Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is good to be back, of course—back into the zone where you can stand up and say what you want to advance. From the contributions so far today we have heard that some people on that side of the chamber forget nothing, they learn nothing, they change nothing and they come to this debate as they came to it last year—with ignorance, with prejudice. Their solution is one of fearmongering and cost imposition.

One also has to say by way of introduction that there is a significant degree of inconsistency in the approach of the opposition. A little less than three years ago, then under the leadership of Mr Howard, the Liberal and National coalition committed to an emissions trading scheme and they maintained that commitment under successive leaders—Mr Howard, Dr Nelson and Mr Turnbull. Then, all of a sudden, because things were going so badly and they had to change their leadership and their approach, they changed their policy from that which they had had for the best part of three or four years and that which they had communicated to the Australian people to the position recently put by Senator Joyce—a nothing position which goes nowhere, a position which advocates no change and requires no significant change and a position which has no costings.

Climate change, global warming, and the need for action was an absolute priority last year, is a priority this year and will be a priority for this government for the foreseeable future. We know that climate change and global warming is having all sorts of harmful effects across this continent and around the world. We say there needs to be change. We say there needs to be action, and there needs to be an agreed position worked out at an international level to introduce and bring that change. That will have benefits for everyone in this country: the working families, farmers, small business, large companies, ordinary consumers. We need change that is going to assist them and bring benefits short-term and long-term into their lives. That was what we went to Copenhagen for. To a large degree, that was what was achieved at that conference.

We know—as outlined in today’s press—that a number of important steps were achieved and taken at Copenhagen. I will tell you what those steps were, because they are not a bad foundation for going forward across the world on an agreed basis to bring a solution to this issue of climate change and an emissions trading scheme around the world. What happened? For the first time, leaders agreed to hold any increase in global temperatures to at or below two degrees centigrade. For the first time, leaders of all nations—developed and developing nations—agreed to take action to deliver on that central core objective. For the first time, leaders agreed to a framework for national and international monitoring of what developed and developing .countries will do on this issue going into the future. Again, for the first time, leaders agreed on the need for considerable financial support for emissions reduction and adaptation in developing countries. Not a bad set of achievements achieved by hard negotiation and clear-sighted vision some weeks ago in Copenhagen. Not a bad set of achievements and not a bad set of foundations on which you can build an ETS in this country going forward. We know where we are going and we know what the costs are going to be. As I say, overall, a pretty neat set of achievements.

What is the government’s position? The government’s position is quite clear. It was outlined by Senator Wong in the press today; it has been outlined repeatedly by the Prime Minister in a set of interviews given today. Let us be clear. We do not say that climate change is easy. We do not say a climate change solution or addressing the problem of climate change is easy. We do not say it is going to be quick. But we do say that there is a way forward. (Time expired)