Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. In my opinion this is some of the most significant legislation to be debated in this place. Whenever I speak on legislation, I only do so after thoroughly researching and analysing the issue being debated. I always try to make the most informed decision I can, and I have certainly given this issue a great deal of thought.

As a Western Australian senator I am deeply concerned about the impact these bills will have on the Western Australian economy and employment. Jobs must not be sacrificed as a result of this legislation. I find it hard to understand that we are back here dealing with the same bills we debated three months ago. What has changed? We have had a great deal of time during this session to debate these bills, and now it is all being rushed through. We are having second readings on bills which have already been rejected, and we do not really know what the new bill will look like. It is a shambolic situation to be debating these bills now, while the content is still being negotiated outside this place.

I am not anti the environment and I am not a climate sceptic; I do, however, have a different opinion to others in this place. Having been farmers for most of our lives, my family and I have respected and worked closely with the environment to ensure good farming practices and ongoing viability of our farm business. Our family was one of the first in the district to reduce stubble burning and switch to no-till methods, which stores carbon in the soil rather than releasing it into the atmosphere. We have planned and used water wisely on our properties and protected and revegetated our waterways and more vulnerable areas of land.

We also kept good rainfall records. The records of our property go back just over 100 years, and they do not indicate that what is currently happening is abnormal when compared to the high and low average rainfall periods during the past century. I have heard the same story from farmers throughout Western Australia. One such farmer is Mr Geoff Bee from Jerramungup, which is just south of where I come from. Mr Bee has won numerous environmental awards for his leading environmental farm practices. Historical rainfall records show no current trends which are abnormal.

As people who work directly with the climate, because our livelihoods depend upon it, we farmers have, to date, not seen any firsthand evidence in our paddocks or rain gauges to back up what we are reading in the newspapers—which is, more or less, that the end will soon be here if we do not change our practices. We are scratching our heads, because what we are reading about this we are not seeing in evidence on our properties. As with rainfall, there is also real historic evidence about temperatures in Australian country areas—as opposed to cities where the temperature is affected by non-climatic factors or ‘big-city warming effects’ such as cars and air conditioning.

Bureau of Meteorology figures taken from weather observatories throughout Australia with data going back a hundred years or more indicate that the countryside has not been warming. In Deniliquin and Bathurst there has actually been a fall in temperatures over the last hundred years. Many regional areas show no trend at all, neither up nor down. These historic local records are all very inconvenient truths.

After careful analysis of the scientific opinion and many publications—minus the political spin—that have been presented to me, on balance I have tried to align them with my own experiences with the land and climate and the reliable data that has served our farming operations well. When farmers invest in a new property, as we did on a number of occasions, they make their decision based on sound historical data and trends. The less prudent might go to their local Blockbuster and rent an Al Gore movie. I will continue to consider very seriously the opinions of my peers, who are so much at one with nature and working with the changing seasons. I will lean towards these opinions before those formed by the much questioned data generated by supercomputers.

I can only base my opinion on an analysis of the information that has been presented to me. I am not a climate scientist. I have given careful regard to who is presenting opinion on this issue and taken note of whether the case is being presented by political operatives or people with vested interests. In the early stages of this debate I read much in the news media and other publications about the need to act on climate change quickly—that is, global warming is being significantly accelerated by human activity and if we do not immediately act it will be to the detriment of mankind. But as this issue has progressed I have seen more and more scientific opinion presented and more people and scientists speaking out against what is being presented in the media. It is almost like a sleeping giant awakening.

A range of opinions and arguments have been presented to me and I have received an overwhelming number of emails, letters and phone calls on this issue. What has surprised me greatly is that, for all the hype about the urgency of acting, I have received very little direct correspondence in support of this. I would say that 85 per cent of direct feedback I have received from throughout Western Australia and the rest of Australia has been against an ETS and even more vehemently opposed to the draft Copenhagen treaty. A delay at Copenhagen will, in my opinion, avert what could be a disaster.

Details of the draft Copenhagen treaty have finally come to the surface and they are very worrying. There are some deeply troubling elements of the draft Copenhagen treaty which Australians have not been informed about to an appropriate extent. There are a number of parts of this draft treaty so significant to the future of our country that a decision on Australia being a signatory should be put to a vote of the Australian people. The Prime Minister should only sign it after a referendum of the Australian people.

The Prime Minister has been mysteriously quiet on the draft treaty, which his government has played a part in formulating. I believe he has a lot of explaining to do to the Australian people. I am most concerned that a central tenet of the treaty is the creation of an unelected world government which will have the power to direct our domestic policies and overrule our sovereign rights. Developed countries such as Australia will also be required to pay a climate debt to developing nations at a suggested rate of 0.7 per cent of GDP. That would mean that Australia would have to pay $7 billion per year to this global government with no say on how it is to be spent. Mr Rudd must start explaining this treaty to us before he tries to sign anything in Copenhagen on our behalf.

All the people I have spoken to who have now seen extracts of the draft treaty are horrified. I too am horrified and left suspicious that the climate change platform is being used as a front for a deeper agenda. It also makes me suspicious when parts of Mr Rudd’s summer holiday essay, which effectively espouses a New Age global socialism, mirror so many tenets of the Copenhagen treaty.

Leading proponents of the global warming debate have made comments which warrant suspicion. Stephen Schneider, one of the original leading proponents of global warming, said:

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Maurice Strong, architect of the Kyoto protocol, is quoted in Blue Planet in Green Shackles as saying:

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our duty to bring that about?

And there is this remarkable statement by the former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart:

No matter if the science of global warming is all phoney … climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.

I am very concerned when I look at the make-up of many of the so-called climate groups pushing for action—groups which have innocuous names, as climate representatives, that would sound safe to the general public but underneath are affiliations of hard green groups and unions. I have also noted too many vested interests associated with the arguments to ‘act on climate change’, such as people with interests or shareholdings in companies that will profit from carbon trading. What also makes me deeply suspicious is the sight of the same people who led the anarchistic antiglobalisation protests, which became increasingly out of control around the world before the September 11 terrorist attacks, re-emerging and protesting under the climate change banner.

The core of the climate change movement is deep green and hard left. Their principles are generally very hostile to strong, market based economies like Australia. Hardworking Australians, trying to create a safe and successful future for their families, should be very wary of the motives of some of the people in the climate change movement. During the past month, I could not help but become increasingly suspicious that the climate change debate is being used as a front for a deeper agenda. After learning more about the draft Copenhagen treaty, this really made me stop and think and, as the Prime Minister’s spin becomes more threatening and hysterical, I become even more suspicious. We should not be coerced into something as significant as this.

The coalition has a good, practical record on environmental issues, not policy based on media grabs. We are all about rolling up our sleeves and getting on with achieving real results and cuts in emissions, not spin, hype and pretence. As my colleague Senator Macdonald reminded this place, the Howard government set up the first greenhouse office in the world.

Whatever we do in Australia must take into account what is happening globally, or else our competitive position will be severely compromised. The government has not been upfront with the Australian people, by failing to tell us what the impact will be on jobs. Where is the detailed economic modelling for such a significant change as this? Why on earth would we allow Australian jobs, investment and CO2 emissions to be exported to countries which do not have a price imposed on carbon?

The cement industry is a glaring example of the effect this legislation will have on Australian business and on the Australian workforce. Cement Australia shut down its Rockhampton operations in August and said that the decision was partly taken because, with the introduction of a carbon pollution reduction scheme, the long-term prospects of the business had been undermined. Cement manufacturing in Australia emits approximately 0.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every tonne of cement which is produced. That sounds like a significant amount, but in reality Australia is one of the most efficient cement manufacturers in the world. Until we find an alternative to cement, we must keep manufacturing it. If we do not manufacture it locally, we will need to import it from elsewhere. Cement production in China emits 1.1 tonnes of carbon for every tonne of cement—0.3 tonnes more than if it had been made in Australia. So, if an ETS makes our cement industry unviable and shuts it down, hundreds of Australian jobs will be destroyed and additional carbon will be released into the atmosphere as we turn to countries like China for our cement supplies. Local jobs will be lost and global emissions will go up. How does that make sense?

We are now debating the emissions trading scheme legislation, to which the coalition will seek a number of significant amendments. It could more correctly be labelled an emissions tax scheme because quite simply it is a tax on everything and will have negligible impact on Australia’s emissions. To echo the words of my former colleague Dr Nelson:

Why introduce the biggest change to the economic architecture of this nation in my lifetime with a tax on everything … for no environmental gain?

I have attended numerous community forums and meetings and, at every one of them, the more participants learn more about what is being proposed and the workings of an ETS the more they are against the scheme. At one of these forums, held in Mount Barker in the Great Southern region of Western Australia, there were approximately 100 people and a balanced group of 12 speakers. It was amazing. Everyone stayed for the full day and participated intently. By the end of the day, attitudes towards an ETS appeared to me to be at best confusion with some dismay and distrust and, at worst, alarm—alarm especially at getting very little recognition for the extensive good environmental practices farmers are already undertaking and the prospect of significant interference by government bureaucracy.

I am seeing first hand that, as people come to understand what the ETS is about, they are realising it is nothing more than a bureaucratic utopia at the expense of Australian industry and jobs. An ETS bureaucracy will be a safe haven for green activists and extreme environmentalists. Australian resource industries and farmers should be very wary. I predict they would find very few friends in a Canberra based climate change bureaucracy. I have said on a number of occasions and I say again now that I will never support any emissions trading scheme that includes agriculture.

Why are we not considering significant infrastructure upgrades and projects that could alter the whole way we power our nation? For example, what serious consideration has the government given to harvesting the immense power of our unique tides in Northern Australia? What research and consideration is the government giving to high-voltage DC cabling, which would completely change the way we transport our electricity and open up significantly better access to the lower emitting energy sources we have in Australia, such as the giant natural gas reserves of our north-west?

Why is nuclear power not being properly analysed in Australia as an alternative energy source? We must compare the 320,000 tonnes per annum of toxic waste produced by a 500 megawatt coal fired power station with the 20 tonnes per annum produced by a comparable nuclear station. The coal fired station will release 4.38 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere compared with 87,600 tonnes by the nuclear station—98 per cent less. The waste from the coal station will include 2.6 tonnes of uranium and 6.4 tonnes of thorium. These figures alone warrant a proper analysis by the government of nuclear power as an alternative source if they are genuinely serious about reducing emissions.

To conclude, why is the government not opening up debate on better forestry management practices to ensure wildfires have less chance of occurring? These fires are predominantly started by arson, not climate change, and release incredible amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. If the government is genuinely serious about actual carbon emissions, why has it done nothing about forestry policy to ensure horrific, deadly events do not happen again? In my opinion, there has not been enough consideration given to some very practical measures we could be taking that could significantly reduce our levels of emissions, which I believe could negate the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. Not enough consideration has been given to changing the way we power our nation. I have given extensive and careful consideration to these matters and, upon thorough assessment of everything that has been presented to me, I have made an informed decision that I cannot support these bills.