Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The scientific evidence is clear: carbon pollution is contributing to climate change. Every government around the world is attempting to come to grips with the challenge, and no responsible government can afford to ignore it. The time for a-head-in-the-sand approach to this challenge expired long ago. As the highest per capita emitter of pollution in the world, Australia has an obligation to act. We cannot leave this challenge to the rest of the world or to future generations and ignore our own responsibility. Australia has to act by cutting pollution and driving investment in clean energy. This is an essential economic reform and it will require nothing less than a restructure of the Australian economy.

At the last federal election Australians voted for action on climate change, and the Gillard government is responding to that. Those opposite are carrying on like this is the biggest surprise of their lives and that they have previously never heard of putting a price on carbon. They are clearly ignorant of the fact that the final report of the Garnaut climate change review of 2008 outlined the options that are available for a responsible government to deal with climate change. They were either a carbon tax or some form of emissions trading scheme or a hybrid scheme of both.

It is time to end the political, petty bickering and to replace it with leadership that is in our long-term national interest, and Prime Minister Gillard is showing the way on this issue. The Prime Minister has outlined a two-stage plan for a carbon price mechanism that will start with a fixed-price period for three to five years before transitioning to an emissions trading scheme.

The Climate Institute’s report out today highlights the enormous opportunities that a clean energy future offers us. The report states:

Delays and half measures to tackle pollution and climate change will risk these new job and investment opportunities for Australia’s states and regions.

The report also states:

In 2010 global clean energy investments hit record levels at $243 billion and this is expected to accelerate in coming years.

Importantly, it says:

Australia lags in current investments and will fall further behind without action on pollution to stimulate clean energy uptake.

We agree. This is in line with what the government is saying. We know that a carbon price is the cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution and to build a clean energy economy. We also know that the Leader of the Opposition has had so many different positions on the issue of a carbon price that it is difficult to keep track of them all. Indeed, if a political Kama Sutra is ever published—and I know a lot of Australians do not like to think of these two concepts in the one sentence—it will have a photo of the member for Warringah on the front cover.

This is a remarkable achievement in a short space of time. We know that, like all on the coalition side, he supported the former Prime Minister John Howard’s decision to take an emissions trading scheme to the 2007 election. We also know that he supported at various times the passing of the Rudd government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The member for Warringah is on record as saying that an emissions trading scheme was a sensible policy; he said this as lately as 4 October 2009. We also know that at some stage political opportunism set in and, in order to usurp the leadership of the member for Wentworth, the member for Warringah decided that climate change was, in his famous words, ‘complete crap’. At some stage, amongst all of these policy backflips, the Leader of the Opposition is also on record, as lately as 29 July 2009, supporting a carbon tax. Confusing and contradictory? I cannot think of any other way to characterise this, at least not in polite company.

All of this leads us to the current position, where the member for Warringah is once again opposed to a carbon price and, in partnership with his shadow minister for climate change, the member for Flinders, is trying to boot up a scare campaign. What we have heard since the Gillard government’s announcement is a scare campaign in full swing. We expect a lot more of it.

You would never believe that there was a time when those opposite believed in market mechanisms. The Liberal Party believed in the market. Indeed, they told us so for long enough, but not in this space. We now have a Liberal Party that has disowned the free market in favour of political opportunism. The coalition’s direct action policy is the most costly approach to climate change, and they have not yet answered the key question, which is: where will the funding for their policy come from? Direct action will not be environmentally effective, nor will it achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that we need. It is inefficient, it has a high cost and it involves government picking winners to try to choose the right projects. It is the coalition’s high-cost policy that will cost Australian taxpayers dearly. These subsidies are nothing more than deferred taxes.

On this side of the chamber we know that the best way to stop business polluting and to get them to invest in clean energy is to charge them when they pollute. Only then will the businesses with the highest levels of pollution have a strong incentive to reduce their pollution. The government will then use every cent to assist households and families with their bills, to help businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy and, importantly, to tackle climate change. Putting a price on carbon is not a tax on Australian families, but it is a charge on pollution, and it is that economic reform that is going to be what drives us into a clean energy future.

The Gillard government is very conscious of the cost-of-living pressures facing families. The carbon prices will be paid by businesses that emit large amounts of pollution, and we acknowledge that this will have some price impacts for consumers. But, because we are a Labor government, we will ensure that any price impact is fair, and assistance will be provided to households. While decisions on factors such as the starting price and assistance arrangements have not yet been made, it is far too early to be talking about impacts, and anybody who does is clearly engaging in nothing more than speculation.

The government will propose that the carbon price commences on 1 July 2012, subject to the ability to negotiate agreement with a majority in both houses of parliament and pass legislation this year. The Gillard government is committed to beginning this vital economic transformation because it is in our long-term interests. Important decisions will be considered over the next few months regarding the detailed features of the carbon price mechanism, including the starting price, the length of the fixed price period and the assistance arrangements for households, communities and industry. This is going to be an important debate that we cannot allow to be given over to the scare campaigns being unleashed by those opposite. What is at stake is not only the future of our environment, the way we live in Australia, the future of our economy and whether we are able to drive the sorts of investments and incentives in clean energy futures, green jobs of the future and green industries of the future to transform our economy; it is also whether these important economic reforms can be driven through the current parliament and whether we have an appetite for the sorts of political and economic reforms that are going to transform our future.

The Australian public can be confident that these decisions will reflect Labor’s long-term commitment to the national interest and not short-term political interest. We have a will to fight this through to the very end. We will not bow to the scare campaign that is being unleashed by those opposite, because we know that it is in the interests of the country and in the interests of future generations that we take effective and efficient action on climate change. The need is now and the need is urgent. I commend the motion to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Government Member:

Government member interjecting—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are going to drive out this investment. The member for Throsby should be aware of this article because, when asked by the newspaper if pricing emissions was a threat to local jobs, the member did not seem concerned, refusing to answer the question.

Let us look at some of the online comments following the article in the Illawarra Mercury.

Isn’t the local Labor MP, Stephen Jones, meant to represent his community? What a gutless and deflective answer in th article … Mr Jones, just remember, we voted you in and we can vote you out …

And another:

well done labor, way to screw us all over again. Another nail in your coffin, problem is we have to wait too long to bury you. Labor are a disgrace, and while our esteemed PM says that she is going to create jobs using this TAX, i wonder how many of the illawarra workers feel safe now. Time to stand up people and be heard.

The member for Throsby knows well that BlueScope Steel employs 4,900 people directly in his electorate. His failure to stand up for his electorate has now put those jobs at risk. This is in a region suffering serious, overinflated unemployment, with youth unemployment standing at a whopping 39 per cent. You can babble on about certainty all you like, but you need to think about the great uncertainty that you have caused those 4,900 people directly employed in your electorate.

This motion is an embarrassment to the member for Throsby—to talk about fairness when your electorate will perhaps be affected more than any other. You have abandoned your constituents. How are you going look them in the eye when you have destroyed their jobs? This is going to give you the nickname Stephen ‘Job Killer’ Jones. This motion should be treated with the contempt that it deserves.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Hughes, being a new member, that members are expected to address the motions and the bills before the parliament.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to strongly support the member for Throsby’s very important motion about carbon pricing and I applaud the motion. In response to all those issues raised by the member for Hughes, I remind him that if you do not look after the environment you will have no economy. I have long spoken about the need to arrest the damage that excessive carbon emissions are having on our environment and indeed on our economy. I know that many people in my electorate of Reid want to see action to mitigate the effects of climate change so that we can create a sustainable environment for future generations.

Doubtless you will recall from last year how the opposition voted in this House on my motion on climate change. The motion stated that climate change is real and human induced. The motion was passed unanimously. If we all agree on this fact, why are those opposite opposed to addressing the problem in the best interests of our nation in the fairest and cheapest way? I believe part of the problem with the opposition is the fact that there are still sceptics, like the previous speaker, in the Liberal Party who do not really believe in climate change. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, as the member for Throsby pointed out in his contribution, is on record as saying that it is ‘absolute crap’. Perhaps that is why the opposition—and the Leader of the Opposition in particular—have been very inconsistent on climate change and have still not provided Australians with any viable policy.

Our government, in stark contrast, has always expressed our concerns about the threats posed by climate change and our desire to address the issues for the long-term benefit of all our people and our international neighbours. If you look at the scientific evidence presented to us, there is no denying the need to act now on climate change. The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee also knows that there is now 100 per cent certainty that the earth is warming and 95 per cent certainty that human induced emissions are the main cause of the warming observed over the last century. This information was presented to them by Professor Will Steffen.

Globally, 2010 was the equal warmest year on record, with 2001 to 2010 being the warmest decade. Some estimates indicate that, if we do not act now, irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin will virtually disappear by 2100. Only last week I raised the new research findings about the probability that extreme climatic events, particularly floods and cyclones, are likely to increase in frequency and ferocity and about how this is linked to human activity. In light of the recent floods we have experienced, we can see the costs to the agricultural sector, the mining sector, the tourism sector, infrastructure and human life. Surely we want to mitigate those disasters.

We also know that Australians are the worst polluters per capita in the developed world. Surely this is cause for concern and should be a priority of any responsible government. The science is clear. In light of the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is real and human induced, the need to act is also clear. The cost of inaction will far outstrip the cost of effective action now. That is exactly why our government has announced that we will cut pollution, tackle climate change and deliver economic reform to move from a high-polluting economy to a clean energy future. To achieve this, we are proposing, as you know, a two-stage plan for a carbon price mechanism that will start with a fixed period of three to five years before transitioning to an emissions trading scheme. Putting a price on pollution will give a very strong incentive for high-emitting businesses to reduce their pollution levels through innovation, creating a stronger economy and new jobs. A fixed price will also provide business certainty and help make the transition to an ETS easier.

Business uncertainty is affecting important long-term investments. As Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group said in a speech in 2009:

Many of our members are telling us that they are holding off making investments until there is a greater degree of clarity around domestic climate change legislation.

Mr Rod Sims, who is an expert advisor to the government’s multi party climate change committee, states:

The introduction of a carbon price will allow the currently lowest cost measures to be chosen while technological change drives the best longer term solutions.

It is a widely held view that a market mechanism is the most efficient and cost-effective way of establishing a carbon price. This was even supported by former Prime Minister John Howard. The benefits of a carbon price have been widely supported and the fearmongering we have witnessed from those opposite should be condemned for limiting and damaging our otherwise strong and stable economy. I strongly support the motion and I applaud the member for Throsby for bringing it to the parliament.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion. It is worth recalling that we are here because scientists are telling us we have a limited time within which to stop sending polluting CO2 and other gases like methane into the atmosphere. We have a limited carbon budget—mere decades left within which to spend it. A carbon price is not going to be a cure-all. We are going to need a range of government initiatives to tackle climate change. We are going to need a significant renewable energy target, a feed-in tariff. We are going to need Commonwealth investment in a renewable energy grid.

I am less sanguine about the market than the members in the government who seem to believe it will be a cure-all. The irony always struck me, when it came to the financial crisis, that the Labor government was prepared to rediscover its inner Keynesianism, yet when it comes to a climate crisis they are not. I do hope we get to a point somewhere in the not too distant future where we say that we treat the planet with the same courtesy with which we treat a merchant bank and make the same level of funds available to it. We would then be a lot further down the road of tackling climate change.

It is also worth recalling that the agreement across Labor and the coalition of the very small target of five per cent will go nowhere near what is necessary. But because of the urgency of the challenge, we have to put all shoulders to the wheel, to do everything we possibly can to address the challenge. That means, especially in the context of this parliament, looking for those areas where we can find some room for agreement rather than accentuating where we disagree. Part of that, as a starting point, means being honest about what a carbon price is.

Up until now we have presumed that we can continue to put pollution into the atmosphere and treat the atmosphere as free. In the same way that pollution gets put into a river and one presumes that there are no associated externalities, and there are laws to fix it, so too are we addressing the very real problem that putting pollution into the atmosphere has a consequence. The purpose of a carbon price is to say that those big polluters who put pollution into the atmosphere are the ones who should pay. If they choose to pass some of that price down to consumers, there should be mechanisms to redress it. You will recall that one of the reasons the Greens were unable to support the previous Labor scheme was that not enough of the compensation went to low-income households. That will be very clearly at the forefront of the minds of the members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee as we work through the outstanding issues.

We have also seen from the Leader of the Opposition a manufactured scare campaign. He has moved breathlessly from saying that climate change is crap to quoting the history of climate change according to One Nation, to making up figures about price impact. It is the manufactured scare campaign which we have seen before from the likes of big tobacco and the big miners. We are going to see it again from the big polluters and the opposition working hand in glove. Just as the billionaires took to the streets of Perth for their Rolex revolution, so too this time are we going to see polluters passing themselves off as proletarians being very hard done by. Increasingly these shrill comments are going to fall on deaf ears. The Leader of the Opposition is going to show himself as the prize fighter who suffers the rope-a-dope, who goes far too early and punches far too hard. Increasingly, members of the community are realising that, if we do not want to be spending an enormous proportion of our GDP in dealing with the impacts of climate change on our children’s future, if we want to save the Great Barrier Reef and all the economy and tourism which flows from it, if we want to make sure there is enough water left in the Murray-Darling, then the time to act is now.

So I say to everyone out in the community, whichever way you voted at the last election, if you want a price on pollution, this is your opportunity to have an impact. I applaud those already out in the debate, from Origin Energy calling for a $25 per tonne price to the likes of the Climate Institute, which the member for Throsby commended earlier, saying that with a $45 a tonne carbon price we will see almost 8,000 more permanent jobs and 26,000 more temporary jobs.

The Greens, through the confidential process of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, will put our view about what the price should be, but I say to everyone who is concerned about climate change: whichever way you voted at the last election, now is your time to stand up against the confected outrage that we have seen over the last few days, to stand up in your communities and explain to your neighbours why a price on pollution is necessary and stand up in the press and on the airwaves to speak out for what you believe the appropriate carbon price should be.

18:59:40

The Greens, through the confidential process of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, will put our view about what the price should be, but I say to everyone who is concerned about climate change: whichever way you voted at the last election, now is your time to stand up against the confected outrage that we have seen over the last few days, to stand up in your communities and explain to your neighbours why a price on pollution is necessary, and to stand up in the press and on the airwaves to speak out for what you believe the appropriate carbon price should be.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.