Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. While every piece of legislation that passes through this place is important and in some way changes our behaviour—how we live our lives—this package of bills is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to be debated. If it is passed, it will fundamentally alter our attitudes and begin to modify our behaviour and the outcomes of the social and economic activity that we undertake in this nation. It will begin to address the problems that are caused because we human beings, through our activities, pump pollutants into the atmosphere that absorb heat and increase the temperature of the air, the sea and the land. That increase in temperature causes our climate to change and unwanted climate change is arguably the most difficult problem of our generation and of future generations unless we act now and act decisively. If the temperature of the earth continues to rise it will result in an increase in extreme weather events like drought, bushfires and floods, sea level rises, failure of agriculture and failure of wanted organisms to survive or the creation of conditions where unwanted organisms thrive. Even a small, sustained temperature rise fundamentally changes the environment in which we live.

It is interesting that this debate is taking place when today and yesterday significant parts of my state of South Australia have been designated as being at a ‘catastrophic’ fire risk by the state’s emergency services. This is indeed a frightening and sobering acknowledgement of how vulnerable we are to extreme weather events. It is only November—still spring. We are not even in December yet and it is already 43 degrees. In South Australia it has barely dropped below 35 degrees for a week and a half.

Let me read from the Bureau of Meteorology’s media release of 17 September 2009:

Adelaide has experienced the first spring heatwave ever recorded across the entire Adelaide temperature record back to 1887 with 8 consecutive days in excess of 35°C from Sunday 8 November to Sunday 15 November.

The criteria for heatwaves in Adelaide is; ‘5 consecutive days with maximum temperatures of 35°C or more, or 3 days of 40°C or more’. Prior to this event the most days over 35°C consecutively in November for Adelaide had been 4 days in 1894.

The average maximum temperature for Adelaide over the first 15 days of November was 33.6°C. This is more than 8°C higher than the November maximum temperature average for Adelaide of 24.9°C.

The impact of extreme heat is both personal and economic. Vulnerable people die in heatwaves and bushfires, and houses and agricultural production are destroyed by fire and by heat. The cost to the Australian economy of bushfires between 1967 and 1999 was around $2.5 billion dollars. Such losses are unsustainable. Just ask the Insurance Council of Australia. What we are witnessing in South Australia are extreme, potentially disastrous weather events, and if this parliament does not do something about the global warming that makes our nation more susceptible to such events then we will have failed the Australian people.

So I ask how senators opposite—and in particular senators Bernardi and Minchin, being from South Australia—can continue to deny the facts about what is happening to our climate and continue to refuse to take any responsibility for their reckless disregard for the science that tells us the climate is changing and we are causing that change. I guess maybe Senator Minchin, sitting in his air conditioned office in Canberra, has lost touch with what is happening back home. Maybe he should ring home more often and find out what is really going on. In my electorate office, constituents are ringing and they are afraid that today’s extreme weather conditions in South Australia will cause more catastrophic bushfires. They are saying that they want the parliament to do something to stop the potential for more disastrous weather events. But, of course, Senator Bernardi and Senator Minchin are not interested in what their constituents back home are fearing today. They are more interested in destabilising their leader, Mr Turnbull, than they are about representing their constituents, who today will be wondering, ‘Will there be a fire near me?’ How extreme does it have to be before senators Minchin and Bernardi actually realise that South Australia will fry unless we do something about climate change.

Climate change is of course not just Australia’s problem. The whole world is grappling with the problem. Just how difficult a problem it is is plainly evident by the ongoing debates at the highest level of international governments, which began more than two decades ago. In 1988, in response to growing concern about the possible impact of human activity increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Program established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide independent scientific advice on the issue of climate change. The IPCC has released four major assessment reports, the latest one in 2007, which reported increases in global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of ice and snow and rising global average sea levels. The IPCC reports, compiled from the work of 1,250 scientists in 130 countries, cannot be dismissed and are not being dismissed by the global community.

While we are right to be disappointed that there may not yet be global agreement on what countries need to do to set targets, achieve targets or help each other to reach targets in order to reduce greenhouse emissions, there is a consensus that action needs to be taken to reduce emissions. There is consensus amongst nations that there is too much at stake to just do nothing.

It is therefore always astonishing to hear that some members of the coalition are opposed not just to this package of bills but also to doing anything at all because they refuse to believe, despite all the scientific evidence, either that climate change is real or that human activity is causing it. They are not even prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to science—to concede that, while they might not agree with the science, they could at least support reducing carbon emissions because if they are wrong and science is right, precious time will have been lost due to their failure to act.

Most of the world’s nations and most of the world’s scientists accept the need to modify human behaviour to reduce emissions, and one would hope that this fact might encourage those opposite to develop a more rational response. But there is nothing rational in the response of the sceptics and deniers, who cannot wait to defeat this bill regardless of what amendments and concessions are agreed to in the ongoing negotiations between the government and the coalition.

It would not matter to them what was in the bill or how many more scientific reports landed on their desks telling them that climate change is real, it is happening, we are causing it and it is bad. They will continue to pretend that climate change is some massive global left-wing plot concocted by governments and scientists determined to destroy the world as we know it. But we know who the real destroyers are, and it is not the people on this side of the chamber; it is those few on the other side of the chamber who are determined to see these bills defeated.

Of course, the opposition has not always been hostage to the sceptics. As has been pointed out many times in this chamber, the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, supported an emissions trading scheme and so did his party room. The current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, also supports an emissions trading scheme. How that must rankle with the climate change sceptics. It is truly pathetic that the petty ongoing internal divisions in the opposition over Mr Turnbull’s leadership have spilled over into this most important of public policy debates. We can only hope that those more sensible, rational voices in the opposition prevail.

The Rudd Labor government accepts the science that says that climate change is real, dangerous and increasing but can be mitigated. The government has accepted that even though our own total emissions are not huge in comparison with some other nations, our per capita output is amongst the world’s highest and our reliance on non-renewable polluting fuel sources is neither environmentally nor economically sustainable in the longer term.

Prior to the last election, Rudd Labor made a commitment to protect Australians and to show international leadership in the global fight against climate change. We are enacting that commitment to the Australian people and we are doing it in a measured way that ensures our economy remains strong, particularly as we face the ongoing fallout of the global financial crisis. That is what these bills are all about—a rational, reasonable, measured, economically responsible but determined legislative response to the greatest issue of our generation.

Although the scheme has already been rejected by the Senate once, we are determined to continue negotiations with the opposition in order to reach agreement and pass this crucial legislation to protect our nation and our future generations. The government’s balanced approach to addressing climate change means that we have paid careful attention to the economic impacts of the CPRS.

The bills contain measures to mitigate the costs to emitters and to compensate low-income earners and businesses that would be adversely affected by the predicted cost increases associated with the transition to a low carbon future. The government has also announced a range of measures to support the development of renewable energy sources and to encourage the growth of new jobs in the renewable energy sector.

Unlike many of those opposite, we have not wholly and unquestioningly swallowed the overwrought claims of some emissions-intensive industries. Just because we have all been inundated with impressive publications from large emissions-intensive companies and industry representative organisations and just because the newspapers all this week have been filled with full-page adverts predicting doom and gloom, we have not just thrown up our hands and caved in. Nor have we accepted holus bolus the claims on the other side of the debate that we have not done enough and that our targets are too weak and should not be supported on the grounds that they do not go far enough.

In relation to the claims of the large emitters that the destruction of life as we know it will ensue if the CPRS goes ahead, the government anticipated that reaction. It is part of the robust debate about any significant legislation that will affect one or other sector of the economy. Tobacco companies, alcohol companies, telecommunications companies, agricultural companies—any organisation that feels government action will affect its bottom line will always attempt to portray the worst possible scenario so it can gain the maximum advantage and leverage in negotiations with government.

Good governments like ours weigh up the competing claims and predictions against the facts and weigh up the path of action that will deliver the best result for the whole Australian community in the long term. Treasury modelling shows that the price impact of the CPRS is modest. Household prices for power would rise by 0.4 per cent in 2011-12 and 0.7 per cent in 2012-13. As was noted earlier, the bill provides for compensation to assist householders to meet those modest cost rises.

I should note that in my discussions with constituents about this issue, overwhelmingly, even those who can least afford price increases are prepared to do what they can to support the introduction of any measures that will halt climate change. Unlike some of those in the coalition, those constituents understand the need for action, and for urgent action, and are prepared to wear some pain to get that action. Of course, it would be wonderful if we could introduce the CPRS at no cost to anyone at all, but that is not possible. The transition from a high-per-capita-emitting nation to a low-emitting nation weaning itself off non-renewable, polluting fuels is going to come at a cost, and the government believes that all sectors of the economy—including the EITE industries—need to be part of that transition.

Opposition members often claim that the CPRS will destroy jobs. The fact is that we can make the transition to a low-emission economy while continuing to prosper. Treasury economic modelling confirms that and also shows national employment continuing to grow to 2020 and national income increasing by at least $4,300 per person while the nation is reducing carbon pollution by up to 25 percent below year 2000 levels. Our proposed transitional assistance for EITE industries will also assist in protecting jobs, including jobs at risk from so-called ‘carbon leakage’.

The government has established the $2.75 billion Climate Change Action Fund to help provide targeted assistance to businesses, community sector organisations, workers, regions and communities, to help make the transition to a low-pollution economy. For small- to medium-sized businesses, the CCAF will provide funding to help in the adjustment to the CPRS. This funding—including funding for information, investments in energy efficiency, low-emissions technology, structural adjustment assistance and the coal sector adjustment fund—demonstrates that the government has listened to all sides of the argument and has devised a well thought out plan for implementing the CPRS. We have committed to helping businesses prepare for the CPRS, and its passage through the Senate will provide the certainty, the assurance and the assistance that all Australian businesses need and deserve to create a low-pollution future.

One constant in the debate about the CPRS has been the request by the business community for certainty so that it can adapt and invest knowing what the rules are. It is up to the opposition to make up their minds once and for all on their position on climate change and what Australia is going to do about it. They owe it to those in the business community they purport to represent.

Of course, the opponents of these bills will never talk about the opportunity that firm action on climate change gives us to invest in new jobs in the renewable energy sector. A 2009 Climate Institute study shows that $31 billion worth of clean energy projects are planned or have commenced. Those projects will generate approximately 26,000 jobs in mostly regional areas, and many more thousands of jobs will be created by the government’s $4 billion energy efficiency programs. This government is always conscious of the need to support jobs—that is, after all, why we introduced our economy-saving economic stimulus package. We are not afraid to make the hard decisions, and we are also conscious of the fact that if we defer action on climate change, the costs of eventually taking action will be higher and the job losses will be severe.

As I have said, Australia is not the only country grappling with how to address climate change. We are not going it alone and the CPRS is not some untested, far-out scheme concocted by tree huggers in isolation from what is going on in the rest of the world. The choice of a cap-and-trade scheme like the CPRS is consistent with the action being taken in comparable economies. The EU has had an ETS in place since 2005 and New Zealand, Canada and the United States are all at various stages of implementing a form of CPRS because it is seen as the most effective, responsible way to globally address the imperative to reduce emissions to acceptable levels. Surely the whole of the developed world is not the victim of some kooky, left-wing conspiracy—as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and some of his acolytes would have us believe.

I mentioned earlier the fact that sea levels are rising. In Australia, where most of us live on the coast, we are extremely susceptible to economic loss caused by rising sea levels. Recently the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, announced a new report, Climate change risks to Australia’s coasts, which shows that between 157,000 and 247,600 existing residential buildings across the country will be at risk from sea inundation by the year 2100. These are the kinds of devastating impacts of climate change that will come to fruition if those opposite do not finally accept that climate change is real, it is happening, we are causing it, it is bad, and we need to do something about it. The opportunity to do something about it is presented before us in these bills. I look forward to the rational people opposite gaining the upper hand in this debate so that Australia can move forward to be a low-emitting, clean, green energy economy.