Mehmet Tillem (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Transitioning Australia's economy from one that is carbon intensive to one built around clean energy and the technologies and industries that stem from it is one of the important issues that we face today. Those opposite have dragged the debate and this issue down to a trivial level. Their ignorance and political expediency are rewarded at the expense of national interest. Those opposite claim a commitment to emissions reduction and creating a cleaner economy. Their policies to this end reveal a complete lack of regard for the future of this nation, which hinges so heavily on successfully transitioning Australia from its current status as the highest per capita polluter in the world to one of the lowest.

The environmental effects of climate change, the economic effects of climate change and the social effects of climate change are the issues I would like to speak about today. Direct action is the sort of policy that a government implements when it does not believe in having a policy at all. It has been said that it is a fig leaf being used to cover its philosophical rejection of climate change and is a shameful expedient on this issue. It is the sort of policy motivated by scepticism of climate science—motivated by sentiments such as those possessed by Mr John Howard, who described those who believe in climate change as a bunch of 'religious zealots'. He said that he believed in his instincts rather than the more accurate and immense body of work that has been done by our scientists. Sad though it is, even I had to laugh when I heard coalition members talking about how such climate scientists were 'junior', as though the body of evidence relating to climate change meant nothing. A recent study of peer reviewed papers has found that only one out of 9,136 of these reject global warming. When you cannot play the ball, you play the man.

Indeed, how the coalition can argue with a straight face that their direct action policy will deliver the same level of emissions reduction promised by Labor at a lower cost to the economy is beyond me and, I think, beyond most people and other senators in this chamber. What has come home to roost is that the slogans used during the election campaign are bereft of any policy substance. We have even had an announcement of an army—which I can only presume will be led by the coalition's own Sergeant Schultz, 'I know nothing' Hunt. The coalition wish to implement this scheme while at the same time slashing the level of advice they are able to receive about the issue by abolishing both the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. How can the coalition credibly argue that they will be able to pick and choose winners and effectively fund clean energy and carbon abatement schemes when they are planning to abolish the institutions which could possibly provide advice about both which schemes to fund and how to fund them?

Let us be clear about the coalition's policies. They are more extreme on an economic level than those of postwar Europe and even the heady days of the eighties. At best the policy will have no positive effect. Direct action is a policy that will waste money. It is a policy that is vulnerable to rorting and the creation of vast trails of money that lead nowhere. Indeed, it is ironic that the coalition, who pontificate in this house about the virtues of fiscal prudence and frugality, are set to create a scheme which almost appears designed to waste taxpayers' money. They have promised to set aside vast sums of money to set up what they call an Emissions Reduction Fund, which, in their own words, will 'allocate money in response to emission reduction tenders to projects designed to reduce carbon emissions'. I am not sure what process will be used to evaluate these tenders. What expertise will the government call upon to rigorously evaluate the validity and veracity of these tenders? I presume the minister will not be personally sifting through a stack of funding requests one by one.

This government inherited a wealth of expertise that was built around the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, organisations the government had at its disposal to provide frank, realistic and evidence based advice in relation to climate change and the types of investment that can be made to aid its abatement and transition our economy. The implementation of their advice regarding investment in carbon abatement and clean energy research in industry was enabled through funds raised from carbon pricing. Both of these organisations have been dynamited. We have a government that has jettisoned all useful advice and all real funding for clean energy investment yet still purports to want to make these investments. This time around, the taxpayer is going to directly foot the bill for the coalition's direct action policy, which is going to be implemented on a wing and a prayer, without adequate advice or resources to efficiently administer such a policy.

However, perhaps the greatest indictment of the coalition's proposed substitute for a comprehensive carbon pricing scheme is that it will fail to deliver on the environmental outcomes it promises to. We are the highest per-capita emitter in the world. We have experienced our own fair share of extreme weather events in recent times, a tangible testament to the increasing evidence of climate change. From an environmental perspective, we stand to lose much from the adverse effects of climate change. It is for these reasons that it is incumbent on us both to act on climate change and to be global leaders.

In my home state of Victoria, bushfires have been more and more severe and have been made so by unprecedented heatwaves. In other states we have endured storms and floods caused by cyclonic activity that has been unprecedented in its frequency. We have seen firsthand both human and economic devastation caused by extreme weather events. We know that these events are becoming more and more frequent, to the extent that they have almost become normalised. Yet it is important that we remember that these types of climatic patterns are not the norm. They are historically anomalous, and the evidence points to a greater trend in the earth's climate. Frighteningly, we are gathering pace towards a critical mass where abatement attempts will become futile. In other words, the damage will already have been done and will be permanent. The damage has the potential to vastly reduce our ability to export food to the world, crippling our agricultural sector, and could even possibly jeopardise our own food security. Rising sea levels will affect salinity levels in our soil, reducing its fertility, while other changes in weather patterns have the potential to stunt crops through drought and severely raise the cost of raising livestock.

These are but a few of the key reasons why the coalition's position on this issue is so damning. Time is quite literally of the essence when it comes to mitigating the effects of climate change, yet the urgency of mitigating climate change is not realised purely from the extreme weather events. We see climate change all too often in the effect it is having on the natural wonders that we have so enjoyed and, hopefully, will continue to enjoy.

The Great Barrier Reef outlook report conducted in 2009 found that climate change will increase ocean acidity levels, increase the sea's temperature and cause a rise in sea levels. Each of these effects has the potential to irreparably damage the Great Barrier Reef by disrupting its delicately balanced ecosystem. Changes in sea levels will affect the balance between salt and fresh water in our estuaries. This will unavoidably impact on our native flora and fauna. Considering all of this, how is it the government can sit idly by while our own natural wonders are trashed by the effects of climate change?

Those in this place who do not believe that we are doing damage to our planet might be long gone when the generations that follow look back and ask why we did nothing. To those opposite: what would you say to them when this question is asked of you? I would suggest that your Direct Action policy will not be anywhere near enough to satisfy such a question. Obviously, we can sit here and list the terrible environmental consequences of climate change not only for Australia but also for the rest of the world. It is also vital that we consider the economic implications of climate change and the economic opportunities heralded by a restructuring of our economy to one centred on a clean economy necessary to abate climate change.

Under this government Australia is to be left behind the rest of the world when it comes to reducing emissions and restructuring our economy. The effects of climate change are real and caused by humans. The end consequences of the climate's current trajectory are inevitable. What does this tell us? It tells us that, whether we like it or not, sooner or later we as a nation will be forced to confront climate change and the emissions intensity of our economy just as every other nation around the globe will inevitably have to do. This should serve as a warning and an opportunity for this country. Either we can act now and position ourselves to take advantage of the economic change which will ultimately occur globally or we can wait behind and have this change foisted on us with dreadful economic consequences.

It is not in our national interest to shrink away from this challenge. Others around the world are moving on this issue. China, as we are aware, is a rising global power whose industrialisation is gathering pace year after year. China, though a heavy polluter, is also a heavy investor in clean energy research. It has invested $60 billion in the last financial year alone. China has also implemented emissions trading schemes in several of its provinces whose combined populations equate to 10 times our own. The Chinese have immediate environmental concerns with the negative effects of heavy pollution on population health abundantly clear to all of us.

But China would also see the restructuring of the global economy to one founded on clean energy and low emissions as a massive opportunity for their already resurgent economy. The Chinese seem to understand that there is money to be made and jobs to be created from clean energy research and the industries that stem from it. It is this opportunity that the coalition government ignorantly and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, and they fail to act time and time again.

Other nations are also acting on climate change or at the very least beginning to act. The European Union has established an emissions trading scheme. Though those opposite like to criticise the scheme, the fact remains that the EU has already laid a key foundation stone upon which a clean energy economy can be built into the future. South Korea and New Zealand have established emissions trading schemes, as have several states within the US whose populations far outstrip our own. Add to this that the US and the EU are the second- and third-highest investors in clean energy research and technology around the world.

It is those nations that are investing that, when the crunch comes to act universally and address the drastic effects of climate change, will be at the forefront, and it is those nations that will benefit. Conversely, it will be nations such as ours, which at critical moments have been led by timid and intellectually bereft governments such as the one we currently have in this country, that in economic terms will be severely affected by the changes that will inevitably occur on a global scale. It is much better to shape our own economic destiny as much as we can than to have it foisted upon us when we are in a state of unpreparedness.

In a time when we are seeing more and more of our traditional industrial bases disappear, it is clear that it makes economic sense to foster a new wave of Australian entrepreneurialism revolving around clean energy research and industry. This is where the jobs of the future are likely to be found. It is important to remember that this is where the benefits of acting now on climate change can clearly be seen. These job opportunities most likely will not be there in five let alone 10 or 20 years time.

Finally, I would like to discuss the social impact of climate change as a way of explaining why genuine and substantive action is required now to abate its effects. Climate change is a phenomenon that will affect those most vulnerable the hardest. Any price impacts resulting from food scarcity caused by climate change will be felt the most by those who can least afford it.

Added to this are the various public health implications of climate change. Changes to our climate have the potential to increase the rates of infectious diseases, waterborne diseases, food borne diseases, vector borne diseases and respiratory illnesses. Such public health problems will inevitably affect the most vulnerable in our community. This is without mentioning the added cost that will be faced by our health system as it is forced to deal with increasing rates of these types of infections, often in remote parts of Australia. It is on this basis that climate change and its abatement are inextricably a moral issue, and not just within an Australian context.

Internationally it is worth looking at countries such as Bangladesh, which has a population of over 150 million, over 30 million of whom live below the nation's poverty line. Bangladesh is also a low-lying country. As we know, climate change will have the effect of raising the earth's sea levels. When many people think about rising sea levels they think about land becoming submerged. This is obviously a consequence of this phenomenon. In Bangladesh's case, however, rising sea levels will have the effect of raising the water table, which for low-lying countries such as theirs could be potentially catastrophic. Alteration to the water table could render vast tracts of arable land in Bangladesh infertile by raising salinity levels. For a country where starvation is tragically prolific, such a turn of events would be utterly devastating. We can only imagine the millions more in Bangladesh who would be pushed below the poverty line because of climate change's adverse effects.

We might say that Australia is small and that any of our efforts to abate climate change will be futile. To this I would say that, for every country such as ours that finally acts on climate change, it potentially makes the next country a bit more willing to do the same. This is without acknowledging the massive economic opportunities available to us if we act now.

To conclude, it is with sadness that this parliament has had to witness the government's legacy of climate change denial printed in the words of these repeal bills currently before the Senate. Spelt out in these pages is the way in which the Australian government is going to deny Australians an economic opportunity while at the same time leaving us completely vulnerable to the economic upheaval climate change will herald. These bills are the permanent testament to how this government has failed to address the pressing environmental impact climate change is having on our own land right here in Australia. They are also testament to the social problems that this government will permit in the future. We had in place a blueprint to transition this economy, preserve our environmental heritage and shield our most vulnerable from disaster. It has been ripped out, and in its place is a policy that is not worth the paper it is printed on.