Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start by reminding the Senate what this debate is not about. This is not a debate about the environment. This is not, in fact, a debate about global warming or climate change. This is not a debate about the scientific challenge facing humanity and the best ways to respond to that. No, this is a debate about flawed legislation that the government is trying to rush through as fast as possible to satisfy and feed, in the end, Kevin Rudd’s moral vanity. That is what this legislation is really about. There are no credible reasons—no scientific reasons, no environmental reasons, no economic reasons—to rush this flawed legislation through at this very moment. None. There are only two reasons for doing so and they have absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of the planet or the wellbeing of this nation—or indeed with good public policy at all. Labor is hell-bent on ramming this flawed legislation through the Senate for two reasons: one is personal and the other is political.

Essentially, this legislation is designed to make Kevin Rudd feel a bit better about himself while at the same time trying to cynically wedge the opposition, no matter at what cost to our country. It is not about the environment; it is all about politics. It is not about the warming, it is about the wedge. It is not about saving the planet; it is about damning the opposition. Last but not least, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills are a sacrificial altar at which Kevin Rudd will quite gladly sacrifice Australian jobs, our competitive advantage and our standard of living so that he can amply demonstrate to those very enlightened international elites his green credentials and he can show that he really and deeply cares—so that he can ‘out Gore’ Al Gore; so that he can outdo Princess Mary and conquer Copenhagen before the conference even starts. Maybe he can even pump up his resume, his CV, on his inevitable ‘Long March’ towards the secretary-generalship of the United Nations. The economy, jobs, the standard of living—who cares? Just call it all collateral damage to Kevin Rudd’s moral vanity. For this is the price that Kevin Rudd is prepared to pay. Because, you see, Kevin Rudd wants to be loved. That is his problem. Can’t you imagine it? A pat on the back from President Obama—he wants that—handshakes from European Union officials; photo ops with Al Gore; accolades from scientists and bureaucrats in silk ties and plenty of expensive aftershave: all the things that he lusts for, all the things that he needs. It is all there, just within his grasp, if he can only jump the gun on the rest of the world and drag Australia to go first. That is the issue.

But it might not have occurred to Kevin Rudd that what is good to Kevin Rudd might not be so good for our country. And it is not. It is not good for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Australians, particularly those in regional areas and particularly in Queensland, who will lose their jobs as a result of this flawed legislation. In the past we exported our mineral wealth to China and to India. Now, thanks to Kevin Rudd, we will be exporting our jobs to China and to India. It is not good for millions of Australians who will needlessly have to pay much higher prices for their energy. But that is nothing new for Labor, nothing new at all for the party of high taxation and high debt. It is not good either for the Australian economy or the Australian environment, because Labor’s proposal does not even have a sufficient environmental bang for the buck. It is poor legislation. These are bad bills. They are rushed bills and they are flawed bills.

It does not matter if the earth is warming or cooling or staying stable. It does not make these bills any less flawed. It does not matter if the temperatures were to rise half a degree, two degrees or five degrees over the next century. They are still flawed bills. It does not matter if and to what extent the earth’s climate is changing to our detriment. These bills are not the answer. It does not matter if you are a believer, a sceptic or an agnostic. The earth can afford to wait another few months, but we cannot afford to hurry and get this wrong. That is why Kevin Rudd and his government should stop and listen. They should listen to the opposition’s proposals, which will save jobs, keep energy costs down and double the reduction of carbon emissions—all at a much lower price tag than the Labor proposal. Our proposals are better for jobs and the environment, better for Australia and the planet. Labor’s bills are flawed. We cannot and will not vote for bills that destroy jobs, increase living costs, effectively tax every Australian and do virtually nothing for the environment. All this is to feed Kevin Rudd’s moral vanity. This is not legislation at all; this is a pathetic psychodrama—and a very, very expensive one at that.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carol Brown.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Follow that!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, follow that nonsense!

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I was a bit shocked. I thought I was in a psychodrama.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Brown has the call.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with much pleasure that I rise to add my voice in support of this tremendously significant bill, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009, which introduces Australia’s first Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the CPRS, and the associated bills. The introduction of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme represents one of the most significant environmental and economic reforms in the history of our nation. The CPRS will not only be good for the environment; it will be good for the economy, it will be good for jobs and, in the long run, it will be good for Australian families. The CPRS will herald a new era. It promises to rejuvenate our economy, revolutionise industry, create new jobs and encourage all Australians to foster and embrace a new, more sustainable way of life.

There can be no doubt our earth is warming, our weather is heating up and our environment is becoming drier as a result. While the worst impacts of climate change are yet to be experienced, it is not just a problem for the future. Climate change is here now. The chance to avoid climate change altogether is lost. As the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, highlighted in her National Press Club address, the Copenhagen synthesis report found that the temperature rise is already affecting health in many societies. The increasing number of extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, floods and storms, is leading to a growing toll of death and injuries from climate change disasters. The impacts of climate change on water systems are already apparent in many parts of the world.

The need for action has been clear from some time. Leaders and policymakers alike have had plenty of time to get their heads around it. It has been more than 30 years since the first ever World Climate Conference called upon governments to guard against potential climate hazards. Indeed, with the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence before us, there can be no doubt: climate change is real.

We now face a clear choice: we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend climate change is not happening or roll up our sleeves and act. The fact that these bills are before us today is proof that the Rudd Labor government has been unwavering on this important issue and has resolved to act. Just over 18 months ago the Australian people voted for change. They voted for a party that pushed for climate change to become part of the national agenda. Since being elected the Rudd government has kept to its word: it has made addressing the serious issue of climate change a national priority—a commitment reflected by the fact that it chose to ratify the Kyoto protocol as one of its first acts after taking office.

This is only the very beginning. There is still more to be done. There is a strong but ever-growing concern in boardrooms and backyards around the country that in order to secure our long-term future there is a need to address the consequences that our collective actions are having on our planet. The government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme reflects this shift. It is the product of questions being asked, an abundance of evidence being gathered and a plan of action being devised. The very fact that we have these bills before us today reflects a change in global attitudes—that ultimately there is a price to be paid for using our planet and its resources, and it is incumbent on the government to take action.

By placing a market price on carbon emissions through the implementation of a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme, we will see the impact of enterprise on our environment granted a formal value capable of being recognised, measured and, of course, traded in the economic sphere. In this way, the CPRS not only represents a means for reducing our carbon pollution and therefore reducing the environmental impacts of climate change; importantly, it also offers the opportunity to revolutionise our economy by fostering growth in new industry and investment opportunities and therefore supporting our economy through the transition to a low-pollution future.

Indeed, the CPRS and our renewable energy target will stimulate greater investment in new technologies, including solar, wind, clean coal and geothermal energies, which will in turn foster the creation of countless new low-pollution jobs. Treasury modelling released in October 2008 shows that the introduction of the CPRS and the renewable energy target will see the renewable energy sector grow to 30 times its current size by 2050, creating new jobs.

This can only come as welcome news for my home state of Tasmania. As the Tasmanian Premier, David Bartlett, recently highlighted in his speech to the Australian Labor Party State Conference, Tasmania is already a renewable energy leader. Indeed, 70 per cent of Tasmania’s energy resources already come from renewable energy sources. That is something that at this time no other state can match. And, with climate change an undeniable reality, the Premier has indicated that he intends to ensure that Tasmania becomes a world leader in the development of renewable energy resources. Tasmania is delivering on its renewable energy agenda.

As I speak, a number of national companies are exploring geothermal energy, hot-rock energy, solar energy and further wind energy sources in Tasmania, as well as exploring options for tidal and wave energy off Tasmania’s northern coastline. In many respects our state is leading the way in renewable energy generation, and the beauty of it is that we have been doing it for decades. Hydro Tasmania is Australia’s leading renewable energy business and for years it has been harnessing and refining the use of the Tasmania’s natural water and, more recently, wind assets. It currently provides power to the national grid and trades energy and environmental products in the national electricity market. Hydro Tasmania’s CEO, Vince Hawksworth, has welcomed the government’s commitment to renewable energy and the expanded renewable energy target. He indicated that Hydro has ready a strong pipeline of projects that will increase the level of renewable energy generation in Tasmania as well as new projects on mainland Australia. In light of the current global economic downturn, this offers the promise of renewed investment and the emergence of new job opportunities in a state that has been forced to rely heavily on traditional industries to support jobs and the health of its economy. It is imperative this legislation is passed so we can begin taking active steps to address climate change and pave the way for business toward a low-pollution future.

Unlike those opposite, the government has remained committed to tackling climate change at every step of the way. We believe that is it time that we as a country take responsibility for our actions. In the lead-up to the last election, the then Rudd opposition put this on the agenda by commissioning Professor Garnaut to assess the impact of climate change on Australia’s economy, environment and water resources. This was after 11 long years of complete neglect by the then government. The Rudd government’s clear and unified position on climate change stands in stark contrast to those opposite, who have been split on this issue. Indeed this issue has proven just how out of control and unfit to govern the opposition really is. The minister for climate change, Penny Wong, pointed out in her National Press Club address that the coalition’s latest policy position is a ‘mongrel’, just another failed attempt by their failing leader to appease a divided party room. And despite the overwhelming evidence, there are still a number of people amidst their ranks who doubt that climate change is real—let alone being able to agree on a plan of action.

It is crucial that the CPRS bills are passed, to both maximise the chances of a global deal at Copenhagen in December and provide business certainty. When combined with the government’s commitment to introduce a renewable energy target to ensure that 20 per cent of our electricity is sourced from renewables by 2020, the CPRS will see Australia become a low-pollution economy while stimulating new investment and creating new jobs.

Unlike those opposite, the government sees addressing climate change as part of the solution. This is a government that is in touch with the realities of the current global recession and that is listening to key stakeholders and householders about the best way to ensure the success and sustainability of the scheme in light of this. The government has consulted and listened and acted accordingly to strengthen our CPRS package. It is now up to those opposite to stop stalling and to support it. There will never be a perfect time to introduce the scheme, but, as the government has said in the past, our window of opportunity to act will only get smaller. It is time to set the wheels in motion, and that starts right here with the passage of this legislation. It is time those opposite got themselves in order and committed to this country’s long-term future. The government recognises that we have to make the tough decisions now if we are to prosper in the future.

It is important to be reminded of what is at stake. It is not just our environment, but also our future productivity, our jobs, our very way of life. This is exactly why the government is determined to press on. We were elected with a mandate to act on this important issue and we intend to do so. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will ensure Australia invests in the industries of the future, like renewable energy, and in jobs using new technologies, creating new areas of investment and the market for new low-pollution jobs. There will never be an easy time to deal with climate change, but transitioning to a low-pollution economy is vital to Australia’s long-term economic prosperity. I commend the government for its steadfast commitment to tackling climate change. I commend the minister for climate change, Senator Penny Wong, for her hard work and dedication to the CPRS. Finally, I commend this vitally important piece of legislation to the chamber, and I urge those opposite to support it.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, with a particular focus on their impact in the Illawarra. In complex debates such as the one we are currently facing, careful scrutiny is vital. It is vital because we face what is without doubt the biggest deliberate structural change ever to be considered to our economy. I find it deeply concerning that the government is desperately rushing to legislate such a complex scheme in a manner which suggests an utter disregard for jobs and Australian industry. Even by the government’s own assessment, the cost to the economy and employment will be significant. Other nations have acknowledged the full consequences of introducing emissions trading schemes and are treading with noticeable caution. The Labor government appears to be leading us on a path which will export jobs and emissions because of the massive tax on electricity, which will make key regional industries uncompetitive.

As those before me have suggested, by definition we are dealing with an issue of global significance which can logically only be solved with a global solution. As Mr Turnbull explained in his second reading speech:

… we have to recognise that, because of the global nature of this problem, if we reduce emissions in this country but in doing so cause emissions to increase somewhere else, there is no environmental benefit.

At the very core of this debate we must acknowledge that the scheme alone is not conducive to a global reduction in emissions. The timing of the government’s approach is concerning in itself. However, what is more significant is the fact that this ill-conceived plan will achieve no net gain while resulting in significant job losses right across Australia.

I will not seek to reiterate many of the points already uttered by my colleagues. I feel it is crucial that we frame this debate on an emissions trading scheme around its potential impact on jobs, the economy and the regions. As a senator based in the Illawarra region of New South Wales, I am constantly reminded of the important role that export industries play in our economy. The Illawarra is a region built around an industrial port that supports tens of thousands of jobs. Wollongong and the Illawarra will bear the brunt of any emissions trading scheme, a fact not lost by the Illawarra Mercury, which has been giving prominent attention to this debate and adequately expressing residents’ deeply held concerns over prospective job losses.

As was discovered through the Senate Standing Committee on Economics’ inquiry into this bill earlier this year, BlueScope Steel, the main employer in the Illawarra, has identified that the scheme threatens to erode tens of millions of dollars from the company’s books within the first year and has the potential to threaten the viability of the 12,000 jobs that its operations support. It is no wonder then that many Illawarra residents—and let me remind you that this is a region traditionally considered a Labor heartland—are now crying foul that the one-time party of the workers appears to have lost touch.

As one person commented in response to an Illawarra Mercury article in April this year: ‘Champagne socialists the lot of them—they are not the working person’s party anymore.’ Many other residents have uttered similar sentiments. It is evident that this government is creating a climate of fear amongst Illawarra residents, whose livelihoods are so reliant upon these crucial trade exposed industries. A closure of the steelworks would mean the loss of 4,700 jobs at Port Kembla amid the loss of 12,000 jobs supported by steelmaking activities within the region. It is concerning that the government has embarked upon such a complex scheme without addressing the concerns of so many vulnerable Australians such as those living in fear in the Illawarra. It is as if in this government’s haste those people’s legitimate concerns and questions go unanswered. As the Illawarra Mercury editorial of 2 April posed:

The question now for the Federal Government is whether throwing 12,000 people in the Illawarra onto the unemployment scrapheap is worth the price of what is likely to be only a notional gain for the environment.

Under the Howard government, in June 2006, we experienced a smaller-scale problem when global operations and demand led to the unfortunate closure of a plant at Port Kembla resulting in 250 job losses. Fortunately, we were able to immediately announce a $5 million Port Kembla industry facilitation fund to assist structural adjustment of the Port Kembla area economy. This program was without a doubt a success. It was able to foster industry growth and minimise unemployment in the region. Nevertheless the stark reality is that any prospective job losses from this proposed CPRS will make it immensely difficult for many of the people who lose their jobs to move into other employment. As we found in June 2006, these people possess specific skills and often find it difficult to move into other employment. The problem is compounded by the fact that this scheme is being proposed amid a global financial crisis and rising unemployment whereby there are few employment opportunities for these workers to transition into.

I would like to raise some of the deep concerns that have been expressed by Illawarra residents through letters to the editor. For example, Philip Motbey wrote on 2 April 2009:

Australia only produces 2% of the world’s carbon emissions and to introduce this radical scheme in the middle of a global recession would be economic suicide because the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme creates an enormous impost on industry, throwing hundreds of workers onto the dole queues. This is the government whose mantra is ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’ and yet the very nature of the CPRS destroys jobs because it creates an unwanted tax on industry just when they are trying to maintain their quotas in productivity for the sake of the economy and full employment.

Dave Cox wrote on 6 April 2009:

It is all right to come up with ideas about ways to save the planet but someone had better give serious thought about ways to save the livelihood of the people that live on it as well.

I believe this proposed scheme and the manner and timing in which it is being introduced will export jobs overseas. The fears and apprehensions felt by the people of the Illawarra are justified as they know full well that they stand at the forefront and will face the full brunt of this job-destroying scheme.

The coalition has given careful consideration to an alternative to this flawed scheme. The Frontier Economics report commissioned by the coalition and Senator Xenophon demonstrates that the Labor government’s scheme will unnecessarily drive up electricity prices, destroy jobs and expand the size of government in Australia. It is now time that the Labor government pushes its ego aside and sits down at the negotiating table with opposition and minor party senators and other stakeholders to design a more effective scheme. This is vital not only to provide certainty to those workers in the Illawarra but also so that the government can confidently say that they are acting in the interests of all Australians.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This chamber is of course no stranger to controversy. Indeed it is the lifeblood of what we do. This may well be a unique situation because, with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills we have proposals for a profound set of reforms which will affect the nation and indeed have international implications, yet the science on which these proposals rest is deeply contested. Even after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced its fourth report concluding, with a very high degree of confidence, that climate change is occurring, that it is caused by a build-up of greenhouse gases and that human activity is largely responsible, there remain the sceptics and the doubters about the nature of climate change. I deeply respect their position because there are doubts about the collection of scientific data, there is a credible critique of the climate change modelling and there has been legitimate concern and a wide degree of disquiet about the often-tendentious ways in which the participants on both sides of this debate have used the evidence to support their particular cause. In some respects it has not been a particularly elevating time in public debate. But we here in the national parliament are bound to address this particular issue of our time. We are in a position where we are obliged to make some decisions to take up a view about the nature of this science.

I could spend time on the next part of my remarks dealing with that in great detail but I certainly do not propose to do that on this particular occasion. Rather, I have come to the view that there is a case for the parliament to act on this matter. I draw senators’ attention to paragraph 6.4 of the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee of June 2009 where it is said:

It is still not completely impossible that these scientific experts are misguided. But it would be folly to assume that they must be wrong. Even if there were only a modest chance that the scientists are right, a prudent approach is to take out some insurance by acting now to reduce global emissions.

I think that is the right course. Indeed, that is the course that the coalition accepted some time ago. You will recall, Madam Acting Deputy President, that the Howard government went to the last election in 2007 with a commitment to introduce a world-class emissions trading scheme and to have it commence in 2012. It would be a world-class ETS that would take account of Australia’s interests and would be aligned to the international progress which was being made on the mitigation of greenhouse gases.

Instead we have Labor’s plan. What is contained in these bills that we are now debating is Labor’s overly complex, deeply flawed CPRS for which it claims it has a mandate. I acknowledge that it does indeed have a mandate. It went to the last election seeking a mandate for a whole series of things, and it certainly sought a mandate in relation to a response to climate change. But it does not have a mandate to wreak havoc on the Australian economy. It does not have a mandate to destroy jobs. It does not have a mandate to destroy Australia’s trade competitiveness. It does not have a mandate to impose crushing new burdens on Australian business, families and lives. And, in particular, it does not have a mandate to impose those burdens on people living in regional and rural Australia. It does not have a mandate to do any of these things—rather it has a mandate to act responsibly in Australia’s national interest. But these are the things that will happen if this CPR scheme is introduced.

We should ask ourselves: there is a cost to introducing this legislation—to what end? What is the argument for making us bear these outrages, horrendous costs to the Australian economy and the lives of Australians, and for what benefit? The reality is that the scheme before us contains absolutely no assurance that we will achieve the mitigations that are asked of us or intended. The government proposes that in the medium term, by 2020, we will reach somewhere in the vicinity of five per cent to 15 per cent of emissions below the 2000 level. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that this scheme will achieve that particular objective, and indeed this dinky scheme is unlikely to get anywhere near those kinds of proposals. And, if it does so, it would be at a massive cost to Australian communities.

I think Australians want a response to the challenge of climate change. I think they want one that will work, that will make a difference. And I think they are prepared to pay some sort of price for that response. I think the business community wants a measure of certainty about climate change and mitigation so that they can plan ahead. They do not want to be conned or they do not want to be misled, and they certainly do not want to be part of a Labor government pursuing an ideological obsession, as it is doing with the particular scheme that is before us.

Australians want a scheme which will be proportionate to Australia’s share of the responsibilities it has for global gas emissions. This is in the vicinity of 1.4 per cent or 1.5 per cent of global emissions, a relatively modest contribution. That is a statistic that should be in the mind of everybody in this debate because it is the foundation upon which Australia should draft and craft its response to this particular challenge. Regrettably, the scheme before us does not take that into account.

All along the government have played the politics of this particular issue. It has been an obsession. The government have an absolutely arrogant determination to ram through these bills—no other proposal but this particular ETS—without any other ideas being considered or any other proposals up for debate. ‘We have the answers,’ is the government’s proposition on this. ‘While we have the answers, we’re not proposing to entertain any other proposals.’ From the very beginning, from the time Labor took office after winning the November 2007 election, they have been focusing on the politics of the issue.

You will remember, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, that not long after the election a coterie of ministers, politicians and officials took off for Bali to triumphantly sign the Kyoto protocol, trailing GHG emissions behind them. I bet the 387 parts per million—what apparently should be the level of emissions on a day—went up astronomically as Mr Rudd took his retinue to Bali to sign up to the Kyoto protocol. From that day forth, it was not just a matter of signing up to the Kyoto protocol; it was a matter of the government joining the climate change glitterati, being part of the climate change caravan as they righteously took forward their message. They said to themselves: ‘We are going to be at the front, lead the charge to save the planet.’ That is the position that they have taken all along in this particular debate.

Minister Wong has consistently tried to exploit the debate that has existed within the coalition about climate change—legitimate debate about the virtues of this particular legislation, in my view. She has not been able to help herself. Whenever there has been a whiff of debate she has been before the press seeming to exploit the politics. It has been a very undignified performance, and a counterproductive one. If she had spent less time in front of the cameras and more time going to the parliamentary drafting office or her boss in the prime ministerial suite and saying, ‘Maybe we should do some things here to try and get this legislation through,’ she would have a more substantive case to argue that she was serious about this legislation.

Then there was the government’s manifestly cynical political act before we rose after the last session—perhaps the crudest cynical act of all—when it linked the renewable energy targets bill to the CPRS. Now we have a situation where the renewable energy industry, which is desperate to get on with the activity of creating alternative sources of energy to those that emit so many gasses, desperately needs that bill. The government has cynically delayed the bill in the hope that somehow or other it is going to wedge the opposition and get its legislation through. The industry is crying out for this piece of legislation to be passed and the government is sitting on its hands and refusing to act. The government knows that it could have had this legislation passed. We have given in-principle support for it, and we have given that in-principle support for a long time, but the government has refused to acknowledge that in-principle support and to act on our willingness to deal with it.

If that is not enough, the last cynical act of the government was to reject the proposal that the coalition put on the table some weeks ago in which we outlined nine principles. These propositions provide the foundation for an alternative and better scheme to that of the government’s. Again, the government has treated the propositions with contempt. It has treated them with the same contempt as it has had for so many of the contributions that we have made to this debate, because it continues to act as if there is some kind of desperate urgency about the need for action in this area. We want to ask ourselves: what is this urgency? What is the case that requires us to pass this legislation? The last time it needed to be passed was before the winter break. The government is desperate for it to be passed as soon as possible and certainly before the Copenhagen meeting in December. This scheme is badly flawed. It is a scheme that needs further attention. It is a scheme that needs reform, and there is no compelling case for its urgency. The government makes two points about urgency. It makes the Copenhagen argument, which is that it has to have the legislation passed prior to the Copenhagen meeting towards the end of the year. This is arrant nonsense. And we know it is arrant nonsense because Mr Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has said that it is arrant nonsense. He has not used those words—he is too polite to do so, of course—but he has made that point in response questions about whether the United States legislation needs to be passed. He has made the point that it is does not need to be passed. He said that US domestic legislation does not necessarily have to be in place.

The Americans emit a considerably larger percentage of global emissions than we do. If their legislation is not needed, there can hardly be a case for Australia to pass its legislation. What we need before Copenhagen is a clear negotiating position, and that is precisely what we have proposed. The opposition has supported the government in taking to Copenhagen a proposal which would allow a five per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020. It has also given a further commitment that, if there is a comprehensive agreement, it will go to a reduction of 25 per cent. The government does not need any more. It can go to that Copenhagen conference confident that it has the support of this parliament and the opposition for its negotiating position. This will almost certainly not be the first meeting on these matters. Copenhagen will probably have numerous iterations. One suspects that the meeting in December will, in the end, break up without any kind of conclusion and that there will be a succession of such meetings over the next 12 months, at the very least. So the government has what it needs to go to Copenhagen. It does not need any more.

There is a second argument for urgency, and that is the ‘follow my example’ argument. This is a good argument, because here the government can puff itself up, with all of its climate change plumage on display, and take the moral high ground. This is an argument that says that Australia must be pure—Australia must pass its legislation and, when it does, it will set an example for the rest of the international community; they will be inspired. All of those other countries—the countries that emit far more emissions than we do: the Chinese, the Americans, the Indians, the Russians, the Indonesians and everybody else—will be inspired by the Australian example and will follow it. They will be so inspired that they will not be able to help themselves. What a conceit! What a massive conceit to believe that that could be the case.

This is a Prime Minister who is supposed to know something about foreign policy and we are asked to accept the proposition that Australia, with 1.4 to 1.5 per cent of international emissions, can set an example which will be followed by other members of the community. The US has emissions of 18.3 per cent on 2005 numbers; China is about the same; India is 4.6 per cent—and it goes on. This is an idea from the fairy-floss school of international relations. It is comprised of nothing more than sugar and hot air, and we ought not to pay any attention to it. It has absolutely no credibility. It has no worth as a proposition in international affairs and it certainly has no worth in relation to climate change. Australia should be going to the conference in Copenhagen, in December, and it should be prepared to play its part, consistent with the proportion of greenhouse gasses that it emits in the atmosphere, which is 1.4 to 1.5 per cent. It is, as I said earlier, arrant nonsense to believe that we should be doing any more.

There are a large number of flaws with this scheme that deserve attention. It will cost the Australian economy a massive number of jobs. I am concerned about the fact that in Queensland, on some calculations, something in the vicinity of 28,000 jobs will be lost from the coalfields in those areas of central Queensland and the like. There is a serious concern that ought to be aired with regard to the comparison of this legislation with the Waxman-Markey legislation.

Agriculture is treated extraordinarily badly. It has been omitted from the scheme for decision in 2013. There is a complete absence of agricultural offsets in relation to the scheme where those in the agricultural and rural sector might take advantage of the assets they have to get some carbon offsets. The coal industry is going to be badly affected of course and the proposals in relation to fugitive coal are very silly indeed. This model needs reform. It needs urgent reform. Otherwise, what we have before us here is a 684-page national suicide note which needs to be addressed. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Senator Arbib) adjourned.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

Question agreed to.