Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking on these 'clean energy' bills today, I commence with the stark contrast in the way Labor, as opposed to this government, is treating Australia's environment—a very stark contrast indeed. I want to put on record Labor's position on climate change, which, although it is well-known and will not come as a surprise to senators to hear, is that we accept, unlike many of those opposite—I will not say all—that the science surrounding climate change is compelling.

Let us just look at that basic issue for a moment. We accept the overwhelming view from the scientific community that climate change is happening. Over 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that we need to do something about it, and the very difficult situation the Senate is in at the moment, as Senator Wong just highlighted, is that we have no idea what that something is. Indeed, we are progressing with these bills now, ahead of the Senate inquiry into this vacant Direct Action policy. The point about climate science is lost as we have this debate in the Senate and the wider community. Many people, because of the scare campaign highlighted by Senator Wong and for other reasons, believe there is an equally divided position among the experts out there, and there is not.

Labor took action, while in government, to address climate change. We put together a suite of climate change policies specifically to address how we manage Australia's emissions. That is what this government is dismantling. We created the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which is doing a remarkable job in financing clean energy projects around the country. During estimates, we heard that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's projects would account for 50 per cent of the target of reducing emissions by five per cent by 2020—at no cost.

I note that the Climate Change Authority, headed by Bernie Fraser, a former governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, recently released the final version of its report, Reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, which recommended that Australia increase its commitment to emission reductions—from five per cent to 15 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020. This makes the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's role in tacking climate change more important than ever. The government needs to provide a formal response to the Climate Change Authority's recommendations by May. It should make for interesting reading—how they intend to reach the target set out by the authority given the policy vacuum that currently exists.

Speaking of the Climate Change Authority, the government wanted to abolish this important independent authority too. The authority provides independent advice on climate change policies and by speaking with stakeholders and undertaking extensive research. There has been a concerted effort in recent times to present alternative arguments on climate change and sell them in the media as credible by claiming them to be from a significant number of experts. But this could not be further from the truth. The Climate Change Authority's approach is evidence based and fact based. It does not play the politics of fear and it does not play the politics of opportunism. Instead, it looks at the scientific and economic evidence available in order to come to conclusions and it makes recommendations to government and the parliament accordingly.

It is funny how the Conservative government in the UK are more in tune with climate change than their sister party in Australia, the Liberal Party. UK Prime Minister David Cameron said about climate change:

… I’m not a scientist but it’s always seemed to me one of the strongest arguments about climate change is, even if you’re only 90 per cent certain or 80 per cent certain or 70 per cent certain, if I said to you ‘There’s a 60 per cent chance your house might burn down; do you want to take out some insurance?’ You take out some insurance.

Boy, do we need insurance! But Prime Minister David Cameron and Prime Minister Tony Abbott are decades apart in their views on climate change.

Just last month, we saw the head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, enter Australia's climate change debate. She said:

Australia was—

I stress 'was'—

very much at the forefront, Australia was pioneering in this field and I would hope that it continues to be a pioneer. I do think that climate change issues and progress in that regard are critical and are not just fantasies, they are real issues.

What is extraordinary about this statement is that it comes from the International Monetary Fund, not generally regarded as progressing fantasies or radical views, and indeed from its head, Christine Lagarde, who is known to be a conservative politician.

What we are seeing around the world is conservative governments and organisations looking at the available climate change science and seeing for themselves that to do nothing significant is no longer an option. I use the word 'significant' because there is a difference between paying lip-service to the environment and the health of our environment, as this coalition government has done, and actually implementing policies which change the behaviour of polluters in the long run.

Under Labor, Australia's wind power capacity tripled and more than a million households had solar panels installed. Do you know how many solar panels were installed under the Howard government? Less than 7,500. Over 24,000 people are now employed in the renewable energy sector. Labor more than doubled the size of the renewable energy industry from what it was at the end of the Howard government. Let us hope this does not go backwards—that these jobs do not follow the same path as jobs in some other major sectors. As I said, Labor more than doubled the size of the renewable energy industry, a great example of how Labor creates jobs and will fight for existing jobs. What we have so far seen from this government is a lack of willingness to even save the jobs we have, let alone look at creating new renewable energy sector jobs. There is no doubting that Labor takes climate change and wider environmental concerns extremely seriously.

Another point we should remember is that Australia is surrounded by low-lying islands. Pacific islands are at risk of being obliterated if we do not do something to save them. How neighbourly are we as a country if we send the message to these countries that we just do not care? The total amount of pollution Australia emits puts us in the top 20 and we are the largest per capita polluter in the developed world. We cannot let the rest of the world continue to pass us. China has already started emissions-trading schemes in regions covering 200 million people.

Major world monetary organisations, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD, have all stated their preference for a carbon-pricing system in countries around the world. We are not talking about radical left-wing organisations here. These are conservative organisations which organise the world's finances—and they have taken note that to do nothing is not an option.

That brings me to the vacuous Direct Action Plan of the current government. It can be described as a number of thought bubbles—from the Emissions Reduction Fund to the Green Army—which have been thrown together. The Emissions Reduction Fund is using taxpayers' money to pay Australian companies to reduce pollution. The problem is that independent research has shown that the Emissions Reduction Fund will increase emissions by eight per cent to 10 per cent above 2000 levels by 2020. I will repeat that: it will increase emissions by eight per cent to 10 per cent. Many reports confirm that it simply will not achieve the minimum targets for pollution reduction by 2020 and is likely to cost many billions of dollars more than Tony Abbott has said. The Direct Action Plan has failed to attract any support from credible climate scientists or economists. The Direct Action Plan is inefficient and unfair. Labor is right to defend the climate change policies we introduced while in government or, if these bills are to proceed, to ask for a viable alternative.

In recent times, the coalition's views on climate change have publicly surfaced. We saw former Prime Minister John Howard tell an audience in London that those who accept that climate change is real are a bunch of religious zealots, and that he will trust his instinct rather than trust climate scientists. We saw Prime Minister Tony Abbott accuse the United Nations climate chief of 'talking through her hat'. And we saw Greg Hunt contradict the UN's climate chief's views using Wikipedia as his source—queried, indeed, as plagiarism. Let us remember that in a level of hypocrisy not seen for a long while the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, said the following in 2009 about an emissions trading scheme:

Let's not forget it was the Opposition that first proposed an emissions trading scheme when we were in government. The idea that somehow the Liberal Party is opposed to an emissions trading scheme is quite frankly ludicrous.

'Ludicrous,' said Christopher. Well, who looks ludicrous now! Now, I do not mind people changing their positions on issues where there is good cause, but the member for Sturt was so firm about his views. I wonder if he even voted for Tony Abbott when he challenged Malcolm Turnbull for the leadership back in December 2009. Was the change in leadership the reason for his monumental backflip?

At the 2007 election, both major political parties committed to an emissions trading scheme. It was accepted that something needed to be done and that the environment would not be used as a political football. But, my, how times have changed! The consensus that Senator Wong was referring to has been trashed, and it has been trashed by many—not all, but many—of those opposite. The old analogy that prevention is better than cure is appropriate in this debate, I think. It will be cheaper in the long run to act now rather than later. The previous Labor government showed strong leadership by introducing climate change policies, and they were—and, indeed, are still—working. We will not rubber stamp this government, and we will hold them to account.

In concluding, I would like to foreshadow that, after Senator Di Natale's second reading amendment has been dealt with, I will move a second reading amendment to add to the end of the motion that the Senate calls on the government to recognise the scientific expert consensus regarding climate change and that the repeal of the carbon tax must be accompanied by the introduction of serious and comprehensive policies to address climate change.