work more effectively and hence have an impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide. There are a number of things that have come through as a result of this particular parliament.

In my electorate at the moment, we see that the meat-processing sector are taking up some advantages out of the clean energy funds. They are not only reducing their carbon emissions below the carbon taxation levels; they are reducing their unit costs to process the animals. One of the things that was said at the time when all of this came out, 'the dreadful carbon tax', was that we would be uncompetitive internationally in the meat industry and in other sectors of agriculture. That is absolute rubbish.

The major city in my electorate, Tamworth, is looking at putting in biodigestion processes to grow biomass from its waste material and turn it back into biogas and CO2 for internal glasshouses et cetera. There are win-win situations in this. I am proud and I think we can all be proud of what the scientific community have done to identify what we should do as individuals and as a nation. It is not just us. The question has always been why we should do something when everybody else is doing nothing. That is absolute rubbish as well, and I think Greg Combet has covered that quite well in many of his contributions. The Chinese and the Americans are out there with a whole range of emissions trading schemes and variations on the theme. The shadow minister is correct in saying that there are variations, but let us not denounce our scientific community for the sake of some paltry, short-term political debate. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Lyne on moving this motion and I want to put on the record my support for the motion. I particularly concur with the comments of the member for New England, who just very clearly articulated why the responsibility to act on climate change is a responsibility of not just this generation but future generations.

There is the cost of anthropogenic climate change. The cost is due to carbon being emitted into the atmosphere. That has a cost just like other forms of pollution have a cost. And there is a cost from past pollution in an electorate such as mine. For a long period of time, the Cooks River—which I share with the electorates of the member for Watson and the member for Reid—was used to pump rubbish into, because the water was free. The rubbish disappeared, according to some people. They thought it did not have an impact. Along that river, industries such as the sugar mills of Sydney pumped pollution into the atmosphere. That had an impact over a period of time whereby the river became one of the most polluted rivers. The costs of that pollution are now being borne by today's generation, who are spending more money to clean up that river than if an appropriate exercise had occurred then and there had been some foresight in the latter parts of the 19th century and the early parts of the 20th century. I see human induced climate change as a very similar principle.

The earlier we act the better. We know this. Reports such as the Stern report and all the reports from the United Nations and from every serious economist who has looked at this issue say that the cost of acting now is far less than the cost of delay. Common sense tells you that that is the case. The question is: is climate change happening? Yes, the scientists tell us it is. When there are discussions on this, allegedly about the science, we know that on most scientific questions an overwhelming consensus can be regarded as 80 per cent, 85 per cent or 90 per cent, but on this issue the figure is much higher. You can virtually name the scientists who are sceptical about the impact of carbon pollution on our climate. The question is then the method of action.

The member for Flinders said that he supports markets, except that he does not. He does not support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which was negotiated in the last parliament—negotiation that included the member for Groom, who played an honourable role in that process.

An agreement was reached between the major political parties about introducing a carbon pollution reduction scheme using a market based mechanism to drive down emissions as the most efficient way to do it. Indeed, not only was the coup in the conservative party room responsible for the fact that that did not get through; on the second occasion some conservatives of principle in the Senate voted with the government in favour of the CPRS. If the Greens political party senators had just got off their seats, walked across and voted to put a price on carbon, we would have had one operating much earlier, but they chose not to. In many ways the CPRS was broader in its impact than the current system that has been adopted by this parliament. For example, it applied in transport in a much wider way.

What we have now though is a system whereby we have a fixed price which will transition to a market based mechanism, using the power of the market to drive down emissions. We know that it is actually working. In the first nine months, emissions in the national electricity market fell by 7.7 per cent. During this same period renewable energy output was up nearly 30 per cent. So it is working. It is doing what we said it would do. What is more, the campaign saying that the coal industry was going to shut, that whole towns like Whyalla and Gladstone were going to disappear off the map, that people would not be able to buy a leg of lamb for their roast dinners on Sundays and that it would have this economic catastrophe has proven by experience, by fact, to be nothing more than a fear campaign.

While it was coming up we saw angry, hostile and violent—both in language and demeanour—campaigns and demonstrations such as occurred out the front of that office, this parliament and my office. I well recall and will never forget the member for Indi speaking at the rally outside my electorate office in Marrickville next to a sign that said 'tolerance is our demise'—in multicultural Marrickville that went down really well!— the coffin that was brought outside my office and the threats and intimidation that occurred outside my office. Fear was being whipped up in the deliberate and misleading campaign that people such as the Leader of the Opposition were prepared to be associated with.

What we have now with this motion is an opportunity for the parliament to confirm that it believes in the science. It is also an opportunity for members, such as the member for Paterson, the member for Durack, the member for Hume and the member for Tangney, to put on the record their opposition to this. It is one thing to say it at a rally out the front, it is one thing to say it at a rally outside my office, it is one thing to say it on the Alan Jones program, but they should come in here and vote on this motion. They should at least have the courage of their convictions.

There is a lot of nonsense with regard to the alternative plan. Indeed, this week departmental officials told Senate estimates that the Carbon Farming Initiative was expected to achieve just under four million tonnes of emissions reductions. They said that it would produce 85 million tonnes of reduction. Don't worry about the science and what the evidence is before Senate estimates about the impact of their own so-called direct action policy, they will just use magic to deliver 20 times the abatement that is realistically achievable. Based on the latest research by CSIRO, a body of scientists, they would have to reserve up to two-thirds of Australia's entire landmass for their soil carbon magic to achieve the bipartisan emissions targets that are established.

I note the member for Lyne very clearly indicated in parliament yesterday the bipartisan commitment—five per cent from both sides of the parliament is the commitment. How do you get there? You get there by using market based mechanisms. What concerns me is that not only are there climate change sceptics on the other side of the parliament; there are also market sceptics on the other side of the parliament.

I support the motion moved by the member for Lyne. I think it is quite sad that people who were supporters of the CPRS, such as the member for Flinders, who argued it was going to wreck the economy because the price was too high now are arguing that it appears to be that the price is too low. You cannot have it both ways. What you do is have a market based mechanism that adjusts over time to achieve a positive outcome based upon the science and based upon our responsibility to future generations. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.