Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that we are here tonight debating the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff) Bill 2008 from Senator Milne, which is not dissimilar to the previous bill and which has been the subject of a committee inquiry and report. I acknowledge, as I did in my previous speech on the committee report into the bill to which I just referred, that it is always useful to be reminded by mechanisms such as this private member’s bill of the importance of climate change and the need to address our attention to alternative forms of energy. It is important to keep ourselves focused on those issues and this is one mechanism of doing it, so I thank the Greens for putting the bill into the parliament for that purpose.

This is a very complex issue. The introduction of a feed-in-tariff scheme—whether at a state or national level or whether a national feed-in-tariff framework is introduced at all—is a very complex issue that requires a lot of consideration by governments at all levels, not just with the feed-in-tariff scheme itself but with its interaction with other initiatives designed to address climate change and the take-up of renewable energy. So while it might seem an easy way to advance our progress with climate change, it is probably not the best mechanism to do that. In my speech, and indeed as Senator Pratt has already done in her speech, I will go into the complexities of what we are dealing with. Having said that, I must say that at least Senator Milne and the Greens are doing something, which is more than the previous government did during its term of office. While, for years, the nations of the world had been alerted to the fact that climate change was happening and the dire consequences of the impact it would have on all our nations if climate change was not addressed, despite those persistent warnings, the previous government chose to ignore the size of the problem and chose not to do anything significant to address the size of the problem. So it is very disappointing that we had a whole decade or more of government which failed to take any serious action, although I do recall there was an announcement by Mr Turnbull, the former environment minister, about some light bulbs. I think that was a bit of a standout in the previous decade with regard to the previous government’s environmental credentials.

As I said, the previous government chose to ignore the size of the looming problem with regard to climate change, but that is pretty much what they did with a lot of significant issues that had to be dealt with by the nation during that previous decade when interest rates were rising, inflation was growing, the enormous skills shortage was developing, 457 visa holders were taken advantage of and dental care waiting lists were over 600,000 people long. The previous government sat on its hands, as it did with the issue of the environment.

I am very pleased to say that the Labor government, when it came to office, chose not to follow that inactive lead of the coalition. Not only were we prepared to admit the challenges that the nation faced, we were honest with the public about them during the campaign leading up to the election last year, we were honest with the Australian public about our willingness to address those issues and we were also honest about the extraordinary difficulties that we would face in addressing those issues. On our election we took the initial step of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, we created the ministerial portfolio of climate change and water and appointed Senator Wong to that position. Those important initiatives set the tone and the framework of the government’s approach to matters to do with climate change and the environment.

I am pleased to say that, almost a year after the election of the Rudd Labor government, we are continuing apace with our attention focused on this one most significant issue that Australia and the other nations of the world face, and we do all these things on many fronts and in many forums. I note, for example, that another significant achievement of the government was to reach agreement with state governments to secure a sustainable future for the Murray-Darling Basin and to invest $2.2 billion over five years to deliver an environment that is healthier, better protected, well managed and resilient in the face of climate change. That is part of the Caring for Our Country program.

This is a good opportunity, when we are outlining the Rudd government credentials on innovation and climate change and are looking to the future security and environmental wellbeing of our nation, to note that this week the government announced its $6.2 billion Green Car Plan, a very exciting initiative particularly for those of us from states like South Australia, where we have an automotive industry that has been going through tough times and is looking for leadership from the federal government. We must ensure that we not only maintain the automotive industry in a viable and sound condition but also see that it is well placed as to the future challenges that that industry will face. The Green Car Plan will make our automotive industry more economically and environmentally sustainable by 2020. Some of the components of the plan provide for a better targeted and greener assistance program. It is worth $3.4 billion and it is the Automotive Transformation Scheme. That will run from 2011 to 2020. There will be changes to the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme in 2010 consistent with the Bracks review proposals, to smooth transition to the ATS. Nearly $80 million has been committed to that. There will be $116.3 million to promote structural adjustment through consolidation in the components sector and to facilitate labour market adjustment. There are other innovations to assist the industry to move forward and to deliver to Australia a green car that will ensure the future of the automotive industry in Australia and thereby secure jobs. That complements the other things that we have been doing.

I should mention that one of the other things about the ATS is the $10.5 million expansion of the LPG vehicle scheme, which is starting immediately. That doubles payments to purchasers of new vehicles using LPG technology. This is a relatively modest but very practical and much-needed innovation on the part of the government. As we know, Australian people want to do something that is environmentally sound and want to make changes to their lives as to what they do on a day-to-day basis to assist us to protect and preserve our environment. This contribution as to the LPG vehicle scheme will assist people to make those practical changes.

The government has been working quickly to address climate change. That was one of the things that we started doing as soon as we came into office and at no stage has the quality of our policies been compromised. There has not been compromise, because the government does not make decisions in haste. As we know, if we are going to address the issue of climate change and environmental sustainability properly, we need to get it right. We are a responsible government. We understand that environmental and economic policies are intrinsically linked and that if we do not deal with one correctly then another will be negatively impacted upon. That is why every element of our climate change strategy has been designed with thorough consultation and research.

Our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, or CPRS, is a very good example of that. I know it was the subject of some considerable discussion in the chamber earlier today, and it is worth reiterating the measured but also urgent approach that the government is taking to the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. It was quite disappointing, given what we heard from the coalition today, to note that they seem to be backtracking from an ETS which had apparently been previously on their agenda—or at least it was according to Mr Turnbull, a former minister for the environment and now the Leader of the Opposition. We are not quite sure where the coalition stands these days on an ETS. Perhaps it will become clearer, but clearly the divisions within the coalition on this matter have not yet been resolved. I hope, for the sake of the Australian public and the economy, that all that is resolved soon.

The Rudd Labor government knows the CPRS is an integral part of our move forward to a cleaner, greener future. The scheme has two distinct elements: the cap on carbon pollution, and the ability to trade. The cap achieves the environmental outcome of reducing carbon pollution, and the ability to trade ensures that carbon pollution is reduced at the lowest possible cost. As to the principles that guide development of the scheme, as I said, there is the cap and the trade scheme, and it will be a scheme that has maximum coverage of greenhouse gases and sectors to the extent that is practical. The broader the scheme’s coverage the more cost-effective it will be in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the more fairly spread the burden of such reductions across the community will be. The government takes that very seriously. The gloom and doom predictions that we were hearing from the coalition today and during the week about the likely impact of an ETS have been very disappointing. We do not need people talking down Australia’s economy. We do not need people frightening the Australian public unnecessarily about these things. It is time for the nation to take bold initiatives and to follow them through. The government has never denied that that will be a difficult thing to do and that there will be some pain, but we are taking pains to spread the cost across the economy and across the people of Australia as much as we possibly can.

The CPRS will also be designed to address the competitive challenges facing emission intensive trade exposed industries in Australia. I do not know how many times we have made that point—not just to the coalition but to the people of Australia. It is all most disappointing that the coalition continues to ignore that statement of policy—and that statement of fact—that the government has always built into its discussions about a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I want to take this opportunity to reassure the people of Australia, yet again, that we are prepared to take the bold measures. We are prepared to introduce an emissions trading scheme and we will do it in a way that ensures that the economy remains vibrant and strong. That, of course, is the responsible way to go, and that is what we will do.

With regard to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, there was a report released on 30 October this year which included the Treasury modelling of the scheme. That has been a very welcome piece of news from the Treasury. The report, which measures the economic impact of cutting carbon emissions through the government’s CPRS, has three conclusions. They are: that the Australian economy will continue to grow strongly as we reduce carbon emissions; that the earlier Australia acts, the cheaper the cost of the action whereas the longer we delay, the more damage we risk to the Australian economy; and that many of Australia’s key industries will become more, not less, competitive. That was an important underpinning to the progress we are making with regard to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Another part of the government’s climate change strategy is investment in renewable energy. We are committed to ensuring that at least 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply comes from renewable energy by 2020. This was a target that the government boldly set early in its term of office, and we are putting in place the measures to ensure that we reach that target. We are developing a national renewable energy target to provide up to an additional 45,000 gigawatt hours of renewable electricity generation by 2020, and the RET scheme will roll in and expand upon existing Commonwealth, state and territory renewable energy targets. It is a transitional measure that will help prepare the electricity sector to contribute to the significant emissions reductions that will be needed to address climate change. It will be phased out between 2020 and 2030 as the emissions trading scheme takes place and it will, in the interim, drive substantial growth in the renewable energy sector. We are very pleased with that long-term plan that feeds into the emissions trading scheme. Feed-in tariff schemes also, of course, need to be considered in the context of the emissions trading scheme and other developments that both state and federal governments have implemented in this regard.

The feed-in tariff bill that is before us today gives us an opportunity to contemplate the issues surrounding the introduction of a feed-in tariff scheme, but that is something that we need to do in the context of everything else that is going on in the nation, both at the state and federal level. Whilst it will be disappointing for Senator Milne to hear that we are not in a position to support her bill today, we do appreciate that she has at least raised the issue. We believe strongly, however, that COAG is the appropriate venue for discussions about a national feed-in tariff framework, because we do have states that have either implemented, are implementing, or are considering implementing their own feed-in tariff legislation and feed-in tariff schemes. It is invaluable to have discussions at COAG with the state governments about how their schemes have gone. We need to hear about the pros and cons of the different kinds of schemes that they have introduced, and the practical problems that they may have had in implementation and the problems they envisage having in the future. Many of those issues about practical implementation were discussed in the report I referred to earlier into the original bill that Senator Milne put in.

We are confident that COAG is addressing this issue in a timely, but more importantly in a thorough, way. It is an issue—as with anything to do with the environment—about which there has been neglect for 10 years, so you cannot just jump in and do things in an ad hoc and random manner. You need to look at the measures that you are going to implement and make sure that they complement each other. You need to make sure that they do not damage the economy and that they complement the work that the state and federal governments are doing. Basically, you need to get it right. It is all very easy for members and senators to put in private members’ bills which look like they are going to be a panacea for the problems that the nation is facing. As we all realistically know, however—and, I am sure, as even Senator Milne would admit—the business of government is a little bit more complex than putting in a private member’s bill and expecting that is going to solve the problems of the nation. Such problems are complex and they have, unfortunately, suffered from some neglect over a period of time.

Nevertheless, I will conclude by reasserting that I do appreciate the opportunities that have been given to members of the Senate to explore the issues regarding feed-in tariff schemes. It is probably not something I thought I would need to turn my mind to when I first became a senator, but now I have turned my mind to it I am very pleased that I have been required to do so. I look forward to progress on the future introduction of feed-in tariffs in the nation. (Time expired)