Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. I do so not with a sense of joy or commitment to the bills in any way, shape or form but to put on the record my opposition to the bills. I do that very much because we know very clearly that climate change is no fairy tale. The scientific evidence has certainly been proven when it comes to climate change. That is why my Labor colleagues and I have been presenting the insurmountable evidence during debate over the last sitting weeks on that particular front. That is why I stand to contribute with some apprehension—apprehension for all Australians, for their homes and for their livelihoods, which are at risk because of the short-sightedness of the Abbott government and the strong political agenda of the Abbott government, to the detriment of important policy reform.

In playing politics, Australia's environmental future becomes a sacrificial lamb—and so has Australia's future as a global leader in the Asia-Pacific region when it comes to tackling climate change, pollution and its associated effects. The sacrifice that this government has undergone is obvious with the very words of the Prime Minister who, in a speech to Young Liberals on 30 January 2010, stated:

… even if dire predictions are right and average temperatures around the globe rise by four degrees over the century, it is still not the ‘great moral challenge’ of our time …

I still believe that it certainly is.

A four-degree rise would change Australia unrecognisably, with the Murray-Darling Basin beyond salvation, eastern Australia having 40 per cent more droughts, a fall in irrigated agriculture by 90 per cent in the nation's food bowl, the number of very hot days—that is, days over 35 degrees, as we have experienced markedly this summer—increasing dramatically, and the Great Barrier Reef and the billions of dollars of tourism that it relies on devastated.

Labor's approach to climate change has been unified, bringing together industry, top scientists and the community. The Labor policy provided unprecedented support for renewable energy through the renewable energy target—RET—the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. It also provided support for business to become more efficient and productive, including clean technology programs and the Jobs and Competitiveness Program. And it provided support to reduce land sector emissions through the Carbon Farming Initiative.

What has all of that policy work, that policy reform, from the last parliament achieved? It has achieved: the trebling of Australia's wind capacity; solar panels being installed in more than a million households, up from fewer than 7,500 under Howard; employment in the renewable energy industry more than doubling to over 24,000 people; around 150,000 jobs being created—in fact, the economy continues to grow at 2.5 per cent, as inflation remains low; and pollution in the National Electricity Market decreasing by seven per cent, an important outcome because it is the very notion behind putting a price on carbon—reducing pollution, which decreased in that short time alone by seven per cent. On top of that the renewable power generator, as a share of the National Electricity Market, increased by 25 per cent.

Labor has been and continues to be dedicated to achieving the best possible policy to tackle one of the key challenges of this century. By tackling climate change in the most cost-effective way we can support the environment industry in Australia continuing. That is why we support terminating a fixed price on carbon if it is replaced by a system that puts a legal cap on carbon pollution and lets business work out the cheapest and most efficient way to operate within that cap.

Our Prime Minister has introduced into the parliament a series of bills that will get rid of the legislated cap on carbon pollution and create a free-for-all for big polluters—an opportunity for big polluters to do as they please. In Australia we know that we pay for what we use—from electricity to water to our groceries—but under Prime Minister Abbott's policy the biggest users of electricity, polluting the most carbon, do not pay. I urge the Senate to retain the integrity of the clean energy policies, to retain the Climate Change Authority to ensure robust independent analysis and advice, and to stop the cuts to Australia's renewable energy research and development.

The last Labor government's policies, including the emissions trading scheme, the renewable energy target and the $10 billion of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will all be trashed under the Abbott government. Australia will have no chance of continuing the changes to reduce pollution and ensure that an environmentally effective, economically responsible and socially fair response to climate change is followed through. Nor will we become a leader in the region; in fact, we will fall behind the rest of the region as countries like China continue to go forward in addressing their own carbon emissions.

Australia has some of the world's best renewable energy resources, ranging from sunshine and wind power to geothermal energy to tidal power in the oceans surrounding our continent. And of course in my home state of Tasmania there is hydro-electricity. Australia needs to harness these resources to generate energy without polluting the atmosphere. It makes no sense not to do so, as it is a natural and ongoing resource that does not result in pollution.

In Labor's time in government, employment in the renewable energy industry more than doubled to over 24,000 people, wind capacity trebled to over 3,000 megawatts and over one million solar PV systems were installed, which was up from fewer than 7,500 under the Howard government. Renewable energy now powers the equivalent of 4,000 homes around Australia each year. Australia now has over 370 renewable power generators accredited under the renewable energy target policy. In 2012-13, with our clean energy future plan in place, renewable energy output in the National Electricity Market was up 25 per cent on the previous year. These are statistics, or at least outcomes, from good economic and social reform done by the last government, a Labor government, that had the insight to see the importance and the necessity of moving forward in the areas of environmental pollution and climate change, not because it was something we thought of ourselves but because it was something that came out of a lot of study across the globe going on at the UN level, the EU level and the OECD level, and we wanted to ensure that we were playing our part in addressing the importance of reducing pollution in our own country and contributing to combating climate change through some kind of scheme by which we could be part of a global scheme for reducing carbon pollution.

The outcomes that I speak of bore fruit. They show that the policies put in place by the last Labor government were of benefit not only to Australians as individuals—through the changes they made to their own homes, the renewable energy they were creating themselves and the changes within their own community—but also to businesses in the way that they operated and the way they actually wanted to become a cleaner player when it came to their own business operations.

ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, an independent agency, was funded to invest in projects that actually improved on the competiveness of renewable technologies and increased the supply of renewable energy in Australia. ARENA is currently supporting in Australia a range of innovative renewable energy technology projects, including bioenergy, geothermal, hydro, ocean and solar power.

All of this good work in renewable energy and in reducing carbon pollution will come to an end under the Abbott government's plan. A recent survey showed that 86 per cent of economists back an emissions trading scheme. They back it as the cheapest and most efficient way to tackle carbon pollution. Last week, former Treasury secretary Ken Henry called the government's policy a bizarre strategy that involves the government paying big polluters in a scheme that will cost more and will reduce productivity. What kind of coalition government wants to reduce productivity? As we have discovered in recent weeks, a number of industries already are going to be reducing their productivity. Surely this government under its watch does not want even more of a reduction in productivity, especially in an area that is doing so well. Renewable energy technologies are doing so well, not only as a new innovative form of industry but also in providing a benefit to the environment, to the community, to our children and to future generations.

Kirsten Rose, the CEO of the Sustainable Energy Association of Australia, stated:

… we and many of our members believe that ETS—that market mechanism—gives them choices and flexibility in a different way than a direct action plan, which is, effectively, bidding for money to support specific projects.

…   …   …

… our membership is wholly behind an emissions trading scheme and the policy certainty that would bring …

That shows that we need an emissions trading scheme. We need to listen to the 86 per cent of economists, to people in civil society, to people in our communities and to those businesses and entrepreneurs who are embarking on renewable energy innovation. We need to take heed of the scientific data, the global data, that shows we need to act and we need to recognise that the economists tell us that the ETS is the cheapest way of achieving the outcomes we desire for our nation.

On top of that, we must foster innovation in this country. We need to embed the carbon costs of doing business into the thinking of entrepreneurs and job creators—and we need to do it now. That has, in fact, been going on since Labor's policy has been in place. But we need to deepen our capacity to produce high-quality, low-emissions goods and services that we can sell to the world.

To me this is a no-brainer. This is something that makes perfect sense. Why would you not take action at a time when our climate is in such a state of flux, at a time where we are seeing more climate driven natural disasters, at a time when scientists are telling us that the future may be quite bleak unless we act on our contribution to carbon pollution? Why would you not want to do all that you can? Producing renewable energy is not only good for combating climate change; it is good for the environment and for us. It means that not only are we not taking nonrenewables from the earth but we are also instilling a new way of operating, a new way of thinking, among businesses, industry and individuals—making sure that the energy we create, where possible, is renewable.

That is exactly what the last Labor government's policies—the bills the repeal of which we are debating here this evening—were all about. They were about ensuring that we had the framework in place so that business, industry and individuals could change their behaviour for the better. The people that I talk to—I do not know exactly who the coalition talks to—embrace that idea. They are proud of having changed their behaviour.

I know that I come from a state that has a strong and proud reputation for being clean and green. It has a hydro-electric scheme. It has beautiful clean air that I always look forward to breathing as soon as I step off the plane upon coming home from Canberra. But I am sure that Tasmania is not some sort of anomaly. I am sure that the rest of Australia is of the same mind when it comes to wanting to breathe clean air and drink clean water. I am sure the rest of Australia also wants to ensure that it does not pollute—or at least pollutes as little as it possibly can. I am sure that the rest of Australia also wants to leave this country in a better state than, perhaps, our forebears did and wants to ensure that our children have a bright future. For our children's sake, if the world's climate is going to be in such a state of flux, we should be trying to reduce our impact upon it as much as possible.

So why would a new government want to come in and, simply because it was one of their slogans, sweep away all this good work? Why would they want to do that now that they are in government and know all the detail behind what the last government did? Why would they want to do that given the overwhelming research and evidence that has been provided showing how important it is to address climate change and showing that the way the Labor government approached it—an emissions trading scheme—was the most efficient and cost-effective way of doing it, that putting a price on carbon pollution was the best way to change the behaviour of the big polluters? Yes, the scheme had a fixed price, but that fixed price was only ever on 500 of the biggest polluters. It was not on individuals. It was never a carbon tax on individuals. That was a scare perpetrated by the then opposition, the coalition—but it was certainly not the case. The policy was designed to tax, or put a price on, the emissions of those big polluters in order to give them the incentive, the encouragement and the support to change the way they had been operating. And a number of them did.

Where those polluters passed the tax down the chain—through higher prices here and there—the government at the time compensated people, particularly low-income earners. It was a very good reform. I believe that, in generations to come, people will look back and think, 'Why did a new government come in and undo all of that important work aimed at protecting our future and our children's future?' The repeal of Labor's clean energy legislation is being done in the name of politics, in the name of a slogan, in the name of trying to get elected. It is not based on science, economics, decency or care for our environment or the people who live in it. I do not support any of these bills.