Senate debates
Monday, 30 November 2009
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Excise) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — General) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2]
In Committee
11:47 am
Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
I know I have not taken part in the debate up until now, but in terms of the process, I want to have something on record. Certainly the issue of targets has been one that has concerned all of us in this chamber absolutely over a long period of time. There has been a range of opinion. I have been talking with so many people in my electorate and also through the deluge of emails that have been coming through, from people within my own state and elsewhere. The issue of targets comes up consistently, along with the debate about the issue of jobs.
I have listened to Senator Brown and other speakers from the Greens and I know that in many parts of the electorate there are concerns about the targets. I think that is something that we and the government have listened to, and we are very much needing to talk to those within our electorates and also to other people about getting an effective balance. I know those terms are used so often in this debate and others—trying to come up with a balance which will engage the community, engage business and engage people, who all have their role to play. A lot of work still needs to be done in talking with people about what they see as being their own individual as well as crucial targets.
I note the comments made by Senator Brown and Senator Milne about how we can move forward in this process, but the government’s position, after going out and speaking with people, has consistently been about having a range. That range is dependent on what happens across our community, particularly across our business community, as people make efforts to take on their role in what is going to happen and to look at the way the system is going to work in the future so that they understand exactly where each business and each community play a part. The National Party has been ramping home the issues about coal areas, and I know that a range of areas in my state have been part of this in terms of where they fit. There is a concern about jobs. This affects not just new workers but people who have been working in the coal industry for generations. Throughout this whole process the government has been very keen to ensure that we come up with an agreement that has an acknowledgement that there will be changes that have to be made—absolutely—and that acknowledgement is the information that the National Party have been putting out about where business, and particularly industry, will have to make changes as they put in place their process.
Looking at the specific issue of targets, we are looking at how we can get something that will work within our community and that we can take to the international community and say that Australia is taking some part. We do not claim that we will be able to do it by ourselves but we say that we will be able to take some part in the process and move it forward. Whilst I have listened very closely to the arguments about why we do not jump in immediately with a higher targeted level, the government’s position is that that is not what we are prepared to take up at this moment. What we have and what we thought we had was discussion and agreement across all parts of this debate at the Senate level. After months of discussion, months of taking note, months of interaction and several Senate community hearings, we nonetheless had a process that we thought we would be able to take forward sometime before the Copenhagen process so that the other nations, both developed and developing, would all see that there is a commitment at least to take some action. In terms of where we move forward I think that is an important thing to at least have on the record and that we at least have some process whereby we can agree. Each of us has to make some degree of compromise in the way we move forward.
The target argument will certainly continue to be had. What we put on the table now with the first round is exactly that, and senators from the Greens, the Nationals, the Liberal Party and the Independents know that just signing up to the deal that is before the chamber now is not the end. It cannot be the end. It is part of an ongoing process. We have to have some acknowledgement that these debates have been had and some acknowledgement that across communities people will have differing degrees of commitment, even differing degrees of pain, but we have to have some intent that the understanding that is there is something that people can understand how they fit in with.
People will not stop their own aspirations because, once again, when you have an agreement such as the one we have on the table at the moment, it does not mean that that is going to be the end result and there will be no further negotiation and no form of development. In fact, one of the things that is most clear in the deal that the government has put forward is that there will be extraordinary efforts made in areas of research, in my state in particular, where I know that there are a number of key research areas dedicated to moving forward.
But there are things that we can do better in all areas of industry, in all areas of community activity, even down to the household level, rather than being caught up in the outrageous scare campaigns that have been put forward in some elements of the media—coincidentally, particularly leading up to this week of debate in this place, where we have seen allegations about what the individual costs of the proposal before this parliament are going to be. Nonetheless, we should not be drawn into that debate, getting touched by the scare campaigns that are so clearly being put out there.
I think the thing that scares me most is that we are once again pressing the fear button and getting caught between this debate about doing better—having greater targets, putting a greater position forward—as opposed to what this will cost. Then we see the media attacks that have been so targeted. They are quite clearly targeted at causing fear and causing distress in the people who do have goodwill, as I think we have seen over many years of discussion about what we can do for a better environment process in this country. There are a large range of people in our community, mostly led by young people, who have a real sense of goodwill about what they want to happen. But people are trying to turn that around with the fear, anger and bitterness so that it is seen as a one-size-fits-all scheme, and that has never been the intent. So I want to say that we deeply acknowledge the moves that have been put on the table. I think what we need to do is acknowledge that we have a responsibility here and that we will meet that responsibility together.
No comments