Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition member is saying that the Greens are better than the Liberal Party, and I have to accept that interjection—I agree. It is amazing that the coalition, these conservative upholders of the good, although they have been listened to in silence, are interjecting now that I have got to my feet. I am always fascinated by their bad behaviour when they are losing an argument.

If I might plagiarise Oscar Wilde, if there is one thing better than Senator Abetz refusing to talk to you, it is when he talks you up. When he became minister for forests under the Howard government his first statement that very day was that he would not talk to me as a Greens senator about forests in Tasmania. I guess that was a mixed blessing as far as I was concerned. Here we have him in the chamber today talking up me and the Greens as being the nation's strongest political advocates for action on climate change. I thank him for that. It is only fair and proper that I do. By the way, he made reference to the Treasurer, Mr Swan, getting a gong overnight for the state of the Australian economy and its ability to ride through the recent global downturn. I want to congratulate the Treasurer for that accolade. It is a high accolade for him and the government and for Australia, and it should be recognised as such. This award does this nation good, and the Treasurer is to be commended for it.

We now have in prospect an orderly process for the debate on this worthy carbon package—but a package which is way short of where the Greens think we should be taking Australia as a leader in climate change action around the world. This worthy legislation deserves to pass this parliament and to pass it this year. The government has brought forward an orderly process in this motion. The Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future is sitting now with cross-party representation looking at the legislation and taking further advice from business, from the unions, from non-government organisations and from the community at large. It will report back to the parliament and when we get toward the end of the parliamentary year we will have a process for two weeks of debate in the Senate of this extraordinarily important legislation.

This legislation has been the subject of almost unprecedented public debate, media scrutiny and input from right across the nation and, when I look at the polls, has huge support from the 1.5 million people who voted Greens at the last election. I commend the government, the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Independents in the House of Representatives—Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott—for the process and the responsible way in which, a year after a committee was established by this parliament—quite unprecedented, cross-party representation, both houses involved—we now have a package of consensus legislation before the parliament which, given all the circumstances, will move the nation forward in taking reasonable action on climate change. It certainly does not have any winner taking all. It is a consensus arrangement and it is one that we are committed to.

I must make reference here to my colleague and deputy leader, Senator Christine Milne, who is at that committee at the moment, for her proposal to establish that committee. For the record, I refer also to the Prime Minister because, when I went in to put Senator Milne's proposal, the Prime Minister had by happenstance the same proposal to establish a committee, because the Labor Party and the Greens had different positions. Prime Minister Gillard had the maturity to say, 'We cannot at the outset here come to an agreement. Let's go to the wider Australian public, to business, to the non-government organisations and to the community as a whole through a committee process. Let's bring in the experts to establish the way forward.' She has been pilloried for a statement on no carbon tax made during the election campaign but what is passing strange about that is that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, who in a memorable submission on the 7.30 Report said you cannot have faith in words that are not written down—'What I say is not necessarily what I will do'—has advocated what Senator Abetz has just described as a direct action plan.

What is not said there is that this commits the opposition to the same target as the Labor Party, which is a 5 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from Australia over 1990 levels by the year 2020. But the process is very different. If there is one thing to be said about a failure of the media, it is its failure to put the spotlight onto this direct action plan of Senator Abetz and Mr Abbott.

The preliminary figures from Treasury were that that action plan by 2020 would cost Australian households, on average, $720 per household per annum. But the difference between that and the Labor-Green-Independents formula now before this parliament is that not only is it more but also there is no compensation for householders. They would be paying that through the teeth.

In the last couple of weeks, to compound this fact that the opposition intends to pulverise the household budget to foster the big polluting industries—because that is where the money from households will go; it is to give the big polluting industries money to clean up their act—Mr Abbott, the honourable Leader of the Opposition, said that he would not allow international offsets. That means that the big polluting industries, as part of meeting their need to cut greenhouse gas emissions overall, could not in their trading profile go overseas and purchase offsets such as potentially protecting rain forests or, better still, buying into real renewable energy projects elsewhere and so prevent or offset the release of greenhouse gases in other countries.

By doing that, he is saying that these big polluting industries must find within Australia the totality of such offsets. Treasury has had a look at that prospect and its modelling—and this apparently escaped Senator Abetz because he was after Treasury modelling but this is out in the public arena and he did not want to go there—is now that every household in Australia, on average, by 2020 under the Abbott-Abetz plan would be hit by $1,300 extra in electricity bills and—here is the rub—with no compensation.

The Labor-Greens-Independents model gives every household across the spectrum the opportunity for offsets and, on average, that compensation means that households will be compensated for an increase in power costs flowing from action to clean up the environment. Indeed, some low-income earners, including pensioners, get a bonus out of it. They get more money than there will be in projected power price increases down the line. With this is an effort to get householders to use the compensation flowing from the money raised under the Labor-Greens-Independents formula off the big polluters to invest themselves in household measures which will save energy and lower their household bills. It is a double win for households.

But, under the Abetz-Abbott plan, households will be smacked an extra $1,300 per annum by 2020, with no compensation and, therefore, no opportunity to purchase the equipment or get the advice that will help cut their power bills. In fact, they are faced with an inhibition to do that because they will be out of pocket. Where is that money going to go? It will go to the big polluters. So that is the alternative of the Abetz-Abbott opposition, supported by Senator Joyce and the National Party in this place.

They have talked about a great big new tax. Well, they are going to have great big new power bills of $1,300, on average, per household by 2020, with no compensation and an inhibition on people to reduce their consumption. Whereas there is a stimulus, an opportunity, through compensation for all households so compensated in Australia to reduce their power and to feel good about that because they are contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country, which is the biggest per capita greenhouse gas polluter on the face of the planet, certainly amongst the richer nations. At the same time, of course, they will be better off.

There is a simple dictum here, which you will hear in the upcoming debate. The Abetz-Abbott prescription is to take money from householders and give it to the big polluters. The Gillard government-Greens-Oakeshott-Windsor prescription is to take money from the big polluters, who are very often largely foreign owned and export their profits, and give it to the householders. That is the difference. I am sure the current inquiry that got underway this morning will be able to add greater information to that winning profile for the Australian public that is invested in this legislation, which is having a fair go in terms of public scrutiny and which will have a fair go in terms of two weeks debate here in the Senate before it is finally put through, if the Senate so decides, in time for us by the end of this year to have Australia as one of the leading nations when it comes to action on climate change.

I listened to the ABC's radio news channel a few days ago, to a BBC question session on Al Gore, the former Vice-President of the United States who has become a champion of action on climate change. What became apparent is that, when you get outside the boxed-in debate within politics in Australia, you can hear from such an eminent figure, who shared in a Nobel Prize for work on climate change, accolades for Australia for now being up there with China and India, which recently put a tax on coal, as leading the world in new action to tackle climate change.

In an hour or two I will be talking to the very important conference on tourism and transport, which I think the Prime Minister might be addressing at about now in this parliament. One of the things that will concentrate the minds of the conference is the future of one of the great tourist icons in Australia, the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Abetz may say what he likes but the fact is the science says that with carbon dioxide being absorbed by the ocean and the ocean becoming more acidic, even if you set aside the impact of coral bleaching through warming of the oceans, the Great Barrier Reef is faced with massive damage later this century through acidification, the increasing acid component of the ocean which prevents the corals from replicating. There will be massive damage, and yet we have a coalition—and I am afraid we have to look at Labor on this, which wants to promote greater coal exports out of Australia by the largely foreign owned coal industry, with one of the expenses coming out of that being the threat of massive damage to this great icon of nature on the planet, which is one of the earlier recognised World Heritage components of Australia's magnificent natural heritage.

  According to Queensland government figures, the Great Barrier Reef supports over 60,000 jobs and has a $6 billion annual economy the majority of which, unlike with the coal industry, flows through into the coffers of small business and to the regional economy.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Senator Joyce interjecting—

I have coalition members interjecting. They have an opportunity to dispute those figures if they wish to, Madam Acting Deputy President.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

We are getting 'shonkiness, rorting, despicable, corruption'—those are words coming from the opposition, and it just shows you, Madam Acting Deputy President, the level of debate that we are going to get from this coalition. Of course, the people listening to this are getting a registration of the ability, the intellectual baselessness of the way this coalition approaches politics in Australia in 2011. Their speakers were listened to in complete silence in this place, but here we have the National Party and Senator Bernardi—you can hear it, Madam Acting Deputy President—cutting across me from two seats to the right with a level of debate which puts shame on the coalition.

That having been said, I stand here as the leader of the Australian Greens who is proud of the work we have put into this legislation, the positive nature of it, the way in which it will move Australia forward, the way it honours future generations of Australians through action rather than inaction and the very fact that built into it is a social justice component.

I end this contribution by repeating that this legislation will take from the big polluters and give to households. The opposition's prescription is to take from households to give to the big polluters. We are proud of which side we are on in that debate.