Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Joyce today, relating to climate change.

I would specifically like to note the complete incapacity of the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, to be succinct in her answers. Canada has deferred their decision until after Copenhagen. As much as we tried to persuade Minister Wong to come forward with a straight and honest answer, she ducked and dived but never gave a straight answer. We got the usual rendition of calamity as she talked about sea level rises, ocean acidification and inundation. Never once did she explain to us how this massive tax will actually affect it, because we know it will not affect it. This massive tax works in isolation and is nothing but an assault on working families and a revenue raiser for the government because there is no way that this tax in isolation can do anything about the climate. But they are so cunning and shrewd that they worked this little web around the issue. You can see it personified in the way the minister answers the questions—or, more to the point, does not answer the questions.

We know that the United States has also deferred legislation. In fact, the whole world is waiting for Copenhagen, except for Kevin Rudd. He is not waiting. He is on his solo trip to save the world. Why is he doing that? Because he says that he is a world leader. We know at this point in time that Barack Obama must be tossing and turning in his bed thinking, ‘What on earth is Kevin up to?’ We know that Hu Jintao in China must be running around the Communist Party saying: ‘Look, we can’t go any further; we’ve got to wait until Kevin gets somewhere.’ We know that Dmitry Medvedev and Manmohan Singh are, within Russia and India respectively, worried about the position of Australia’s climate change policy. This is the ludicrous proposition that the Australian Labor Party put forward. Who does worry about the position of the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd? There is only one group that is worried about the position of Kevin Rudd—the people of Australia. They are truly worried about the position of Kevin Rudd. I can see it on a petition presented today that was started last week. There are 13,000 signatures on it expressing the view that this process, this ludicrous lemming-like careening over the policy cliff, should be curtailed and stopped.

But what do we have? We have the Copenhagen agreement merely days away and the conceit of this Prime Minister is so great and immense that he refuses to wait a matter of days. He insists on taking Australia on his unilateral crusade. We know what happens to unilateral crusades: you end up getting slaughtered. That is what will happen to the economy of this nation. We are about to do the worst thing we could possibly do to working families, and that is to create an environment where we put them out of work. In all of these illustrious statements about green jobs, we have not seen one example of them. Where are they? Beyond the statement of ‘green job’, where are they? Show me the examples. They do not have any examples. We have nothing more than this rhetorical entourage of calamitous events because they refuse to engage in the debate. That shows the paucity of their claims. The debate is whether their scheme will affect the temperature of the globe. Of course, it will not, but they will not engage in that. In the same evasive manner, they are now refusing to acknowledge the position of Canada and the United States. They are making excuses for every other nation. They have an excuse for why every other nation is appearing to be in a different position from that of Australia. But how do we deal with this? Once they set us up for this massive new tax, what do we do? Who will be the benefactors of this? I might suggest that it will be people close to Treasury who are going to be the benefactors of this.

It is also perplexing at this point of time to see that nothing has been delivered to this parliament by way of an amendment or an examination. There is nothing to see. Is there any conjecture over there? Is there something of concern? Is it possibly the case that modelling is starting to suggest that we might have a bit of a problem here, because the modelling only dealt with Australia working conjointly with other nations in a policy— (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the motion to take note of the answer on climate change. I must say that in regard to Senator Joyce’s comments about not taking things seriously, I am just amazed. While I have been able to this morning, I have been listening to the rest of the debate, and it is quite amazing to hear what is coming from those on the other side. Climate change is a serious issue and it is having a big impact on Australia and the world. If you want an example of what is happening, look at the latest report that tells us about how our coastal areas and populations are at greatest risk, as are places like Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef. In my beautiful home state of Tasmania not only the wilderness but also the coastal areas are at risk from climate change. The report is projecting an increase in both the frequency and the severity of natural disasters. How those on the other side can stand up and be such deniers beggars belief.

Climate change will impact on us all. It will impact on individuals, communities, families and businesses. No-one is immune. Those on the other side need to take a very deep breath and actually listen for once to their leader, who is at least not a complete sceptic in regard to the issue. We need to act now. If we do not act now, we will see temperatures throughout Australia rise by five degrees by 2100 compared to 1919 temperatures, and it is expected that bushfires will become more intense and more frequent. When we think about the destruction caused and the lives lost in the Victorian bushfires, it is astounding. Throughout question time we have been hearing about the increasing temperatures in South Australia today, so how those on the other side can act as such sceptics in the whole issue just, as I said, beggars belief. If we do not take action now, then, no, Senator Joyce, the world will not end. But what you are saying is that if nobody else takes action on something then nobody should act to improve things. I think that is a very immature and irresponsible position for any of the opposition or any on the other side to take—that, no matter what, if nobody else has acted we should not start to improve the situation, because we can improve the situation and it is time that those on the other side started thinking very seriously about our doing that.

Other countries around the world are gathering at Copenhagen in December to discuss this real issue. To those on the other side, Copenhagen has become the be-all and end-all of whether we should have this debate or not. They are not debating. They are standing up and giving emotive speeches which suggest that we are saying the world will end. I do not think I have heard any of our speakers say the world is going to end. What people from this side are saying is that it does make a difference and that somebody needs to stand up and take responsibility. If those on the other side cannot help take responsibility for improving the lives of not only Australians but people throughout the world then I doubt that they are in the job for the right reasons. If we have a firm policy, it will maximise our ability to play a constructive role in the negotiations and to reach an agreement with our counterparts. Australia is one of the most resource intensive economies throughout the world and if we can cut emissions, it would make other nations realise that cuts can be made. We need to lead by example and we need to show the rest of the world that we can lead by example. If we do not do that then I think we are failing our obligations not only to the people of Australia but to the people of the rest of the world, and I think that is not an acceptable position for the Labor Party to take.

In fact, we are not acting completely before the rest of the world because the US, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Korea, along with many of the EU countries— (Time expired)

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a pivotal moment today is. To think that the Canadians are deferring the introduction or discussion of their cap-and-trade ETS scheme until after the Copenhagen conference. That shows, I must say, a high degree of responsibility and eminent common sense by the Canadian government. If only the Rudd-Wong government could do the same sort of thing in Australia so that we could be sure that whatever is done in Australia is appropriate to the needs of this country. Not only is the Canadian government deferring their scheme; I am told that the leadership of the United States Senate is discussing deferring the Waxman-Markey bill, which is the bill that would introduce a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme in the United States. They are proposing to defer it until after the Copenhagen conference for the very good reason that they, like the Canadians, do not want to be left out on a limb, as would happen to Australia were this government to continue blindly proceeding down the road of introducing this lunatic scheme.

This scheme is going to wreck the Australian economy, cause massive job losses and produce, in fact, almost no reduction in carbon in this country. This scheme, the CPRS, is an absolute fraud. It does not reduce carbon emissions. What happens if you have an emissions intensive industry like a cement factory or something is that, rather than reducing emissions, you go and buy a rainforest in Indonesia or some Third World country and you trade off the emissions from your plant against the carbon capture by that rainforest in another country. It is a total fraud. The Australian people are not stupid. They can see through this sort of nonsense—and they will not just see through it but also feel the pain of it, because unfortunately they are going to have to bear the cost of the tax burden of the CPRS.

This is supposed to be a trading scheme, but unfortunately our major regional trading partners—China, Japan, South Korea and India, who are our top four trading partners—have no intention of introducing an emissions trading scheme. That means, rather than being able to trade off the carbon credit between countries, the Australian taxpayer, if this scheme is introduced, would have to carry the whole burden of what is estimated to be somewhere between $50 billion a year and $87 billion a year in extra taxes. That pain will cause them very much to question the wisdom of the Rudd government in going ahead with this crazy proposal of the CPRS. If we are going to do anything, in my view, we should propose to have a carbon tax, which could be tailored to our needs. It would be easy to administer, it would not involve setting up the huge bureaucracy that the CPRS requires and it would be a great step forward compared to the CPRS.

We just heard a little bit from the last speaker questioning the science of climate change and expressing fear about rising sea levels and the impact of climate change on Australian society. Let’s face it—that is a huge debate. Climate change has been going on for thousands of millions of years. It is part of the natural cyclical history of the world’s atmosphere. I have a feeling that, somehow or other, this whole subject of the greenhouse effect is going to turn out to be another Y2K bug—an enormous fraud. Nothing is going to happen. I read a book recently by Professor Paltridge, who used to be the chief climate scientist of the CSIRO, called The Climate Caper. He says in that book that, in his opinion, there will be as much climate change in the next 50 years as there has been in the last—in other words, very little at all. I do not think we have a lot to worry about.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to at least have the opposition acknowledging that there are other countries in the world embarking on the process of bringing in emissions trading schemes, because it has been all too common amongst the opposition in the past to just state blandly, and wrongly, that no other major countries are developing such schemes. There are schemes already operating in 31 European countries. The US President, Barack Obama, has confirmed his commitment to a cap-and-trade scheme and the US emissions reduction targets of a return to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. The US House of Representatives passed the bill and, as we have heard, the Senate committees are currently working on that legislation. The Canadian government, as the minister said, is working to introduce an emissions trading scheme and has committed to developing and implementing a North America wide cap-and-trade system—the same sort of system that Australia is working on. Twenty-seven states and provinces in the US and Canada are also introducing emissions trading schemes.

Japan is already trialling a voluntary emissions trading scheme and has stated its intention to introduce a domestic scheme in 2011-12. New Zealand’s government is amending its existing emissions trading scheme, which will bring it into closer alignment with Australia’s CPRS. Australia and New Zealand have also agreed to explore further the alignment and harmonisation of our respective scheme designs. So there are many, many countries around the world working towards a cap-and-trade emissions scheme—the same scheme that this government has brought through the House of Representatives and that is currently in the Senate.

What is happening at Copenhagen is that the international community are coming together to try and get an effective agreement on the way forward. This is for both developed and developing countries. This is a complex negotiation and a complex matter, because countries are clearly at different stages of advancement and have different abilities to contribute to a reduction in carbon pollution around the world. Australia is taking an active and useful part in this attempt to get an agreement. No-one pretends that Australia is able to bring everyone to the table together by itself, but in contributing in an active and constructive manner we hope to be able to get an agreement on this complex issue around the table at Copenhagen.

It is a complex issue and the Australian government is up to developing its strategy in a complex matter, unlike so many people opposite me in the Senate here, who are unable to develop any kind of comprehensive or complex strategy. Their answer is simply no. ‘No, we are not considering this issue at all. Our answer is no. We won’t consider any constructive amendments.’ In many cases, they will not even consider that climate change is a possibility. Their single answer is no.

This Labor government is going to Copenhagen with a constructive, positive strategy to deal with this complex issue around the world. That is what the government is doing. Governments are trying to strike a deal. Governments from around the world are acknowledging that climate change is a problem, that carbon pollution is a problem, and are looking at the best way to strike a deal that enables us to go forward. But most of the opposition senators in this chamber do not want to strike a deal. They do not want to go forward. They do not want to make any advancement in the reduction of carbon pollution. They are just saying a straight no, and that is not good enough for this government. This government will go to Copenhagen and will work with other countries in a cooperative manner.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, it is nice to see you in the chair.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’s always in the chair!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is—he is the former President of this chamber and I respect him for that, and I respect his position as Deputy President. You may well laugh at that, but on this side we are all laughing at you because this debate on climate change has been going on for years, since the 2007 election. If the effects of the Labor government’s policies on this matter and their rhetoric on this matter were not so serious, it would be really quite funny. We watch the squirming going on on the other side as everything shifts from under them, as the whole debate shifts from under them. The science has shifted from under them, the public view and opinion have totally shifted from under them, and now the world has shifted from under them. In fact, the world has put Armageddon off! Your rhetoric about Armageddon, that the seas are imminently going to swamp the Australian east coast, that the Antarctic is going to melt, that polar bears are going to die and that the Murray River will dry up we are still getting today. Even today, with the big shift in public opinion, we are still getting that from the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong.

The world has even walked away from you. No, the Mexican President, I believe, is still sticking by our Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, as both of them scurry around the APEC conference trying to save what they believe to be the Copenhagen agreement. The truth of the matter is, as we heard in question time today, that the Canadian parliament are deferring any scheme to post the Copenhagen meeting. We now hear that the leaders of the United States Senate, the major player in all of this, are deferring their scheme.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you think I should keep it down? I can be relaxed about this. I am feeling really quite relaxed, more relaxed than I was in 2007.

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

Two days in a row!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By the way, are you as a Victorian senator getting up to represent your state and speaking on this matter at any point? I notice you are not on the speakers list at all. The lack of speakers from the other side is a very important matter. Talk about being gagged, but I will have something to say about that when I have a full 20 minutes to speak. My point is that extremism is still coming from the other side—and it is great to watch them squirm—but the extremists have to explain why every indication is that the rest of the world has put off any scheme. There are no schemes—the other side will have to update their speakers notes. No other country has put in place an emissions trading scheme, least of all the major ones—China, India and the United States. The extremists from the other side now have to explain about the deferral of the major emitting countries. They have to explain the science from their point of view, the courage of so many scientists that are fighting back, as we heard from Senator Eggleston. Leading scientists from the CSIRO have been so long gagged by the other side—I should add leading scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from whence all this idiotic extremism has come.

Do you really think we are going to depend on the New South Wales government report about the sea levels on the eastern seaboard of this country when we have better experts than that? The world’s leading expert on sea levels, Professor Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University, tells us that sea levels are not increasing. To put it in less diplomatic language than a professor would, he calls swamping of the Australian eastern seaboard absolute rubbish. The gig is up for this great fake. If you thought the Prime Minister’s claim about being an economic conservative was fake, if you thought his fixing up of the state hospitals was fake, if you even thought his going into a strip club and not seeing a stripper was fake, you ain’t seen nothing yet. This is the greatest hoax ever played on the Australian people and it is fake. What is more, most of you on the other side know this is fake, particularly the New South Wales senators because they have their own state report on this matter. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.