Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the House for this opportunity, but I must say that I am disappointed that many members have not had the chance to speak more fulsomely during this debate. Many in the government are desperate to secure a political advantage at every opportunity and like to typecast any voices of dissent in this debate as somehow being climate change sceptics or heretics. The Prime Minister himself is in the habit of claiming that, if you do not support his CPRS legislation, you do not care about the future of the Great Barrier Reef or Kakadu. It is a childish and simplistic attack that fails to recognise the basic truth: Australia contributes less than two per cent of total global emissions and anything we do in isolation to reduce those emissions will do virtually nothing to improve the global environment. There is no Australian solution to this problem; there is only a global solution. This should be an issue of science and economics, not politics and some sort of green religion.

The hypocrisy of the government’s position in the environmental debate is found right across Australia, where cuts have been made to practical environmental initiatives such as the Landcare movement, while government MPs keep spinning their lines on climate change. This is the great con by the Labor Party when it comes to environmental issues at both state and federal level. There is a long list of grand but otherwise empty statements followed up by very little action on the ground, where the work needs to be done to maintain and enhance the natural environment.

As a member of both Landcare and Watermark, two groups in the Gippsland area that are committed to practical environmental initiatives, I am constantly amazed by the determination and dedication of many country people, particularly landowners, to maintain and enhance their local environment. There are hundreds of people in Gippsland who are prepared to get their hands dirty and do the practical environmental work, which this government is failing to support. Farmers and rural landholders are the practical environmentalists of this nation. They have a vested interest in caring for the land and they are keen observers of the weather and the longer term climate patterns. The feedback I am receiving in Gippsland in relation to this legislation is that they are worried about the long-term drought and they are investigating different techniques and investing in new ways to manage their properties. However, they are also telling me that this is nothing new. Farmers in Australia have always faced the challenge of growing our nation’s food and fibre in a difficult and variable climate. That is not to say they do not believe the climate is changing; it is simply to make the point that they are innovative and ready to adapt if they are not crushed by the heavy hand of government regulation. I fear that the CPRS legislation before the House poses a far greater risk to the future of Australian agriculture than much of the climate change forecasts.

My record in relation to the climate change debate is clear for all to see. I spoke on this topic during my maiden speech and told the House that Gippslanders are at the pointy end of the climate change debate. It is the families who rely on incomes from industries such as power generation at Latrobe Valley and farming who will bear the brunt of any decisions for Australia to go it alone without a worldwide agreement. I repeat my earlier remarks: given our nation’s contribution to global emissions is less than two per cent, any policy that sacrifices jobs in my region will be met with strong resistance by the local community. As I also indicated in my maiden speech, if we are prepared to give the planet the benefit of the doubt and we accept that climate change is real, then we are going to need a strong and sustainable economy to deal with the challenges it presents.

The coalition has put forward a practical and common-sense plan to deal with many of these issues. Amidst all of the hyperbole and the empty rhetoric from those opposite, the Liberal and National MPs in this place, and Independents, to a large extent have shown a willingness to engage in the debate and put forward some very positive alternatives. To begin with, we sought to delay consideration of the CPRS legislation until we had a clearer picture of the position that would be adopted by the world’s largest nations and the biggest contributors to total global emissions. This is a practical and common-sense approach and we have the time to get our response right. The issue of sustainable environmental management is on the public agenda to stay and we must deal with its challenges in the context of a sustainable economy. Under the Rudd government’s model before the House, we run the risk of jobs being exported from Australia to nations which do not have a comparable scheme. A fear that is regularly expressed to me in my electorate is that we will be sending our jobs offshore. We will also export our carbon emissions to those nations, and the net result will be deterioration in the world’s environment because the nations that take the jobs will have less stringent environmental protocols than Australia.

Again, the opposition’s position is balanced, it is reasonable and it is practical. The government should be having a genuine conversation with the Australian public on this issue without all of the propaganda and the rhetoric. Last year we had the spectacle of the government funding a propaganda advertising campaign which effectively raised fears in the community. I believe that is an appalling betrayal of the Australian public. There is genuine concern in our community about environmental issues, but this government is doing nothing to allay those concerns; it is ramping up the rhetoric and seeking to score political points.

As I said earlier, this is a matter of science and economics. I am a firm believer in the capacity of the human mind to develop solutions to seemingly unresolvable problems. The ingenuity of the human race has overcome many challenges in the past and it will do so in the future. Instead of funding these advertising propaganda campaigns to scare the community into voting Labor, why doesn’t this government put that additional money into practical environmental initiatives or increased research? The government portrays its trading scheme as the only way to reduce CO2 emissions, but the reality is far different. Time prevents me from exploring every option in detail, and I thank the House for the opportunity—(Time expired)

See this speech in context