Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I say to those opposite: where is your plan for business certainty for the businesses of this country who said that what they need now is certainty? They know that the carbon constrained future across the global economy and in Australia is coming. They have a looming carbon liability and they need certainty from the government on how to deal with it. And the opposition are leaving businesses right across the country swinging in the wind. Where is the opposition’s plan for a global agreement and for a commitment to having a path that will help the globe lower its emissions? They do not have one. Only Labor have a plan for Copenhagen that will see us tackle Australia’s emissions and make a contribution to securing a global deal that is in Australia’s best interests, because we are at the forefront of those who will be affected with the negative consequences of climate change.

The opposition’s approach to this issue is just completely irresponsible. From an economic point of view in the competitive global economy, those businesses that adapt to change in the international environment and in the changing global economy are the ones that thrive in the long term. Those that do not adapt and those that seek to deny, ignore or avoid changes may survive in the short term but they will stagnate and eventually wither and die. That is the dustbin that the opposition would send Australian businesses to.

Emissions trading is already underway in 27 European countries. And we already know that Obama is committed to introducing emissions trading in the United States. These countries all know that by doing this they will ensure that their enterprises, their industries and their economies will thrive in the long term. They know that the day will come when countries will no longer be able to afford not to have a price on carbon.

Getting a head start on these changes, which we know are coming, is indeed in the best interests of Australian business. The opposition are leaving them in absolute no-man’s-land. Australia cannot afford this ongoing uncertainty in relation to our carbon pricing. It will have a deadening effect on our industrial innovation and competitiveness. We will not have, and the opposition do not have, a coherent framework to guide the economy through this transition. What we have from the opposition on these issues is absolute gobbledygook. Rewards will be distorted and industries of the future will struggle to get off the ground while those that must adapt to survive will put off till tomorrow what should be done today. That is why this scheme needs to be passed: in order to provide that certainty.

Investment opportunities will be misdirected and opportunities will be lost, and Australian industries, which have proven so resilient and adaptive in the past, will struggle to survive in the carbon constraint future unless we provide them with a path and a way forward. We will be left in a carbon intensive cul de sac with declining living standards and vanishing job prospects. These dangers of delay were indeed evident in information provided to the committee.

We know that, when countries do not take action relative to when they act together and they end up having economic costs, it is because they continue on their emissions intensive pathway of development. When they enter a scheme later on they find themselves at a disadvantage relative to countries that took action earlier. Investment flows to countries that took action earlier, so countries that delay are worse off by delaying their schemes. That is what Meghan Quinn from Treasury said to our committee.

But the real question is not delay; it is one of certainty. It is a matter of those businesses knowing what the framework is. It is about that legislation passing this chamber. It is about giving businesses the certainty so that they can take action and adapt, and the opposition are leaving those businesses swinging in that wind. Prolonged uncertainly, particularly at this time of global recession, is going to constrain capital flows and threaten even the supply of electricity, which is what Origin Energy said in evidence before our committee. No scheme at all will leave us with only one lever and that is that someone will sit there and say, ‘This will work, that will work, and something else will work.’ But there is a high probability that all of those decisions could be wrong. (Time expired)