Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in opposition to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills in front of us. Before I do; I have listened intently to a number of speeches, but I reckon Senator Furner made that bit up about Dr Jensen from WA wanting to shoot shadecloth out into the atmosphere! Anyway, it got our attention. But then again, knowing Dr Jensen, anything is possible!

I just think I am simply at a loss to understand as to why on that side there is absolutely no consensus on the science behind climate change and a path forward for the future of our environment and our planet. Each speech that has been given by an opposition senator has quoted fact, has used scientific commentary and opinion, and has made reference to raw data that has been produced to show how much impact organisations like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation have had on the environment and the economy. I think that is great.

I am sure that government senators have been listening to what we on this side have been saying. Despite this and despite the information that many of us have used—which is readily available to them, as they only have to click on the internet—the coalition blatantly refuses to acknowledge, or even try to understand—or pretend to understand—that the systems that we put in place in government help the environment. They are working. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is in the black. It is on track to cover all of its operational costs and it is reducing emissions by co-investing with businesses and industry groups to harness the use of renewable technologies, all while making a significant return to the government.

Now, the coalition and Mr Abbott talk about how they have a plan for direct action. Well, guys, I do not think you can could have action much more direct than this if you tried. This is the problem that we now have with this government. We have an organisation that is not only achieving great results for the renewable energy community but is also putting Australia in a strong position for a low-carbon world. What did the government want to do? They wanted to get rid of it. We ask, 'Why?' It is because they refuse to acknowledge that climate change exists and they refuse to see that the CEFC is achieving results that mitigate the effects of climate change through investing in renewable energy technology.

There is one government senator, however, who has seen the light. After the Senate committee hearing where the chair of the CEFC—Ms Broadbent—appealed to the government to keep the CEFC, Senator Sinodinos said that he was, and I quote:

…happy to go through the CEFC's annual report and have another look.

That was recorded in the Sydney Morning Heraldon 5 December 2013. Why would this be? It would not perhaps be because Senator Sinodinos has acknowledged that it would be in the country's best interest to keep the CEFC, would it? Rather than denying truth and fact like the coalition normally does when it comes to all things climate change, has Senator Sinodinos acknowledged that it would cause more harm than good to abolish the CEFC?

Senator Sinodinos' admission is a clear indicator that proves he did not know enough about the CEFC to make a legitimate comment on the matter. This highlights, unfortunately, the sheer arrogance of the coalition, in that they will stand and vote against something that they have not even made the effort of trying to understand. At the end of the day, they will completely ignore industry advice, science advice and opinion, and raw data on the environment to suit their own ideological goals.

Mr Abbott, just because you choose to remove a price on carbon and try to axe organisations like the CEFC and the Climate Change Authority does not mean that the issues of global warming and climate change are going to go away. The Illawarra Mercury reported on 30 October that the belief of hundreds of scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been reaffirmed, and that they are confident that greenhouse gas emissions have the potential to be extremely damaging and long-lasting. Yet under Prime Minister Abbott, Australia will become the first country to repeal legislation that requires big business to pay for the pollution that they emit. As Australians we should be ashamed of the behaviour of our representatives in government. They have taken Australia from being a leading global innovator in emissions trading to being an international pariah. Mr Abbott will be known as the Prime Minister who denied the science—and in doing so, he is at risk of denying our children, and their children, a safe and secure future. This is the legacy that he will leave behind for future generations; unfortunately, it will be for them to clean up.

I have quite enjoyed listening to some of the government senators during this debate. First up, I would like to make mention of the contribution to this debate—

Senator Mason interjecting—

No; there is a hook in the tail—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I was waiting for someone to pop up: congratulations, Senator Mason! No, I was in fact talking about Senator Abetz.

Senator Abetz could not understand why we wanted to separate the bills. My response to Senator Abetz would be: it is so that we could debate the need to keep important organisations like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority. If the government had its way, legislation would be rammed through the Senate without considering or debating the costs of abolishing the organisations established by the original legislation, namely the CEFC and the Climate Change Authority. This was deliberate on the government's part. They did not want the Australian people to know that the abolition of this tax will also mean the unnecessary removal of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority.

Senator Abetz went on to say that if we get rid of the carbon tax then there is no need for the Climate Change Authority. Now that is a stupid thing to say; to think that just because you get rid of the carbon tax, the advice provided by the Climate Change Authority—especially on emissions targets and carbon budgets—will not be needed. It says a lot about the coalition's commitment to the future of our environment. To say that Senator Abetz was misleading during his contribution would be an understatement. He said, 'The principal role of the authority is to provide advice concerning the ongoing operation of the carbon tax.' That was recorded in the Senate Hansard of Monday 2 December. Therefore, he suggests, if the tax goes, so should the Climate Change Authority. Senator Abetz obviously shares Mr Abbott's belief that once they—that mob over there—get rid of the carbon tax, the issues of global warming and climate change will just go with it. I think that those on that side are in for a very rude awakening. If Senator Abetz was honest with the Australian people, he would tell them that the Climate Change Authority does more than just advise on carbon pricing. According to its website, the Climate Change Authority is responsible for much, much more, including: reporting on and providing advice on Australia's emissions, reduction targets, carbon budgets and progress towards meeting Australia's medium- and long-term emissions reduction targets; the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System; the Carbon Farming Initiative; and the Renewable Energy Target. If the authority is abolished, where does the government expect to get this advice from? Well, I suppose if Wikipedia has worked for them in the past, it will work them in the future!

Senator Macdonald—another senator from the government side—actually gave me a bit of a laugh during his contribution—and it was not a funny laugh; it was a pretty sad laugh—when he likened the whole climate change debate to the Y2K phenomenon. For someone who has said that he believes that the climate is changing—and thank you for that revelation, Senator Macdonald—to then label this whole debate on the environment as being similar to the hysteria caused by the theory that a global computer crash would lead to the end of the world is childish, immature and completely counterproductive; his words, not mine. I had to scratch my head at several intervals during Senator Macdonald's speech, all the more so when he said this:

I have always said the climate is changing. Clearly it is. Australia used to be covered in ice once. The centre of Australia used to be a rainforest. Clearly the climate is changing. Is it man's emissions that have done it? I do not know; I am not a scientist. But I say again that there are a great number of reputable scientists who doubt it. I acknowledge there are a great number of reputable scientists who are absolutely passionate about the argument, but I might say I am not convinced. But I do accept the climate is changing.

That was recorded in the Senate Hansard of Monday, 9 December 2013. So what does that mean? Senator Macdonald believes that the climate is changing. He chooses to listen to the great number of scientists who doubt that climate change is man-made, but he acknowledges that there is an equally large number of scientists who believe that it is man-made. How hard is it to make the connection? Maybe I can make it easier for the senator: if we look at scientific papers published between 1991 and 2001, no less than 97 per cent of them argued that humans contribute to global warming. If that is not conclusive evidence, I do not know what is. He also admits that he is not a scientist. Well hello, Captain Obvious. This is why we on this side of the House listen to the science. That is why we do not listen to people like Senator Macdonald. As none of those opposite are scientists, and as none of them accept the science, how can they have a legitimate opinion on the science behind climate change? In stark contrast to the government, we listen to the people who have spent years studying the climate and the science behind how it works, so that our policies relating to the environment are the absolute best that they can be.

Senator Macdonald then goes on to say that no-one has ever explained to him why Australia should lead the way when it comes to cutting emissions. Senator Macdonald must not have been listening to his former colleague and Prime Minister, Mr Howard, when before the 2007 election at the National Press Club, he had this to say:

Being among the first movers on carbon trading in this region will bring new opportunities and we intend to grasp them. The Government will examine how to ensure that Australia becomes a carbon trading hub in the Asia-Pacific region. Of course, an emissions trading scheme is only one part of a comprehensive long-term climate change policy framework. Low-carbon technologies remain the key to an effective response that minimises the costs of limiting emissions.

That was Mr John Howard and it was an address at National Press Club on 17 July 2007.

We obviously found out later that Mr Howard had no belief in climate change whatsoever and only acted on this because he believed that it was in the best interests of getting himself re-elected. Similarly to Mr Howard, the Labor government recognised that we needed to act on climate change and, in doing so, could open ourselves to overseas engagement, especially with regard to exchanges in the renewable energy sector. Just because the senator and the majority of the coalition think that no-one else is, or was, doing anything towards climate change does not mean that we should sit back on our backsides and wait for it all to blow over—which is how the coalition would have it.

On the contrary, while we are abandoning our emissions reductions efforts, our partners in the region, namely, the United States and China, are increasing their efforts to cut their emissions. This month, the OECD released a report confirming that countries could achieve higher levels of emissions reductions at much lower cost if they relied on an emissions trading scheme. Emissions trading schemes are already being adopted in many countries around the world, including the UK, France, Germany, South Korea, Canada and, of course, parts of the US and China. This discounts Senator Macdonald's comments about Australia going at climate change alone and, if anything, the removal of a price on carbon without having an emissions trading scheme, that Australia not acting on climate change will make a difference on a global scale.

When he was Prime Minister, John Howard outlined as Liberal Party policy that he wanted Australia to be seen as instrumental in creating and participating in a carbon-trading hub in the Asia Pacific to work together as a region to reduce carbon emissions. Now we have a Prime Minister who is reducing our efforts completely by shutting down organisations that are making positive differences to our economy and, most importantly, to our environment. The government is making a mockery of the Australian people here. The coalition does not care. They think they can say anything in this debate and about climate change and that it will go unnoticed. They think that giving grants to businesses who sign up to their emissions reduction fund to encourage the use of renewable technology and the planting of trees at the cost of the CEFC will meet the emissions reduction target of five per cent by 2020. The government is yet to provide any information on what assistance will be provided to those businesses and industry groups who have gone into co-financing relationships with the CEFC. What will happen to these workers, their families and their projects once these measures have been removed? The government is going to make the people of Australia wait until the end of the year before they release their green paper on their policy.

Now I never thought that I would quote Senator Bernardi, but—and I must apologise—I am going to quote Senator Bernardi. I came across a paper that he wrote in April of 2007, titled 'Cool Heads Needed on Climate Change'. Despite the fact that he is openly a climate change denier, he had some pretty interesting things to say which I think should be included in the debate. He said:

The public needs to know where the propaganda ends and the reality begins.

Senator Bernardi's paper, 'Cool Heads Needed on Climate Change', 20 April 2007.

I would suggest that Senator Bernardi and the coalition take a leaf out of his book. The Australian people deserve more than the spin and the scare tactics from the government on this issue and, more importantly, they should be informed of the reality of the government's environmental policy platform and how it will affect them. He continues:

In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse.

So one minute the coalition do not believe in the science behind climate change, then we see that Senator Bernardi more or less labels the science that we on this side have accepted as not authentic. From this statement we clearly see that the coalition know that there is science there, but they choose to ignore it. He said that a public which does not know about the information and the science behind climate change is vulnerable to abuse. By not accepting the science and trying to shut down organisations that provide people with information about combatting climate change, the coalition is doing exactly that to the public, which he warned against.

The coalition would much rather no-one be informed about the issues which stem from not acting on climate change in the hope that if no-one talks about it, perhaps the issue will go away. The only thing that we do know for sure is that rather than listening to scientists, economists and leading business people about the importance of carbon pricing, that mob over there choose to develop a plan that would see an area the size of Tasmania planted with trees—hello, that was good timing, Senator Urquhart from Tasmania! That is their idea of direct action.

And of course we cannot let the actions of those concrete gnomes in the rockery over there, the Greens, go unnoticed in this whole debate. They carry the issue of climate change and global warming like it is their Holy Grail—like they are the only ones who can handle it or shape its path. If they really, truly, honestly believed that, they would have backed us in the debate about the emissions trading scheme in 2009 and not sided with their mates on the other side in trying to outdo each other for the political headline. That is exactly what they did. They can thank themselves for the position that we now find ourselves in. It is all well and good for the Greens to get up and talk about how much time has been wasted on these debates, but they are as guilty as anyone. In conclusion, Mr Acting Deputy President, I think that you can take it that there is no way that I will be supporting this bill or the related bills.