Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night before we adjourned I was talking about the impact of the mining boom in Western Australia and the fact that it has not produced the sustainable economic growth that some people like to make out it has produced and the fact that in Western Australia we need to diversify. If we grasped the opportunity to develop new green-collar jobs based on sustainable industries such as renewable energies, we would be doing a great deal not only to address the issues around climate change but also to address sustainable economic development and a truly sustainable future for Western Australia—a future that does not then put at risk our biodiversity, our water resources, our fishing resources, our health or places such as Ningaloo that are desperately threatened by climate change.

I am desperately disappointed that people are not grasping this opportunity to develop a sustainable green economy in Western Australia, because they are doing the state a disservice. They are not looking to the future. They are not looking to help those in Western Australia who have missed out from the mining boom. As I articulated in my speech last night, it has not produced a sustainable and prosperous future for all Western Australians. There are significant numbers of Western Australians who have missed out, who have not been able to buy a house because prices have risen so high and who have not shared the increase in wages that those in the mining industry have gained from. Instead of looking to a new, sustainable green future, what is our West Australian government doing? It is investing even more money in clean coal in Collie.

The people in Collie know that they need to be looking to a future that involves renewable energies. Our state government do not recognise that. Unfortunately, they do not have the wit or the wisdom to realise just what we could do with $16 billion invested in a truly renewable, sustainable industry, instead of investing $16 billion in old industry. That is where we need to focus our efforts. We are supporting and subsidising the old fossil fuel industries that have contributed significantly to climate change. We are investing in old technology in the belief that somehow that may change the polluting practices of these industries, when of course it will not.

A significant interest that I hold dearly, not only as a West Australian but also as the portfolio holder on community services, is climate justice and looking at how responding to climate change gives us an opportunity to transform our economy so that it delivers for those people in the community who have continually missed out from the benefits of the mining boom and have not seen benefits delivered to create a sustainable future for them. We believe that if we take a measured and proper approach to addressing climate change then we can create sustainable, job-creating industries, such as renewable energy, that will deliver green jobs and sustainable jobs into the future and that will help those who have missed out from the benefits of the boom. We can create new jobs and new employment opportunities for the whole of our community. We also need to be—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish someone would tell me what these new jobs are—put a name on them.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, last night I did not interrupt you; I sat and listened. I disagreed with you but I did not interrupt you. You can do me the same courtesy, thank you.

Unfortunately, we are not grasping the opportunity that has been put forward through, for example, the EASI scheme, the Energy Efficiency Access and Savings Initiative, which Senator Milne has been proposing for many years. It shows what we can do if we invest significantly in alternative schemes that look at how to make our homes more energy efficient, particularly homes in low-income areas and rental homes where people cannot afford to put energy efficiency measures in place. This makes sense not only from a social justice perspective but also from an economic perspective because the community and home owners invest and they see an economic return. Those sorts of issues just have not been factored into decision making. That is just one scheme that we could put in place.

We could be farming solar energy. We could be farming renewable energies. That not only contributes to a sustainable future in terms of energy production but also helps make our farming systems more sustainable. Unfortunately, as I was touching on in my speech last night, agriculture faces great threats from climate change as agricultural lands in some instances become more marginal. We need to look at alternative crops and we need to look at alternative sources of energy. If we can farm solar energy and renewable energy at the same time then not only does that benefit the economy and climate change; it actually makes our farming systems more sustainable. Unfortunately, we seem to lack the vision to put these alternative futures in place. We see this government focus on continuing the same old same old. We see it continue to support the fossil fuel industry, putting all our bucks and all our futures into clean coal. It is a bad bet by this government to invest in unproven technology when we know what we can do in this country with renewable energies.

In the seventies and eighties my home state of Western Australia was a leader in the development of solar energy. That has all gone offshore because we did not have the wit or wisdom to invest in that technology. It went overseas to China and Germany, who are doing very well, thank you very much, out of the technology that we generated. Even today, the technology that we are working on is still being taken up overseas because we are not investing. We are closing down schemes—two schemes in the last two weeks. A scheme a week is being closed down: the solar panels scheme last week and the remote community energy systems scheme this week. That is a very significant blow to industries that should now be thriving but are essentially fledgling industries because we have not invested in them.

My home state of Western Australia should be the home of solar technology for the world, and it is not because we have not invested in or developed that industry. We have to go cap in hand for small grants all over the place. How about $16 billion worth of investment in renewable energies? Then we would see a significantly different future for this country. We would lead the world. We would be an economic powerhouse in renewable energies. We are not, because we have never developed that. We have never seen that future. Australia needs to get beyond that limited way of thinking, actually grasp the future and be a leader in terms of renewable energies, alternative jobs and environmental technologies. We can do that and we should be doing that, but we are not because we are bound with old-world thinking. It is time to get out of it.

The CPRS—the ‘continue polluting regardless scheme’, as it is known in some places in Western Australia—needs significant amendment to make it work. Providing $16 billion worth of subsidies to the old industries is not the way of the future. Get out of the old way of thinking and grasp the opportunity that this presents. We will be not only addressing the impacts of climate change but providing a new economic future, a new green deal, for this country—not only for my home state of Western Australia, which needs alternative developments beyond the mining boom, because we have seen how fragile that is. We have been relying on that as if it is going to go on forever. Well, it is not. We need a broader base. This provides us with the opportunity. As well as addressing climate change, we can truly address a new, green economy that provides sustainable jobs into the future that are not reliant on polluting industries and polluting the atmosphere and that take account of the environment and look after the environment as well as the people. We need to be embracing it from an economic, environmental and social justice perspective.

It is not beyond us—it is not beyond this place—to actually grasp that opportunity, but it is slipping through our fingers. If we do not address it now, when will we address it? We did not address it in the good times, and now we are being told, ‘Oh, you can’t address it in the bad times.’ In other words, we are never prepared to address it. We let those opportunities go by when the economy was in a so-called boom. We did not need to do it then: ‘Oh, you’ll interrupt industry and the economy.’ Now the economy is in a bad state; we cannot address it now! Now is the very time we can address it, because it can provide us with an alternative future. We need to wake up, see that and build a strong, resilient, sustainable economy.

I urge the Senate to look at the amendments that the Greens are putting forward and to grasp the nettle in terms of putting in place real, solid targets. That is what we need. We need to be addressing real, solid targets and not giving away $16 billion worth of freebies to the old industries when we can be giving $16 billion worth of support to renewable, sustainable industries. That is the future. Australia can grasp the future or it can lag behind. My vote is with the future. I know our children’s votes are with the future. I know that we can be leaders in the world by putting forward a truly sustainable scheme. We can lead the world rather than being followers. Being followers will not only leave our children in a worse situation but open the planet to catastrophic, runaway climate change, and this planet cannot afford that.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with Senator Siewert—for whom I have a great deal of respect on a personal basis—that this debate is about the future. I have real issues about how she wants to get there and how the Greens want to get there, but this is a debate about the future. I thought that it was fascinating to hear today Senator Evans, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, talking about the debate surrounding whether the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills were going to be debated this week or, indeed, finalised in August. I will take the opportunity to quote Senator Xenophon, and I agree with him absolutely. I hope that I am quoting him correctly from this morning, when he said, ‘We ought to get the design right.’

On what Senator Siewert said today about the future, there is a lot at stake with the joint decision of the chambers of the parliament—the Senate and the other place. The ramifications of the decisions that will be made by those two chambers in relation to this matter are enormous. They are significant in an environmental sense, but they are equally significant in an economic sense. I do not think that is what Senator Siewert was talking about, but that is what I want to talk about today: the significance in an economic sense.

It makes absolutely no sense to me at all that we have taken up close to three-quarters of an hour—nearly an hour—this week, on a rough calculation, deciding whether these bills should be debated this week, because, for those in the gallery and those listening today, this scheme does not start for approximately, I think, 737 days. It is now 23 June. This scheme does not start until 1 July 2011. I am sure there are people in the gallery and people listening today who would have heard Senator Evans talk about whether these bills should be debated today and wondered, ‘What on earth is he on about?’ It is two years and seven days before this scheme is due to start. If it were to start on 1 September, I could understand the government’s urgency. If it were to start even on 1 January, I could understand the government’s urgency. But it is to start on 1 July 2011.

At stake here is our ability to guarantee our children and grandchildren the sort of country and economy that will maximise their chances of having a job and a future. How can it be that the government is opposed to an independent assessment, as Senator Xenophon also talked about today, with some economic modelling that will test the government’s and Treasury’s views on the potential economic outcomes of this? The notion that you can divorce the environment from the economy is a quite remarkable policy and practical approach, because you cannot divorce the two. It is impossible to divorce the two because if you go down that path you are putting the future of this country at very, very grave risk.

The other matter I find quite remarkable is that the rest of the world is going to be debating this very issue in about five months time. The rest of the world is going to ultimately make a global decision about what we are going to do. I would, again, put the perspective of when the government’s scheme is due to start—1 July 2011. The Howard government had an ETS policy so, in that regard, we have very much shown our policy and environmental hand. But the one other elephant in the room, which is still there, is the impact on our economy and the impact on the ability of our kids and grandkids to have a decent standard of living. How can it be that the government is trying to force this legislation through? How can the community—the mums, dads, aunts, uncles and grandparents out there—be satisfied that what this parliament is doing will sustain the long-term economic future of this country and everyone who lives here?

I personally believe that this issue should be addressed. If there is a risk then I believe we should ameliorate that risk. I am not in the Chicken Little camp, but I do understand that we have a responsibility to ameliorate risks if they are there. But that has to be based on sound evidence. That cannot be based on a Chicken Little approach to this issue. If this whole debate is seen in a context where the environmental debate is run with the economic debate then you can do nothing other than approach this in a reasoned and rational manner. The global leaders have made the decision that this is a substantial issue. The coalition have made it quite clear that we believe this is a substantial issue. We have been proactive in a policy sense in relation to this debate. But what we cannot understand is how the government can possibly be prepared to put this country’s future at risk without an appropriate investigation of the economic ramifications.

The members for Goldstein, Flinders and Groom, who have been running this debate on behalf of the opposition, have in my view put forward a rational and reasoned position in relation to the timetable for these debates. I have heard government backbenchers and others over this debate insinuate that we must go to Copenhagen with legislation. The Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has revealed that the UN does not require countries to have legislation in place before the Copenhagen meeting. So why is it that this government is in such an incredible rush to put legislation in place before the world leaders get together and have a global solution to this issue?

I think it is becoming clearer and clearer: this is actually about politics, not about policy. I fail to see how the Australian community, when given all the evidence in relation to this debate, can form a view other than that this is about politics, not policy. Surely it is incumbent upon a national government heading into such an important area, and such an important policy debate, to make sure that it has all the ducks lined up in relation to the impact on this country. Surely it is one of the basic responsibilities of any government to make sure that what it does is right. I suspect that this is probably the most significant piece of legislation that this chamber and the other place will debate in the next decade—possibly in the next two decades. Surely it is incumbent upon us to make absolutely sure that what we are doing is right, because not to do so would be the most appalling abrogation of the responsibilities that the Australian people have given us.

We are in a remarkably privileged position and we come to this place with different philosophical views. Senator Xenophon has a certain philosophical view, Senator Fielding has, the Greens have. I do not agree with the Greens probably 95 per cent of the time, but they have a philosophical view and they have been elected to this place and they are entitled to express that view, as is the Australian Labor Party and as are the Liberal and National parties. But when we come in here with those different philosophical views we are required—it is requirement that has been forced upon us, quite rightly, by the position we hold—to make sure that what we do is in the best interests of the Australian people. If we abrogate that responsibility then we should not be here. If we are prepared to put at risk potentially the economic strength of this nation and therefore the standard of living of those who are too young at the moment to have a vote or who have not been born, then that is a monstrous albatross that we would wear around our necks for the rest of our days., both while we are here but probably more importantly when those of us who are here now are no longer here.

This debate should not be finalised until we know what the rest of the world is doing. It is bizarre that a country which I think is responsible for about 1.2 per cent or 1.4 per cent of the world’s global emissions is getting itself so far out there without having done the appropriate economic modelling, without having done the homework, with a series of regulations that still have not been finalised and will not be finalised until the middle of August, and that we are required to take the government on trust in relation to what those regulations might contain. We are required to take on trust on behalf of the Australian community the views of a minister, one person, in this place. Well, I am not prepared to do that. I have three children, who are 19, 22 and 24, and it is my fervent hope that at some stage they will have children of their own. I am not prepared to come in here and abrogate the responsibility I owe to my own children but more importantly to the children of every other Australian.

One of the great strengths of this country is the strength of our regions. From a parochial Victorian point of view I talk about the Bendigos, the Ballarats and the Geelongs. I will talk about the fundamental requirement for us in this place to protect the regions, to protect regional and rural Australians, to give those kids the same opportunities that their city cousins have. There should not be one person in this chamber who is not aware of the report commissioned by the New South Wales government, a Labor government, which said that the biggest impact of the government’s current scheme will be upon Australia’s regions; in fact a 20 per cent reduction potentially in the economic activity in those regions. I ask you, Madam Acting Deputy President, who is first into economic downturn and last into economic upturn? It is the regions. They are the very regions that sustain the rural sector of this great country of ours. First into recession, last into growth. There is a fragility within those regions that you do not see in the major cities.

I am very proudly a fifth-generation resident of Ballarat; our kids are the sixth generation. My family were very actively involved in the manufacturing sector. I am the very proud patron senator for the seats of Corangamite and Corio. Within those seats are some of the most at-risk industries in this country. I believe Geelong has the largest carbon footprint of any region in Australia. We are talking about Alcoa; we are talking about cement; we are talking about motor vehicles; we are talking on the New South Wales government report, the Frontier report I think it was called. We are talking a minimum of 700 jobs in Geelong—700 jobs that we are required to do what we can to protect. Yet we have this disgraceful performance in this chamber this week where we are trying to rush through legislation that will not start for two years and seven days.

The Labor Party wonders why we are opposed to this course of action. I will tell you why we are opposed to it: because we believe in the fundamental right of the Australian people to have a standard of living that they deserve and that we can afford. If we are prepared to go down this path without having done the appropriate homework to guarantee and maximise that, then, quite frankly, we should not be here. I want the Australian Labor Party and I wanted Darren Cheeseman, the member for Corangamite, and Richard Marles to go and tell the people of Geelong why they are not prepared to stand up for those 700 jobs, why they are not prepared to make sure that what is done is done properly. And how can it be that the parliamentary secretary, now minister, Mr Combet, made it quite clear in an interview that not one member of the Australian Labor Party had been to him to discuss jobs. Not one member of the Australian Labor Party had been to him to discuss jobs and the jobs ramification of the government scheme. Yet Mr Marles was in the Geelong Advertiser saying that he had. One of them has not been truthful.

Where is Mr Darren Cheeseman in this debate? Where is Mr Cheeseman standing up for the people of Geelong? Why isn’t he out there saying to the government that this is simply not acceptable until we know where the world is going? I find it remarkable that the potential legislation of the leader of the world’s greatest economy is miles away from the Rudd government’s legislation. We have got to get to Copenhagen, we have got to have a global view on this and we cannot abrogate our responsibility to the Australian people by putting in place legislation until we are absolutely sure that the rest of the world is committed to a course of action that will not damn this country’s industries and its workers to oblivion.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme legislation and indicate my disappointment with the approach the Rudd government has taken, particularly when we have seen 12 years of disastrous inaction from the coalition, who continue to ignore the need for urgent action and in some cases continue to espouse climate change scepticism.

The Greens cannot and will not support a scheme that is environmentally ineffective and economically inefficient. What we are prepared to support is an unconditional commitment to a 25 per cent target, the bare minimum that is required by science and the global community and which would go some way towards repairing the damage of years of inaction, ignorance and cynicism we have inflicted on our planet and future generations. Sadly, the government is not listening to the science or the community, continuing to promote its five per cent target as the most ideal and economically responsible model to combat climate change. Clearly it is not. My colleague Senator Christine Milne has highlighted on a number of occasions that committing to a minimum five per cent target is worse than useless when 25 per cent is the bare minimum required by science and the global community. This legislation, with its pathetic five per cent target, is locking us in to fail: we are failing to take action that is needed, failing to clean up the mess that has been created and failing to commit to a leading role in assisting those communities and countries hardest hit by the effects of climate change in terms of water and food security, sea level rise and extreme weather events.

Given we are already seeing the effects of climate change on our Pacific neighbours, with the people of Tuvalu and Kiribati already facing sea level rise and the prospect of being forced to migrate as their homelands become unhabitable, when will the Australian government stop thinking about the profits of the big polluters and start focusing on the social, economic and environmental costs to the global community? Our Pacific island neighbours have made virtually no contribution to greenhouse pollution yet they are now faced with becoming the first victims of climate change, with the Stern report estimating that close to 200 million people could be displaced by climate change by 2050. We must be doing more. If the British government can produce a map of regions likely to be at risk from floods due to increased sea level rise from climate change then surely the Australian government must follow suit, particularly given we are seeing the islands in the Pacific sinking before our eyes. Predictions of flooding and erosion of our coastal towns and cities as a result of sea level rise leave little to be desired for Australia families living on the eastern seaboard and in my home town of Adelaide.

As I said in my inaugural speech in this place almost a year ago, we must see an end to the mantra of business as usual. We need decisive and immediate action to alleviate greenhouse gas emissions and we must see a greater commitment to reducing emissions and setting realistic targets that will go some way towards reducing the extent and severity of the impacts of climate change. Surely the thinking people on all sides of politics would be of the same opinion, that the world we are currently living in just is not sustainable. We need a transformation and a willingness to do things differently and we must listen to the concerns and views of our young people, who have inherited a planet much less fortunate than the one inherited by many of those who sit in this place and who will be the ones who are forced to sweep up the mess of inaction and ineffective policy.

It is always most interesting to find that the biggest climate change sceptics and critics out there are the ones who will not be around to deal with the consequences of ineffective policy. It is the future of our young Australians that is at stake. As the youngest member of this chamber, I stand here today voicing my concerns for the young people I am here to represent. I am standing up to say, ‘Let’s challenge business as usual; let’s recognise that Australia can make the transition from a resource dependent economy to a clean, green and clever economy, to a new way of thinking that puts respect for each other and respect for the environment at the centre of politics.’ The Greens recognise that if we get the action right we can seize tremendous opportunities to make Australia a better, fairer, healthier and happier place to live.

Climate change will impact significantly on the poorest and most disadvantaged in our communities, particularly those living in developing countries and regions. The most vulnerable to the effect of climate change are women and children. They are most likely to be displaced, to suffer from a lack of food and water security and to be caught in the crossfire of conflict as the fight over the world’s precious resources intensifies. But in communities right around the world and here in Australia women and young people are leading the way in helping to organise their communities to mitigate climate change, to change their daily lives to become more energy efficient and to educate each other in the best ways forward to protect the future of their own children and future generations. When we hear stories of women and children working to alleviate the effects of climate change in their individual communities, it is utterly astonishing to think that the government, which is already giving $7.4 billion in compensation to Australia’s biggest polluters, just wants to give them even more. Every dollar that compensates polluters is a dollar less for the community and a dollar less for fighting the real effects of climate change.

The Rudd government was elected in 2007 on the back of a promise to take real action on climate change by transforming and transitioning Australia into a low-carbon economy. Yet what we see before us today is a flawed policy and a policy that the Greens simply cannot accept. As a mother and a young woman who has many years ahead of me, I feel a deep obligation to work for a cleaner, greener and more secure planet than was left for me. I have no other choice but to ensure that I work as hard as I possibly can to help my local community and my global community work towards being a safer, fairer and more prosperous place for my daughter and the generations to come. Australia can no longer afford to delay real action on climate change. The future of our children, our grandchildren and their children is at stake, and committing to a half-hearted attempt to reduce the effects of climate change is simply not good enough.

In 2050 I will be 69 and my daughter will be 43, and I shudder to think what type of planet we will be living on if we do not make the deep cuts to emissions we know are needed now. For those of us participating in this historic debate this week, knowing the facts, the science and the need for action, we must take responsibility and make the changes necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. As representatives of our community, we cannot claim after the fact that we did not know. We have been warned, and the failure to act is the failure that this government will carry for years to come. I for one will ensure that my daughter knows that I am trying to do everything that I can and that hundreds of thousands of mothers and fathers around the country are doing just the same. We all want to help protect the future of our children and the future of young Australians. This legislation is only halfway there.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chris Evans) adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.