Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. At this juncture I wish to comment on the process and to indicate that my position with respect to these bills has not changed since I shared that with the Senate on 11 August 2009. With respect to the bills before us, they are in exactly the same form as they were three months ago. We are standing here in this chamber debating a bill that we debated some three months ago and we are not aware of the amendments that are agreed or are proposed and will be agreed between the parties. We simply do not know. It may be days or it may be longer until we actually do know. So we are actually in a way speaking underwater and in the dark.

It is very troubling and difficult to be forced to try and make a sensible and meaningful contribution on such an important and impactful piece of legislation—in fact, one of the most impactful pieces of legislation ever to come before the Australian parliament—without knowing exactly what the government has in mind. What we know is that this bill before us is flawed—that is what we know. Even the government now recognises that in its public statements with respect to the bill in its current form. They know that it needs to be amended and fixed. The opposition have, consistent with public statements by Mr Turnbull and others, put forward through Ian Macfarlane six fundamental principles and put forward some amendments for consideration.

What we also know is that up until very recently agriculture had not been excluded. What we know from past research is that, based on the current bill, farming communities around Australia would have been disadvantaged big time by the government’s proposed legislation. That is what we know. Based on research undertaken by Frontier Economics some months ago, a typical dairy farmer would face an extra cost of $8,000 to $10,000 per year. We know that the rural communities throughout Australia would be adversely affected and disadvantaged by the bill before us. We understand that the government has agreed to exclude agriculture, but there is much that we do not know.

The other thing that we know from the research to date on the bill before us is that small and micro businesses—whether they have under 100 employees, under 20 employees or under five employees—will be adversely impacted. The compensation provisions to take their interests into account have to date not been adequate and comprehensive. We also know that families will be affected, whether it be through their power prices or through the costs of goods and services. Remember that the legislation is effectively a tax on goods and services. It is to reflect the damage done by CO2 emissions and the effects of those emissions on our environment.

But the ETS and the legislation before us is poorly framed. It is flawed. It is too important to rush. Sadly, the government is rushing this legislation for political purposes. That is one thing that we know and that is on the record. The Rudd Labor government are doing this for purely political purposes rather than trying to get it right for the sake of Australia and for the sake of the globe. We must get this legislation right. It is too important for us not to. The Frontier Economics report was made available publicly some three months ago and is out there for all to see.

What we support—and certainly what I support—is a properly framed and carefully put together emissions trading scheme along with other measures to ensure that the consequences of and damage to our environment from our CO2 emissions are taken into account. I am certainly happy to put that on the record. I note that when the Frontier Economics report was delivered, that proposal was said to be—not just by the authors but by others—greener, cheaper and smarter. That is perhaps enough on the process.

I would like to say that it is pleasing that this parliament a short time ago supported the amendments to the renewable energy legislation to provide strong support for the renewable energy sector. We have a target of 20 per cent of renewable energy by 2020. That is something that I strongly support as a Tasmanian senator. Tasmania is the renewable energy state. That is well known. I am proud of it. Over 95 per cent of our power is renewable energy, whether that be hydro or wind. We also know that Hydro Tasmania is in fact the largest generator of renewable energy in Australia.

In my neck of the woods—I live in north-east Tasmania—we have the Mussel Road Bay wind farm development, a $350 million wind farm development, ready to proceed. In fact, I am hoping that it will get under way in the very near future. It will deliver jobs, growth and development to north-east Tasmania and renewable energy to Tasmania and to the mainland via our Bass Strait cable. So there are some good things there in terms of renewable energy. That legislation has recently passed. That is part of the solution to the climate change issues before us.

But what the government should be is really serious about responding to climate change and reducing greenhouse gases. To do that, it should be considering the nuclear option. It is in Australia’s best interests to build on our strengths. To do that, Australia needs to be engaged in a constructive debate on the nuclear option. The take-up of nuclear power around the world is already happening and is inevitable. There is no country of Australia’s economic size or larger without nuclear power. We would stand alone among the 25 top economies in excluding its use for base load power supply in an era of climate change concern. In fact, I have held the view that nuclear power should be an option for many years and have more recently—more than a month ago—raised this matter with my leader and indeed in the party room. There is no good reason for nuclear power not to be considered an option for Australia.

Federal Labor’s reasons for opposing the nuclear option have been politically driven, with a campaign before the 2007 election in a dozen marginal coalition seats under the guise of ‘not in my backyard’. That was part of the campaign that they ran, which shows double standards. On the one hand, they are saying that greenhouse gas emissions are a real problem and that we must address them via their CPRS and the emissions trading scheme, but, on the other hand, they are saying no to the nuclear option. That is duplicity and double standards at their worst.

According to the World Nuclear Association’s Nuclear Power in the Today report of March 2009, there are now some 436 commercial nuclear reactors operating in 30 countries providing about 15 per cent of the electricity as continuous and reliable base load power. They say 56 countries operate a total of about 250 research reactors and 220 reactors power ships and submarines. Further, 16 countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. France gets around three quarters of its power from nuclear energy, while Belgium, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and the Ukraine get one third or more. Japan, Germany and Finland get more than a quarter of their power from nuclear energy, while the USA gets almost one fifth.

Even the federal Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, has said ‘nuclear power globally is part of the climate change solution’. Surely, then, nuclear power should be part of our armoury to combat that change. That is my view: it should be part of that armoury.