Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise to speak in this debate to discuss with Australians the need to take action on climate change and to defend against Senator Fifield’s motion:

That the Senate notes the Gillard Government’s decision to blatantly break its unequivocal commitment to the electorate not to introduce a carbon tax.

Climate scientists tell us that carbon pollution is causing climate change. It is a reality. It has been published. It has been covered in many inquiries now and circulated in many journals and the media. Greenhouse gases absorb heat from the sun in the atmosphere and reduce the amount of heat escaping into space. This extra heat has been found to be the primary cause of observed changes in the climate system over the 20th century. These changes include increases in global average air and ocean temperature, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global sea levels. The extra heat in the climate system has other impacts such as affecting atmospheric and ocean circulation, which influences rainfall and wind patterns. We have seen a lot of that recently not only on our continent but also across the globe—for example, in Pakistan.

As a senator for Queensland I know firsthand how climate change could have a devastating effect on the environment, the economy and prosperity in my state. Queensland is known for its golden beaches, its sunshine and of course the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef covers close to 350,000 square kilometres and is the only living thing on earth visible from space. It is of great significance to Queensland and Australians and is protected as a marine park. It has been a World Heritage area since 1981.

The Great Barrier Reef is home to more than 4,000 mollusc species, about 1,150 fish species, most of the world’s marine turtle species, the dugong, dolphins and whales. The tourism industry supports 53,000 jobs and brings $6.9 billion into the Australian economy. I want to digress slightly from the subject of the Great Barrier Reef and refer to a speech delivered in the other house by the member for Tangney, Dennis Jensen. It is one of my favourites because it goes to the type of suggestion for dealing with climate change that the opposition believes in. That member said:

Just off the top of my head—

so it is not a well thought out plan to fix global warming—

I can think of two.

First he says we could have aerosols and global dimming. I do not know where the dimming came from—probably off the top of his head. Then he goes on to the most absurd suggestion I have ever heard, and that is:

... what about some sort of shadecloth put in orbit?

This is a member of the opposition in the other house, talking about putting some sort of shadecloth up there. I do not know how you would get it there. Maybe he is relying on My Favourite Martian or maybe the Robinsons of Lost in Space to get the shadecloth into space. These comments and ideas are coming from no doubt an educated person—he is a doctor. This is the type of suggestion we are getting from the opposition on dealing with climate change.

I cannot even comprehend how inaction would affect my beloved state. If the temperature rises we will lose our Great Barrier Reef. We will lose the marine life that makes this natural wonder of the world a world attraction. If the sea levels rise we will lose our golden beaches. If temperatures soar, our agricultural industry will be destroyed. Soaring temperatures would affect those sensitive to the heat, including our ageing population. Tropical diseases and pests would spread across the country and would be detrimental to our health.

This is not just about Queensland. This is a global issue. Already we have seen the outcry from our Pacific neighbours. Last year I recall having a delegation come to my office in the seat of Dickson. They were Pacific islanders from Tuvalu, Kiribati and Micronesia. They came to bring to my attention the climate change that is affecting the small islands out in the middle of the Pacific. When you talk about sea level rises of half a metre you would not bat an eyelash, but if you live in a Pacific island this is a very serious problem. Rising sea levels are causing their islands to decrease in size, being swallowed by the ocean, and flooding is becoming all too familiar. Because of this, their water is being contaminated by the saltwater, and their farming industry, which many of these islanders rely on to survive, is being greatly affected. The higher waters are making their way into some of the islanders’ homes, which is of huge concern for the welfare and safety of residents as well as of their property.

If all those reasons are not enough to compel those opposite to act on climate change and support the government in wanting to take action, then let us look at some facts. A strong economy depends upon a sustainable environment. Australia’s economy and environment are at great risk from climate change. That is why the government will continue its strong support for renewable energy, to promote greater energy efficiency in industry and households and to work towards the introduction of a carbon price. The government believes the most effective and cost-effective way to achieve reductions in carbon pollution is through a price on carbon. Putting a price on carbon is a significant economic reform of the Australian economy and is an investment in our long-term future. The economic and environmental case is clear: a carbon price will create the incentive to reduce pollution, drive investment in renewable and low-emission technologies, create certainty for business investment and ensure our economy remains internationally competitive in the long term. This reform will therefore create jobs, strengthen the economy and build a sustainable environment. As the Treasury said in their blue book recently:

Whatever approach is taken to limit national emissions, it is also in Australia’s national interest to rely overwhelmingly on market-based mechanism—in respect of both mitigation and adaptation.

It also said:

Introduction of a pricing regime will support strong, long-term growth by steadily transforming the economy instead of imposing sharp, more costly adjustments in the future.

This is something the business community understands. As Marius Kloppers, the CEO of BHP Billiton, has said:

To remain competitive in a future carbon-constrained world, Australia will need (to) turn to a lower carbon economy.

By taking no action, AGL and the Climate Institute have found, the uncertainty caused by the delay in a carbon price would cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or around $60 per household in 2020.

The Labor Party have always supported taking action on climate change and we have been denied that by this chamber three times. But the reality is, and from the unexpected results of the election and the increase in protest voting, that it is clear the Australian public wants action on climate change—and that is what we have set out to do. The landscape has changed, but we have always been clear that we believe in climate change, that we believe in tackling climate change and that the best way to do that is by introducing a price on carbon. While no party holds a majority, it is important for us to work together and take notice of what the public has told us. We have to work together in the nation’s interests to achieve change. That is why we established the climate change committee to look at the best way to deliver a price on carbon. This will be an important mechanism that will help us deliver on the outcome of a carbon price. The committee will properly examine the issues around a carbon price, and the government is determined to introduce an economically responsible reform. It is important that we build consensus around this issue so that we can make the sensible economic reform that taxpayers and the business community, people such as Marius Kloppers, want us to make.

Our approach stands in stark contrast to the negative and opportunistic position of the Leader of the Opposition. We all know that he thinks climate change is, in his own words, ‘absolute crap’ and that he opposes the consensus on climate science. We are now discovering that he also opposes sensible economic reform—reform that the business community is pushing. Such a position may help him as Leader of the Opposition, but it demonstrates that he is not fit to manage our economy.

The Labor government has engaged in a number of consultative processes on climate change and I was privileged to be included in the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy, as was the previous speaker, Senator Macdonald. Ten hearings were held around the country and 188 witnesses presented their views on the CPRS. Witnesses came from all walks of life, including people from government departments, industry associations, business, trade unions and community organisations, and leading scientists and economists. There were also representatives from mining, industry, farming, energy supply, financial and commercial interests. More than 8,000 submissions were received from organisations and individuals.

The result of this committee was not unanimous, with coalition senators disagreeing on the CPRS. This decision is detrimental to our nation’s fight against climate change. The position of the government senators on this committee—Senator Doug Cameron, Senator Dave Feeney, Senator Louise Pratt and I—is that action must be taken as soon as possible.

After years of inaction by the previous government it is up to us to implement the CPRS to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions and therefore save the environment. With many scientists here and abroad spruiking that climate change is caused by human activity, I wonder why those opposite do not believe climate change is occurring. After inviting all scientists to present their views at these committee hearings, we found that not one climate scientist with qualifications and experience disputed this view. If the scientists—those who study climate change for a living—believe that climate change is caused by human activity and believe that it is potentially damaging to the state of this planet, then who are we to dispute this?

According to the Garnaut review, put together by Ross Garnaut—economist and former adviser—if we sit here and do nothing the expected rise in temperature would be damaging to our environment and to our economy. In our report handed down after the inquiry, the government senators found that inaction would cause temperatures to soar and that that, combined with a decline in rainfall, would greatly affect agricultural production. We would see the Great Barrier Reef destroyed by mid-century. Our snowfields and beautiful beaches would just be a distant memory. This would put an end to our tourism industry as many travellers flock to Australia to dive at our reefs, relax on our golden beaches or attend the snowfields.

The President of the Business Council of Australia, Graham Bradley, has said that there ‘will inevitably be the need for a market-based mechanism that will give us the lowest-cost approach to reducing the carbon intensity of our industries.’ Getting a carbon price into the economy is the responsible course of action. That is the view of the mainstream business community and it is the view of the government.

AGL and the Climate Institute have found that the uncertainty caused by the delay in a carbon price could cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or around $60 per household in 2020. The Leader of the Opposition is being economically irresponsible by refusing to accept mainstream economic thinking.

The Leader of the Opposition is also out of step with the member for Wentworth, who said:

There are powerful arguments in favour of a tax versus a cap-and-trade scheme but, you know, the political reality is that putting a price on carbon will increase electricity prices and the coalition’s policy is, rather than having polluters—you know, the industry pay those costs and passing them on to consumers—to have the cost of abatement paid for out of taxpayers’ dollars.

The simple fact is that Australians will have to pay more tax to pay for the coalition’s so-called ‘direct action plan’. This fact has been reinforced by the Treasury. I suppose we should not expect anything else from a man who thinks climate change is, in his own words, ‘absolute crap’, and even people on his own side of politics, such as Peter Costello, say that he cannot be trusted on economics.

A carbon price is a major economic reform that will create an incentive to reduce pollution and will drive investment in renewable energy and low-emission technologies. A carbon price will also provide certainty for business investment and ensure the long-term competitiveness of our economy.

I move now to electricity prices. The fact is that the lack of a carbon price is creating investment uncertainty in the energy sector, and this in itself will cause electricity prices to rise. That is because investment in new base-load electricity generation capacity will continue to be deferred, and the long-term cost will be higher. When I reflect back on those inquiries I remember a number of businesses making that very point—that inaction will cost our economy greatly. The managing director of TRUenergy, Richard McIndoe, spoke about what would happen if a carbon price is not set in place. He said:

If it’s not done in this government and if this uncertainty continues, not for two to three years, but four to five years, and nobody is building, then you will have power shortages and insufficient capacity.

There would be blackouts.

The CEO of BHP Billiton has made the point that each investment decision in the power generation sector will lock in carbon emissions for the coming 30 to 40 years. We therefore need to lock in low-emission technology now by introducing a carbon price. This is supported by analysis undertaken by AGL and the Climate Institute. They estimate that uncertainty caused by a delay in a carbon price could cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or around $60 per household in 2020. The simple fact is that the biggest risk to electricity prices is the Leader of the Opposition and his lack of leadership on this important issue.

I turn to household consumption. In contrast to the coalition a Labor government will always protect the interests of low-income earners when making this necessary and vital economic reform. In terms of the impact upon households, under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the average weekly impact of the carbon price forecast by Treasury was $12. In turn, the government had proposed a household assistance package that ensured that low-income households received assistance to fully offset the estimated impact of higher prices and middle-income households received a significant amount of assistance.

A Labor government will always provide compensation to offset these increases for low- and middle-income households. In contrast, the coalition has no policy to compensate or help low- and middle-income earners for the rising costs that will be caused by the coalition’s inaction on this issue. Also, our reforms in the area of energy efficiency can help households cope with any rise in costs. Quite small changes in household behaviour can reduce energy consumption and provide annual savings of over $1,200. These changes could include switching from incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent lights and switching off appliances at the power point.

The reality is that after the last election it is clear that no party has a majority and therefore we need to work to build consensus around major economic reforms. As announced by the Prime Minister, the government has established a multiparty climate change committee to explore options for the introduction of a carbon price. The committee will report to cabinet through the minister with a range of possible policy positions informed by discussions with independent experts, environment groups and industry. The committee will start from the position that a carbon price is an economic reform that is required to reduce carbon pollution, encourage investment in low-emission technologies and complement other measures, including renewable energy and energy efficiency. The committee will also play a role in establishing community consensus for action on climate change.

The point was made earlier that this is about trust. Using the words of the previous speaker, Australians ‘despise liars’. We should never, ever forget the position taken by the opposition leading up to the last election and, in particular, the comments made in the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply on paid parental leave. He had indicated earlier that he would never, ever introduce new taxes. In that light, I would like someone to explain to me this statement in his budget reply:

…the fairest way to have a paid parental leave scheme anytime soon is through a modest levy on companies’ taxable income over $5 million a year.

We all know what companies we are talking about; we are talking about the Coles and the Woolworths, where working families go and do their shopping. The only way that a big new tax on that business would be passed on to those consumers would be through their shopping carts. People walking the aisles, picking up their cans of Golden Circle pineapple and so on, would have to be compensated in some shape or form by the additional tax passed on to those big businesses through this big new tax that Tony Abbott intended to implement. That shows how people like Mr Abbott despise the public and is also a strong indication of how they are bound to tell lies just to get elected. (Time expired)