Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sherry. Can the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate why it is imperative to take early action to mitigate the effects of climate change? Has the government weighed up the costs to Australian families of doing nothing on climate change? Has the government assessed the actions needed to support Australian households to make a positive contribution in the fight against climate change?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Rudd government is determined to act in the national interest—indeed, I note that the former Howard government was also determined to act in the national interest—to help protect Australian families from the worst effects of dangerous climate change. Action on climate change is in the national interest because the cost of doing nothing on climate change is higher than the cost of action. The cost to Australian families of doing nothing will be lost jobs, less rain, more heatwaves and more extreme weather events. I acknowledge that former Prime Minister Howard accepted that this was the case and he put forward what I thought was a very impressive policy on behalf of the Liberal-National Party—not as impressive as the Rudd Labor government’s policy but at least he acknowledged the reality of the situation. The cost to Australian families of doing nothing, let me repeat, will be lost jobs, less rain, more heatwaves and more extreme weather events. People who work in the rural and regional areas of Australia, particularly our farming community, would be all too well aware of the impact of extreme weather events, which will become worse and worse.

So the cost of allowing dangerous climate change to run its destructive course will be higher than the cost of acting to move to a low carbon prosperous future. More and more of the world is moving to a low carbon future, driven by the reality that most countries are applying a carbon constraint, whether through regulation or an explicit price on carbon. Modelling shows that economies that act early face long-term costs that are around 15 per cent lower. Modelling shows that all areas of the economy will be able to reduce their carbon pollution while continuing to produce and deliver their goods and services. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. How will the government support for families and business help Australia adjust to a productive and prosperous low carbon future? Will these actions help Australian households move into the next decade in a strong and sustainable environmental position and will these actions boost household welfare and create and protect green jobs?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government, the Rudd Labor government, and indeed all world governments that are moving to deal with this issue do accept there is no cost-free way to tackle climate change. That is why this government has put forward a range of household assistance to ensure low- and middle-income households do not foot the bill for action on climate change. That is why the government is providing support for businesses to mark the transition to a low carbon future. We have already embarked on a major investment in energy efficiency. We are supporting the creation of green jobs and the development of skills for the low carbon economy. We are investing billions of dollars directly in new low carbon energy technology ranging from solar, wind and wave to geothermal, and of course clean coal. Those who are working against doing something about climate change are looking backwards. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. What commitments has the government made about its support for families and businesses as Australia moves to a prosperous low carbon future? What recognition has the government made of families and businesses in the climate change solutions Australia desperately needs? What are the alternatives and what would be the risks of those alternatives?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Rudd Labor government is committed to the principle that any action on tackling climate change should ensure the greatest cost effectiveness and fairness in spreading the burden of reducing emissions. We say action on climate change should support industries make the transition to a low pollution future while at the same time assisting households adjust to a price on carbon. There are risks and costs, quite apart from the devastating impact of unchecked climate change on the environment and on the economy. As I said, this was an approach well recognised by the former Prime Minister Mr Howard and we should acknowledge in the spirit of bipartisanship the important role and contribution that he made in this regard. A very different kind of risk is the opportunity cost if we fail to position Australia for the low carbon future. Those who offer no alternatives, the do-nothing brigade, for example— (Time expired)