House debates

Thursday, 4 June 2009

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009

Consideration in Detail

10:47 am

Photo of Julie OwensJulie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say that, having listened to the debate most of yesterday and very late into last night, I think I am in groundhog day. It seems that every day we start work on what is profound reform with incredible complexities, we move forward, and then it all stops, and we wake up the next morning hearing the opposition say, ‘I think we should delay it.’ First of all, they wanted to delay it because climate change did not exist. The next day they said we should wait for everyone else. Then they said we should wait for the end of the global financial crisis. Then they said we should wait for the US. Then they said we should wait for the Productivity Commission to review it again. This is extraordinary.

I sat in this House for three years prior to the last election waiting for the government to act on climate change—waiting for the government to mention climate change or even admit that it existed. They were deniers to the end. An election was held and the people voted. We said we were going to do this, and it is time to get out of the way. The opposition’s position is not because they think it should be delayed; it is because they cannot agree on a position. Faced with the conflict within their own ranks, the only option they can come up with is to make the rest of us and the world wait.

Well, we cannot wait, and the Australian people do not want us to wait. The opposition would have us all believe that somehow the Rudd government is rushing off recklessly, going where no man has gone before, as if we are somehow creating a new way of looking at things. So they have moved from groundhog day with that one to Star Trek.

Let us look at the international trends. We are talking about a cap-and-trade scheme, and there is an international trend towards that. Emissions trading is already underway in 27 European countries—we are not the first one in. New Zealand has passed cap-and-trade legislation, and President Obama has called upon congress to bring forth legislation to establish a cap-and-trade system in the US. If we want our economy to be smoothly integrated with the rest of the world and if we want to make a serious contribution in Copenhagen then we must act on this, and cap and trade is the only logical path. Linking allows the import of emissions units from other schemes, which will reduce abatement costs domestically. The nature of our capping arrangement provides additional certainty for business. The legislation ensures that the minister will be required to specify the scheme cap numbers for 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 before July 2010. Caps beyond that point will be set annually to provide certainty over a five-year horizon at all times.

I want to emphasise the need for immediate action. Passing the bill now will provide business certainty. Our energy and resources sectors engage in investment decisions with a horizon of anywhere from 15 to 30 years. The last thing they need is uncertainty over these long-term investments—investments which are worth billions of dollars and thousands of jobs in this country. We as a nation know that we will be introducing a carbon-trading scheme. The people of Australia voted on that issue in the last election. They rejected the ‘wait and see’ approach of the then government and current opposition. Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group said ‘uncertainty is death for business’. The CEO of the Business Council of Australia, Katie Lahey, said:

“To drag on the debate whilst we have got this global financial crisis is just one more complexity that business has got to factor into its planning cycle, and for some businesses it could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back …

In stark contrast to our predecessors, the Rudd government has taken a consultative and flexible approach to public policy. In fact, I cannot recall a bill which involved more consultation. There was an extensive process of consultation with industry and stakeholders through a green paper, a white paper and an exposure draft, and we have continued to listen to business. When global circumstances changed, we reacted and adjusted to ensure we protected the real economy and the national interest. We are determined to reduce the impact of climate change but equally determined to cushion the impact of the global recession on local business and working families. Within the context of the global financial crisis, several sensible and balanced adjustments have been made to the CPRS to ensure that the climate change challenge continues to be met in an economically sustainable way. We have listened to business and we have responded and agreed to a phased introduction of the CPRS.

Climate change has been on the agenda for my constituents for at least a decade. It was ignored by the last government for at least eight of those years, and it is really time that we act. I implore the opposition to just get out of the way. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments