Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

That was an outstanding contribution from my colleague Senator Sterle to the debate on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and associated bills.

Today I rise as a senator from South Australia and, as such, I represent a state already bearing the brunt of climate change. South Australia's heatwaves this past summer made national and international headlines. In January, Adelaide experienced five days in a row with temperatures above 42 degrees Celsius. During that particular heatwave the mercury peaked at 45.1 degrees, just over 113 degrees on the old Fahrenheit scale.

Climatic conditions such as temperature are subject to natural variability. But beneath the natural variability there has clearly been a rising incidence of heatwaves in my home state. Between 1950 and 1980 Adelaide recorded an average of five days a year with heatwave conditions. By contrast, between 1981 and 2011, the number of heatwave days, on average, rose to nine days a year. That is almost double the number in the previous three decades.

There are those who argue that extreme weather like this is all due to normal variations in weather conditions. It is not. It is part of—

Senator Back interjecting—

I will take the interjection from Senator Back—yes, it is. He knows more than all the scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. Scientists around the world should bow at the feet of Senator Back, because he knows better! That is the problem with the government. They simply want to disregard the scientific findings, the findings of fact by good scientists, who have no political barrow to push but who want politicians to make the right decisions based on scientific facts.

There are those, like those opposite, who argue that extreme weather is all due to normal variations in weather conditions and part of a trend which cannot be explained by natural variability. I refer to the State of the climate 2014 report, produced by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, released earlier this month:

Air and ocean temperatures across Australia are now, on average, almost a degree … warmer than they were in 1910, with most of the warming occurring since 1950. This warming has seen Australia experiencing more warm weather and extreme heat, and fewer cool extremes. There has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and a longer fire season, across large parts of Australia.

I have also heard some of those opposite suggest that the extreme cold weather experienced in this year's northern winter shows that climate change is not occurring. On the one hand, they argue that it is all natural variability and then, on the other hand, they try to argue that natural variability itself demonstrates something different to the long-term trend. The reality is this: scientists tell us that in recent decades near-record high temperatures have been occurring twice as often as near-record lows.

New records will be set for cold weather and will continue to be set. We will still have cold weather, but the trend of global warming will make record high temperatures increasingly common and record low temperatures increasingly rare. Of course, what is glossed over in all of this is the cost—the cost to our community, economy, health and us personally. People in South Australia are already being adversely affected by climate change and, if this challenge is not tackled, these impacts will become more severe. In particular, vulnerable elderly people will face health risks from heatwaves; farmers will experience declining rainfall and more frequent droughts; our wine industry will face more challenging conditions for grape growing; and of course the state's water supply infrastructure will come under great pressure.

Like all parents—and, I hope, all of us in this place— I think we should try to leave this world a better place for future generations. What is so upsetting about the approach taken by those opposite is that they are determined to ensure that our children and our grandchildren be the ones who will bear the consequences of climate change, because it is future generations who will bear the consequences of our decisions. The scientific evidence is clear: the world is on a path which will see substantial increases in temperatures by the middle of this century. Those higher temperatures will have significant environmental, economic, social and human impacts. To reduce these risks, the world needs to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere from activities such as burning coal, oil and gas; industrial processes; and deforestation. It is a big challenge. But it is not a challenge which can continue to be kicked down the road for someone else to deal with.

This is an issue of fairness across generations. Interestingly, those opposite want to talk about intergenerational equity when it comes to public finance and national debt. Instead of invoking intergenerational equity to justify cuts for those who can least afford it, perhaps they should instead recognise that time is running out for tackling climate change for future generations. If we continue to refuse to take action what we will bequeath to our children is a world of rising temperatures; higher sea levels; acidified oceans; salinity and land degradation; and more frequent extreme weather events.

Our nation faces acute risks, including the loss of natural icons, such as the Great Barrier Reef; inundation of coastal property and infrastructure; and curtailment of agricultural production. It is not too late to manage these risks, but it requires urgent global action.

Governments around the world have set the goal of limiting the average global temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The science indicates that stabilising the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million gives us about a fifty-fifty chance of achieving that goal. To achieve just that requires substantial change across all countries, especially economies such as ours which rely heavily on burning fossil fuels to generate energy.

Those opposite will often argue that Australia cannot make a difference. It is a strange position for them to take because, in fact, the coalition have accepted the bipartisan target of reducing Australia's emissions by at least five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. Australia is not going it alone in reducing emissions, and to say otherwise is a lie and should be called as such. Australia is one of 99 countries covering over 80 per cent of global emissions which have made formal pledges to the United Nations to reduce carbon pollution. We are also one of the largest per capita polluters in the world and one of the world's top 20 polluters in absolute terms. Our actions are globally significant and are watched closely by others. Free-riding is not an option.

The Abbott government's backtracking on climate change has been highlighted by the GLOBE Climate Legislation Study released in February—a study of 66 countries across the globe, including major emitters like the United States, the European Union, China, India and Brazil—and it found that we are the only country taking negative legislative action in climate policy. We need to play our part. We are a responsible global citizen. We are one of the world's largest emitters and we need to participate in the response.

As a member of the Labor Party, I am proud to have served in both the Rudd and Gillard governments, which acted on climate change. We are a party which has consistently placed long-term national interest ahead of short-term political interest on this difficult issue. In 1988, our commitment to tackle climate change was first included in our party platform. It was the Keating Labor government that ratified the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, and it was the Rudd Labor government that ratified the Kyoto protocol in 2007. It was Labor which introduced legislation for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—legislation blocked in this chamber by an unfortunate alliance between the coalition and the Greens. It was Labor which adopted an enhanced renewable energy target to ensure 20 per cent of Australia's energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. It was Labor which introduced a carbon price into the Australian economy from 1 July 2012, together with important other measures, to drive the transformation of our economy.

The fact is that a carbon price is the most environmentally effective and most economically efficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It harnesses the power of market forces to ensure emissions are reduced at the lowest cost to our economy, the lowest cost to taxpayers and the lowest cost to Australian consumers. That is why carbon pricing is supported by so many, the vast majority of economists and by every living former Liberal Party leader—whether by Malcolm Fraser; by John Hewson; by John Howard; even at one point by the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, before he performed a disgraceful about-face on the issue; and of course by Mr Turnbull.

The carbon price has been in place for more than 18 months and it has had none of the dire consequences that the Prime Minister predicted in his deceitful scare campaign. Who can forget Senator Barnaby Joyce telling everybody in this nation that they would have $100 roasts? Who can forget the Prime Minister suggesting that Whyalla would be wiped off the map? None of this has come to pass. These were all lies told by those opposite in an attempt to drum up a fear campaign and a scare campaign.

The carbon price is working to reduce emissions. Emissions from our national electricity market fell by almost 12 million tonnes in the first year of carbon pricing and are continuing to fall. Emissions from electricity generation are continuing to fall. Households and businesses are using electricity more efficiently, and the electricity being supplied from the national grid is cleaner, with a larger share coming from natural gas, hydro-electricity and wind power. The carbon price, the RET, and the clean energy reforms are working to drive investment. We have seen wind power capacity treble and more than a million households have installed solar panels. As I have spoken about previously, we have seen the work of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation leveraging some $2.2 billion worth of investment in the clean energy sector.

We oppose these bills because they take a major step backwards on climate change. They are a message to the future saying, 'Too bad, it's your problem now and we don't care.' The bills will scrap important reforms which were working to reduce our emissions and transform our economy. Can I say this: politics at its best is a noble calling, but I believe these bills are the example of the worst of politics. They are the end point in a sorry story of cynical opportunism and irresponsible extremism.

It is worth recalling that in 2006 there was bipartisan support in this country for putting a price on carbon. There was support from both Labor and coalition for an emissions trading scheme as the cheapest, most efficient, most effective way of reducing our pollution. Eight years on and look where we are. We have a coalition government which has executed a backflip on its support for carbon pricing. We have a government which is ignoring advice—in fact, dismissing advice—from scientists, misleading the public, rejecting market mechanisms and embracing economic irrationalism. During the debate on these bills, we have heard those on the government benches attack Labor for introducing carbon pricing. What they have never explained is how it is they went to an election in 2007 promising to introduce it. When I served as minister for climate change in the Rudd government, I sought agreement on the CPRS, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, from the then opposition. I did so because I believed that such an important and long-term, whole-of-economy reform should have bipartisan support, and that should have been achievable, given the Liberal Party went into the 2007 election promising an emissions trading scheme.

I pay tribute to the then opposition leader, Mr Turnbull, because he played a constructive role. We negotiated sensible compromises which secured bipartisan support for the scheme. But then came the 'wrecker from Warringah'. Mr Abbott supported carbon pricing as a member of the Howard government. All through 2009 he supported Mr Turnbull's efforts to reach agreement on the CPRS. In November 2009 he said, 'You can't have a climate change policy without supporting this emissions trading scheme at this time.' But just four days later, he dumped his support for carbon pricing in return for the backing of the Liberal Party's hard Right to take over as Liberal leader. If there were an Australian Tea Party, the hardliners which took down Mr Turnbull over climate change would be its leading figures—and many of them are in this chamber. Mr Abbott's acolytes claim he is a conviction politician. Well, he is such a man of conviction that the instant he saw the opportunity to take power he performed an about-face on carbon pricing, not for any reason of principle, not for any reason of policy, not for any reason—