House debates

Monday, 28 February 2011

Private Members’ Business

Climate Change and Carbon Pricing

6:42 pm

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion before the Committee. As this is a two-part motion, I will address each separately. Firstly, I think it is good that we are debating this motion. Until this time, I have been concerned that the sole focus of the Labor government has been the opportunity to introduce a whopping new tax. I agree with the first part of the motion, which states:

… climate change is a serious economic and environmental challenge …

One only has to look at our history to appreciate that climate change has been a serious economic and environmental challenge in the past. Even if we went back to living in mud huts, it would still be a serious environmental and economic challenge in the future.

In 986, a fleet of 24 ships started a Viking settlement in Greenland. That settlement grew over the years to more than 5,000 people before Greenland’s climate began to change, with the summers growing shorter and progressively cooler, until the climate change made conditions on the island unliveable, forcing the settlement to be abandoned. In the more recent past, for example, on the Georges River in my electorate of Hughes, the largest flooding occurred back in 1873 and two other major floods followed shortly after before the turn of the century. However, the climate has changed and floods of this size have not occurred for more than 100 years. However, this does not mean that the climate will not change again and we will not see floods of this magnitude repeated. So we must be ever vigilant.

The point is that the climate has always been changing and always will, and this change will present serious economic and environmental challenges in the future. This brings me to the second part of the motion, which states:

That this House:               …            …            …

(2)
acknowledges a carbon price is the cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution and drive investment …

But the motion fails to define what pollution is. The use of the words ‘carbon pollution’ creates a subconscious image of grit and black soot, but this is not what a carbon tax is all about. A carbon tax is about taxing carbon dioxide—the clear, odourless gas that makes plants grow, a gas which makes up 0.0004 per cent of our atmosphere by volume. Of that CO2 in the atmosphere, only 2.75 per cent is of man-made origin; of the rest, over 97 per cent comes from natural sources.

I am concerned about pollution. I am concerned about the pollution in Sydney Harbour. The dioxins we have in our harbour have poisoned the fish to such an extent that it is not recommended to eat anything caught west of the bridge. But this tax on pollution will do nothing to fix this problem. I am also deeply concerned about pollution from diesel exhaust emissions that people in south-western Sydney will be inhaling in ever greater volumes if Labor gets its way and dumps two intermodals in the Moorebank and Wattle Grove areas. Studies in the USA have shown that such diesel exhaust pollution causes a variety of serious illnesses. But a tax on carbon dioxide will not do anything to fix those problems. In fact, it is likely to make them worse.

As far as a carbon tax being the fairest solution is concerned, let us consider how fair such a tax would be on the electorate of the honourable member who moved this motion, the member for Throsby. If what the member for Throsby states is true, surely he will have received overwhelming support in his own electorate, located in the Illawarra region of New South Wales. The community newspaper servicing this region, the Illawarra Mercury, has canvassed the population, undertaking two surveys in the last week. To the first question—‘Do you support the federal government’s carbon-pricing plan?’—a meagre 22.7 per cent replied yes while 77.3 per cent replied no. To the second question—‘Do you accept the need to put a price on carbon to tackle climate change?’—in the member for Throsby’s electorate the vote was only 26 per cent yes and 73 per cent no. No wonder the Prime Minister and the Treasurer told lies about the carbon tax before the election: to deceive the population about this carbon tax. It is simply a dog with fleas.

Surely the honourable member is not that out of touch. Perhaps the people of the Illawarra recognise what their federal member does not, and that is that the Greens-Labor plan is a job killer. The front page of the Illawarra Mercury of both the Friday and the weekend edition said as much. As the member for Throsby should know, BlueScope Steel has refused to rule out moving its Illawarra operations to China in a response to the introduction of this government’s new carbon tax. On Friday, the CEO of BlueScope Steel, Paul O’Malley, said:

It is not in Australia’s interests—economic or environmental—to force domestic industries to shut down or curtail production, only to see that production replaced by higher-emissions overseas production.

Comments

No comments