2009-10-28 42 1 6 REPS 0 0 2009-10-28 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 11165 Business 11165 11165 11165 09:01:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I present the report of the recommendations of the whips relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 16 November 2009. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Pursuant to standing order 41A, the Whips recommend the following items of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business for Monday, 16 November 2009. The order of precedence and allotments of time for items in the Main Committee and Chamber are as follows: Items recommended for Main Committee (6.55 to 8.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Notices 1 MR ABBOTT: To present a bill for an act to establish a process for assisting victims of international terrorist attacks. (Assisting the Victims of International Terrorism Bill 2009). Time allotted—5 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Abbott—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] 2 MR RIPOLL: To move: That the House: notes that: building community infrastructure or improving community amenity has the potential to generate local jobs and increase skills and social capital; investment in cycling is regarded as a cost effective way to increase mobility and physical activity levels, make recreation accessible and boost regional tourism; and small shifts in transport modes to other forms, such as cycling, may provide substantial dividends and important benefits for the transport and freight sector and reduce congestion, increase efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions; and supports: the Government’s National Bike Path Program and other programs which encourage people to take up cycling; awareness programs, initiatives, organisations and individuals that promote cycling as a way of getting fitter, having some fun, reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions; and policies, projects and initiatives that deliver increased options for cycling infrastructure Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Ripoll—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 3 MR MORRISON: To move: That the House: recognises the service of those Australians who were employed as field constabulary officers (Kiaps) in the Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary between 1949 and 1974; acknowledges the hazardous and difficult conditions that were experienced by the members serving with the Royal Papua and New Guinea constabulary; notes that former members of the Regular Constabulary of the Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary may be entitled to long service and good conduct medals, such as the National Medal, subject to meeting eligibility criteria; supports moves to allow former members of the Field Constabulary to count their service towards the National Medal; notes that qualifying service to meet the eligibility criteria for the National Medal must include at least one day of service on or after the medal’s creation on 14 February 1975; expresses concern that many former Kiaps may not meet the eligibility criteria for the National Medal, as eligible Kiap service ceased on 30 November 1973; recognises that the Trust Territory of New Guinea, under the terms of the Papua New Guinea Act 1949 and the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of New Guinea, held sovereignty unto itself and as such, was at law an international country (and foreign to Australia); recognises that the Governor General’s assent of the Papua New Guinea Act 1949 and the signing of the “Trusteeship Agreement” for New Guinea by the Australian Government, prescribed service activity whereby the service was carried out by members of the Australian Police Force and the service was undertaken as part of an international operation; and calls on the Australian Government to change the eligibility criteria applying to the Police Overseas Service Medal so as not to prevent the award of the medal to those: Australian public servants who were employed through the Australian Government and served in the Australian administered United Nations Trust Territory of New Guinea between 1949 and 1974; and individuals serving in Papua New Guinea as sworn and armed Commissioned Officers of the Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary (at the time an Australian External Territorial Police Force). Time allotted—20 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Morrison—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 4 MR BRADBURY: To move: That the House: notes the impact of homelessness on individuals and families around Australia; acknowledges the strategies of the Rudd Government in addressing affordable housing and homelessness; recognises the important work of not for profit and other community based organisations in tackling homelessness; and congratulates the Nepean Campaign Against Homelessness on the launch of its Regional Taskforce and the work that it has been doing to improve access to affordable housing.). Time allotted—20 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Bradbury—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 5 MR HAASE: To move— That the House: recognises that the Australian live export industry: employs 13,000 Australians nationally across 30 separate business types; contributes AUD$1.8 billion each year to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product; pays AUD$987 million a year in wages and salaries; and contributes AUD$830 million to regional economies and underpins the economic and social wellbeing of large slices of rural and remote Australia, particularly in Western Australia; notes that: Australia is regarded as the world leader in livestock export regulation and management; if Australia stopped live export, the trade would go to less scrupulous countries than ours and put severe supply pressure on already struggling third world countries; it would cost the Australian economy AUD$1 billion to phase out live trade; the cessation of live export would have a severe impact on domestic markets, particularly in the regions; many pastoralists in the electoral division of Kalgoorlie do not have the option to crop as an alternative industry as suggested by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) commissioned ACIL Tasman report; and the RSPCA and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) should focus on real and relevant animal cruelty issues; and considers that the Australian Government should commit to a campaign countering RSPCA and PETA misinformation. Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 8.30 pm Speech time limits— Mr Haase—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minute each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Items recommended for House of Representatives Chamber (8.40 to 9.30 pm) COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS Presentation and statements 1 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS Everybody’s Business: Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Community Stores. The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—statement to conclude by 8.50 pm Speech time limits— Mr Debus (Chair)—5 minutes Other Member—5 minutes [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 2 STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND TRAINING Adolescent Overload? Report of the inquiry into combining school and work: supporting successful youth transitions. The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9 pm Speech time limits— Ms Bird (Chair)—5 minutes Other Member—5 minutes [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 3 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICS Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2008 (Second Report). The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9.10 pm Speech time limits— Mr C. R. Thomson (Chair)—5 minutes Other Member—5 minutes [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 4 JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT Report 415: Review of Auditor-General’s Reports tabled between September 2008 and January 2009. The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—statement to conclude by 9.15 pm Speech time limits— Ms Grierson (Chair)—5 minutes [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] 5 JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT Report 416: Review of the Major Projects Report 2007-08. The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9.20 pm Speech time limits— Ms Grierson (Chair)—5 minutes [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] 6 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Report 107: Treaties tabled on 15 September and 20 August 2009. The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—remaining Committee and delegation reports time prior to 9.30 pm Speech time limits— Mr K. J. Thomson (Chair)—10 minutes [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins] Report adopted. 11168 Committees 11168 11168 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Scullion has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and Senator Humphries has been appointed a member of the committee. 11168 Bills R4231 11168 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McClelland. Bill read a first time. 11168 11168 09:02:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The principal purpose of the amendments to be made by the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is to modernise the national personal insolvency scheme and to make it more efficient. These are tough economic times which are impacting on many Australians. In the last year, there was an 11 per cent increase in bankruptcies. The 2008-09 financial year produced the highest ever level of personal insolvency—a total of 36,479 administrations. The vast majority of these are non-business bankruptcies principally involving consumer debts. Quite often, people become bankrupt through no fault of their own as unforeseen circumstances hit them. The government is also concerned that too many creditors are still using bankruptcy as a tool in debt collection as opposed to a last resort. However, the government is also conscious of the needs of business, particularly in these times, to be paid and also to be paid on time. In these circumstances, it is more important than ever that our system for dealing with bankruptcy is both fair to debtors and also to creditors. It is also important to the broader Australian economy that we have strong but fair bankruptcy laws. Our bankruptcy system must enable small and large business to efficiently and cost-effectively recover their debts. However, it must also ensure that individuals are not prevented from making a meaningful contribution to the economy because of the stigma of bankruptcy or from being burdened by excessive debt and fees arising from the bankruptcy process itself. In short, our bankruptcy laws must strike a balance between the need for fairness and the need to ensure a strong economy. This bill strikes that balance. The provisions contained in this bill have been the subject of extensive consultation. Following discussions with industry stakeholders earlier this year, I released an exposure draft of the bill on 25 August 2009 and invited interested parties to make submissions. I received submissions from a wide variety of stakeholders including creditors, financial counsellors and members of the public. The provisions in the bill relating to trustee remuneration and offences were also the subject of extensive consultation in 2007 and 2008. I turn now to a few specific aspects of the bill. Bankruptcy is a complex and costly process. It is costly to the parties affected and to the community. It is therefore inappropriate to use it to recover debts of not more than $2,000. Accordingly the bill provides that the minimum amount upon which a creditor can petition for a debtor’s bankruptcy will increase to $10,000. The current minimum amount of $2,000 for a creditor’s position was originally set in 1996. The increase in the minimum amount to $10,000 is not merely intended to reflect the increase in the value of money since 1996. It is also intended to reflect the significant increase in the overall levels of personal debt since 1996. Last year only 20 per cent of bankruptcies related to debts of between $2,000 and $10,000. As I have stated, the government is conscious of the importance to business, especially small business, of prompt payment of bills. However, bankruptcy should be the last resort for creditors and debtors alike. Creditors have other options available to collect these debts and should have systems in place to manage the debts owed to them. Options include negotiated payment arrangements, civil debt recovery, garnisheeing income and seizing assets. These are more appropriate than bankruptcy for recovering a small debt. The bill also provides for an increase in the stay period for a declaration of intent to file for bankruptcy from seven to 28 days. When a debtor files a declaration of intent to file for bankruptcy, creditors are barred from taking any action to collect any debts during the stay period. Increasing the stay period from seven days to 28 days will give debtors a more realistic opportunity to properly assess their options. A debtor can also use the stay period to consult with a financial counsellor, a legal practitioner or to negotiate with his or her creditors. The amendments will also require the Official Receiver to notify creditors where a debtor files a declaration. This may be the first time some creditors become aware of the extent of the debtor’s financial problems. This amendment will allow creditors to be proactive in assisting the debtor to find an alternative to bankruptcy. When a debtor files a declaration of intent to file they will also be required to lodge a statement of affairs. The requirement to lodge a statement of affairs will protect the interests of creditors, in particular. It will prevent the debtor from dissipating funds and assets, potentially to pay creditors. The bill provides for a 20 per cent increase in the income threshold for debt agreements. A debt agreement is a voluntary agreement between a debtor and creditors proposed by the debtor. With increases in wages and availability of credit in recent years, it is appropriate that the income thresholds for debt agreements be moderately increased. This increase will make debt agreements more widely available. In recent years debt agreements have become an increasingly popular alternative to bankruptcy. Not only can they be good for debtors; they can also be good for creditors. They provide far superior returns to creditors when compared with bankruptcy. Last year, debt agreements provided an average return to creditors of around 60c in the dollar, compared with less than 2c in the dollar from bankruptcy. It is in the interests of both a bankrupt and their creditors that an estate is not unnecessarily diminished by the fees incurred in its administration. Trustee remuneration should be reasonable and reflect the value of the work. As a result, this bill provides a more streamlined and fairer process for fixing and reviewing trustee remuneration. It also ensures that creditors have proper oversight of a trustee’s administration of a bankrupt estate. In particular, the bill: provides a minimum entitlement to remuneration which recognises the basic work that every trustee must do in administering an estate; reinforces the basic principles that remuneration above that minimum entitlement must be approved by creditors and that all remuneration must be paid from the estate; provides trustees with certainty concerning approval of their remuneration; and provides an effective and accessible mechanism for reviewing remuneration and costs incurred by the trustee. Importantly, the bill also provides trustees with stronger powers to obtain a statement of affairs from a bankrupt who fails to file this as required. The statement of affairs is the most important information required by a trustee to commence administering the bankrupt’s estate. Failure to comply with the requirement to file a statement of affairs significantly frustrates the trustee’s ability to administer the estate in a timely way. Failure to provide a statement of affairs often results in a trustee expending additional time and expenses to identify a debtor’s assets, income and liability. This in turn can diminish a bankrupt’s estate and returns to creditors. Finally, the bill also includes provisions related to offences. These amendments will help ensure that any criminal or improper activity by bankrupts is dealt with appropriately. These amendments will also assist in highlighting the different treatment for bankrupts who engage in criminal activity compared with those who are simply unfortunate. Importantly, these offences will assist to preserve the integrity of the National Personal Insolvency Index. This index is the public record of bankruptcy and personal insolvency events, and is an important tool for business and lenders. In summary, the government is committed to ensuring our bankruptcy laws are able to deal with personal insolvency issues quickly and efficiently so that people can get back on their feet as soon as possible. However, the government also concerned that there are proper protections for creditors and that bankruptcy laws are not misused. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Forrest) adjourned. 11171 Bills R4232 11171 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McClelland. Bill read a first time. 11171 11171 09:12:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This parliament has a strong tradition of passing statute law revision bills with bipartisan support since they were introduced in their current form by the Fraser government in 1981. In the second reading speech to the Statute Law Revision Bill 1981 the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, said: The Government has decided to introduce Statute Law Revision Bills into the Parliament on a regular basis, at least once in each year and, if required, once in each sitting. This will enable the prompt correction of mistakes and errors and removal from the statute book of expired laws. In support of that bill, the then shadow Attorney-General, Senator Evans, congratulated the government for this innovation and said it was: … a rational legislative measure aiding in the avoidance of the unnecessary cluttering of the parliamentary process with what are on any view small issues most of the time. This history of uniform support shows that statute law revision bills are regarded as non-controversial bills for the orderly, accurate and up-to-date maintenance of the Commonwealth statute books. However, this housekeeping work is itself an important contribution to the legislative landscape and the broader justice system. Statute law revision bills improve the quality and accuracy of Commonwealth legislation and enhance the effectiveness and accessibility of the law for the Australian people. This continual process of statutory law revision complements the government’s commitment to enhancing the operation and accessibility of the federal justice system for all Australians. The retention of outdated or unclear legislative provisions makes the laws complex, inconsistent and difficult to access. It imposes needless costs on the community and makes the laws inaccessible for those who cannot afford legal advice. The Statute Law Revision Bill 2009 runs the ruler over Commonwealth legislation to ensure that it reflects the highest standards. Clearer, easy-to-read legislation protects the public’s right to understand the law and, in that sense, is of fundamental importance to providing access to justice. Scrutiny of the statute books extends beyond the correction of minor errors and the clearing away of obsolete acts. The bill also amends a number of statutes to ensure consistency of language and to remove gender-specific language. While the Statute Law Revision Bill 2009 might not rival the immortal words of Shakespeare, words have their meaning and the words in statutes reflect contemporary Australian society. It is appropriate that we ensure our statute books exhibit current social standards. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel has demonstrated its high level of expertise in the initiation and preparation of this bill. This work will make sure that in future our statute book remains as accurate and effective as it can possibly be. I commend the office for the quality of its work in reviewing, correcting and updating the body of Commonwealth legislation by preparing this bill. I commend this bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Forrest) adjourned. 11172 Bills R4221 Cognate bills: 11172 Bills R4215 11172 Bills R4213 11172 Bills R4218 11172 Bills R4219 11172 Bills R4216 11172 Bills R4222 11172 Bills R4220 11172 Bills R4217 11172 Bills R4214 11172 Bills R4223 11172 Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Combet: That this bill be now read a second time. 11172 09:16:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —I move this second reading amendment to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House: believes that the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme is flawed and in its current form will cost Australian jobs and investment, and simply export rather than reduce global greenhouse gas emissions: supports the Coalition in again calling on the Government to defer consideration of this legislation, which will impose the single largest structural change to the Australian economy, until after the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit has concluded in less than 50 days time; notes that as the Government remains determined to keep an utterly artificial and self-imposed deadline of this Parliamentary year and as such before the world meets to address the important issue of global action, the Coalition has proposed changes to the Government’s ETS to ensure the following critical matters are addressed: that emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries remain on a level playing field with competitors in other advanced economies; that agriculture is excluded from the scheme, rather than included after 2015, and farmers have access to agricultural offset credits; that the impact of higher electricity prices on small businesses be moderated; that the coal industry is required to reduce fugitive emissions as technically feasible, but not be unfairly financially penalised: that transitional assistance to coal-fired electricity generators is sufficient to ensure that electricity supply security is maintained and the generators remain viable; and that complementary measures such as voluntary action and energy efficiency are encouraged”. There are varied opinions within the community about the causes and the consequences of climate change but most scientific opinion holds that our planet is warming because of human caused emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Therefore as leaders around the world have held for many years, starting with Margaret Thatcher nearly 20 years ago, prudence requires that we give the planet the benefit of the doubt and move as a globe to reduce the emission of these greenhouse gases. Most economists and policymakers agree that a well-designed emissions trading scheme is the most economically efficient means of reducing greenhouse gases. That is why in 2007 the Howard government commenced work on an Australian emissions trading scheme. It was based on the Shergold report, the report of the committee chaired by the then permanent head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with other secretaries represented as well as industry. It is why both the coalition and the Labor Party went to the 2007 federal election promising to implement an emissions trading scheme. But it is important to note that whether this emissions trading scheme, or indeed any emissions trading scheme, is effective will depend on its timing and its design—above all its design. It will depend on the availability of low-emission technologies and cost-effective carbon sinks. In other words, an emissions trading scheme is a piece of economic plumbing to be assessed objectively and pragmatically and practically for its effectiveness in reducing emissions without destroying Australian jobs. Now caps and emissions trading schemes are emerging as a key instrument for emissions abatement in other advanced economies, and obviously we have seen prototypes of the ETS here in Australia already, in New South Wales in particular. The European Union implemented an emissions trading scheme in 2005 and is currently in the process of widening its coverage and greatly increasing the proportion of emissions permits to be auctioned rather than given away. The United States has also been considering a national emissions trading scheme, and there are schemes operating in a number of its states already, with the Waxman-Markey bill already passed by the United States House of Representatives and the Kerry-Boxer-Graham bill going through committees in the Senate. On 13 August this year the coalition joined with all the other non-Labor senators to vote down the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme in the form of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation. The reason for our stance was very clear. As it was designed the CPRS was flawed and it would unnecessarily harm Australian exports, jobs and investment. The introduction of the scheme would simply lead to emissions being exported rather than reduced at the global level. This is the key problem that we face in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. It is unlike other forms of environmental action where there is an immediate local, tangible benefit. Reducing pollution in a river, for example, has an immediate tangible benefit and is not dependent on action anywhere else in the world. What if the only consequence of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Australia is that the industry which produces them ceases to operate in Australia and operates somewhere else—to give the most graphic example which has been the subject of so much debate? If the consequence of this scheme is that less coal is mined in Australia and so there are fewer coalminers’ jobs in Australia, less investment in coalmining in Australia, less exports of coal from Australia, less revenues at every level—private sector, public sector—from coalmining in Australia but demand for coal globally remains the same and more coal is mined in Colombia, South Africa or Indonesia then there has been absolutely no benefit at all to the level of global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, if one assumes that the environmental standards overseas are not as rigorous as they are in Australia or the mine from which the additional coal is produced in Indonesia, for example, is more gassy than a mine in Australia then it may actually be a net increase. So therein lies what Ross Garnaut described as the ‘diabolical problem’ of managing climate change. Nothing will be effective without a global agreement. We had some discussion in the House yesterday about the recent report, by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, on the impact of rising sea levels and other consequences of climate change on coastal communities. I have looked at the report. It appears to be a very good piece of work, as one would expect with a very experienced chair and the deputy chair, the member for Moore. But the fact is that, even if Australia were to reduce its emissions to zero, unless that is matched by action elsewhere it would have absolutely no impact. So the critical issue—we are told about the critical need for action on climate change, and I accept that call to action without hesitation—is that unless it is global action it will be ineffective. The government is bringing the bills back now, obviously in search of a double dissolution trigger. The government is committed to having the bills voted on before the end of the year, prior to the Copenhagen summit, so that the Prime Minister can go to Copenhagen with a completed statute. The United States of America, unquestionably the most influential player in this whole global debate, followed closely by China, will be going to the conference without concluded legislation. A lot of work has been done and the US House of Representatives has obviously passed a bill but there will not be concluded, finalised legislation from the US prior to Copenhagen. The Prime Minister himself has said that this is no disadvantage; it does not create any problems for President Obama. But apparently the lack of a statute will create a great problem for the Prime Minister of Australia. The inconsistency there is obvious. The coalition still believes that the government’s emissions trading scheme is flawed. For that reason, last week, we proposed a set of common-sense amendments to the scheme and we are currently engaged in good faith negotiation with the government on them. The member for Groom, as the shadow energy minister, is leading our efforts in those negotiations with Senator Wong. These proposals demonstrate that Labor’s emissions trading scheme can be improved to better protect jobs and investment, without sacrificing environmental objectives. The most important amendments and changes that we are advocating are, firstly, placing Australian emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries—the EITEIs—on a level playing field with their competitors abroad; secondly, excluding direct agricultural emissions from the scheme and providing a mechanism for farmers to earn offset credits when they abate carbon; thirdly, ensuring Australian coal producers reduce their fugitive emissions but are not unfairly financially penalised compared to their competitors; fourthly, moderating the impact of higher electricity prices on small businesses; fifthly, providing more assistance to the coal fired electricity generators to ensure they remain financially viable and the lights stay on; and, finally, encouraging complementary abatement measures such as voluntary action and energy efficiency in buildings. With these changes, the CPRS could deliver exactly the same environmental outcomes—the delivery of the bipartisan carbon abatement targets that the Rudd government will take to the Copenhagen climate change talks in December—with much less economic cost and dislocation. I will now address these areas in a little more detail, turning firstly to the question of the EITEIs—the emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. It has always been our view that the response to climate change must be part of coordinated global action. If we put a price on carbon in Australia without a comparable cost being imposed on the countries that our export industries and trade exposed industries compete with, the simple result is that we end up exporting Australian jobs and the emissions—economic pain, no environmental gain. It is that simple. That is why we have proposed these changes to the way that the CPRS treats the EITEIs. This would involve combining the two levels of assistance proposed in the CPRS into a single band, slightly lowering the emissions intensity threshold for assistance and continuing assistance to Australian emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries at a steady rate until 80 per cent of their international competitors also implement carbon abatement measures. What we mean by that is that, if you take any given Australian industry at the point where the Productivity Commission determines that 80 per cent of the market for that particular product is subject to a comparable carbon price or carbon constraint—it does not have to be by way of an ETS; it could be some other mechanism—the level of protection can start being wound down. There is a powerful argument in relation to these trade exposed industries—LNG is a very good example. While we all understand that we propose to have national caps because only governments can impose the regulations and laws that enforce them, nonetheless, with these trade exposed industries, in an ideal world—and this is certainly what the government should be working towards; it is certainly what the member for Groom and I were working towards when we were part of the previous government—we should have sectoral agreements so that these industries, as global industries, have their own targets and their own carbon constraints. Plainly, if you take the case of LNG, for example, the more LNG we produce in Australia the more greenhouse gases are emitted by the LNG industry here, but the savings of greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the world are stupendous and outweigh by a factor of eight any emissions in Australia because, naturally, that is a cleaner fuel that replaces burning coal in the markets where it is introduced. These changes we are proposing for the treatment of the EITEIs are not designed to provide Australian industry with a new form of assistance. We simply seek to ensure that Australian workers and firms are treated comparably with those in trade exposed industries in the United States and the European Union, given the assistance envisaged under the proposed United States and phase 3 European Union emissions trading schemes. Some of the industries that would be assisted by our proposals include steel, aluminium, natural gas, primary food processing and cement, to name just a few. I will now turn to agriculture and green carbon. Our proposals protect farmers by exempting agriculture from the scheme rather than including it after 2015, as Labor has proposed. This is the only logical approach to agriculture given the current absence of viable abatement technologies for most of this sector, which accounts for about 16 per cent of Australia’s total emissions. Exempting direct agricultural emissions also brings Australia into line with decisions in other advanced economies, such as the United States and the European Union, to exempt direct agricultural emissions from the emissions trading schemes and instead address agricultural emissions in different ways—with regulation. On the other hand, the coalition’s proposed changes would also include agricultural offsets, including carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation, where there is the opportunity for enormous financial and land management benefits in the rural sector. This is a win-win for farmers and the environment and again brings the Australian scheme more closely into line with the proposed United States and phase 3 European Union schemes. I have long argued that Australia’s greatest opportunity for low-cost abatement lies in exploiting our comparative advantage—that is, our enormous land area. The existing CPRS treatment of afforestation and reforestation activity is just the first step in recognising this opportunity. Contributors to the climate change policy debate—ranging from Tim Flannery on the one hand to the National Farmers Federation on the other and including the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists—all agree, as do the drafters of the Waxman-Markey and the Kerry-Boxer-Graham legislation in the US House and Senate respectively and the phase 3 EU ETS. All of those envisage providing farmers—and other landholders, of course—with offset earnings from a very long and comprehensive list of offsets. I will quote from a recent paper that was sent to both the Prime Minister and me, and no doubt to others, by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. As the House knows, this is as distinguished a group of environmental scientists as one could find in Australia. This is what they said about what I have called green carbon, what have been called elsewhere agricultural offsets and what they call terrestrial carbon. They say: The power of terrestrial carbon to contribute to the climate change solution is profound. At a global scale, a 15% increase in the world’s terrestrial carbon stock would remove the equivalent of all the carbon pollution emitted from fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The multiple public policy benefits for Australia in adopting full terrestrial carbon offsets are enormous, but there are also significant risks of an unregulated … carbon market to other areas of public policy. In a report recently commissioned by the Queensland government, Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Carbon Biosequestration Opportunities from Rural Land Use, CSIRO estimate that the Australian landscape has the biophysical potential to store an additional 1,000 million tonnes of CO2e in soils and vegetation for each year of the next 40 years. If Australia were to capture just 15% of this biophysical capacity, it would offset the equivalent of 25% of Australia’s current annual greenhouse emissions for the next 40 years. The literature on this is gigantic. I will make one other reference. The Garnaut review itself estimated that just improved management practices on Australian cropping and high-volume grazing land had the potential to remove around 350 million tonnes of CO2 per annum for 20 to 50 years. This is a gigantic opportunity, but it needs appropriate economic incentives via offset credit creation. You can understand a government that sees an emissions trading scheme as a beaut new tax being a little bit sceptical about this, because if the credits are created by farmers the money will go to the farmers rather than to the government. Instead of buying a permit from the government, they will be buying a credit from a farmer. We on our side say there is a massive national interest in investing in the health and the productivity of our landscape. I say, as I have said many times to those who are sceptical about the science of climate change, if at the end of 20 or 30 years from now the science has been disproved but we have invested billions of dollars into making our landscape healthier, greener and more productive, that will have been money well spent. A key part of this—and this is a point that we made at extensive length earlier in the year, in January, and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have made this point too—is that it is absolutely vital that the Australian government ensures that all of these agricultural offsets are included in the successor to the Kyoto protocol because many of them are not at the moment. The United States congress is making no bones about it. I will not read this into the Hansard but I refer honourable members to section 733 of the Kerry-Boxer-Graham bill in the US Senate and to section 503 of the Waxman-Markey bill in the House. The list of proposed agricultural offsets there is comprehensive but is not exhaustive. So this is plainly an area where currently the Rudd government’s CPRS is not simply out of step with the science but out of step with what the major comparable developed economies are doing, most notably the United States. I simply ask the House: how can the government possibly defend giving Australian farmers less opportunity to abate CO2 emissions than the United States or the Europeans are proposing to give their farmers? It is indefensible. Let me turn now to fugitive emissions from coalmining. Fugitive emissions—meaning essentially the methane that is released through ventilators as coal is mined or as coalmines are prepared for mining—are a very challenging part of the current debate. The government has excluded the Australian coal industry, our largest exporter, from emissions intensive trade exposed industries, or EITEI, assistance because most direct emissions from coalmining arise at a handful of gassy mines and the majority of mines would not need assistance. The coalition understands that reasoning. But at present the CPRS requires coal producers to purchase permits for fugitive emissions. While fugitive emissions have been excluded from the European and proposed US schemes—although it is worth noting that in each of those jurisdictions they account for a lower percentage of overall emissions than they do in Australia—there are nonetheless several feasible abatement technologies currently available to the owners of gassy mines, but they are costly. Unless these mines are assisted, most of them are likely to close. The approach that we have taken, which would put coalmining in exactly the same position as it is in America and Europe, is simply to exclude fugitive emissions and then regulate fugitive emissions in such a way that over time we will achieve a massive reduction in fugitive emissions—a 30 per cent reduction by 2020. My colleague the member for Groom, who obviously, because of his background in energy, is very familiar with this area, has worked very closely with the coal industry and reached a position which they support which will have the result of achieving a much greater reduction in emissions from coalmining than is proposed for the rest of the economy. We do not believe coalminers should be given a free ride in terms of the emissions reductions targets. Where they currently capture and use methane in an economically useful manner, they should do so and, as better technologies come forward, they will be encouraged to adopt those methods. Our proposals are practical and they will achieve the objective of a dramatic reduction in emissions. Let me turn now to electricity prices. In August the coalition, together with the Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, commissioned research on the economic impact of the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme by the respected consultants Frontier Economics. I know they have been the subject of some criticism from the government side, but it is worth noting that Frontier Economics have designed and completed one more emissions trading scheme than the Department of Climate Change. Their expertise is unquestioned. Their study showed that the government’s emissions trading scheme would unnecessarily drive up electricity prices, hurt regional Australia and unnecessarily expand the size of government. They put forward an alternative: a revised emissions trading scheme which was greener, cheaper and smarter. The proposal suggested that deeper cuts in emissions were possible at a lower economic cost and with a far less severe increase in retail electricity prices—two to four per cent over the first two years rather than the 21 per cent forecast by the Treasury to result from the CPRS. The work by Frontier suggested that with modest changes, especially in the way the ETS treats electricity generation, Labor’s proposed scheme could be made far less harmful to jobs, investment and the broader economy. So far, the government has failed completely to respond in any detail at all to these proposals other than to indicate its disinterest in pursuing the Frontier model. We will continue to advocate an intensity based cap-and-trade approach to the electricity sector, as this more than halves the initial increase in electricity prices, greatly reducing the economic costs of achieving emissions cuts. If the government refuses to consider the intensity based approach, it must clearly explain why and release the complete details of any Treasury or Department of Climate Change modelling of the Frontier alternative approach to the cap-and-trade scheme proposed by the government. If it will not accept Frontier on any basis, it also has to demonstrate that it has an alternative strategy to cushion the initial impact of higher electricity prices on small businesses, who are the hardest-hit electricity consumers under the currently proposed CPRS. I turn now to the compensation for electricity generators. The coalition believes—and this was certainly the policy set out in the Shergold report—that the incumbent coal fired generators must be fairly compensated for the loss of value they experience from the CPRS. This is to ensure security of supply, to equip those firms to transition to lower emission energy sources and to address the sovereign risk perception, which will arise from an arbitrary change in the rules that destroys value in existing businesses. The CPRS offers coal fired generators 130 million permits over five years, worth $3.6 billion. Yet three respected private sector analysts estimate their losses at three times that amount. In the absence of access to the government’s secret Morgan Stanley report on this question, which should be published, the coalition’s best estimate of a fairer level of generator compensation is assistance of 390 million permits over 15 years. Assistance should be allocated to all generators in proportion to the losses they suffer. I turn now to the complementary measures. By including voluntary measures, by creating genuine incentives for voluntary action, the environment will benefit from individuals, businesses and community groups who develop their own initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The coalition favour increased incentives for energy efficiency. This is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We favour the creation of a voluntary offset market in advance of the introduction of the CPRS—and we set that out earlier in the year. We support the principle that genuine voluntary abatement should lead to a lower overall level of national emissions. In light of the fact that the Copenhagen conference is only a month away and new information about the likely design of a US scheme and phase 3 of the European ETS continues to emerge at a rapid rate, the coalition has argued for some time that it would be premature to finalise the design of an ETS prior to Copenhagen. All of these issues will be just as relevant after Copenhagen as they are now—and of course we should be working and negotiating—but why should we finalise the design prior to Copenhagen? The government, nonetheless, control the timing of this debate, and it is clear that they are determined to force a vote before parliament rises for the year. It is nonsense to suppose that, whether or not the scheme is passed this year, the parliament’s vote on it will be the last word. It is inevitably going to be simply the first step in what is likely to be a long process of refining and modifying the nation’s policy response to climate change in response to evolving international developments and agreements, progress on our own understanding of the science, practical experience of the operation of the ETS and the emergence of new technologies. Given the government has made it clear that it will insist on pushing these bills to a final vote before Copenhagen, the coalition has engaged constructively in the debate, regardless of our very deep misgivings on this timing. We hope the government will accommodate our common-sense proposals and amend its scheme. They will protect thousands of Australian jobs and in addition and in particular, by reason of the comprehensive inclusion of agricultural offsets, provide the greatest opportunity, as the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and indeed American legislators have recognised, for a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time improving the health of our landscape. In conclusion, I will quote the Leader of the Opposition in the United Kingdom, David Cameron, who published a paper on the low-carbon economy earlier this year. He said: Our starting point in thinking about the low carbon economy is hope, not despair. We are talking about a technological transformation that will enable us to fulfil the aspirations of our people for a rich, varied and prosperous life with vastly reduced dependence on hydrocarbons. …            …            … … they will pay dividends even if the gloomier predictions about global warming are not fulfilled—dividends in the form of more stable energy costs, improved economic competitiveness and increased energy security. All of those goals will be advanced by the government’s adoption of our amendments. 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—Is the amendment seconded? WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr Ian Macfarlane —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 11179 09:47:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I would like to quote the member for Wentworth back to him. He said, ‘I accept the call to action,’ but he is going to do so by not acting. Never have I seen such a gap between words and actions. He needs to understand that if you care about something you need to do something—caring is doing. Caring without action is the same as indifference. You may as well be the member for O’Connor when it comes to climate change if you are not going to actually do anything. On this side of the House I am proud to voice my strong support for theCarbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the related bills before the House. I wish to address my comments not only to those opposite but to their great-grandchildren and to their great-grandchildren’s children. I wish to speak to the descendants of the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, the descendants of the Leader of the Nationals, the member for Wide Bay, Warren Truss, and the descendants of all of those opposite. When we face an issue as significant as the changing climate of our planet we cannot judge the actions of this parliament by tomorrow’s headlines or even by the decisions of voters at the ballot box in the years ahead. One hundred years from now we will be long gone but our descendants and those who follow us will face the consequences of our actions—or, more importantly, when you look at those opposite, their inaction. As those descendants read this speech in 2109, I hope they can be proud of the vision and the courage shown by this parliament. I hope they can be proud that as a parliament we put egos and political divisions, expediency and ambitions aside to come together as one on this issue of climate change. I hope they can be proud that we moved to put in place a mechanism to lower our carbon emissions and to help save the planet. This parliament has a responsibility to our children and to our environment to do something about climate change. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —It’s not a religion; it’s a policy challenge. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —I am ignoring those greenhouse emissions coming from the opposition. I am told that every greenhouse gas molecule we pump into our atmosphere today will take 100 to 200 years to dissipate. The lights we are burning now are producing greenhouse gases that will still be in the atmosphere in 100 to 200 years time. So as the descendants of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Julie Bishop, read this next century they will be dealing with carbon emissions pumped into the air by her Comcar today. So while this bill will put in place a scheme to reduce our carbon emissions, we have to understand that this ship, HMAS Earth, will take a very long time to change direction. Even if we get all hands on deck today and spin the wheel fully it will take at least a century or so for the effects to be felt on all the decks down to the waterline and below. Once again I urge those who lead the opposition, not just the rabble on the back benches, to consider the significance of the bills on the table today. To be honest, I will not waste my breath talking to the climate change sceptics on that side of the House. My plea is to the intelligent people, those who understand the science—like Dr Mal Washer—and who genuinely want to do something meaningful to address climate change. As the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. The time has come for the opposition to put aside their childish ways and to man up—I am not sure if I can say that, Minister for the Status of Women—and work together to tackle climate change because it is not five minutes to midnight on the climate change clock; it is one minute to midnight. The clock is ticking and the time to act is right now. Media outlets this week revealed a British report that suggested it may already be too late for Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef. As coral bleaching rips through the World Heritage reef, some scientists are coming to terms with the fact that the damage may already be beyond repair. Joe Kelly reported in the Australian on Monday that the Zoological Society of London is planning the world’s first coral cryobank. Samples of each species will be preserved in liquid nitrogen to enable them to be used in the future. Has it come to this? The greatest living organism in the world is going the same way as Walt Disney’s head. Once the reef is gone, I imagine it will be of little comfort to know that the genetic information of corals is retained in a freezer somewhere in London. This natural wonder is the source of some $5 billion in tourist revenue, especially in Queensland, and fishing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us that an increase in sea surface temperature between one and three degrees will completely wipe out our coral reefs. Rising acidity levels will turn our tropical paradise into a Petri dish. I wish to tell you a tale of two little boys—two men, actually—who are both connected with the town of St George in south-west Queensland. The first boy from St George was an accountant and a rural banker and is now a National Party senator. The other boy became a teacher and a lawyer and is now a Labor backbencher on Brisbane’s south side—that is me, obviously. The first boy is an unbeliever and has been beating the drum in the bush, saying climate change is a fantasy. The other is a believer and is passionate about delivering real and workable solutions to climate change. The first boy, the accountant, talks about fear and taxes, while the second, here today, talks about hope and opportunity. It is amazing how this one small country town, which will no doubt suffer the effects of climate change, could produce two such disparate responses to climate change. I find it even more amazing that the National Party has not taken a lead role in the fight against climate change. The National Party masquerades as a party of the bush, representing mostly rural farming communities, yet they are completely at odds with Australia’s farming community on climate change. They have even attacked the National Farmers Federation—one of the bush’s best spokespeople. Australian farmers well understand the consequences of climate change, better than almost anyone else on the coastline. They have worked the land for years, they have looked after it and they have witnessed climate change right before their eyes, in places like the Mallee and Western Queensland. They have seen drought slowly and heart-wrenchingly grind their livelihood to dust; they have seen storms and cyclones and even fire destroy their crops in a heartbeat; they have seen flood up in the Gulf area. Yet still, sadly, too many people in the National Party refuse to acknowledge that climate change even exists. National Party senators like Ron Boswell, who sits in his inner-city high-rise office in Brisbane— 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—This had better be a point of order and not a point of debate. NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr Forrest —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order—standing order 92, which goes to your responsibility to prevent quarrelling amongst— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. You will resume your seat. NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr Forrest —I am asking you to enforce standing order 92— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have just said there is no point of order and you will resume your seat. You will not try to intervene in the debate by taking frivolous points of order. NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr Forrest —I am asking the member to be relevant to the bills before us and get on— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate is clearly relevant to the bill, and you are now testing the patience of the chair. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —National Party senators, like Ron Boswell, who sits in his inner-city high-rise office in Brisbane, the ultimate Queen Street farmer, needs to get out of his deep leather chair and talk to the real farmers. Imagine the legacy of the National Party 100 years from now as the party from the bush that sells out the bush on climate change, if that is their legacy. We cannot continue to ignore the science that excess carbon pollution is causing the climate to change in dramatic and previously unseen ways. Extreme weather events, higher temperatures, more droughts and rising sea levels are happening. In Australia, our environment and climate are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Apart from Antarctica, we are the driest continent. This bill will help drive down emissions by introducing a cost on carbon pollution. The bill establishes the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority will issue a limited number of emission units which will be available for purchase. Companies will compete to purchase these units at auction or in a secondary market. The price will be fixed at $10 per tonne before full market trading gets underway from 1 July 2012. The scheme applies to all greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol, including CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons and others. It includes energy, transport, industrial processes, waste, fugitive emissions from oil and gas production and forestry. For some entities it will be cheaper for them to reduce emissions than buy units, which is an aspect of the scheme that those opposite seem to ignore. Of course, this is the whole idea of the CPRS. It will provide the motivation that industry needs to invest in renewable energies, like solar and wind, and build the momentum needed to get new technologies like clean coal and geothermal out of the science laboratory and into the practical solutions to climate change. As well as creating alternative energy sources, these emerging industries will also be a source of thousands of new low-carbon green jobs. This bill introduces a massive shift in the Australian economy, but it also includes appropriate measures to protect Australian jobs and shield our trade-exposed industries. The last thing we want to see is vital Australian industries shipped overseas to high-polluting countries. We achieve nothing by simply shipping the emissions overseas. We fully understand this. That is why the scheme will allocate some free permits to firms in emissions-intensive, trade-exposed activities. Permits will initially be provided at a 90 per cent rate for the most emissions-intensive activities and at a 60 per cent rate for activities that are moderately emissions intensive. The rates of assistance per unit of production will be reduced by 1.3 per cent per year to ensure that emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries still share in the national reduction of carbon pollution over time. An additional global recession buffer for trade-exposed industries will also apply for at least five years at a rate of five per cent for activities receiving assistance at the 90 per cent rate and 10 per cent for activities receiving assistance at the 60 per cent rate. All industries will face new costs for carbon, but those impacted the most will receive the most assistance. This bill establishes a $2.75 billion Climate Change Action Fund to provide targeted assistance to business and community organisations. This bill sets Australia on a course to a low-pollution future. I know there are some people still coming to terms with whether or not climate change exists who want us to wait or do nothing, and there is this strange conundrum of ‘I accept the call to action by not acting,’ which seems to be the Leader of the Opposition’s policy. However, inaction is inflationary. To do nothing will cost more later. There are others who think that our targets do not go far enough. I understand their concerns. However, the bill before the House delivers a reasonable and responsible approach. The Rudd government is committed to reducing carbon pollution by five per cent by 2020. We also know that we can achieve 15 per cent if other major economies come on board. We hold out hope for the talks in Copenhagen. One of the modern world’s greatest scientists, Stephen Hawking, said of Galileo Galilei that perhaps more than any other person Galileo was responsible for the birth of modern science. We have all heard of Stephen Hawking and how important his praise is and obviously at school we would have studied Galileo Galilei. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church had some problems with this great Italian renaissance scientist. Galileo was first tried by the Inquisition in 1615. He had to renounce his heretical theory that the earth revolved around the sun, and yet it moves still. Sadly, Galileo Galilei ended up spending the end years of his life under house arrest. One month after I made my first speech in parliament, last year in 2008, the Catholic Church proposed to complete a rehabilitation of Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls. Also, in December of last year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy. So it only took one of society’s oldest institutions—the Catholic Church—nigh on 400 years to admit that it might have got things completely wrong about Galileo’s theory about the earth revolving around the sun. Not that the Vatican’s timing really mattered, with all due respect to Papal infallibility—the earth kept on revolving around the happy old sun, irrespective of any Papal bull from Rome. Sometimes it takes time to turn the big ships around. But we do not have 400 years to get it right. We do not even have 40 years. We need to listen to logic. We need to listen to the scientists. We need to listen to the voices of our unborn great-grandchildren. For heaven’s sake, please listen. For the earth’s sake, please listen. The time for those opposite to talk to their friends and colleagues who inhabit that other place over there is right now. I commend the bill to the House. 11183 10:01:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I rise today to speak on the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges-Customs) Bill 2009 and the associated amendments. Can I state from the outset that the coalition is absolutely committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the target of five per cent and—in the event of international agreements—by 15 or even 25 per cent. It remains a fact, in this House, that the coalition has done more to achieve that, in its time in government, than this government. In fact, this government has yet to achieve any measure that has reduced carbon pollution or carbon dioxide emissions in the last two years. It is a fact that there has been a lot of talk on that side but not much action. The fact of the matter is—as was highlighted the Australian newspaper about three or four weeks ago—it is the Howard government that put in place the practical measures and the first step towards an ETS. It put in place the practical measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—to lower the intensity, for instance, of emissions generating a kilowatt hour or a megawatt hour of electricity. So we are supportive of the target. We have the record of achieving gains in lowering emissions. We set out in this process to negotiate, in good faith, the amendments to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We have indicated all along that we will conduct those negotiations with the goal of achieving a bill that will not destroy the jobs and the industries that exist in Australia today. We should be absolutely clear, though, that the reason we are doing this is not—as the member for Moreton wants to attest—to delay the passage of this bill. It is to fix the multitude of flaws that are in this bill; the multitude of flaws that will cost Australians their jobs and will cost future Australians their jobs and will cost Australia our future competitiveness. We need to ensure that we fix this bill. We need to ensure that this is not, instead of being a blueprint to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in fact a blueprint to destroy jobs in Australia. I am interested to read the speakers list, Mr Deputy Speaker, and am interested to see that the member for Flynn, the member for Dawson, the member for Throsby and the member for Hunter are not on this speakers list. DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms Bird —I am here! WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —The member for Cunningham is here. In fact, the member for Cunningham, the member for Newcastle and the member for Capricornia are the only ones who are going to speak on this bill from that side and explain to the coalminers in their electorates why they are going to lose their jobs. As I say, there is a list here that is absent of some people who represent electorates where there is coal, industry LNG and power stations—where people will lose their jobs. That is why the coalition is saying that we should delay this bill until we know what the rest of the world is doing. We are currently flying completely blind. I was at a briefing yesterday where representatives of DFAT made it very clear that there is absolutely no expectation—none whatsoever—that any country in the ASEAN pact will introduce a carbon price in the foreseeable future. One of our biggest trading partners and trading competitors will not have a carbon price. Tell me how, in the absence of that—and without knowing what the Americans will do, without knowing what the Japanese will do, without knowing what the Canadians will do, without knowing what the Europeans will do—we can put in place legislation to ensure that our workers and our industries are not placed at a disadvantage as a result of this legislation. It is crucially important that we protect our economic assets, both the people who are employed, who are an enormous economic asset, and also the industries that they work in. We also need to ensure that we protect one of the hearts and souls of our economy, and that is small business. Small business has been left unassisted, uncompensated, under this current legislation. Small business will face, for instance, a huge spike in the electricity price in the first two years of this scheme, probably of around 20 per cent. That is why we are moving these amendments. These are not insignificant issues. They are major issues that go to the heart of Australia’s future competitiveness, our future economic security, our future standard of living. They deserve the time and the detail and the understanding and the knowledge of what our trade competitors will do if we are to ensure that they are addressed properly and that our economy, our way of life and our lifestyle are preserved. Everyone wants to reduce emissions. Every Australian that I talk to says we need to reduce our emissions. We need to clean up our waterways even more. We need to ensure our air is clean. But we need to do it in a way that is effective. Doing it in isolation from the rest of the world, doing it without a global agreement, is simply wasting our jobs and our energy. We in the coalition set about to ensure that we had a close understanding of what the issues were in this process. I have a background in farming. I have a background where I understand climate. I have a background where I have worked for industry and the resources sector as a minister in the Howard cabinet for six years. But the member for Goldstein and I went back to all of those industries and carefully worked through their concerns in a methodical and sensible way to ensure we produce a practical result as we try to amend this legislation to ensure that jobs are not lost in Australia as a result of the undue haste of running to this false deadline the Prime Minister has put in place of the Copenhagen conference. What we found from those discussions was that this CPRS legislation lacked any analysis of the immediate costs to many of the industries that were going to be affected, that there was some broadbrush economic modelling put in place that did not really go to the heart of individual industries. We have worked through that in a methodical way, as I said, and we have come out and articulated nine principles around which our amendments have been built. The coalition at every step of the way have been clear and consistent. Our amendments are practical. They are reasonable. But, most importantly, they will save jobs. There is no point in losing a coalminer in the Hunter Valley simply to see a coalminer employed in Colombia. We need to understand that many of our industries, in fact nearly all our industries, are at world’s best practice now. There is no point in slugging the coal industry with a $1 billion tax every year if there is not the technology to lower those emissions in the first place. We need to ensure that whatever we do here in Australia has a global effect, that it in fact lowers emissions. So we also set out to try and guess—because it is an educated guess—where the Waxman-Markey bill will settle now it is in the US Senate. Where will that come out? Where will the Europeans decide to target their industries? France has already announced that it is going to introduce a carbon tax, and there is a good reason behind that. I know that those opposite do not want it explained too clearly, but it is because France made the sensible decision some time ago to introduce nuclear—that baseload, zero emission electricity producer—to ensure that they are able to lower their emissions in a way which of course Australia cannot. As we go forward we are seeing these variations, so we set out nine principles and the amendments to go with them. The first on that list of principles is, of course, the exclusion of agriculture. It is simply not feasible to include agriculture in this scheme. Not only can you not measure the emissions coming from agriculture but you cannot stop them. There is no technology to stop a ruminant animal, a cow or a sheep, from burping out methane. No other country is including agriculture in their scheme. The Canadians are not. The Americans are not. The Europeans are not. Our major trade competitors have said this is too hard, and yet the CPRS includes it. We want to ensure farmers, the custodians of the earth, the custodians of the soil, are able to participate in offsets, and so we have said there needs to be an offset scheme, particularly in the area of soil carbon and opportunities that are being proven up as we speak covering biochar. We need to ensure also as we go forward that this is a process where that carbon is locked away in an internationally recognised scheme. Another area that we are very concerned about, and one which I am more than familiar with, is the coal fired electricity generation sector. The changes that are being put in place will cost that industry billions, if not tens of billions of dollars. We have said quite clearly that the assistance measures being offered by the government are insufficient to ensure that sector even keeps generating. Lose one turbine, one generator, in one power station in Victoria and that state will be plunged into blackouts—no ifs, no buts, no maybes. The industry is running above its safety margin in terms of its reserve power. It is generating its heart and soul out, but at the same time under this scheme it will be forced to skimp on its maintenance and place at risk its generating capacity. We need to ensure that that energy security issue does not become real, that we are in fact ensuring the electricity sector is able to maintain its generating capacity. That is why we have proposed increasing the number of permits from 130 million over five years to 390 million over 15. We are perplexed as to why the government is hiding the Morgan Stanley report. We know that report, at least in a draft form, exists. We know it must contain the numbers that back up the other reports that have been released, numbers which say the industry should be compensated by in the vicinity of $10 billion. As we go through this negotiation we will be asking why we have not seen that report and what the numbers actually say. More important than electricity generation—although it is hard to believe—is the management of electricity price increases. Everyone accepts that under any emissions trading scheme there needs to be a market signal, a signal to industry, through the electricity price, through the coal price or through the fuel price, which then pulls technology through into that business. But increasing the price of electricity to small business by 20 per cent in the first two years of this scheme is simply going to destroy the viability of thousands of small businesses. There are two million small businesses in Australia. They are the largest private sector employer in our economy. Yet here we have a process which is driving the electricity price up so quickly, by the admission of the government, in a way which will give small business a shock. Small business will not be able to contend with a 20 per cent increase in costs. Who will be affected? The local milk bar will be, running refrigerators with electricity bills for thousands of dollars suddenly rising by another thousand dollars or more. Where are they going to pull that margin from? The reality is that electricity  prices can be managed and those increases can be done in such a way that we convey the market signal but, at the same time, do it in a more adjusted and lower trajectory. The end point will be the same. That is why we have put up our hybrid model, our carbon intensity model. The government’s plan, quite unashamedly, is to force a large price rise onto small business, and small business simply will not be able to contend with that. Moving through the other areas of concern and towards the issues in particular of the trade-exposed industries, we need firstly to deal with food processing. Australia has the cleanest food in the world. It is internationally renowned and also obviously favoured by our own consumers. Our consumers want to have food made here. That is why we have said that, because of its close association with agriculture and because of its high level of trade exposure, food processing, including the meat and dairy industries, needs to be protected, to be compensated, to be assisted in this transition, to ensure that food processing industries are still here in 10 years time, to ensure that first-class, safe food, which we rely on and our overseas customers rely on, is maintained. A key area which we are addressing and which the amendments really cut to is trade exposure. Australia is a naturally export-oriented country. We have a small population who have, by tradition, exported the majority of our goods. We have simply not enough people to consume them. No other major economy which we trade with has this same scenario. In the United States about half the number of industries are trade exposed, as a percentage of their economy, compared to what we have in Australia. For example, the US have about 14 per cent; in Australia it is closer to 30 per cent. We are talking about industries like Leave not granted; we are talking about the smelters which export our raw materials; we are talking about the aluminium smelters; we are talking about industries which, again, employ thousands and thousands of Australians in regional Australia. We need to ensure that they are assisted through this transition. We are not saying they will not pay a carbon price—quite the contrary. We are not saying that initially they will not be disadvantaged against the rest of the world, because they will be. No-one else will have a carbon trading scheme when we do. We are saying that they need to be put in a position where they will be long-term competitive. I will never understand why we are slugging the LNG industry when it is one industry which will lower global emissions probably more than any other. For every tonne of LNG sold overseas, for every tonne of carbon dioxide it produces, there will be a saving of four to nine tonnes from generating electricity from the traditional source, which is coal. So we should be assisting that industry. We need to ensure that the coal industry itself is protected. As I mentioned earlier, where are the people from Flynn and Dawson, from Throsby and Hunter protecting coalminers’ jobs, which are going to be slugged so heavily under the proposal from the government? The coalition will work to protect those coalminers’ jobs and ensure that they have a job into the future. We will also empower business and community groups to participate in voluntary measures and directly contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through measures such as energy efficiency. The coalition is absolutely committed to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. We have the track record in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. We believe there should be an emissions trading scheme but it should protect Australian jobs, in step with the rest of the world, and it should understand the economic impacts on individual industries. We need to go to Copenhagen with a commitment but we do not need to go with legislation which is going to cost jobs here. We will continue to work to ensure that Australia is in line with the world economies like the US and the EU and that we are not disadvantaging our industries against major trading partners like ASEAN countries, China and India. We have to understand that we need to do it with the full knowledge of what is going on in the world. That is why it is so crazy to be doing this before Copenhagen. That is why it is so crazy for Australia to be putting its jobs at risk through this absolute mad rush by the Prime Minister to pass this legislation. Our amendments are designed to protect jobs. Our amendments are designed to protect industries. Our amendments are designed to protect Australia’s future. 11187 10:21:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —I thank the member for Groom for acknowledging that as a representative of the coal industry I was in House during this debate. I also point out to him that the member for Throsby actually spoke when this bill was first introduced into the parliament. So we are both more than happy to talk on this bill with regard to how it affects our own particular region. As a follow-on from that, obviously this is the second time that the bill has been introduced to the House after it was first defeated in the Senate. I want to acknowledge that the opposition has provided the government with some proposed amendments to the bill and that the negotiations are currently underway in order to see if we can find a sensible, mature and agreed solution within a time frame that allows us to start taking action and not just talking about the issue. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] establishes a framework under which Australia’s carbon emission reduction targets can be achieved. It is important to acknowledge that it is time for action now. We have debated this for a long time. There have been a number of discussion papers out in the community and there have been extensive consultations across Australia with all the affected sectors. We should realise that we are one of the driest continents on earth. Our environment and our economy will be one of the hardest and fastest hit by the reality of climate change if we do not act now. To some extent I thought this was a debate that we had settled in this country. Climate change is projected to increase the severity and frequency of many natural disasters. Indeed, over recent years, people only have to watch the news cycle to understand that the impacts of bushfires, cyclones, hail storms, flooding and drought are already increasing in their severity and frequency and require this parliament to take action. It is important to identify that the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology produced Climate change in Australia: technical report 2007 in which they particularly identified this issue. They said that the projections for Australia include increases in the frequency of heatwaves; the frequency and length of drought conditions, especially in the south-west of the nation; hail risk over south-east coastal areas; and that the proportion of intense tropical cyclones and substantial increase in fire weather risk in south-east Australia all were issues of concern. That was the CSIRO in 2007. Here we are at the end of 2009. I think it is important that we at least acknowledge that the costs of inaction are serious and real to this nation and require us to get on with the job that we gave commitments to in the 2007 election campaign. I see the member for Throsby has joined me. I will assure her that I defended her against the member for Groom’s claims that she had not participated in this debate and told him that she had in fact debated this previously in this House—and that neither of us were afraid of this debate in our local communities. JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George —Absolutely not. DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms BIRD —It should be noted that at the last election the current opposition actually did endorse an emissions target for 2020, irrespective of the actions of other countries. Indeed, the Howard government at the 2007 election proposed the establishment of a 2020 target and proposed that an ETS should be used to achieve those objectives. So one is a bit surprised sometimes to get to this point, after two years in the cycle, to hear that we still have some on the other side—not all, I will acknowledge—arguing about the science and about the solutions that we put in place. It is important to also acknowledge in terms of the need for action that the business community is sending the same message. In particular I want to acknowledge that a range of senior business organisations and individual businesses have been saying this. Indeed, there are very few in the industry sector who claim that the science is not proven or that action does not need to be taken. Russell Caplan, the Chairman of Shell Australia, in only August this year said: … we believe a far greater risk is that Australia misses the opportunity to put a policy framework in place to deal with this issue. This would create a climate of continuing uncertainty for industry and potentially delay the massive investments … required … Heather Ridout, the Ai Group CEO, in May this year said: Business also needs to be making some very big decisions if we’re going to be able to make the transition to the CPRS, and to do so they need certainty. Uncertainty is death for business. Finally, Katie Lahey, from the Business Council of Australia, in May of this year 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. So the industry sector itself understands the importance and challenges that this nation faces and understands that in the globally competitive industry environment they are not immune from action being taken at a global level. They understand that that requires businesses and industries across the globe to be taking affirmative action in terms of putting in place the amendments they need to the means of production and to actually be able to do that within a settled environment in the nation in which they are established. I also want to acknowledge that other members, in opposing or expressing concerns about these views, talk about the impact on jobs. First of all, I want to point out that there actually is great opportunity in the job sector arising from taking action on climate change. The Treasury estimate was that 1.7 million jobs would be created at the same time that we are reducing carbon emissions. Indeed, there has been much evidence of new and emerging industries. Indeed, on a parliamentary delegation to the United States only a couple of weeks ago we met with several significant businesses, such as Chevron, Google and some other major business organisations, who were very keen to show us some of the advancing and new technologies that they are ready investing in. We also met with research and venture capital organisations that indicated they were searching for new opportunities both in terms of new energy sources, new energy management techniques and efficiency measures. I think it is important that we recognise the globe is moving towards those new developments and that we need to be part of that. I want to keep my comments fairly short because I understand that many people want to speak on this debate and we have some time limits—quite reasonably, since we want to get this thing actually moving and have it in place. I want to take the final few minutes to talk about my own local area of the Illawarra. It is an area which has a diversified economy but there is no doubt that a significant part of that economy is the coal and steel industry. I want to point out that the member for Throsby and I have had significant numbers of emails from local people as part of the Australian Coal Association campaign. On the website the campaign gives people the opportunity to put their own paragraph of comment within the email that is predeveloped by the Australian Coal Association. I have reviewed those—there have been about 220 come into my electorate office—and the vast majority of people have quite clearly said, ‘I want action on climate change. I just want you to do it in a way that provides protection for jobs.’ My response to them has been that that is exactly what we are doing. In the process that we are going through many of these companies are discussing with the government the best ways to utilise and provide the protections that they need. Certainly in an area like my electorate with a significant number of underground mines that are quite gassy we are very determined to get that targeted assistance right so that mines elsewhere do not get windfall profits at the expense of providing support to our mines. We have been in discussions with the government on behalf of the industry and the workers about that. The industry associations are quite rightly pressing a case on behalf of themselves and their shareholders, and that is a legitimate interest. But I get a bit annoyed when they claim their major interest is jobs. I do not think that is actually what they are on about. We had the national president of the mining division of the CFMEU come to our region and he made it quite clear that, if you wanted to talk to somebody whose major concern was protecting jobs, then you would talk to the union. The union’s view is that we do need this scheme in place and that we do need to be taking action. He said: … the ACIL Tasman Report, commissioned by the Australian Coal Association, and the Concept Economics Report, commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia—generated headlines proclaiming the loss of 20,000 or more mining industry jobs. …            …            … … in the context of ongoing negotiations for compensation it is a little less alarming. Yet that is little comfort for those workers … and their families reading the papers and wondering what will become of them. Such doomsday reports model growth forgone not a decline. In mining, they are the difference between staggering growth and extremely good growth. They are not job losses. I think it is important that, whilst advocating to provide quite reasonable consideration to the views of companies in our area, we do that within a settled and sensible environment, not in one of scaremongering. Jennie George, the member for Throsby, and I have made our views very clear on that. I just want to finish on this: the reality is that Australians understand climate change. They understand the impacts of climate change. They understand it whenever they see the increasing ferocity and regularity of bushfires, droughts, hailstorms, thunderstorms and all of those things that we increasingly see on our news. They want us to take action. It is quite understandable that we have to get those details right. For the coalition to be constantly delaying and delaying and setting new goalposts saying that we cannot do it until this or that happens is not what the Australian people expect. We need to get this bill through this parliament and get on with taking action. 11190 10:30:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —The great American statesman Abraham Lincoln once said: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The Prime Minister should take into account those words as he forces Australians into an emissions trading scheme that will cost jobs, that will harm industries, that will send industries offshore and yet will do nothing to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This Prime Minister’s approach to emissions trading has nothing to do with the environment or climate change. This debate at this time is not about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister does not have an environmental agenda; he has a political agenda. This government’s fundamentally flawed emissions trading scheme, which has been presented to the House today, was rejected by the parliament in August. Every non-Labor person in the Senate voted against it—the Liberal Party senators, the National Party senators, the Greens senators and the two Independent senators, Xenophon and Fielding. Publicly and privately many businesses and community leaders have criticised the gaping flaws, the fundamental problems, in the government’s scheme. Yet here we have precisely the same legislation back in the parliament with not one change, not one alteration, not one amendment. The government has refused to countenance any suggestion that its flawed scheme required improvement. It has produced precisely the same scheme that was rejected by all the senators from the Greens to the Liberals, the Nationals and the two Independent senators. It refuses to learn from its mistakes. The coalition has come up with a number of substantial amendments that reflect the grave concerns in the Australian community about the potential loss of jobs, the likelihood of sending industries offshore, the increased electricity costs particularly for small business, the increased cost of living and the fact that the government’s scheme will not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. The Leader of the Opposition has detailed those significant amendments in his speech to this House. But the Prime Minister apparently believes that he has achieved perfection at his first attempt at an emissions trading scheme. That is so typical of this Prime Minister, whose view of the world is not to be questioned, who bridles at any suggestion that anything he says or anything he does can legitimately be challenged. So Australians are entitled to ask, ‘What game is this Prime Minister playing?’ It is purely politics. The Prime Minister simply wants a trigger for an early election. That is why the bill is in the House today. No doubt he has some internal polling showing that the Australian people are increasingly tiring of his spin over substance. The Prime Minister wants to rush off to an early election before the Australian people can judge the full impact of his disastrous economic policies that will push up interest rates and increase taxes, or judge Labor’s massive debt and wasteful spending or Labor’s chaotic border protection policy. While the Prime Minister’s tactics might reveal his political strategy, they also reveal this Prime Minister’s contempt for the Australian public by trying to lock Australia into a flawed emissions trading scheme. The Prime Minister appears more than willing to sacrifice jobs, he appears to have ignored all warnings to date about job losses. He appears more than willing to cause serious and long term damage to the Australian economy—and he is on track to do just that with his scheme—while having no impact on reducing global emissions. It is clear that the Prime Minister wants to rush through this bill, and that he wants to avoid a detailed debate or discussion about the implications of his emissions trading scheme, so that he can turn up at the Copenhagen climate change conference with a piece of legislation and strut the world stage as part of his job application to be the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He will do all this without putting the interests of Australians first. The Prime Minister described climate change as the greatest moral challenge of our generation. One would have thought that it would require one of the greatest debates of our generation. But, no, the Prime Minister is insisting that it is his way or the highway. We know that the emissions trading scheme will fundamentally restructure our economy over time. It will have a fundamental impact on the Australian economy. According to a recent poll, while the vast majority of Australians want action on climate change, only about five per cent said they knew what an emissions trading scheme was. The Prime Minister of this country is cynically trading on that lack of understanding. There has been no public education program to inform the Australian public of what an emissions trading scheme is, or a what a carbon pollution reduction scheme is. There has been little detailed analysis of Labor’s scheme. There has been virtually no information provided by the government on what it will cost Australians in terms of increased energy costs, or increased electricity costs, or the increase in the overall cost of living for Australians. This is a deliberate Labor strategy to suppress information that would reveal the failings of Labor’s scheme and reveal the cynical politics behind the introduction of this bill into the parliament today. According to a recent international report, Australia is the country most likely to be disadvantaged by the transition to a low carbon economy. That is because our economy has been built on cheap and plentiful energy derived in the main from the burning of coal. About 80 per cent of our electricity comes from the burning of coal and that is why, for Australia to transition from an economy where 80 per cent of our energy comes from the burning of coal to a low carbon economy, we must be very careful to get right the design of any emissions trading scheme that impacts on the coal industry. We must be very careful to get the design right. That is why we need to know how our major trading partners, our major competitors, the major emitters, the major economies of the world intend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need to know how they will transition their economies to low carbon economies and whether there will be any sort of global agreement reached at the United Nations Copenhagen climate change conference that is to be held in just a matter of days. I think the Australian public is entitled to be extremely cynical about a government that refuses to wait even a couple of days to find out what the rest of the world intends to do before locking Australia into an emissions trading scheme. When I say Australia will be one of the most disadvantaged countries, it is pertinent to note that a country like France that gains almost 80 per cent of its energy needs from nuclear power—a virtually zero carbon form of energy—will not have the difficulty transitioning to a low carbon economy that Australia has. Would it not be sensible and rational to listen to what other countries in the world are doing and adjust our emissions trading scheme accordingly? The government is insisting that this parliament vote on its flawed scheme now, prior to the Copenhagen conference, but it is failing to provide any rational reason for doing so. In fact, the Prime Minister, in an extremely rare moment of candour, admitted in an interview that he gave overseas that he did not actually need a legislated scheme in order to prosecute a case for global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at Copenhagen—that he did not actually need a legislated scheme. So he has been exposed. Why does he then insist that there must be a vote in this House on an emissions trading scheme prior to the climate change conference? You see, the timing of this debate is for the government’s base political purpose of obtaining a trigger for an early election. If this legislation were so urgent why did not the government re-introduce it in September? If this legislation were so urgent why did not the government re-introduce it in October? It has made no amendments to the scheme—it is exactly the same documentation as was rejected by the Senate in August. The government is contriving a vote in this House on Monday, 16 November. That is precisely the timeframe required under our Constitution to trigger an early election. It is not only the cynical timing of the government that should cause Australians so much concern. It is the lack of appropriate scrutiny and public discussion. If anyone questions the Prime Minister or challenges him on any issue to do with climate change, they are immediately denounced as climate change deniers, or climate change sceptics. It is this vicious suppression of debate that should so concern the Australian public. Alternative views are not permitted in this Prime Minister’s world. If the government were serious about, for example, Australia’s capacity to substantially reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, why has it not considered alternative forms of energy? Its entire strategy is based on replacing the burning of fossil fuels over time with clean coal technology, a technology not proven and certainly not capable of providing baseload power. Has the Prime Minister been up-front with the Australian people and informed them that his entire strategy is based on an unproven technology? Why hasn’t the government considered a transition to natural gas? I come from Western Australia so I know there is plentiful natural gas in Western Australia, yet the government has not considered transitioning our economy to a natural gas economy. Why hasn’t the government considered nuclear power as a component of a low-carbon economy? I am informed that, of the 20 countries that make up the G20 Forum, 19 have embraced nuclear power as a component of their capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And which country has refused to even acknowledge the capability of nuclear power to contribute to a low-carbon economy? It is Australia, in the form of the Labor Party. Consider the following. A 500-megawatt coal-fired power station produces almost 320,000 tonnes of toxic waste per annum, while a comparable nuclear power station produces about 20 tonnes per annum. The coal-fired facility will release into the atmosphere 4.38 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, while the nuclear power station will release 87,600 tonnes. The coal waste will include 2.6 tonnes of uranium and 6.4 tonnes of thorium. Now wouldn’t you think that these are some of the facts that ought to be injected into a debate about how to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions? The issue of nuclear power was not even canvassed in the Garnaut report. The Garnaut report, which was meant to canvass all possibilities of an alternative energy future for Australia, ruled out nuclear power. The green paper which was meant to consider all options had only one option: the Prime Minister’s. Yet we see that in the major economies of the world—the major emitters, our major trading partners—nuclear is under consideration. In the United States Senate there is a bill being supported by Senator John Kerry, amongst others. Writing in the New York Times, Senator Kerry, who is the influential Democrat chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had this to say: Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. That was said in the United States, the major emitter and the major economy in the world. Why would we not wait to hear what the United States says about its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? As the major economy and as the major emitter, what the United States does will dictate what the rest of the world will do. But, no, our Prime Minister, with his hubris and arrogance, believes that he is the only one with the answer. There has been no logic or rational thinking behind the government’s flawed emissions trading scheme. This bill is flawed. That is why the coalition put forward a series of amendments yet, without even a completion of the negotiations on those amendments, the government has forced this House to consider its flawed bill. I urge the government to put the interests of Australian jobs, the interests of Australian industry and the interests of all Australians first and not force this House to a vote on its flawed scheme and to go to Copenhagen with an open mind that perhaps other countries around the world who are the major emitters, our major trading partners and the major economies, actually have something to contribute to this debate. The Prime Minister might learn something if he were to listen to what other countries say they will do because it is a global solution that is required. Australia could reduce to zero its greenhouse gas emissions but, if the rest of the world were not to act, all that would do would be to destroy Australian jobs and industries and have no impact on the environment. I urge the government to pass and so adopt the amendments put forward by the coalition. 11194 10:50:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —While this is one of the greatest debates of our time—and I do not think there is any question about that—it is has been taking place in the community for a decade. This is not new and this is not something that has just appeared and landed on their desks, as the opposition try to make out. This is something that has been with us for many years. Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, you would be aware of that and of the debates over many years and the range of issues that have been dealt with in the community, this place and business circles. But today is the start of a critical juncture in the climate change debate. It is a critical juncture in terms of our future. We are just 40 days away from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, something that many people look at as being D-day, in a sense, when the world has to make up its mind. But for the world to make up its mind and for economies to make decisions, they need to be prepared. Today is part of that preparation, part of that work, part of making sure that what Australia does in terms of a carbon pollution reduction scheme and emissions trading schemes is in our own best interest, in the national interest, done in a way which we control and is not subject so much to the decisions of other countries. Australia has waited a long time for action on climate change but now is the right time to act. I believe there are no more ‘good’ excuses or excuses of any type not to do so. It is our opportunity to make some decisions that will have a significant impact on our environment, on our economy, on jobs, on investment and on regulations. They can have impact in all those areas in a positive way. As the world changes, we must change. With that change, we must provide the single, most important critical element in that process, and that is certainty. It is certainty about where we are going, certainty about the rules, certainty about the business environment, certainty about the economic environment and certainty about the jobs environment. That is what we are trying to achieve with this bill. There is no question that we must act. We must act now because the cost of inaction, as we have heard, is far, far greater than the cost of any action that we will take. I want to talk firstly about how industry will be impacted. The South-East Queensland region, my home state and the area in which I live, is a good example of the compounding effects of drought and a booming population. This region has the prospect of continuing irregular rainfalls due to current variability in the climate and, of course, long-term climate change. Not only does this area experience drought and extremes of drought; it is also experiencing floods and extremes of floods. This area has a vibrant regional economy, which is driving an annual population increase of around 50,000 to 60,000 people. This is producing increasing demands on resources—water, energy and all the other things that come with population growth. The drought has exposed the vulnerability of the region’s water supplies, which were previously thought to be secure, to support long-term growth. With current water use being less than 75 per cent of the available yield assessed from historical records, there are significant problems in this region. If we do not take some form of action on these problems, they will become problems for our farmers and agriculture in the region. We need to take action. A substantial proportion of the Queensland agricultural industry is at risk from rising temperatures and extreme weather events. Agricultural commodities are valued at more than $8 billion in Queensland alone. If we do not something about climate change and the extreme weather events, it will mean the loss of thousands of jobs and Australian exports. Climate change is not just about what will happen in the future; it is about what is already happening today. In fact, Queensland is likely to experience some of the most intense effects of climate change, such as tropical cyclones. We have heard of and seen the sorts of property damage that these events cause, whether it is out in the bush in remote rural areas or on the Queensland coastline. Wherever such events might occur, the impact is undeniable. The effects are there for everyone to see. They are more extreme than they have ever been. New maximum and new low temperatures are being recorded. We are experiencing more extreme droughts, more severe droughts, more extreme floods and more irregular floods—there are more extremes at all ends. Such extremes have never been recorded before—certainly not in the time that substantial populations have been on this planet and records have been kept. What are we to do about all of this? Do we sit by and watch it happen around us? Do we just accept for a fact that this is climate change? There is no question about climate change itself. In my contribution, I do not want to deal with the evidence of climate change because I think it is irrefutable. There is so much evidence out there that there is no point in me, in the short period of time that I have to speak on this legislation, to go into such facts and information. Instead, I put the case forward that, if we do not act, we will put ourselves at the mercy of the environment. We need to fight and do everything we can to make sure that our economy and our population can minimise the impacts of climate that we are going to face. There are a number of people who do not believe in what is taking place. They are often referred to as sceptics. I will put them in a slightly different category from others. They are the people who are always shopping around. They are always desperately searching for any reason or any little bit of information to delay a decision on climate change. Unfortunately, in these debates, you will always find something. There is always a little bit of information that, taken on its own or in isolation, can prove anything you want it to prove. They are the people who talk about shadecloth in outer space or a shadecloth over the Great Barrier Reef. Unfortunately, there are those who will continually look for any piece of evidence to back up their argument, like the great sceptics throughout history, in the face of overwhelming evidence, logic, common sense—the large bulk of evidence that exists all around us. I feel sorry for those people but, in a way, I understand them. The great sceptics have always existed because they have their own barrows to push. They have their own reasons. You will never convince them. No number of fact sheets, no amount of debate or placing things right in front of them will convince them otherwise. We heard the member for Moreton talking about Galileo and the sceptics of that day who believed that the earth stood still and everything else revolved around it. No amount of reasoning or logic would ever convince them. It is only through the passage of time that we really look back and understand the folly of our ways. In a way, this debate has much of the same elements to it. Future generations—and I think generations that are not too far away; in fact, the next generation—will look back at the folly of the governments and nations of today for not acting sooner. They will say, ‘But in the face of all the evidence that was right there in front of you, that you knew was there because of everything that was happening around you, why did you not act? Why didn’t you just do something?’ We are doing something, and that is why we are debating this legislation today. It is why I want this parliament to pass the bills that are before it. I do believe that will be difficult but I remain hopeful, of course. However, there are some people in this place who will never support anything. Some will never support the legislation because it is just not enough. I tend to think of the Greens in that light. Our policy will never be green enough. No matter how good it is or how far it goes, it will never be green enough for the Greens. And there are others who just think that anything we do is too much. We will never convince those people. If the parliament and if the opposition—if the collective minds of those who have the power in their hands to make a difference—look at the collective good, the national interest, I think we can get through this. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme we are putting forward will ensure a number of things. It will ensure that Australia invests in industries of the future—like renewable energy, solar energy and wind farms—and jobs that use new technologies like clean coal and geothermal energy. It will actually create thousands of new, innovative and low-pollution jobs. We are not alone in this. Australia in fact is part of a large group of countries that are implementing or considering emissions trading schemes. There are 27 European Union countries that already have emissions trading schemes and other countries and regions are also developing or considering schemes. These include the United States—and they might have been slow coming to this debate but they are certainly catching up with us and the rest of the world—Canada, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan. The fact is that in the next few very short years we will see massive change around the world in these new terms. In fact at the G8 meeting this year in Italy global leaders confirmed emissions trading as the most effective way to reduce emissions. Why did they do that? Why did they confirm that? They did that because they understood that they must take some action. I can understand. I accept the fact that this is difficult; change always is. This is globally monumental change. But that does not mean we should not do it. That does not mean we should not make the hard decisions. Australia ought to be a leader in this area. We have great opportunity to do that. It is not surprising that the G8, that 27 EU economies and that other countries in the world are very rapidly moving to this position. That is because it makes sense on just two simple fronts: one, the environmental front; and, two, the economic front. Climate change, like the global financial crisis, is all about change. It is about change in the way we think, it is about change in the way we act and it is about change in the way we deal with jobs and the economy. The Rudd Labor government is conscious of both of those. This is exemplified in the transition and growing acceptance that green jobs are now an emerging industry in their own right. The CPRS gives us a tremendous opportunity to secure support and grow the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. There will be substantial assistance throughout the implementation and transition to a new carbon economy. The Rudd government has structured a plan to deal with these issues. You hear the other side talk about jobs and agriculture. Yes, there will be an impact across everything. That is why the government has put in train a number of measures to deal with that. I want to also note that NAB modelling indicated that the CPRS has the potential to stimulate as much as $6 billion in annual investment in Australia over the next 40 years. The very same modelling also showed that the average year-on-year investment created by the CPRS could be as much as 60 per cent greater than that committed for infrastructure in this year’s budget of $20 billion over six years. There is urgency, though. There is a great urgency, and that is to do with certainty, with Copenhagen and with our national interest. As I mentioned earlier, Australia has an opportunity to act in its own national interest as well as its and the world’s best interests. I want to quickly put on the record comments by a few notable Australians. Russell Caplan, Chairman of Shell Companies in Australia, said: … we believe a far greater risk is that Australia misses the opportunity to put a policy framework in place to deal with this issue. Heather Ridout, from the Australian Industry Group, said: Business also needs to be making very big decisions if we are going to be able to make the transition and to do that they need certainty. Uncertainty is death for business. We want to provide that certainty. Katie Lahey, the Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, 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. And there is a list of other people who say why this is so urgent. I want to make note of another important person in this debate—that is, the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. He used to believe in a domestic emissions trading scheme and the CPRS, but he has been captured—or you could say geosequestered—by the National Party and by the sceptics in his own party. He is more interested in certainty within his own party than he is in the certainty that this scheme could bring to Australia. Australia has set some very strong and in fact ambitious targets, and we are committed and determined to meet them. The CPRS will have an impact on households. In fact, it is expected to cause household prices to rise by 0.4 per cent in 2011-12 and 0.8 per cent in 2012-13. Hence the government has put forward a household assistance scheme of up to 120 per cent of costs to ensure that people can afford any changes that come. Will it create jobs? Of course it will. Will it have an impact on jobs? Of course it will. But it can have a positive impact. It can be good for the economy and it will be good for the economy. That is why we have a number of assistance measures in place. We have factored agriculture into the scheme, and that is why agriculture is not included in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is not in the bill before this parliament. That is something that those in the National Party and others speaking on this issue keep omitting. We have looked at the potential impact on small business and have made sure that there are assistance programs to the tune of $2.75 billion for them as well. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to thank you and the House for the opportunity to speak on this very significant and important bill. I commend the bill to the House. 11197 11:06:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —Today we are again debating the government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]. It is the same legislation that the Nationals, the Liberals, the Greens and most Independents rejected just a few months ago. The only friends of this legislation are Labor. None of them are ever prepared to go outside and defend its implications and its contents. Yes, they come in here, as the previous speaker did, to talk about the impact of climate change on the weather. But no-one will explain how Labor’s CPRS will actually fix the problem. No-one is out there defending the clear deficiencies in this legislation. No-one is explaining how Labor’s CPRS will actually reduce CO2 emissions or how Labor’s CPRS will actually make a positive difference to the environment. I know that there are many government members who know that this is bad legislation, but they are too afraid of their party bosses to speak out and tell the truth. These are the same bills that use regional Australia for target practice. They destroy jobs and investment and do nothing to benefit the environment. Indeed, this legislation as it stands, with Australia acting alone on a CPRS, will increase global emissions. This legislation will actually increase global emissions, not reduce them, as industry deserts Australia and goes to other parts of the world which do not impose these new taxes and new costs. In contempt of the parliament, Labor have reintroduced these bills even though they know that they contain drafting errors. They have not even fixed the drafting errors, yet they bring them back into this House, treating the members of this parliament like fools by expecting them to vote for things that they know are technically deficient. I wonder how government members can explain to their constituents why they are voting for legislation which they know contains drafting errors. They will not even fix those. The reality is that this legislation is not about the environment at all. It is simply a political stunt. This bill will establish a massive new bureaucracy with draconian powers, powers that the tax office does not even possess. Executives will require a lawyer by their side virtually every time they make a decision. It reverses the onus of proof in relation to a whole range of issues, should someone offend the sensitivities of this bill. There will be thousands of pages of new regulations. We have not seen them yet, but we are being asked to trust the government when it says that these regulations will be drafted in a sensitive and appropriate way. But they are being designed by people in the environment department, people who have no understanding of industry, people who do not know how mining and agriculture and commerce and transport actually work. There are some ministers—like the minister at the table perhaps, the member for Rankin—who could make a constructive contribution to drafting the regulations, but departments like his or the minister for industry’s are not included in this process. It is being done by the environmentalists, and everyone therefore has concerns about the practicalities of the result. Ninety per cent of Australians admit that they do not understand Labor’s CPRS, yet no-one from Labor is trying to explain how the CPRS will actually work and what its real benefits will be. Frankly, I think the other 10 per cent of Australians are lying. This bill is so complicated, so massive, so self-contradictory and so full of new concepts and regulations that it is impossible for anybody to have an accurate understanding of its implications. Prime Minister Rudd does not need this legislation to go to Copenhagen. No other country is going to the UN climate conference with a legislated CPRS—no other country. All the UN is asking is for countries to come with targets, and Australia agreed to those targets many months ago. The Prime Minister has everything in his kitbag that he needs now. He does not need to have legislation which no-one else in the world will have and which no-one else in the world is interested in. It is completely ridiculous to suggest, when our Prime Minister turns up in Copenhagen with this legislation in his pocket, that the US, the Europeans, the Africans and the Chinese will all say: ‘Wow! That’s what we’ve got to have. Let us all sign up to your legislation.’ The reality is they will be completely disinterested in it and it will make no impact. Everyone also knows that, when and if there is an international agreement, this scheme will be irrelevant. The world is not going to adopt a scheme that looks anything like Labor’s CPRS. Even if we have an emissions trading scheme, even if we have commitments to reduce CO2 emissions, they are not going to come through a scheme like Labor’s CPRS. So Australia will be out there by itself with a scheme no-one else is interested in, thereby ensuring that this scheme will never achieve any of its objectives. The government have been very keen to isolate industries which have any opposition to their proposal. I was asked to speak about 12 months ago at a Food and Grocery Council dinner, because the Prime Minister had decided not to go. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that the Food and Grocery Council were drawing attention to the fact that the CPRS Bill would have a significant effect on Australia’s food prices, the cost of processing food in this country and our capacity to feed our nation in generations ahead. A few weeks later, the mining industry also had the Prime Minister suddenly withdraw his agreement to speak at an event and so the Deputy Prime Minister came along. At one stage in her speech, she asked her Labor colleagues who were present at that gathering to stand up to show their support for mining, and only two did. So that is where the Labor government is coming from with its CPRS. It has no understanding of agriculture or the food processing sector. Labor is proposing the only emissions trading scheme in the world which will include the mining sector. This is the only scheme anywhere in the world that includes and imposes heavy costs on mining. The European scheme exempts them. The proposed US legislation exempts them. But Labor is proposing to impose billions of dollars in taxation on this sector. Is it any wonder that coalmining companies see this as the end of 10,000 or more Australian jobs? At least 16 mines are likely to close, but there will also be ramifications in other sectors. The Australian mining sector, the proud leader of our economic growth, will suffer seriously from the cost implications, and as a result the Chinese, the Japanese and others will buy their coal from Indonesia, their iron ore from Brazil or from any other country in the world that does not impose these taxes. In fact, they can get it from the United States and it will not impose these taxes. Even the Europeans, who are often put up as the world leaders in their concern about CO2 emissions, do not impose these sorts of taxes on their mining sector. Only Australian Labor’s CPRS will impose these costs. There are many fundamental difficulties with designing an ETS. Labor’s proposals make that obvious. An ETS cannot be painless, as the federal government likes to pretend when it is talking to pensioners, consumers and low-income Australians. If it is going to work, it has to be painful—in fact, very painful, so painful that people stop doing the things that they want to do that are assessed as damaging the environment and do without. Will they turn off their air conditioners on a hot day so they can reduce their CO2 emissions? Frankly, I do not think Australian people are likely to do that. They may go without food or without a visit to their relatives, but they are going to want to keep cool on a hot day or keep warm on a cold day. If, in fact, the government does as it says it is going to do—as part of its CPRS package provide compensation to people who have to meet the higher costs of electricity, food and the other things they buy in this country—that is another reason why they would not switch off their air conditioners. They will be subsidised to run them. Other people whose wages are dependent on CPI rises will have their higher costs flow through into their wage structure and, therefore, also will lose the incentive to change their behaviour. So the reality is that the scheme will not of itself deliver reductions in CO2 emissions. Emissions trading schemes always include exemptions, free permits and concessional arrangements. This scheme includes them as well. In reality, of course, no-one is truly exempt, because the increased costs flow through to them and will inevitably be passed on to consumers. However, each concession creates anomalies. You have birthday cakes all over the place. You have some industries that are in and other industries that are out. The more sectors you exempt, the harsher you have to treat those that are being taxed if you are going to raise the revenue that the government obviously has in mind resulting from this scheme. Last Thursday Don Argus, one of Australia’s leading businessmen, had some things to say about the emissions trading scheme, which I think are very important. Friday’s Australian reported his speech in this way: Now, when a banker of legend who is the titular head of Australia’s global resources house starts telling you, unequivocally, that unfettered markets will not always work, then it might be wise to listen. …            …            … Argus acknowledged the admirable intent of the scheme: to use market pricing to effect a reduction of our carbon footprint. But he insists that all the emissions trading schemes, as currently designed, will fail. The idea that the markets will fix a real price for carbon and consumers will manage their demand accordingly was “great in theory”, Argus said. “But there are some very smart guys who will make a buck and I am sure they will not be worrying about CO2 emissions.” The problem is that the price of carbon is inevitably going to vary across international constituencies and that will create arbitrage which will, in turn, fuel a new, hyperactive market for carbon permits and a whole new set of derivatives. Traders, says Argus, have quite different objectives to governments and global warming bureaucrats. “A trading mentality will not get CO2 out of the atmosphere,” Argus said. He warned that not enough had been done to appreciate or anticipate the “unintended consequences” of a market-based solution. “We haven’t learned the lessons of the financial system,” he said. Here is the Labor government, which has been vocal in its criticism of world financial markets, now advocating the establishment of a giant new trading scheme. The reality is that an emissions trading scheme will deliver rich traders but a poorer environment. Simply shuffling paper, selling bits of paper time and time again, will not reduce CO2 emissions. A trading house on the top floor of a capital city building is so remote from the person being asked to switch off their light bulb 1,000 kilometres away that the impact will simply be nonexistent. This is a scheme that is backed by the bankers and the traders, but the environmentalists, industry and Australian workers will be the losers. Labor talks a lot about green jobs. I can tell you where the green jobs are going to be. They are going to be in the houses of emissions traders, in the houses of the bankers and of course in Work for the Dole schemes. Initiatives like MRETs, compulsory inclusion of ethanol in fuel, incentives for energy efficient buildings, alternative energies and sequestration will actually deliver real results. A trading scheme will not. These days many markets are global and with an increasing proportion of production exported to other parts of the world. If the purpose of an ETS is to change consumer behaviour, why not impose the tax on the consumers rather than the producers? Many of these other options have never been properly debated or considered by this parliament or by the government. They are simply dismissed out of hand. Anyone who raises an alternative suggestion is not met with a rational argument as to why that is inappropriate, they are just accused of being dinosaurs or climate change sceptics. You are not a climate change denier if you advocate a different system of reducing CO2 emissions than the one being proposed by the government. You are not a climate change denier if you want to address these environmental issues in a different way. The way this debate has been treated by the government is insulting to the Australian people and insulting to those who want to address these issues with goodwill. This scheme is full of anomalies and none of those anomalies have been corrected in this legislation. Why do you tax some of the energy efficient transport sectors more intensely than those that are less energy efficient? Why should electric passenger rail services be slugged with new taxes on electricity but those who drive their car to work will not be taxed, at least in the initial years? If you fly to North Queensland for your holiday, you will pay an emissions tax but, if you go to Vanuatu, Fiji, Dubai or the United States, you will not. If you need the Royal Flying Doctor Service to take you to hospital, you will incur a new tax but, if you go by ambulance, you will not. It is simply inevitable that Australia’s do-it-yourself CPRS will be flawed—probably fatally flawed like its European predecessors. Like the Kyoto accord, it is artificially contrived and therefore ripe for manipulation and will produce few, if any, real environmental benefits. Labor’s obsession with signing Kyoto should provide lessons for the CPRS debate. Kyoto has not saved a single polar bear, or the Great Barrier Reef, and it has not filled the Murray, as Labor claimed it would before the last election. But it has now meant that Australia cannot undertake a whole range of carbon mitigation measures and sequestration that nonsignatories to Kyoto can. A US farmer can get credit for sequestering carbon but an Australian farmer cannot. The Chinese can generate electricity from gases in a disused coalmine but in Australia you cannot, yet an Australian industry can buy those credits from China and use them in Australia. What sort of a scheme is this? It is a load of nonsense and it is an example of how environmental objectives were used as an excuse to effectively transfer industry from countries like Australia to developing countries like China and India and Korea. But it also ensures that the very things that we could be doing today to reduce CO2 emissions in fact are unaccredited under the Kyoto process. Labor needs to explain why it is that Australians are not able to undertake carbon sequestration activities which are known to work and which almost every other country in the world can do, but which are not going to be allowed for Australians. This is a really odd policy if it is designed, as the government claims, to actually do something about the environment. What sort of an environmental treaty is it that actually prevents Australia from undertaking CO2 reduction projects which nonsignatories can undertake, yet we can buy the credits from them? This is simply a nonsense and it is one of many examples of how Labor has not thought through the impacts of its emissions trading scheme. We should not accept an ETS that is just a guise to raise vast new tax revenues rather than deliver environmental benefits. There is a $50 billion-plus bonanza of tax revenue in this scheme for the government. That is why they are interested in it—a bankrupt government with big spending projects in mind and its eye on the $50 billion of revenue. This is about taxation. It is not about the environment, and Labor has been dishonest in the way in which it has portrayed the scheme to the Australian public. The Nationals have had a consistent view that the government has been more concerned about creating new money-shuffling bureaucracies and a gigantic new drain on taxpayers’ wallets than actually helping with the environment. We have consistently regarded Labor’s scheme as particularly harsh on regional Australia. Indeed, regional Australia will cop it in the neck. Regional Australia is where our energy is produced and our exports created. We are the people who will lose the jobs. We are the people who can create emissions credits, who can do the work, but we are being denied the opportunity under Labor’s scheme. It is hard to believe that the successful passage of this bill will make any difference to global emissions. The government’s resource minister admitted as much when he said that China was building so many new coal fired power stations that the impact of Australian efforts will be almost nonexistent. So this scheme is of no value. There are proposed amendments that may well improve the scheme and we will be prepared to support those that are of value. But this is the bill that we were asked to vote on three months ago. It has not changed. We voted against it then and we will be voting against it now. (Time expired) 11202 11:26:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 0 Mrs D’ATH —Today I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills before the House. Through these bills Australia will establish a carbon pollution reduction scheme by which, if the international agreement reached meets the conditions the government has set out, Australia will agree to reduce our national emissions to 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. The Rudd government’s target of 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 provides strong support to ambitious global action to minimise the risks of dangerous climate change. It is also one of the most ambitious emission reduction targets in the world. It represents a 32 per cent reduction on our Kyoto target. If there is a fair contribution from all emitters around the world to take strong action to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change by restraining atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to 450 parts per million, that reduces the average emissions of every Australian by almost a half over the next 10 years. If the world is unable to reach agreement on a 450 parts per million target, this government will reduce emissions in Australia by between five and 15 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. The government has already introduced the renewable energy target legislation to complement the CPRS. Through this legislation the government has set a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. And the alternative? We have heard today from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, that they have called for delays again. This is certainly not the first time. The Liberals and the member for Wentworth have called for delays seven times. They have promised to make a decision on their policy on climate change and seven times they have delayed. In December 2007 they said, ‘Let’s wait for the Garnaut report.’ In September 2008 they said, ‘Wait for the Treasury modelling.’ In September 2008 they said, ‘Let’s wait for the white paper.’ In December 2008 they said, ‘Let’s wait until the Pearce report.’ In April 2009 they said, ‘Let’s wait for the Senate inquiry.’ In May 2009 they said, ‘Let’s wait for the Productivity Commission,’ of course forgetting that the Productivity Commission had already made a submission on emissions trading to the Howard government’s Shergold report. Then they said, ‘Wait for Copenhagen and for President Obama’s scheme.’ For 12 years the Liberal Party have failed to act. They went to the election with a promise to implement emissions trading but they stand here today again asking for delays. This has not always been the case. The member for Wentworth used to believe that an emissions trading scheme would strengthen Australia’s position going into Copenhagen. Mr Turnbull said in the Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece on 9 July 2008: … our first hand experience in implementing … an emissions trading system would be of considerable assistance in our international discussions and negotiation aimed at achieving an effective global agreement. Turnbull also used to believe in domestic action come what may. The member for Wentworth, on Lateline on 9 July 2008, said: … the Howard Government’s policy last year, was that we would establish an emissions trading system not later than 2012. It was not conditional on international action. …            …            … … John Howard decided and the Cabinet decided last year that we would move on an emissions trading scheme come what may. It is certainly different to what we are hearing today. Of course, I have to say in relation to the Nationals and the member for Wide Bay that at least the Nationals have been consistent from day one. They oppose a carbon pollution reduction scheme, they have since the beginning and they continue to now. They may be wrong in their approach, but they have been consistently wrong. I acknowledge that. Of course, what is more important is that there are others out there in the international community who do believe that it is better that Australia go forward to Copenhagen with a firm position. Mr Yvo de Boer, the executive director of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat, was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 August 2009 as saying, ‘I think it helps Australia’s credibility to say, “This is the target Australia is willing to commit to and this is how we are going to achieve it.” That will be good for this country’s credibility, yes.’ Of course, we know the science. We know that the science says that the globe is warming. Warming of the climate is unequivocal and is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea levels. Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. These are widely held views across the mainstream of climate change scientists across the world, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which released its most recent report, the Fourth assessment report, in 2007, touching on all of these elements. I also touch on the House of Representatives Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts Committee’s report that they released yesterday in relation to the effects of climate change on coastal regions. I acknowledge their great work. I was part of that committee during 2008, and I congratulate them on releasing this report. Petrie is a coastal electorate, with Moreton Bay and the Redcliffe Peninsula. These are low-lying areas. There are many homes and businesses along these coastlines. What this report clearly shows is that there will be significant impact. Climate change, as noted in the report released yesterday and tabled in this House, impacts on coastal zones, including through rising sea level, more intense storms, larger waves and storm surges, altered precipitation and run-off and ocean acidification. This has been reinforced by the climate change committee’s report yesterday, but of course it has been widely spoken about and put into reports by climate change scientists across the world. We have heard from the opposition about jobs and business, but it is businesses out there that are asking for certainty. Russell Caplan, chairman of Shell Australia, was reported in BRW on 6 August 2009 as saying: … we believe a far greater risk is that Australia misses the opportunity to put a policy framework in place to deal with this issue. This would create a climate of continuing uncertainty for industry and potentially delay the massive investments that are required. Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group said on Sky News on 5 May 2009: Business also needs to be making very big decisions if we are going to be able to make the transition— to the CPRS— and to do that they need certainty. Uncertainty is death for business. Katie Lahey, the Business Council of Australia CEO, was reported in the Age on 6 May 2009 as saying: 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. These are the things that we need to be dealing with. These are the reasons why we need to act now. We have heard a lot of misinformation, including from the member for Wide Bay, who has spoken on these bills today, about the impact on households. Yes, we have said that the CPRS is expected to raise household prices by 0.4 per cent in 2011-12 and 0.8 per cent in 2012-13. Electricity prices for households could rise by around seven per cent, around $1.50 per week on average, in 2011-12. Gas prices could rise by four per cent, around 60c per week on average, in this same time frame. Food prices could contribute around 0.1 per cent of the 1.2 per cent overall increase in household prices. The Treasury modelling found that the CPRS scenarios show a one-off rise in the CPI of one to 1½ per cent. What those on the other side fail to acknowledge is that what these bills do and what the government has promised is that the government will provide up-front support to low- and middle-income households from 2011-12 through a package of direct cash assistance, tax offsets and a 10 per cent reduction in the fuel excise tax to help adjust to a lower pollution future. Direct assistance through the tax and transfer system will fully meet the expected overall increase in the costs of living under the CPRS for low-income households and will help to meet the increase for middle-income households. Around 90 per cent of low-income households, or 2.8 million households overall, will be eligible for assistance equal to 120 per cent or more of their cost of living increase over the first two years of the CPRS. Around 97 per cent of middle-income households will receive some direct cash assistance in 2011-12 and 2012-13. Motorists will be protected from higher fuel costs from the CPRS by 10 per cent reductions in fuel tax for the first three years. The government has also made a commitment that each year it will review the adequacy of the household package in the context of the budget. In 2011-12 the level of assistance will be adjusted to align it with lower estimated cost of living impacts resulting from an initial fixed $10 per tonne carbon price. The Liberal Party’s time is up. They need to stop making excuses, support the CPRS and provide certainty to business and the broader Australian community. This is certainly what my local community wants. As Australia is one of the driest continents on earth, its environment and economy will be among the hardest and fastest hit by climate change if we do not act now. The evidence on the economic effects of climate change is widely known. The environmental impacts are widely known. The future that our children, our grandchildren and future generations face if we do not act now is widely known. The longer we wait to act on climate change, the more it will cost and the worse its effects will be. I commend these bills to the House. 11205 11:37:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I rise to address both the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills before the House and in particular the amendments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and also the broader question of climate change. Let me begin with a very clear statement. This debate must be addressed from a position—as the Leader of the Opposition said—of hope, not despair; of giving people the opportunity to foresee a future, not to push them into a position of fear, not to push them into a position of paralysis, not to push them into a position where their economic life as well as their sense of social wellbeing is crushed as they look forward. We must look at this responsibly. We must look at this from a position of opportunity and hope and aspiration. We must give people a sense that their lives can be better, that we can deal with the problem and that it will not be a terminal condition for humanity. So I want to address this in three simple phases: firstly, a clear statement, as I see it, of the problem; secondly, how the coalition responds to the issue of climate change; and, thirdly, the specific amendments which have been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition to reduce emissions in a more efficient way, to keep down prices within the electricity sector and to ensure that jobs are not lost along with emissions simply being exported to China, India and other countries so as to have no impact on the problem. Let me then turn to the problem. The problem of climate change is a simple concept, although it is of course—and as it should be—disputed. There are 40 billion tonnes of CO2 or equivalent gases which are emitted globally on an annual basis. That means that Australia, with about 560 million tonnes of emissions, represents 1.4 per cent of total global emissions. The simple conclusion from that, as was stated this morning by the Leader of the Opposition, is that if we were to eradicate all emissions from Australia, if we were to close down Australia, we would still see that global emissions would continue to rise, that our 1.4 per cent would be replicated by Chinese expansion within a period of about eight months and that there would be no net impact of any significance unless there were comparable global actions. I accept, and have accepted for 20 years—from the period when my university thesis was on precisely this topic of looking at the different options available, of regulation versus emissions trading versus carbon taxes, to deal with the question of climate change—that there is a real and profound issue of climate change. It has been part of the work of my life. I have never resiled from it, but nor am I who believes we should declare those two million Australians who take a different view to in some way be heretical. They have not just a right to present their view, albeit counter to my own. They have a duty, a responsibility, to do so—and a right to do so with freedom from being declared and denounced as heretics or being impressed upon as having failed a moral task. In a responsible society there is a duty to allow scientific debate and to let the weight and quality of that debate determine the outcome, rather than to denounce, deride and bring down those who would present a counter view. So I am of the view that the problem of climate change is real and significant and profound, but I am equally of the view that we must have robust scientific debate. People should never be criticised for taking a different view, and two million Australians should not to be pushed aside as if their views do not matter. What then, as we look at the global problem, is the conclusion from this notion that there are 40 billion tonnes of CO2? The simple conclusion is this: that we must have a global agreement and that unilateral action will not just be ineffective but could in fact be counterproductive. How can it be counterproductive? By moving emissions and moving jobs to India, China and other unregulated economies where methods of production—whether of recycled paper or bauxite or different forms of metal processing—are not as well regulated, we could actually see a net increase in global emissions. Therefore, there must be a comprehensive global agreement. The only thing that the planet knows is the total tonnes of CO2 emitted per annum which translates to the total parts per million of CO2 or equivalent gases. The IPCC has identified 450 million parts per million of CO2 or equivalent as a 50 per cent likelihood of a two-degree increase in global temperatures. At present we are at 387 parts per million of CO2. When you add in equivalent gases, that rises to about 460. When you take away the effect of aerosols, that drops to about 390. That is why we use the position of 387 to 390 parts per million of CO2. We know that a 20 per cent increase would take us to 450 parts per million and we are at present on track to reach that without global action. Therefore, as our first step we need global action in terms of a comprehensive global agreement. We have set down bipartisan support on targets. All that the planet knows is the total parts per million of CO2. So the debate about mechanisms is not about where we end up; it is simply about how we do that in a way which most effectively reduces emissions at the lowest cost whilst protecting Australian jobs and in particular protecting mums and dads, farmers, pensioners and small businesses from unnecessary price rises in electricity and similar goods. Having said that, the second of the international elements that we need in order to deal the 20 per cent, or eight billion tonnes, of the 40 billion tonnes of CO2 or equivalent gases globally per annum is a global rainforest recovery program. In the next five years it is quite possible to reduce by half the eight billion tonnes to four billion tonnes of CO2 from deforestation in the Amazon and in Indonesia, in Papua New Guinea and in the Solomons, in Malaysia and in the Congo. It is quite possible, through the right mix of incentives, to save four billion tonnes per annum out of 40 billion tonnes, with enormous ecological benefits. That would be the single biggest, fastest thing the world can do over the next five years. The government has, sadly, dropped the ball on that issue, that approach, that task, that momentous responsibility, which was begun by my good friend Alexander Downer, by the now Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, and by John Howard, the then Prime Minister, whilst we were in government three years ago. What we do know is this. That will then lead to domestic action as well. We have a role to play, but if our role is unilateral, it is of no effect and can, in fact, be counterproductive due to carbon leakage or the export of jobs and emissions to China and India, to which I have referred previously. We have three pillars to our domestic approach. First, and most importantly, most urgently and most immediately, is the adoption of green carbon approaches and practices. What is green carbon, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott? As a man of the land, you would know that green carbon is about the use of nature’s own lungs—trees, mallee and mulga revegetation—and in particular the extraordinary opportunity to improve the carbon-carrying capacity of soils within Australia. It is not our view; this is the view of leading Australian scientists, whether you talk about David Lindenmeyer or the work of Professor Flannery. Only last week, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists put out a report which said that Australia had the capacity to save, at the upper limit, 1,000 million tonnes of CO2 per annum through green carbon measures. Yet these measures have been almost exclusively left out of the government’s system. The single thing which we could do on a fast rapid basis has been omitted from the government system in large part. That is not acceptable, it is not reasonable. It is not the work of people who are concerned about reducing emissions; it is the work of people who are focusing on an approach to attacking the industrial base of our society rather than reducing Australia’s net emissions. That approach to green carbon must be adopted in Australia. It is our first pillar. We have taken a very conservative view—15 per cent of that put forward by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists or 150 million tonnes per annum . That is what we believe could be saved through adoption of green carbon measures in Australia, by providing incentives, support for our farms and our farmers, to improve soil quality, to improve the water retention and water efficiency of land and, in so doing, to improve the ability to naturally sequester CO2 within the carbon cycle of our land. The second of our pillars, after green carbon, is the clean energy revolution. There are two elements to the clean energy revolution. The first is supply. We supported the 20 per cent renewable energy target. We drove the 20 per cent renewable energy target when the government wanted to hold it hostage to this legislation. What we saw instead was a government which was never serious about its own renewable energy legislation. It was a political tool, but we drove it, we threaded the needle and we managed to get it passed. That will lead to a very prospective way forward, so long as certain problems at present within the renewable energy credits market are dealt with. This is important stuff and we are proud to support the vision of solar, geothermal, tidal and wave, the great new energy sources of the future. We must also have a movement which increases the adoption of combined cycle gas in Australia. If you want to look at the single biggest thing we could do over the next 10 years in Australia in order to reduce emissions, it would be to lift the level of combined cycle gas, which would provide a very useful source of baseload electricity, at a low cost, with great benefit to Queensland, also reducing our overall emissions profile on a grand scale. On the demand side of electricity, we need a white certificate program. We need incentives to deal with some of the perverse barriers to adoption of lower energy consumption practices in the commercial, the domestic and the rental sectors. That would be an extremely important step forward. In good faith, we have put forward, through the Leader of the Opposition, amendments to that effect. We have not heard from the government. It is hard to understand why they have not adopted them. They form an important initiative which would reduce Australia’s total emissions in an energy efficient way and in a way which would help to usher in the clean energy revolution. The third pillar is the most controversial—some form of carbon pricing. The fundamental flaw in that which is proposed in this legislation, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and allied bills, is that it relies upon driving up the price of electricity as far and as fast as possible to bring about change. It relies upon behavioural change from driving up the price of an inelastic good, yet we know that the net effect will not be the same as that which is desired, proposed or intended. People will simply substitute out of other discretionary items whilst maintaining a reasonable level of electricity consumption. Electricity consumption in the domestic sphere—less so in the industrial sphere—is a very heavily inelastic good and people in essence will not drop or change their consumption behaviours enormously. Therefore, our amendments seek to deal with this fundamental flaw. We have proposed six amendments and this brings me to what Malcolm Turnbull has dealt with. Firstly, most importantly in some respects, that there is a level playing field for our trade exposed sector, that we will not put our sector at disadvantage until 80 per cent of global sectors—whether it is in zinc, aluminium or bauxite, whether it is in paper recycling or comparable products—are brought within a global regime. It is sensible, it is prudent. Secondly, as I have set out elsewhere, that agricultural offsets are included in the system from 2010, which would provide incentives and income for farmers. It is potentially a $3 billion a year income stream for Australia’s rural sector while improving our biodiversity and our emissions reduction. Why the government have not adopted this is beyond me. I think it is critical that they do that while omitting direct taxes on our farmers for belching cows. The third thing is that we have to have a very clear transitional path which does not destroy the balance sheets of our power sector. I say that as a Victorian and as an Australian. We have put forward a proposal that deals with the fact that there is $50 billion worth of unallocated permits. It is revenue neutral and it is responsible. It is designed to ensure that Victoria and other states do not face power outages as the balance sheets of the power companies go belly up. The fourth thing is the amendments in relation to small business. In relation to small business, the point is very simple: we want to ensure that there is a model which means that, instead of the power price being driven up by 30 to 40 per cent, we dramatically reduce that rise by ensuring that power companies are provided with incentives to have as lower emissions as possible but not having to carry the cost of a tax which is extraordinary. At present the government is proposing $120 billion. We would bring the total tax regime down over the next decade to close to $70 billion. That will keep power prices down whilst at the same time providing incentives for direct transition of the power sources. The fifth area is to ensure that there is a direct incentive for using our waste coalmine gas. At present that gas will just go up into the air. We are providing a regulatory approach which would mean that we would clean up that gas. We use that gas from the rich gassy mines where it can be captured for electricity, and if we use that methane then we will reduce our CO2 profile. The proposal we have will maintain jobs in the coal export sector whilst at the same time dealing directly with the emissions which would not be dealt with directly by the government. Finally, our sixth amendment is in the area of the voluntary sector. We are saying here that there must be energy efficiency and there must be support for the green energy sector. We have said simply that the voluntary actions taken by individuals in Australia should be on top of, not included within, our national targets. The government do not accept that principle. They are wrong to do so. It discourages voluntary action. The last thing I want to do is deal with two myths within the government’s scheme. Firstly, the scheme is predicated on the view that electricity prices must be the highest possible. Because it is an inelastic good, that just means we will be imparting pain without reducing emissions. We want a scheme which has direct action—which directly reduces emissions. That is why our amendments are aimed at reducing emissions for agriculture through voluntary action and through what we would do with waste coalmine gas—real changes with real effect. The second myth is that the timing of the legislation must be now, must be this day. Under our approach or under their approach the legislation would commence on the same day. That is a critical difference. The legislation would commence on the same day. They are not honest. They have not acknowledged that. If we finalise this after we know what the rest of the world is doing in Copenhagen, action will not be delayed one single day. The real system would commence on 1 July 2012 under our proposal or theirs, and the carbon tax for one year would commence on 1 July 2011. There would not be one day of delay under what we are proposing, but much greater protections for Australia, much greater direct incentives for action for our farmers and much greater direct incentives for action for the voluntary sector. That is why I commend the amendments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I thank him and the member for Groom for their work. We are offering real action for Australia but at lower cost in terms of electricity and at the same time preserving jobs. 11209 11:56:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 0 Mr CHAMPION —I rise to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]. It is a critical bill both for Australia’s future and progress towards an international agreement. I do just want to take up one point that the member for Flinders made. He says that it would be wrong to act unilaterally and that we should wait for the world—we should wait for an international agreement. But that is not what we have done in other areas of public policy. If, for instance, we had adopted that approach to trade, we would still be sitting behind a tariff wall in this country. We would not have the moral argument that we have now in international trade forums, where we can say that we are a free-trading country because we acted unilaterally and we lowered our tariff barriers. That meant that jobs went out of some areas like textiles, clothing and footwear but it liberated other industries and it meant that investment in mining and other areas was forthcoming. It was the government acting in the national interest and not waiting for the world, not waiting for international agreements. So I do not think the argument that we should wait for the world, that we should not act unilaterally, really cuts much mustard. We really have to get on and act so that when we go to Copenhagen we have some moral power in our arguments. We can say that we have led by example; we have our cards on the table. The pressure then comes on developing countries to also come up with a deal, to also come up with an act, because just as Australia can say, ‘Our emissions are minimal; they don’t make much difference to the rest of the world,’ so can provinces in China. They can make exactly the same argument—or Europe, or Africa, or any other continent. This is an international problem, but it does require nations to actually put their cards on the table and act, because if we do not start acting then we are going to be in strife. The consequences of climate change are profound. Last year I read a book called The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World by Paul Roberts. It is a book that really focuses on resource depletion—in particular, oil and gas on the one hand and climate change on the other. There is no doubt that it is pretty frightening reading. Resource depletion and climate change are profound international challenges. If we get them wrong the consequences can be pretty horrific. The consequences in Australia, according to the Australian Climate Change Science Program, which is managed by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, is that by 2030 temperatures will rise by about one degree over Australia—a little less in coastal areas and a little more inland—and later this century, warming depends on the extent of greenhouse gas emissions. If emissions are low, it is somewhere between one and 2.5 degrees Celsius by about 2070. The best estimate is about 1.8 degrees Celsius. But under a high-emissions scenario, the best estimate of warming is 3.4 degrees Celsius, with a range between 2.2 and five degrees Celsius. That is a pretty horrific consequence of not acting. The other findings include that droughts are likely to become more frequent, particularly in the south-west; evaporation rates will increase, particularly in the north and the east; high fire danger weather is likely to increase in the south-east; tropical cyclones are likely to become more intense; and sea levels are likely to rise. In my electorate which borders the coast in South Australia, places like Port Parham, Middle Beach and Port Wakefield would not really want the seas to rise too much—particularly Middle Beach, which is already prone to tidal movements. So the consequences can be quite profound for Australia. Internationally, for our neighbours, they can be even worse. The Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that the consequences for Asia are things like: Glacier melt in the Himalayas is projected to increase flooding, and rock avalanches from destabilised slopes, and to affect water resources within the next two to three decades. Freshwater availability in Central, South, East and South-East Asia, particularly in large river basins, is projected to decrease due to climate change which, along with population growth and increasing demand arising from higher standards of living, could adversely affect more than a billion people by the 2050s. Coastal areas, especially heavily-populated megadelta regions in South, East and South-East Asia, will be at great risk due to increased flooding from the sea and, in some megadeltas, flooding from the rivers. It also says: It is projected that crop yields could increase up to 20% in East and South-East Asia while they could decrease by up to 30% in Central and South Asia by the mid 21st century. Taken together, and considering the influence of rapid population growth and urbanisation, the risk of hunger is projected to remain very high in several developing countries. So that will obviously have profound impacts on our neighbours. We would be fools to think that we can isolate ourselves from it because we are an island or that we can put off acting because we will be immune to the consequences. We cannot. We have been putting off acting on climate change—the world has—for a very long time. Since 1990 we have been putting off taking real and effective action. We are now at D-day. We are now at the point at which we have to run onto the beaches. And the opposition just says, ‘Well, let’s just give it a little bit more time.’ I do not think that is the way forward. I think what we need to do is go to Copenhagen and get a deal. My experience in the union movement—and I am sure this will get the member for O’Connor excited—is that you were nearly always better off dealing with an employer and getting a deal than remaining pure and fighting for a hundred per cent of nothing. You were always better off getting 50 per cent of something than 100 per cent of nothing. I think this is the big challenge for the opposition. They are now in negotiations. They are proceeding in good faith from both sides. I commend the parliament and those participating in the discussions. But the real test will be when the deal goes back to the party room. I am optimistic. I think there will be some form of deal. But the great challenge for those in the party room will be to not succumb to the myth of being pure, getting 100 per cent of nothing, and to actually do a deal in Australia’s interest. It is a profoundly important thing to do. It will not be without some gnashing of teeth, I am sure, but it is a test of leadership and, I think, a test of maturity for the opposition. I do not have much time left, but I would say that the most important bits of these bills, really, for my constituents are that we are acting and that there is compensation for those who are on low and middle incomes—those people who are poor. ‘Poor’ is not a word that gets used much anymore. The compensation in this bill and related bills is particularly important. The cost of living is estimated to rise by 0.4 per cent in 2011-12 and by 0.8 per cent in 2012-13. That is a result of the price of carbon, which will move from a fixed price of $10 per tonne to a flexible price in that period. In response to that, the government will be compensating low-income and middle-income households through a package of cash assistance, tax offsets and other measures. It will do that using revenue raised from the auction of carbon pollution permits under the scheme. For the pensioners, veterans and people on Newstart allowance—those on fixed incomes in my electorate—this is a particularly important aspect of the bills. We want to make sure that those at the lower end of the income spectrum are not adversely impacted by our attempts and our efforts to combat climate change. That, I think, is pretty important. The other thing that is very important to my electorate is agriculture. There will be a lot said about this. Farmers have given me a lot of feedback in my electorate. One thing I have noticed is that there is a tremendous drive for innovation amongst Australian farmers, and they are already getting on with adapting to climate change. In my electorate under the FarmReady program there have been a couple of projects which I want to highlight before I conclude. The Gilbert Agribusiness Group is using a $200,000 grant to calculate the emissions from different farming systems in the lower north, determine the carbon footprints of farm businesses and prepare farmers to adapt to the impact of an emissions trading scheme. So that is a sign of positive local action on climate change and people adapting to a new environment. I have every confidence that farmers will be able to adapt to both climate change and an emissions trading system. In conclusion, this is a tremendously important bill for the parliament. It is a tremendously important moment for the nation. And I think, as we enter Copenhagen, with our Prime Minister playing a lead role, it is time to put aside the partisan bickering—and the persecution complex of those who call themselves climate sceptics. I have never seen anything more ridiculous than some of the rhetoric that sceptics are somehow persecuted. It is an utterly ridiculous proposition. They are in the paper every week, they are in this parliament every week, talking about their beliefs—and so they should. But to say that anybody is trying to silence them is, quite frankly, ridiculous. We should have the debate, but we should also act in the national interest. And the time to do that is now. 11212 12:08:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY —The member for Elizabeth— HW9 Champion, Nick, MP Mr Champion —Wakefield! SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —Wakefield, and that population centre called— HW9 Champion, Nick, MP Mr Champion interjecting— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —Don’t lecture me on the geography of South Australia—I’m married to a South Australian! There is an assembly line, a huge employer, in Elizabeth called the Holden Motor Company. As we speak in this House there are vehicle assemblers and manufacturers around the world, and more particularly in the Asia region, that are cheering on for Australia to put Holden out of business in Australia. When this bill delivers higher electricity charges, when this bill makes BlueScope Steel virtually uncompetitive—and I assume Holden would then import steel—when the Americans have fully government-funded their manufacturing sector including the parent of Holden, and the GM boardroom look at their costs of construction and assembly and say, ‘Why are we putting up with Fair Work in Australia’—as, I might add, Bridgestone Tyres have just done; I would love to have been in their boardroom—‘when we have much more simplified legislation in America? We need the extra business; why don’t we just put the vehicles on a ship and send them to Australia?’ That could be from Thailand, who are not going to have an emissions trading tax. It could be from India, with a massively growing industry. They now own Jaguar. They are not going to have an emissions trading tax. And there is China. A constituent of mine rang the other day. He asked how he could get over all the hurdles such as safety and everything to bring in trucks from China which he can retail for $48,000—big trucks. How would the people of Elizabeth and their jobs survive were this piece of legislation to pass this House? When the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, had difficulty in describing the workings of his emissions trading scheme, and the benefits it might bring to the community and to the globe, he changed the name—he rebadged it. It is funny, I was just talking about motor cars. He rebadged a lemon and called it a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I have not heard one speaker from the government benches—and I will not hear one before this is over—describe how they can guarantee that a pay-to-pollute system of operation will necessarily and measurably reduce emissions of this nature. That is what an emissions trading scheme is. An emissions trading scheme is a process by which the government either sells or gifts the right to keep polluting. And when the Holden factory, or the working family, experience a 20 to 30 per cent increase, as predicted, in their electricity bill, are they paying that to save the planet? No, they are not. They are paying that so that their electricity generator can be compensated for the increased costs of production by their paying the government for the pollution they generate. An emissions trading scheme is a pay-to-pollute system. But it divides the economy of Australia into two groups. There are those, such as electricity generators, with a captive market. You cannot bring electricity in from overseas, so you either buy it at the price that is available or you go without—and, of course, in industry you cannot go without. One of the great things about Australia is that we do have a better standard of living. We do manage to afford air conditioning, electric stoves and all the conveniences in a household. I have heard people say, ‘Oh, I will pay more for electricity.’ Obviously, they have the capacity to do so. I will not describe them as a demographic group, but there are a few names that are applicable. They say, ‘I will pay more to save the planet.’ But they are not paying more to save the planet. They are paying more so that their electricity generator, their fuel supplier and all those other carbon related industries can go on polluting. What is the purpose of that? The member for Wakefield and other speakers this morning have said, ‘Don’t worry about working families. When we put the price of electricity up, we the government will give them a subsidy to cover that.’ In the first instance one might wonder what then happens to the market signal that is supposed to encourage them to tell the kids to turn the lights out, and of course not to turn the air conditioner on, to suffer the heat. That is the first question. But the second question is: how long will the subsidy last? The Howard government thought it reasonable to assist people to protect their health and the health of their family through private insurance and gave them a rebate on their private health insurance premiums. At the last election, the Rudd opposition promised faithfully to maintain that system. And what has happened? We have been fighting them to the death as they proceed to take it back. There is an interesting aspect of Treasury’s attitude to compensation: they always put it on the expenditure side of the budget, as they do with fuel rebates to the farmers. Why do they do that? Because Treasury is constantly putting out press releases advising the Treasurer of the day that if they want to save a bit of money, here is how expenditure can be reduced. So why would anyone believe that they will be immune from this thing and that they will be in constant receipt of free certificates? And what an outrageous system that has become. The carpetbaggers in business are all running around saying to us, ‘Don’t worry about that mob, but you’ve got to give free certificates; we’re special.’ In conversation with one group the other day, it became apparent that if they got the free certificates they would have a competitive advantage over another carbon involved industry—creepy-crawly stuff. As we speak, who is up on the Gold Coast at Macquarie Bank? The spin doctors, the screen jockeys and all of those kinds of people are salivating over the profits that they are going to make trading these certificates. A profit is always at somebody’s loss. It has been said that we are about to see a new tax system that will be decided by the private sector. The cost of your electricity will be driven in the same way that the cost of motoring during that boom period was driven: not by supply and demand—there were adequate fuels available—but by the derivative traders. How much do you want to pay for your electricity when this scheme gets going? These are the realities. It is a process by which you will pay to pollute and if you have any political clout you will be able to get more free ones when you want to. That is the experience in Europe. They have so many certificates flooding the place that at one stage they traded at seven cents. Every time someone walked into a government office and said, ‘Give me more free certificates or I’ll turn the lights out,’ what did they do? Gave them more. The member for Deakin might like to enlighten the House on where in this scheme there is a guarantee that when this market based system comes in more free permits will not be given out. The Prime Minister recently chose to blackguard the free market system in a 7,000-word essay. All of a sudden, a market based system is going to deliver a miracle overnight. The coal fired generating sector, which gives Australia a competitive advantage at Holden and at many other places, has no solutions that it can switch on like that to fix the problem. And we are going to tax them into poverty and then say that they should find a billion or two to clean up their mess. What have they done already? They have said to the government, ‘Compensate us or we’ll close down and go.’ And that is in an environment in which the Treasury secretary got up and said, ‘The Australian population’s going to grow by 50 per cent in 20 years.’ Where will the electricity come from? We saw that the Tokyo or some other car show the other day featured electric cars. How much further demand is that going to put on the generating sector? When one talks of renewable energy targets, it has already been said that there is probably insufficient capacity technologically and economically within Australia at the moment to even reach those targets. One starts to wonder what we are on about when we are expecting a population boom with all of the demands that that will put upon us. Those are my criticisms of an emissions trading scheme. I have not entered the debate as to how Australia, by unilateral action, can save the Great Barrier Reef. I can tell the member for Wakefield and the member for Deakin that when the Prime Minister gets to Copenhagen, possibly with his piece of legislation—and the legislation is huge, and we are supposed to debate it in 10-minute speeches—all the other countries will be laughing behind his back. The Indians and the Chinese have done a deal: no ETS. The American Senate is still 16 votes short of getting the thing on the agenda to talk about. And 44 Democrats, not withstanding the popularity of their leader, voted against it in the House of Representatives, where it passed by seven votes out of 431. The Europeans have only got one thing out of their cap-and-trade scheme. It is now developing as a nice non-tariff barrier as the world has backed them into a corner on other issues. There is minimal trading between polluters and massive trading between financial institutions. And I mention again the circumstances that arose with petrol and diesel as a result of that activity. Those are my criticisms. It is the wrong response to a perceived problem—and I have not got time to give examples of how long the beaches that I visited 70 years ago have been eroding and rebuilding with the seasons. There are solutions. There are means to deliver measurable responses to reduce carbon emissions and they are all available in modern technology. As ABB Australia, the old ASEA Brown Boveri company and probably the world’s largest manufacturer and installer of large electrical technology, has shown me on a graph which is on my website—www.wilsontuckey.com.au—the Australian electrical system from start to finish is 20 per cent efficient: 100 per cent energy in, 20 per cent out. The technology exists to raise that to 40 per cent. A lot of that is in the transmission system that we operate in this country. It is called AC, and it can be high-voltage AC—HVAC. The chosen technology for transferring electricity throughout long distances today is high-voltage DC. We happen to use that to cross Bass Strait for the simple reason that if you tried to transmit AC over that distance there would be no electricity left. Let me give you the best possible example of comparison I can. The Europeans are looking at the potential for solar power to be generated in the Sahara Desert. That is another issue: when you look at renewables and you want solar power, you go to the hottest possible place you can find. There was a study to look at how that solar power would be transmitted to Europe. The study involved practical manufacturers and others, who came to the conclusion, considering that they were talking about a 3,000 kilometre journey, that HVDC was the answer to that problem. Why? Because over 3,000 kilometres they would lose 10 per cent of the energy provided at source. Had they used high-voltage AC current the loss would have been 45 per cent. And guess what the major source of transmission within Australia is: AC. But it goes further than that. We are told a lot about natural gas. Yes, if you put it in a gas turbine or if you burn it in the stove the emissions related to that activity will be less if it is measured at that point in time. But when, as occurs in many parts of Australia, we are serviced by 25,000 kilometres of gas pipeline, the equation changes significantly. The gas pipeline that delivers gas to Perth from the Pilbara uses 225 megawatts, the equivalent of a typical Australian power station, to pump the gas that distance. That produces 700,000 tonnes of emissions. The simple act of ceasing to generate electricity in Perth from that resource and putting the generators in the Pilbara and bringing that power at a cost of about $1.1 billion down into the sou’west network would produce a massive reduction in emissions and a massive increase in the energy that arrived where it could be used from the same energy that was generated. That network could then be interconnected with the eastern states network—and the South Australian and Victorian networks are now interconnected by underground HVDC lines. For $4 billion or $5 billion—a fraction of what this government is proposing to waste on a National Broadband Network that will probably be redundant by the time they get it in the ground considering the rapid evolvement of other technologies in broadband, and it appears they have to steal the Telstra network from its shareholders prior to being able to do it—the government of Australia could invest in a high-voltage DC network which would deliver measurable and significant savings and deliver whatever benefit was consequently available to the network. Most Asians are polite; they laugh at you behind the back of their hand. They will be laughing when Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, goes to Copenhagen—Korea, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia and India. And China is building a 2,000 kilometre HVDC line at the moment to get its hydropower from the western regions into its east coast manufacturing sector. China is going to stick its chest out at Copenhagen because it will be able to identify measurable reductions in carbon. China is going to say to Rudd, ‘Where are your figures proving how you are going to make your contribution?’ And he will say, ‘I have an emissions trading scheme!’ (Time expired) 11215 12:28:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —I speak in favour of these cognate bills before the House and would like to thank the member for O’Connor for his lecture on electrical transmission theory. Efficiency is one of the measures in energy transmission that can certainly help what we do in the future to reduce our emissions. In one sense, however, I am disappointed to be rising to speak today in this cognate debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and cognate bills before the House. We are debating an ETS once again because of the unrest, division and disunity in the coalition’s ranks. We are still talking about climate change but we are not acting on climate change, purely and simply because the coalition cannot sort itself out. There are so many reasons to act to reduce the rate of climate change and to act now. I do not want to go into the foundational argument that some members of the opposition are still engaged in—the futile debate about whether or not climate change actually exists—because it is quite clear to me that the overwhelming majority of scientists have engaged in the most rigorous of assessment processes and their outcomes have faced the stiffest of peer reviews. These are scientists who are the experts in their fields and are respected around the world for their contributions. So in my view there is no doubt the continued and increasing emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing change in our climate. The majority of these emissions are caused by the actions of human beings, and so it is our responsibility to act now to ensure that our children and grandchildren are not left with a planet less inhabitable than we all enjoy today. There are so many reasons to act and to act now. The review by Sir Nicholas Stern and the work of Professor Garnaut following that have concluded that acting now will cost us significantly less than remaining at the status quo and leaving the responsibility of acting on climate change to future generations. As the CPRS white paper states, that would be the least responsible thing to do. Furthermore, and picking up from the white paper, acting now on climate change gives us a competitive advantage over our neighbours in developing new industries and new jobs. The impacts of climate change on our environment will be disastrous. We can expect to see the devastation of our natural ecosystems—rainforests in the Daintree, the Great Barrier Reef, and, closer to my electorate in Victoria, Phillip Island, which is home for a whole colony of fairy penguins, and a very popular beachside resort. They are just a few examples. Our alpine regions will be ruined and our deserts, which have their own delicate and intricate ecosystems, will also be badly affected. As I mentioned before, beaches, which we all currently enjoy, could well be destroyed by a rise in sea levels. Rainfall patterns are changing and many once productive agricultural areas are being more frequently hit with rainfalls lower than the long-term average. We will struggle to find enough water to drink and to support our communities, and that is already happening here and now. There are many communities on water restrictions that have been on them for many years. Many organisations, government and scientific, are predicting increases in natural events like bushfires, extreme weather and extended droughts. And not only will there be an increased incidence in these events, but they will also be more intense events. It is likely we will see greater devastation more often. Climate change will affect jobs—there is no doubt about that. But we have a choice: we can sit on our hands and wait and watch as jobs go down the drain, or we can act now and help to protect and create jobs into the future. Businesses are crying out for certainty because the global financial crisis and climate change create risks into the future. If they do not know what they are dealing with then they will not invest. They need to be able to plan to invest, and not acting on climate change just adds one more risk factor to an already complicated business situation. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is, as has already been outlined by the minister and by previous speakers, a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. It aims to reduce our carbon emissions by regulating the amount of carbon businesses and other entities emit. It will fulfil our international obligations on climate change under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto protocol. It will place Australia in a leadership position in the ongoing international development of a global emissions trading scheme. And, most importantly, it will assist Australia to meet our own greenhouse gas reduction targets. It will encourage businesses to invest in more energy efficiency options. And it will encourage more investment in renewable energies and less polluting, less emission-intensive activities. We know that the ETS will impact on some businesses and households. The government is expecting electricity prices for households to rise by approximately $1.50 per week in 2011-12 and by $2.80 a week in 2012-13. That is why the government has included a range of assistance measures for households and businesses in the ETS. Low- and middle-income earners will receive upfront support from 2011 through a package of measures including direct cash assistance, tax offsets and a cent-for-cent reduction in the fuel excise tax. Low-income earners can expect assistance from the government to fully meet the overall increase in the cost of living as a direct result of the scheme, while the government will assist middle-income earners with their increased costs. Furthermore, the government has committed to reviewing the assistance measures every year to ensure that they are adequate and within the context of the budget. The government will also assist small businesses to deal with increased costs due to the scheme through the Climate Change Action Fund to the tune of $2.75 billion. This assistance will help small businesses adapt through investment in energy efficiency measures, information and structural adjustment assistance. The government intends to roll out $200 million from the Climate Change Action Fund in the 2009-10 financial year to help businesses and households prepare for the ETS in advance. The electricity industry will receive assistance from the government through the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme to help it adjust to the carbon price and to support investment in the sector. The government also realises emissions-intensive trade-exposed businesses will require some assistance to adjust to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That is why we are including measures that will help guard against the risk of carbon leakage and providing transitional assistance to support jobs. While the government’s view is that all industries, including those that are classified as emissions-intensive trade-exposed, should share in the task of reducing our carbon emissions, we recognise that some businesses will need that assistance to adjust. That is why there is an initial allocation of 25 per cent of carbon units for free. The government is also including a global recession buffer for the first five years of the scheme, and Treasury modelling shows that the government’s assistance package for these industries will ease the transition to a low-emission economy while also maintaining incentives for emission reductions. I would like to address the opposition’s previous claims that we should wait to see what the rest of the world does before we act. If that attitude was followed by the rest of the world then nothing at all would ever happen, as every country would sit and wait, with everyone fighting to get to the back of the queue, just like the Liberal Party. Of course, the National Party would not be sitting and waiting, as they do not even believe that climate change is real. While it is great that acting now will make us a global leader in the ongoing development of an international scheme, it is more important to me that we, as a community and as a nation, take responsibility for our carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. This has to happen no matter how large or small they may be compared to those of other nations. The fact of the matter is that we in Australia produce more than our fair share of greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis and it is our responsibility to reduce those emissions as much as possible. The government is negotiating in good faith with the coalition on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and I am very interested to see how genuine the divided coalition will reveal itself to be during these negotiations. However the government is determined to pass the legislation this year. It is vital to Australia. While I recognise that it is hard to hear the opposition spokesman say that the coalition are delaying the legislation not because they do not believe in climate change but because they want to fix what they claim are a multitude of problems with the legislation, it would in my view have been much productive for them—and made it much easier for me to believe them on this point—if they had taken the opportunity to negotiate these bills the first time they were presented to the House. Australia has waited too long for action on climate change. We need to act now. I commend these bills to the House. 11218 12:39:00 Schultz, Alby, MP 83Q Hume LP 0 0 Mr SCHULTZ —I rise to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2], a bill that threatens Australia’s jobs and competitiveness in almost every industry in Australia, particularly in the agriculture, mining and manufacturing sectors. The CPRS bill sets up an emissions trading scheme as part of a framework allegedly designed to reduce the pollution caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, collectively known as GHG emissions. The primary purpose for the reintroduction of this bill now, though, is so that this Prime Minister can continue to strut the world stage and boast to the Copenhagen conference that Australia is taking a leading role in saving the planet from suffocation from CO2 emissions. A Labor policy document from the 2004 election campaign stated on 7 October 2004 that a federal Labor government would ratify Kyoto and introduce an ETS that would be operational no later than 2010. These themes were carried over into the 2007 election campaign where ALP policy was to introduce an ETS commencing in 2010. During the 2007 election campaign the then Labor opposition stated: A Rudd Labor government will: Ensure that Australia’s international competitiveness is not compromised by the introduction of emissions trading. Consult with industry about the potential impact of emissions trading on their operations to ensure they are not disadvantaged. Establish specific mechanisms to ensure that Australian operations of emissions intensive trade exposed firms are not disadvantaged by emissions trading. We are now in 2009 and the Rudd Labor government are hell-bent on having this bill approved without properly ensuring that these three key 2007 election campaign commitments have been thoroughly investigated. I will quote from a comment by one of my sons: The Prime Minister’s ETS is brilliant policy for Australia if you wish to destroy industry and shut down agriculture. Australia will of course cease producing greenhouse gas emissions as a result of this policy and make us the greenest country in the world. We will, however, be dependent on the rest of the world for everything we consume. The scheme is rushed and bungled. It is deeply flawed because it has been rushed to suit a political timetable and an insatiable appetite for new taxes needed to reduce $315 billion of government debt. Even the architect of the Prime Minister’s report into the effects of climate change on Australia, Professor Ross Garnaut, is now considering the validity of this legislation. There is one constant surrounding the global warming debate: there is no shortage of self-styled climate experts to make diabolical predictions and cast shadows of doom and gloom. The climate change debate is not new. On 4 June 1940, Sir Winston Churchill warned of the perverted science of national socialist ideology when he uttered the words: … the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. That is just as applicable today to the perverted science of global warming. Based on the prophetic projections of some experts, Professor Ross Garnaut has accepted that Australia, being a relatively dry continent, is particularly exposed to global warming. The reasoning goes that projected higher temperatures will increase evaporation and thus further the drying of the continent. Never mind that higher temperatures will also increase evaporation from oceans at a rate of about seven per cent for every degree celsius, increasing the water vapour available in the atmosphere for precipitation. The more than 100 years of Australian climate records suggest an inverse correlation between rainfall and maximum temperature—years of widespread good rainfall are cooler than drought years. The recent dry decade and the pressure of overcommitted water resources on the Murray-Darling Basin have galvanised public attention to the need for sustainable utilisation of the limited and highly variable rainfall. However the argument that a reduction in carbon dioxide will somehow prevent future drought, or even increase rainfall, is entirely spurious. In tackling future climates, planners and policymakers have two options: they can learn from past climates, tempered by known uncertainties about the causes of variability and slow change, or they can commit their destiny to the projections of computer models. Variations in past climate have been natural and little influenced by humans. The hazards of climate, including drought, flood, rains, storms and killing frosts, are well known and destructive. The past, augmented by rational science, is an excellent guide to the future. Knowledge, planning, structural design and early warning are effective tools that are used to reduce loss of life and destruction of property associated with severe events. The suggestion that future hazardous climate events could in any way be mitigated by the control of carbon dioxide emissions is absolutely in the extreme. I will not support a bill that will directly affect the agricultural sector or, for that matter, which will directly affect and threaten the livelihoods of the constituents that I represent. The electorate of Hume encompasses the rural areas of the Southern and Central Tablelands of New South Wales as well some of the Riverina. One of the main sustainable industries in the electorate is agriculture, including the farming of beef cattle. As many as 25 per cent of Australia’s cattle producers could be forced out of business by 2030 if agriculture is included in the CPRS. Respected Central Queensland University resource economist Professor John Rolfe, who is also a beef farmer, has done some serious research, using calculated emissions from grass-fed cattle operations, into how an annual carbon permit system in the CPRS would affect beef producers. Present science indicates that methane, or flatulence, from beef cattle accounts for about 7 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions—adult beef cattle emit about 74 kg of methane each per year, dairy cattle emit about 115kg each per year and sheep about 6.6 kg each per year. Using a central Queensland cattle enterprise running 1,000 breeders and 850 calves as a case study, Professor Rolfe said these animals would emit about 134 tonnes of methane in a year, which is about 2,817 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Using an initial introductory annual carbon permit cost of $10 per tonne, buying a permit in the first year would cost such an enterprise $30,000. This is just one example of how such a flawed design will seriously damage the competitive position, and indeed the viability, of many of our industries, not just agriculture. We will see Australian jobs, investment and CO2 emissions being exported to countries where no price is being imposed on carbon. In his report, Professor Garnaut said that in Australia, while coal makes the second largest contribution to climate change, enteric fermentation provides the largest contribution. Being a former meatworker, I was interested to learn where this particular issue was taking us in this climate change debate. Enteric fermentation is the process in ruminants’ digestive systems which produces methane gas. The main ruminant livestock are cattle, buffalo, goats, sheep, deer and camelids—camels, alpacas, llamas et cetera. Non-ruminant livestock—horses, mules and asses—and monogastric livestock—swine—have relatively lower methane emissions because much less methane-producing fermentation takes place in their digestive systems. Professor Garnaut proposed that as our predominant ruminants—cattle and sheep—produce the bulk of the methane, their population could be cut by about 24 per cent and 39 per cent respectively to help Australia reduce its emissions. Based on current numbers, this represents a reduction of approximately 29 million cattle and 93 million sheep. Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that in 2007-08 the total value of beef exports was $4.42 billion and of lamb exports $824 million. Around 65 per cent of Australian agricultural production is exported and exports of agricultural products account for about 18 per cent of total Australian merchandise exports. Those are ABARE figures from 2008. If we reduce these herds does Australia reduce meat exports or reduce its meat consumption? The Garnaut report estimates the increased cost on meat production of a $40 a tonne carbon permit. The cost of sheep-meat production would increase by 67c a kilogram and beef by 96c a kilogram. Professor Garnaut predicts that households would move away from these products, because of higher prices, and would move to less emissions-intensive meat, such as chicken and pork. Some who advocate switching to kangaroos from sheep call for this to happen in the sheep rangelands rather than on higher rainfall cropping land. This would mean that the 70 per cent of Australia’s livestock, that is, 18 million cattle and 69 million sheep, that lives outside this area would not be affected. Far from being a kangaroo farming operation, harvesting would occur from a wild population. For example, the kangaroos would be owned by the Crown with harvest quotas allocated to properties. There would be no need for fencing, yarding, fodder, parasite control, purchasing new genetic material or other animal husbandry costs. One wonders how in these circumstances a farmer might improve his earnings through skill, planning and hard work? Given the way state governments currently operate their crown land responsibilities, it is difficult to believe that this quota system would be anything more than a tax grab, with little or no assurance that kangaroo health, location and numbers would be appropriate to the harvest needs. A 2008 article by Wilson and Edwards suggested that kangaroo numbers would be allowed to rise from 34 million at present to 240 million by 2020 along with a gradual de-stocking of sheep and cattle. There would also be an increase in the kangaroo harvest rate to 22 per cent of the total population, from 15 per cent at present, and males would be the target of the harvest. How many of these preferred animals will it take to produce the same amount of meat? For the purposes of this calculation only the domestic consumption of meat was used, not export quantities. Assuming an average carcass weight of 247 kilograms a head for beef cattle, 20.5 kilograms a head for sheep and 12.5 kilograms a head for kangaroo, and assuming a total carcass weight of 786,000 tonnes for beef cattle and 288,000 tonnes for sheep, we can estimate that there were approximately 3.2 million beef cattle slaughtered and 14 million sheep and lambs slaughtered for meat. The total tonnage of mutton, lamb and beef consumed in Australia in 2006 was 1.074 million tonnes. Substitution of this quantity of beef, lamb and mutton with kangaroo meat would require 86 million kangaroos, 15 million pigs and 565 million chickens or a combination of those three. To achieve this ETS-induced nonsense by 2020, the shape of farming and harvesting would need to undergo a remarkable change in the next 12 years. On a more practical note, Australia produces 1.3 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. India produces 5.3 per cent, Russia produces 5.5 per cent, the USA produces 20.2 per cent and China produces 21.5 per cent. China alone relies on coal as a primary source of energy; it is opening two new coal fired power stations every week with another 500 under construction. By 2030 China’s emissions will grow by 139 per cent and make up 26 per cent of the world’s CO2 emissions. So much for Australia’s commitment to reduce its emissions. China has no intention of signing or introducing an ETS, nor do Australia’s coal-exporting industry competitors, Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia. According to mining industry sources, an ETS would jeopardise 23,500 jobs in the resource industry alone. It is also estimated that electricity costs alone will increase by between 26 per cent and 46 per cent and increases in food prices are yet to be identified. As a rural based member representing rural Australians, I am not prepared to support an ETS which places Australia’s agriculture sector at a disadvantage to the rest of the world and puts rural and regionally based industry jobs at risk, be it now, in the short term or, indeed, in the long term. Removing our competitive advantage, either individually or as a nation with a high-taxing, job-destroying piece of legislation, is most certainly not on my agenda. Carbon dioxide, for the information of the House, feeds plants. It is a potent fertiliser—we can thank the extra CO2 in our atmosphere for increasing plant growth by about 15 per cent over the last century. Market gardeners pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses to increase their crop yield—and we are not talking about a piddling two parts per million extra a year. It is like asking, ‘Will we double CO2 or increase it fivefold?’ In other words, there are people alive today thanks to extra carbon in the atmosphere. The only certainty about climate change propaganda is that government funded committees will keep going long after their use-by date. I want to use the time available to me to quote from a very interesting book I read, Unstoppable Global Warming, by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery. I will read part of the prologue to put on record the facts behind so-called climate change: When Eric the Red led Norse families to settle on Greenland at the end of the tenth century, he had no idea that he and his descendants were about to demonstrate dramatically the Earth’s long, moderate climate cycle. Sailing their longships west from Iceland in circa 985, the Vikings had been pleased to find a huge new uninhabited island, its shores covered with green grass for their cattle and sheep, surrounded by ice-free waters where codfish and seals abounded. They could grow vegetables for their families and hay to feed their animals through the winter. There was no timber but they could ship dried fish, sealskins, and tough rope made from walrus hide to other Norse ports to trade for what they needed. The colony thrived, growing by the year 1100 to three thousand people with twelve churches and its own bishop. The initial settlement split into two: one on the southwestern coast and one further north also on the west coast. The Vikings did not realize that they were benefiting from the Medieval Warming, a major climate shift that lasted approximately four hundred years that made Northern Europe about 2 degrees C warmer than it had been previously. Nor did they realize that after the warming ended, their grassy domain was doomed to five hundred years—the Little Ice Age—of icy temperatures unmoderated by the Gulf Stream that warmed the Norse settlements in Norway and Iceland. As the Little Ice Age progressed, the colonists were increasingly hard-pressed to survive. The pack ice moved closer to Greenland. Supply ships had to take a more southerly route to avoid the deadly ice. Less and less hay could be harvested in the shorter, cooler summers to feed the livestock through longer and colder winters. The storms got worse. In closing, may I quote from a very eminent Australian, the Hon. Ian Callinan AC QC, who was a Justice of the High Court from 1998 to 2007, because I think it is pertinent to this discussion. He said: Emissions regulation offers government an irresistible opportunity to centralize and control every aspect of our lives; on our roads, on our travels, in our workplaces, on our farms, in our forests and our mines, and, more threateningly, in our homes, constructed as they will be compelled to be, of very specific materials and of prescribed sizes. It is not difficult to foresee a diktat as to how many lights we may turn on and when we must turn them off: the great curfew. The new regime has the capacity to make wartime National Security Regulations look like a timid exercise of government restraint. I leave that to the thoughts of my constituents and the rest of Australia. Thank you for your tolerance, Mr Deputy Speaker. 10000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—It is always given. Thank you for your contribution. 11222 12:57:00 Debus, Bob, MP 8IS Macquarie ALP 1 0 Mr DEBUS —I rise to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. At this time in history, we are dealing with some astoundingly hard issues. The world, and particularly the Australian government, has dealt well with the most acute economic crisis for the last 75 years. But the crisis of our environment, exacerbated by climate change, is much more difficult and will take much longer to deal with. We have known nothing like it. The Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation has estimated that global warming could result in rainfall in the southern Murray-Darling Basin declining by 10 per cent in the next 25 years, but the really frightening figure is that that will lead to a fall in run-off of 40 per cent, with appalling implications for irrigation, farming and biodiversity. In the recent Steffen report, our best natural scientists, I am afraid to say, quite contradict the member for Hume. They say: Over the next 100 years Australia could well experience changes in ecosystem type and distribution at least as great as those associated with the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the present, a period of at least 5000 years. The rate of climate change—a similar transition in only 100 years—is almost surely unprecedented for the last several million years— and in fact may not have occurred for 40 million years, at which time there were rainforests in Antarctica. The CPRS may not be sufficient for our response to this problem, but it is essential. Though I make no presumption at all about the benefit of free-market policy prescriptions, I am certainly persuaded of the critical benefit of carefully thought out, evidence based market instrument schemes for the control and reduction of pollution. In New South Wales, where I was Minister for the Environment from 1999 to 2007, market based approaches, including emissions trading schemes, were first proposed over 15 years ago to address problems like nutrient pollution in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, saline discharge in the Hunter River and controlling air and water emissions from heavy industry across the state. In the first half of the 1990s, community reaction was often negative. A lot of people argued that trading schemes were a licence to pollute or a sell-out of the environment. The argument went that, since pollution is bad, it should simply be banned like theft or vandalism. That was of course unrealistic for economic and social purposes and quite ineffective environmentally. Nevertheless, this is again the position that many in the Greens party are taking. The CPRS is just a licence to pollute, they say. At the other end of the spectrum, conservative Liberal Party and Nationals members in this parliament are saying that the CPRS is just a tax with no environmental benefit. I hold, on the basis of real and relevant experience, that both of these groups are quite wrong. Looking back over the last 10 years, the track record of environmental achievement from the application of emissions trading in New South Wales and the complete turnaround in the community’s attitude to it is remarkable. In the Hunter in the early 1990s, discharge of excess saline water from mining and power stations was causing such a significant impact that the river was becoming too salty for agriculture. In turn, this inspired community outrage and very strong opposition to further industrial growth. It had the potential to prevent hundreds of highly paid jobs being created in regional New South Wales. Under the Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme, developed by the New South Wales government in partnership with industry, farming groups and environmentalists, this has been completely turned around. Discharges now never cause the river to be more salty than 900 microsiemens per centimetre, which is actually fresher than bottled mineral water. At the same time, the scale of industry has more than doubled. There are three important stories from the implementation of this scheme that are highly relevant for the consideration of the CPRS. The scheme imposed a total cap on allowable emissions. No discharges were permitted unless the discharger surrendered a sufficient number of the scheme’s 1,000 discharge permits. Companies needing permits are able to purchase them from periodic government auctions or from other companies who do not need them from time to time. That is the same as in the CPRS. My first story concerns how the establishment of the scheme created the incentives and the framework for industrial enterprises to work together to reduce emissions. In one case there were two mines separated by a hill. One mine had a chronic surplus of salty water; the other a shortage of water. The wet mine was regularly seeking to discharge salty water into the river. The dry mine typically purchased considerable river water to use for dust control. Both were causing undesirable environmental impacts which, in turn, led to problems with the regulatory authorities and the community. Once the scheme came into place, the two mines realised that, if they ran a pipe over the hill to connect with each other, the wet mine could stop discharging and the dry mine could stop extracting river water and both could sell their excess discharge permits to other parties. So, by capping total emissions and putting a price on discharge, the scheme stimulated great improvements in industry efficiency, cost savings and environmental improvement. That is what the CPRS will also deliver for Australia. Before the scheme I am speaking of in the Hunter began, the only solutions seemed to be very expensive pipelines to the sea, inland desalination plants or shutting down industry. Once the emissions trading scheme was put in place, completely unexpected and lower cost solutions were brought forward voluntarily. This is something that also happened with the sulphur dioxide scheme in the United States, which fixed acid rain at one-tenth of the cost that fear-mongering industry had lobbied for. In that case, the solution was to rail in low-sulphur coal, whereas industry had been arguing that only very expensive flue gas desulfurisation would do the job. So the lesson for the CPRS is that it will create the incentives that will make carbon pollution reduction much cheaper than would otherwise be possible, and that means more jobs and greater emission cuts than would otherwise be possible. The second story concerns the way that emissions trading schemes changed the overall attitude of industry to joint action on environmental protection. In this case, one mine chose not to invest in appropriate saline water storages to acquire sufficient tradeable discharge permits. With its storages nearly full, the mine operators contacted the state EPA and asked for special dispensation for an unauthorised discharge. The EPA was told that, if approval was not forthcoming, several hundred miners would be stood down—a typical blackmail. This clearly placed intolerable pressure on the EPA and before the scheme began the rest of the industry would have had very little interest in this poorly prepared mine’s success or failure in dealing with the EPA. On this occasion, where discharge could lawfully take place only if the discharger purchased sufficient permits, the situation was completely different. Other mines who were holding excess discharge permits for sale heard of the one mine’s lobbying. They interpreted that action as simply using lobbying as a cheaper alternative to entering the market and buying the necessary permits. Thereafter, the EPA was not on its own. Large numbers of other mines actively lobbied to make sure that the one mine complied with the rules. The public policy importance of this dynamic is obvious for the CPRS. By capping total emissions and issuing fixed numbers of permits, the CPRS will create a powerful constituency that will be arguing against any relaxation in controls on emissions or compliance. Indeed, there will be a whole class of businesses that will benefit from higher permit prices every time total allowable emissions are reduced. So instead of lobbying against a cap, as we see otherwise responsible corporate citizens shamelessly doing now, we will see powerful businesses on the same side as the environment and the community arguing for emission reduction. A third observation relates to the initial allocation of permits. With the Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme coming up to its 10th successful year, we can see that the initial allocation of permits is not nearly as important as getting the cap, and the ability to ramp it down over time, right. In the Hunter, permits were initially allocated for free to incumbent dischargers. Some argued that was too generous to industry. However, the approach was a key to the successful change of practice. Under that scheme, every two years one-fifth of the permits expire and are replaced with new 10-year bundles of permits. These new permits are sold at auction. Now, after 10 years, there are almost no grandfathered permits left and almost every permit has been purchased on the open market. So the New South Wales government used a gentle transition to bring industry along to the fully commercial world that matches the expectations of the community. Hence, the CPRS is not ‘compromised’ because it seeks to avoid bludgeoning old polluting industries and the people they employ into an early grave. The third lesson that has been clearly demonstrated is that a well planned transition, where requirements are expressed using commercial disciplines, but where change happens gradually and with thoughtful assistance, can achieve all the environmental goals we aspire to at a reasonable cost. On another matter, who can seriously doubt that Australia’s credibility in negotiations at Copenhagen will be enhanced if we have a CPRS passed through this parliament and in place? I have heard people say that our position does not matter at Copenhagen because we are only responsible for 1.5 per cent of the world’s greenhouse emissions. Well, that still leaves us as the 14th country on the list. Anyway, Ross Garnaut has shown that President George Bush found it very useful when John Howard, alone in the world, refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol. More than that, we in Australia have the second highest per capita output of greenhouse gas in the world after only Malaysia, which has been so heavily clearing tropical rainforest. If that does not create some sort of ethical obligation, the fact remains that Australia is one of the worst affected countries in the world and it would be simply crazy for us not to take the highest possible profile at Copenhagen. The opposition frequently claim that the commitments made by other countries at Copenhagen will impact on Australia’s scheme design, but that is completely wrong. The CPRS bill itself does not set a cap on emissions; that will be determined in regulations which will be made after Copenhagen. In the first half of 2010, the government will announce scheme caps for the years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Minister Wong has pointed out that this will provide ample time to take into account progress actually made at Copenhagen. I do know that there are negotiations underway with Minister Wong and the opposition at the moment but I certainly hope that the Liberal Party stops confecting reasons to delay action on legislation that has been on the table since March. In any event, Australian businesses need certainty for investment, which is why both the Business Council of Australia and Australian Industry Group have called for a CPRS to be established this year. I want finally to say something also about agriculture, because I am so deeply concerned about the apparent refusal of the National Party to take the issue of climate change in any way seriously. Of course, the government has made it entirely clear that no decision will be taken about the inclusion of the agricultural sector in the CPRS one way or another before 2015. The government will continue to negotiate in good faith with the opposition in this area and will of course also talk to interested industries. But I am reminded that climate change does not at its heart present us with an economic problem. We can afford to deal with it. There are a number of Treasury projections to show us that our country is likely to become vastly richer over the next several generations as it has over the last several generations. The real problems are political and institutional. However, like the Leader of the Opposition, I draw the attention of the House to the recent report of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, which demonstrates the extraordinary possibilities of improving carbon sequestration in the soil to provide a new source of income for farmers and other land managers to look after our landscapes in a sustainable way while at the same time helping Australia to adapt to climate change. The report argues that investment for storing carbon in the soil can be targeted to produce multiple environmental and economic benefits: improving soil carbon in agricultural landscapes, which helps address both climate change and improve the conditions of agricultural soils that have been in slow decline over the past two centuries; we can restore native vegetation along the nation’s rivers, wetlands and estuaries, which would produce two landscape benefits—improved water quality and reconnection of native vegetation across our vast fragmented landscapes. Thirdly, it could be targeted to expand the habitat to create viable populations of threatened species, which is a foundation stone for their long-term survival. We are talking here about policies that will assist farming and food security and also restore our degraded natural landscape. The government has an extensive research program underway to ensure that farmers can be rewarded for land management practices that decrease emissions and increase carbon levels in the landscape. I should, though, also point out that the government seeks in the meantime to negotiate new international rules which will ensure that farmers cannot be liable for emissions over which they have no control, like bushfires and drought. We will also have to be sure that sequestration measures are implemented in this context within management guidelines that guard against adverse consequences of an unintended nature on the environment. This is an example of the great hope that we can hold for the future if we get our policies right. I commend this bill to the House as an important and urgent step along way to doing so. 11226 13:14:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I am pleased to be here today before such a large gallery to make this contribution to a very important debate. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and cognate bills, which we are addressing here today, is a very significant challenge, and I think we are all very much aware of that. I was interested to hear the member for Macquarie comment about agriculture in his concluding remarks. Part of what he was saying—and I do not disagree with the content of what he was saying—was that one of the difficulties in terms of agriculture and this debate is that the bills make no allowance for agriculture. The bills suggest that a decision will be made at a later date but, as the member for Macquarie highlighted, there are a number of things out there that could be very interesting and could be part of the solution to the problem. The farm sector has an issue with that sort of process. They are being asked to engage in a process, which is essentially about heavy emitters, with the commitment that at some time in the future soil sequestration and other issues such as vegetation et cetera might be included in some sort of credit system that has not yet been devised. Everybody keeps saying that everybody wants some certainty in relation to this but the agricultural sector has no certainty at all. It has just been pushed off to the side: ‘The decision will be made later. Support this because it’s good in principle and we’ll look after you because we’ll be negotiating in good faith with the opposition at some future date.’ I do not think that is good enough and I will be moving an amendment, which I will speak a little bit about later. I believe that there is human induced climate change. I believe it is something that we should do something about. I am not one of the sceptics. I do not have absolute scientific proof that what I believe is right. I take a fairly simple view of the scientific evidence that is out there. If the climate scientists are right the electorate of New England will be severely affected. The Murray-Darling system will be severely affected and our capacity to produce food will be severely affected. So when people say that the CPRS will have a great impact on agriculture, I think they should go a little bit further than that and look at what the impact will be on food production, on jobs and on the Murray-Darling system if the climate scientists are correct. So my fairly simplistic view of this is in terms of risk assessment, because I think we will all be dead by the time that we know whether the climate scientists were actually right or wrong. If the risk is assessed as being a problem we should do something about, I would rather be arguing on that side of the debate and actually trying to do something about it so that people did not look back in 100 years time and say, ‘They were given evidence but did nothing.’ That is not to suggest that I will support this particular piece of legislation. I think there has to be some fairly substantial amendment to this legislation. I think there is great confusion out there—quite deliberately perpetrated by some in the political arena—which indicates that if you do not support CPRS you are a climate sceptic. I am not, and I think people would have some knowledge of the private member’s bill that I introduced into this House prior to the CPRS, which looked at climate protection. It looked not only at the emissions debate—the carbon, nitrous oxide and methane emissions debate—but also at many of the other impacts that could be ameliorated through measures outside a market mechanism, which this legislation is essentially about. It is imposing a market mechanism on a problem. It has ruled out some sectors of the community—agriculture being one of those—because there are issues there: it does not have to come in yet; the measurement of carbon in various soils is difficult; and what we should do about methane, which is a natural process of ruminants. So it is convenient to say that it does not quite fit in a market mechanism, and it is not accepted by Kyoto anyway, so we will just push it to one side, but hopefully everything will work out well into the future. The five per cent target that this legislation aims for is a nonsense. It does nothing about the issue. It puts in place an economic structure which will achieve not much more than people stopping cleaning their shoes, in terms of saving emissions. This will rearrange an economy—and people have stood up and said that this is quite a dramatic attempt at leadership at a government level to address this issue—but then when you look at the detail you find that the target is five per cent. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition even mentioned the five per cent this morning. He is aiding and abetting this process with a whole range of amendments, but still the five per cent is sitting there. I know that if Copenhagen goes well there are possibilities of increasing that five per cent to some other level but the legislation essentially rearranges the economy with a five per cent target in mind. I find that almost offensive. I was in Europe recently on a study tour. I was looking at the various components of climate change and the way in which various countries are addressing it. It made Australia look ridiculous. There was enthusiasm expressed in a number of countries about renewable energy—geothermal, wind, water and solar. There is scientific work being done on renewable fuels and on molecular cell breakdown in wheat and barley stubbles, for instance, that could be used in biofuels. There is work being done in relation to carbon capture and storage issues. One geothermal plant that I visited was producing electricity from water that had not boiled—98 degree water producing electricity—because the scientific work that they had done in terms of adding salts achieved that same effect as pressurised steam. We are doing nothing. We have some poor fellow out in the middle of South Australia whom we have given $5 million and a tent to and we have wished him well. We are doing nothing. The messages coming from government policy in terms of renewable energy are dreadful. The messages from the previous government were pathetic. We are not serious about this issue and a five per cent target shows how serious we really are. While I was in Copenhagen—I had a series of meetings—I heard that apparently 10,000 bedrooms were cancelled for next month’s meeting. Copenhagen will fail. There will be words, and they will be like Doha Round trade words—words that get you to another year, another two years, another decade or another 20 years. The word on the street was that the globe, particularly the Americans, the Chinese and the Indians, is not interested. And here we are with our five per cent. We are really interested in doing something about it! The Leader of the Opposition has fallen quite neatly into the trap set by the Prime Minister, as he tends to do from time to time, by coming in with a range of amendments. I personally agree with some of them, but he has not got to the root cause of the issue at all, which is: are we going to do something about climate change or not? The rush by the government to have some sort of political document come out of the building before Copenhagen is also ridiculous. When the debate was on in June, I could understand that there would be time to build some sort of argument and structure with an improvement on the five per cent. But a month out from Copenhagen, it is quite ridiculous to suggest that we need to rush this through now to show leadership at Copenhagen, particularly when those who are much more involved than I am are suggesting that it will fail anyway. What if we pass this legislation with this minuscule target and there is failure at Copenhagen? Do we end up with an economic structure, a new market mechanism, based on five per cent that becomes part of our economy for the future? I think we are better to wait until after Copenhagen before we put in place some overarching strategy based on a five per cent target with potentially no agreement from others in the world. That does not mean that you cannot go there with the good of the globe at heart. I think in a lot of ways it would be just common sense. I will be introducing an amendment that looks particularly at food. Unless food is ruled out of the global emissions trading debate now, it has the capacity to derail anything the globe may do in the future about emissions. I would just like to elaborate on that if I could. If the globe, theoretically at least, embraces an emissions trading scheme and food is included—notice I am saying food, not necessarily agriculture—in that market mechanism, we will potentially end up with three markets. We are trying to solve this problem with a market mechanism. We have got the carbon market, we have got the energy market and we have got the traditional food market. In a global carbon market the competition for land that we traditionally grow food on will either drive people out of food production or drive the price of food up because of the competitive aspects of these two other economies Even these bills, and the amendments that the government itself brought in back in June after the bill had been circulated in the community for quite some time, incentivise a shift in land use from food to agroforestry, to trees, for carbon purposes. It seems as though the carbon economy may take some degree of precedence over the food economy. Land that was used to grow food may well shift towards agroforestry for the carbon market. Land that was traditionally used to grow food, in a carbon economy, may well shift into biofuels. There has been great argument about this. We have seen that one of the drivers of this shift was what George Bush did with ethanol policy and the Brazilians did in relation to sugar to ethanol by taking the incentives for food production out and substituting them with incentives for the production of a renewable energy source. Renewable energy might start to tick some boxes in the carbon economy but cross some boxes in the food economy. We are talking market mechanisms here so we cannot suddenly come in with some sort of, ‘Oh yes, we want a market mechanism to solve all these problems but, by the way, we are going to put a regulatory framework over you,’ so that the farmer can never make any money out of this because he has got to grow food because he has always done that. There are some real complications in that. If you transpose even this document to a global CPRS where you incentivise land use shift away from food into other market areas, you could see some quite dramatic shifts. There is going to be a collision of these three economies in relation to land use. If people are serious about wanting a global emissions trading scheme that actually does something, they have got to exempt food now. If you are worried about refugees in this world and if you are worried about people who cannot feed themselves leaving their nation’s soils then you cannot apply a market mechanism to those three areas of carbon, energy and food and expect food to come anywhere else but third. It is a significant issue. I am a farmer and, under this sort of an arrangement, as soon as lignocellulosic ethanol comes out it will go straight to energy because what we do in this land is grow wheat. We grow too much wheat so we have to sell it somewhere. We get it to port, which has a carbon footprint; we put it on a boat to go to the Middle East, which also has a carbon footprint; the starch in the grain is carbon and so that has another footprint. It is all negative, negative, negative in the carbon world. We cash in the grain with a little bit of help from Arabs and ex Wheat Board people and then go and buy some energy, some oil, down the road and then put that on another boat and bring it all the way back. That is another carbon footprint. Why wouldn’t the wheat grower, when all those negatives are going to be perpetrated against him, move out of that and move into something like prairie grass? It is a deep-rooted plant that is planted once and harvested annually. It has a lower carbon footprint, is a renewable fuel and has less nitrous oxide—tick, tick, tick. The poor old wheat grower had to pour nitrogen in to get protein into the grain so that he could achieve a premium in the marketplace. Why would you do that? All he is doing that for is to produce money to buy energy so that he can go around in circles again. There are a number of market signals that the farming sector will pick up on with this. I have mentioned the renewable energy one. There is also the carbon issue of planting trees, agroforestry, and those sorts of things. What are our scientific bodies doing? Nothing. I questioned the CSIRO the other day. They could produce only one example of the potential for land-use shift under different carbon prices—only one example—but it is being peer reviewed. Yet here we are making major decisions. There was an example in South Australia of a sheep/wheat farm where, at $20 a tonne for carbon, they would move out of sheep/wheat into trees. We have to do more work on this and I think the globe has to really consider what we mean when we say we are going to include agriculture in an emissions trading scheme. That does not mean there is not a whole range of ways in which we can reduce emissions. The farm sector can play a valuable role such as in biochar that the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. We need more science done on soil sequestration. We have done very, very little in terms of the science relating to soil carbon. A lot of the new farming technologies, conservation tillage et cetera, are moving forward in terms of not only carbon units and organic matter but also reducing the need for other resources including fertiliser in some cases. So there are a number of aspects out there where the farm sector can really make a positive contribution. The final message is that this is not just about creating a new economy. It is not just about applying a market mechanism to an issue. That might be part of the resolution to this issue—and five per cent in my view is a pathetic part. We have to look a lot broader at this and to what can happen. We need to start doing some more work with geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy and wave energy. These things may be uneconomic at the moment but, if you get price shifts in other economies, there may well be a basis for progress to be made. In conclusion, unless there are significant changes to this particular piece of legislation, I will be doing exactly as I did back in June and will be opposing the bill. 11230 13:33:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —I have a great deal of respect for the member for New England and I generally pay very close attention to what he has to say. I think in this instance he is very wide of the mark. He suggests that we should delay passing this legislation and delay action until after the Copenhagen conference on climate change. The truth is that, when countries go to Copenhagen, regrettably, there is a tendency for each country to try and get away with doing as little as it possibly can and asking other countries to carry the load and do as much as they possibly can. If we go to Copenhagen and suggest that other countries need to act—and indeed we should do that, and members of the opposition who said this is a global problem that has to be addressed globally are correct—to reduce their carbon emissions, they will say to us, ‘What are you doing?’ If we do not have this legislation through this place, through this parliament, we will be essentially going to Copenhagen empty-handed. Other countries will say, ‘That is very interesting,’ and they will move on. If we are to have credibility in Copenhagen we need to have the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills through the parliament. Those who think that it is okay to postpone this debate, and who seek to postpone the debate in the Senate, are doing the planet a great disservice because they will be contributing to the prospective failure of talks at Copenhagen. When the member for New England said that we are potentially losing land from food production towards agroforestry, it is true. We should be mindful of the need to retain land for food production, but in that context I draw to his attention and to the attention of the House just how much potential land for food production is being lost as a result of urban sprawl, expanding cities, in Australia and throughout the world and the need for us to be mindful of the increased size of our cities and the impact of that on food production. It is my view that Australian forests and other parts of the Australian landscape need to be acting as carbon sinks by soaking up carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. Retaining and re-establishing vegetation will help ameliorate the effects of global warming. I am pleased to see initiatives in this bill that go to that issue. Carbon emissions from deforestation account for some 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. That is a very substantial amount, so we need to look to addressing this issue. The CPRS bill enables Australian liable entities to offset 100 per cent of their emissions through the purchase of international credits, such as those that may be available through what is known as the REDD mechanism, the reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. That REDD mechanism is currently being negotiated at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The government has said that it will be able to achieve five per cent of the potential 25 per cent emission reduction target for 2020 from international offsets such as REDD. The Humane Society International have pointed out that deforestation and forest degradation is responsible for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and they are very supportive of a REDD market mechanism as a means to address it. But they have expressed concern that negotiations for this mechanism have been going badly off track and noted that the negotiating text for REDD presented at the Bangkok negotiating session just recently made no mention of forest protection and instead risked REDD becoming a massive carbon subsidy for continued industrial logging, an activity that gives rise to a lot of carbon emissions. I believe this is an issue that needs to be addressed because there is a role for forests and vegetation as a carbon sink, and that role ought to be one not only of being a carbon sink but also of protecting wildlife. Just in the last couple of weeks, we have seen scientific studies released about the extent to which Australian native birds and other wildlife are in serious decline, and that is from a combination of land clearing and habitat destruction and climate change, prolonged droughts and things of that nature dramatically reducing their numbers. For example, in Victoria a 12-year study has indicated that there are reduced numbers of well-known species such as the kookaburra, honeyeaters, thornbills, lorikeets and so on. Right around Australia there is this pattern of wildlife destruction and habitat loss. I think that the REDD mechanism, which is proposed as part of the climate change negotiations, ought to be having regard to that. I want to issue a plea to those opposite to stop the undermining, the white-anting of action on climate change. I have talked frequently in this House about climate change. I have talked about it as a scientific issue and as a moral issue. I listened to debate from those opposite this morning and it is clear to me that they are not interested in having regard to these matters, so I want to ask them to look at the politics of this issue. When the coalition was beaten in 2007, the key issue was unquestionably Work Choices. The second most significant issue was the decade of inaction on climate change. Only a couple of days ago, research was put out by the company Essential Research, going to the question of, ‘Which party do you think is best at handling each of the following issues?’ On the topic of climate change, 35 per cent said that Labor was best and 17 per cent said that the coalition was best. So more than twice as many people supported the Labor Party’s handling of climate change issues than supported that of the coalition. They also asked, ‘Do you think the federal government’s emissions trading scheme goes too far in favouring big business, goes too far in favouring the environment movement or has the balance about right?’ Thirty per cent said that they thought it went too far in favouring big business; 17 per cent said they thought it went too far in favouring the environment movement. What is the coalition’s response to this? They suggest more concessions for big business. They are completely out of touch with the views of the electorate. This was a key issue in costing them the 2007 election yet they continue on a path that is totally at odds with the views of an electorate which understands that we need action on climate change and understands that we need to put a price on carbon in order to change the extravagant and wasteful practices of the past and take us down a renewable energy path. I heard the remarks of the Leader of the National Party this morning when he said that people will not turn off their air conditioners. I am the first to acknowledge that we have been extravagant, but after all the debate in this place has the Leader of the National Party not heard of renewable energy? The direction in which we need to move is wind power, solar power and geothermal power. We need to move to electric vehicles. It is not a question of whether we turn off the air conditioner on a particular day or go back to some more primitive lifestyle. It is a question of coming up with renewable, sustainable energy sources, and that is what this legislation is all about. We need to take this legislation to Copenhagen. It is regrettable that the opposition does not understand the need for action on this matter. It is to their political detriment that they failed to act on this matter. We have the National Party being pushed off the coast. It has lost the electorates of Dawson, Lyne, Page and Richmond. That is because it has no affinity with people living on the coast who understand these climate change issues and the need for action in relation to them. Why am I offering free political advice to those opposite? It is because this is important. This matter is more important than the fortunes of my political party or the political parties of those opposite. If we do not take action on climate change, and scientists are telling us that the next 10 years are critical, we will see a world progressively in a state of global breakdown. On the news all the time these days there are stories of conflict, war, terrorism, boat people—you name it. Some of the proximate causes of those issues are things like religious fundamentalism, but underlying this is a contest for scarce resources, which are being rendered more scarce as a consequence of overpopulation and climate change, and these things are in turn driving conflict, terrorism, boat people and the like. This global breakdown that we are seeing symptoms of every day will get worse in coming years and decades if we do not act. So this issue matters. I urge the opposition to stop the white-anting, stop the undermining and get behind the need for legislation to put a price on carbon, to enable us to start reducing our emissions. Last year our emissions went up by one per cent. We need to start tracking towards an emissions reduction path of 60 per cent or, better yet, 80 per cent by 2050. We need to start getting emissions down. The way to do this is to put a price on carbon; therefore, I urge the House to support the bill. 11232 13:45:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —In speaking on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2], I would like to point out that any carbon pollution reduction scheme must be the best it can possibly be without damaging the Australian economy, destroying industry and jobs. If this really is the most important piece of legislation in Australian peacetime, why not take the time to get it right? The Rudd scheme has been flawed, haphazard and rushed from the very beginning. Driven by political ambitions, the Prime Minister’s overzealousness to make his mark in Copenhagen has him forging ahead—alone, mind you—at the cost of Australian jobs, costs to working families—and you do not hear Labor talking much about working families these days—and drastic impacts on exports. Just to top it off, under his model there is no real abatement of emissions and there are no real incentives for industry to clean up its act. If the government is serious about addressing climate change, it will take heed of the amendments that have been put forward by the coalition. The bottom line is that the coalition’s amendments make the scheme better and cheaper, saving thousands of jobs. We are committed to negotiating in good faith and expect the same from the government. If it does not, Labor must explain why it would reject common-sense amendments which will save Australian jobs, protect Australian small businesses from sharp power price rises and yet have the same environmental benefit by achieving the same reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We want to keep power bills affordable for Australian families: a $50 increase is far better than a $280 increase in their power bills. There is no reason why we cannot wait until after Copenhagen, but I suspect the Prime Minister has already picked out his best suit and tie for that event. Our amendments keep emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries on a level playing field with our competitors in other advanced economies; see that agriculture is excluded from the scheme and that farmers have access to agricultural credits; see that the impact of higher electricity prices is moderated; and see that the coal industry is required to reduce fugitive emissions as technically feasible but not be unfairly financially penalised. Ours is the only country in the world which is talking about taxing fugitive emissions. Australia still gets around 80 per cent of its energy from coal and we have the most to lose from a poorly constructed scheme, with 32 per cent of Australia’s emissions generated in the production of exports. The coalition encourages ordinary Australians taking matters into their own hands and being rewarded for making a contribution to reducing national emissions. Good things start at home and the coalition supports the creation of voluntary incentives that lead to a lower national level of emissions. This is the Prime Minister’s decision. This rushed legislation is his initiative. We are giving the government the choice to take a sensible, united Australian approach to Copenhagen in a number of weeks. It is Labor’s ego and Mr Rudd’s big-noting agenda that has us rushing the scheme through this week. But the reality is it is unlikely any deal will be reached at the summit—so no global agreement with binding targets. Some of Australia’s major competitors may not have a comparable scheme for many years. Obviously, that would be putting Australia at a disadvantage. No-one but Mr Rudd expects Australia to have an agreement in place before Copenhagen. For example, the head of the United Nations climate agency, Mr Yvo de Boer, has stated that there is no expectation or requirement that Australia have legislation in place by the Copenhagen talks in December. It will be on Labor’s watch if this scheme costs Australian jobs, so this will be sheeted home to them. Unlike the Prime Minister, we are interested not in playing games or saving face but only in protecting jobs and achieving something that can make a real difference without costing hardworking Australians the earth. In reality the CPRS is just another tax. The CPRS provides a substantial financial windfall for the government. Labor’s scheme is set to raise $12 billion in its first year. That is more than $400 contributed by each Australian, compared to $57 per American under their country’s own proposed scheme. I refer to a recent article by Terry McCrann which I recommend that everyone should read and, by the way, I have sent it out to my electorate. It calls the proposed CPRS what it really is: a tax. Mr McCrann says: It starts out in 2012-13 raising about a quarter as much as the GST. … Almost $12 billion in its first full year, 2012-13. It is the equivalent of increasing the GST from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent in that year. …            …            … Imagine the uproar if the government had proposed raising the GST to 12.5 per cent. That’s 12.5 per cent, in year one, with it able to go to 15-20 per cent or higher, as events, not parliament, then took it. It’s the same old high-taxing Labor! Mr McCrann makes a good point that perhaps it would have been easier for us to sell the GST if we had called it a goods and services scheme. Realistically, the CPRS is the biggest tax grab in history. Companies pay to pollute, as the member for O’Connor has been saying for ages. All this scheme does is allow polluters to pollute if they pay. There is no incentive for them to reduce pollution if they can afford to pay for it. Those large so-called ‘rich’ emitters will take the cost on board and keep polluting. Those that cannot meet the cost will move operations offshore to countries where there are no schemes in place—for example, Indonesia, which can pollute at will because it is called a developing country—and they will take Australian jobs with them and make an even greater contribution to global emissions. That is a lose-lose situation for us and for the rest of the world. Global warming requires a global solution—experts agree, the global community agree and I agree. Australia has performed better than most developing countries in containing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, Australia’s 1990 and 2000 levels were almost identical. That is equivalent to a five per cent reduction on 1990 levels. We were one of the few countries meeting Kyoto targets. Remember the Prime Minister racing off to sign Kyoto when we were already achieving the Kyoto targets and those who had signed Kyoto were not even reaching the targets? Without the high-emitting countries getting on board, any scheme that Australia adopts can do anything and everything but it will make little difference to the global situation. Australia accounts for only 1.3 per cent of global emissions, making it 16th on the list of top emitters. By 2050 Asia will need twice as much energy as it does today. Not surprisingly, China is the biggest player in the Asian market, accounting for 60 per cent of Asia’s emissions alone. It must come to the table. China tops the list of global emitters, accounting for 21 per cent of global carbon emissions compared to Australia’s 1.3 per cent. Emerging countries like China expect the rest of the world to make dramatic cuts by 2020 to accommodate their expanding economies. If the richer countries are prepared to do that, there must be some concessions. Obviously, India is on the rise too, contributing 5.3 per cent to global emissions. India is rapidly increasing its emissions and population. It is likely to rival China in the emissions stakes. We have China and India as high emitters but they do not want to be involved in any reduction scheme. Among the top 10 emitters are the USA, Russia, Japan, Germany, the UK, Canada and South Korea. In fact, you have to pass by Italy, Iran, Mexico, South Africa, France and Saudi Arabia before you get to Australia. To put this in perspective, essentially the combined emissions of China, the USA, Russia and India make up half of the global emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The top 10 countries made up 67 per cent of emissions on 2006 figures. So many of the countries that I have just mentioned do not have to comply with any targets because they are considered to be developing economies. Mr Rudd is kidding himself if he thinks that Australia should be the world leader on reduction schemes and penalises Australia as a result. Protecting key export industries means protecting jobs. Under the coalition amendments, key export industries, including coalmining, food processing, natural gas and aluminium, will be better protected, saving more than 20,000 Australian jobs under threat from the CPRS. Obviously, with many people in my Canning electorate working in alumina mining and refining, job protection is a huge concern to them. Should the industry be forced offshore to cheaper countries where there are no emissions schemes, I would estimate that more than 5,000 Canning jobs would be lost. And, as I said, Australia would also be exporting the pollution to countries such as our near neighbour, Indonesia, who does not have to comply. Australia is the only country to indicate its consideration of a direct carbon cost on the gold sector, for example. In terms of gold production, Australia is behind China, the US and South Africa. A carbon cost on gold would impact on the re-established Boddington Gold Mine. Boddington Gold Mine will be the largest gold producer in Australia, and it is in my electorate. It will mine one million ounces of gold a year. Under the CPRS, costs may be increased by as much as $15 million to $40 million per year, or by about $40 per ounce of gold mined at Boddington. When jobs are cut, the flow-on effects to families, local businesses and small towns are devastating. At a time when we can least afford job losses, the coalition is adamant that any carbon scheme cannot cost Australian jobs. Renewable energy and energy efficient technologies accounted for nine million jobs in 2007, and experts say that up to 37 million jobs could be created in the next 20 years. At a site just south of Pinjarra and Lake Clifton, the Lower Lesueur Carbon Dioxide Geosequestration Study is being undertaken to look into storage of carbon dioxide in the southern Perth basin. LNG will continue to be the fuel of choice. This is great news for Western Australian exports. The $50 billion Gorgon gas project off the coast of Karratha will make WA a leader in the storage of greenhouse gases. The project will create 600 full-time jobs and it will be a leader in geosequestration technology. It is estimated that three million tonnes of CO2 will be captured and stored per year for the next 40 years. The CO2 will be separated from the gas and injected into a saline reservoir 2,000 metres below Barrow Island. This will cut the project’s emissions by 36 per cent. The best place to start any emissions reductions is in your own backyard. By including voluntary measures in a scheme, the environment will also benefit from individuals, businesses and community groups who develop their own initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Canning local governments have been proactive at a community level. The City of Mandurah has installed a 2.1 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system on the roof of the Falcon eLibrary and Community Centre. It is estimated to generate around 3,720 kilowatts of electricity and save approximately four tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year. The City of Armadale aims to achieve its own reductions of six per cent per capita from 2006-07 levels by 2012 and up to 20 per cent from 1998-99 levels by 2022. The City of Armadale was part of the award winning South East Regional Energy Group ‘Switch Your Thinking’ initiative. This initiative was designed to get the local community involved in achieving regional emissions reduction of 15 per cent by 2010. Partnerships and community promotions have helped to cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 250,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. It would be irresponsible to pass flawed legislation for an Australian ETS, particularly as it will not take effect until 2011, before we know what sort of global agreement will emerge from Copenhagen and from the US. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! Would those members entering the House do so quietly and not hold a conversation in the corridors. The member for Canning has the call and should be heard in silence. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr RANDALL —I do not expect the Labor Party to want to listen to anyone else’s point of view. The coalition is putting forward a viable alternative, with the interests of all Australians front and centre. The ball is in Labor’s court and history will judge Mr Rudd on this decision and the quality of his legislation. In conclusion, this legislation should not be designed to cost Australian jobs, to export Australian jobs, to export Australian income or to export pollution to other countries who are not obliged to comply with the same stringent regulations that we are putting in place. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 11236 Ministerial Arrangements 11236 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Treasurer is back today and is well, or reasonably well—at least I hope he is reasonably well. I inform the House that the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Service Delivery will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions on his behalf. 11236 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 11236 11236 14:00:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his answer in the House yesterday regarding the Oceanic Viking. He said: … I cannot recall each step in that sequence of events. Now that the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to check the sequence of events, will he now inform the House when he was first notified that the people aboard the Oceanic Viking would not be permitted to land at the port of Merak and instead would be transferred to the Tanjung Pinang detention centre? What was his own involvement in these decisions? 11236 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. My advice is that this was initially a search and rescue operation under the control of the Indonesian search and rescue authority. When a vessel with 78 passengers on board became distressed in the Indonesian search and rescue area, the Indonesian search and rescue authority sought assistance from Australia—that is, the authority sought assistance from Australia. Australia takes its search and rescue obligations seriously. We provided that assistance in accordance with international law and, in our own terms, our own safety of life at sea obligations. We take those obligations seriously. Are those opposite seriously suggesting that we should not? HMAS Armidale responded to that request for assistance. The passengers on board the distressed vessel were later transferred to the Oceanic Viking. Indonesia stated that the Oceanic Viking would proceed to shore in Indonesia to disembark the passengers at the port of Merak. I am advised that subsequently Indonesian officials advised that the Oceanic Viking should not come to the port of Merak due to shipping activity at the port and a shortage of available accommodation. Further, I am advised that the Indonesian authorities have now requested the Oceanic Viking to anchor on the eastern side of the island of Bintan, off the port of Kijang. Australian authorities have agreed with that request. The Australian government is working closely with Indonesian authorities to facilitate the safe transfer of passengers to land. That is my broad understanding of the sequence of events. Furthermore, in response to the honourable member’s question, could I say this. In my discussions with the President of Indonesia in Jakarta at the time of his inauguration he and I discussed the humanitarian circumstances which arose from this particular vessel, a vessel in distress at sea that was in the Indonesian search and rescue area. They, as I recall, did not have a vessel close by and made a request of Australia to assist. In the discussions with the Indonesian President arising from the humanitarian circumstances concerning this vessel, and the particular concerns about a child who at that stage was reported to be ill on that vessel, the Indonesians agreed to provide for that vessel to go ashore in Indonesia. That is the background to what occurred there. Subsequent discussions about precise embarkation points have been discussed between relevant officials of the two governments. As I said, they are of a diplomatic nature. 11237 11237 14:04:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 Mr BEVIS —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the importance of strategic planning in major cities for Australia’s future economic growth? 11237 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. He represents one of the Federation seats and therefore an Australian capital city, a city that will experience long-term population growth and will therefore need long-term, proper, city-wide planning. Last night I addressed the Business Council of Australia, an organisation with a strong interest in infrastructure reform and infrastructure investment. The government agrees with the business community that infrastructure reform and infrastructure investment are critical to addressing Australia’s long-term economic needs (1) to boost productivity growth, (2) to tackle climate change and (3) to accommodate the 35 million we are advised will require support, the delivery of services, places to live and places to work by the time we reach mid-century, given that our current population stands at 22 million. When we reflect upon the particular implications for cities like Brisbane, this puts into stark relief the long-term planning that is necessary to ensure that our cities have the infrastructure and the planned infrastructure to meet those needs. Think about Sydney and Melbourne alone. We are advised that the populations of those two great cities will rise by mid-century to seven million each. Furthermore, the city of Brisbane will double its population to four million. The city of Perth will nearly triple its population to something like 3½ million. The other major cities of Australia are growing as well. As I have said before, I believe very much in a big Australia. But the time to prepare for that big Australia is now. We have to prepare for long-term infrastructure needs and infrastructure growth. This dovetails with the productivity needs of the Australian economy. The productivity needs of the Australian economy stare us in the face. We saw a decline in productivity growth over the period that those opposite were in government. We saw some 20 separate warnings from the Reserve Bank of Australia about the problems of not investing in infrastructure or in skills and about the consequent impact of that on capacity constraints in the economy and on inflationary pressures as well. The challenges facing the government are these. How do you overcome a decade of neglect when it comes to productivity growth? What is necessary on the infrastructure front, the skills front and the planning front to deal with these challenges for the future? The government has been active across the last 18 months, since its election, with, first of all, the establishment of Infrastructure Australia; secondly, within that, the Major Cities Unit; thirdly, of course, the capital cities task force of COAG itself; fourthly, its engagement with the Australian Council of Local Government; fifthly, the first Commonwealth investments in urban public transport; sixthly, the first Commonwealth investments in urban water projects; and, seventhly, the biggest ever investment in social housing. The next step in this partnership with the states and territories of Australia is our proposal to develop the first national criteria for the future strategic planning of our largest cities. The Commonwealth will now consider linking all future infrastructure funding to the states and territories to compliance with these planning criteria. Those criteria would include such items as follow. First is the planned and sequenced land release for the future in order to meet the needs of our growing population. This will mean that developers would be able to provide more housing when people need it, making housing more affordable. Second is balancing infill and greenfield development. This will mean more opportunities for urban renewal in built-up areas and fewer dilapidated buildings in disused sites. Third is addressing climate change, meaning people have houses with greater energy efficiency and more public transport. Fourth is providing for nationally significant infrastructure, such as transport corridors, intermodal connections, and communications and utilities networks. This will mean people having greater job opportunities in cities and with higher levels of productivity. The final criterion is world standard design for our cities as well. We will also need new Commonwealth-state arrangements to jointly assess performance against these criteria and to advise on how these performance criteria can be improved in the future. We intend to take this forward through the Council of Australian Governments in 2010. A good example of where this becomes a very practical question indeed is the strategic planning needs of the people of Western Sydney. Western Sydney is already home to more than two million Australians, and it will rapidly expand as the population of Sydney itself grows to seven million by 2049. We want Western Sydney to be an even better place to live in the future, with better jobs, better infrastructure, better opportunities for local people as well as better housing and more affordable housing. That is the challenge for the future—and it will not happen just like that, with a snap of one’s fingers; it has to be planned. To make that vision a reality we need to get on with long-term planning for Western Sydney, an area where the Australian government in the past has chosen to be absent from the field. That is not our approach. In areas like Penrith and Liverpool, there are other critical decisions in planning for their future infrastructure needs. There is also an opportunity to support growth outside the Sydney CBD, in other urban centres like Parramatta, Blacktown, Penrith, Campbelltown, Liverpool and Bankstown. Western Sydney will need new infrastructure investment, better transport links, hubs of innovation—such as our investment already in Macquarie University and the University of Western Sydney—and better health infrastructure, of the type we are now putting into Nepean Hospital and elsewhere. The point is this: with sound planning and greater public and private investment in infrastructure, we can make an area like Western Sydney a better place to live in the future, a better place to work in the future and, critically, a greater contributor to this nation’s long-term productivity growth. So the government’s strategy is clear. We cannot just wash our hands of the national planning needs of our largest cities— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I hear the interjection from those opposite that we have washed our hands for two years! We have washed our hands for two years. What did they do for 12 years? Can we hear those clear statements of policy on our cities’ infrastructure from those opposite for 12 years? What were they? I cannot recall a huge list. What I do remember is the former Treasurer standing in this place and saying: ‘When it comes to urban water, don’t look at us; that’s a responsibility of the states. When you look at infrastructure in general, don’t look at us; that’s a responsibility of the states. Future needs of the hospitals? Don’t look at us; look at the states.’ The people of Australia expect us to rise to this challenge and partner with the states and territories to get on with the business of building the best cities for the future. The nation needs a productivity revolution to build the big Australia we all need and want for tomorrow. 11239 11239 14:12:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the announcement last week of arrangements whereby the Indonesian government would accept the 78 asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking. Will the Prime Minister inform the House: what are the current arrangements in relation to the 78 asylum seekers; and what has been his involvement, other than the one conversation last week with the President of Indonesia, in establishing these arrangements? 11239 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —First of all, I say to the member for Curtin, who has been a most active participant in this debate, that as Prime Minister of Australia I take full responsibility for the immigration policy of Australia and its implementation. I also say that those opposite, I assume, take full responsibility—given they were members of the previous government—led by the member for Berowra, for ‘children overboard’, for kids behind razor wire and for all other such elements of the successful immigration policy on the part of those opposite! Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister cannot make up for his lack of relevance with abuse. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will respond to the question. Prime Minister. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Factually describing that the previous government was responsible for keeping kids behind razor wire, responsible for the Pacific solution and responsible also for the ‘children overboard’ affair are not matters of abuse; they are matters of historical record. I would suggest to those opposite that, as I am responsible in every respect for the immigration policy of Australia and its implementation, I assume that those opposite who sat in the cabinet of the previous government, share responsibility for the actions and decisions of the previous government as well. Opposition members interjecting— EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —Why do the kids in the construction camps have to be there? Why are they there? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the member for Murray has finished speaking to herself— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the Prime Minister what the current arrangements were in relation to 78 asylum seekers and I asked what his involvement was in the decisions regarding those arrangements other than the one conversation with the President of Indonesia. The Prime Minister has failed to answer this question as well as— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Prime Minister will respond to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I was asked what responsibility I had and the answer is that I accept full responsibility for the implementation of government policy on immigration. On the question of the actual physical treatment of asylum seekers in Indonesia, our cooperation extends in three directions: first, with the Indonesian government; secondly, with the UNHCR; and, thirdly, with the IOM, the International Organisation for Migration. Furthermore, I would say to those opposite that these are not unique cooperative arrangements when it comes to the physical accommodation of any asylum seekers who are in centres within Indonesia both under this government, including prospectively the 78, which are the subject of the honourable member’s question, and who were similarly detained during the period of the previous government’s office. The funding arrangements to support Indonesia bilaterally and to support the international agencies—the UNHCR and the IOM—go back at least to 2005 and involved expenditures by the previous government of several tens of millions of dollars. We have continued that practice and have been completely transparent about it. The conditions which pertain to the accommodation of individuals within centres in Indonesia are obviously subject to continued collaboration between the UNHCR, the IOM and the Indonesian authorities. We expect our friends in Indonesia to be constructive and fully engage with those discussions with the international agencies. We support them in their efforts, as I assume the previous government supported them in the period when they were in office. 11240 Distinguished Visitors 11240 14:17:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Vanuatu, led by the Speaker of the Parliament of Vanuatu, the Hon. Maxime Korman Carlot. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors—bienvenue. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 11240 Questions Without Notice 11240 11240 14:17:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on the consumer price index data released this morning? 11240 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Page for her question, because today’s CPI figures show that inflation has moderated further in this country as the full impacts of the global recession continue to wash through the broader economy. Annual headline inflation moderated to 1.3 per cent—its lowest rate in 10 years. Today’s outcome means that annual headline inflation has now decreased from five per cent one year ago to 1.3 per cent currently. Quarterly growth in the CPI of one per cent was largely driven by some unusually large increases in utility prices charged by state energy providers. These increases were responsible for almost half of the quarterly increase in the CPI. So overall we are continuing to see an easing of inflationary pressures in the economy and that reflects the fact that our economy is operating below capacity. Of course, as the RBA Governor has said on a number of occasions now, it is hard to say that there is too much growth in the economy. Private business investment does remain weak in the near term and unemployment is still expected to rise. That is why both fiscal and monetary policy support is being gradually and carefully withdrawn to support jobs until the recovery has taken hold. Fiscal stimulus has already peaked; it is already tapering away. The gradual withdrawal of stimulus will subtract from growth through 2010, making room for an expansion in private activity. Our job is to manage the withdrawal of stimulus carefully as the economy recovers. To abolish the stimulus overnight, as those opposite would do, would hurt small business, cost jobs and put our economic recovery at risk. The bulk of the stimulus that remains is critical nation-building infrastructure—investment in major highways, rail upgrades, ports, hospitals and schools. As I said before, it is short-term spending with lasting gains. This infrastructure investment will build future capacity—the key to ensuring strong growth with low inflation well into the future. 11241 11241 14:20:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr STONE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House who within the government is responsible for decisions regarding the Oceanic Viking and will the Prime Minister guarantee that no Australian crew members will be ordered to use force to remove the 75 asylum seekers now onboard? 11241 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Murray for her question. I assume she is not referring to a different vessel, but in fact to the Oceanic Viking. I say to the honourable member in response to the two parts of her question that the operational decision-making concerning this and all other matters concerning people-smuggling lie, as is normal, between the national security adviser in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the associated other government agencies and departments, including the Customs and Border Protection Service, Defence where necessary, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship where necessary, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as you would expect. As to the second part of the honourable member’s question—as to the disembarkation of individuals from the Oceanic Viking to the port within Indonesia—I am sure that will be handled as appropriately as possible by Australian and Indonesian personnel in what will be a very difficult operation. Let us be frank about it. We are dealing with a complex, difficult and challenging set of circumstances. I have confidence that our men and women who are working in these professional agencies will discharge their professional responsibilities with the greatest degree of skill, tact and humanity that they can, but this is a very difficult situation. The government, as I have said before, is completely consistent in its approach to its overall attitude to immigration, which is that we will proceed with a hardline policy as far as people-smugglers are concerned, and a humane approach to asylum seekers. I say again to the member for Murray, as she has asked the question: were those opposite in power at the time that this vessel issued a distress call and we received a request under the relevant provisions of international maritime law, are they seriously suggesting that, having received a request from the Indonesian search and rescue authority, we should not have acted? Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I hear the intervention from those opposite: ‘They would not have come in the first place.’ What happened with the 15,000 who did— EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously it is about the relevance of this new line. What we want to know is whether force will be— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Murray will resume her seat. The point of order is on relevance. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —In response to the two parts of the member for Murray’s question, as I said in the first case we deal with these things through the coordination of the National Security Adviser, as you would expect. Secondly, on the question of the appropriate handling of persons in difficult circumstances, that will be done professionally and as humanely as possible, in difficult and trying circumstances, by our professional staff together with the Indonesians at the relevant port in Indonesia. I always reflect at times like this when those opposite ask these questions, out of what ultimate script book it comes. Of course we had a question in this place yesterday, addressed to the minister for infrastructure, about a particular script book being used on the part of those opposite. It actually went to the whole question of stereotyping. Those opposite, in their tactical handbook, which was deployed by critical advisers who are currently in attendance here in the chamber today— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has approached the dispatch box seeking the call. She is being denied by those behind her. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about what is happening aboard the Oceanic Viking with a 78 asylum seekers on board. The line of personal attack the Prime Minister is undertaking now is— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Again, I thank the member for Murray for her question. I assume that she has been guided by such things as: ‘You don’t get news stories by trying to change perceptions; you get them by reinforcing stereotypes.’ It is not our document those opposite disseminated from the office of the Leader of the Opposition in recent days. I assume that that dictates the politics of this debate in this chamber as well. 11242 Distinguished Visitors 11242 14:25:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The Speaker —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon participants of the Centre for Democratic Institution’s Parliamentary Skills Development Course for Parliamentarians. If there are any vacancies, I may have some candidates! On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to these parliamentarians. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 11242 Questions Without Notice 11242 11242 14:26:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 Ms REA —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government’s infrastructure investment under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan? 11242 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for her question. It goes to the whole question: how do we build long-term productivity growth? That in turn goes to: how do we invest in productive infrastructure in the future as well? Having peaked in the June quarter, the government’s stimulus strategy is rapidly rolling out projects across the country. Of the shovel-ready infrastructure projects, around 50,000 such projects, worth more than $25 billion, have already been approved. Most of the remaining stimulus is investment in infrastructure, which will expand, of course, the productive capacity of the economy. Now is the time for us all to be investing in our nation’s future infrastructure needs, because the Australian economy is currently below capacity as a result of the global recession. Again, according to CEDA analysis, simply addressing existing backlogs in infrastructure investment could increase GDP by 0.8 per cent and reduce CPI by 3.2 per cent. That is why in the budget we were proud to announce $22 billion worth of investment in economic infrastructure through our nation-building funds. That is our approach when it comes to nation building for the future and nation building for recovery. I would note that I thought those opposite had a consistent policy when it came to infrastructure, but it seems, alas, they do not. The Leader of the Opposition, in the lead-up to the budget, said he wanted the government to fund infrastructure. In fact, he said: We have never argued about investing in infrastructure. We support investing in infrastructure … He went on to say: If you want to spend government money … spend it on infrastructure. Then we had the shadow Treasurer say, not long after, that the infrastructure investments in the 2009-10 budget were ‘terrific’. He said: … for example take infrastructure. $22 billion on infrastructure, terrific, that’s great. That was the shadow Treasurer on 13 May 2009. In fact, the shadow Treasurer went on to say that it is good for funding to be spent on infrastructure now. I quote him again: … I think it’s good to have some money spent on infrastructure now … But I inform the House that the coalition has once again changed its tune. Surprise, surprise, surprise! The masters of political opportunism, presumably driven also by the tactics unit in the leader’s office, have in fact done a 180 on this one as well. I note that yesterday a report was tabled in the Senate by the Senate Economics References Committee on the government’s economic stimulus initiatives. I understand that the majority report, delivered by the chair, Senator Eggleston, and supported by coalition members of the committee, called for the government to commission an urgent further report but then asked for that further report to provide recommendations on the feasibility of reducing, postponing, recalibrating the remaining discretionary funding on a project-by-project basis. This is very interesting indeed because it follows recent statements, I am advised, by the Leader of the Opposition—I think on Adelaide radio—where he said these infrastructure projects in which we are investing would now have to be reviewed. Am I right in also saying that Senator Coonan had something to say to the same effect? So now we have, on the one hand, them saying, ‘Whatever you invest in infrastructure is terrific.’ On the other hand, we now have them in the Senate saying, ‘No, that’s not. We should actually roll this back and we should actually reduce and postpone projects.’ The Leader of the Opposition is saying they have to be reviewed one by one. Senator Coonan is saying the same. So here is the moment of truth: which ones? Which projects? Which states? What categories? Once again those opposite delay, as they have done in the debate with the Deputy Prime Minister on schools. They come in each day and say, through the member for Sturt, ‘Oh, there’s been some waste here. There’s a problem there.’ But, asked this question: which school project would they actually can, we hear a deafening silence. We hear it also in terms of the local government infrastructure projects which have been supported by the minister for infrastructure. But we see this here again in the statement adopted by the majority report in the Senate yesterday. The bottom line is that this nation has needed stimulus investment because we have managed to produce the fastest growing economy of the advanced economies in the last 12 months, the only major advanced economy not to have gone into recession, with the lowest debt, the lowest deficit. Can I say to those opposite: that is what we have achieved and we have achieved it because we have rolled our sleeves up and got into the business of supporting this economy and then, secondly, invested in long-term infrastructure and capacity building as well. That is our plan. We wait, as I am sure the finance minister does, for that list of projects which must come forth between now and election eve—whenever that might be—that you will be cutting. In which part of Australia will you be cutting those projects? Which road? Which school? Which university? Which hospital? Which medical research institute? Which projects? You can run but ultimately you cannot hide. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —On any day in this House we have members from a number of communities throughout Australia, but today I would like to indicate to members that we have a representative group of members of the Marysville Victoria community. They are here in Parliament House to discuss matters to do with the rehabilitation of their community. On behalf of the House I extend a very sincere welcome and wish them all the best in the rebuilding of Marysville. 11244 11244 14:32:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 Ms LEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Oceanic Viking is licensed to carry a maximum of 75 people, including crew and Customs officers? Will the Prime Minster inform the House how many crew and Customs officers are on board the vessel, along with the 78 asylum seekers? Is the Prime Minister concerned about the health and safety of the crew and Customs officers and the asylum seekers? Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Farrer has the call. 00AMN Ley, Sussan, MP Ms LEY —The third part of my question—I am sure the Prime Minister can remember the first two parts—is: is the Prime Minister concerned about the health and safety of the crew, Customs officers and asylum seekers who have now been on board for 10 days? 11244 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I actually do not know how this question ever got past the tactics committee of the opposition, because buried within it is this assumption that somehow there is a capacity constraint within an Australian vessel, military or non-military—that somehow, if there are persons in distress at sea, we should not attend to all those persons. Is that what is being suggested here? Let us go to the facts of this matter, which are that the Indonesian search and rescue authority identified a distress vessel at sea within their search and rescue zone. Secondly, as I am advised, because there was no Indonesian vessel available, they asked for an Australian vessel to assist. Thirdly, Australia, consistent with its obligations under international maritime law, did so. Fourthly, I would believe that any Australian citizen who in the future ran the risk— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Here he comes to try and clean up the wreckage. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. The Prime Minister has recited the search and rescue fact several times. He has been asked about numbers. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. On a number of occasions already in today’s question time the opposition have disrupted answers from the Prime Minister that were completely relevant in order to make a political point. I would ask that you call them to order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I take note of the point of order. On the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order, the Prime Minister is responding to the question. The House will please attempt to approach this subject which over a long period has made the emotions heighten. But I think it does not deserve the way in which the House is approaching the discussion of this problem. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I would remind the member of what the international legal obligations for countries such as Australia are under these circumstances. Under customary international law, all vessels have a duty to render assistance to a vessel in distress. This duty is reflected in article 98 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which both Australia and Indonesia are parties. Article 98 obliges a state to require the master of a ship flying its flag to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —The point is to get the people off the boat. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —They’ve been on the same boat for 10 days. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. There is no way, under the standing orders, that addenda can be added to a question by interjection. Those who are attempting that should sit there in silence. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Australia has given effect to that obligation by dispatching HMAS Armidale to rendezvous with the distressed vessel. Australia’s obligations are outlined in this respect through sections 265 and 317A of the Navigation Act 1912. It requires the master of a vessel to rescue persons in distress. That act does not apply to military vessels. Australian naval vessels give effect to rescues under ADF instructions and exercise the executive power under section 61 of the Australian Constitution. This is the legal framework within which we operate. It is the framework within which civilised mainstream countries around the world seek to operate. We do so because there are mutual obligations around the world and because Australians may also find themselves in distress at sea in various parts of the world where we need to call upon others to exercise reciprocal responsibilities. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan —That has nothing to do with the question you were asked. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The question went to the capacity of the Oceanic Viking. I can only go on the assumption that the person asking the question is also posing the question: if there were a capacity constraint within the Oceanic Viking, what should then have occurred with the distressed persons at sea? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt is warned! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —We will act humanely, we will act effectively, we will act expeditiously when we receive calls from the Indonesian authorities, as we did in this case. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Ten days ago! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The honourable members interject, including the member for Curtin, who once again comes in on cue. She said in an earlier interview on such subject: We need a new approach … We need a lot more UN involvement in Indonesia … There has to be much more money go to the UNHCR … More countries need to take more people from the camps … It is vital there is an agreement with Indonesia. I agree we have to take more refugees … So said the member for Curtin in an earlier time. Consistency has never been their strongest suit. 11246 11246 14:39:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 Ms OWENS —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the government ending the Commonwealth’s exile from investment and economic reform to ensure the productivity, sustainability and liveability of our major cities? How is this reform being received? 11246 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Parramatta for her question. I note that last night I was at the BCA dinner in Sydney when the Prime Minister set out the government’s vision for national leadership in the growth and development of our major cities. The government has indeed ended the exile of the urban policy area from the Commonwealth. There are three central themes to our urban policy framework: productivity, maximising the economic output of our cities and of employment growth; sustainability, making sure that planning in our cities is consistent with dealing with the great challenge of climate change; and liveability, making sure that we deal with issues such as the affordability of housing in our cities. Through COAG we will develop national criteria for the future strategic planning of our major cities—for the first time. This has been welcomed. The Urban Development Institute of Australia said: The Rudd government has committed to re-engaging with the engine room of the economy, our major capital cities. This is a good outcome for our cities and a great outcome for the nation. Indeed, the BCA board members who were there last night welcomed very much the Prime Minister’s speech. This builds on the new cities initiatives implemented by this government over the last two years. The Rudd government have, in our first two budgets, delivered substantial investment for urban infrastructure projects, particularly in public transport and in water. This is about investment but it is also about economic reform. In two weeks time I will chair the Australian Transport Council, made up of the Commonwealth and the state and territory transport ministers. We will consider the next step in advancing our agenda for a single national regulator in heavy vehicles, in rail safety and in maritime. These are issues that have been discussed for over 100 years, with very little progress. If we can achieve this outcome that would be a major step forward. I am asked about ending the exile of the Commonwealth in recent times from the urban policy agenda. When we came to office, we came to office with a base of zero when it comes to cities policy. The coalition had an ideological objection to engagement with our cities. For over a decade the Howard-Costello government said issues which affect our cities, such as urban congestion and public transport, were not their problem. Indeed I am reminded that one of the first programs axed by the former government when they came to office was the Better Cities program. On 17 July 1996 the incoming Minister for Transport and Regional Development put out a release proudly declaring: The savings will also be achieved by ending the previous Labor government’s discredited Better Cities program—a Coalition election policy commitment. He went on: The changes will involve the loss of approximately 220 jobs within the Department of Transport and Regional Development. When we came into office there was not a single urban planner in the entire Commonwealth Public Service—not one. They got rid of them all. In their release they went on to outline their ideological position, where they said: Current arrangements for Regional Development and Urban management overlap with State and local Governments which have their own urban infrastructure and local Government reform programs. There is no clear rationale or constitutional basis for Commonwealth involvement. That was their position when they came into office. To be fair to them, they delivered on that ideological commitment—totally. For 12 years they consistently implemented that ideological approach. This government has a different attitude. That is the policy that we are taking forward. The speech last night by the Prime Minister was a major step forward in re-engaging with our cities. 11247 11247 14:45:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. Noting that the practice of detaining women and children asylum seekers in detention centres in Australia was begun by the Keating government in 1992 and was completely ended by the Howard government in 2005, and noting the Prime Minister’s savage condemnation of this past practice, will he guarantee that no women or children from the Oceanic Viking will be detained in the Indonesian detention centres behind bars and razor wire? 11247 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The great thing about the Liberal Party is that they attack you from the right, they attack you from the left, they attack you from the front, they attack you from behind, but they never attack you consistently. It being Wednesday, it must be censure day, so we will be building up to a censure fairly soon. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that when it comes to the proper treatment of women and children he is right to point out the fact that our view, consistent with our immigration detention values, is that children are not under any circumstances to be held in an immigration detention centre in this country. Opposition members—In this country! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I am about to go on to the question of Indonesia. The Indonesian authorities have advised the government that women and children will be offered the option of staying in a house near the Tanjung Pinang detention facility. One of the reasons why that is the case is because we, together with the previous government, have been providing funding through the UNHCR and through the IOM to the Indonesian government to provide them with the capacity to construct appropriate facilities and to provide appropriate medical services as well to such individuals under these circumstances. That is the approach of the Australian government at home. That is what we are seeking to engage the Indonesians with abroad. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Good. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I say to the honourable gentleman opposite, as he continues to prosecute this attack— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition intervenes as if there is some consistency in the attack being mounted by those opposite. Once again, when you look at the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, back in the Subiaco Post it is all ‘gentle Julia’; she is all for a gentle solution. But when she is running a different line it is quite the reverse. We have the small-l liberal in Wentworth, the member for Wentworth, the Leader of the Opposition, adopting a policy locally which is to the left on this issue but then adopting a posture sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right, depending on the circumstances not in the national debate but within the Liberal Party. Our policy is clear and we stand by it. 11248 11248 14:48:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 Mr RIPOLL —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation representing the Special Minister of State. Why is the conduct of members and senators crucial to maintaining the integrity of Australia’s electoral process? What approaches may undermine this? 11248 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Oxley for his question. Yesterday the Minister for Infrastructure Transport, Regional Development and Local Government outlined to the House an email that was sent out by Senator Ronaldson’s staff member and disseminated by the Leader of the Opposition’s office, I understand, advising members of the Liberal Party to forget about policy and go for ‘quirky’ stories that relied on reinforcing stereotypes of fat cats and other targets for the Liberal Party. This kind of approach undermines the integrity of the electoral process, but sadly this is not an isolated instance. I have an interesting document here. The Leader of the Opposition will be pleased to know that it is not an email. The document is entitled A selective political analysis of the federal electorate of Ballarat and is by one Edmund Carew. It is very interesting because it contains detailed profiles—including some unflattering references to them—of local identities including local councillors. It is interesting that the then member for Ballarat now Senator Ronaldson had been member for Ballarat for five years but he still had to get a researcher to give him profiles of his local councillors. That tells you something. In this dossier, there is a four-page detailed profile of the then Labor candidate for Ballarat, Jenny Beacham. It contains some very interesting material including the names and occupations of her children, details of a recent death in the family of a close family member from serious illness, details from company searches of her business and other business activities, the names and addresses of directors of those companies, indications of how well business was doing and other such detailed personal information. It also has some rather interesting statements. For example, it quoted a statement from a newspaper in 1984—more 10 years earlier—from Ms Beacham supporting the concept of redistribution. Then the report says to the Liberal Party and to now Senator Ronaldson, ‘A comment that we should use if the scare of death or wealth taxes can be given a run.’ It also notes that in response to a suggestion that Ms Beacham had organised a letter-writing campaign about something seven years earlier, ‘If Beacham accuses us of a campaign, we can dredge this one up.’ Appropriate language. But the most heinous crime that the former Labor candidate Jenny Beacham is accused of in this dossier is that when she visited South Africa during the first elections post apartheid she had lunch with Nelson Mandela. That tells you an awful lot about the Liberal Party. This is truly creepy stuff. But unfortunately it is part of a pattern. This was in 1994. I had been in this parliament one year. Gary Ablett senior was playing in the grand final for Geelong—that is how long ago it was. Shane Warne was about to take a hat-trick against the Poms in the Boxing Day test. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For that question to have been in order it had to have been about public affairs or administrational proceedings in the House and presumably the answer would have to be relevant to an in-order question. The material that is being used in no way relates to those issues and therefore is not relevant to a properly asked question, and I ask you to ask him to desist making public things which are obviously meant to be of a private nature. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The question was in order. The minister is responding to the question. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I have just been advised that the member for Mackellar is unopposed in her preselection to run around the track again. We can now see why. In fact, at the time I am referring to she was on the verge of becoming leader of the Liberal Party. There is a very important contemporary point here. The person involved in this dossier is the now Senator Ronaldson. He was then the member for Ballarat. He was then a relatively obscure junior frontbencher. He is now right at the very centre, right at the very heart, of the Turnbull leadership of the Liberal Party. He is the new Bill Heffernan. He is the hit man, the dirt man and the numbers man for the Leader of the Opposition. He is not some mad uncle, he is not the member for Mackellar; he is right at the heart of the team. This is a longstanding continuing pattern of skulduggery, spivery, scares and smears and it tells you everything about what the Liberal Party is. 11249 11249 14:54:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his so-called Indonesian solution. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Indonesian government or Indonesian officials have advised the Australian government or our officials that in their view his changes to Australia’s border protection policies have encouraged the current surge in people smugglers’ attempts to bring asylum seekers to Australia? 11249 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I am unaware of any such advice and can say to the Leader of the Opposition that President Yudhoyono has made no such comment to me at all. I will also say to the Leader of the Opposition what the President of Indonesia has said to me: that we all face a common people smuggling challenge. That is what the President of Indonesia has said. He is reflecting the mainstream view in Indonesia, in Malaysia and in various other regional countries, all of whom are cooperating through the Bali process. The Foreign Minister is actively engaged with his counterparts from across the region. That is the right and responsible approach; it is the right and responsible analysis. The Leader of the Opposition, if he was actually engaged in the facts of this matter as opposed to the politics of what he is seeking to prosecute, would understand three core points. One is that the total outflow globally of people from Sri Lanka in the last three years has gone through the roof because of civil disturbances there. The second is that the outflow from Iraq has similarly gone up because of problems of instability in Iraq. Thirdly, when it comes to Afghanistan, the same trend has occurred since 2005 as well. Furthermore, if you look at the numbers of asylum seekers—those seeking to be processed in various countries of the world—they nationally have broadly reflected these global numbers. That is what we are dealing with here in Australia as well. We have a policy which we have defended in the course of this debate because it is the right approach. It is the responsible approach. It is hardline on people smugglers. It seeks to be compassionate in relation to the circumstances of asylum seekers. That is the right approach under these difficult circumstances. Our approach, however, is consistent. Those, they cut and they trim each day depending on the politics of this debate because they are driven not by the policy of this but by the politics of the document which was circulated to the Australian newspaper yesterday, which says: In prosecuting debates of this type you do not get news stories by trying to change perceptions; you get them by reinforcing stereotypes. Quote unquote from the Liberal Party; quote unquote, from Senator Ronaldson’s chief of staff after, apparently, a meeting between himself and the office of the Leader of the Opposition. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about pull factors bringing asylum seekers to Australia. His answer could not now be relevant to the question. He may wish to evade the answer— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! You have made your point of order; it is not an opportunity for debate. The Prime Minister will respond to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —When it comes to dealing with the challenges of people smugglers we will tackle it globally through our global cooperation. We will do so regionally with our partners in Indonesia and in Malaysia—which on an earlier occasion, it seems, the member for Curtin was all for, but not recently. Also, we will tackle this problem through our own national means and the policy and resources that we have deployed. I remind those opposite that in recent times the amount we have invested in maritime surveillance—in air surveillance of the air-sea gap between ourselves and Indonesia—is considerably in excess of that which was put prosecuted under the previous government, because we take our responsibilities across this spectrum seriously. It is a difficult challenge. It will not go away because someone on the other side of politics chooses to wave a political magic wand and hope that this global problem, including a civil war which has been bloody and violent in Sri Lanka, simply did not occur. They are not interested in these facts. They are interested in the politics which were circulated in this document yesterday: the politics of stereotyping, the politics of dealing with special interest groups, the politics of not policy discussions, because they do not work, but the politics of fear. 11250 11250 14:59:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion, and I thank her for her recent visit. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of the infrastructure stimulus for schools such as my own and the cost to local communities should it be withdrawn? 11250 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Braddon for his question. I did enjoy my visit to his electorate, and I note that under the Building the Education Revolution program his electorate is receiving $99 million for 139 projects in 119 schools. But there is a reason that the member for Braddon has asked me this question, and that is we are joined in the gallery today by students from Penguin Primary School, which I had the opportunity to visit when I visited his electorate. Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I have been given gifts on school visits in the past, but this is the first time that a school has ever given me handpainted gumboots with a penguin on either side. I would like to thank the students from Penguin Primary School for that very special gift—thank you very much. Penguin Primary School is benefiting from a $2.5 million project under the Building the Education Revolution program. They are having constructed a community learning centre—they are the right size, if that is what you are checking, Prime Minister; the students checked that and got the right size—and library extension. That is going to be great for their primary school. It is of course great news for Penguin because the residents in Penguin will be able to use that shared facility. At the same time, I was informed by the contractor who is building this new centre at Penguin Primary School that he expects the construction to support up to 135 jobs, so that is also great news for Penguin, great news for the electorate of Braddon. The sense of delight at Penguin is reflected right around the country in schools as they go about the job of constructing their Building the Education Revolution facilities and supporting local jobs. The serious side of this is that the opposition leader has said that he is committed to reviewing stimulus spending project by project. And then we have had fulsome acknowledgements from members opposite, most particularly the member for Flinders, who described the whole program, the $16 billion involved in this program, as a waste. And so we have the opposition that voted against this program—voted against every job, every project, every benefit to schools—now threatening, project by project, to review these and other stimulus measures. I call on the opposition once again to be honest with Australian students, their parents, teachers and school principals. The Leader of the Opposition and his shadow minister have an obligation to publish the list of school names that they say should not benefit under Building the Education Revolution. They cannot have it both ways; they cannot sign up to Senate committee reports calling for project by project reviews, they cannot go into the media saying that they are committed to project by project reviews, and then not complete the end of that process and tell school communities which of them would get nothing if the Liberal Party succeeded at the next election. It is something the Liberal Party should be honest about. Australian schools deserve to know the truth about what the Liberal Party has planned for their Building the Education Revolution projects. Once again, thank you to the kids from Penguin. 11251 11251 15:03:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his claim that the cause of the surge in unauthorised arrivals since August 2008 has been the consequence of what he says is a large increase in persons seeking asylum from Sri Lanka and Iraq since 2005. Was the Prime Minister aware of this increase prior to his decision to soften Australia’s border protection laws in August 2008? 11251 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, the interesting thing about the Leader of the Opposition’s question is that in the three areas of policy change—which is kids behind razor wire, which is the Pacific solution, which is the Pacific solution on the part of this government and our repudiation of it— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, I say to those opposite: firstly, when we decided to abandon the Pacific solution, consistent with our pre-election commitments, the good old member for Murray stood up there and said, ‘I do,’ when we indicated that that was our future policy. When we undertook that change, that is precisely the response we got on the part of those opposite. Secondly, when we abolished temporary protection visas, we had the same failure on the part of those opposite to take an alternative view in the parliament when they had an opportunity to do so. I assume the member for Kooyong is not going to sit there and suggest that those opposite should reintroduce temporary protection visas. I know his position on this is constant, as are other members of conscience who sit on opposition benches, though they are somewhat smaller in number these days. Thirdly, on the question of children behind razor wire, I do not assume that those opposite are suggesting we move in that direction as well. My challenge to those opposite and to the Leader of the Opposition is: which of those three do you wish to bring back? 11252 11252 15:05:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 Mr PERRETT —Mr Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. What steps is the government taking to assist Australians in financial distress? 11252 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McCLELLAND —I thank the member for Moreton for his question. The Australian economy has performed better than most in the face of the global recession, but unquestionably there are still a number of Australians doing it tough. As a result of the global recession, for instance, in the last financial year there was an 11 per cent increase in bankruptcies and this represented the highest ever level of personal insolvency activity. The figures show the vast majority of bankruptcies relate to consumer debts and people involved with relatively few assets and little income, rather than unscrupulous debtors trying to avoid paying their debts. In these circumstances, it is more important than ever that our system is fair for both debtors but also creditors, and specifically the government recognises that small businesses are also doing it tough and they are entitled to be paid and they are entitled to be paid on time. Essentially our goal is to achieve the right balance. After extensive public consultation, this morning I introduced legislation to implement significant reforms to Australia’s personal bankruptcies laws. The bill introduces a number of reforms, including increasing the minimum amount for which a creditor can petition from $2,000 to $10,000—and I would add that this amount has not been increased since 1996. The proposed increase in the threshold will ensure that people are not bankrupted over relatively small debts and that bankruptcy is used as a last resort and not as a debt collection tool. I can indicate, for those who have expressed concern, that in the last financial year there were only 391 sequestration orders for an amount of less than $10,000. The vast majority were for a considerably larger amount than that. I can indicate also that the government proposes to increase the stay period from when a declaration of intent to file a debtor’s petition is made. That will be increased from seven days to 28 days. The purpose is to give those in financial distress the opportunity to obtain advice and perhaps restructure their affairs, and it will also encourage creditors collectively to approach the debtor with a view to negotiating, perhaps, a debtor agreement. In that respect, the figures show that debt agreements provide for far more satisfactory outcomes all around. Last year, for instance, debt agreements returned an amount of about 60c in the dollar, as opposed to about 2c in respect of bankruptcies. While we have strengthened the protections for those facing unmanageable debts, we have also imposed, on the other side of the equation, good-faith obligations on them. Specifically, the bill strengthens the penalties for some offences, particularly those involving fraud or wilful failure to disclose income and assets. Finally, there are, all too frequently, reports that fees of insolvency practitioners considerably exceed the value of the funds that are recovered from debtors. The government is therefore including additional measures to introduce proportionality and greater accountability in respect of professional fees. These measures, we believe, strike an appropriate and fair balance and will achieve better outcomes for debtors and creditors. We also believe they will be beneficial in having a more effectively functioning economy generally. 11253 11253 15:09:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how many of the 47 recommendations will the government adopt from the seminal report on coastal erosion from the members for Throsby and Moore and the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts which was presented to parliament this week? In particular, Prime Minister, when can we expect a reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission to start the process of organising legal liability questions that currently remain outstanding on private title for residents and public lands for councils throughout coastal areas in Australia? 11253 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for Lyne for his question. He is right to reflect on the importance of that particular report and its recommendations concerning the impact of climate change on coastal inundation. I also note that he is concerned, obviously, about his own constituents, given the beautiful part of the Australian coastline which he is privileged to represent in this parliament. The Australian government commends the members of the House of Representatives inquiry, whose report Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate was tabled in parliament on Monday of this week. One of the government’s first steps in advancing a national approach to coastal policy will be to investigate this House of Representatives inquiry. Government departments, including the Department of Climate Change and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, provided submissions to and appeared before the committee. The government will now carefully consider the findings of the inquiry. We have also worked closely with state and territory governments, coastal councils, natural resource management bodies and experts in developing a response to the inquiry. As part of this, I will be seeking the views of the Minister for Climate Change and Water about whether an inquiry into legal issues and climate change impacts on the coastal zone is appropriate and, if so, what would be the best way to take this forward. I will advise the member for Lyne further on the response of those consultations with the minister for climate change and of course with the Attorney-General. The Australian government is aware that there are considerable risks to assets in the coastal zone as a result of climate change and is currently undertaking a first pass national coastal vulnerability assessment. This assessment will be the first national mapping of the risks facing coastal communities around Australia. It will focus on residential housing at risk at both a state and local government level. The national coastal vulnerability assessment report is due for release later this year. This will be an important document to inform local communities. The government is also committed to holding a forum to develop a national coastal adaptation agenda after the release of the national coastal vulnerability assessment. Just last night I addressed the BCA about climate change and what it means for our planning systems. I announced that, in partnership with the state and territory governments and with the ALGA, we will now propose the development of national criteria for the future strategic planning of our major cities. I said that one of those criteria will focus on adapting to the risks of climate change, such as coastal inundation and more extreme weather events. Planning and management of coastal areas primarily rests with state governments, with many aspects of day-to-day planning decisions devolved to local governments as well. However, given the magnitude and spread of risk around the whole coastline, the Australian government will now actively work with states and territories through COAG to progress a national approach to adaptation to climate change. The release of the report of the House inquiry into climate change and the environmental impact on coastal communities reminds us of the significant impact that climate change will have on Australia if we fail to act. As an island continent, Australia is highly vulnerable to sea level rises resulting from climate change, with significant coastal erosion and damage to infrastructure anticipated. The fact is that Australia has more to lose through continued inaction on climate change than do our competitor economies. That is why the government is exerting every effort to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—to set Australia up for a low-carbon future and to ensure that we reduce our own carbon pollution. That is why we must act nationally and why we must act globally. In summary, in response to the honourable member’s question, we will come back to him once we have reached conclusions on the question of a further legal reference. Secondly, as far as adaptation measures are concerned, we are now actively working through the two mechanisms which I outlined in my response to the House just now. Thirdly, all of these are by way of adaptation measures; they are not about effective long-term mitigation measures to reduce actual greenhouse gas emissions. That is why a carbon pollution reduction scheme is necessary. It is also necessary for parallel action to be taken globally—hence the equal importance of what occurs in Copenhagen in December of this year. I thank the member for his question. 11254 11254 15:14:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Tourism. Will the minister update the House on the government’s commitment to deploying renewable energy in Australia? 11254 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I express my appreciation to the member for Leichhardt for his question on renewable energy. I was pleased to see him in attendance earlier this afternoon at a seminar currently underway in Parliament House, convened by the Treasurer and me, going to the question of baseload reliable energy in Far North Queensland. Renewable energy is one of the potential options in Far North Queensland. If we succeed on that front, we will have the capacity to pull through the further expansion of the resources sector in Australia, create sustainable jobs and perhaps also create opportunities to overcome the social blight that exists for the Indigenous community in the area by creating training and employment opportunities. In that context I was pleased to announce at that seminar the establishment of the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, the latest government down payment on trying to do whatever we can to facilitate the development of renewable energy in Australia. I remind the House that the government’s program, which was also added to in the budget of this year, includes not only the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme but also the renewable energy target legislation which provides for us to obtain 20 per cent of our energy from renewable sources by 2020. That represents a $20 billion subsidy to the renewable energy sector by the Australian community. To pull through the renewable energy sector in Australia is not just a question of putting a price on carbon and establishing renewable energy targets; it is perhaps more importantly a question of facilitating the development of technology which goes to the potential commercial deployment of renewable energy. Therefore, the government’s $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative includes a $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program, $300 million for the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program, $15 million of the Second Generation Biofuels Program, $50 million for the Geothermal Drilling Program and a further $100 million for the Australian Solar Institute, which is headquartered in Newcastle. But if we are to push the renewable energy sector in Australia to assist in addressing climate change then we also need to create a hub of activity; hence, the announcement today of the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy. Why do we need such a centre? Firstly, it will be a one-stop shop to help commercialise renewable energy technologies and to facilitate the innovation chain. Secondly, it will represent a hub for renewable energy knowledge and support within the Australian government and, hopefully, create a collaborative effort with not only the private sector but also state and territory governments. The centre will have more than $560 million to manage and will take on the management of a number of existing renewable energy programs. It will also have $100 million in new funding and $50 million from the formerly proposed Clean Energy Program for new initiatives. I am pleased to advise that I have already had discussions with the office of the member for Groom with respect to our requirement to introduce legislation to parliament in November of this year for the purpose of trying to put in place the legislative framework that establishes ACRE in this calendar year. That is very important. I also want to put in place, side by side with that legislation, an interim advisory board. The first task of that interim advisory board will importantly be to make funding recommendations to me before the end of the year on the most prospective solar applications received under the original Renewable Energy Demonstration Program guidelines. The accelerated deployment, commercialisation and demonstration of renewable energy technologies through ACRE will clearly complement the government’s investment in research with the Australian Solar Institute, and industrial scale demonstration, through the Solar Flagships Program. I am also pleased to advise the House today that the government has now decided on the design of the Solar Flagships Program. This is important because this is about baseload reliable energy from the renewable energy sector. Details can be found in the fact sheet that I released today at www.ret.gov.au. I commend the establishment of ACRE to the House and look to the support of the opposition for the facilitation of this legislation in November of this year. 11255 11255 15:19:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP 0 FRAN BAILEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that under the highly centralised, inflexible model of the Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority, imposed on the communities in my electorate of McEwen, local residents are denied the ability to determine how their communities should be rebuilt? Given that current research of disaster recovery clearly says that top-down, inflexible and standardised approaches are ineffective and dysfunctional, and given that the Commonwealth has invested many hundreds of millions of dollars for the benefit of affected communities, will the Prime Minister provide a commitment not just to my communities but to any future communities affected by disaster that models for recovery funded by the Commonwealth ensure flexibility and give priority to local knowledge and expertise when deciding when, how and where community infrastructure will be rebuilt. Further, will the Prime Minister initiate a COAG agreement on flexible community driven models for disaster recovery? 11256 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for McEwen for her question and I also acknowledge the representatives of her community from Marysville who are with us today in the public gallery. I had the opportunity, together with the member for McEwen, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction, Bill Shorten, to meet with representatives of that community prior to question time today. It was a good meeting and we discussed some of the matters which have just been raised by the member for McEwen in her question. Marysville was appallingly hit in the bushfires, as we know. I am advised that 34 people died in Marysville and four in Narbethong. Around 530 properties and 95 per cent of the retail businesses in the commercial centre of Marysville were destroyed. The primary school, the retirement village, the community centre, the post office, the medical centre and the police station were also destroyed, as well as a large number of accommodation places, including conference facilities. I also thank the group for their presentation to me of a Wallangarra gum both as a token of their appreciation of support from various levels of government but also as a symbol of what they described to me as the toughness and resilience of their own community. I indicated to them that we would make arrangements to have that gum planted at the Lodge. On the specifics of the honourable member’s question, which go to flexibility in recovery and reconstruction projects on the ground, I noted very carefully what the honourable member said. She was not critical of the level of support from the Commonwealth on these matters; what she is concerned about is the flexibility of the implementation of these programs on the ground. In the discussion we had before question time with representatives of the Marysville community I said the following—and I am happy to repeat it publicly: we need to find in the future a better balance in what is necessarily a highly centralised command and control system for dealing with the immediate occurrence of a natural disaster like a bushfire and the immediate aftermath. As you enter the recovery and reconstruction period, how do you then intelligently devolve greater responsibility and therefore flexibility to local communities to give effect to the best way of getting those communities back on their feet? That is a principle which I instinctively respond to. How do we actually make that work into the future? This is a much more complex task, as I am sure the member for McEwen will fully appreciate. But she asks in good faith if the government can now examine how this could be reflected for the purposes of learning into the future from natural disasters. My undertaking to her is that we will now undertake such an examination. In terms of the usefulness of using COAG to frame that for future purposes, my response to her on that question is that, once we have examined her proposal and, based on the principles that I have just reflected on behalf of the government, reached a conclusion on it, we will then advise her as to whether we think that can be properly advanced through the COAG process as well. The key, and I think the honourable member agrees with this, is that we have to get the balance right between the sorts of responses which are necessary early in dealing with these challenges and then the sorts of flexibilities which are necessary later on. The good representatives of Marysville, for example, gave me a very important fact before in their presentation to me, namely that a large number of the houses in Marysville are in fact owned by—and I use their term; I hope I do not offend anyone else by using this term—part-timers: those who reside in Melbourne but have a second house in Marysville itself. How do we therefore make it more possible for those houses to be rebuilt? That is a really tricky and practical challenge which we are now going to wrestle with and see if we can do anything more on, because the existing arrangements deal with owner-occupied dwellings and principal places of— Opposition member interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I believe that the character of this discussion is very much a bipartisan one, and I would hope we can continue in that manner. The member for McEwen has rightly asked these questions. As we have sought to do since February of this year, we will continue to work with her on a bipartisan basis on the two specific proposals that she has put forward. Finally, I inform the House and the community which is here represented that, under the recovery plan, projects for Marysville and surrounds, as I am advised, that have been identified for funding support are as follows: $5.2 million for the Marysville community learning, health and recreation hub; $9.2 million for the restoration of Lake Mountain Alpine Resort as a major summer and winter tourist destination; redeveloping and upgrading Stevenson Falls, $2.6 million; reconstruction of Marysville police station, $2.4 million; construction of the Marysville Rebuilding Advisory Centre; development of the Marysville and Triangle urban design framework, $500,000; restoration of the Marysville caravan park, $500,000; construction of a Marysville skate park, $150,000; and construction of a Triangle walking and cycling trail connecting communities in the Marysville area. There are also other projects which I will not list. This, for the community at Marysville, is still very much the beginning. I have spoken about physical reconstruction. As the parliamentary secretary, the minister and the member indicated to me earlier today, as did members of the community themselves, with the emotional and psychological scars of what occurred back in February, the deep and difficult process of healing has barely begun. Our responsibility as a parliament, as both the Leader of the Opposition and I said at the time when this natural disaster occurred, is to maintain our solidarity with these communities brick by brick, house by house, school by school, community by community, until these communities are restored. That remains the commitment of the Australian government. 11257 11257 15:27:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 Mr CHAMPION —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister update the House on recent commentary about the Productivity Commission’s review into wheat-exporting arrangements? 11258 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr BURKE —I thank the member for Wakefield for the question. Members may be unaware that yesterday the National Party got really mad. In a very cranky media release yesterday, the shadow minister for agriculture referred to the Productivity Commission review of the wheat export marketing arrangements. He was concerned about the timing of it and the timing of the first period for submissions coinciding with the wheat harvest. In his media release, he said: ‘Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the wheat industry in Australia’— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is responsible for many things, but one of them is not commentary. Apart from the fact that the question should have been ruled out of order, his answer cannot be relevant if he is making commentary. I would ask you— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. The question was allowed by the chair. The minister was called; the minister is responding to the question. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —As the shadow minister said, this is ‘the busiest time of the year for grain growers with harvest in full swing.’ He went on to say that anybody who would have called for this timetable, referring particularly to my office and the Productivity Commission, ‘knows absolutely nothing about the wheat industry’ and ‘is devoid of any basic agriculture expertise.’ The problem that the shadow minister did not refer to is that the Productivity Commission actually had no discretion as to the timing of this review. The legislation itself, under section 89, demands that the review be held— TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Mr Speaker, a point order on relevance: yesterday the minister gave a straight answer. He has today— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will resume his seat. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member has not got the call. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member is warned! The minister was responding to the question in a direct manner at the point in time that he was interrupted by the point of order. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I regret that from time to time there are such brave souls who want to make comments by interjection. Given that in this case that was the conclusion of a member who hides behind interjections about whether the question should have been in order or not, and they were not willing to raise the point of order at that point in time, I would suggest that the member just sit there quietly. The minister has the call. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —The time frame that is within section 89 of the act actually gives the Productivity Commission no discretion at all as to the timing. The question is, why is that time frame in the legislation? Why is it in section 89 in that way? When the bill was introduced in this House it did not have the tight time frame that demanded the submission period be right now. The reason it was changed was because of an amendment moved in the Senate by Senator Minchin and supported in the Senate by Senator Joyce. The only reason that time frame is in existence and the Productivity Commission has no discretion whatsoever on the timing is because of coalition amendments in the Senate that apparently, according to the shadow minister, would have been made by people ‘devoid of any basic agriculture expertise.’ While I will admit that the Liberal Party did play a constructive role generally in dealing with the wheat marketing issue, the Nationals would be better off getting the parents on the sideline to say, ‘No, you are meant to be running that way.’ Instead we have got a party that is still pining for the days when wheat farmers were told who they had to sell to, still pining for the days when there was no such thing as a climate scientist and still pining for the days before Menzies when there was no such thing as the Liberal Party. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 11259 Miscellaneous 11259 15:33:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Members will be aware that the position of Clerk of the House will become vacant at the conclusion of the term of the current clerk, Mr Ian Harris AO, on 4 December 2009. The position was advertised in the national press on 23 May 2009 and a selection process was undertaken with the assistance of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner, Ms Lynelle Briggs. In accordance with my responsibilities under section 58(2) of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Bernard Wright as the Clerk of the House of Representatives, to take effect from 5 December 2009. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Clerk of the House of Representatives is the principal adviser in relation to the proceedings of the parliament and CEO of the Department of the House of Representatives, and plays a crucial role in maintaining Australia’s parliamentary democracy. I think this sentence is now redundant: I trust that all members will welcome Mr Wright’s appointment as custodian of this important role. Finally I would like to thank the Parliamentary Service Commissioner for her professional assistance and valuable advice in the course of this process. 11259 15:34:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —On indulgence, firstly in relation to the contribution to this parliament for over 37 years on the part of Ian Harris AO, can I on behalf of the government, and I believe on behalf of all members present, simply congratulate him on the absolute professionalism of his service. Today is not the day to go through a complete and exhaustive rendition of his career. But can I say that in his discharge of his responsibilities, in my experience as a backbencher, as a shadow minister and as leader of the Government, he has been impeccably professional—always courteous in his dealings with members and always insightful in terms of the advice that we have sought, particularly in terms of the interpretation of the standing orders and Practice and the procedures of this place. Ian, on behalf of all of us here and those who you have had to shepherd from absolute ignorance of the standing orders and procedures to partial familiarity, which I believe is the highest station any of us can aspire to in this place, I say thank you, and I say thank you sincerely on behalf of all government members. Following that, to Bernard Wright, can I just say that we are delighted by the decision concerning your appointment. Equally, in my experience you have served members of both sides of this chamber professionally and well over many years and, again, with a spirit of absolute courtesy and consistency. We wish you well in your future appointment and I believe this reflects well on the institution of the Australian parliament. 11259 15:36:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —On indulgence, can I second the remarks of the Prime Minister and, on behalf of the opposition, thank Ian Harris for his 37 years of service. Ian, you have enlightened all of us through our many encounters and questions to you. You have left none of us any wiser but always much better informed. We are very grateful for that. Your service has been extraordinary and this place—the most important meeting place of the Australian people, where the laws and the government of this nation are decided—could not operate without your commitment, your professionalism and your integrity. We are forever indebted and the nation is forever indebted to you for your service. You have, of course, been served by an outstanding deputy in Bernard Wright. Bernard’s service has also been outstanding. He has had a great mentor in you. Bernard, we are all delighted that you are stepping up to fill Ian’s shoes. You have been a wonderful team together and we know that his spirit and his values will guide you in the many years that you will be our Clerk. We congratulate you from our side of the House, and every member congratulates you on your appointment and thanks you for your service. 11260 15:37:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —On indulgence, I briefly want to put on record, as Leader of the House, my appreciation for the work that Ian has done over 37 years. He joined the parliamentary staff back in 1972. He served as Deputy Clerk from 1991 and has been Clerk of the House of Representatives since 27 July 1997. In all that time there would not be a member who has served in this House, and there have been many—many would wish that they had your longevity as members of this House—who would not have had contact with you and would not have respected your professionalism and the way in which you have conducted yourself, giving impartial advice and helping essentially to make this House run in the professional way in which it does. I pay tribute to you. I indicate to members that I have had a discussion with the Manager of Opposition Business and there will be a longer farewell for you, Ian, which you will have to sit through as the Clerk. That is a tribute to you, but it is not something that you would ask for because you have been very humble in the way that you have undertaken your duties. To Bernard Wright, I am very pleased in the wisdom of your elevation to Clerk. You have served the parliament with a great deal of distinction already. Now that you have risen to this senior position in the parliament it really is a great honour to you. I look forward to continuing to work with you in a constructive fashion. 11260 15:40:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Manager of Opposition Business 0 0 Mr PYNE —On indulgence, I will be very brief. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House. I think that everybody in this place knows—and I think the public have a sneaking suspicion—that without the clerks of the House, the MPs and, dare I say it, speakers, deputy speakers and ministers, would not have any ability to convey that we know what we are doing without the advice that comes from the clerks every day. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I am sure I am speaking for you particularly, Lindsay! Without the clerks and without the deputy clerks we would be much the poorer in this place. They basically keep the show on the road. Many times we have all been in here scratching around for bits of paper to find what our instructions are, and the clerks are always able to provide us with that advice. I thank Ian Harris for the amazing service that he has given. I came here in 1993 at the tender age of 25 and I have asked him for advice on many occasions. I congratulate Bernard Wright, who I have worked with very closely, particularly as Manager of Opposition Business, for the extraordinarily good advice he gives us in opposition and I know that in taking the full role of Clerk he will continue the amazing service he has given to the parliament, the greatest institution in the land. 11261 15:41:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —On indulgence, on behalf of the Independents I would like to associate them with the remarks that have been made in relation to Ian Harris. Ian, you have done an outstanding job. I think it is a reflection on how good a job you have done that they are going to replace you with your 2IC. I think that is a real reflection of the professional way in which you have conducted yourself. I am personally delighted that Bernard will be replacing you. I think he is an outstanding man. I would like to associate those remarks with the Independents and, also, the late Peter Andren, who had a long association with both of you. I am sure he would be very pleased to see the way in which Bernard has ascended to the top job. 11261 15:42:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —On indulgence, I join in the remarks of others to personally compliment Ian on his long service as Clerk of the House of Representatives. Fairly early in my parliamentary career I had the opportunity to travel overseas on a delegation with Ian and I got to know him very well, to like him personally and certainly to appreciate his great skills and the respect with which he is held around the world. It has been something of a tradition in this parliament for the Deputy Clerk to succeed the Clerk. Bernard, I congratulate you wholeheartedly on continuing that tradition. It is not just a tradition; it is a well earned privilege. The reality is that there are few people, I think, who could come from outside into this parliament and do the kind of job that is expected of the Clerk. In reality it takes years of experience to have gone through the various elements and challenges that have to be addressed each day. I think there is therefore no other school anywhere that can equip somebody adequately to be the Clerk, other than to serve on the Clerk’s staff, particularly as Deputy Clerk. So, congratulations to you, Bernard. We wish you a very successful career in this position. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I call the ‘father of the House’, the member for Berowra. 11261 15:43:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP 0 0 Mr RUDDOCK —On indulgence, my period in the House is I think six months shorter than that of the Clerk—I was not going to equate it with his. In that time I have had the opportunity to observe the professionalism of both the Clerk and his Deputy. One of the things that have not been observed by those taking part in this debate is the particular skill that the clerks bring to assisting with amendments to complex legislation. This is a role normally fulfilled by parliamentary counsel, yet the people who are working here for us, who are familiar with the processes of the parliament, have to be across the detail of legislation for which others specialise in order to be able to offer that skill and assistance. It is a special and unique task that they undertake. The work that they have done in supporting our relevant associations and the way in which they assist parliamentarians across the political divide is something for which we need to be particularly grateful and I wanted to take this opportunity to extend my personal thanks as well. 11261 15:45:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —On indulgence, as a former Leader of the House I obviously echo and endorse the remarks made by others. Yes, Ian Harris is an extraordinarily professional person but the roots of that professionalism, if I may say so, lie in a great love of this parliament—an extraordinary love for this parliament. I suggest that perhaps there is no-one in this House who loves the institution of this parliament greater than our Clerk. I think we should acknowledge and nurture the love of the parliament which Ian Harris has displayed throughout his long career. I also say that I think it is a worthy tradition that this position has invariably been filled by internal promotion. Love of this parliament is necessary for the clerkship to be well discharged. Love of this parliament is helped by familiarity with it—notwithstanding from time to time the delinquencies of its members. Nevertheless, I think it is a very worthy tradition that the clerkship of the House is filled by internal promotion and I would not like this to change. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank members for their comments about both the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk. 11262 Miscellaneous 11262 15:46:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —On indulgence, the generosity from community to community continues in our fire situation. The generous people of Cranbourne in Victoria, through the auspices of the Settlement Hotel’s owners, Mary and John Finning, have donated $3,000 each to the Labertouche and the Jindivick schools for fire rehabilitation projects at those two places. This is only a recent development. I draw it to the attention of the chair because of the continuing support for fire victims right across Australia. I notice Kim Wilkie, who has been a great support to Marysville, sitting up there and I acknowledge his presence. This generosity continues day after day after day. 11262 Documents Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth —Minister for Foreign Affairs) 15:47:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Australian Electoral Commission—Report for 2008-09. Australian Law Reform Commission—Report No. 110—Report for 2008-09. Commissioner of Taxation—Report for 2008-09. Department of Climate Change—Report for 2008-09. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Reports for 2008-09— Volume 1—Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Volume 2—Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—Report for 2008-09. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Report for 2008-09. Medicare Australia—Report for 2008-09. Veterans’ Review Board—Report for 2008-09. Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned. 11262 Business 11262 Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth —Minister for Foreign Affairs) 15:49:00 —by leave—I move: That business intervening before Notice No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 1 Parliamentary Zone 1 11262 15:49:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 12 August 2009, namely: additional security cameras in the Parliamentary precinct. This motion is seeking approval of the parliament to install an additional 31 external CCTV cameras in the parliamentary precincts. In 2007, security consultants conducted a comprehensive review of security arrangements in the parliamentary precincts. The final report recommended that additional cameras be installed in some locations. I am advised that design integrity issues have been considered as part of the project and the proposed instalment. Under section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Presiding Officers are responsible for works within the parliamentary precincts and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local government is responsible for other works in the Parliamentary Zone. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, this motion is moved on your behalf and on behalf of the President. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. 11263 Matters of Public Importance 11263 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The chaos caused by the failure of the Government’s border protection policies. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 11263 15:51:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —Today, and for the past 10 days, our nation has been watching the distressing, disturbing outcome of a colossal policy failure by the Rudd government. It is a fundamental responsibility of any government to secure and protect Australia’s borders and in particular to eliminate entirely, as far as possible, people-smuggling and the unauthorised maritime arrivals of their asylum-seeking passengers. Another fundamental responsibility is to honour fully our international obligations and our long and distinguished traditions as a nation generous to those who seek refuge from war and persecution. Achieving these two objectives simultaneously is a critical test for any government. This government is failing that test abysmally. Its border protection policies have descended into chaos. Today, 78 asylum seekers sit aboard an Australian Customs vessel, the Oceanic Viking, in waters off the Indonesian island of Bintan, their fate uncertain. This sorry saga is emblematic of a policy debacle for which the Prime Minister and this government are refusing to accept responsibility. Not one question about the Oceanic Viking has been answered other than with a contemptuous, savage and sneering attack on the opposition. The truth is that this debacle is a disaster entirely of the government’s own making. Against the advice of the Australian Federal Police, against the advice of the opposition, against warnings from the Indonesian Police and the International Organisation for Migration about the consequences of changes to Australia’s immigration rules, this government chose deliberately to unpick the fabric of the coalition’s strong border protection policy—a policy that had worked. The outcome is now there for all to see. Labor’s policies have undermined the strength and integrity of our border protection. They have had the effect of outsourcing Australia’s generous refugee program to people smugglers. They have placed unacceptable stresses on our Navy personnel and Customs officers as they attempt to do their job and stop this illegal trade. They have had the effect of relegating further back in the queue thousands of deserving people waiting to have their claims for asylum processed in the normal, legal and appropriate way. Labor’s policies are imposing intense pressures on our friends in Indonesia, concerned that they have come to be seen in the words of the provincial governor Abdullah as ‘a dumping ground for asylum seekers’. How did it all come to this? From June through to August last year this government chose deliberately and with much fanfare to adopt a new policy approach—a softly, softly approach to Australia’s border protection regime. This had the effect of unwinding a cluster of policy measures put in place over many years by the previous government to stem the flow of unauthorised arrivals to Australia. These policies had been controversial; they had been, from time to time, amended and refined—but they had also been effective. But Labor decided the time had come to put its own stamp on immigration policy. The policy changes included the abolition of temporary protection visas, the relaxation of immigration detention policy, the abolition of detention debt, the abolition of the 45-day rule, and the relaxation of the citizenship test. The government said this would make Australia’s treatment of refugees more humane and more generous. But they also said that none of these changes would have any effect or impact whatsoever on the flow of asylum seekers. Indeed, they said they could abolish the Howard government’s policies but maintain the Howard government’s record of no boats. In short, the government believed it could have its cake and eat it too. Instead, the clear message sent out to the world was that the border protection policies of the Howard era had been weakened. That message—that perception—was heard loud and clear, mostly by the racketeers and criminals who make huge profits by encouraging vulnerable people to take to the oceans in unseaworthy vessels in the hope of being rescued and then taken to Australia. We in the opposition were warning the government a year ago that they risked reaping a bitter harvest with these reckless and ill-considered changes to our border protection policies. On 17 November last year, the member for Murray, as shadow minister for immigration, issued a media statement on the interception of a fifth boat since Labor’s policy changes, warning: … the people smugglers are back in business taking advantage of those with the cash and the contacts, who are willing to risk all in a sea dash to the nearest landing place in Australia. On 1 December in this House she asked the following question to the Prime Minister: I refer the Prime Minister to the recent surge in the number of boat people attempting to reach Australia and the statement by the chief of mission in Indonesia of the International Organisation for Migration, Mr Steve Cook: ‘People smugglers have clearly noted that there has been a change in policy and they’re testing the envelope.’ The member for Murray then asked the Prime Minister: … isn’t the government giving a green light to people smugglers? This, I remind the House, was 1 December last year. The opposition’s questions at the time cited not only the concerns of the International Organisation for Migration but also the warning from Mr Paulus Purwoko, the deputy chief of criminal investigation for the Indonesian National Police. In November Mr Purwoko said attempted boat crossings to Australia were increasing significantly, causing Indonesia grave concern. These were genuine concerns raised by serious people focussed on the task at hand. So how did the government respond? Consistent with his demeanour throughout this spectacular policy failure, the Prime Minister treated all warnings contemptuously. Rather than addressing seriously and earnestly the policy issues raised by the opposition, he resorted, as he has done every day this week and last week, to mockery and scorn, seeking to ridicule all who dared to hold him to account for his policy failings. He responded to the member for Murray as follows: In 2008 there have been four boats with 48 passengers. In 2007 there were five boats with 148 passengers. If this year we have had a surge, that was a deluge. Does anyone in the House need reminding of what has happened since the Prime Minister responded so dismissively to the questions we asked of him around this same time last year? Since 1 December, 41 boats have arrived carrying 2,012 people. As I said earlier, that makes a grand total of 45 unauthorised boat arrivals since Labor changed Australia’s border protection policies with well over 2,000 asylum seekers having reached our shores. A deluge indeed, in the words of the Prime Minister himself. Looking back on those remarks by the Prime Minister almost a year ago, we are reminded of the notorious one-liner delivered by the former British Labour Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, back in 1979. Flying back from a trip to the Caribbean, he returned to a nation reeling from strike action across all the major industries during Britain’s so-called ‘winter of discontent’. Asked at the airport what he intended to do to end the crisis, Mr Callaghan answered, ‘Crisis? What crisis?’ The British never forgave Jim Callaghan the smug complacency evident in that one remark. Today this Prime Minister should be taking heed of that lesson. He must abandon immediately his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the failings of policy that have led to this sorry state of affairs. The Prime Minister has insisted throughout that the policy changes he effected will have no impact on the number of unauthorised arrivals—no impact whatsoever. Pull factors are irrelevant, according to the Prime Minister. He asks us to believe it is just a complete coincidence that within months of the policies introduced by him the trickle of asylum seekers became a steady stream and now, in his own words, ‘a deluge’. The numbers speak for themselves. Yet the Prime Minster remains in denial. His government remains in denial. Rather than confront his own failings, the Prime Minister seeks refuge in misrepresentation and spin. He would much rather hold the opposition to account for the government’s failings, and his appetite for moral posturing knows no bounds. He says he will not accept criticism or scrutiny from those who put children behind bars. What the Prime Minister never acknowledges is that it was the Keating Labor government that introduced mandatory detention for unlawful asylum seekers, including women and children, in 1992. In this selective airbrushing of history, he also fails to acknowledge it was the Howard government in 2005 that amended the laws to provide for families and children to be removed from detention. I remind the Prime Minister of this as Australians watch the television footage of the conditions at the Tanjung Pinang detention centre on Bintan Island. I remind him of this as Australians see on their televisions the images of the razor wire. I remind him of this as we ponder the fate of those aboard the Oceanic Viking, five children and an elderly woman among them. I remind him of who is ultimately responsible for this outcome. Those 78 asylum seekers have been on that vessel for 10 days. This is a debacle. More than that, it is a disgrace. Yet now all of a sudden the Prime Minister’s memory fails him. All of a sudden he does not remember the detail of the negotiations about how and why that vessel sailed for Indonesia, why it could not dock at the port of Merak, who decided it should be redirected to Bintan Island, and who decided that those 78 passengers should be transferred to the Tanjung Pinang detention centre. He does not know, as we have seen in the House today, how many people there are actually on the boat. He was not able to find out in the course of question time how many Customs officials and sailors are on the boat. He does not know that. He is not interested. He professes no interest or concern whatsoever in the welfare of the Customs officials, the crew or the asylum seekers. When given the opportunity to do so, he declined to answer the question. Further to that, it has become quite apparent in his numerous nonanswers to our many questions about this that, as far we can see, the only involvement he has had himself as Prime Minster in this whole sorry affair that has captured the attention and concern of the entire nation is one conversation with the President of Indonesia. Beyond that he professes to have had no involvement at all and is unable to recall or account for the Australian officials and departments that are involved. This is just appalling obfuscation by the Prime Minster, the most notorious control freak we have seen in that office. The idea that he has no involvement with this other than a discussion with the Indonesian President is absurd. He is simply seeking to wash his hands of all responsibility for a fiasco entirely of his own making. It is time for the Prime Minister to face up to the facts. He cannot escape responsibility for the people aboard that Customs vessel. He cannot refuse to answer for how his policies have led to this outcome. He says his policies are tough and humane. ‘Tough but humane’ is just another one of the phoney formulas dreamed up by the Winston Smith wannabes in his office to create an impression that the government’s border protection policies are something that they are not. In fact, this government’s policies are neither tough nor humane. They are dysfunctional. They do not work. They fail to achieve the object of the policy, which is to stop the people-smuggling. They have failed and they will continue to fail. Australians know that because they see with their own eyes how these policies are unravelling as each and every day passes. Yet the Prime Minster arrogantly believes that, if he refuses to listen to this chorus of dissent, the issue will somehow go away, that Indonesia will solve the problem for him, that someone somewhere will take responsibility for him and that he will not have to take responsibility for his own actions. Australians want to see these issues addressed honestly and competently. They want this tragic farce to end. They do not want our generous humanitarian immigration program outsourced to criminal syndicates running people-smuggling rackets, and they do not want to see a Prime Minister seeking to evade any scrutiny over the Oceanic Viking debacle by attaching a confidentiality clause to his own role in the negotiations. They want to see this government, this Prime Minster, recognise the error of his ways and for once take the action needed to make our borders once again strong and secure. 11266 16:05:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —As the Australian public well knows, boats carrying asylum seekers have been coming to Australia for many years—for 20 to 30 years, in my own memory. Of course the first ones that I personally remember are those that came in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. This was an issue that the Fraser government and subsequently the Hawke government had to deal with. So boats have been coming to Australia for many years, and governments of both political persuasions have had to deal with these issues. What do we see now? We see now very considerable numbers of displaced persons coming to our region as a result of military or civil conflict. We have seen in recent times, in the most recent period, people come to Australia or seek to come to Australia from Iraq; Iran; more recently, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area; and, most recently, Sri Lanka as a result of the military and civil conflict there, the civil war there. These are described quite sensibly as push factors, factors that drive people away from their homes, factors that we now see cause 40 million people in the world to be displaced and about a third of those potentially in or coming to our region. So, how do we as a government grapple with those issues? The first thing the government did was to enhance our border protection and Customs protection arrangements. In the last budget, for example, over $450 million was expended to increase our maritime surveillance and to increase our aerial surveillance. This is a very important policy to effect because, as a maritime country and continent, we need to ensure that we protect our borders as much as we can. So we added to the border protection, the border security and the Customs protection and security arrangements effected by our predecessors. We added to those quite substantially. We have seen that with the additional maritime aerial surveillance activities. The second thing that we did, which was very important, was to understand that, fundamentally, if you want to deal with this issue you can only deal with this issue appropriately and effectively by acting in conjunction with your neighbours—by acting in our region, with our friends and partners in the region. The government reinstituted the Bali process, which is the regional institution effected in the early 2000s to be the regional institution which deals with people-smuggling, people movement and human-trafficking issues. The former Indonesian foreign minister, Hassan Wirajuda, and I convened the first ministerial-level meeting of the Bali process in three or four years. We did that in the course of this year. That was well attended and well supported in our region because it was not just Australia who had a difficulty or a problem with, for example, asylum seekers coming from Afghanistan or from the Afghanistan-Pakistan area. Indonesia had difficulties caused by the movement of Rohingya people from Myanmar, or Burma, or from Bangladesh. There are different problems created for different countries. The only way we can deal with this is by the so-called transit countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, to a lesser extent Singapore and to some extent Thailand, and the source countries, including now Sri Lanka, acting together. Only then can we seek to manage this issue and this problem. The third thing that the government did was to say to our good friend and neighbour Indonesia that we need to enhance what we have been doing. There has been very good cooperation between Australia and Indonesia on this issue, not just in the course of this government’s time in office but in the course of our predecessor’s time in office. That assistance has included not just assistance to Indonesia—information sharing, intelligence sharing; assistance on detention facilities; assistance on processing, on settlement and on resettlement; and assistance to the two relevant international institutions, the International Organisation for Migration and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That has been ongoing in Indonesia for a number of years, supported by governments of both political persuasions. But we said to Indonesia: given the increased difficulties that we face, given the heightened challenge that we face, in particular most recently from the aftermath of the civil conflict in Sri Lanka, we need to heighten our cooperation. In that respect you have seen not just me having discussions with my counterpart, and officials from a range of agencies having discussions with their counterparts, but the Prime Minister and President Yudhoyono having conversations to agree to enhance our cooperation. We are very hopeful that officials will be in a position to report progress to the Prime Minister and to the President of those enhanced and heightened cooperation arrangements at the APEC meeting in Singapore in the middle of November. When it comes to our relationship with Indonesia this is done not just under the structure of the Bali process but also, importantly, between Australia and Indonesia, as part of the Lombok treaty brought into effect by Hassan Wirajuda and me when we signed it in Perth in February 2008. When it came to office the government also had a very strong view that it was possible to do these things so far as border protection was concerned but at the same time to deal with people who came to Australia’s territories and claimed asylum in a dignified and civilised manner—to treat those people in a way which, without equivocation, discharged our international legal and humanitarian obligations consistent with the refugee convention. That could be done in a civilised and dignified way and we did not have to go through the dark period that we went through in the course of the Howard government’s time in office, when our international reputation was shredded, when the community was divided and when a very dark period in our history left a stain on the reputation of Australia internationally. As a consequence of that we said that temporary protection visas should be abolished; the so-called Pacific island solution, which saw processing not take place either in a source, transit or receiving country but in Manus Island in Papua New Guinea or Nauru, countries that have no direct relationship with this difficulty or this problem, abolished; and the removal of women and children from behind razor wire. We made those changes because we believed those changes reflected a view that you could be tough, and have a system of border integrity and security, and at the same time discharge a humanitarian and an international legal obligation. We do not believe that those three major changes are the driving force behind what we now see. The clear driving force behind what we now see are the push factors that I have described. I note the thesis of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for immigration that the cause, the sum total and entire cause of the difficulties we now face is the changes that we made. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —That’s right. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —The shadow minister for immigration says, ‘That’s right.’ I ask the shadow minister for immigration, I ask the shadow minister for foreign affairs, and I have twice in this House asked the Leader of the Opposition: if it is your view—to which the shadow minister for immigration says ‘yes, that’s right’—that the sum total of the causes for this matter are the changes that the government made when it came to office, then tell us which ones you will reintroduce. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone interjecting— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! If the member for Murray wants to get her turn she will— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Deputy Leader of the Opposition! 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I noticed this morning at the doors, when the Leader of the Opposition walked out to speak to the media, he said—and I quote from the transcript headed: ‘Malcolm Turnbull: Transcript, Parliament House Canberra 28 October’: … it is Kevin Rudd’s doing, every bit of it. He unpicked the border protection policies of the previous government … The journalist then went on to ask him a couple of questions, and I will refer to a couple in passing. A journalist asked: Mr Turnbull who should take the asylum seekers, Indonesia or Australia, on board Viking? Malcolm Turnbull said: This is the question you should ask Mr Rudd. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Exactly. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —You are in government. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Murray are warned! 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —A journalist asked: Does Indonesia need more money do you think? Malcolm Turnbull said: Well you’d have to ask Mr Rudd that or the Indonesians that. Then a journalist asked the question about the changes that Mr Turnbull has referred to. They said: … you don’t want to bring back a Pacific Solution. So where exactly do you stand on this? Malcolm Turnbull said: Well where we stand is to hold the Government to account. In other words, the Liberal Party say on the one hand that the entire cause of this difficulty are the three changes that the government made when it came to office, which were taking women and children from behind razor wire in detention centres like Baxter, abolishing the system of temporary protection visas and abolishing the Pacific island solution. You say that the abolition of those three things are the sum total— EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —That’s right. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —of all our problems—and you said that that is right—but you will not say whether if you were elected to office you will reintroduce them. A lot was said by the Leader of the Opposition today in question time about the 78 asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. Let us be absolutely crystal clear about three issues that are currently before the Australian public. The first is that a boatload of over 250 Sri Lankans were intercepted by Indonesian authorities within Indonesian waters and taken to the port of Merak. There have been over 80 interceptions and interdictions by Indonesian authorities within their territory over the last three to four years. This one was very significant because it was the first occasion in which an interdiction in Indonesian waters was made by Indonesian naval authorities. We welcome that very much. We have heard the Indonesian authorities say that they will wait until the asylum seekers on that boat want to get off. Then they will be processed in accordance with the UNHCR procedures in Indonesia—bearing in mind that there is of course an immigration directive in Indonesia from 2002 which says that anyone claiming asylum in Indonesia will be treated in accordance with UNHCR procedures. That is one issue before the public eye. And we welcome very much that interdiction. I have seen very many criticisms by the opposition of Indonesia and what is occurring, and I certainly hope that they are not criticising that. The second issue is the Oceanic Viking. Let us very clearly understand what the Oceanic Viking situation is all about and what the opposition have said about that matter. Australia authorities received a request from Indonesian search and rescue authorities to render assistance in Indonesia’s search and rescue area. We did two things. There was a check made of whether any commercial ships were in the vicinity to see whether they could render assistance. There were not. So HMAS Armidale came to the ship’s assistance to discharge our humanitarian and our safety at sea obligations. When that was done, we knew only too well that there would necessarily be immigration, refugee and humanitarian consequences flowing as a result of that. The view which we put to Indonesia was: ‘We have picked these people up at your request in your search and rescue area. We believe that they should go to Indonesia.’ The Indonesian President said: ‘Yes, I agree with that. They should come to Indonesia.’ That is in the process of being effected. Indonesia said, ‘Yes, they can come to Indonesia.’ It is now a matter of discussion between Indonesian officials and Australian officials on board the Oceanic Viking as to how that embarkation will be effected. What I find very unclear is whether the opposition, firstly, believed that the refugees in the boat should have been picked up. There have been questions in this House which go to whether the boat was in distress because it had been disabled by those people on board. We have questions today about whether it was within the capacity of the Oceanic Viking and, I assume, HMAS Armidale to pick people up because there might have been a numerical difficulty. Secondly, the opposition have been very unclear as to where they believed the Oceanic Viking should go. Our view was that it should go to Indonesia; that was the Indonesian President’s view. The shadow minister for immigration, on 20 October, was asked, ‘What should they do with these people who are on this ship?’ The response was, ‘You should ask the federal government about that.’ A question from a journalist was, ‘What do you think?’ After about half a page of transcript, the answer was, ‘These people should be taken to Indonesia.’ The shadow minister for foreign affairs, Ms Bishop, was on News Radio on 21 October and said ‘we welcome the decision of Indonesia to take the 78 people’. But I was confused by her on 25 October when in a doorstop interview a journalist asked: ‘Should that boat continue on to Indonesia, then? What does the coalition think should happen to the boat? Should they come to Australia?’ Ms Bishop said, ‘The coalition is not in government.’ Malcolm Turnbull on the doors today was asked, ‘Mr Turnbull, who should take the asylum seekers, Indonesia or Australia, on board the Viking.’ Mr Turnbull said, ‘This is a question that you should ask Mr Rudd.’ Maybe they are all taking the advice of the former minister for immigration, Mr Ruddock. He was asked on 28 October whether Indonesia or Australia should take the Oceanic Viking passengers. He said, ‘I’m not going into micromanagement.’ On 23 October on Sky News he was asked the same question and Mr Ruddock said, ‘I’ve advised all my colleagues that that is the question that they shouldn’t answer.’ We have the Liberal Party opposition in here giving lectures to the Australian parliament and the Australian people about how to deal with asylum seekers. They have a hide. They have a hide to come into this House and seek to give lectures about how people should be treated and then say—on their own admission today—that all of these ills have been caused by the government making three changes, including abolishing temporary protection visas and taking women and children out from razor wire, while not saying that they will reintroduce them. (Time expired) 11270 16:21:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —The Prime Minister has lost control of Australia’s border protection system. He refuses to take responsibility for the chaos that he has caused. If we needed any further evidence that the government’s border protection policy is in chaos, just look at what has happened over the last 10 days. An Australian Customs vessel has on board 78 asylum seekers. According to the Prime Minister, he made a deal with the President of Indonesia for those asylum seekers to be taken onshore in Indonesia. Ten days later, the Australian Customs vessel is still at sea, the 78 asylum seekers are still on board and there is no solution in sight. There is no leadership and no responsibility. Take question time over the last couple of days. The Prime Minister has refused to state the terms of the arrangements he made with the Indonesian President to take the 78 asylum seekers on board. He could not state when he knew that those arrangements would change because the Indonesians would not allow the boat to dock in Merak. He could not state what arrangements are currently in place for the 78 asylum seekers aboard the Oceanic Viking even though his foreign minister has been out every day saying it is about to dock, and that does not materialise. The Prime Minister has been unable to state what arrangements are occurring now for the 78 asylum seekers on board an Australian government vessel. The Prime Minister could not state how many people are on board the vessel. He could not give any details as to the current health and welfare of the Australian crew, the Customs officers or the 78 asylum seekers. Ten days ago he said it was a humanitarian crisis because there was a sick child on board. Ten days later he cannot tell the Australian people about the current health and wellbeing of any of the people on board the Oceanic Viking. As the Australian Customs vessel spends its 10th day, heading into its 11th day, at sea, as another boat carrying 255 asylum seekers that was on its way to Australia sits in the port of Merak, after a boat arrived undetected earlier this year at Christmas Island and after another boat made its way halfway down the Western Australian coast earlier this year before being detected, and as now 45 boats have made the treacherous journey to Australia before being intercepted or brought to Christmas Island, the Australian people are entitled to ask, ‘Who is now in control of Australia’s border protection policy?’ It is certainly not the Prime Minister of this country. Is it the people smugglers? Is it the Indonesian President? Is it the regional governors of Indonesia? Who is in charge of this border protection policy? The Prime Minister knows that his shambolic, chaotic handling of the border protection policy is starting to affect his image of all control. The controlling Prime Minister is now out of control. And because the Prime Minister steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the softening of Australia’s border protection laws in August 2008 has made Australia a target for people smugglers, the border protection policy will continue to fail. Until he acknowledges that he made a mistake and seeks to rectify it, this border protection policy will continue to be in chaos. To refuse to accept the link between the softening of the border protection laws and the massive surge in people smuggling just defies belief. In 14 months, 45 boats have been intercepted or have arrived on Christmas Island. The numbers are self-evident. But there is also evidence out of the mouths of the people smugglers themselves, who have told journalists who have interviewed them that the changes in the laws have encouraged them to take more clients on board to make the treacherous journey to Australia. The asylum seekers themselves have said that the changes in the government’s policies have encouraged them to take that journey. The sheer numbers equate to a colossal policy failure based on the standards the Labor Party, when in opposition, set for the Howard government—their own standards that they set for the Howard government but have refused to meet themselves. Between 2002 and 2008, when the Howard government’s border protection policy laws were in place, there was an average of three boats a year. But in the period 2002 to 2005 there were three boats in three years. When the first boat arrived in early 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the shadow immigration minister, said ‘Boat proves government has no solutions’. If one boat proves that a government has no solutions, what do 45 boats prove? When the second boat arrived in 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister, then the shadow immigration minister, said, ‘Another boat on the way, another policy failure’. Two boats equate to a policy failure according to the Labor Party when in opposition. Then a third boat arrived 12 months later—three boats in three years. In early 2004 another boat arrived—the third boat. The Foreign Minister, then the shadow minister for immigration, said this was a wake-up call for the Howard government. If three boats in three years is a wake-up call, 45 boats mean that this government is asleep, that this government is in a coma when it comes to the border protection policies of this country. The Prime Minister refuses—incredibly, unbelievably—to acknowledge any pull factors at all as a result of his changes to the border protection policies. And it was not just three changes; this government has made a whole raft of changes over a period of time. But in the face of the evidence from the people smugglers, from the asylum seekers and from the Australian Federal Police report—which the minister at the table obviously still has not read and which warned the government that its changes in border protection policies would attract the people-smuggling trade—in the face of the Indonesian ambassador’s specific warnings that the changes in policies would be used as a marketing tool and in the face of the International Organisation for Migration’s statement that the people smugglers were pushing the envelope as a result of the government’s changes in border protection laws, all the Prime Minister can do is refer to push factors. He says that since 2005 there has been a massive increase in asylum seekers and refugees around the world. If there was a massive increase from 2005, why did the Prime Minister then decide to soften Australia’s border protection laws so that Australia became a soft target for the people-smuggling trade? He says, on his moral high ground, how much he despises this vile people-smuggling trade. So why did he soften the border protection laws so that the people smugglers could be back in business? He had no answer for that today in question time when he was asked why he softened our border protection laws if, on his version of the facts, there has been this massive surge out of Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. As each boat appears on the horizon another crisis is triggered within the Rudd government. The Prime Minister is refusing to take responsibility for the crisis. The incident involving the Oceanic Viking is an appalling case in point. The Prime Minister says that he personally intervened and asked the Indonesian President to accept the 78 asylum seekers on board, and that was over a week ago. Yet he would have the Australian people believe that he has not made one further inquiry and that he had no other involvement in the fate of an Australian government Customs vessel, the crew, the Customs officers and 78 asylum seekers onboard. What deal was actually done with the Indonesian President? What commitment did the Prime Minister give to the Indonesian government? The Prime Minister has made public Indonesia’s commitment to take the 78 asylum seekers, but he has not made public what commitment he gave on behalf of Australia in return. Has the Prime Minister agreed to toughen Australia’s border protection policies to stop the people smugglers targeting Australia? If he admits that that is what he has been asked to do, he has to admit that he has been misleading the Australian public all along about the pull factors resulting from his softening of the border protection laws. When was the Prime Minister informed that the Indonesian President could not deliver on the commitment to take the 78 asylum seekers on board? The Prime Minister is in a state of denial. He has been most evasive, and unconvincing in question time. He says he cannot recall what he was told just last week, or when he was told. We are not talking about events of 12 months or two years ago; we are talking about events of last week—events that are on the front page of our national newspapers, events that are on the nightly news every night, and the Prime Minister wants the Australian people to believe that he cannot recall what was discussed or what was agreed. After 10 days at sea. This Prime Minister has absolved himself of responsibility for the Oceanic Viking and our border protection policies.(Time expired) 11273 16:31:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —Firstly, I want to start by indicating that the government takes this issue very seriously. That is why we have a very balanced approach to people-smuggling: tough on people smugglers, humane on asylum seekers. In relation to the MPI led by the opposition leader today, the chaos to which it refers can only be the chaos that exists within the opposition. There is a variety of positions taken by the members of the opposition in relation to this matter. We are aware that the members for Kooyong, Pearce and McMillan have taken a principled position in relation to a number of issues, and that is why they strongly supported the government’s view on the abolition of the temporary protection visa. We are also aware that the member for Murray originally supported all of the changes that took place as a result of the government’s initiatives in this area, but it seems now she has a different view. The member for Farrer put out a media release on 14 October headed ‘Australia’s borders: Open all hours’ and was forced to retract it. That is the situation that exists in the opposition. Differing positions, putting out policy initiatives, having them forcibly retracted—no doubt by the Leader of the Opposition, who has not one position but a complicated, complex, confused position in relation to this very important area of public policy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has had all sorts of views on this matter. In 2001—the Prime Minister referred to this in question time—she argued strenuously for a solution, an ‘agreement’ as she put it, with Indonesia. She said, ‘It is vital there is an agreement with Indonesia.’ Mr Speaker, that is exactly what the government has been embarking upon: ensuring that we have regional cooperation on these regional and global challenges. This is a very challenging issue, as most respected commentators are well aware, and therefore we have to ensure we take a balanced approach to these issues. It is also important for the opposition to fully comprehend their position when they seek to perpetrate myths that this is about factors to do with domestic policy. There is no doubt every independent commentator in this area understands that, as a result of the conflicts in the region, as a result of the conflicts in Afghanistan, as a result of the civil war that has just ended in Sri Lanka, there has been a significant increase in unlawful maritime arrivals. Those people are seeking a haven not only in Australia but also in other First World countries. The evidence is clear. It is empirical evidence and for the opposition to pretend otherwise suggests they are looking to score political points rather than developing a policy on this area. The evidence is clear by the comments made by the United Nations Secretary-General, when he indicated to the Security Council that 2008 was the most violent year in Afghanistan for many years. The evidence is clear also, as a result of the hundreds of thousands of people displaced in Sri Lanka as a result of the civil war, that there was going to be an increase in the number of people seeking haven. Most of them seek haven in Europe and other parts of the world, but a significant and increasing number have sought asylum in Australia. Those are the primary reasons for the increase in people seeking to enter our waters, seeking to come to our country. There are two other compelling facts that should be underlined to substantiate the view of the government that this is primarily as a result of push factors. One is the change that occurred in 1998. There was a massive increase in unlawful maritime arrivals between 1998 and 1999, but there was no change to domestic policy and no change of government. There were 200 unlawful maritime arrivals in 1998, and they went from 200 to 3,721 in one year without one change to domestic policy in this country. Why was there a twentyfold increase in unlawful maritime arrivals in that year without any changes to domestic policy, without any change of government? Because of the push factors. You can be assured of this: the then government was not arguing that they were pull factors. No change had occurred to domestic policy in that year, yet there was almost a twentyfold increase in unlawful maritime arrivals. The other compelling evidence to demythologise the views of the opposition is the Christmas Island detention centre. The Christmas Island detention centre was commissioned for construction after 2001. It was constructed very recently—as late as 2007, and some would argue that it was not operating until beyond that point. If the opposition had managed, as they now seek to argue, to prevent unlawful maritime arrivals after 2001, why did they spend $405 million to construct a purpose-built detention centre on Christmas Island? They built that detention centre because they knew then what they genuinely know now: from time to time, there are increases in the numbers of people seeking haven as a result of conflicts around the world. People sometimes seek haven in Australia when there are conflicts within our region. That is the compelling evidence. The actions of the previous government underline the assertions of the current government that these are primary factors that are external to conduct by our government or this country. As the foreign minister made clear, upon election we wanted to build upon the previous government’s efforts in maritime and aerial surveillance. For that reason, we have dedicated $654 million to ensuring greater aerial and maritime surveillance of our waters. We are focused on maintaining the integrity of our borders and the integrity of the immigration system, and that is why we have dedicated more resources. We have also dedicated more resources in source and transit countries. More resources are being provided in Indonesia, and we are working very closely with the Indonesian National Police, along with our friends and counterpart agencies in Malaysia, Sri Lanka and other countries within the region, to prevent people being enticed by organised syndicates into endangering their lives by getting on dangerous vessels and undertaking perilous journeys to come to this country. As I said, we have dedicated more resources to working with our counterparts in Indonesia and other countries. That is why we have been successful, as the foreign minister made clear, in disrupting more than 80 ventures on land, and the Indonesian authorities have intercepted a vessel in their own waters. That has sent a very important message to organised syndicates who would seek to rob people of their life savings and entice them to undertake perilous journeys on dangerous and unseaworthy vessels. That is exactly what we should be doing—continuing to work with our friends within the region and doing everything we can to dismantle organised syndicates. As a result of the efforts of the AFP, the Indonesian National Police and others, 53 people have been charged for people-smuggling and 15 prosecutions have occurred in the last year. This is evidence that these efforts are working. But we have to continue to do as much as we possibly can to target organised syndicates, working with the International Organisation for Migration and the UNHCR on a proper process to provide people with a genuine capacity to seek asylum. 11275 16:41:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —We have a most extraordinary situation here, with the Rudd Labor government continuing to refuse to acknowledge the pull factors which have brought on this whole new wave of people-smuggling. In August last year the Rudd Labor government dismantled the coalition’s strategy and destroyed the reputation of Australia as a place of strong and fairly managed immigration policy and border protection. In August 2008 five years of virtually no smuggling activity came to an end, and since then we have seen several thousand people successfully make their way to Christmas Island—and, unfortunately, many others lose their lives in the process. We have had a boat explosion, with Australians as well as asylum seekers having been seriously injured as a result. The 42 asylum seekers who survived have now been released into permanent residency in Australia, although they are still subject to inquiries in relation to the coronial inquest into that explosion. We now have chaos. We have a serious humanitarian crisis when it comes to the two boats from Indonesia we have been talking about. The Prime Minister is paralysed with indecision and bereft of any idea about what to do next. He says he has not been consulted—or he is not asking. How can this Prime Minister, as this issue appears day after day on the front pages of newspapers and as the leading item on television news, seriously expect us to believe that he is not following events all that closely? He tells us about his ‘Indonesian solution’, which he hatched that Sunday, many weeks ago, when he picked up the phone to the President of Indonesia. He had a crisis. His crisis was too many people on Christmas Island. He had brought in the portables and put bunks in the recreation area. He needed a quick fix. We are told he asked the president if he would kindly intercept the boat of 255 Sri Lankans, divert it to a port in Indonesia and lock up Australia’s problem in detention centres in Indonesia—and that might be the end of that. Of course, as we know through Alex, the spokesman on that vessel, the government has no solution. The asylum seekers say they are going to be on that boat until Mr Rudd delivers them to Christmas Island. What is Mr Rudd, as Prime Minister of this country, going to do? We have no idea—nor, it seems, does he. Then we have the boat that we are told was going down and called out a distress signal about 10 days ago. Yes, they were in distress. It would seem the crew had left the boat and taken the steering gear with them. That was serious. And there may have been a sick child on board—we would not doubt that. So the Australians conveniently helped the Indonesians, of course, in their safety and rescue zone. Their boat was left and some 78 Sri Lankans were put on board the Oceanic Viking. Presumably the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration breathed a sigh of relief and thought, ‘That is okay. These 78 will be quickly landed in Indonesia and put into detention there for an indefinite period of time, until the UNHCR might get around to processing them. But that is another problem off our hands.’ Unfortunately, as we know, the 78 Sri Lankans are still on board the Oceanic Viking. It seems that the great Indonesian solution did not include the governors of the various islands who happen to be hosts to detention centres away from Java. So we have this extraordinary problem. It is not just on these boats in Indonesia that we have this problem with women and children. The Australian Human Rights Commission has said that the Labor government is also transgressing mightily in its attention to the needs of children in the Christmas Island facilities. We have there a significant number, over 80 children, who are being kept in areas like a construction camp. The Australian Human Rights Commission says that is not good enough. Since 2005 the coalition has said this should not happen, and we made sure children were not kept in detention centres. But this Labor government hosts these poor little children—more than 80 of them—in a construction camp on Christmas Island. This is a disgrace. (Time expired) 11276 16:46:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I welcome this matter of public importance because this is a debate that needs to take place, but it needs to take place in an honest and constructive way. It is a debate that all Australians should be engaged in because we are debating a matter which affects the lives of real people—real children, real mothers and fathers. These are real people who find themselves in traumatic and vulnerable circumstances. They are real people whom people smugglers are exploiting and whose lives are being placed at risk. We are confronted with a complex worldwide problem and one that is deserving of bipartisan support as we work through it—a problem where, according to the UNHCR, at the end of 2008 there were 42 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, including 15.2 million refugees. We are confronted with a global problem that will not be resolved by rhetoric and political point-scoring but by considered and measured strategies that produce the best long-term outcomes for refugees and for the countries that asylum seekers want to settle in. Those strategies will best be achieved by cooperative arrangements with the international community and, particularly for Australia, by cooperative arrangements with our regional neighbours. In recent times the situation in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka has resulted in an escalation in the number of people who have been displaced from their homes—people whose lives are at risk, who are living in atrocious conditions and who are desperately wanting to find a new home. Attempts by the coalition to ignore this reality are politically motivated. The increase in unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia in recent times is consistent with increases in asylum seeker numbers being seen around the world. We require a global response to refugee matters that is humanitarian and that is consistent with UNHCR principles, in conjunction with international counter-people-smuggling strategies; a global response that ought to attempt to stabilise and secure those countries from where people are fleeing. These are the long-term objectives towards which we should all be working and the objectives I believe that are underpinning the government’s response. Since World War II, three-quarters of a million refugees have settled in Australia; 150,000 of them arrived during the Howard government year and nearly 15,000 of those arrived as boat people. It was not the Howard government’s Pacific solution that resulted in a decrease in refugees and unauthorised boat arrivals but a decrease in refugees leaving Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka after 2001. In fact, between 2001 and 2003 numbers dropped significantly. Between 2005 and 2008 the number of refugees leaving those countries, from which most refugees are coming, rose once again. These are the facts—not the rhetoric. That is why in the budget the government allocated an additional $654 million to combat people smuggling. That is why the government recently increased its core funding to the UNHCR by $4.4 million, to $14.3 million, and provided another $2 million for the UNHCR’s protection, assessment and outreach program in Indonesia. This is in addition to another $5 million that was provided to the International Organisation for Migration for its Indonesian activities. I listened to the debate and the contributions from members opposite. What struck me was that on one hand they would have you believe that they are the party of compassion and fairness but that on the other hand they are the party that had the tough policies that stopped people coming to this country as refugees. At the same time the Leader of the Opposition asserted that it was the Howard government’s soft policies in 2005 that took children and women away from the detention facilities and away from detention. 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired. 11277 Bills S737 11277 Bill received from the Senate and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 11277 Bills R4201 11277 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 11277 Mr BOWEN (Prospect —Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services) 16:52:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 11277 Bills R4203 11277 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 11277 Mr BOWEN (Prospect —Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services) 16:53:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 11278 Bills R4221 Cognate bills: 11278 Bills R4215 11278 Bills R4213 11278 Bills R4218 11278 Bills R4219 11278 Bills R4216 11278 Bills R4222 11278 Bills R4220 11278 Bills R4217 11278 Bills R4214 11278 Bills R4223 11278 Debate resumed. 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Wentworth has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 11278 16:54:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the related bills before the House. I support this bill, having followed the member for Canning in his contribution to this debate. It was interesting listening to the member for Canning’s contribution because it was a reflection of where the opposition is in relation to climate change. He started by questioning the timing and so forth and then he made the incredible leap that what was required was a global solution. I am not quite sure how that is inconsistent with the legislation before the House at the moment, but he concluded that we need a global solution. After reaching that conclusion, he said, ‘We don’t need to do anything else until there is a global solution that we can join.’ That was the logic that the member for Canning brought to this debate. But it got worse. He then went on to say that ratifying the Kyoto protocol was a mistake—it was wrong. One has to ask: how, when you are arguing for a global solution, you can on the one hand say, ‘That’s what we require and we won’t do anything until that happens,’ and on the other hand say that, where there is an international treaty opportunity, namely Kyoto, it is a mistake to ratify it? It clearly shows the schizophrenic nature of the opposition. The member for Canning was able to illuminate us in terms of all those multiple personalities in one speech, which is quite an achievement. The time for action is now. It is not a time to put up another excuse as to why we cannot act against climate change. It is not a time to say that things are too difficult; we need to move ahead and make sure that Australia plays a role in dealing with climate change. We need to do it for future generations, we need to do it for our children, we need to do it for our communities. I have only just come from the Main Committee, where I was speaking on the very timely bipartisan report of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts entitled Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate. When one reads the recommendations of the report, one asks where the opposition’s commitment to tackling climate change has gone. One of the key recommendations, recommendation 2, is: The Committee notes the importance of mitigation measures in addressing climate change impacts and accordingly recommends that the Australian Government continue to take urgent action to ensure that Australia can best contribute to a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions Almost every recommendation in the report is, ‘It’s time to act now.’ The importance of the report is that it takes the debate away from the theoretical and brings into play real-life situations, like in my electorate of Dobell, where communities are actually now being threatened by climate change. This report is so important because it puts a human face on what is happening to climate change. My electorate is subject to far more than the frequent storm surges that it has seen in the past. In fact, in June 2007 a storm surge came up the east coast, washing away lots of the sand on the beaches but also going up through The Entrance into the Tuggerah Lake system, flooding much of the residential area around the Central Coast and causing over 1,000 people to be evacuated. These are some of the practical, real situations that are happening as a result of climate change, and that is why this report is so important. I made two submissions to this inquiry. The committee visited the Central Coast as its first port of call. It is not as if these are once-in-50-year storm surges. We had a further storm surge since that 2007 event, which is why I made a supplementary submission—in the time that this inquiry was taking place, there were two significant events, both washing away beaches and affecting the community on the Central Coast. In the most recent storm surge, we saw people’s backyards being washed out to sea. We saw people’s houses with only part of the porch left because the rest had been washed out through the storm surge. One gentleman, at North Entrance, was telling me that he estimates he lost four to five metres of his backyard through the actions of this storm surge. This is real evidence of climate change affecting communities now. This is why the Australian government is acting. This is why this parliament should act to tackle climate change—because in electorates like mine the effects are being felt now. The Central Coast is one of the most beautiful places in Australia. I do not think that anyone here would disagree with me when I say that. But it is a fragile environment, an environment that is prone to the elements, and as climate change affects our world it affects some areas more than others. We are prone to bushfires. We are prone to floods. We are prone to beach erosion. We are also prone, surprisingly, to a lack of water. It was only two years ago that the water supply on the Central Coast reached levels of only 13 per cent. We were having to buy and pump water from the Hunter down to the Central Coast because of the low levels of rain that were falling on the Central Coast. These are real examples of real communities that are being affected by climate change and for the opposition to say these things are too difficult, they do not exist, we need to wait, we need someone else to lead, we need to take a different tack is really to ignore the problem. It is a difficult thing to deal with the effects of climate change. It is difficult to change people’s habits and behaviour, but it has to be done. We owe it to our communities. We owe it to the world to make sure that is in fact what we do. Anyone in this debate who is trying to run some political argument should get out and read this report and look at the good work that is being done, particularly by the chair of the committee, the member for Fowler, and the deputy chair, the member for Moore, who was able to agree with the government members of this committee as to the effects of climate change and the need to act quickly after seeing the evidence. This debate today is about taking action while we can, taking action to ensure that we live in a better world and taking action to make sure that we are able to reduce the effects of climate change on our communities. I do not want to be the member of an electorate that finds itself some way out in the Pacific Ocean, which is a real threat to my electorate. The F3 going up to the Hunter is the western border of my electorate on the mountain range, but below it are the lagoons, the lakes and then the beachfront. All of these areas are incredibly vulnerable to climate change, and if we do not act now and sea levels rise then we are in all sorts of trouble on the Central Coast. That is the picture up and down the coastline of this great country. We are taking strong action to tackle climate change by introducing this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, while also making sure the targets we put in place are appropriate and responsible given the need to support our economy and jobs during this global recession. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will ensure Australia invests in industries of the future like renewable energy—solar energy and wind farms—and in jobs using new technologies, like clean coal and geothermal energy, thereby creating thousands of new, low-pollution jobs. The Rudd government will establish the $75.8 million Australian Carbon Trust to help all Australians to do their bit to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution and to drive energy efficiency in commercial buildings and businesses. We will also take into account the contribution of individual households that purchase accredited GreenPower in setting Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme caps. Time has run out for those who are opposed to this scheme. There are no more excuses. Carbon pollution is causing the world’s climate to change, resulting in extreme weather, higher temperatures, more droughts and rising sea levels. I have already spoken about the effects of this in my community and in my electorate. Everyone needs to do their bit to tackle carbon pollution and by introducing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Australia will be a part of the solution, not just part of the problem. With one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia’s environment and economy will be one of the hardest and fastest hit by climate change if we do not act now. Australia pollutes at high levels for a country of our size. In fact, on a per capita basis we are the sixth largest polluter in the world. We need to act in terms of climate change. That is what this bill is about and that is what we need to do. I commend the bill to the house. 11281 17:05:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I rise today to speak on the amendments to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The amendments relate to concerns surrounding the timetable for a vote on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2], the effectiveness of the scheme before the House and the impact that the scheme is likely to have on Australian people and Australian businesses. The government’s CPRS plans have created significant debate not only in parliament but also in my electorate of Swan. People on both sides of the climate change debate have been contacting me by email, by phone and on my website. As a member of parliament, my job is to reflect the views of my constituents on this matter. With conflicting views, one needs to be objective when considering the problem and any potential solutions. When addressing the issue of climate change in a 2003 submission to the Western Australian Government Greenhouse Taskforce, Mechanical Building Services Consultants said: While the efforts so far are mostly well intentioned, from our work with the ABCB, it has become obvious that improvements in energy efficiency can only ever result in a reduction in the rate of increase and will never deliver an actual reduction in net energy consumption with resultant greenhouse gas emission reductions. The simple fact appears to be, as long as our primary energy sources are fossil fuel based, all our best efforts to reduce consumption will not deliver a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and will have a negative economic impact. In order to achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions without seriously damaging the economy and degrading our lifestyle, we must de-link energy use from greenhouse gas emissions and the only way of achieving this is to source most of our energy from renewable sources. They go on to say: Of all the renewable energy sources for electricity generation to emerge so far, such as solar, wind, tidal and hydro, none will ever be able to meet base load electricity demand as none are globally applicable or are capable of continuous output. Nuclear power could, but is not a serious global option as it is not renewable and is politically unpalatable. What we need is an entirely new, unlimited, renewable, environmentally benign, sustainable energy source to meet all our electric, heating and transport energy needs, indefinitely. … One fact with geothermal energy is indisputable: there is enough geothermal energy stored and naturally generated in the earth to meet mankind’s energy needs for all time. These words should resonate with every member in this place. The fact is that if we concentrated more on developing and pursuing renewable energy in this country there would be no need for us to be having this debate today about amendments and about CPRS, or ETS as some people like to refer to it as. Instead of debating the merits of a carbon tax—and it is a form of carbon tax; there is no doubt about that—we could be debating how to make Australia the hub of a future renewable energy industry. This is the approach I take to climate change and I make no apology for it. I accept the premise that climate change exists and that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the accelerated rate of climate change. There is evidence to support this and I lend my weight to those arguments. Climate change is something the world has had to cope with since the beginning of time. I believe the best way to tackle climate change is through the relentless pursuit of renewable energy. Australia’s future energy needs can be catered for by renewable energy. I will declare to the House that I am a shareholder in renewable technology, wave power to be exact, and I believe it has a future. I first began taking an active interest in the WA geothermal energy industry several years ago when running my air-conditioning business. At the time, technology for air conditioners linked to geothermal energy were being discussed by the industry. My company promoted the concept and the product into Western Australia in the early 1990s. Unfortunately, at the time, the technology was not cost effective and there was little appetite for it. This situation is, however, evolving and this year UWA and Green Rock Energy announced a joint venture to tap into the geothermal potential of the Perth Basin and replace up to a third of UWA’s air conditioners with geothermal powered absorption chillers. If the project is successful the program could be expanded across the Perth metropolitan area. According to Professor Hui Tong Chua at UWA, a test drill has already dug to a depth of 200 metres near to James Oval and the eventual project will dig directly below the campus. This is just one of many exciting recent developments in Western Australia, with a partnership between the Liberal-National WA government, several local and national geothermal companies and universities such as UWA and Curtin, in my electorate, being forged. UWA’s Western Australian Geothermal Centre of Excellence, WAGCOE, is building an international reputation in studying the potential of both hot dry rock and low-temperature hydrothermal systems. Hydrothermal technology usually involves a well being dug into permeable sediments. The UWA project is a hydrothermal project and the process is explained by an ASX announcement from Green Rock Energy on 2 July: Green Rock Energy will drill two geothermal wells to a depth of approximately 3,000 metres to provide geothermal water 100 degrees Celsius to power a 5MW absorption chiller. One well, a production well, will be used to access and obtain the hot geothermal energy and the other, an injection well, will be used to return the cooler geothermal water following the extraction of the geothermal energy, in the form of heat, by the absorption chiller. By replacing conventional compression chiller plants that use electrical energy, large commercial buildings, including universities, hospitals, hotels, airports, data centres and shopping centres, can be air conditioned using geothermal water as the principal power source. This is particularly so in Perth, which sits on a deep sedimentary basin up to 15km deep with multiple heated aquifers. Hydrothermal systems generally target lower temperatures which are more accessible and reduce overall costs. The WA government last year allocated 495 lots between Kalbarri and Dunsborough, which can be leased for geothermal exploration. According to Green Rock Energy, the Perth Basin is a 1,000-kilometre-long geological rift containing sediments up to 15 kilometres deep. It contains thick sequences of permeable aquifers containing hot geothermal water with sufficient temperature and water flow capacity at depths considered to be economic for electricity generation. Along with UWA, a number of companies including West Perth based Green Rock Energy, Austral Ion, AAA Energy, Granite Power, New World Energy Solutions, Geothermal Power, Torrens Energy and Thermal Resources were also granted exploration permits, so the future of geothermal technology in Perth looks good. Energy Minister Norman Moore said at the time that the expected expenditure for geothermal exploration for the 36 permits in the Perth Basin is more than $560 million in the next six years. A second technique with some potential is hot-fractured-rock technology, which is the only known source of renewable energy with the capacity to carry large base loads. Hot rock energy involves tapping into a high-heat-producing granite via a heat extraction system. The Australian Geothermal Energy Association, which is representative of major geothermal explorers, developers and service providers to government and other stakeholders classifies Australia as the ‘leading pioneer’ in enhanced geothermal systems. However the process of harnessing energy from hot rock is highly challenging. The key impediment to further growth in this field is the start-up costs. AGEA estimates that on average $30 million is required for a proof of concept, whilst the total support available from the federal government is much less. Statistics provided by AGEA show that 48 companies have geothermal exploration licenses, 10 hot-rock companies have ASX listings, and there are 363 licenses on a variety of plays. AGEA have also estimated that current work programs from 2002-13 nationally are worth more than $1.5 billion. The good news is that Western Australia has some significant hot-rock potential also. So, when I am considering the CPRS, which is before the House today, I ask the question: how will this help the transition to a renewable economy in Australia? The renewable energy component of the legislation has been decoupled and passed the House. Will the rest of the bill really help support a future geothermal Perth? Many on this side have raised the issue of household and domestic costs rising under an ETS. We have heard from Ian MacFarlane that the CPRS legislation will have widespread and substantial impacts on the Australian economy, on business, on consumers and on jobs. He has told us that electricity prices will rise by close to 20 per cent in the first two years of the scheme. If this transpires our small businesses will pay a heavy price. Is it all worth it for a scheme that will cut emissions by only 5 per cent? These amendments acknowledge the problems with the current scheme, they acknowledge the concerns about trade exposed industries, they acknowledge concerns about Australian farmers and they acknowledge concerns about high electricity prices. Much has been made, over the last two years, of the timing of the scheme and I accept we have spent two years debating this. If we spent all this time and effort on turning Australia into the renewable hub of the world our emissions would surely fall by a much more significant amount over the coming years. At the moment negotiations are taking place between the government and the opposition over a number of amendments to this legislation and it is rather unusual that we should be debating such a matter before we know the outcome of these negotiations. However, I would urge my colleagues and the members of the government benches to consider the points which I have raised today about geothermal energy. Let’s focus on the positives, not on the negatives. Let’s give all Australians what they want, which is a real solution to climate change and not just a carbon tax which will do nothing but drive business offshore and cost Australia jobs. 11283 17:15:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water 1 0 Dr KELLY —It is great to be back here going in to bat, for the second time around, on this legislation. It is critical that we now enter the endgame for this legislation. The circumstances have changed since the last time I spoke, in that we are now, thankfully, engaged in true negotiation with the coalition, and I certainly welcome that. It is great to finally have the flywheel engaged. It has been two years spinning on an axis and it is great to get down to business. I am deeply disturbed by the comments we have heard, to great note, in the media and around the country from many of the members of the Nationals. This is deeply concerning when we consider that these people are supposed to represent the interests of farmers and our people in the regions and in rural Australia. What a disservice they do to them through their opposition! I will come back to that, but firstly I would like to say that my region, Eden-Monaro, continues to embrace the science and to do something about this issue at a local level. Just recently it was a great pleasure for me to be at a fundraiser for a film which will be shown at the Copenhagen conference by a group of filmmakers from the Merimbula area in my region—in particular, Toni Houston and Bettina Richter, who have worked together with natural history filmmaker Tina Dalton and the Emmy award-winning cinematographer David Hannan on the Great Barrier Reef. They have also had the assistance of Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland. This is a magnificent documentary of 75 minutes—and piece of art in addition to that—which traces, explains and illustrates beautifully the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef and reef systems worldwide and the risks we run through not dealing with this issue and meeting this challenge. In particular, at the heart of this is the issue that, at the current rate of climate change, reefs worldwide may be dead as soon as 2050. This would be a great tragedy. Their work has been acknowledged by the Danish government and their film, Aqua, will be the only Australian event to be included in the official cultural program of the Copenhagen conference, known as COP15. It will be shown in Copenhagen on 16 December. A short version—15 minutes—will be screened at the biggest music venue in Copenhagen in the Pumpehuset. It will be a live, multi-screen, immersive audio and visual experience which will also be supported by the Australian Embassy in Copenhagen. So I really do salute Bettina, Toni and all the team who have worked on Aqua. I hope to be able to stage a screening of that film here in Parliament House in November before the final vote is taken on this legislation and before we head off to Copenhagen. I would also like to highlight some of the initiatives at the grassroots level that are going on in my region. It is just amazing to see how widespread that has been. One of our solar power companies, Pyramid Power, has had a great initiative, which basically involves rounding up a group of, say, 30 people, who will sign up to a group purchase of solar panels on their homes, as a consequence of which Pyramid Power undertakes to install a 1.5 kilowatt system on a community asset. That can be a church, a rural fire service station or any of these types of assets. It has been so well embraced that our area, I believe, has one of the largest take-up rates of solar panels in this country, through this process. Most inspiring for me was the fact many of my constituents used that $900 cash bonus to engage in these schemes and purchase solar panels. It was incredibly inspiring to see that. They did not lash out on consumer goods et cetera; they applied it to this scheme. It was wonderful to see this community response. It sends a message that, if anyone wishes to contest Eden-Monaro in the future, they will have to show their credentials on climate change. That is the strongest message. I think that message is resonating around the country in many key seats. It is well to take that message on board. I want to come back to this issue of the Nationals: some of the comments we have seen from them and the irresponsibility of those comments. Just recently—last week—Senator Barnaby Joyce was in my electorate in Cooma. He got some coverage in the very fine local paper down there, the Cooma Monaro Express. I was really disgusted to see the line he took. I am very fond of Barnaby. He is a great bloke, but on this issue I am extremely disappointed in him. We all know that our farmers are under great stress at the moment. There is a real mental health issue in the bush because people are dealing with the consequences of climate change and drought. Certainly, most of my electorate is under exceptional circumstances status. It is a real concern to me that no greater burden, in terms of anxiety, be added for the farmers. But there was Barnaby coming down and saying that he took exception to the coalition involvement in the negotiations. He said: I was ashamed about it. Those were his words. He also said that the government’s emissions trading scheme was going to ‘send people in the room tonight broke’. He completely denied that any aspect of climate change was occurring and told farmers that they were about to be ruined and sent into bankruptcy by these schemes. This is really disturbing, because I do not understand why Barnaby, as someone who represents farmers, would want to spread this sort of fear and anguish amongst them. I think it is cruel, given all they are going through at the moment. Farmers are the one sector of our community and economy who stand to lose the most from climate change inaction. I have seen this firsthand in my work in the portfolio to which the legislation is relevant—in relation to the water issues. It is relevant all up and down the Murray-Darling Basin, in places like Moree, Griffith, Deniliquin, Shepparton, Mildura and Renmark. It is really a crying shame to see something like the magnificent rice mill at Deniliquin—the largest in the southern hemisphere. It has been lying idol for a few years and 400 jobs are unable to be exploited by that facility. Farmers continue to suffer from the effects of climate change. They are the ones who stand to lose the most so it is imperative that we act on climate change for their benefit. Why do not the Nationals see that? The key point to notice is that agriculture will not be included in the scheme at all before 2015, and the government has not made a decision on whether the sector will be included at all. That final decision will be left until 2013. I feel it is legitimate for Nationals and people who represent farmers to try to get the best deal they possibly can for farmers but it should be understood that it is in their interests to participate in the scheme on the credit side. There are a number of aspects of the CPRS legislation which would facilitate that for the benefit of farmers. The key is that we still can, and must, pursue reductions in emissions in farming. There are many ways in which that can occur and ways in which that will improve farmers’ productivity. I have been in discussions with proponents of schemes that would assist farmers—schemes that already exist and are working well in other parts of the world. In Germany, for example, using biogas techniques utilising the emissions and the waste products from the livestock industry, they have now managed to provide six to seven per cent of their base load electricity from this biogas source using livestock. Farmers in Germany are diversifying, using the opportunities of renewable energy to divide up their land so that in one corner of their paddocks they might have solar panels and in other areas they might be growing crops or grazing cattle. The opportunities are there and are already being exploited overseas. Farmers are obtaining greater productivity as a result of measures taken to reduce emissions in that sector. We can also achieve that sort of productivity and drive forward our farming industry. This has been well evident in my region in particular. Renewable schemes and projects in my region include the Capital Wind Farm near Bungendore—$300 million worth of investment, great jobs and a great contributor to our renewable energy objectives. That scheme will be dwarfed by the Boco Rock project near Nimmitabel which will be twice that size—another few hundred million dollars coming into the region. There is the exciting new Dyesol solar technology industry happening in Queanbeyan; and Lloyd Energy in Cooma is doing great things in new schedulable solar-thermal technology which I believe has great potential and is creating spin-off jobs in industry in other parts of the region. There is also Eraring Energy and, of course the granddaddy of all the renewable project in this country—the Snowy hydro scheme, which is certainly a key employer and economic driver in the region. Other companies I have mentioned include Pyramid Power, who started with five employees. They now have 60 and are expanding rapidly throughout the region. We also have solar companies around this area, including Solartech, in Queanbeyan, and there are many more. Farmers everywhere will stand to gain from participating in the credit side of the scheme, such as planting trees—we have heard that mentioned. I took on board the comments of the member for New England in relation to where this will drive our agricultural industry. The bottom line is that, with market forces, if there is a shortage of food then certainly the price of that food will make that a more competitive crop to grow. It is not as though you will see the situation where all farmers will devote all their land to one particular product such as forestry, or growing trees. This will give farmers the opportunity to diversify so that they minimise their risk during rough times for particular crops. It is not a question of one aspect of their industry overtaking another. Barnaby also mentioned in his speech at Cooma that we have no influence in the world and that our efforts in reducing carbon pollution would make no difference. This is simply not true. I really think that Barnaby not only is betraying our farmers but also is selling our country short. The influence of Australia has been reflected in the way that the Prime Minister has driven his influence, and Australia’s influence, in world affairs through the utilisation of the G20 mechanism. We also have recognition of his status globally, and Australia’s status, in his appointment as ‘friend of the chair’ in Copenhagen by the Danish Prime Minister. I think Barnaby is completely wrong. As a large country with an economy highly dependent on carbon emissions it is important that we show leadership. Our leadership will be recognised and will help to drive the objective forward at Copenhagen and afterwards. Basically, it is important that we get a market mechanism in place now to drive the changes that we need. Whatever happens at Copenhagen, every nation will need a tailored solution. We are producing our tailored solution: it suits our economy, it suits our national dynamics and it suits our geography and other aspects of our country that are unique. Finally, the attitude of the opponents of this scheme reminds me of a past age which I recalled recently at the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the Snowy hydro scheme at Adaminaby the weekend before last. At the launch ceremony for the Snowy scheme 60 years ago there was a Labor Prime Minister in Ben Chifley, a Labor state Premier in New South Wales in James McGirr, the local federal member was Labor’s Alan Fraser, and the state member was Labor’s Jack Seiffert. It was an all-Labor affair and it was the vision and boldness of those Labor leaders that brought on the Snowy scheme. At the time, the ceremony was boycotted by the Liberal Party, as Robert Menzies opposed the scheme. It was, in fact, just before the 1949 election. It is that same blinkered ignorance that we can see in some sections of the coalition today. We do not need shallow political opportunism and scaremongering. What we need is the boldness and vision of that great generation to help this country navigate the challenges that lie ahead. 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—Before calling the next speaker, I say to the previous speaker that I understood that his references to a senator were good natured, but it would assist the decorum of the House if references to senators were by calling them Senator with his or her surname. 11287 17:29:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I rise in this debate to support the second reading amendment that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of the debate today on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]. The Leader of the Opposition outlined in great detail the alternatives, the improvements and the amendments which would make a flawed scheme much better. That goes to the nub of this debate and why we are debating this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation now. In the time available I will cover some of those areas that you would naturally expect are particularly relevant to my electorate of Casey. Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, as the member for the adjoining seat of Menzies, you will understand because we have very similar electorates. The first point of the amendments and the point that the Leader of the Opposition made and has been making consistently, as we all have, is that finalising legislation ahead of Copenhagen is foolhardy. That should be self-evident to the members opposite. The Copenhagen conference will be over in less than 50 days. For the Prime Minister and the government to finalise the design of an Australian emissions trading scheme ahead of that conference is foolhardy. They are determined to do so. In that context the opposition has put forward significant amendments which would very much reduce the damage that this rushed scheme, if finalised before Copenhagen, would have on the Australian economy. At present, the United States has legislation that has been through their House of Representatives and is entering their Senate. The Copenhagen conference will determine, you would hope, the shape or the beginnings of a shape of a global agreement. There have been lots of attacks from those opposite about the issue of climate change. All of us want to see an environmental improvement and reduction in emissions, but the obvious point is that this can be effective only if it is done globally. Those opposite know that in their heart of hearts. They know it very well. The Leader of the Opposition this morning gave a good example with respect to coal, and I will come back to that. But if Australia acts alone ahead of a global agreement it not only damages jobs, investment and exports but actually exports emissions, and those opposite know that. In fact, the one export those opposite will be assisting is emissions. Many have said that when you export emissions you simply transfer them from one country to another, quite obviously; it has no effect on total global emissions. Of course, that is right. There are circumstances, as my colleague the member for Farrer would know, where if you transfer emissions from Australia to another country you can actually increase global emissions because the very production in that other country may not be as clean as it currently is in Australia. But those opposite know that, and that is why finalising this legislation ahead of Copenhagen is foolhardy. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the example of coal. If there is a reduction in coalmining here and a corresponding increase in another country, the emissions are transferred. In some cases they may be increased because of the technology that is not used in those other countries. Our amendments that have been put forward this morning—and they are the subject of good faith negotiations at present—would fix a number of very obvious flaws. I will not, in the time available, go through all of those, but I will focus on two in particular. One is the treatment of agriculture. The previous speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary for Water, defended the treatment of agriculture in the government’s legislation before the House. The government is proposing that agriculture be included down the track in around 2015. We have said agriculture should not be included. We know from the US legislation that they will not include agriculture. For those opposite to think that the US legislation will not have a major influence on the final design of a global agreement is, of course, ridiculous. We know the US legislation will not include agriculture. We are saying agriculture should not be included, but on top of that we are saying the agricultural sector should have access to the offsets that will assist and encourage them in environmental improvements and practices. The other area where we have made some major recommendations by way of amendments is to do with electricity generation and specifically price rises in electricity costs. I want to focus particularly on the small business sector. The small business sector is not subject to any compensation under this legislation. What this legislation proposes is sharp rises that will affect them deeply. We have put forward an alternative model that we think is better. It will have less of a price effect on small business but it will have a good environmental outcome. We have said to the government that they should consider this, but if they, after releasing all their material and in consideration of those negotiations, do not agree with this path then they are duty bound to produce an alternative that will not harm the small business community in the way their current legislation does. I have mentioned agriculture. My electorate of Casey includes significant agricultural areas and agribusinesses that are the backbone of the rural area in the Yarra Valley. The number of small businesses in the outer east and in the Yarra Valley is significant and I will always stand up for those businesses, which are the backbone of that local economy. Across Australia we have more than two million businesses employing around four million people. They are the backbone of the national economy. In the electorate of Casey those small businesses—a diverse range of businesses stretching from the metropolitan areas out to the rural areas—are the backbone of that local economy. In conclusion, the government should consider these amendments. The government should be accepting these amendments. The government should be acknowledging that its legislation is flawed and if passed unamended will severely damage the Australian economy. The reason that the government is not finalising this after the Copenhagen agreement is the same reason why this government does so many things. It is the price of the Prime Minister’s vanity. I note the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is at the table. He would see this up-front and personally on a daily basis. 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr Byrne —What’s that? Do you want me to make a comment on that? 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —The price of the Prime Minister’s vanity is very high, very high indeed. We have seen over nearly the last two years the government seeking to implement a range of measures that they had spoken about before the election. It has been nearly two years since the election and we have seen Fuelwatch, we have seen GroceryChoice and we have seen them try to reform employee share schemes. Compared with the legislation that we are dealing with today, those were minor matters, but nevertheless matters on which the government demonstrated incompetence. I say to those opposite that they would know that on something much bigger, where the detail is much more important, the track record of this government speaks for itself. Those negotiations are ongoing. The amendments that have been moved in the second reading amendment that embody the suggestions of the opposition are something that the government should take seriously. If they do they will improve what is a flawed and rushed piece of legislation. 11289 17:40:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]. It was only a few months ago that I rose to speak in this House on this cognate bill, when I spoke about the importance of its passage through the parliament to the people of Newcastle, whom I represent, the people of Australia and indeed the people of the world. Unfortunately, as we recall, its passage was blocked by the opposition, an opposition that does nothing but delay, meander—and I think that was quite clear from the speech previously given by the member for Casey—and stall a clear decision on the CPRS while the inexorable march towards environmental catastrophe forever increases in pace. The opposition have put forward their amendments today—more excuses as to why we cannot act now to fight climate change. While I will not go into the detail of the amendments, I will say that, given their words ‘defer’, ‘artificial’ deadline, ‘moderated’ and ‘excluded’, the opposition need to get their heads out of the sand and into reality. They need to be proactive in the face of such an important issue. I do not usually quote Crikey or rely on it at all, but I do note a comment by Bernard Keane that I think is fairly relevant to today’s debate. He says that bickering about the finer points of an ETS, an emissions trading scheme, is like arguing about who sits where in a car as it is going over a cliff. That is a pretty good analogy. If we do not act now, we are going to set the course for an environmental disaster of catastrophic proportions. I have said it before in this House and I will say it again: the science of climate change can no longer be argued. The need to act, decisively and quickly, cannot be argued. It is predicted that if no action is taken to combat climate change, average temperatures across Australia can be expected to rise by over five degrees by the end of the century. A rise of this magnitude would have disastrous ramifications. Just to put this in context, a rise of just one degree Celsius would see a streamflow reduction of 15 per cent in the Murray-Darling Basin. Without action, the Murray-Darling would disappear completely by 2100. Yesterday, on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald you could read—and we did—about the effect that even a tiny rise of just 20 centimetres in sea level would have on low-lying areas of Australia. This article followed the tabling of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts report Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. It was tabled by the chair of the committee, Jennie George, in the House on Monday night. I congratulate her, the members of her committee and the secretariat on a wonderful report that gives strength to our arm in this argument and certainly gives us more and more courses of action and the reasons to take those courses of action urgently. So I congratulate Jennie for her work. She has been dedicated to the environment for a long time. This report looked at the issues relating to climate change and environmental pressures experienced by Australian coastal areas, particularly in the area of coastal population growth. It found that thousands of kilometres of the Australian coastline have been identified as being at risk from the threat of rising sea levels and extreme weather events due to the impacts of climate change. The Hunter region, my region—Newcastle is at the mouth of the Hunter River—is the second most densely populated and developed coastal strip in New South Wales. Any sea level rise or coastal storm events are likely to have a significant impact on the region, on its infrastructure and on our communities, exacerbating the risk of coastal erosion, inundation of low-lying areas and loss of our beautiful beaches. A study undertaken by Risk Frontiers identified the Lake Macquarie area, Newcastle and Port Stephens as among the local government areas in Australia most vulnerable to coastal inundation. Even a cursory glance at the extreme weather events of recent times is enough to set alarm bells ringing: the February bushfires in Victoria; the historic June 2007 storm in Newcastle that saw the Pasha Bulker washed up on Nobbys Beach and, unfortunately, hundreds of people washed from their homes; the recent bushfires in Rockhampton—an area that historically has never suffered from those sorts of severe bushfires; the giant dust storm that struck the east coast of Australia last month; and the unseasonably warm weather on the east coast in early spring. Indeed, by 2050, temperatures in the Hunter region are projected to be hotter over all seasons by one to three degrees, and with many more hot days. An increase in the number of hot days is expected to increase heat related illnesses and death, especially among the elderly. The physical damage of these extreme weather events is enough in itself; but, when taking into account the financial cost surrounding any such damage, we truly do reach the definition of catastrophe. And it is just a taste of what is to come. These are individual examples from our country alone of what is truly a worldwide issue. I am amazed that members opposite, who I know have travelled very widely, have not learnt from some of their experiences. On a recent visit to Mongolia, which I have previously recounted to the House, I learnt that 24 people had died in 10 days because of excessive rainfall in their capital, while the Gobi Desert continues to extend. Desertification is a real issue there. Recently, in Timor Leste, I was sitting in a forum with parliamentarians when an earthquake struck. It was just a shake at that stage but they said that it happens all the time now. Indonesia has experienced tsunamis and our Pacific neighbours have had typhoons et cetera. This week the ambassador of Switzerland spoke to me about the glacial melting in Switzerland and also said that the receding permafrost is a real problem for his country. It is imperative that we act now. Everywhere around the world, leaders and public representatives of countries, like us, are aware of the problem and want to act. There has been a lot of discussion recently surrounding the impact of a CPRS on jobs in the coal and other relevant industries. I note that today the member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, made some comments about me being one of the only Labor members from a seat dependent on the coal industry prepared to speak on this bill and explain to coal workers why they are going to lose their jobs. I am paraphrasing his comments. I am very pleased and also very proud to stand here today and speak to this legislation. This is good legislation and I support it. I and my government are committed to providing support for local jobs and the economy, particularly for the coal industry. The sort of misguided argument put forward by the member for Groom has had some traction in the Hunter region lately, given the incredible campaign by the Australian Coal Association’s ‘Cut emissions not jobs’. I have received many emails saying that this campaign is about cutting profits for the Coal Association rather than its concern about cutting jobs or concern for the mining industry. Tony Maher, the head of the CFMEU, had an interesting view on this campaign. I quote from his opinion piece published in the Newcastle Herald on 7 October: The Australian Coal Association, its state counterparts and the Nationals have done nothing for decades when confronted with job cuts due to downturns in mineral prices, or when member companies simply work out a way to get more production with fewer workers (such as long working hours and extreme rostering). When that happens we are lectured that it’s all due to the “market” and we must cop the job cuts and the fall in working conditions. But when it comes to the CPRS, suddenly it seems that jobs are all-important The real issue for the coal association is company profits and maintaining them at the highest level possible. But coal companies know there is no public sympathy for protecting profits, so they are using a jobs scare instead. What the Coal Industry will not tell you is that the coal industry— in Newcastle and the Hunter— is going from strength to strength — especially in my electorate of Newcastle. Already we are in a strong position, employment wise, with the latest figures showing an unemployment rate of 4.4 per cent, which is well below state and national averages I am, after all, the granddaughter of a coalminer. I take this opportunity today to thank the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ian Harris. He is originally from the coal-mining area of Kurri in the member for Hunter’s electorate. I wish Ian well in his next reinvention. He has such a wonderful depth of knowledge and understanding of the parliamentary processes and I hope that it will be extended further after he leaves us. Ian is very fondly regarded in my electorate, particularly by our university, and I wish him a great deal of success. We in the Hunter know and value our history just as much we value our present and our future. The Rudd government will continue to support local jobs in the coal industry. We have already seen over half a billion dollars from this government go towards improving the coal chain between the Hunter Valley and the port of Newcastle to increase our export capacity. With the construction of the third coal terminal, the NCIG terminal, almost complete and the plans for a further coal terminal by Port Waratah Coal Services, we know that there is expansion ahead. The third coal terminal is expected to load its first shipment of coal next year. With that expansion, revenue from coal exports in our region is expected to grow by about $6.5 billion per year by 2016. The coal industry is still in very good shape—from 100 million tonnes to 300 million tonnes exported per annum—and it will remain so under an ETS. In Newcastle we are blessed with a cleaner coal, a black coal, a thermal coal. It is the coal that is fuelling some of the growth and development of the developing nations in our region. But it is not only the coal industry that will grow under the CPRS. The clean energy sector in Australia will grow in leaps and bounds, with direct benefits for the people of Newcastle and the national economy. There is already a global boom in the clean energy industry. The global low-carbon and environmental goods sector is now valued at $6.1 trillion globally. In 2008 alone, US$155 billion was invested in new clean energy sources—a fourfold increase since 2004—for the first time outstripping investment in fossil fuel technologies. You can only imagine what will be invested when globally we are united in the knowledge and certainty of the need to address climate change and there are policy settings that will encourage further investment. Worldwide the renewable energy sector already employs an estimated 2.3 million people, more than the total number employed directly by the oil and gas industries around the world. This trend is just as true in Australia. Modelling published by Treasury has shown that, even with significant cuts in carbon pollution, Australia’s economy will continue its strong performance, with continued growth in employment and wages. CSIRO has found that, if Australia becomes carbon neutral by 2050, total employment in Australia over the next two decades would increase by 2.7 million jobs. Just yesterday an excellent article appeared in the Newcastle Herald by Clare Martin, CEO of the Australian Council of Social Service. Ms Martin spoke about the opportunities that the CPRS holds for the people of Newcastle. She spoke of the diversification of Newcastle’s economy that has already taken place to adapt to and thrive in the clean energy sector, something I have stood before this House and spoken of many times before. Ms Martin detailed the work of the CSIRO Energy Centre, with its Energy Transformed National Research Flagship, and the University of Newcastle, with its clean energy research centre, and the leading role these institutions would play in a low-carbon economy. Ms Martin outlined the findings of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity that the clean energy sector could create over 10,000 jobs in the Hunter-Wyong region alone, without taking into account any wind or solar energy manufacturing jobs. Newcastle is already positioning itself at the leading edge of the clean energy sector. In Newcastle you will find the Clean Energy Innovation Centre, a Rudd government initiative, helping small to medium sized businesses become more energy efficient; the Australian Solar Institute, producing groundbreaking research in solar energy; and the CSIRO Energy Centre and flagship, providing a focal point in Australia for energy research in the fields of sustainable energy, environmental impacts of energy, and cost-competitive and environmentally acceptable fossil fuel research and development. We are building a critical mass of capacity around clean energy, and that will certainly stand our economy in good stead. It has also been shown in a clear-cut way that the CPRS will increase industry confidence. According to the Australian Industry Group, there has been hesitance from some of its members about making any investments until there is a degree of clarity around domestic climate change legislation. The government does recognise that emissions intensive coalmines do need transitional assistance to adjust to the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The government has always said it will target assistance to the gassiest mines—those which are the most methane intensive—and has on the table a $750 million package to assist such mines to investigate and implement abatement opportunities and ease their transition to the introduction of a carbon price. We also recognise that by leading the way with the CPRS, with the introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action, trade exposed industries may be encouraged to relocate. But that is why the CPRS Bill will provide a program to support businesses producing internationally traded goods, like coal and aluminium—such as our aluminium industry in the Hunter—which face the most significant exposure to the carbon price. So our legislation contains that assistance, and it will be targeted to support the most emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities. From the first year of the CPRS, highly emissions intensive activities will have an effective rate of assistance of almost 95 per cent and less emissions intensive activities will have an effective rate of assistance of 66 per cent. It is definitely time for global action. I have heard members opposite saying we should not be passing this bill before the Copenhagen conference. I can only congratulate the Prime Minister on his determination and the recognition internationally of the role he can play in bringing about an international solution, as hard as that task might be. Action is needed to combat the effects of climate change. If unmitigated, climate change will fundamentally alter the planet and the way that we live our lives. This is change that we will begin to see in our own lives, but its full impact will not be realised until it is in the hands of our future generations. It is to our future generations that we must look when we consider the CPRS, for it is they who will judge us on how we act today and it is they who will suffer if we do not act now. I commend the bills to the House. 11293 17:57:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise today to address the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and associated bills. As I have previously said, reducing the global level of CO2 and other emissions in the atmosphere is an issue of great concern and consequence to all of us. Personally, these are unchartered waters for me; on climate change, I am neither a sceptic nor a denier. I have read widely and talked to scientists, but I am not a scientist. Maybe climate change is cyclic? I do not know, because there are too many subjective opinions in this argument, each proffering a different expert perspective. Perhaps Michael Smith’s editorial on 4BC on 13 August demonstrates a way to understand the magnitude of the Prime Minister’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and climate change: Imagine one kilometre of atmosphere that you want to clean up. For the sake of the discussion, imagine you could walk along it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen. The next 210 metres are Oxygen. That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. Just 20 metres to go. The next 10 metres are water vapour. Just 10 metres left … 9 metres are argon. 1 metre left out of 1 kilometre. A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre. The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre—that’s carbon dioxide. … 97% is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural. Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. … Just over a centimetre. That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre. Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre. As a hair is to a kilometre—so is Australia’s contribution to what Mr Rudd calls Carbon Pollution. Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by Mr Rudd. It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted—by a human hair. We would all laugh ourselves silly. It continues: There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away. Perhaps we all need to just take a few deep breaths. They were words well said. All scientists have agreed that humans have an impact on the climate. The issue is: what is the magnitude of this effect at a global level? Why pay more in tax when there is little, or next to no, environmental benefit? Instead, it is the individuals, the small business owners, the coal industry, the aluminium industry and the farmers—to name a few—that will be adversely affected. I am the elected member for Paterson. Keeping in touch with local issues is very important to me, as I campaign for the rights of those individuals who elected me to represent them in this federal parliament. I accept that there are differing views about climate change, particularly amongst my constituents, who, if this legislation is passed in its entirety, will be adversely affected. I understand that Australians, including my constituents, want their elected leaders to protect their jobs while acting on climate change. Over the past month or so I have received hundreds of emails and letters from concerned constituents worried about the impact a flawed ETS will have on their business, their home and their life. I would like to indulge you with some of the comments from constituents of Paterson. One states: Dear Mr Baldwin, Please don’t allow the PM to push his own agenda to only get recognition for himself with other leaders so he can be the first to say that he has done it and stuff Australians, anything we can save in a year will be undone by other pollutants in a day or so … Another one reads: Dear Mr Baldwin, I encourage you to exercise extreme caution regarding this very sensitive subject, and to act in the interest of the people in your local area, that includes families and communities alike. Similar to many others, I personally would be very much affected as I am an employee of the local coal mine & know many other people & families who also work for local coal mines, or whom rely on the service industry that support the coal mines in our local area. I agree, emissions need to be cut—not jobs, I think the Government’s proposed tax is unfair. It is certainly clear that the constituents of Paterson are very concerned about the impact this legislation will have on their livelihood. When I travel throughout the electorate I ask quite openly for their opinions on the CPRS and the impact on their business and livelihood. Many are well informed; however, most still do not understand and have been clearly hoodwinked by the Rudd Labor government’s spin and dishonesty in the presentation of the government’s case. I am extremely concerned that the Australian people are still in the dark about what the Rudd Labor government claims is the most important economic reform in a generation. I truly believe that the proposed CPRS fails in the basic task of protecting jobs. This scheme is so flawed and badly designed that it will only transfer emissions and jobs overseas, destroying Australian businesses, with absolutely no benefit to the environment. As a nation which emits less than 1.3 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, nothing Australia does in advance of the rest of the world will make any difference to changing the climate of the world. I truly believe that this legislation is not about climate change. This legislation is purely a new source of taxation revenue for the Rudd Labor government and a leg-up for an ambitious and opportunistic Prime Minister onto the world stage. The Rudd Labor government plans to impose potentially crushing costs on businesses and consumers, disguised as environmental responsibility. The CPRS is a tax. It is a tax that our Prime Minister hopes no-one will notice. The emissions trading scheme is being misused to buy off some vocal sections of a more widely concerned Australian community. The tax effect of the CPRS as it stands is, according to commentators, the equivalent of increasing the GST from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent. The difference is that it will be added all the way down the line, unlike the GST which is rebated to be export free of GST or until the end user if consumed in Australia. The design of the Rudd Labor government’s CPRS assumes that our major international competitors will promptly move to put into place a major new tax on carbon across their economies, including their export and import competing industries in the early years, yet we know that our major trading partners are not ready to do this. Again I ask the Rudd Labor government: what is the goal of this legislation? Is it to genuinely reduce greenhouse gas emissions or, as I believe it is, is it another tax grab from Australian families and businesses, who are already having to pay for Labor’s reckless spending? I would also like to ask again: how much of the $13 billion that will be collected from affected businesses under this scheme in the first year will be spent by the Rudd Labor government in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? I will now address the coalition’s amendments. The coalition has unveiled a plan to mitigate Australian job losses and limit increases in electricity prices for small businesses through common-sense amendments to the Rudd Labor government’s flawed and rushed emissions trading scheme. The coalition has undertaken a considered evaluation of the government’s legislation and measured the legislation against its impact on jobs and emissions. I will now address the trade-exposed industries. The Rudd Labor government’s flawed CPRS as it currently stands will have dire consequences in the electorate of Paterson and the Hunter region. In 2008-09 the Hunter Valley Research Foundation, in conjunction with the Hunter Business Chamber, undertook an initial assessment of the potential impact that the CPRS would have on some of the key industries found in the Hunter region, including in the electorate of Paterson. The analysis found that industries potentially most affected by a CPRS included aluminium, iron and steel, coalmining, electricity generation and supply, beef and dairy cattle, meat products and road transport. The silence on this CPRS legislation from the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, is absolutely deafening. His website boasts that the main industries and products of the area include aluminium smelting and coalmining as well as having both Liddell and Bayswater power stations in the electorate of Hunter. I am amazed that the member for Hunter has not made one speech for or against this legislation. Why is Mr Fitzgibbon not supporting this legislation? Why is he not out there fighting for the industries of his electorate? Because this legislation is ultimately flawed and because, with a 15.8 per cent Labor safe seat, he does not need to fight for his constituents’ votes—he can take them for granted. The Rudd Labor government’s current emissions trading scheme poses a significant threat to the continued competitiveness of Australian businesses operating in those trade-exposed industries. The aluminium sector is the most emission-intensive exposed sector in the region. Australia has seven alumina refineries and six aluminium smelters, employing over 12,000 full-time workers and a further 3,000 contractors. Australia’s second largest smelter, Tomago Aluminium, is just outside Paterson in the electorate of Newcastle. It currently employs almost 1,400 workers, most of whom reside in the Paterson electorate. Hydro Aluminium’s Kurri Kurri smelter is also just outside my electorate in the seat of Hunter. It currently employs 500 workers and a larger number of contractors, who also reside in the electorate of Paterson. The coalition recognises the impact that the CPRS will have on this industry. The coalition, therefore, are amending the CPRS to provide a single level of assistance for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries at 94.5 per cent until 2015 and 90 per cent thereafter. We are also seeking to lower the threshold for assistance under the CPRS from 1,000 tonnes of CO2 per $1 million of revenue to 850 tonnes of CO2 per $1 million. The coalition will also provide assistance to Australian EITE industries at 90 per cent until 80 per cent of their international competitors have also implemented carbon abatement measures. As the member for Paterson, I am honoured to represent such a vast electorate including rich and diverse farming land. Historically, the Hunter region is known as an important agricultural region. We know that our farming communities have had it tough for far too long. As recently as 2007 the Hunter and Lower Hunter regions were declared areas of exceptional circumstances for drought assistance. The flawed CPRS could be the final blow for many farmers that have barely survived the financial impact of drought. Cutting emissions is not new to the agricultural industry. The sector has reduced its emissions by 40 per cent since 1990 through various measures—some voluntary; some involuntary. Two-thirds of Australian farm produce is exported. If agriculture is covered by a CPRS—which the Rudd Labor government is proposing—Australian farmers would be left out in the cold while other developed countries, including the USA, Canada, European nations and Japan, will not cover agriculture under an emissions trading cap. Australian cattle farmers are already battling against the billions of dollars of subsidy paid to the USA and Europe, and would be further disadvantaged under a CPRS. Dairy farmers have also been hit hard by the recent global financial crisis. The price that they will get for their milk this year has fallen to the lowest level in a decade, after a commodity collapse on the global markets in late 2008. Therefore the coalition aims to protect farmers from the scheme by exempting agriculture altogether. By allowing agricultural offsets, which include carbon sequestration in soils and vegetables, there is an opportunity for financial and land management benefits in the rural sector. This is, and will be, a long-term benefit for farmers and for the environment. We all know that coal plays a pivotal role in the success of the Australian economy. Coal is Australia’s No. 1 export earner, responsible for approximately $55 billion worth of export revenue in financial year 2008-09 alone. The coal industry employs 30,000 Australians directly and another 100,000 indirectly, most of them in regional areas such as the electorate of Paterson and the surrounding Hunter region. It is interesting that only recently Greg Combet, the junior Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, mentioned that Australia’s coalmining industry can afford the cost of carbon reduction proposed by the government’s climate change legislation. That is interesting, considering that the Rudd Labor government is planning to reap more than $14 billion in additional taxes from the coal industry over the next 10 years under the scheme—as well as not offering any rebates. If the coal tax is to proceed as proposed, it would likely see 16 mines close prematurely, with annual coal production of 22 million tonnes below business as usual. It is projected that 3,300 direct jobs will be lost in the first 10 years as well. Therefore the coalition would amend the legislation to exclude coalmine fugitive emissions as well as to provide the minister with the authority to use regulation to control fugitive emissions, with the objective of achieving a 30 per cent reduction by 2025 as technology and international best practice allows. The impact the Rudd Labor government’s CPRS will have on the purse strings of Australian households and small businesses is a major concern to those in the coalition. I have received many letters and emails from concerned constituents that this increase in electricity prices will finally put them over the edge. There has been little or no acknowledgement by the Rudd Labor government that individuals, households or small to medium businesses will face unprecedented rises in energy costs associated with the introduction of this scheme. I was speaking to a small business owner at Salamander on the weekend who indicated to me that this proposed legislation comes hot on the heels of the New South Wales state Labor government’s 20 per cent electricity price rise. This rise has increased the bill at their business from $1,300 for two months electricity to $1,700—all that before an ETS is introduced. If you add the proposed ETS you are looking at an alarming rise in power costs, not just for small business but also for the punters at large. Under the CPRS, retail electricity prices will rise by an additional 20 per cent in the first two years. For small businesses—they are looking at shrinking margins in such a volatile retail environment—these rising costs will impact everyone and hurt the poorest people in our community. Across the board a tax of $20 per tonne of CO2 will produce approximately $2,000 a year in extra costs for the average family of four, with what benefit to the environment? Next to nothing. But it will drive grocery prices up by 5 per cent, costing some households hundreds of dollars per month. The coalition will continue to advocate an intensity-based cap and trade model for generators. This delivers the same emissions cuts as the CPRS but with much smaller increases in electricity prices. This will greatly reduce the burden on small- and medium-sized businesses, which will receive no compensation for higher power bills under the Rudd Labor government’s proposal. Under the coalition’s intensity approach, retail electricity prices would rise by less than five per cent in the first two years. The coalition’s amendments will cushion the impact of power price increases on small businesses and households, cutting them by at least half. The impact one individual can have on the planet, and collectively, is important when dealing with the environment. Actions by individual Australians or families to reduce emissions can have an impact; however, currently the design of the scheme means that any action will do nothing to reduce Australia’s contribution to climate change. The coalition will negotiate for a national ‘white certificate’ energy efficiency scheme, so households and businesses can earn credits for efficiency measures and contribute to reducing national emissions. By including voluntary measures, the environment will also benefit from initiatives that are developed by individuals, businesses and community groups. Coal-fired generators must be better compensated for loss of value they experience from the CPRS, to ensure security of electricity supply and enable them to transition to lower emission energy sources. The CPRS offers coal-fired generators 130 million permits over five years worth $3.6 billion. Yet analysis has been conducted estimating their losses at $9 billion to $11 billion. Assistance should be increased to 390 million permits over 15 years—or about $10 billion. Assistance should also be allocated to all generators in proportion to the losses they suffer. In conclusion, the coalition have consistently argued that it is reckless for the Rudd Labor government to rush ahead with legislation that is ultimately flawed before the Copenhagen summit in December and before we know what the rest of the world is committed to. It is reckless for the Rudd Labor government to insist that Australia locks in its emissions trading scheme ahead of the rest of the world, in particular the biggest emitters, such as China, India, the US and the European Union. It is reckless to ignore that this legislation is being rushed through to meet the Prime Minister’s politically motivated deadline, which was highlighted in reports in the media today, that he would be anointed as the ‘Friend of the Chair’ in Copenhagen, proving that rushing this bill through the parliament is all about the Prime Minister’s personal interests and not those of our nation. He is reckless to ignore the widespread and substantial impacts that this legislation will have on the Australian economy, on business, consumers and jobs. It is reckless to ignore that the CPRS legislation is purely another tax grab whereby it can destroy industries, sacrifice jobs and increase power prices for small business and households with no benefit to the reduction of greenhouse gases. It is now up to the Rudd Labor government to make the correct choices for the Australian community and for the Paterson community. I would like to conclude by quoting from two emails that I received yesterday from concerned constituents: Dear Mr Baldwin, Thank you and your party for taking the Rudd Government to task regarding this emissions trading scheme. Don’t let up on it. I am one of the millions of Australians who the government keeps saying is in favour of the emissions trading scheme. I am not in favour of what they are doing. Kindest regards, Harry And: Dear Mr Baldwin, This new tax is ridiculous. It is just not the answer for this ever growing and high profile problem. There has to be another way so that people, jobs, the local communities and the economy of this fair and great country of ours are not so adversely affected. This government needs to sit down and look at the amendments being proposed by the coalition. If those amendments proposed by the coalition are endorsed then I am sure they will get the support of the coalition. To fail to do so does not penalise the coalition; it actually penalises our nation. 11298 18:16:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I congratulate the member for Paterson on his contribution! Once again he has gone on to demonstrate how out of touch he is in his electorate. No wonder his margin took such a slashing at the last election. After 20 minutes he could not actually tell us whether he supported an emissions trading system or not. Sure, he alluded to the amendments, but he still has not gone on to say whether he supports it. He may be one of those—which is the majority, as I understand it; the climate change sceptics on that side of the parliament—hoping like hell that the member for Groom’s negotiations with Senator Penny Wong break down. That would allow them at least an escape route. Acting on climate change frankly is in the national interest, despite what is being said consistently now on the other side of the House. The government is committed to taking action on climate change and is committed to ensuring the future sustainability of our industries and our people. Furthermore, there is a commitment to act on and respond in terms of our economic planning. We understand the needs of our communities and we certainly understand the needs of business. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, you would know the views of the Business Council of Australia et cetera. These organisations are coming out now saying they want some definition as to what is occurring. They want some certainty. Bear in mind that this country is one of the hottest and driest continents in the world. Its economy is one that will be the first and hardest hit in terms of the devastating effect of climate change should we fail to act. We must ensure the health of our growing population—and bear in mind this week we have heard a lot of discussion in this place about our population being likely to exceed 30 million over the next 50 years. We need to ensure that our waterways, our energy supplies, our coastal communities and our infrastructure are all able to face the tests as required as we take this argument forward. We need to ensure, in other words, their sustainability. In the face of the current economic crisis, a clear direction in terms of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme I believe is absolutely essential. It provides business with certainty about the government’s plan to tackle this issue of global warming. Australia is faring reasonably well in comparison with our global neighbours. We are still mindful of the fact of the potential impact on jobs. Therefore, various aspects have been dealt with within this legislation. That is not an issue that is being raised directly in the member for Paterson’s electorate, particularly if you look at those areas involved in coalmining, which are very proactive in looking at a sensible, sound and sustainable solution to protecting those jobs. I will come briefly to the issue of coalmining a little later on. This government has put forward an economically prudent proposal to support the jobs of today while simultaneously putting in place a scheme that will value the low-pollution-generating jobs into the future. Modelling by the Australian Treasury has found that 1.7 million jobs can be created over the period to 2020 while still tackling this very important issue. Maybe unlike other members of this House, I have had a period of time before coming here where I was involved in the renewable and sustainable energy industries. I happen to know a bit about how hard it is going out there and raising funds on the stock market to develop and commercialise technologies. I understand that. That is why companies that are developing these technologies absolutely do need the leadership, do need to see the system, so they can actually go to the markets and raise capital to develop these technologies. That is occurring. What we want to do is accelerate it. Environmental protection is often thought to come at the cost of economic growth. However, I do not think there is anyone in this place who genuinely believes that the cost of taking the steps under the CPRS far outweighs not taking any action. Going back before the last election our attention was drawn to these matters. We saw the Stern report out of Britain and more recently in Australia the Garnaut report, with current emission trends and their respective costs on various areas of our community. I will not walk away from the fact that agriculture is certainly one of them, as are areas of infrastructure, iconic environmental assets and tourist destinations et cetera. For instance, it is said that the Great Barrier Reef generates around $5 billion of tourism revenue and about 50,000 jobs. No-one seriously believes that those areas will not be impacted. I believe that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] is providing the necessary balance between stable economic positioning and a stable environmental endeavour, for our current generation to act responsibly in terms of the legacy which we will bequeath to future generations in this country. Last week in the second reading speech, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change pointed out that irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin provides employment to 90,000 Australians—I know this is significant to your own state, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas—and is at risk of totally disappearing by the year 2100. I understand further that a rise of one degree centigrade could reduce inflows to the Murray-Darling by 15 per cent. We cannot sit back and do nothing. This will have a direct impact on jobs in those irrigated, agriculture based industries which will be at the forefront of those being affected. The minister also drew attention to the gains which can be made through increasing investment in renewables. The CPRS is expected to drive $19 billion of investment in this sector by 2020. As I said, having worked in that area I know what it is like to construct a business model, to gain shareholder or investor support to put money into developing and commercialising technologies. They need this. They need to develop and commercialise the technologies which can be deployed to reduce emissions in this country. I recall very vividly over the course of the last parliament the then Prime Minister, John Howard, saying that it was not that we needed to sign Kyoto; what we needed was to develop the technology. All the technology developers out there were looking for a business model which would support the development of technologies and commercialising those technologies, but that just did not occur during the 12 years of the Howard government. In December this year, the world will come together to reach, hopefully, a global agreement on climate change. I am not going to say for one minute that that is going to be an easy task, but the world is coming together and the debate in Copenhagen will be solely on the issue of climate change. Unlike some of the climate change sceptics on the other side of the House who obviously are legion, Australia needs to go to Copenhagen with a position of strength—with strong targets—and show some leadership. That is very important. It seems the cultural cringe on the other side of the House is that you have to sit back and see what everyone else does first. I would be fearful for what would have occurred for the French and the English if we had sat back to see what everybody else was going to do in the Second World War. We took steps then; we need to take steps now. This is as vital as getting involved and showing that leadership, not having the cultural cringe and waiting to say, ‘We’re going to wait and see what everyone else does.’ We are not acting alone in this. There are 27 EU countries, the United States, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Korea all of which have—or, if not, they are developing—cap-and-trade emission trading systems as we speak. It is imperative that all nations continue to move forward. In that, I think Australia should be prepared to roll up its sleeves and take a role in it. It is not just us standing out the front and being able to show leadership on this; it is also our Australian industries which are developing these technologies, such as energy development. This is a new and emerging base of industries with which we can be at the forefront. We must consider the support which those industries get in developing their technologies, not simply for abating and reducing emissions in this country; their technologies will be essential for doing the same in other countries which are similarly concerned about reducing their emissions. Earlier I referred to the Business Council of Australia. I have just found a quote from them which says: In the interests of business certainty, the BCA calls on the Senate to pass the legislation this year to establish a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The only point I draw from that is that businesses are saying that they want certainty. They know there has been a debate, they know what occurred last election and they know what we took to the electorate in 2007. They know what the contest was at that stage and they knew—maybe they did not know—why John Howard would not sign Kyoto, but they knew precisely what it meant to elect a Rudd Labor government. Industry at large, as well as the community, are saying, ‘We want some degree of certainty out of this.’ Therefore, enacting a carbon pollution reduction scheme is not just the way to go because there has been a mandate for it; this is now overdue. There is no doubt about it: we are loosing the fight in terms of climate change. We have a lot of catching up to do. Maybe this does not turn it all around but this is putting a line in the sand from which we must move forward. In Copenhagen, this is an area where this country can show some strength and take some leadership. For those reasons, and for many others, I will be commending the bill to the House. But I cannot help but be drawn back to the position of all the renewable energy and sustainable energy companies out there which are looking to make their mark on the world at this stage. They will be going out and playing their role. They see this as critical for establishing this new and emerging group of industries. There is no walking away from the importance of coal in this country. It is our greatest export. One of the things we must be is the world’s best developer of clean coal technology. The $2 billion for the carbon capture and storage technology is very important. There is no point going out there and signing all these contracts and selling all this coal unless we are leading the development of these technologies. There are things we are doing in areas such as the Otway Basin and elsewhere. At the table is the member for Brand, whose own area of Western Australia, his old stamping ground up in the North West Shelf, is leading the way in terms of geosequestration. These are things which are becoming particularly Australian. Our experts are particularly Australian in this regard. We are developing those industries out here and exporting them around the globe. The time is right now to proceed with this legislation. I do take a degree of comfort in the fact that the member for Groom is entering into the negotiations in good faith with the Minister for Climate Change and Water, and I wish those negotiations well. A heck of a lot depends on this. We actually do want a bipartisan position when it comes to something so critical that affects all of us not only now but into the future. Therefore I commend these bills to the House. 11301 18:31:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I rise to speak against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and accompanying bills in this cognate debate. The Australian people are now only just starting to focus on what the Labor federal government has in store for them with its CPRS Bill, the bill that imposes a new broadbased consumption tax to be known as the emissions trading scheme, or ETS, tax. The ETS tax, unlike the GST, is a tax on everything, including food. It is a tax on our basic means of heating, lighting and cooking, and that is electricity. Food prices will rise, it is said, by up to seven per cent. There is to be a massive tax on the commodity that provides 75 per cent of our electricity—that is, coal—which means that the cost of electricity will reportedly double. The tax will also fall on coal exports—our largest single export earner—all forms of transport, building materials, wheelchairs and even Vegemite. This package of bills envisages that agriculture will become subject to the scheme as well, resulting in a tax on all sheep and cattle, which will simply force dairy farmers and other farmers off the land and into possible bankruptcy. Senator Barnaby Joyce has had estimates done which show the cost of a family roast could be $150. Climate change, which has obviously been going on for millions of years, has a new element: human beings are now said to be, by some, the cause of the changes in climate. The same people who advocate this can be called many, but there are also vast numbers growing every day who just say it is part of the continuum. Professor Roger Short, who holds an honorary position at the University of Melbourne as professorial fellow in medicine, in the zoology organisation at its Parkville campus, has made the most astonishing statements showing how extreme the antihuman brigade is. In an interview on ABC radio 702 last Sunday, he said: We already have available the pill, which will stop global warming. Isn’t that fantastic? The single most cost-effective way of controlling global warming is to make the contraceptive pill available to as many million women, particularly in the developing world, who are denied access to it. We could, for $7 outlay per person, reduce the CO2 emissions by one metric tonne. Controlling global population will be No. 1 on the list, you can take it from me, in December when the world climate change conference opens in Copenhagen. But he is consistent. In a media release in 2002 he is quoted as commenting on the statement by the founder of the World Wildlife Fund, who said: At the end of the day, we could have saved more wildlife if we had spent all WWF’s money on buying condoms for humans. His comment was: He was right, and human overpopulation is ultimately the greatest threat to wildlife. A genuine human-hater. Professor Short is attending the Prime Minister’s science awards dinner here in Canberra in this Parliament House tonight. The Labor federal government’s response to climate change is a fudge. It pretends to lower emissions. It does not. It merely imposes this new tax, the ETS tax. This is how it works. There is no cap on the actual emissions Australia can make now or in the future. There is only an allocation made for Australia under the Kyoto protocol, and when Australia exceeds that allocation Australians have to pay billions of dollars to other countries for them to reduce their CO2 emissions by the amount we exceed ours. This is done by buying permits from Third World countries, hoping they will plant trees or otherwise abate, or by buying from other countries who have spare capacity—that is, they have not yet reached their own targets. Treasury modelling shows that Australians’ actual emissions will remain way above the 2000 levels, even though Australia might agree to cutting the Kyoto allocated targets by five per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050. By 2020, emissions will be up by 11 per cent—that is, over the allocated target. By 2050 they will be nearly double the allocated targets. But where the cap does become relevant is domestically, where these bills impose a cap on how much CO2 can be emitted by industries and enterprises all over Australia. Once this cap is reached, the enterprise can go on emitting but has to pay a tax by way of purchasing permits from a body newly created by this legislation, called the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority—get used to it; it is going to be a big name. This body issues the permits and collects the billions of dollars paid by Australian businesses. Note the tax is not paid into consolidated revenue, as is normal, but to the authority, which in turn will churn some of the tax receipts into payments for pensioners and others who cannot afford to pay the increases in costs of living because of the tax. The authority will also issue free permits to those industries lucky enough to be allowed to escape up to 95 per cent of the tax. Many of those industries will be ones which have been lured to Australia because of cheap energy sources and, once the price goes up, will simply leave the country and go to one where there is no such tax. But the government can increase the tax any time it likes by lowering the cap. It becomes a ready cash cow for government, without any restriction. It is estimated that there will be unallocated revenues worth $50 billion from 2015 to 2025. Let’s compare that to the GST. The GST, a broad based consumption tax which excludes food and many other things, cannot be raised except by agreement of all states. But the ETS tax can be raised at the will of the federal Labor government, which has already plunged this nation into hundreds of billions of dollars of debt. Small business and farmers will be the big losers—but so will all of us, being forced to pay more and have a drop in our standard of living. Whether it is Whitlam with the illegal overseas loans, or Keating with 17½ per cent interest rates, Labor always manages to wreck our economy—and then we the coalition have to come in and clean it up, just as we did in 1996. The Minerals Council of Australia—and, I note, it is on the government’s own admission—points out that China’s thirst for our minerals and energy resources has allowed our economy to receive the fillip that it has indeed received. That Minerals Council is opposed to the scheme. It points out that it is out of step with the rest of the world and will impose the world’s highest carbon costs. The Minerals Council also points out that the modelling by Concept Economics showed 24,000 jobs would be lost from the minerals sector by 2020. All this at a time when high levels of immigration are saying we are headed for a population of 35 million by 2050. This is not a time to be cutting jobs; this is a time to be creating jobs. This tax is hugely complicated, and all recent polls show that Australians are starting to realise the impact it will have on them and their families. The respected Lowy Institute poll states: Climate change continues to drop as a priority for Australians. In 2007, Australians ranked … climate change as the equal most important foreign policy goal… This year it ranked 7th out of ten possible goals—down ten points since last year and 19 points since 2007. Global warming as a threat to Australia was down 14 points since last year. And 53 per cent of people, in a Newspoll a month ago, said nothing should be done before the Copenhagen meeting, when the rest of the world meets to debate this issue. The Canberra Times reported this week that four in 10 voters said they did not have a clue when asked their view on the Labor government’s emissions trading scheme. Essential Research, who conducted an online poll, showed 38 per cent of people polled had no idea whether the ETS was good or bad. Of 25- to 34-year-olds, 49 per cent did not know if the ETS goes too far in favouring business, the environment movement or has the balance right. Michael Stutchbury wrote in the Australian in August 2009: Australia’s raucous democracy can impose political penalties on governments held responsible for even small reductions to household incomes, particularly for middle-class families. So Rudd’s main pitch at the 2007 election was to ease the squeeze on household budgets from higher interest rates, petrol prices and grocery prices. Yet support for climate change action among battlers is likely to quickly dissipate once it touches the hip pocket nerve. That’s partly why governments prefer to disguise the carbon “tax” in the form of a cap-and-trade system. A tax is what it is. There is plenty of evidence that this Labor lot has tried to hoodwink the Australian people into accepting the ETS as a benign instrument to combat climate change. It is not. It is a tax. There is now more evidence that people are awakening and starting to realise this complex tax is not in their interests. The case is becoming plainer and plainer that this tax is one which is designed to reap revenue for the government which it thinks it can use to redistribute income and to help to start paying off the massive debt that it has racked up. It is a hoax on the people. It will not change the emissions in this country one iota. It is just a tax. Accordingly, I oppose this package of bills. 11304 18:42:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —I rise to add to this debate today on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. I am going to build on my comments on 3 June 2009, and I would encourage members who are interested in my broader thoughts on this to read that second reading debate speech when this issue was first introduced into the parliament. I want to add to those comments with this legislation coming back, because it is particularly important legislation in my electorate of Leichhardt, the home to the Great Barrier Reef and the home to the wet tropics rainforest. To us it is not only about protecting the environment and making a difference in terms of the reef; it is also about jobs in the tourism industry. We have over $2 billion in economic activity in the region based around tourism and there are 35,000 direct and indirect jobs. So when we talk about jobs and the need for us to take action on climate change, we are talking directly about regions like mine and the importance of tackling climate change. The science is in. There is no doubt that there are real risks to the Great Barrier Reef, the wet tropics rainforest, the Murray-Darling and the agricultural sector. The report brought down this week also highlighted the risk to coastal communities. I am proud to represent the Torres Strait Islands. Mayor Gela, representing the outer islands, is very concerned about the long-term impact of climate change and sea level rise on islands such as Saibai, Boigu and some of the central island group as well. It highlights how out of touch the opposition are when Mr Abbott in comments this week on the doors when asked about the report being released said that sea levels had risen 20 centimetres along the coast of New South Wales and nobody had really noticed it. The reality is that a 20-centimetre rise in sea levels in a place like the Torres Strait could mean that we would have to look to move people from islands like Saibai and Boigu. Members opposite making contributions like that in this debate really do not understand how important this issue to communities like those in the Torres Strait. Indigenous Australians are really struggling and thinking about the long-term future of those communities. I heard the member for Mackellar’s comments earlier. They struck as being quite different from the overall view that I thought the Liberal Party brought to this issue. The reality is that the Labor Party took to the last election a commitment to introduce an emissions trading system and we are now debating our emissions trading system, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The member for Wentworth, the current Leader of the Opposition, made it clear that he supports an emissions trading scheme. As the environment minister in the former Howard government he introduced legislation into this parliament. There was discussion about it going to the former coalition caucus and being supported. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that he supports an ETS. We heard the member for Mackellar say that basically she does not support this legislation and does not support an ETS, like many other members over there. But we have heard from the leadership of the Liberal Party that they do support this proposal for an emissions trading scheme. They might not like our particular emissions trading scheme, but they do support an emissions trading scheme. We are negotiating in good faith with them. But that sounds quite different from some of the comments from their back bench. The business community supports an emissions trading scheme. The Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group support one. The National Farmers Federation reckon that we need to have an emissions trading scheme. They are saying—quite differently from the National Party—that they support an emissions trading scheme. They want to have the emissions out but they want to be able to take the benefits of the abatement. So there is a broad coalition that supports an emissions trading scheme. The NFF says that they want to see an emissions trading scheme. They want to see the benefits of abatement go to the agriculture sector. I come from an agriculture and farming background. I talk to local people in my part of the world in the sugar industry, and they see real benefits from being involved in getting the abatements that will flow if the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, an emissions trading scheme, passes through the parliament. There is a broad coalition of people who want to see the government take action on climate change. There is international agreement. The American President has made it clear that he supports an emissions trading scheme. The Europeans already have an emissions trading scheme. There is a broad coalition of support that we need to get an emissions trading scheme in Australia through the parliament. We are negotiating in good faith with the opposition, but we are quite confused about where the opposition really stands on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition is saying very clearly that he now wants this legislation delayed until after Copenhagen. The reality is that Copenhagen is going to be important in terms of setting the levels of international targets. This legislation will be different, no doubt, from the American legislation and different from the European legislation—that is understandable; we have different economies. What we need to do is agree on the targets, and that is what Copenhagen is about. We and the Australian community are tired of listening to the Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite continuing to delay this debate and not making a decision. That has been their approach to this issue. I do not believe, and I do not think that anybody sensible who has been watching this debate, would believe that this is about them making a decision. This is about internal problems in their party. The member for Mackellar and a range of other members have made it very clear that they do not actually believe that climate change is happening. They are very sceptical about it. That is why they cannot make a decision on this issue. They were going to make a decision after the Garnaut report and tell us what their policy was. They were going to make a decision after the Treasury modelling and tell us what their policy was. They were going to make a decision after we had put forward a white paper and tell us what their policy was. They had their own Pearce report that would inform their policy and give us an idea about where they stood on this issue. Their opposition spokesman on this issue, Mr Robb, said that after the Senate inquiry we would get a clearer understanding of their position. And according to the Leader of the Opposition we would get a clearer understanding after the Productivity Commission report. Delay, delay, delay. It is not about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition does not support an emissions trading scheme; it is about the fact that he cannot get his own side of politics all together and into the room to agree. The Australian people are tired of it. They want a government to take action; they want this legislation through the Senate. We want to be able to go to Copenhagen with legislation that has passed the parliament and is very clear about how we can go about achieving our targets. We know that there are members opposite that support the view that getting this legislation through the parliament and through the Senate before Copenhagen is important. We want to show leadership to the international community. We want to make sure that we can get a good deal and set a high target so that we can keep carbon levels at or below 450 parts per million, which we need to do to make a real difference in terms of things like protecting the Great Barrier Reef. I mentioned Mr Abbott earlier on and some of his comments that indicated that he was out of touch with places like the Torres Strait and the impacts and threats of rising sea levels. But even Mr Abbott has made it clear that getting this legislation through the parliament will assist us in our negotiations in Copenhagen. In the Australian on 19 October 2009 in an opinion piece, Mr Abbott, talking about getting the legislation through, said: It could indeed help the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change talks if Australia agreed in advance not only to a carbon emissions target but also on a mechanism to deliver it. The mechanism to deliver it is the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I, representing communities in the north and an area including the Great Barrier Reef and wet tropics rainforest, plead with the opposition to come together and make a decision. The Leader of the Opposition said a month ago that he was going to effectively stake his leadership on this issue. He needs to take shadow cabinet’s position—his position—after the negotiations to the party room and say, ‘This is the best deal that we could get from the government.’ The government is prepared to sit down, through Minister Wong, and come away with a compromise if necessary to get this legislation through the parliament. But the Leader of the Opposition needs to stand up in his party room and take on the sceptics and get a deal on this issue so we can get it through the House and get it through the Senate and take to Copenhagen a plan to take action on climate change. People in my community in Cairns and Far North Queensland are demanding of the Australian parliament that we come together and come up with a solution to deal with the issue of climate change. Jobs are on the line in Far North Queensland in the tourism sector, if we do not take action. It might not be tomorrow but over the medium to longer term. My pleading and my call to the opposition is to come together and stare down the sceptics, stare down the National Party and come to an agreement with the government so that we can get this legislation through the parliament and take action and make a difference to the world in terms of our response to climate change. 11307 18:53:00 Vale, Danna, MP VK6 Hughes LP 0 0 Mrs VALE —I oppose these Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills because they are driven by fantasy and deceit. Even the very name of this legislation is a deceit upon the people of Australia. Carbon is not a pollutant. It is a potent fertiliser and up until now a free fertiliser at that. At the outset I say that it is madness and morally reprehensible for the Rudd Labor government, and indeed for the well-fed Western democracies, to take actions that intend to limit, capture and bury a free fertiliser like CO2 and thus deny the billions of undernourished people in the developing world a free 20 to 50 per cent increase in food production as well as increased rainfall in a world that is experiencing water shortages as populations increase. Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is the building block of the universe. All scientists agree that it occurs naturally. It is invisible, odourless and non-toxic and is emitted by all animal life. It is also necessary for all plant life for photosynthesis. My constituents will often hear the term ‘greenhouse gases’ used synonymously with CO2 and it is presented as a pollutant. They should be alerted to the fact that greenhouse gases make it possible for humans to live upon the earth and that CO2 is but a small component of greenhouse gases. They may be surprised to learn that water vapour and clouds make up 97 per cent of greenhouse gases and CO2 about two per cent, with methane and other gases making up the remaining one per cent. This means that exhaled breath, fluffy clouds and cow belches are presented as pollutants. Water is the main driver of the greenhouse effect. Of this very small CO2 component of greenhouse gases, human beings contribute about three per cent and soil and vegetation about 53 per cent, with the remaining 44 per cent coming from the oceans. We here in Australia contribute about 1.5 per cent of total global anthropogenic emissions. This legislation aims to reduce our national emissions by five per cent by 2020 at the cost of great disruption to the Australian economy and the potential to lose tens of thousands of jobs. To give you a picture, Mr Philip Wood of Intec Ltd said that this means that this legislation aims to reduce the world’s greenhouse effect by the equivalent of one footstep in a walk around the equator. Yet there are now unchallenged scientific findings that tell us that CO2 will not cause future catastrophic climate change. Indeed, with all the resources available to the Rudd government, the government must be aware that, based on recent scientific discoveries, a doubling of CO2 will cause a barely perceptible 0.2 to 0.5 degree temperature increase over a century. The benefits of this for humanity will far outweigh any costs. Yes, that is the extent of it: barely perceptible. In truth, these bills before us today are really tax bills. They are the most pernicious pieces of legislation that we have had come before us in this parliament, not least because they are based on misinformation, scientifically disproved theories, Orwellian doublespeak and, as evidenced by their title, outright deceit. These bills will not provide any protection for our environment but will serve to vandalise our economy, undermine our system of law and threaten the very fabric of our free society. There are several issues involved in this legislation, and in the short time allocated to me I need to clarify my position on some of them for the benefit of my constituents. These issues include climate change itself, the degree of the impact of human activity on climate change—which is often referred to as anthropogenic global warming, as propounded by the Garnaut report—the government’s response to that report in presenting this legislation and the likely impact of this legislation upon the lives of the people of Australia. First, we all understand that the climate of the Earth changes over time. We know that the Earth has had ice ages in its distant past as well as times of thaw and times of warming. It is the rhythm of the Earth. Some of my constituents may have heard of Skara Brae, a Neolithic stone settlement in the Orkney Islands near the north coast of Scotland, which had been covered by grassy dunes for thousands of years. It was revealed in 1850 after a major storm and extremely high tides. Archaeologists found that the Neolithic people who settled Skara Brae had lived there for over 600 years. But as the weather patterns changed the people abandoned their village. It had become progressively wetter and colder and fish could no longer be found in the increasingly colder ocean currents: climate change. From the evidence found of human occupation on the planet, we know that human beings prove to be the highly resistant survivors, being able to readily adapt to the circumstances of their environment. Scientific observation proves that advances and retreats in Greenland glaciers and the Arctic ice are cyclical and entirely natural. They provide us with another example of Earth’s climate rhythms. During the mediaeval warming period, which started around 1,000 AD, global temperatures were around two degrees higher than they are today. Viking seafarers following the Pole Star across the western Atlantic discovered Greenland and called it green because it was green. However, around 1,400 AD, as the Little Ice Age enveloped the world, the Vikings were forced to abandon Greenland. The Little Ice Age ended only a century ago: another example of climate change. From the early mists of time up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution around 350 years ago, the evidence of climate change upon the Earth is irrefutable. Yet there is no human industry that contributed to greenhouse gases before that time. The Industrial Revolution did not occur until around the late 18th century. Yet today the scientists at the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology inform us through the Garnaut report that CO2 produced by human industry will cause future catastrophic climate change if we do not act urgently to seriously reduce its impact. It begs the question: what, then, caused the climate to change in the past if, as the scientists at the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology tell us, CO2 is the problem today? Further, where is their observational or empirical evidence? This brings me to my next concern: the question of evidence against CO2. As a lay person, it is my understanding that in science observation always trumps theory. In my reading for preparation on these bills, I was concerned to learn that scientific observations published in two recent peer reviewed scientific papers disprove two key climate theories incorporated in the version of the CSIRO-Bureau of Meteorology computer climate model—that is, the Garnaut model—used to provide the theoretical forecasts for temperature and other climate changes that were used as input in the Garnaut climate change review report. And as we are all aware here, the Garnaut report is the driver for the justification of these bills. For the edification of the House, and hopefully also for the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and for the chief executive officer of the CSIRO, to whom I have also written seeking clarification on this point, these two recent peer review scientific papers are published online. The first is a paper by Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michael Pook entitled Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data published on 26 February 2009. The second is by Frank J. Wentz, Lucrezia Ricciardulli, Kyle Hilburn and Carl Mears called, How much more rain will global warming bring published in Science Express on 31 May 2007. I have written to the minister seeking his assurance that the climate theories incorporated in the Garnaut version of the CSIRO-Bureau of Meteorology computer model were in accordance with the observed climate principles clearly evident in the findings made by Paltridge et al and Wentz et al respectively. I take the time to point out that the findings of these two scientific peer reviewed papers indicate that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will likely cause some global warming, but it will be an imperceptible increase of around 0.2 to 0.5 degrees spread over a century—hardly catastrophic and hardly necessitating the response by the Rudd Labor government of these draconian taxation bills, which will create a huge new government bureaucracy to administer, regulate, accredit and enforce, and create a new market commodity in trading permits to emit, and impose a new tax on everything. The Garnaut version was either based on climate theories that have since been disproved by Paltridge et al and Wentz et al retrospectively, or it was based on the climate principles clearly evident in the Paltridge and Wentz findings. It is not a difficult question for the scientists at the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology. It is either yes or no, but we need to know. It would be reckless in the extreme for members of this House to vote on these bills before we have a specific and unequivocal assurance from the minister—and I respectfully call on the minister for this assurance—that the Garnaut version was indeed based on the climate principles clearly evident in the recent discoveries made by Paltridge and Wentz respectively. There are many other aspects of this bill which would cause my fellow Australians great concern. Many would not be aware of the corrosive impact this legislation will have on our economy. Nor would they be aware of how it will undermine certain rights we value in our legal system. The explanatory memorandum points out that the grand new bureaucracy created by this legislation is to be called the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority, but it will be known by the Orwellian name of the ‘Authority’. The ‘Authority’ will administer this trading system and the reporting regime. It will determine the renewable energy targets and decide on the issuing or withholding of permits to emit to the Australian industry. Orwellian discomfort continues when we learn that the ‘Authority’ can abolish the right to silence and the right to self-incrimination. There are provisions that reverse the onus of proof, and we can all forget about any privacy protections. The ‘Authority’ will have the right to pass private information on to anyone it likes, including the United Nations and foreign governments. Alongside these concerns, I am highly suspicious of the undue haste, the huge political push to pass this legislation before the windy debates in Copenhagen. I utterly reject the political urgency that suffers no opposition, the personal ridicule meted out to those of us who dissent from the ordained mantra of those prophets of the received wisdom, whom I call the ‘Profits of Doom’. The fervour of their arrogance and their ferocity in the face of my scepticism is easier to understand when we learn that the dogma is driven by dollars in what has already become a fevered research industry, bent on doing whatever it takes to convince the world that the devil is in CO2, despite knowing that a doubling of CO2 will green the planet with bountiful plant growth and despite knowing that the recent peer reviewed discoveries disprove their pernicious and false theories. In an interesting paper by Australian researcher Joanne Nova called Climate money published online, the author points out: … over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. Ms Nova goes on to say: These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments on the global industry. Most importantly, Ms Nova says: The most telling point is that after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate. In this present situation, where the usual scientific method of sceptical inquiry has been abandoned for an unfounded, unproven religious dogma, I hold a very real apprehension that this process of deceit, haste and verbal abuse by those ‘Profits of Doom’ of the received wisdom is something akin to a bloodless coup d’etat against our democracy, our standard of living and our Australian way of life. Ms Nova also says: The intimidation, disrespect and ostracism leveled at people who ask awkward questions acts like a form of censorship. Not many fields of science have dedicated smear sites for scientists. Money talks— she concludes. And there are those of us non-believers on this side of the House that cop a right verbal walloping every now and again from the Prime Minister and his frontbench whenever they feel like there is a need to launch an invective or two across the parliamentary divide. Apparently, the Prime Minister still believes the false IPCC endorsed theory—that warm, moist air rises but when you apply more heat it slows down and rises more slowly—that Wentz has disproved, otherwise he would not be putting forward these bills. Personally, I would be terrified if I was in a hot air balloon and the Prime Minister was in charge. Every time an obstacle loomed he would turn down the burner and we would crash. When the time came to land, he would turn up the burner and we would drift up, to be carried by the winds into oblivion. There can only ever be one voyage with this Prime Minister, and it would end in disaster. However, my real concern here is that in this legislation truth is the first casualty. This legislation is based on a false premise. It is based on a lie. As John Reid pointed out in his article in this month’s Quadrant Online: When a political structure is set up which is based on a lie, we can expect further lies to proliferate. The truth is that this legislation will do nothing for the environment. All this legislation will beget is a new bureaucracy and a new tax, and it will be a tax on everything. This legislation will establish an engorged bureaucracy that will regulate emissions of CO2 through its oversight of just about every aspect of our lives. We all use energy, and access to the use of energy will be drawn under tight government control, through an administration that will have, as John Reid aptly described, ‘monitoring and accreditation structures of Byzantine complexity’. We have all been warned. My constituents should heed the words of the Hon. Ian Callinan AC QC, Justice of the High Court from 1998 to 2007, quoted in the publication Back to the 19th Century, printed by the Lavoisier Group in September this year. His Honour Justice Callinan stated: Emissions regulation offers government an irresistible opportunity to centralize and control every aspect of our lives; on our roads, on our travels, in our workplaces, on our farms, in our forests and our mines, and, more threateningly, in our homes, constructed as they will be compelled to be, of very specific materials and of prescribed sizes. It is not difficult to foresee a diktat as to how many lights we may turn on and when we must turn them off: the great curfew. The new regime has the capacity to make the wartime National Security Regulations look like a timid exercise of government restraint. I fear that these words will prove prophetic. In California plans are already afoot to ban ordinary citizens from using wide-screen TVs because of the energy they consume. In Australia, incandescent lights have already been banned. The new authority will hold ultimate control over Australian industry. It will strike at the heart of our energy industry, particularly at the economic viability of our coal-based power stations. It will eventually force up the cost of energy to Australian families as Australian businesses flow through their costs of compliance to all markets. The creation of a new market in emissions trading permits issued by the authority will provide effective leverage for government control of price in this new carbon market. It is hard to see how there will be any certainty for business and industry in all this. Just look at what capricious and self-interested changes to government policy have cost Telstra shareholders. This legislation, in creating a new market of tradeable property rights in emission permits, will certainly attract speculators and the usual other suspects, who are already sniffing the wind. But the Australian taxpayer will not be aware of the reach of this legislation until it is too late. While the banks and financial institutions are aware of the prospect of a new trading commodity, a new industry will already have been created by the time this new tax system begins to bite. There will be little, if any, prospect of any repeal. Unlike an old-fashioned consumption tax, this new tax system is a trading system. It will soon become an industry, and it will be almost politically impossible to repeal. I say this because it will very quickly become another government industry focused entirely upon its own preservation. And this is not without precedent. The federal government’s methadone program is a good example. Once this new carbon regime is in place, it will be almost politically impossible for it to be repealed. Carbon trading promises to be big, real big—even bigger than oil. Already there is a stealthy gathering of bankers and investors sniffing the lucrative trade winds of a massive new market. One other point that must be made at this juncture is that, if CO2 really was the driver of catastrophic global warming and a certain nation knew that there were large deposits of uranium lying within its sovereign soil, why is the Rudd Labor government deafeningly silent on the obvious nuclear solution for Australia? France derives almost 80 per cent of its baseload power from nuclear energy. It also sells it to neighbouring countries so they can supplement their supplies of green energy to keep the light on when there is a lull in the wind and to meet their baseload requirements. In truth, if CO2 was the real culprit in climate change, nuclear energy is the natural, clean, green solution for Australia. Instead, we are bullied, browbeaten and abused so that we accept this legislation, which threatens the political, social and legal fabric of our nation. And the tragedy is that today it can be clearly shown there was no need for it in the first place. The opening statement in the explanatory memorandum of this legislation is fanciful at best and outright fraudulent at worst. It hysterically portends a catastrophe of epic proportions that is based on the Garnaut report, which depended heavily upon theoretical forecasts on regional climate change for Australia that have now been proven to be incorrect by Paltridge et al and Wentz et al. So I await the minister’s assurance. Surely the scientists at the CSIRO and Bureau of Met would want to respond to the findings of Paltridge et al and Wentz et al because, as ethical scientists, they would be aware that the scientific world, and indeed every Australian, will be expecting their response in the light of these new discoveries. In the world of science observation always triumphs over theory eventually, and ethical scientists eventually abandon false theories when they have been disproved by observation. However, if ethics has gone the way of the scientific method and evidence based, informed government policymaking, and our response from the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology is a deafening silence, I would remind both these organisations of one thing: truth is the daughter of time. In the absence of any assurance from the minister in this regard, I have no option but to reject these bills for the fraud they are upon the people of my country. 11312 19:13:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which is contained in Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills, is a means to a low-carbon-emissions future; it is a means to a low-carbon-growth trajectory for Australia. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is not an end in itself. Anyone listening to some of the contributions to this debate from those opposite, including the hysterical contribution we have just heard from the member for Hughes, could be forgiven for thinking that it was an end in itself to introduce in Australia a carbon pollution reduction scheme—which is of course an emissions trading scheme, no different indeed from emissions trading schemes which have been introduced already in a number of countries, notably in the United Kingdom, where there has been a carbon trading scheme in operation since 2004. I mention this at the start of my remarks about the legislation simply to make the point that there are a range of means available to reduce carbon emissions just as there are a range of strategies and means that are needed to deal with the effects of climate change generally. Part of the government’s approach to the dangerous climate change we know to be occurring is reducing carbon emissions from Australia. Another part of the government’s strategy is to take adaptation measures to unavoidable climate change. A third part of the government’s strategy to deal with climate change is working to craft a global response, a global solution, to the problem of dangerous climate change. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is one means that can be taken to reduce carbon emissions. There are others, and of course the government has already embarked on a range of measures which are also directed to reducing carbon emissions. I include in those the renewable energy target, on which the government has acted to increase very substantially the renewable energy target after years of inaction in that area by the Howard government. I include the massive investment, contained in the last two budgets, directed at encouraging the development of renewable energy sources in Australia. I refer also to the large investment that the Rudd Labor government has made in developing viable carbon sequestration, which of course is directed at allowing the continuing use of coal in our country but with much lower emissions. I spoke on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bill when it was first introduced back in June—I spoke immediately after the Leader of the Opposition. One of the things I referred to in my speech on 2 June was the long list of excuses—repeated excuses—that the opposition had used in order to suggest that there was some reason or other for this House not dealing with legislation to introduce an emissions trading scheme for Australia. It is very pleasing to be able to say that the opposition no longer takes that position. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition spoke on these bills. He gave a bit of history which put the debate in context and must make anyone in Australia wonder what on earth the opposition have been going on about for the last several months. He said: Most economists and policymakers agree that a well-designed emissions trading scheme is the most economically efficient means of reducing greenhouse gases. He went on to say: That is why in 2007 the Howard government commenced work on an Australian emissions trading scheme. It was based on the Shergold report, the report of the committee chaired by the then permanent head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with other secretaries represented as well as industry. He followed that by saying: It is why both the coalition and the Labor Party went to the 2007 federal election promising to implement an emissions trading scheme. As the Leader of the Opposition correctly points out, both the former government and the then Labor opposition, the present government, went to the Australian people saying that an emissions trading scheme was necessary. Since the 2007 election we have had backsliding, retreat and a long litany of excuses from the opposition. When one listens to the member for Hughes one can only feel sorry, deep sympathy indeed, for the Leader of the Opposition as he attempts to marshal the bizarre attitudes that have been expressed by members opposite in relation to even the existence of climate change, let alone the hysteria that we heard from the member for Hughes to this effect: threatening the legal and social fabric of our nation. That came at the end of a speech in which she had suggested that carbon emissions were going to be responsible for a beneficial greening of the planet. Whoever heard such nonsense? So again I say, one can only feel sympathy for the Leader of the Opposition as he attempts to bring some rationality to bear. He did this in his speech earlier today, when he quite correctly noted the fact that the former government and the then opposition, the Labor Party, took to the people at the last election a proposal for the introduction of an Australian emissions trading scheme. It is also pleasing that the opposition is engaging in negotiations with the government over the detail of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That is not before time. Many of the details of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme have been on the table since the government’s white paper in December last year. One could go back earlier than that and look at the debates which we have now been having in this country for some years about what an emissions trading scheme would look like. I indicated in the speech I gave on 2 June that I was about to go to a climate change conference organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in London. I did attend that conference, which was attended by representatives of almost all Commonwealth countries and by invitation a range of representatives from other developing countries. These included, notably, Mexico, which has made a tremendous contribution to negotiations at the world level in developing a response to climate change. What was striking about that conference was that I heard very clearly and very directly voices from developing countries which have not been fully heard in the debate in this country. Regrettably, I go back to the member for Hughes to say that in listening to her contribution to this debate one might think that there had been no consideration of this issue around the world; that there had been no work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—not just in the last year but over the last 10 years. That of course is not the case. There has been an immense amount of work done by scientists, there has been an immense amount of work done by governments and there is an immense amount of concern being expressed by developing countries about the effect on their countries of dangerous climate change. The President of the Maldives attended this conference organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in London. His country, located as it is almost at sea level in the Indian Ocean, is at risk from rising sea levels. The message that he gave to all of the representatives of the Commonwealth who were present at that conference was, very directly, that his country was going to suffer the consequences of dangerous climate change caused by human activity in developed countries which, of course, is producing a situation where the consequences will be most directly borne by countries like the Maldives. Other developing countries are in a very similar position. They are looking to the developed world, of which Australia is a part, to take action to reduce carbon emissions and to take that action now. At the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference we heard also from representatives from Bangladesh. They sent a large delegation to this conference because Bangladesh is one of the countries in the world that is also very low lying, particularly in its delta areas, and it has experienced already the direct results of extreme weather events that are part of the dangerous climate change phenomenon. The particular recent catastrophic weather events that have been experienced by Bangladesh include what they referred to as two ‘super-cyclones’, which produced the result that, as at the date of this conference, which was in the first week of July this year, there were still some three million Bangladeshis living on levee banks as a result of flooding that had not subsided being caused by the two super-cyclones that occurred over the Australian summer, which was the monsoon season in Bangladesh, at the end of last year and the start of this year. I mention those examples simply to make the point that it is not just about Australia; it is about the contribution that Australia can make to the rest of the world and to the wellbeing of developing countries—in particular, developing countries from the Commonwealth, who are all looking directly to Australia as a developed Commonwealth country to take action and, indeed, to lead and assist in the negotiations which are about to take place in Copenhagen in December, less than 50 days from now. There is no doubt, the longer we wait the greater the cost will be. We on this side of the House are going to keep explaining the clarity of the science, how this scheme is intended to work and the need for it. I, with the member for Moore, assisted in arranging a visit last week of a group of climate scientists to provide information to members of this parliament. Listening to the member for Hughes, I can see that there is going to be an ongoing need for good science to provide answers to the sorts of myths and bad science that are propagated by climate change sceptics, which appear to include the member for Hughes. The efforts that seem to be now being made by part of the opposition—I cannot say the whole of the opposition; but, happily, the leadership of the opposition—to negotiate changes to this legislation are to be welcomed. It is a matter of continuing regret that there has been a complete failure on the part of the National Party part of the opposition to take climate change at all seriously. That represents a complete failure to look after that part of Australia which I had always thought the National Party claimed to be their constituency, namely rural Australia, who it is accepted are those Australians who will be massively affected by dangerous climate change in the form of reduced rainfall, higher temperatures and all of the other effects that other speakers have spoken about. Finally, I would mention the need for business certainty. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and a whole range of other industry groups and industry leaders are calling for this legislation to be passed. They have seen that in the United Kingdom and in the European community emissions trading legislation has been passed. It has not led, to use the hysterical words of the member for Hughes, to a ‘disruption of the legal and social fabric’ of their nations and nor will it lead to even a threat to the legal and social fabric of our nation. Instead it will lead to certainty. It will lead to Australia being able to join in with the rest of the world in grappling with climate change. It will lead to an improved negotiating position for Australia at the Copenhagen conference because we will be able to speak with the authority of a nation that has enacted legislation. And, to go back to my last point, in relation to business certainty it will provide to the business community of our country certainty going forward upon which they can rest business decisions and certainty as to where the business environment in which they operate is going to be in five and, we hope, 10 years time. I commend the legislation to the House. 11315 19:28:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —It is with pleasure that I rise to speak this evening on this important legislation, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. I follow a contribution which, I must say, I am very disappointed with from a member who, before the last election, talked up what an intellectual contribution he would make to this place. But instead he spent at least seven minutes at the start of his speech attacking the member for Hughes’s speech and then spent a large part of the rest of his speech talking about the effects of climate change in different parts of the world. He actually did not speak at any point about this legislation, the details of the legislation, its effect on the Australian people or the reasons we should support it. It is very disappointing, but I guess it is not so surprising that he has not been promoted, as he believed early on that he would be. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! I ask the honourable member to come to the bill. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —I will now move back to the content of the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the second opportunity we have had in several months to speak on this bill and I appreciate the fact that the minister responsible for the bill in this place, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, is at the table. I hope for his sake that he does not have to sit through the whole debate from beginning to end, but it is very good that he is here this evening. It is an important bill for us to consider in detail and there are in this place rightly a range of views on the impact of this bill. I for one support the democratic right of people in this place to have a different perspective on this important legislation. I think the minister at the table has said that it is probably the biggest change to the country’s economic infrastructure in some time, at least since the introduction of the goods and services tax; therefore, it is important that we do have a full-ranging debate. Obviously, we have had two opportunities to have this debate in the last three months. That three-month timing is coincidental of course. I rise tonight to speak in support of the amendments to this bill that were described so eloquently this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. They are vast in their coverage and important in their impact. This bill is badly flawed and the government obviously recognise that to the degree that they are entering into negotiations with the opposition on appropriate amendments in an attempt to try to move it through the parliament. We have amendments which demonstrate that Labor’s CPRS can be cheaper and smarter and can protect more jobs. We have done the work. We have shown that their scheme is deeply flawed. Even the Greens agree with us on that. They voted against it in the Senate back in August and I think they have shown that they will vote against it again if it is not amended. The Rudd government’s current proposal, if implemented, would jeopardise thousands of Australian jobs. It would compromise the international competitiveness of our trade exposed industries. If accepted by the government, our amendments will prevent shutdowns in important industries and save tens of thousands of jobs in those industries. Key export industries, including coalmining, food processing, natural gas and aluminium, will be better protected, saving thousands of Australian jobs that are under threat from Labor’s scheme. The proposals will cushion the impact of power prices on small businesses and households, which are very much the core constituency of the Liberal Party. They always have been and they always will be. Small businesses and families are very much who we stand for, who we stand with and who we will protect at all times. We also include in our amendments voluntary measures which will give businesses and, importantly, farmers and community groups opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through their own initiative. We will advocate an intensity based cap-and-trade approach to the electricity sector, as this more than halves the initial increase in electricity prices to small businesses and households, reducing the economic cost of achieving emissions cuts. Again, I make the point that we have done the work through the modelling of Frontier Economics, a consultancy that the Labor Party attack today but have used in the past. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, they have designed one more ETS than the Department of Climate Change. One of the key issues that we pursue in these amendments is the exclusion of agriculture, with offsets like forestry and internationally recognised soil carbon included in the scheme. This morning the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Flinders, the shadow spokesman on the environment, pointed out very clearly how this green carbon will work and become an important part of the mitigation attempts of this scheme. Voluntary action in energy efficiency will be recognised. Again, this is another important area in which we are negotiating with the government to make important changes to what is currently a flawed and inappropriate scheme. We believe that these realistic and achievable amendments will meet the objective of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions and at the same time remove the shadow of potential industry closures and large-scale job losses. The government must explain why it would reject these commonsense amendments, which will save Australian jobs, protect Australian small businesses from sharp power price rises and have the same environmental benefits by achieving the same reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We also maintain that we should be waiting for the international conference in Copenhagen, which is now but weeks away. One of the reasons for the pursuit of this legislation so soon after it was initially rejected is of course the Prime Minister’s vanity, which requires that he take this scheme to the Copenhagen conference. That is a dangerous thing and a rushed decision based on the political interests of the Prime Minister rather than the economic and environmental interests of our country. So we very much stand in the corner of the Australian people to ensure that this bill and this scheme will operate effectively and will not just be pushed through this parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister of the day looks like he has achieved something great at Copenhagen. We are very much of the view that this should be delayed until after the Copenhagen conference, but of course the government are the government and, as they have moved this bill today and with votes in the next two sitting weeks of parliament both in this place and in the Senate, we have indicated that we will be part of those negotiations. We are doing so as I speak. I am sure the member for Groom is speaking regularly with the Minister for Climate Change in that respect. The member for Isaacs in his remarks made the point that this is a global issue and has global ramifications, and we could not agree more with that point. This is a global issue and we must be part of the global response. That is why the conference in Copenhagen in December is an important occasion for us to see what the world will do together to address this issue. We also know that a bill, the Waxman-Markey bill, is being debated before the US senate today and is likely to be finalised in some way in the near future. We do not know what will come out of that process. We know that there will be a result and we presume that the result will introduce some sort of cap and trade scheme in the United States. However, the Minerals Council make the point that, even if our amendments to this bill are adopted, our scheme will still be the toughest in the world, in particular compared to the EU, but also in comparison with what is before the US senate. Therefore it is important that we get our scheme right to ensure that we do not sacrifice this at the altar of the Prime Minister’s ego with a rushed decision just to prove that he was able to get a scheme through before the conference. We agree that Australia needs to be part of the solution. Those of us on this side of the House agree that we need to take reasonable action to address what are serious issues in the Australian community. We do not seek to say, to the same level as some on the other side, that climate change will destroy the earth in a short period of time. However, what we do say is that the evidence is there and it is substantial and it is prudent of us to take action, as Margaret Thatcher said, as an insurance policy. I support that view. This is a reasonable approach; it is something that we have previously said that we will do. However, it is a fair thing in this place that all sorts of views are outlined. That is the very nature of this place. In conclusion, the government is engaging in negotiations with the opposition and we are very pleased about that. We think that they should support our amendments as they make a lot of sense. They prove that you can have a cheaper and smarter ETS that protects more jobs. We think the government has been rushed in its decision making and it will have severe consequences for our economy. We have seen that with other decisions they have made in relation to the economy and we are seeing that with this bill as well. We hope that the government takes our amendments and negotiations seriously and that they stop playing politics on this important issue. We ask that they come to the table, make some appropriate changes and make this a better bill than it is today. 11318 19:39:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I rise tonight to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills because they are critical to building the low-pollution economy Australia needs for our future. Tonight I have a pretty simple message: the time for dithering, the time for delay and the time for denial is over. The previous member was talking about these bills being rushed. I would hate to see him if he were really rushed. They have been at least 12 years in the making. There has been two years of intense work from the government and that follows a commitment that both parties took to the last election for action on an emissions trading scheme—and they talk about ‘the rush’. The fact is that there is an urgency about these bills but the government has dealt with them in a methodical way. We have presented a green paper; we have presented a white paper; we have presented legislation; and, there has been extensive scrutiny. We have been through one of the most comprehensive legislative processes in our history—and so it should be, given just how important this legislation is. Climate change is real and, of course, the economic and environmental consequences for Australia are real. We need to act now. Australia is one of the hottest and driest nations on the planet. It is highly exposed to the impacts of climate change. If we are to protect our nation’s interests we must not delay any longer. To begin with, the business community in Australia is absolutely desperate for investment certainty. Our business leaders need certainty so that they can continue to invest with confidence. They do understand the need for a low-pollution economy and they know that this type of transformation requires long-term planning and strategic business investment decisions right now. This is a view that has been expressed by many business leaders. In a speech on 15 October, Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group said: … 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. That is just commonsense. Then there is the following quote from Fiona Reynolds, the CEO of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees. She said that the passage of legislation: … will provide a clear signal and measure of certainty around which long term institutional investors like superfunds can begin to base investment planning and decision. Industry is crying out for certainty. Just this afternoon the Minister for Resources and Energy and I attended a roundtable in the north-west of Queensland on renewable energy. We talked with investors, not just from this country but from around the world, about what can be done and what we can achieve, not just through our CPRS but also through our RET, if we just manage to get this legislative framework right and provide the degree of certainty that capital requires so that we can move forward with certainty. But that is not there and of course those opposite continue to deny the need for certainty. Business certainty is absolutely important in this debate. At the end of the day what it means to the average Australian is jobs. Business investment is all about jobs and, most particularly here, the jobs of the future. There are very strong employment and growth reasons for acting now. The scheme is designed to help support the jobs of today, while creating the low-pollution jobs for the future. Treasury modelling shows that Australia can achieve strong trend economic growth while making deep cuts in emissions through the CPRS. From an employment perspective all major employment sectors grow over the years through to 2020, substantially increasing employment from today’s levels. National employment is projected to increase by 1.7 million jobs from 2008 to 2020 and by 4.7 million jobs by 2050 while carbon pollution emissions allocation levels are projected to fall at least 60 per cent from 2000 levels by 2050. Average income is projected to increase by $4,300 per person over the 12 years from 2008 to 2020 with strong trend growth in GDP and GNP. Treasury modelling also projects that by 2050 output in the renewable energy sector will be 30 times larger than it is today. This means jobs. Treasury modelling also shows that economies that act early face lower long-term costs—around 15 per cent lower—than when everybody acts together. So the case in terms of jobs is strong, but the case is also strong in terms of environmental impact. On top of the economic advantages there is the environmental imperative. The Garnaut review found that current emissions trends would have severe and costly impacts on agriculture, infrastructure and iconic environmental assets in tourism destinations such as the Great Barrier Reef. Without action on climate change the Garnaut review showed that by 2030 the value of agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin will shrink by 12 per cent—and by 49 per cent by 2050. Likewise, the intensity and severity of bushfires are expected to increase so that, in the regularity of them, they will decimate our landscape and threaten lives and property. We do understand that there needs to be an adjustment as we introduce the CPRS. The CPRS will reduce emissions, helping avoid those environmental impacts. Importantly, the scheme we have put forward does so in a way that protects low-income Australians. This support, I believe, undermines the scare campaign the opposition are trying to run on price increases. The government is committed to providing assistance to households to adjust to the introduction of the CPRS in three key ways. Upfront support will be provided to low- and middle-income households from 2011-12, through a package of direct cash assistance and tax offsets. All households will receive support to take practical action to reduce their energy use and save on electricity bills. Motorists will be protected from higher fuel costs by the application of cent-for-cent reductions in fuel tax for the first three years. The compensation will fully meet the additional costs of pensioners, seniors, carers, people with disability and low-income households, and will help meet the costs of middle-income households. Around 90 per cent of low-income households, or 2.8 million households, will receive assistance equal to 120 per cent or more of the expected overall increase in their cost of living due to scheme. For middle-income families receiving family tax benefit part A the government will provide assistance to meet at least half of the expected overall increase in their cost of living from the scheme. The assistance package has also been welcomed by ACOSS. ACOSS said: … ACOSS welcomes the Government’s commitment to provide cash compensation for low income households through the tax and payments systems to cover the expected energy price increases. That brings me to small business, because here again the opposition are trying to run a scare campaign on the effects of the CPRS. Small businesses and self-employed people—like builders, plumbers or accountants—will not have to buy permits under the CPRS because they will not generate enough emissions to be liable parties under the scheme. These business people may face higher costs for some of their inputs—in particular, higher energy costs—but for most small businesses the impact of these price increases is expected to be modest, with the precise impact dependent on their energy intensity. The government will provide assistance here as well. The fuel tax credit means that petrol prices will not rise due to the CPRS for the first three years of the scheme, and small business will be one of the key beneficiaries of the Climate Change Action Fund, which will provide $2.75 billion in assistance. The Climate Change Action Fund will assist small businesses, communities and regions to adjust to the CPRS. The government will also support larger businesses who would be most affected by the introduction of the scheme. The government is providing almost $4 billion to the most emissions-intensive electricity generators through the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme. This assistance is designed to assist coal-fired electricity generators with the introduction of the carbon price, and support investment in the Australian electricity sector. Our generous assistance for emissions-intensive trade-exposed businesses will help guard against carbon leakage and provide some transitional assistance that will help support jobs. Energy-intensive trade-exposed industries will receive an initial free allocation of approximately 27 per cent of all permits. Free permits will initially be provided at a 90 per cent rate for highly emissions-intensive activities, and at a 60 per cent rate for activities that are moderately emissions intensive. In addition, the global recession buffer will be applied for the first five years. Industries eligible for 60 per cent assistance get an extra 10 per cent, taking their rate to 66 per cent in 2011. Industries eligible for 90 per cent assistance will get an extra five per cent, taking their rate to 94.5 per cent in 2011. The CPRS white paper also explains that because the majority of coal mines are not emissions intensive it would be inappropriate to provide the whole industry with energy-intensive trade-exposed assistance. The government will instead provide $750 million over five years to assist the most gassy coal mines. This will provide associated benefits for the communities that rely on these coal mines for employment and economic activity. The delay in the start of the CPRS by one year and the $10 fixed price first year will provide the coal industry with significantly more time to prepare for the introduction of a carbon price. Another scare campaign that the opposition like to run relates to farmers. The government has not made a decision on the inclusion of the agriculture sector in the CPRS. We have commenced a comprehensive consultative work program with 25 leading agricultural industry bodies and technological examination to look at possible future government policies in this area. Accordingly, the impact of the CPRS on farm incomes is expected to be small relative to annual variability in farm incomes and offset by productivity gains in the industry. The government is providing a number of measures to assist farmers. Agricultural producers will receive the cent-for-cent reduction in fuel excise for the first three years of the scheme, and agricultural producers may also qualify for funding under the $2.7 billion Climate Change Action Fund. The final scare campaign that the opposition use is that Australia should not be acting ahead of the rest of the world. The reality is that something like 27 EU countries, the US, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Korea have, or are developing, cap and trade schemes. Our critics, many of whom sit opposite, also say that we should wait until after Copenhagen. This is the same sit-and-wait attitude and approach they advocated during this global recession. It was the same sit-and-wait attitude that they put forward when they opposed tooth and nail our economic stimulus which has been absolutely essential to keeping this country out of the global recession. The reality is that those opposite have never faced up to a hard decision. They can never absolutely face up to the decisions that go to the core of our economic prosperity. Whether it is taking the tough decisions in the middle of the global recession or facing up to the challenge of global climate change, they simply are not up to it. They have demonstrated it in this House time and time again, particularly during this debate. At their very core, they are simply climate change sceptics. They cannot bring themselves to join the modern world and face up to the challenges that each and every one of us has the responsibility to face up to as a representative of the Australian people so that we can pass on to our children an economy which is more prosperous and an environment which is more sustainable. That is something they simply do not understand because they are not up to understanding the challenges of modern government. At the 2007 election, both major political parties put forward the establishment of an emissions trading scheme—both of them. Both of them put forward that proposal. The fact is that the commitment they made during that campaign has now been conveniently forgotten. It is absolutely clear that Australians want action on climate change and this government believes it is critical to take that action and to take it now. It is clear that business leaders want the certainty that will allow them to invest with confidence so that this economy and society can transition to a low-carbon future. They want action; they need it now. How rare a thing it is for a Labor government in this House to have the support of the business community, and the wider community. Those parties opposite that from time to time pretend they are somehow representative of the other side of politics or the business community once again are completely out of step with what is good for the economy in the long term and what is good for society. The opposition has said that they are going to come to the table and negotiate in good faith. I am told that, so far, that is coming along. We welcome a detailed examination of their proposals. We look forward to negotiating with them in good faith, but I do have to say that the sort of commentary I have heard on the floor of this House during this debate would indicate to me that there are many members, including members of the front bench, that remain deeply sceptical about taking any action or about having an meaningful negotiation. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House will not be deterred from doing what is right for the country. And what is right for the country is the passage of this legislation through the House of Representatives and through the Senate. I commend the bills to the House. 11321 19:55:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —There is one question—I think I have said this before but I will say again—that I want to pose to all Australians and people around the world and that is: where do we think our food comes from? Without doubt food and water security are or will become the defining issues of the 21st century. The Rudd government’s ETS legislation is a debacle as far as the future of Australia goes. The Treasurer just talked about the long term future—I am not sure what sort of a one we will have with the Rudd government ETS. It is a tax on production, pure and simple, that will drive businesses and jobs offshore. It is an opposite to the GST. Instead of relieving the pressure on production it puts the pressure on it. It will achieve an export system, all right—an export of carbon emissions. Electorates such as mine which are exporting, wealth-generating electorates will bear the brunt of the cost of the Rudd government’s ETS. It is nothing more than a new tax with another name. The effect of this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation will be felt much more brutally in regional Australia than in the capital cities. Yet those opposite have done nothing to negate the effect of this legislation, as it stands, on the agricultural sector or the regional sector. Whether it is the current drought or future climate change, the result is a drier weather cycle. To put it simply, nobody can actually eat a computer-generated climate change model. What we need is a government investment into research on practical measures which will allow our farmers to increase productivity. For example, this involves investment in new plant varieties which are disease resistant and can tolerate drier conditions. Yet all we have got from the Rudd government is massive cuts to research and development in this year’s budget. Our farmers have already been forced into producing more with less; in particular, less water and less arable land. Without increasing public expenditure to dramatically increase productivity there is a very real possibility of Australia becoming a net importer of many foods at a time when the world’s population is set to double within the next 30 years. In all of this time the ravages of global warming are meant to hit us. The biggest issue arising will be food security and how we increase food production—indeed, where will our food come from? The Rudd government thinks so little about where our food will come from that agriculture was the only sector which is not receiving free permits, nor does it have a $500 million clean coal fund or a multi-billion clean car fund. Despite what the Prime Minister might believe, you cannot eat coal. If we are going to feed the nation then agriculture has to be put at the forefront of this debate. If the government wants to talk about high moral grounds, Australia has led the world for a long time in the production of clean, green food, but they are now severely curtailing our ability to lead the world in this sphere. This government has no idea what its emission tax will cost mums and dads. It has never engaged in an honest debate about the real cost of its carbon tax. Let us not be cute about it: the government’s attempts to hoodwink the Australian people into thinking it is not a tax have been quite extraordinary. The Orwellian doublespeak-sounding Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is quite scary. Only a couple of weeks ago on 2UE Sydney radio program Mornings with Steve Price, Minister for Climate Change and Water, Ms Wong, tried to claim the ETS was not a tax. Steve Price said: Do you really think the voters when they went to the election last year had this at the forefront of their mind when thinking about voting and understood that this was going to be a new tax? The senator said: Well, it isn’t a new tax… It is a new tax… No, it’s not, Steve… It’s taxing, you’re punishing people for emitting carbon. No. Well, if you are not, I would be very interested to know what you call it. It is time for this government to be honest. The legislation before us makes it very clear that money collected under this legislation—namely, from the sale of carbon permits—is a tax. The bill states: Imposition of charge Auction (1)  If: an amount is payable by a person to the Commonwealth by way of a charge for the issue to the person of an Australian emissions unit; and the unit is to be issued as the result of an auction; and the charge is taxation within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution; There is quite a lot more which points out the same thing. It is not just Minister Wong who is deliberately misleading the Australian people. The minister assisting the minister, Mr Combet, who is still sitting in the chamber, in his speech in the second reading debate on this bill claimed: The Commonwealth does not consider that these charges are taxes for constitutional purposes. However, the government … has taken an approach of abundant caution, with the charges bills providing safeguards in case a court reaches a different view on this question. In Rudd speak, this translates to, ‘Yes, we know it’s a tax and our claim that it isn’t would not stand up in court, but we want to keep fooling the Australian people into believing it is something else.’ You have to wonder about a government that is quite happy to mislead the Australian people. What else is the Rudd Labor government prepared to mislead us about? The latest ABARE report on the cost of the Rudd government’s CPRS states: Even if the agriculture sector is not a covered sector under the CPRS, agricultural producers will face increased input costs— against what the Treasurer just said— associated with the use of electricity, fuels and freight and may face lower farm-gate prices for their goods from downstream processors. Of course they will. Processors which have increased charges have a great history of passing that back to those who cannot pass the costs on, and that is primary producers. These will have implications for the economic value of farm production, and every study that has been done seriously has shown that. They will be enormous ones for the beef industry and enormous ones for the cereal industry, who both have huge inputs. The increase in the price of electricity is estimated to be 6.9 per cent in 2011, and it is going to go up by up to 40 per cent. In New South Wales we have already had 20 per cent via the kind auspices of our state Labor government. Federal Labor is set to double it again. When you see this 20-odd per cent your electricity bills are going up by, you will realise just what incredible charges processors of agricultural production, which are high-energy users, will feel. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out just about every bit of food and fibre grown in Australia has some form of processing, manufacturing and/or transport before it is eaten or worn. Agriculture, without doubt, will suffer far more than most industries the flow-on effects of a carbon tax, CPRS or the Rudd government’s ETS—call it what you like. They are not putting it in the ETS at the moment because it is impossible to do so. You cannot measure agriculture in terms of negative and positives with any degree of accuracy, nor will you be able to at any time over the next decade or so. It is impossible to put in. That is not the real issue. The real issue is the cost that it is going to have passed on to it. Let me say this to the Rudd government, the climate change minister, the assistant minister or whomever. We know they want to get agriculture. Sixteen per cent of the emissions come from agriculture, according to the figures—about the same as transport. We know they want to get us. They cannot get us by the normal inclusion, but if they try to do it by imposing regulatory charges then let me tell you that is not on. To include agriculture and penalise it by the back road, by a round-the-corner system of putting a regulation on, will not be accepted. We are not stupid. We know they want to do something like this. There was a story in the Australian this morning about having regulatory charges instead of putting agriculture in the ETS, in the same way as they intend to do with energy and other heavy-duty production. I do not doubt for a second that that is in their minds. But to include agriculture in the ETS by a backdoor way is not on. I do not believe we on this side of the House will be stupid enough to fall for any such trick. It does not really matter whether you look at this from the point of view of what the Americans will do, what the Europeans do, or what any other country does. When you look at America, yes, they have put a bill up that has gone through congress which is probably an imposition on America of about one-fifteenth or one-twentieth the imposition that the Rudd government wants to put on Australia. That is before it goes to congress, when it will be mitigated quite a lot more. That may not happen for 12 months. It may not happen for 18 months. It may not happen until after the next American election. The Treasurer spoke about emissions trading schemes in other parts of the world. None of them come within cooee of the imposition on production of the tax the Rudd government intends to bring on. What has happened in Europe to this point in time is more of a clayton’s ETS than anything serious. It is far less than even the Americans are proposing. Most of the biggest emitters in the world—be it China, be it India, be it South America—are not even seriously looking at having one. But the Treasurer talked a while ago about how we have to get in front of the game and be there. Yes, big business do want to know what is going on. They want to know so they can make an early decision, if the Rudd government does impose a serious carbon tax, to get out of Australia and not invest in Australia. That is why they want to know early. Why in heaven’s name would any government want to impose a tax on its own country that no other country is imposing? We are not within cooee, to use a country expression, of what any other country is doing. Is it because Kevin Rudd’s ego wants to get him to Copenhagen saying, ‘Look at what a good boy I am’—he and his new mate, the Prime Minister of Denmark, or one of those countries. I think the Prime Minister is now advising them. I hope the Prime Minister does not advise them to act to the detriment of their countries in the way he wants to penalise this country. Agriculture, be it in eastern Australia, in Western Australia, in the Territory or in South Australia, cannot afford a carbon tax and the effects of it—or a regulatory regime to include it by the backdoor—such as is being proposed at this time, in this place, in this country. 11324 20:08:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 1 0 Mr MURPHY —I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, as you know, the Rudd government is committed to reducing Australia’s carbon emissions. These bills outline the government’s proposed measures to fulfil this commitment. The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, has warned that these bills are crucial to our nation’s economic and environmental future. Respected economists such as Professor Garnaut also warn that continued inaction will be far more costly in the future if we do not take action today. In fact, based on treasury modelling, future generations will pay 15 per cent more for inaction compared with those nations who take action now. Treasury modelling also suggests that under this scheme output will increase, real wages and jobs will increase, and GNP and GDP will also increase. It is imperative that these bills be passed without further delay, not only to protect our beautiful environment but to ensure a prosperous, sustainable economy too. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the CPRS will measure the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions of liable entities and put a price on those emissions. The CPRS includes transitional assistance measures to ensure a responsible approach, supporting businesses, jobs, community organisations and households. The CPRS and our renewable energy target will encourage and support businesses and jobs through the investment in future industries such as renewable energy. This is a very good thing. Thousands of new low-polluting jobs will be created through new technologies like clean coal, geothermal energy and increased investment in renewable energy such as solar, wind and tidal power. I repeat: this is a good initiative. Households will also be assisted through the household assistance package, to help our citizens meet or offset the increase in energy costs. The devastating effects of extreme weather conditions, increasing temperatures, rising sea levels and more droughts will be far more damaging to our economy in the long term if we do not join in a willing effort to mitigate the effects of climate change now. I take this opportunity to applaud the member for Throsby, who led the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts inquiry and its report: Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. This is a fantastic report. It really reveals the seriousness of the issue that we are debating here in this House tonight. If you do not believe me in relation to this report: I have never seen such a response in the media as in yesterday’s paper. Look at page 1 of the Sydney Morning Herald: ‘Make evacuation plans’. Full marks to the environmental editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, Marion Wilkinson, for putting this story on page 1. If you have a look here on page 7 there are a number of articles which deal with the serious issues associated with climate change. And then in the Age, page 1 again— 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! I point out to the member for Lowe that newspapers are prohibited from the House. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —I am only making the point— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am making the point of the standing orders, honourable member for Lowe. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —I understand the point you are raising. I will also draw to the attention of the House the publicity that appeared on page 1 of the Australian and page 1 of the Canberra Times in respect of the committee’s report. I commend that particularly to opposition members. They will find that they will be better equipped to participate in this debate. This is a very serious issue that we are debating tonight. As an island nation the report makes it very clear that Australia will be hard hit if we sit on our hands and do nothing. Homes, businesses, important infrastructure, trade and livelihoods are all at risk. My electorate of Lowe enjoys beautiful foreshores. It is very relevant to the people whom I represent in this place that extreme weather conditions and rising sea levels could affect the areas that so many of them call home. At a local level, the City of Canada Bay has taken the initiative to tackle climate change. Canada Bay is not sitting on its hands. It has some of the most extensive foreshore of any local government area in Australia. And well done to the Mayor of Canada Bay, Councillor Angelo Tsirekas; the other councillors; and the general manager, Mr Gary Sawyer, and his staff for supporting this initiative. I take this opportunity to also congratulate Canada Bay council and the community, which recently won gold at the United Nations endorsed International Awards for Liveable Communities. The council won gold in the Whole City Awards and was the overall winner of the Environmentally Sensitive Practices project award. The awards recognised the council’s future vision, including targets for carbon neutrality, the climate change action plan, its own greenhouse gas targeted projects and the water savings action plan and other environmentally sensitive initiatives. Well done to the City of Canada Bay Council. Canada Bay has shown us how we can lead the world in our efforts to tackle climate change at a local level. The world is moving on in its efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change at all levels of responsible government. While those opposite are still arguing the science of the matter, our government is taking responsible action. I know that the vast majority of my constituents in Lowe support this position. My constituents’ concerns are warranted. It is a fact that Australia is the hottest and driest inhabited country on earth. We have experienced a series of the hottest years on record in the last 10 years, with drought affecting much of our land. The Murray-Darling Basin, referred to as Australia’s food bowl, could well see irrigated agricultural production drop by almost 90 per cent by the end of the century. This is alarming. Australians are rated among some of the worst polluters in the world. If we are part of the problem, we must be working hard to be a part of the solution. It is simply not reasonable to be one of the worst polluting countries and demand action from other nations without a clear commitment from our own government. As a developed nation, we should be showing leadership in reducing our carbon footprint and fostering low-polluting industries. That is the very thing that this government is doing with this legislation. The government is sensitive to the current economic climate. While there is a need to ensure we set emission targets, we must also protect jobs and the economy. As previously mentioned, Treasury modelling indicates that the measures contained in the CPRS in fact assist in increasing jobs, output and GDP. This will be assisted by the substantial assistance outlined in the bills. The bills provides substantial assistance to firms engaged in emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities, with the allocation of free permits and transition periods as well as the creation of the Climate Change Action Fund to assist community sector organisations and businesses with the proposed changes. The CPRS will monitor, report and audit the greenhouse gas emissions of liable entities. It will encourage major industry to invest in more sustainable technology and practices. As I said, this is a good thing. The funds raised through the CPRS will be redistributed to households to assist in the transition to ensure that the changes are affordable for families. The introduction of the CPRS will encourage the redirection of investment in low-carbon industries and businesses. It is estimated that the renewable energy sector will grow 30 times its current capacity by 2050 and create thousands of new jobs. While the opposition is running a scare campaign that Australia would be alone in adopting a CPRS, this is simply not true. There are 27 European countries already operating a scheme, more than 20 states and provinces in the USA and Canada are introducing emissions trading initiatives to reduce carbon pollution, and our close neighbour New Zealand is too. If we do not act now we will be delaying progress on a low-pollution economy, delaying low-polluting jobs creation and delaying improvements to our environment, to the detriment of future generations. Unlike the opposition, the government has maintained its commitment to crucial reform to address the serious challenge posed by climate change. As some of my colleagues have already highlighted in the debate today, the opposition continues to change its position on the environment and climate change. That was in evidence with the previous speaker, the member for Calare. Now is the time for the opposition to seize the opportunity and support the legislation. Now is the time for the opposition to show us that they are serious about the environment and being part of the most significant economic and environmental reform in Australia’s history. There is a strong cross-section of support throughout the community for the scheme. The President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Professor Ian Lowe, said of the scheme: It puts Australia in a leadership position along with the EU in relation to developed countries targets which will be crucial for a sound Copenhagen outcome. The Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, who has called for this scheme to be passed by the end of the year, said: AI Group has consistently called for the legislation to be passed this year. This is critical to establish the degree of certainty businesses require in assessing medium and long term investment decisions. As I have previously noted in my support for action on climate change, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Climate Institute, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Council of Social Services are all in support of the proposed scheme. The diverse interests of the organisations mentioned indicates the widespread business support for the implementation of this scheme. In the current economic climate the last thing Australian businesses need is business uncertainty. In light of the current economic situation, the actions of the opposition do not assist in providing business certainty. These bills address what is the largest economic and environmental challenge we face today. The issue of climate change was well contested at the last election and the public spoke volumes about their desire for the government to take action. There were 11½ years of inaction by the former government and I hope that we do not see further delays. The reforms seek to reduce carbon emissions while simultaneously supporting jobs and low- and middle-income earners and businesses make the important transition to a low-carbon economy. Each section of society and each industry will be a part of this endeavour to make our world a better place for future generations. I again thank the Minister for Climate Change and Water for her efforts in coordinating these bills. It is undoubtedly a very serious challenge for Australia and, indeed, the world to face and it is time to take action now. I therefore encourage the opposition to show the courage needed to address this challenge. I commend the bills to the House. 11327 20:21:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —I rise to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and cognate bills. In joining the debate I feel compelled to state my ongoing disappointment with the government’s handling of this issue. I agree with one thing said by the previous speaker, the member for Lowe, and that is that this is a very serious and very complex issue. But I fear that the government is pursuing a political strategy rather than an environmental strategy. Everything from the timing of the proposed legislation before the House to the comments of the Prime Minister and the ministers themselves is about achieving some form of political advantage on the back of community concerns over the forecast impacts of climate change. I fear that the government has become so obsessed with its political strategy that it has turned its back on Australia’s national interest. I will be supporting the amendments being put forward by the coalition and the negotiations which are currently underway with the Minister for Climate Change and Water in an attempt to try to minimise the damage that this scheme can do to the Australian economy. I make the point, however, that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to pursue this legislation before we have a clear understanding of what action, if any, our major trading partners and the rest of the world are prepared to take on the environmental challenges we are faced with. I fear that without a global agreement we are voting to give foreign companies a competitive advantage over our own companies. We are voting for more expensive power and transport costs. We are voting for more expensive food. We are voting to increase costs for all our small businesses. We are voting for a massive new tax on every part of our lives. I believe the government has failed to make the case and answer some of the most basic questions in relation to the CPRS. It has not come clean with the Australian public and been honest about how much extra it is going to cost to build a house in a new CPRS environment. How many jobs in regional areas will be affected by this legislation? How does Australia’s cutting its emissions without any global consensus actually achieve any global environmental outcomes? I fear that the government has developed a strategy for spinning this issue to the broader Australian public, but it has not trusted the Australian public with a full explanation of the complexity of this scheme. I appreciate that it is a very complex scheme, but the government has not even tried to explain it in clear language, and in fact I think it has embarked on a course of deliberately hoodwinking the Australian public into believing that this is the answer to their concerns about climate change. The government has failed to explain to the Australian public how this legislation threatens their job security without achieving, as I said before, significant global environmental benefits. As Australians have come to understand this legislation, it has been a bit like when you leave a prawn out in the sun. The prawn looks fine at first, but when you leave it out there for a bit longer it starts to smell. This legislation is a bit like that. It looks fine at first, but the more you look at the scheme the more it starts to stink. I think the Australian public is just starting to understand now that there is a lot more to the CPRS legislation than originally met their eyes. My concern is that the government has embarked on this strategy, deliberately taking advantage of the goodwill of the Australian public. There is goodwill out there to try to take action for sustainable environmental management, but I do not believe that the government has taken the Australian public into its confidence and explained exactly what the impacts of the scheme will be. My disappointment with the bills before the House and the government’s strategies is consistent with the views of many Gippslanders who have contacted my office. To begin with, the government has not been honest about how Australia’s setting a target of a five per cent reduction in CO2, when its total emissions are 1.4 per cent of total global emissions, is going to save the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu National Park, as the Prime Minister quite often states in this place. How does Australia, when we are talking about a five per cent reduction of a 1.4 per cent total, achieve what the Prime Minister refers to as such a massive environmental achievement? It is an enormous con and it does not stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. The member for Mackellar was right earlier this evening when she described it as a hoax. It is a cruel hoax and it is a betrayal of the goodwill of the Australian public. There is support, as I said, for action on climate change, but Australians are being conned into believing that this is the answer. There is no Australian solution to climate change in isolation. There needs to be a global commitment. Another disappointment I have is that the government has not told the Australian public what the CPRS will cost in the impacts on each region. That is one of the great frustrations for the people of my electorate, particularly the Latrobe Valley, where the absence of any regional impact statement has made it almost impossible for the community to get an understanding of the cost-benefit ratio of this legislation. My electorate is one of the most exposed to this policy of any community in Australia—perhaps even the most exposed when you consider the existence of the Latrobe Valley brown coal power generators, the oil and gas industry, quite a large dairy industry in the Macalister Irrigation District. The power industry in the Latrobe Valley is the most important industry to my community bar none. I have previously informed the House that the Latrobe City Council has commissioned its own analysis, an independent report, on the economic importance of the Latrobe Valley coal and electricity industries. The report was prepared last year and showed that the coal and electricity sectors provide $802 million per year or 21.2 per cent of the gross regional product of the Latrobe Valley. There are 125 people employed in the coalmining sector and 1,705 people employed in the electricity supply sector. The flow-on impacts or flow-on benefits from these industries provide enormous opportunities for private contractors and the overall wealth of the Gippsland Latrobe Valley region and the broader Victorian economy. The broader Gippsland impacts could be enormous if industries in my region are disadvantaged as a result of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I fear that several thousand jobs will be at risk in my electorate over the next 10 to 15 years under this scheme. Unfortunately, that is my back-of-the envelope assessment because the government, as I said, has refused to be honest with the people of Gippsland and actually undertake the modelling and let us know the costs and benefits of its plans. We had the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s report earlier this year, which found that rural and regional areas will be adversely affected and could lead to increased urbanisation. It was interesting when the Treasurer was in here before speaking about the support from business. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry put out a statement at the same time as it released its report in June this year. The organisation represents some 280,000 small and medium sized enterprises. The statement said: The study argues that SMEs— small and medium sized enterprises— particularly those involved in manufacturing, face prices set in international markets due to import price parity. As a consequence, trade-exposed SMEs have limited opportunities to pass the costs on to their customers, but most are not eligible for assistance under the proposed CPRS transition package. Increases in energy and transport costs will impact directly on SME employment and profitability … the study finds that the CPRS in its current form will generate additional costs that would erode firm profitability between 4 and 7 per cent on average. The Treasurer likes to tell us that businesses would not face significant impacts because they are not among those large emitters. But there you have the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry indicating a drop in profitability of between four per cent and seven per cent, which the government would know, if anyone on their side actually ran a business, is a very significant concern for them indeed. The New South Wales government tabled a report which found that regional areas could have a 20 per cent decline in economic activity. So there are some of the reports that have looked at the impacts on rural and regional communities of the CPRS legislation before the House. In my electorate we have key industries that will be impacted directly by the CPRS, including the electricity generation, the dairy industry and the oil and gas activities in Bass Strait. These are the jobs that we have now. I take up the contribution from some speakers on the government side who have suggested that there are thousands of new jobs to be created. Well, Gippslanders would rather have the jobs they have in hand right now than some airy-fairy promise about jobs which may come down the track. There are major plans for expansion of the gas production in Bass Strait, but the industry has several concerns with how it will be affected under the government’s plans. Some of those concerns the government has failed to address, which the industry has brought to my attention, include the fact that, in the absence of the details, it is not possible for the industry to have clarity as to the eligibility or levels of assistance included in the scheme under debate. Therefore, it is not possible to have any confidence that the competitiveness of Australian based industry will be maintained relative to our international competitors. In terms of the treatment of the emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, one of the consequences of the government’s proposed two tiers of assistance of 60 and 90 per cent is that the Australian emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries will bear costs associated with the CPRS that are not borne by our international competitors. That will result in the potential for the Australian industries being priced out of the global market. Keep in mind the gas industry is trading into a global market and some trade exposed industries may not qualify for any assistance whatsoever. It does make a mockery of the Australian Labor Party’s 2007 election commitment to: Ensure that Australia’s international competitiveness is not compromised by Australia’s response to climate change [and to] Ensure that Australian operations of emissions-intensive trade-exposed firms are not disadvantaged by emissions trading. Clearly the oil and gas industry is one which has grave concerns about whether the government is true to its election promise in that regard. I do recognise that there could be future opportunities in my electorate related to the opportunity for renewable energy technology, clean coal and capture and storage. But these are jobs in the future which may or may not develop as the areas of technology are developed. There are real concerns in the Latrobe Valley region, for example, regarding clean coal and capture and storage: we are talking about decades down the track, rather than the jobs which are just around the corner. We would look at an initiative such as wind energy, which has been the subject of much debate throughout the broader Gippsland region, and there have been constant calls from the community for more control for local communities to have their say on the siting of what is an industrial activity on agricultural land. Given the seriousness of the issues before the House, you would have thought we would have had a very mature level of debate in this place, but many times in the past six months I have been disappointed with the juvenile level of debate and the attempts to typecast members as either true believers or as climate change sceptics. This is a place where I believe there is room for robust debate and for dissent on issues of significance to the Australian economy and the Australian community in general. But the government has been deliberately divisive in the way it has treated the whole issue of the emissions trading scheme and climate change in general. We have seen the propaganda advertising campaigns of last year which have been designed to scare people, particularly children, and it does no credit to the Prime Minister or his government that it embarked on this course, which I believe is a political strategy much more than an environmental strategy. Not for a second do I want anyone to believe I am anything other than a committed environmentalist; I am very much a pragmatic and practical environmentalist. I am a member of Landcare and Watermark—a group committed to sustaining the Gippsland Lakes and protecting our local waterways. I believe in practical environmental work, rather than some of the posturing we have seen from members opposite as they lecture us on what is appropriate in our communities. It is ironic that we are having this debate on the environmental future of our nation when, at the same time, the government has cut funding to the professional facilitators involved in the Landcare organisation. So I am one who believes in sustainable management of the environment, and there is not a single person in Gippsland who will disagree with me about the need for practical environmental measures. But, as I said earlier, I believe this is more of a political strategy being driven by the government than an environmental strategy. The CPRS before the House poses a far greater risk to the future of Australian agriculture than much of the climate change forecasts we have talked about. I certainly support efforts by the coalition to have agriculture excluded and recognise the opportunities for future abatement, which will have great potential for our rural sectors in the future. I have said previously that I was disappointed with the way the government has sought to divide our nation in its treatment of the CPRS legislation and by its constant attacks on people who raise any concerns about the CPRS. It really is driving a wedge between Australians who are instinctively uncomfortable with some of the extreme green religion and doomsday scenarios that are out there. There are many people in my electorate who are committed to working hard to protect the environment, they are doing the work right now on the ground, and I am frustrated by the way the government has sought to typecast people as believers or sceptics when we have so many people who are prepared to volunteer their time and effort to help create a sustainable environment in our own electorates. Gippsland is at the pointy end of this debate. It is one of the region’s most exposed in Victoria and possibly Australia, but the government still has failed to inform us what the impacts will be on our key industries: the brown coal power generation, the oil and gas industry and the agriculture sector. The Latrobe Valley in particular should be proud of its contribution to the wealth of our nation over many decades, but it has been vilified by this scare campaign and the divisive nature of the government’s campaign in relation to climate change. In the Latrobe Valley we have massive reserves of brown coal, which has underpinned economic development in Victoria for many decades, and we will still depend on that brown coal for a reliable and secure baseload energy supply in the future. We need the Latrobe Valley power generators to remain commercially viable and to invest in the research and the technology required for a cleaner coal future, which I referred to earlier. The government has offered generators $3 billion in compensation, but the loss in asset value is more likely to be in the vicinity of $10 billion. It has been left to John Brumby, the Premier of Victoria, to stand up for the generators because no-one in the Rudd government has been prepared to do so. I refer to an article in the Age on 23 October headlined ‘Brumby in cash plea for polluters’. It said: Senior Federal Government sources told The Age that Premier John Brumby had this year become “the leading advocate” for more compensation for coal-fired plants. An industry consultant agreed, saying: “I think Brumby and a couple of his ministers do more lobbying than the industry.” The source suggested the Premier was concerned about the financial shock of the scheme causing generators to close, disrupting power supply. “If you’re the Premier and the lights go out, well, your lights are going to go out pretty soon afterwards,” he said. That just about sums it up. Welcome to the real world, members of the government who think you can implement these changes and inflict this massive loss on the asset values of Latrobe Valley power generators without any impact whatsoever. If the power generators are not financially viable under this government’s CPRS, we are all in for a shock in terms of the reliability of our baseload power supply in this nation. Yallourn power station management has already indicated that it has reduced its maintenance. Once you have a power station reducing its maintenance workload, it is inevitable that the reliability of supply will be affected. I have said it previously in the House and I will say it again tonight—to paraphrase Rupert Murdoch and many others—I am one who is prepared to give the planet the benefit of the doubt in relation to the issue of climate change, and I do accept that we are going to need changes to the way we manage our economy into the future, but we need a strong and sustainable economy to deal with some of the challenges presented to us. The mitigation measures which have been talked about by others, if sea level rises occur anywhere near the levels predicted, will require vast amounts of infrastructure to be moved or protected, and we are going to need to do that from a position of economic strength. That is important for the government to consider in its handling of this issue. That gets us to probably my biggest disappointment with the government’s handling of this issue, and that is that it has been prepared to place Australia’s national interest second in its pursuit of a political strategy. I fear that there is a risk of Australian jobs being lost as a direct result of implementing a scheme which puts us at a competitive disadvantage in terms of our trading partners. Under the Rudd government’s model before the House, we run the risk of jobs being exported from Australia to nations which do not have a comparable scheme. A fear that is regularly expressed to me in my electorate is that we will send jobs offshore—we will also export our carbon emissions to those nations—and the net result will be a deterioration in the world’s environment because the nations which take the jobs will have less stringent environmental protocols than Australia. Any scheme which transfers jobs in high-emitting industries from Australia to foreign nations is likely to result in a poor environmental outcome. I fear that this scheme will add to economic uncertainty in Australia and export jobs to foreign nations, resulting in increased global emissions. In conclusion, I will come back to where I started. Proceeding, ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen, to lock Australia into any scheme is premature at best and likely to result in negative economic consequences. I say ‘likely to result’ because, quite frankly, the government has failed to do its homework in terms of the economic modelling and has refused to be honest with the Australian public and outline the full impacts of this scheme. We have not seen any modelling on the impacts on individual regions, particularly in the context of the deterioration in the global financial situation over the past 12 months. It simply lacks common sense to proceed down this path without full knowledge of where the rest of the world is prepared to go and without knowing what our major trading partners and some of the biggest emitters are prepared to do. The bills before the House are flawed and represent a massive breach of trust with the Australian community. Even the most fervent climate change advocates will acknowledge that Australia acting alone will not have a significant environmental impact. The government is prepared to inflict enormous economic pain on regional areas like Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley for insignificant environmental gain. 11333 20:40:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —Here we go again. The last time the House debated the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme it had a somewhat surreal air because we knew then that, as heartfelt and well-reasoned as our contributions might be, the fate of the bills really lay in the hands of the Senate. We all know the outcome of that and the ultimate futility of that exercise thanks to the inability of the coalition to actually arrive at a position on the scheme. Here we are again, each saying our piece in the chamber, all the while knowing that the debate that really counts at present is the one going on between the Minister for Climate Change and Water and the member for Groom on behalf of the coalition. It is encouraging to hear the feedback from both sides of the negotiating table that the discussions are proceeding in good faith and that both parties remain committed to finding a way to work through the outstanding issues. The Labor Party’s approach to those negotiations is consistent with the approach we have taken to climate change all along. We just want to get the job done. We went to the last election promising to introduce an emissions trading scheme and we have an obligation to honour that promise. We have sought to honour that promise in a reasoned and consultative manner, giving business especially ample opportunity to be involved as we work through the design of the scheme. Along the way we have shown that we are prepared to be flexible when it comes to getting the design and timing of the scheme right. Earlier this year, when the impact of the global financial crisis on Australian companies became apparent, we announced a delay in the start of the scheme and a fixed price of $10 per tonne of CO2 for the first year, as well as increasing the assistance payable to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. As I emphasised in my previous speech, we do not see the challenge of responding to climate change and designing a means to reduce our carbon emissions as a partisan political crusade. Rather, we recognise it simply as a problem that would be confronting any government who found itself leading Australia at this point in time. In fact, if the coalition had won the 2007 election, they would have been the ones implementing the promise they took to the Australian people during that election to introduce an emissions trading scheme by 2012. As it happens, it is this Labor government that has accepted that responsibility as part and parcel of governing Australia at this time. When we started on this exercise, we quite reasonably regarded it as something that should enjoy bipartisan support. After all, it was John Howard who initiated the Task Group on Emissions Trading and the coalition who took a policy promising an emissions trading scheme to the last election after the current opposition leader prevailed inside the coalition cabinet. This used to be a problem that was recognised by both sides of the parliament, and, especially at the time that Malcolm Turnbull took over the leadership of the Liberal Party, we reasonably expected that it would be a problem that would be worked through in a spirit of agreement on the broad principles and negotiation on the details. If Malcolm Turnbull manages to restore his authority over his own party, perhaps we can return to that position. It is in that vein that we have said all along that we welcome amendments from the opposition, and we continue to work through their proposals. Last time I had the opportunity to speak on the bills, I spoke at some length about the rationale for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I answered the fundamental questions: why are we taking action to address climate change and why are we acting by way of a cap-and-trade emissions trading system? I referred then to the science that has informed decision makers around the world of the existence of climate change and to the current and predicted consequences of that rise in temperatures. I pointed to the general experience and acceptance of countries around the world—including 27 EU countries, the US, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Korea—that an emissions trading scheme is the lowest cost way to make the change to a less emissions-intensive economy. So I will not go through all of those matters again. Rather, I want to touch on a couple of specific points that came up during the recent visit to Rockhampton of the Minister for Climate Change and Water. One stop on her schedule was a roundtable meeting with representatives from the local media to give them the opportunity to get an understanding direct from the minister of what we were trying to do with the CPRS and why. It was obvious from the start that there was a feeling amongst the participants that doing nothing was an option. The focus in the discussion was very much on the potential costs that the CPRS represented, as if action on climate change would bring costs while opting out of such action would come at no cost. If only it were that easy. If there were a simple get-out-of-jail-free card on this issue, we would grab it, but there is not. Unfortunately, there is sufficient evidence available to the government from scientists and economists that says there will be a cost involved if we choose the business-as-usual option and allow the consequent temperature rises and associated weather events to stay on their present trajectory. To pick just one example of that evidence, the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology report from 2007 titled Climate change in Australia contains modelling predicting increases in the frequency of heatwaves, the frequency and length of drought conditions, a higher proportion of intense tropical cyclones and a substantial increase in fire weather risk in south-east Australia. That all adds up to significant loss of infrastructure, disruption and dislocation of major industries and threats to the wellbeing of people in many parts of Australia. We could ignore that evidence, I suppose, as some in the debate ask us to do, but I do not think that would be discharging our responsibility as the government of this country. We would have to justify taking that risk on behalf of the people of Australia—both present and future generations—and I do not think we can. As the previous speaker said, in quoting Rupert Murdoch, ‘I think we have to give the earth the benefit of the doubt in this case.’ The people around the table at that meeting with the minister also had the view that we should wait until after the Copenhagen meeting before enacting the CPRS. I believe that this was a misconception of the nature of the CPRS and the aims of Copenhagen but an understandable one given the way that the opposition have tried to hide behind Copenhagen as a way of avoiding taking a position on the CPRS. There is nothing in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills that makes their passage contingent on the Copenhagen outcomes. The international meeting in Copenhagen will be about setting targets and caps for emissions reductions. The CPRS is the framework under which those emissions targets will be met and it has been designed for Australia’s national circumstances. The CPRS has also been designed to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the range of possible outcomes from Copenhagen. Important details such as the scheme caps will not be set until after Copenhagen. In the meantime, if agreement can be reached with the opposition and this legislation is passed through the Senate, businesses in Australia will have the certainty they need about the mechanism by which we will meet whatever targets are agreed at Copenhagen. If the opposition thought that nothing could be agreed on emissions reductions in Australia until after Copenhagen, why did the opposition leader say on Lateline in July last year: … the Howard Government’s policy last year was that we would establish an emissions trading system not later than 2012. It was not conditional on international action … And why did the Liberals endorse the government’s emissions target to reduce emissions by at least five per cent compared to 2000 levels irrespective of commitments by other countries? The ‘wait until Copenhagen’ catchcry is a recent political formulation to buy the opposition and particularly its leader time to get its climate change policy in order. One thing I did talk about in my previous speech that I will return to here is the coal industry. As I said back in June, it goes without saying that the government recognises the vital importance of the coal industry as our biggest exporter, a major employer and a driver of economic growth. That will not change any time soon, according to the latest Treasury modelling that shows the coal industry growing by at least 50 per cent by the year 2050. That has not stopped the Coal Association from spending up, telling people in my electorate that the CPRS will cost jobs in the coal industry. What they do not say in those ads is that the majority of coalmining in Australia is not emissions intensive. Half of all coal production in Australia will have a liability for their fugitive emissions of 80c or less per saleable tonne of coal. To put that in some perspective: coal is currently selling for upwards of $70 per tonne in export markets, and state government royalties that increased in Queensland last year are up around the $10 per tonne mark. There were no reports of the sky falling in on the coal industry when the increase in royalties took effect. Having said that, we do take seriously the concerns for those gassy mines at the end of the spectrum where the carbon permit liability will be highest. That is why the CPRS includes a compensation package of $750 million. We want to work with those mines most affected to allocate that compensation in a way that helps them reduce their emissions where possible and otherwise ease their transition to the introduction of a carbon price. I detailed in my previous speech my experience of working with the minister and the management of Rockhampton’s QMAG plant as QMAG grappled with the potential impact of the CPRS on their operations, particularly their efforts to make changes to the activity definition. They were successful in achieving that. I had a similar experience when it came to finding a way in the renewable energy legislation to assist those companies in my electorate with interests in waste coal seam electricity generation. I mentioned those examples to show that the government worked with those industries. We are willing to work with the coal industry, and there is money on the table—there is three-quarters of a billion dollars on the table—to do that. I can tell the House that there is not money for the government to put full-page ads in the newspapers and run television commercials in order to counteract the Coal Association’s scare campaign in mining communities. What there is, however, in the pages of those same newspapers is the real story about the future of the coal industry in Queensland. I spent really just a few minutes on my way out to question time this afternoon thinking off the top of my head of some examples in my electorate. I asked my staff to go through the newspapers and find some of those examples. As I said, I just rattled off a few on the way out the door to question time. Here is a snapshot of some of the things that are happening in Central Queensland. First of all, there is the Abbot Point Coal Terminal expansion. The North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation have just put out their draft voluntary environmental assessment for that, dated October 2009. This is a major expansion of the Abbot Point Coal Terminal at Bowen. The introduction to this document says: Coal terminal expansions have recently occurred or are being studied in the ports of Hay Point— near Mackay— Gladstone and Abbot Point. All of these expansions are required to meet the predicted future export needs of the Queensland coal mines. Turning to the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, an article on 30 September states: Tony Maher, president of the CFMEU’s mining and energy division … pointed out that 74 mining, energy and minerals processing projects worth $80 billion were in advanced development. ‘These will create tens of thousands of jobs and the reality is that the biggest problem is skill shortages—not job losses.’ The Daily Mercury of 20 October had a banner headline which read ‘Gear for growth: mining boss’. The article states: THE future of our mining jobs and the region’s business confidence are all but guaranteed, according to the managing director of Rio Tinto. Again from the Daily Mercury, on 28 August 2009 we see the headline ‘Interest firms up as new growth shoots’. The article states: MORE than $45.7 billion worth of projects are ear-marked for the Mackay, Whitsunday and Coalfields regions; …            …            … Representatives from four major projects spoke at the event including Waratah Coal vice-president of exploration David Campbell who discussed the China First project, a proposed rail link between the company’s mines and Abbott Point. Returning to the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, a report of 21 October states: A BILLION-dollar coal export terminal at Port Alma could be operating by 2014 … The project, proposed by Xstrata Coal, would serve the Wandoan Coal project, which has the potential to become Australia’s most productive coal mine. …            …            … When it was operational the terminal would provide 100 full-time jobs and could export up to 100 million tonnes of coal. I also have a media release from the Hancock Alpha coal project, which is 500 kilometres west of Rockhampton. Nearby is the Galilee coal project at Alpha, which I mentioned in my speech in June. It is a coalmine worth $7.5 billion that will generate 6,000 jobs. In the announcement in the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin in May, the president of Waratah Coal said, ‘I don’t think the CPRS is going to have enough of an impact to present insurmountable problems.’ And, because my staff are incredibly efficient, they went beyond those newspaper articles and gave me a list from the Queensland Department of Mines and Energy of Central Queensland coal development projects, listing some 50 projects in the exploration or early development stages. All of that tells me that there is a lot of faith out there in the future of the coal industry and a lot of companies are just getting on with it. Yes, there is work to do on getting the coal industry ready for the CPRS and understanding what it means mine by mine. So let’s get to work on that quickly so we can get back to the other issues that are going to cause headaches for the industry soon enough when all of this expansion and investment comes on stream—things like infrastructure, skills and building liveable mining communities. Speakers on both sides have pointed to the need for effective international action to truly make a difference when it comes to mitigating climate change. That is very true, which is why I want to see the current negotiations between the Minister for Climate Change and Water and the spokesperson for the coalition succeed. I want the legislation to pass and I want Australia to go to Copenhagen with a position to drive an outcome that is good for our environment and our economy into the future. 11337 20:56:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —On 13 August this year, the coalition joined with all other non-Labor senators to vote down the Rudd government’s proposed version of an emissions trading scheme. The reasons for this were that, as designed, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was flawed and would unnecessarily harm Australian exports, jobs and investment. The scheme would simply lead to emissions being exported rather than reduced at the global level and the CPRS represented a tax grab, disguised by the fact that the government published only one year of estimates of the full fiscal impact of the scheme. Today, with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the related bills, we consider important amendments, and I want to outline them: (1) placing Australian emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries on a level playing field with their competitors abroad, (2) excluding agriculture from the scheme and providing a mechanism for farmers to earn offset credits when they abate carbon, (3) ensuring Australian coal producers reduce their fugitive emissions as technology allows but are not unfairly financially penalised compared to competitors, (4) moderating the impact of higher electricity prices on small businesses, (5) providing assistance to coal fired electricity generators to ensure they remain financially viable and the lights stay on, and (6) encouraging complementary abatement measures such as voluntary action and energy efficiency in building. My electorate of Farrer in southern and western New South Wales is very much in the spotlight as regards this legislation. So I want to particularly talk about agriculture and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Whatever we do to this particular legislation it will still remain a dog. We went to the last election with an ETS policy—many have forgotten that fact. The coalition had a well-designed policy in 2007. Even if all of our amendments get through, the policy will still be a shocker. But when constituents approach me and ask, ‘Why are you supporting the amendments and not simply turning your back completely on the possibility of this ETS?’ I say to them, ‘While ever there is the remotest chance that Australia could finish up with Mr Rudd’s ETS, I and my coalition colleagues have to do all that we can to mitigate those effects and try to make the ensuing scheme less bad—because we cannot deliver from opposition what we once might have delivered from government.’ People who are naturally offended and shocked by this scheme—people who have worked out the sums and seen the effect it will have on their households, their lives and their farms—are coming to us and saying, ‘Please do something.’ I feel enormous frustration that my hands are tied and that we cannot implement the changes we know are important. But, in the amendments that we are proposing, we are doing the best we can. I was at the Henty Machinery Field Days in my electorate a few weeks ago and a Riverina farmer came up to me and showed me a calculation that he had made from the website of the Australian Farm Institute. They are good people and they had put out a very well researched calculator about what the Rudd ETS would cost farming. Speakers from the government have said, ‘We are not putting the ETS on agriculture just yet,’ but in the same breath they are saying that they want agriculture to be responsible for its emissions. So we know that three years after this comes in in 2015 the full weight of it will land on Australia’s agricultural producers, and we do not accept that possibility. But I go back to the farmer at the Henty Machinery Field Days. He was able to show me how the Rudd government’s ETS would add $42,000 to his bottom line—$42,000 in a modest wheat-growing enterprise in the Riverina. I said to him: ‘I have got two choices. I can just say that this is awful, I am turning my back on it and I am not going to propose any amendments along with the Liberal and National parties, but I do not think you want me to do that. I think you want me to try and get the best deal for you.’ He agreed with me, and others I have put this argument to have responded similarly. None of us are happy with it, none of us like what is being presented to us, but we are not running the agenda, we are not in government and we are not trying to grandstand at Copenhagen, which is what Mr Rudd is doing. I certainly do not believe that anything needs to take place before Copenhagen because whatever Mr Rudd succeeds in passing in this place will not be the final design of the scheme we get in 2012 because that is just too far away. We have really little choice but to accept the argument that it is a grandstanding exercise. I see in today’s media that Mr Rudd has been made one of the Danish Prime Minister’s special friends and has been given the imprimatur to work closely on designing an ETS and a global agreement. That worries me because I feel that that will give the government added impetus to push this through, not in Australia’s interest, not in the national interest and not in the interests of farmers. I often say that there is no such thing as a postagriculture economy. Think about it: if there is no agriculture, there is no food, there are no people and there is no world. But what we see from this government is a focus on an economy that does not depend on agriculture. The CPRS is not the answer, but do not look at farmers and agriculture as the producers of emissions. Look at farmers and agriculture as the producers of food. Australia exports 65 per cent of its farm produce. Our food producers are exposed to global competition, which has critical implications for Australian jobs, economic activity, export markets, food supplies and net global emissions. What has this government done? It has placed agriculture in a position of increasing uncertainty leading up to the beginning of its scheme, not knowing whether three years after that it will come under the ETS and have to pay figures like the one I just quoted—$42,000 for a modest wheat-growing operation in the Riverina. Whatever we can do to make this ETS less bad, we as an opposition are bound to do. I was horrified to hear earlier speakers talk about food industries, because under the government’s scheme food industries are not considered emission intensive and trade exposed. I appreciate that it was with some sympathy, but when the member for Eden-Monaro spoke about the biggest rice mill in the Southern Hemisphere that has closed down in Deniliquin and about other activities along the river—and he has a fair whack of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme in his electorate—and the importance of that to irrigation he failed to understand that because food producers do not make the EITE cut-off under the government’s scheme they get nothing; they get no help at all. So we quite neatly and cleanly export our food-producing industries overseas. We heard shocking evidence to Senate inquiries from food producers, particularly in the dairy industry. The dairy industry, as we know, has been through tough times. Murray Goulburn Co-operative operates in Victoria and southern New South Wales and it had this to say: … MGC will receive no assistance under CPRS even though we are highly trade-exposed. MGC will not be able to pass on the cost of increases due to the CPRS because of the price setting nature of world markets. Consequently dairy farmers will pay the costs of CPRS via reduced milk income. At $23 and $40 per tonne for CO2 this represents an average cost of about $5,000 and $9,000 respectively per farming family per year. Why would you bother? Let me remind people that New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme maintains the link between farm and food processing, recognises the connected nature of the supply chain and its trade exposure and provides 90 per cent free permits to food producers. I have said before in this place that, if we are not careful, we will be airfreighting our milk in from New Zealand. Under Mr Rudd’s ETS, we will definitely be airfreighting our milk in from New Zealand. The CPRS does not cover imports, so of course our food-producing industries will be exported overseas and we will be importing our food. There might not be a world postagriculture economy, but it looks like we are heading for one here in Australia. I want to mention the horticulture industry, because it is very important to my electorate. It welcomes the opposition amendments permanently excluding agricultural emissions from the CPRS, obtaining government agreement to introduce an agricultural offset scheme in line with similar offset schemes being introduced in comparable economies, such as the United States and the European Union, and our explicit recognition of energy efficiency and voluntary action. That is important. Speaker after speaker from the government has talked about the impact of climate change on the Murray-Darling Basin, and I have a substantial part of the southern Murray-Darling Basin in my electorate. The horror stories that we have heard are all about reduced in-flows and no water for irrigation. I just point out that there is not any water for irrigation at the moment because the Minister for Climate Change and Water has bought it all and is storing it away for environmental flows that go straight past all of our food producers struggling with the drought in order to water wetlands—which may be important but not necessarily more important than food production. I do not want to hear another government member talk about the effect of the ETS in the southern Murray-Darling Basin and on irrigated agriculture as if they care, because they do not care. Members opposite really ought to realise the nature of farming and of food production and what that means, and develop, if they possibly could, a serious agrifood policy because at the moment they have absolutely no idea. 11340 21:06:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the cognate bills. This legislation is important. It is legislation that has arisen in response to the most credible scientific advice available to the government. It is scientific advice which suggests that climate change is real and it presents humanity with one of the greatest moral, environmental, economic and social challenges it has ever faced and it is advice which suggests that the cost of doing nothing far exceeds the cost of acting. For each day that we delay action on this very matter the cost of mitigation or adaptation escalates. I am a member of the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, which only yesterday presented its completed report on the inquiry into the effects of climate change on our coastal areas. The report is titled Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: The time to act is now. I had the benefit of hearing from and questioning some of Australia’s leading scientists. I had the benefit of actually seeing some of the costs that we as a nation are already incurring as a result of climate change. I had the benefit of speaking to people who well understood the impacts of future climate change on this country and on the world. I heard what the impacts are likely to be and I saw the damage for myself. The fact is that the costs right now facing this country as a result of climate change run into the billions of dollars. Other speakers have spoken about the impacts of water shortages, but we saw only this year the impacts of drought and the impacts of flood. In addition to that we constantly have cyclones affecting other parts of Australia. Those events are not just part of the normal climatic process. On the best scientific advice available, those events are likely to occur far more frequently, and with each one of them comes the cost of restoring the damage that has occurred. This legislation is consistent with legislation being proposed by many other governments right around the world. The legislation is consistent with, albeit not be identical to, legislation that is currently before the US senate, and it is consistent with legislation before many European parliaments. The legislation was carefully crafted after a long period of public consultation in which the broader community was consulted and, in particular, in which industry was consulted. This legislation ultimately gets the balance right. It provides assistance to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries in Australia to the tune of somewhere between 66 per cent and 94.5 per cent, depending on the nature of the industry. It provides assistance to householders and to motorists and it defers a decision on the farming sector for several years. The legislation is flexible enough to ensure that we get a 25 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, based on the year 2000 levels, by the year 2020. Only last week a number of Australia’s leading scientists came to Parliament House, making themselves available to not only provide a brief overview and presentation of their views on the science that drives climate change around the world but also to answer questions on matters that other members of this House have raised here today—even though they did not take the time to come the function last week and ask the questions of the scientists, who would have been able to provide them with the advice. The scientists came to parliament to stress the urgency of action on climate change not only by the Australia government but by governments from around the world. It is an urgency that I share. The members opposite have been raising, almost constantly—it has become a common theme in their contribution to this debate—the point that we do not need to act now and that we ought to wait until after Copenhagen. Let me tell you why it is important that we act now. It is important that we act now because we made a commitment to the Australian people almost two years ago, in 2007 in the lead-up to the federal election. It is important that we act now in order to provide business in this country with certainty about what is going to happen with respect to a carbon pollution reduction scheme. Might I say in respect to businesses that I have not heard too many businesses say that they do not accept that climate change is real or that we do not need to have a scheme in place. They may well differ in terms of how the scheme should be structured but at least there appears to be broad consistency amongst them that a scheme is necessary. It is important that we act now in order that we have some credibility when we go to Copenhagen in December. If the government cannot deliver a scheme in Australia what confidence will the international community have that we will be able to deliver on any agreement reached at Copenhagen? It would seem to me that our credibility when we go to Copenhagen stands entirely on the ability of this parliament to implement a scheme of its own and then take that to Copenhagen as a demonstration of our commitment to doing something about climate change. Anyone who thinks that we can go to Copenhagen and listen to what everybody else is saying and then put our two bobs worth on the table with any sense of credibility is fooling themselves. As I said earlier, with each day of delay the cost of mitigation becomes higher and more difficult. It is also true that there is a greater expectation on Australia when it comes to the conference at Copenhagen. There is a greater expectation because no-one denies that the implementation of this scheme does not come at a cost. There are costs involved. But it is a fact that Australia is in a much stronger economic position than most other countries around the world and it would therefore be expected that we would show some leadership when it comes to this matter, given the fact that we have the capacity to do so. Let me turn for a moment to the position of the coalition members on this issue. It is interesting to read their contributions to this debate. I have read the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition and I have also read some of the contributions from the members for Groom and Curtin, who I would consider to be pretty much the leadership team of members of the coalition. It is interesting that it is accepted by them, in their contributions, that climate change is real, that greenhouse gas emissions or carbon is a critical component of what is causing climate change, and that a carbon pollution reduction scheme of some sort is the best strategy with which we can respond. What is also interesting is that when I read the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution I found that he talks about scientific opinion and economists and he mentions Margaret Thatcher but he never articulates his own opinion on this matter. The fact that he does not articulate that opinion is clear in the amendment that he has moved. It is an amendment without specifics—just generalisations—and, once again, is a deferral in making a decision. That deferral means that this is now the ninth time that this matter has been deferred by coalition members. The debate on this issue commenced two decades ago, culminating in the Rio summit. I think that was in 1992. It then went to Kyoto, some five years later. We are now, in 2009—almost 20 years later—still talking about what we need to do about what is accepted as climate change and what is accepted as causing major problems for the world. We cannot and should not continue to defer. Deferring for another 45 or 50 days, as is the suggestion from the opposition leader, is not simply a matter of days; it is a matter of months, because having gone to Copenhagen there is no guarantee that a universal agreement will be reached, which means that the matter will then be deferred even further. And there is no guarantee that after Copenhagen this parliament will immediately pass any form of legislation. So the process just gets dragged on and on—a process which I believe most voters out there want this government to finalise, once and for all. I accept that most voters out there are getting a little tired of the debate. They want the matter resolved, once and for all. That is certainly what they are telling me. They want to know where they stand. They want to know, if they run a business, just what other obligations and commitments they have ahead of them. I want to finish with a quote from the spring edition of Living Ethics. It is from an article by Simon Longstaff. He finds similarities between this debate and the debate that took place when Wilberforce brought forward, in the House of Commons, his bill to abolish the slave trade. He compares the ETS debate with the slave trade debate and says: … the arguments are eerily familiar: the prediction of economic ruin, the loss of commercial advantage, the relocation of business to easier jurisdictions. He goes on to say: The similarities in the debates of then and now are just too remarkable to be ignored. He further says: It is the scale of the disaster that might befall us that raises the issue of global warming to the same level as the abolition of slavery. I will finish on this quote, which is from the same article, where Simon Longstaff quotes the President of the Federated States of Micronesia, Emanuel Mori, who said: We will all be drowning in our own backyards if leaders of developed nations do not take swift action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill needs to be passed by this parliament, and it needs to be passed now. 11342 21:19:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the cognate bills. Climate change is no doubt a significant issue wherever you sit on the political spectrum. It is important to remember, though, that it is a scientific and an economic issue. It is not about zealotry nor religious fervour. Whether Australians believe that mankind is causing climate change or not, the role of any member of parliament is to do all in the best interests of our nation to contribute in a positive way to managing our planet and to ensure we do not leave future generations burdened with debt or damaged land. I am not a scientist. I have to take the evidence on face value. Despite the growing data to the contrary, I have to give the planet the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the climate change debate is fundamentally now about managing risk. Thus, wherever people sit on the debate, surely the goals of any coordinated strategy—such as less or zero reliance on Middle Eastern oil, cleaner air, higher organic content of soil to achieve higher crop yields, and greater reliance on renewable energy to ensure our own domestic security—are worthy goals. Surely, if, in 20, 30 or 40 years time the issue at hand is found to be erroneous, if we have achieved those outcomes it will have been worth it. It is about managing risk. The reality, though, is that the US carbon reduction legislation—the Waxman-Markey bill—will set the benchmark across the globe. Remember, the US economy is almost as large as the next four largest economies combined. Considering that the US legislation will be largely completed within the coming months when the world gathers at Copenhagen to begin thrashing out a new global deal, surely it makes sense to wait until after these two events before Australia shapes its legislation. However, as we all know, our Prime Minister wants to go forward with an emissions trading scheme—a scheme which aims to reduce our emissions of carbon into the atmosphere—before the US has finished its legislation and before the world decides on the way ahead. We all know that a poor ETS has the potential to destroy the Australian economy. Surely, when the stakes are so high it would be obvious that we should take as much time as we need to get the best outcome. Surely, it is obvious that we should wait 50 days until the US and Copenhagen have outlined, in broad principle, the way ahead. We have asked for the ETS to go to the Productivity Commission for a full and frank disclosure of exactly what the impacts will be. Mr Rudd has refused to do this. The question is: why not be open to scrutiny from the Productivity Commission? We have provided the government with the most important thing prior to Copenhagen bar none—bipartisan support on reducing targets by five per cent, increasing to 25 per cent if there is indeed a worldwide agreement. It is important to note that the opposition supports an emissions trading scheme as one of the tools in a climate change toolbox. Indeed, it was the emissions trading scheme proposed by the Howard government, based on the Shergold report, that was the first such proposal for this country. But it is only one of the tools in a broad toolbox. Other issues that should be considered include carbon sequestration, a voluntary carbon market, the use of biochars and implementing a green cities initiative with advanced depreciation to achieve efficiencies in energy use. These combined strategies will address the climate change risk we face without sacrificing the nation on the altar of an ETS expediency so that our PM can look good in Copenhagen. However, if the Prime Minister wants to go blindly forward regardless—and by virtue of the debate this evening that would seem his intent—then we will be constructive, we will engage in the debate and we will sit down and seek to negotiate with the government. That is why I rise to support the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment to this bill. The government’s proposed emissions trading scheme is flawed in its current form. It will cost jobs, it will cost investment and it will simply export rather than reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Our preferred aim is that the government defer consideration of the legislation, which will impose, as the leader said, the single largest structural change to the Australian economy. We would prefer that he defer consideration until after the Copenhagen climate change summit has concluded in just 50 days. But clearly the PM cannot wait 50 days. Therefore, we will act in good faith, noting that we do not want to export our problems, noting that we do not want to disadvantage our nation, noting that we do not seek to redistribute wealth amongst nations or create a funding stream for a world body like a UN. So we will enter negotiations, as the Hon. Ian Macfarlane, the member for Groom, is now doing with the minister—sitting down and going through, line by line, the key amendments we would like to see to protect the economy, jobs and our way of life. The six key matters that we are encouraging the government to consider in our amendment are quite simple. The first is that agriculture is excluded from the scheme, rather than included after 2015, and that farmers have access to agricultural offset credits or green carbon or carbon sequestration credits. One of the great advantages we have as a continent is over 700 million square kilometres of land or thereabouts. Allan Yeomans has written a book called Priority One in which he says that we could pull out all of the carbon dioxide we have put into the atmosphere just through increasing the level of organic material in our soil. Let me quote directly from him: Soil humus and soil organic matter is mainly decomposed plant life and is 58% carbon. The only source of carbon for life on the planet is the carbon dioxide in the air. We have to turn atmospheric carbon dioxide into humus as cheaply and as efficiently as possible. We are then recreating soil fertility, a process that has been happening for years. We just help the process instead of hindering it. He continues: It is simple and easy to increase the organic matter content of soil and so sequestrate carbon dioxide from the air. Our world’s agricultural land areas are more than ample to return atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to normal. We have to raise the organic matter content of the world’s soils we cultivate and manage by 1.6% and the greenhouse problems now destabilising world climates and weather systems will vanish. He continues: If just the US grain belt was somehow managed throughout the next decade to recreate deep soil with a 20% organic matter content, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the entire world would be returned to a safe pre-industrial era level. I am not a scientist; I cannot comment on Mr Yeomans’s analysis or statistics in Priority One. His contention is that if we raise the organic matter of the world’s soils by 1.6 per cent the problem can be solved. Even if he is out by 100 per cent, it is only raising the organic content by 3.2 per cent. What it does point out without being too prescriptive is that whatever we do must include agricultural offset credits. It must include the ability for our farmers to reap the benefits through better farming practices and to sequester carbon. It is far better to lead a donkey with a carrot than to beat the living daylights out of it with a stick. There is an opportunity to provide an incentive for our farmers to lead the way through sequestering carbon into the soil by raising the organic content of the soil. It is fundamental that agriculture is excluded from the scheme and that farmers have the ability to use their land and have access to offset credits. Frankly, it just makes sense. The second key part of our negotiation with the minister is that emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, EITEs, remain on a level playing field with competitors in advanced economic countries. It only makes sense that we do not want to disadvantage our industries relative to similar industries across the world. We need to amend the legislation to provide a single level of assistance for EITEs. We need to lower the threshold for assistance from the proposal of a thousand tonnes of CO2 per million dollars of revenue to 850 tonnes. We need to continue to provide assistance to our EITE industries at 90 per cent until 80 per cent of their international competitors have also implemented carbon abatement measures. Clearly we need to include primary food processing, such as dairy and meat, in our EITE schemes and allow industries that include a series of sequential or parallel production processes to have them assessed as a single activity in determining assistance. We need to protect our industry not because we want them to keep spewing out carbon dioxide into the air but because we do not want to disadvantage them relative to the rest of the world. Thirdly, we need to moderate the high impact of electricity prices on small businesses. Let us not forget in this place that small business employs 46 per cent of all Australians, the single largest employer group in the country. The cost of any electricity impact on small business will be passed on to consumers. The Frontier Economics work that the coalition commissioned has raised the issue and provided alternatives the government needs to look at. We have already seen electricity prices go up over the last few years as errant Labor state governments have mismanaged retail privatisation or indeed mismanaged assets. The Bligh Labor government in Queensland is a classic case. The Premier stood there and said that the retail contestability would not see electricity prices rise at all. The next year, up they went by almost 15 per cent. The sheer incompetence of that is staggering. Fourthly, the coal industry will be required to reduce fugitive emissions, mostly of methane, as technically feasible, but it should not be unfairly financially paralysed. There are not that many gassy mines emitting large amounts of methane from either test drilling or indeed operation of the mine. They cannot be punished. We need to go about it sensibly as technology allows. Fourthly, transitional assistance to coal-fired electricity generators needs to be sufficient to ensure, frankly, that the lights stay on and our generators remain viable. We cannot have tens of billions of dollars wiped off the balance sheet of our generators without some degree of compensation. Lastly, complementary measures such as voluntary action and energy efficiency should be encouraged. We acknowledge the problem on this side of the House. We acknowledge that we need to act. It is errant to say that this side is full of sceptics and to use other great religious language. We believe in the need to act. Indeed, we are the ones who tabled an ETS in the first place in 2007. We are the ones who began the action. But we need to act sensibly. We need to ensure we are walking in step with the rest of the world. We need to be an aggressive follower of Copenhagen and the US model, not the world’s single aggressive leader. That only serves one man’s ego. We want to serve the nation’s interests. There is a significant difference between the two. 11345 21:33:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —I rise to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills, a legislative framework that is designed to move Australia forward in our effort to combat dangerous climate change, a legislative framework that seeks to address one of the greatest market failures of all time—namely, the failure to put a price on carbon pollution. As a federal representative, one has the opportunity to speak on a wide range of matters, to speak on issues large and small, national and local and, to be fair, of varying importance. But today we are speaking on an issue whose significance gives way to few, if any, matters of more gravity. What we debate today is Australia’s first comprehensive scheme for ensuring a reduction in national carbon emissions. It is a scheme that establishes a structure within which carbon pollution must be reduced and under which the market will find the most efficient and cost-effective way of achieving the set reduction target. In Australia, as in other nations proposing or operating emissions trading schemes, the CPRS is not of course the end of the problem; but it is the beginning of the solution. It is not the whole solution; but it is an important part of the solution for reducing emissions, other parts including the development and support of renewable energy sources, sustainable cities and agriculture, and whole-of-society energy efficiency measures. This Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the result of an extensive consultation and policy development process. The widest range of stakeholders has been consulted, and all parts of the community and political spectrum have been given the opportunity to participate. The reasons for passing these bills are numerous and compelling. They are that harmful climate change presents a very grave threat to the wellbeing of the living inhabitants of this planet both now and into the future; that the precautionary principle requires the human race, through national governments and multilateral organisations, to take appropriate pre-emptive steps rather than waiting for the worst to occur; that the Australian community wants its government to take action on that basis; that Australian business wants government to provide certainty on this issue; that all the analysis suggests that, the longer we wait, the more it will cost to shift from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy; that acting now will only impose a cost increase to Australian households in the order of half of one per cent in the first two years of the CPRS; and that the global community cannot deal with this problem if individual nations take a ‘you-go-first approach’. On this point, I mention the ridiculous argument that Australia need not act considering the relative scale of our emissions. The truth is that relatively speaking Australia punches well above its weight, as we are fond of saying in other contexts, when it comes to per capita carbon pollution emissions. That Australia stands to be disproportionately affected by climate change is again made clear in the report of the inquiry into climate change and environmental impacts on coastal communities, which was delivered on Monday. The report details our vulnerability to a rising sea level and to increased storm surge activity. It notes that 80 per cent of our population lives in the coastal zone and that more than 700,000 households are within three kilometres of the sea. Our place as a developed nation, with a comparatively high standard of living and a comparatively high capacity to take the necessary action to reduce carbon emissions, provides an additional moral imperative, if such were needed, to be a leader rather than a follower in the global response to climate change. This is an even greater imperative for Australia than for some other developed nations when you consider the region in which we exist, a region with a large number of nations under severe threat from the effect of sea level rises, a region with a substantial population that will look to Australia for action now and will look to Australia for greater and greater assistance if this terrible problem goes unchecked. Finally, the science in relation to climate change, over the course of the two years since this government was elected, has become clearer and more alarming. If anything, the science and the scientists are swinging towards a bleaker view of the situation we find ourselves in. Last Wednesday, Climate Scientists Australia, a newly formed group of some of Australia’s most eminent climate scientists, conducted a briefing here in Parliament House to emphasise the need for urgent and substantial action to reduce carbon emissions. I commend the members for Isaacs and Moore for their part in hosting that forum. The worse-case scenarios, as they stand, are very grave. Dr Andrew Glikson of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University is one of a number of highly reputable scientists who strenuously assert the need for urgent action on climate change and the need to get ready to do considerably more than we perhaps now contemplate. In his submission to the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy, Dr Glikson argues: The unacceptable consequences of a continuation of human business-as-usual inertia in terms of extreme weather events—droughts, fires, cyclones and sea level rise—require urgent deep cuts in carbon gas emissions and fast track development of alternative energy utilities and carbon down-draw technology aimed at a reduction of atmospheric CO2-E levels to below 350 ppm. Robert Correll, the Chairman of the Arctic Climate Change Impact Assessment, said the following: For the last 10,000 years we have been living in a remarkably stable climate that has allowed the whole of human development to take place … Now we see the potential for sudden changes of between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius [by the end of this century]. We just don’t know what the world is like at those temperatures. We are climbing rapidly out of mankind’s safe zone into new territory, and we have no idea if we can live in it. As the representative of a constituency that is highly engaged on this issue, I would say to all my parliamentary colleagues that the political divisions on this issue, particularly the divisions within the opposition, are not reflective of the views of the wider community. Indeed, I would say with confidence that there are thousands upon thousands of households across this country, from Fremantle to Wentworth, from Denison to Solomon, who want their parliamentarians to engage on the question of addressing dangerous climate change. That is a fact recognised by this government, which fully understands that the twin principal vectors of change at the last election were the abolition of Work Choices and the need to have a national government that took climate change seriously. This government has engaged Australian households in debate on climate change and in practical measures to reduce carbon emissions, increase energy efficiency and increase the production of renewable energy at the household level. We have facilitated an open and thorough public consideration and debate of the issues involved through Professor Garnaut’s green-paper/white-paper process. The Minister for Climate Change and Water has worked tirelessly in consulting with stakeholders across the spectrum, from business to environmental groups to community and welfare organisations. This has culminated in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill which, despite its vocal critics, stands to create for the first time a mechanism for reducing Australia’s carbon emissions in keeping with a unilateral reduction commitment. The government has already been successful in passing its renewable energy target legislation, which will appropriately support and boost this burgeoning and critical sector. We have done all these things on the basis that the weight of scientific evidence clearly indicates that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and that if left unchecked it will have potentially catastrophic consequences for life on earth. Like governments around the world, we are planning and acting on the best evidence available and according to both the precautionary principle and common sense. To many of those opposite, whose conservative creed might lead them to feel that doing nothing, or doing very little, is the best approach, I would suggest they consider the fact that caution is not always shown by inaction but rather by careful action. When you are driving a car into the desert and you get the feeling the fuel gauge is not working, and you realise there is not enough water on board, it is time to turn around. You do not keep on driving in those circumstances; you take precautionary action. In this case, when we act as a nation, and as a global community, we will not only be addressing the problems of climate change; we will also be taking steps to prepare ourselves for the inevitable time when our hydrocarbon economies literally run out of gas. We will also be taking steps towards a cleaner, healthier, more humane and more diverse environment; and steps towards a way of living on this planet that is truly sustainable. The ratification of the Kyoto protocol was the government’s first official act, and it set the tone and the standard for our further action on this issue. The real question in this debate is: how will political representatives in the national parliament respond to, and match, the engagement that is already occurring at the community level? In Fremantle, I have never been in any doubt that the electorate I represent is impatient with government at all levels to match their readiness to take action. I am contacted on an almost daily basis by constituents who express this view. Sometimes they ring or email to say that they welcome a particular program or initiative—but, to be honest, it is usually to say, ‘This might be good, but you can do more.’ I am listening to that message and I am voicing it on their behalf. All the best evidence, all the logic and all the common sense tells us that we must act to prevent further, more damaging climate change from becoming an entrenched, irreversible climate trend. The Australian community is asking its representatives, its governments at every level, to take that action. The onus is squarely on us to do so. I want to conclude by quoting the words of Martin Luther King, who spoke wisely in another context about the dangers of inaction when he said: We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now … Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: ‘Too late’. Climate change policy and the legislative proposals that implement that policy should be vigorously developed, contested and debated, but they should not be the subject of political game-playing. While I am happy to acknowledge the overwhelming probability that the CPRS Bill is not perfect, I utterly reject the argument that until everyone agrees on the perfect response to dangerous climate change, or until the rest of the world solves the problem for us, we in Australia should meander endlessly through a fog of political indecision and a smokescreen of political obfuscation. With this bill this government is responding to the clear onus placed upon it by the voters of Australia. We have conducted an open and extensive policy consultation and development process. We have engaged the opposition, the Greens and Independents on this issue. Now it is time to take action, before it is too late. 11348 21:44:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I rise tonight to speak on the government’s so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges—Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills that are before us. From the outset I want to make it very clear that I am strongly opposed to what I regard as the Rudd government’s proposals to implement a carbon tax, a new and complex tax in my view that will add to the size and scope like no other measure in Commonwealth history. You ought not to take my word for it. Terry McCrann, in his article of 8 August 2009, says that the ETS is a tax. He warns all Australians omniously: It’s not called a tax, but if it waddles like one, quacks like one, and most pointedly raises money like one, it’s a tax. And not just any old tax—it’s a huge and continually growing tax. For those who are concerned about the Liberal Party’s position in this debate and on this issue, I want to open my remarks by reinforcing in the strongest terms that the coalition joined with all other non-Labor senators to vote down the Rudd Labor government’s proposed emissions trading scheme. We are back here today with the same legislation because of the Labor Party’s determination to use this issue as the great wedge of our time. It is my view that Labor is now playing pure politics with the issue of climate change. What we know is that the government’s emissions trading scheme is deeply flawed. I accept today that it is true that many people are caught up in the idea that an ETS could solve a perceived problem with climate change caused by humans. It is a thesis that I want to reject today in a number of ways. It is clear from what we have seen from the Rudd Labor government that politics appears to be the goal of the rush with this legislation. What we have seen is that principled operators in this debate, like the Greens in the Senate, have preferred to oppose the emissions trading scheme on the view that it will not achieve environmental outcomes. Indeed, they make a very valid point that going through all of the rigmarole that is involved with this legislation will not produce a demonstrable environmental benefit. In fact, there is a serious body of evidence that suggests that there will be a questionable outcome from the entire scheme. When you have parties like the Greens saying that this is not an effective scheme and that it will not work the way that the government says it will, the Independents in this place saying that it will not work and the myriad of business and independent voices around Australia saying that they have grave concerns with the way that this legislation will operate, we ought to think very carefully here in this place about what we are doing. We ought to pause, we ought to reflect and we ought to have a debate about it. And yet we have this procession of Labor backbenchers telling us that we ought not to be having a debate; that somehow this is the moral imperative of our time and we ought not to question the detail of the scheme, how it will operate or how it will affect everyday Australians. But when you look at this legislation—and it is a very big and complex piece of legislation—it is very difficult to drill down to what simply the government is trying to do. It is an oxymoron to say that you can have a simple explanation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or the emissions trading scheme when you examine the size and complexity of what they are attempting to do. If you look at the bills in front of us, essentially they are trying to create an overall disincentive for people to emit carbon through the use of taxes, permits and other mechanisms. But the idea is that a disincentive will be created for the emission of carbon in the economy and in the daily lives of individuals by using all of these different mechanisms. However, there is something that the government has failed to demonstrate. After it collects all of this revenue and tax that will be raised by all of their mechanisms, it will then proceed to subsidise heavy industries, heavy emitters, polluters and what they term low- and middle-income households. By the use of subsidy, they therefore remove the very disincentive that they are trying to create in the first place to reduce the emission of carbon. So you go through this massive churn in financial terms, in legislative terms, in taxation terms to produce an environmental benefit that is questionable and negligible. That is why there is pronounced opposition in the Greens and other parties to this type of scheme. It is one of the reasons why I oppose this scheme as well. If you look at what the many business organisations and large enterprises consider will be the outcome of this, the Minerals Council of Australia, for example, showed that per capita revenue raised by our Australian scheme compared with similar cap and trade schemes in the USA and the EU, Australia comes out remarkably worse off. For example, a comparison of per capita revenue raised by competing schemes in the first full year of operation of a cap and trade scheme shows that Australia would raise $404 per capita, the United States would raise $57 per capita and the EU would raise just 80 cents per capita. That is $404 per capita compared with $57 per capita and 80 cents in the USA and the EU. As the member for Fremantle pointed out, we are sure punching above our weight in relation to per capita revenue raised. From the evidence that we have seen, there has been little or no scrutiny of the Rudd Labor government on this scheme and the design of the proposed legislation that is before us. This is a very disturbing problem. From what we have seen, it is clear that the Minister for Climate Change and Water cannot explain the government’s own cap and trade system when asked about it many forums. The minister cannot explain their permit system, the role of voluntary measures in the system and how all of these measures would interact. On this point regarding the system of permits and subsidies, it concerns me greatly that the Minister for Climate Change and Water is not across the detail of how this scheme will operate. This adds to my already great concern about a measure that will give government the most unprecedented boost in its scope and its size in our Commonwealth’s history. In addressing these bills, it is important for us to ask why we should act before the rest of the world and ask about the experience of carbon trading where it has been developed to date. When you examine what has happened in other places in the world, the European experience with carbon trading has badly backfired. That demonstrates that an artificially carbon trading market has severe problems that quickly undermine the intention of the mechanism: to reduce the emissions of carbon. In Europe, for example, you have a dichotomy. Developing states in Eastern Europe are seeking to expand their economies and therefore in a way hijack the intention of the carbon trading scheme by offering freer and cheaper permits in those states, undermining the whole integrity of the system. In fact, when you look at the European experience, it is completely uninspiring. It is my view that carbon trading could well represent the biggest distortion of the market and the biggest single intervention in the economy in modern history. There was a great article from Bloomberg on 17 July 2006 by Matthew Carr, who records the following: When EU officials created a market for trading pollution credits they boasted it was a ‘cost conscious way’ to save the planet from global warming. Five years later, the 25-nation EU is failing to meet the Kyoto Protocol’s carbon-dioxide emission standards. Rather than help protect the environment, the trading system has led to increases in electricity prices of more than 50 per cent and record profits for RWE,AG and other Utilities This is a market distortion if I ever saw one. The government created market distortion which ought to frighten every Australian, considering the proposition that an ETS could be good for the economy—50 per cent increases in electricity is nothing to be taken lightly. Bloomberg conclude in the same article that the $44 billion a year market in carbon trading is an environmental and economic failure. That is according to Open Europe, a policy group that assesses the EU’s laws. So let us be clear. We represent 1.4 per cent of the world’s emissions and if we do nothing naturally that will fall to one per cent. In fact, if we shut everything down in Australia, growth in China would account for emissions in just eight months that take a year for Australia. So why would we pursue a policy mechanism that has demonstrably failed in Europe? Certainly I accept the argument of my colleagues and many people in the community that we ought not be doing anything before Copenhagen and preferably ought not be adopting this system at all. But the Rudd government has had this obsessive mantra about passing a scheme before Copenhagen. It must be asked: why? A government that continually moans about artificial gases is forcing an artificial time frame on us. I believe that Copenhagen, to this government, is about opportunity. I question the motives of the Prime Minister in pushing this scheme before Copenhagen. The government claims it is a world-leading measure, but actually it puts our economy and the jobs and industries of Australians at risk. I do not believe that Australia is well served by being locked into a course of action when the major world emitters are not and when we represent only 1.4 per cent of the world’s emissions. I do not accept the argument of the member for Wills that there is a moral imperative for us to do something when we are so insignificant. If we did not act, it would not of course make any difference to the world’s carbon emissions. When you examine the impact of how this legislation will affect many sectors in our economy there are great concerns. I highlight some big ones here today, particularly the areas of agriculture—basic areas that have always been so primary to Australia’s role in the world as a producer of food. I think our role as a producer would be seriously threatened under this legislation. I quote Senator Heffernan, my friend and colleague, who has a prescient feel for agricultural issues. He says: As an opposition it is imperative that a more practical solution be achieved which does not put our nation at a disadvantage nor burden consumers and small businesses with large increases in electricity prices. One of my key concerns about the Rudd government’s proposed legislation was its refusal to rule out putting agriculture into the ETS after 2015. If our farmers were subject to an ETS, whilst the United States and European Union have exempted their farmers, not only would they be at a competitive disadvantage but many would become insolvent overnight, particularly beef, dairy and sheep farmers. The idea that many farmers would become insolvent overnight is something that the government must take into account in the design of this legislation and what it is proposing. It is a very serious matter that agriculture, so primary to this country’s production, be considered and treated in a way that is not to its detriment. I want to raise my own area of concern and that is small and medium sized business. To me one of the greatest areas of concern is what will happen to business if this legislation passes this place. It was remarkable to hear the Treasurer come in here recently and say that some businesses may face higher input costs, as he put it. He said they would be modest increases. I feel that displays a rank contempt for small and medium business. Imagine going to many of the small and medium business operators in my electorate and saying: ‘You are going to face an increase in your electricity prices. It will only be modest so don’t worry about it. There will be higher input costs in a range of areas, but you will survive somehow.’ The government does not have an answer for those small and medium enterprises that will face higher input costs and higher electricity costs as a result of this legislation. We will see a reduction in employment. We will see a reduction in investment. We will see a toughening of the environment for small and medium enterprises. I think it was remarkable to hear the Treasurer of the Commonwealth saying that these simply represent modest increases with no other explanation for small and medium enterprises. In some respects, what would you expect from someone who thinks that entering into $300 billion of government debt was a beneficial thing for our economy? The Liberal Party has a very different view in relation to small and medium enterprises. The Liberal Party is the party of enterprise and freedom and it is because of our belief in these things that I cannot in good faith support a new tax that will so heavily impact on so many small and medium enterprises across our country. It is these people, many of them in my electorate—self-employed people, people who have worked to create their own businesses, the innovators, the creators and the producers—that this massive new taxation scheme threatens the most. It is this base of self-reliance, ingenuity, innovation and hard work that stands to lose the most from this unfair new tax. I reflect and record very clearly here that my electorate, in contradiction to what some of the members opposite have said, have been contacting me expressing concern mainly about how this massive new taxation scheme will impact on them and their small and medium sized businesses. Mitchell is home to so many small business people who innovate, manufacture, produce and employ. The more people who come to understand an ETS and understand that it really represents a tax, the more they make clear to me their concern with the proposed legislation and their ability to pay any new tax of the nature proposed. I have no doubt that the Labor Party is using climate change as its most potent political weapon to win elections and it may be that Australia ends up with an emissions trading scheme no matter what any opposition party does. However, it is vital that the government take into account the serious concerns in many sectors of the Australian economy and that those concerns are well founded on costs and the ability of business to survive under such an oppressive regime. There is increasing concern about the science, conflict about the figures and a growing number of people who are concerned that the climate change debate has been deliberately hijacked for political purposes worldwide. We have seen commentators like Janet Albrechtson in her column today highlighting the contribution of Lord Monckton, who was warning that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a sort of transnational government on a scale the world has never seen. It is a thought that I think should be seriously reflected on at least. We have seen world leaders like Vaclav Klaus, who wrote a book called Blue Planet in Green Shackles, who essentially started saying that today’s debate about global warming is essentially about freedom and points out that much of the environmental moral imperative that is suggested behind this legislation is coming from a political perspective. We have seen people like Andrew Bolt, perhaps one of the strongest critics challenging populist opinion on this topic, suggest there are serious concerns that ought to be taken into account by many credible and reputable scientists—serious and measured professionals. We have seen works from people like Professor Ian Plimer, who penned a great contribution called Heaven and Earth. We have seen a movie just released in Australia to much fanfare, Not evil just wrong. It makes an important and ongoing contribution to the ordinary debate about the ongoing causes of climate change. And it is good to see that there is a genuine debate that is being considered on both sides of this argument, in short shrift to the contempt that is being shown by some people to other people’s points of view. We should also heed the warnings of respected figures like the Hon. Ian Callinan AC QC, High Court Justice from 1998 to 2007, who said: Emissions regulation offers government an irresistible opportunity to centralize and control every aspect of our lives; on our roads, on our travels, in our workplaces, on our farms, in our forests and our mines, and, more threateningly, in our homes, constructed as they will be compelled to be, of very specific materials and of prescribed sizes. It is not difficult to foresee a diktat as to how many lights we may turn on and when we must turn them off: the great curfew. The new regime has the capacity to make the wartime National Security Regulations look like a timid exercise of government restraint. I read that quote out because I feel it is a very powerful and compelling warning from a respected figure in our nation’s history who points out that his examination and his intelligence teaches him that these proposed bills seriously threaten our freedom. Governments, in all their forms, have been trying to run our lives one way or the other for all of human existence. Since the advent of capitalism and free markets, governments have been limited and rights for citizens have offered us protection against unbridled government. The true story of Australia’s success since its European settlement is a story of rugged individualism and the unbridled ingenuity of its citizens in overcoming a harsh and brutal climate, a story of hard work and achievement that has produced one of the highest standards of living in the world. This high standard of living now faces a most serious assault from a Labor government determined to use a green veneer to impose a tax on every form of industry, activity and human endeavour in our country. From the design and intent of this legislation before us, it appears our historical protections are no longer enough to stop government from interfering in an unacceptable way in our daily lives. Under this carbon tax, will you need a permit to conduct your life in the way the government requires? A permit to conduct your business the way the government deems valid? A permit for yourself and your family to exist on the terms the government thinks appropriate? Forcing Australians to apply for permits or live off subsidies from government for working to produce a higher standard of living for themselves and their families is a system I cannot and will not support. I reject these bills. I reject the premise of these bills: the premise that the government can impose a system of taxation on every sector of our economy that will make a true difference to the climate of the planet. I reject the premise that a Labor government can artificially create a carbon market that will reduce the emission of carbon in a way that will alter the climate of our planet. In fact, every Labor intervention in our economy has resulted in higher taxes and more government. There is no evidence before us to suggest this legislation will be any different. And in rejecting these premises I also reject these bills. I reject the Labor Party’s unprecedented program to expand the size and scope of the Australian government. 11353 22:03:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —This debate is not about us. This debate has been used by many to try to define themselves or their opponents. Sadly, it has all basically come down to politics. For those who are passionately devoted to the climate change cause, you have a right to be disappointed with what is taking place here. Those who feel equally strongly the other way—and there are many who do—also have a right to feel aggrieved. I believe they have been abused in this debate also. The truth on all of these matters always lies somewhere in between. For my sake, and for the sake of my children, I will give the planet the benefit of the doubt. This does not constitute a blank cheque for any action but rather sensible and reasonable action, measured action, balanced action, action that is always looking at the emerging science, action that is always looking at the modifications that need to be made. So I will not allow my good faith towards this issue to be appropriated and to be misused. But again, it is not about us. It is not about whether individual politicians here in this place, members of parliament, believe in climate change or not. That is not the debate. That is the debate I believe the government wants us to have, and as I have listened to those speaking opposite about this matter, that is principally been the theme of the presentations they have made. The scheme we debate here should not be about even what the government is doing, because ultimately it is about what individuals do, what choices they make, what investment they undertake, what sort of future they envisage and how they plan to get there. It is not just about our decisions here as individuals in this country; it is about the decisions that billions of people around the world are going to make today and in the future and for many years to come. An ETS, properly designed and calibrated, can send an efficient and effective market signal to encourage and justify investment by individuals in low-emissions technologies and behaviours. This is a true statement. But that is not a blank cheque or a licence for any ETS at all. The question before the Australian people is: what are you as individuals, not necessarily the government, prepared to do? Because it is you, the Australian people, who will be paying the price. The previous speaker, the member for Mitchell, made a valid point: this is a tax. We should call it a tax—it is a tax. It is a tax that is going to be on every grain of carbon that moves through our economy and through our society. As the community becomes more aware of the costs of taking action in this debate to reduce carbon emissions, so too to do their expectations rise of the environmental outcomes they expect. This bill will not meet these expectations. A false premise has been put out amongst the community over many years as this debate has become intensely popularised. If there are people out there listening tonight that feel that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills, as proposed, will save the Great Barrier Reef, make the rivers flow, make the tide drop or make the sea levels not rise, they have been sold a falsehood. What we are debating here is some action, a scheme. It is a scheme that has many flaws, and we are debating those flaws in relation to the legislation this evening. But we should not allow Australians to believe that this is a silver bullet, that it is the only action that can be taken to reduce carbon emissions both today and in the future. That is a debate to which we do not know all the answers at present. To imply that all the answers are wrapped up in this tome of bills that we are debating tonight is incredibly misleading to the Australian people and, frankly, takes a loan of them. I feel that we are cheating the Australian people somewhat with the timing of this legislation before the parliament. We are being asked to sign up to a process when none of us—those who have written this bill, those who have brought this bill into this place, those who have undertaken, I am sure, extensive consultations, those who have made submissions to those consultations and those on both sides of the debate who have laboured over many, many years on scientific research—yet understand or appreciate the issue in its entirety. We do not know what solutions and actions will be effective or what is an appropriate trade-off for undertaking those actions. We simply do not know, and I think anyone who pretends they do is misrepresenting themselves to the Australian people. There are many aspects of this bill that, if passed, we will all greatly regret. I have no doubt about that. Even if this bill is passed in the weeks that lie ahead, and even with the amendments that we have proposed, there will be things in this bill that will leave a very poor legacy. There are sleepers in this bill that we do not yet understand. There are things that will present themselves in the years, let alone weeks and months, ahead that will drastically change the environment in which these measures operate. I also believe that whatever is passed here is unlikely to survive to its implementation date—such is the fluidity of this issue and how quickly it is moving. There has been much talk of the event that will take place in Copenhagen when people from around the world will gather in literally tens of thousands and take over that city for yet another international meeting. But we are kidding ourselves if we think that what comes out of that meeting will give us any greater guide, in terms of what the rest of the world is doing, than what we know now. There may be some great emergence of sentiment; there may be some commonality of view. But I am not very optimistic that we will see any great conclusion of matters in Copenhagen. We are, again, kidding ourselves if we think that may inform us greatly. What we will see in Copenhagen will be yet another step. There have been many steps; there will be more steps. It may begin a process which will take another five years to conclude in terms of the actions that may be put in place. I do not know whether Copenhagen will provide us with much of a guide. But it is an important meeting. It is important for us to frame the decisions we make in this place on the best information available to us. Frankly, I do not believe we yet have that, and I am continually puzzled by the government’s rush in terms of these bills. As I said at the start of my remarks, I believe this is all about politics; I do not believe it is about policy. This debate does not do this issue justice, and I think many Australians are fed up with how it is being pursued. I do not think it endears us to the Australian people. Many Australians in my electorate and right around the country have many doubts on this issue, but a great number also have a great resolve to address whatever is happening out there and are looking for some sort of direction from us in this place. So we will debate these matters, we will negotiate the specifics of these bills, and hopefully that will provide some level of direction. But at all times we must be prepared to ensure that our response, as we consider these things in the weeks ahead and here this evening, is flexible. We must be prepared to admit that none of us have the complete wisdom on these matters and, as we learn more, we should have the humility to come back to this place and fix the mistakes that will undoubtedly be made as soon as we know about them. The question before us now is: what do we need to fix now? The coalition have engaged in good faith in this debate. We have raised a number of issues, which the Leader of the Opposition in particular outlined in his address earlier today. I would like to focus more specifically on the absolutely critical issues from my perspective. The first is the overall nature of the scheme that the government has put forward. This is a big-government answer to the problem. It very much matches the sentiment and philosophy that the government has had on many issues, which is to put the government at the centre of things. This scheme will put the government at the centre of everything—every living being, every ounce of carbon that finds its way around this planet, particularly in this country. This is a big-government scheme that seeks to control all of that. It seeks to count and tax every gram of carbon, collect all of that revenue and then be the arbiter of who gets that revenue back. By definition, that is big-government tax and spend. That is the model that this government has adopted. This is not the only model of an emissions trading scheme available. There are many other ways that this can be attacked, and the Frontier Economics report that was released several months ago was very clear about the alternatives. As we look around the world and as, I am sure, will be debated in Copenhagen, many countries are looking at schemes very different to what we are talking about here. There are schemes that have been in place; there are schemes that are yet to be introduced. But the big-government scheme that seeks to count and collect tax on every gram of carbon and then arbitrate as to who gets the revenue on the way back out is very much an old-fashioned Labor scheme. It will involve enormous bureaucracy. It will generate tremendous churn in processing and compliance, which will put an incredible burden on businesses around the country that as yet is not completely understood. Certainly not understood is the impact it will have on the daily operations of those businesses. There will be, in that process of introducing such a massive scheme, extraordinary transitional costs in getting across the detail of this and in complying with it. I think we are being quite naive in how we are engaging with what is going to be, if passed—if approved by this parliament—the single biggest change in our history to how we do business in this country. But we rush apparently headlong into it with not enough detail, with not enough thorough thought. I should stress that the concerns about the flawed nature of the scheme and the matters the coalition have raised have been echoed by many outside of this place. The second largest refinery that Caltex operates in this country is in my electorate in Kurnell. They have made submissions on this matter. It goes very much to the heart of their operations. Caltex will be the single largest purchaser of emissions permits under this scheme. They will spend up to $1.6 billion per annum. They said in their submission that the current package of the CPRS legislation was flawed and required substantial amendment to ensure it was environmentally effective, equitable and economically efficient. Caltex believes government should take whatever time is necessary to get the design of the scheme right. There is considerable work still to be done in this regard. They say a substantial amount of regulation should be tabled so that it can be debated and voted on with its enabling legislation. It says that significant issues—including the treatment of the emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries—are the subject of regulation. Eligible emission units being defined as financial products and deferred to payment arrangements for auction and a whole range of other things should be more the subject of the debate. But those things will not be debated as part of these bills because the regulations sit as completely separate matters. Caltex is the largest business in my electorate and they will be the single largest purchaser of emissions permits, and they are concerned. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will hinge on how effectively this is designed and implemented. The coalition has argued very strongly that the agricultural sector, in terms of its emissions, should be excluded from this scheme and that the opportunities for abatement should be included. This is a very sensible proposal. It is consistent with international practice. We called on the government to do that. Even before our engagement in the good faith negotiations and up until those negotiations commenced, those calls were rejected. There is an opportunity for the government to do the right thing here and I am hopeful that they will do that. If they do do that, it will not be as a result of their desire or intention to do so when they designed this scheme or because they went out into the Australian community and defended their scheme over many months. If they do it, they will have done so only because of the coalition’s insistence that they see common sense and the best international practice to ensure that our agricultural sector not only is not penalised—and our food production basin is not penalised—but has access to commercial incentives to play a significant role in the abatement opportunities that exist for companies like Caltex. They have hit their heads on the ceiling in what they can do to minimise their emissions in operating with their own plant at Kurnell. The only opportunity they have now is abatement. Without the opportunity for abatement—or to pursue things such as biodiesel or whatever—there will be serious limitations on what the agricultural sector can do to do their bit. They are keen to do their bit, but with the way the scheme is designed in denying them the opportunity for agricultural abatement the government will not allow them to do that. Others have talked about the emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries and the coalition’s proposals. They are all about putting Australia on the same wicket as our competitors around the world. That again is just simple common sense. The exclusion of fugitive emissions in coalmining is another common sense proposal that I am hopeful the government may see the wisdom of. It is electricity generation that greatly concerns me. The Business Council of Australia just this week released a significant report, which focussed on Australia’s infrastructure challenges into the future and was highly critical of many of the government’s approaches in this area. I have spoken about those on other occasions but tonight I want to focus on the warnings they have given on the government’s emissions trading scheme. They make the obvious statement: … there is a desire to move from around 85% coal-fired generation to largely emissions-free generation in a short period of time. They describe this rightly, I believe, as a revolution. It continues: This revolution raises at least two key questions: How will Australia’s electricity market and also reliability of supply cope with the low emission transition challenge? What will the effects on Australia’s longstanding international competitive advantage in low energy costs be, and what can Australia do to preserve this advantage? The report goes on: Given the nature and speed of the desired revolution in our electricity sector continuing reliability cannot be assured … The Commonwealth’s coming Energy White Paper needs to address the issue of Australia’s future relative energy costs, the competitiveness implications for Australia and what policy response is required The report also talks about the increased need to continue with other major energy, particularly electricity, sector reforms. It is quite clear that under the proposals put forward by the government baseload coal-fired power plants that were built for continuous operation will have to run as intermediate plants, and it is unclear whether this is technically possible. At the very least it will be incredibly difficult and not without costs. The value of loss of brown and black coal generators due to the CPRS will be around $10 billion over 10 years. This will reduce their value below their debt and some $19 billion of existing debt will need to be refinanced by the generation sector by 2015. In short, this simply means that the lights will go out. We cannot expect a transition where our economy literally goes from 85 per cent of coal-fired power generation to effectively zero over a short period of time not to have some significant impact on our coal-fired electricity generators. The balance sheet impact of this issue alone will put extraordinary pressure on these generators to continue to do their job, which is quite simple: to keep the lights on. In the government’s rush to embrace and pursue this agenda, I believe this is an issue they have seriously overlooked. Not only will they have to meet this transitionary challenge but, in addition to that, they will need to meet the rising demand that has taken place and will take place in the years ahead because of our growing population. Finally, there is the issue of electricity prices. My colleagues have rightly pointed that out, particularly the impact on small business. Also, landfill for the local government sector will be affected by a cap where, above 25,000 tonnes of CO2, there will be a need to buy permits, but there is ambiguity around the issue of proximate sites and whether they will be included. That needs to be resolved. In conclusion, I am confident that we can meet the challenges, but we must approach the challenge humbly and honestly and be prepared to fix the mistakes that are here. The mistakes that we know today are in this legislation need to be fixed. The mistakes that will be made in the future as a result of this legislation will need to be fixed also. I call on the government to ensure they do that. (Time expired) 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! I know the member for Cook was going to seek indulgence to speak for a moment longer. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr MORRISON —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On indulgence, I am pleased to inform the House that, this evening, Bree Till, the wife of Sergeant Brett Till, who was killed in Afghanistan in March this year, gave birth to their beautiful son Ziggy Phoenix Till. He was born this evening at 7.04 pm, weighing 9.2 pounds and measuring 54 centimetres. My best wishes and prayers go to the Till family. It is a very happy day for them in what has been a very difficult year. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the House would share in the sentiment and thank the member for Cook for bringing it to our attention. 11358 22:24:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the related legislation because the transition to a low-carbon economy is one of the biggest challenges in the history of our economy. This process will change the way Australia relates to its trading partners, it will change the way that the government interacts with the free market and it will ultimately lead to changes in the way consumers behave. No industry will be left untouched by Labor’s emissions trading scheme. No family will be able to avoid the consequences of this new tax. Whether they realise it or not, every person in my electorate has an interest in the outcome of this debate. I am mindful that there are a range of views on the issue of climate change and carbon emissions. Indeed, among my own constituents there are a very wide range of views. I know of some people in my electorate who are so convinced of the dangers of climate change that they have completely changed their lifestyle, and I also represent people who are convinced that the theory of human activity related climate change should be filed alongside Aesop’s Fables. Because of the wide range of views on this subject and the complexity of the issue, I have made a concerted effort to research carefully, taking in literature from both sides of the argument. I have also met with constituents and other stakeholders to hear their views about carbon emissions and climate change. Recently, I met with a group of scientists from Climate Scientists Australia. We had a very informative and constructive dialogue. The Prime Minister advances his flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as the only solution to climate change. However, there are a range of programs and options that may be implemented by the government as it seeks to reduce our national emissions. One option is to use a market based approach, which is the basis for an emissions trading scheme. In a nutshell, an emissions trading scheme works by setting a cap on the amount of carbon that may be emitted by Australian industries each year. At the end of each financial year, liable entities are required to surrender an eligible emissions permit for each tonne of greenhouse gas emitted during that year. In theory, the government can gradually reduce our national carbon emissions by reducing the number of emissions permits that are available each year. This reduction in the supply of permits is supposed to force the price of permits up, which eventually makes it more viable for businesses to invest in low-emissions technology than to buy expensive permits. The ETS solution also supposes that emissions intensive goods and services will become more expensive, which will encourage consumers to favour goods and services that are less carbon intensive. Another scheme designed to reduce carbon emissions is a simple carbon tax. A carbon tax is similar to an ETS, but, instead of the government controlling the quantity of carbon that may be emitted and allowing the market to control the price, a carbon tax allows the government to control the price of carbon while letting the market determine how much carbon will be emitted. The theory with a carbon tax is that the government can gradually increase the tax on carbon emissions, which encourages industries to invest in low-carbon technology. Another option available to the government is to mandate the use of low-emission or zero-emission technology. We already see this taking place with regard to the renewable energy target, which was recently passed by the parliament. There is scope to use this type of scheme to reduce our emissions by mandating, for example, the use of gas fired electricity generators to meet a proportion of our electricity needs—no need for a tax; no need for a complicated market based system; just a simple mandate to get a desired outcome. The government also has the option—heaven forbid!—of itself investing directly in low-emissions technology. In certain circumstances, this may well be a more desirable course of action. Clearly, contrary to the claims of the Prime Minister, there are a range of solutions to the environmental challenges we face. We should not be fooled by government spin and rhetoric that this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the only solution to the challenges that we face. Although there are obvious benefits to allowing the market to play a central role in reducing our emissions, I can see that there are significant deficiencies in the government’s current plan. I find it particularly hypocritical for the Prime Minister to be introducing a scheme which is based on free market ideology when he declared himself that the global financial crisis was the ‘culmination of a 30-year domination of economic policy by a free market ideology’. The Prime Minister’s infamous diatribe in February’s edition of the Monthly made it clear that the free market was the sole source of the world’s financial woes. Yet less than 12 months later he is trying to convince us that the free market will be the saviour of the earth. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr Bruce Scott —A double backflip. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —A double backflip, as the member for Maranoa says. During the first year of the CPRS, the government is proposing that an unlimited number of emissions permits would be sold for $10 each. In the following years, a set number of emissions permits will be auctioned based on a cap set by the government. In theory, the price that emitters are willing to pay for the permits will increase as the supply of permits is reduced. As permits become more expensive, it will be economically viable for emitters to invest in low-emissions technology, and there lies the theory of the matter. However, the problem is that you will also be able to purchase unlimited permits in the international market. In the absence of an international agreement on carbon emissions, international demand for offsets may remain low and it is likely that emissions permits will continue to be available overseas at relatively low prices. The availability of inexpensive international carbon offsets will seriously undermine the basis of the government’s proposed scheme. In some international markets, carbon offsets are selling for as little as 10 per cent of the government’s asking price of $10 per tonne. Privately negotiated transfers of carbon offsets on the voluntary Chicago Climate Exchange were selling at between US85c and US$1. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr Bruce Scott —You would buy them there. Why would you pay the $10 the government is charging? 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —Why would you pay $10 when you can go down to Nock and Kirby’s and get it for 85c? However, prices on the Montreal Climate Exchange are vastly more expensive. In Montreal you had to pay Can$3 for each metric tonne of CO2 equivalent at close of business on 26 October. As little as a couple of days ago, you could buy for US85c on the US market or, if you went north of the border to Canada, you could get it for Can$3. I am mindful that these offsets are not available for purchase by Australian companies at the moment, but these figures indicate clearly that carbon offsets are available in some markets at a fraction of the price proposed for the cheap introductory offer this government is putting forward of $10 a tonne. The government very clearly expects this price to rise quickly and substantially. Offsets are currently available through the UN sponsored Clean Development Mechanism—probably a euphemism I suggest. According to industry insiders, the Clean Development Mechanism will be the lowest cost option to emitters. This creates a problem for the government because the revenue from selling emissions permits is earmarked to be used for providing assistance to low-income earners and trade exposed industries. If the government are not receiving the projected income from permit sales, they may be forced to go further into debt—and we know this government are experts in the field of running up debt—in order to finance their household and industry assistance packages. With all of these factors in mind, we must remember that the emissions trading scheme will not in the end necessarily reduce our emissions. There seems to be a perception in the community that the CPRS will automatically reduce our carbon emissions simply because of its existence. But in reality the CPRS will simply allow for the creation of another tradeable instrument. This link between the finance industry and environmental outcomes may prove to be a very weak link indeed and may prove to be the greatest flaw in the government’s scheme. Recent comments by BHP chairman, Don Argus, to the Melbourne Mining Club make it clear that traders and the government do not often share the same objectives. Mr Argus said: … a trading mentality will not get CO2 out of the atmosphere. Already they will be salivating about where they can run derivative products … He goes on to say: Now the theory is that the market will fix the emissions trading by setting the price to reward those that are good and challenge those that are not. That’s great theory. I know from a trading desk there are different objectives. And if you do get differential pricing and you leave an arbitrage opportunity anywhere in the world there are some very, very smart guys out there who can make a buck. And I’m not sure that they will be worried about CO2 emissions. I think that Don Argus has nailed it there. From my experience, I can assure you that traders are hard-wired to make money. The government’s aim is to reduce carbon emissions, but the people it is relying on to make the system work are more interested in making money than they are in reducing carbon emissions. Another issue of concern to me is the integrity of carbon offsets being sourced from overseas. There have been numerous media reports of problems with carbon offsets and credit projects around the world, particularly in developing nations. It would be particularly galling for my constituents to be paying higher prices under Kevin Rudd’s tax only to find that Australia’s emissions are not being reduced because businesses are buying dodgy carbon permits from overseas. This is an issue that will require particular attention from the government and particular attention right around the world. Some of the problems I have mentioned would be mitigated, however, by the establishment of a comprehensive global agreement on carbon emissions. An Australian ETS would be much more effective if it were introduced in conjunction with similar schemes around the world. Unfortunately, a global agreement on climate change is looking increasingly unlikely. At a recent conference in China, Senator Alan Eggleston met with representatives from the Japanese, Chinese and South Korean governments, and they all indicated that their respective countries were unlikely to introduce an ETS. The Copenhagen summit is just around the corner, and the major economies of the world still seem to be poles apart on this issue. Without a global agreement on climate change, Australia’s exporting industries will be disadvantaged, and ultimately it is my constituents who will suffer through higher prices and higher unemployment for little environmental benefit. Most of the talk and debate surrounding the ETS has been on how we are going to help the industries and businesses that will be affected by the scheme. Unfortunately, the people who are forgotten in this debate are the people who will be affected the most by the CPRS. I am talking about the pensioners, the families on low and middle incomes, and small business. These are the people who will struggle to cope with increased prices. These are the people who will struggle with unemployment due to an ETS. Even with the government’s compensation package, life under a Rudd government ETS, under a Rudd government tax, will not be easy for my constituents. The biggest losers under the Rudd government’s ETS will be small businesses. Small businesses will get no compensation. Even though they will be forced to shoulder the burden of higher electricity prices and higher prices for the goods they buy, they will receive no assistance from the government. Small business faces higher costs and reduced profitability under Labor’s flawed scheme. Small business is the backbone of the Australian economy, and the government should be ashamed that it has not considered the impact of the CPRS on this vital group. The whole basis of an ETS is that the higher cost of emissions-intensive goods and services will lead people to change their habits towards using less carbon-intensive goods and services. The problem with this assumption is that many pensioners, many low-income families and many small businesses are operating with very limited ability to change their purchasing decisions. In New South Wales the state government has just increased electricity prices by 20 per cent. How are struggling pensioners, after the 20 per cent increase that was just recently introduced, going to be able to afford to pay even more for electricity? What we have seen in the recent price rises in New South Wales is just a curtain raiser to what we are going to see under Kevin Rudd’s ETS. As I previously mentioned there are a range of ways to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions. An ETS is only one of many possible solutions, and there are many different ways to implement an ETS. It is quite clear that the government’s ETS proposal is flawed and that it will jeopardise thousands of jobs and put at risk the viability of our trade-exposed industries, so the opposition has proposed amendments. They have tried to breathe some life into this dog. The opposition’s amendments will show that it is possible to achieve similar results at less cost and without the catastrophic loss of jobs that this flawed scheme would deliver, at less cost to families, at less cost to pensioners and at less cost to small businesses. The coalition proposes to increase assistance for trade-exposed industries and include food processing as a trade-exposed industry to ensure that these industries continue to remain internationally competitive. The amendments will permanently exclude agriculture from the ETS—which is a vital change—and will introduce an agricultural offset scheme similar to schemes operating in the US and Europe. This will allow farmers to play a key role in reducing our carbon emissions and mitigating climate change. The amendments will alter the way the CPRS applies to electricity generation and deliver cuts to carbon emissions with a much smaller increase in electricity prices. This will be a great relief to families and a great reduction in the burden on small businesses. The coalition will amend the CPRS to provide better compensation for coal-fired generators. Also, the amendments will ensure that voluntary action by Australian families and businesses is taken into consideration under the scheme. Labor’s scheme is a dog. Even with these amendments, introducing the CPRS without a global agreement on carbon emissions is reckless. Australia’s lone action on carbon emissions will make no difference on a global scale. The Prime Minister’s insistence that this scheme must be passed before the end of the year is sheer nonsense and any intelligent primary school child could work that out. It is incredible that the members opposite are not able to come to grips with that very simple fact. As long as there is no global agreement on carbon emissions and carbon permits are widely available on the international markets, the CPRS will not reduce Australia’s carbon emissions but it will force up the price of everything. Make no mistake: the CPRS is nothing but a tax. Winston Churchill put it perfectly when he said: We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. Although spoken more than sixty years ago, Churchill’s argument could reasonably be applied to the situation in which our nation finds itself as the Rudd Labor government attempts to tax us into a better future. It will not work. It did not work 60 years ago and it will not work now. All Labor’s CPRS will do is hurt our small businesses and make it more difficult for Australian industries to compete on the world stage. The government’s determination to press ahead with this new tax, regardless of the outcome of the Copenhagen summit, is a purely political decision. It is not in the best interests of the nation, it is not in the best interests of the Australians that I represent in regional areas, because regional Australia will bear the brunt of this new tax, regional Australia will lose the jobs and regional Australia will be facing lower growth. Regional Australia will suffer and particularly low-income regional Australians. This tax is an outrage. It is a poorly designed scheme and the government should be condemned for the very poor approach it has to this very difficult problem. 11363 22:42:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise behind the member for Cowper and endorse some of the very strong points he raised because the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2], and the related bills, which we are debating here tonight, are fundamentally flawed. They are nothing more than a revenue raiser that the government is trying to raise against the backdrop of its budget deficits. It is going to ask the people of Australia and the exporting industries of Australia to pay a new tax when the rest of the world have not even come to an agreement as to where they want to go in relation to the issue of carbon emissions globally. One of the fundamental flaws with this scheme is that it is a new tax and the tax, while it is proposed in this bill will initially be set by the government, it will, under the proposal put by the government, eventually be set by the market—by the traders. To have any market to operate you have got to have fluctuations. When you have fluctuations in the price of carbon—in other words, the price of the tax, which is going to go up and down—it will certainly have an impact across the board. As the member for Cowper said, you can buy carbon offsets right now in Chicago for 85 cents a tonne. Yet this government proposes to set them at $10 a tonne. There is not even an international comparison. The Prime Minister seems to want to go to Copenhagen with a legislated ETS that has been passed with a Labor majority in this place and with some others being brought onside in the upper house. He wants to go to Copenhagen in December with legislation in his back pocket. Countries from all around the world are going to participate in Copenhagen and very few of them will arrive there with a legislated position in relation to the way they intend to deal with carbon emissions or reduce global carbon emissions. So why is it that Australia has to arrive with a legislated scheme? We already know that New Zealand is not going to go with one. We understand that Canada is sitting back to see what the United States is going to do. We understand that that United States will not be arriving with a legislated scheme, given what is happening in the senate—there is a disagreement between the senate and the congress. So why do we in Australia have to go to Copenhagen with a legislated scheme? Surely the democratically elected governments—the sovereign nations—have a responsibility to go to Copenhagen and negotiate. That is what this nation should do—negotiate. We should not go with something in the back pocket, but to negotiate. If there is an agreement reached representatives will go back to their sovereign nations and then bring legislation forward, in whatever form it might take. But, no, this Prime Minister wants to go there with a legislated scheme. Ours would be one of the few countries in the world that would arrive with a legislated scheme. We know from what we have heard globally in the meetings leading up to Copenhagen that there is a diversity of opinion. Some countries want to reduce carbon emissions but certainly do not intend to introduce a tax into their economy. All countries will want to go back and discuss—as I am sure this place will discuss—what happened in Copenhagen. So this scheme that the government is bringing forward, fundamentally flawed as it is, will not be the scheme that is agreed globally by participating countries in Copenhagen. Quite typically, as we have so often seen, this government—and particularly this Prime Minister—is putting the cart before the horse. One of the fundamental flaws of this legislation—it is one of the problems that I have with it—is the effect on the agricultural sector. I represent probably one of the largest food-producing regions in Queensland. I will not say it is one of the largest food-producing regions in Australia, because my colleague from the Parkes electorate would probably interject. We will talk about that later. If this ETS is implemented, what we do know is that it will be very hard to reverse. I know that if this scheme is implemented, if we are sitting here in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years time—when we have been living with this tax for decades—there will have been very little headway, globally, in reducing emissions and we will have to ask ourselves what we achieved, apart from introducing a new tax which provided revenue for governments to distribute as they wished in certain sections of the economy. If we are to reduce emissions and can get an agreement at Copenhagen we should be acting multilaterally, not in isolation, because the process of this bill has the potential to destroy many Australian jobs and make very little impact on carbon emissions here in Australia. The influence we will have in Copenhagen on global emissions—of which we contribute only 1.5 per cent—is going to be negligible. I know that one of the great challenges confronting this nation and the world today is the global food crisis. That underscores the reason I want to see agriculture not included—as the government proposes it will be by 2013, 2014 or 2015—in an emissions trading scheme. We know—these are United Nations figures—that in 50 years time the world’s population will have reached nine billion people. That is a third more mouths to feed than we have today. At the rate of population growth in the world today, there are another six million mouths to feed every month. That is the rate of population growth globally. That means that by Australia Day next year we will have had a population increase in the world equivalent to the total population of Australia today. Those people will have to be fed, otherwise populations in many parts of the world will be confronting a situation like we see in Ethiopia today—widespread famine. We also know that by 2050 most of the world will be urbanised. Australia is on the way. Recent figures suggest that by 2050 we will have a population of 35 million people, whereas we now have a population of 22 million. Around 70 per cent of those people will live in urban areas. Already, half the world lives in urban areas and by 2025 there will be something like 29 megacities in the world—cities with populations of more than 10 million. There are 10 of those megacities today and there is going to be something like 30 of them within 15 years. Half of them will be in Asia. Living standards, we know, will improve. We know that the world’s arable farming lands are going to decline. To feed the world’s nine billion inhabitants and to make sure that they do not go hungry, we will have to increase global food production by 70 per cent. I was very fortunate to join you, Mr Speaker, to meet the Chief Executive of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark, who spoke to us two nights ago here in this place. She gave me a startling figure. I asked her to repeat it to me just to make sure I had it correct. She said that we will have to produce, in the next 50 years, the same amount of food that humans have produced since ancient Egyptian times. I said, ‘Could you say that again?’ You might recall that, Mr Speaker. She said that in the next 50 years we are going to have to produce the same amount of food as has been produced since Biblical times—over the last 2,000 years. It is an incredible number; I find it hard to get my mind around it. During the next 50 years, with the global population increasing and rising living standards, we will have to produce as much food as has been produced since ancient Egyptian times. That is the challenge that is confronting us. Yet this bill, fundamentally flawed as it is, wants to introduce a tax and impose it on Australian farmers. We know that America has already decided, ‘We are certainly not going to tax our agricultural sector; in fact, we are going to take them out permanently.’ That was their proposition as they debated their legislation in the congress, which passed with a very narrow majority. But the bill before this parliament tonight, which was debated a little short of three months ago, wants to include the agricultural sector. Australia will have a role to play in helping meet the global food challenge. Already, through their own food production and the food that we export to many parts of the world, Australian farmers feed over 60 million people a day. The demand for food is going to grow. The demand on Australian farmers is going to grow. We can play a role in this but it is going to be very hard if the playing field is tilted against our farmers. Other farmers in the world will not have the same tax on their production that is proposed by this government. That is why our amendment to permanently exclude the agricultural sector must be accepted. I often quote Dorothea Mackellar and her wonderful poem My Country—a country of beauty and terror, droughts, floods and bushfires. This nation has sadly seen them all fairly regularly. Yet our farmers continue to prevail. Ninety-three per cent of the food consumed in Australia is produced domestically. That is a great success in some of the toughest agricultural farming lands in the world, on top of feeding 60 million people a day. Another aspect of the coalition’s amendment is to allow farmers to participate in voluntary carbon offsets. Our farmers have employed farming methods that have changed over time. I introduced zero tillage on our farm when I was farming in the early 1980s, 25 years ago. It is in widespread use in many agricultural farming areas today. Zero tillage, incorporating residue into the land, reduces nitrogen use. All those procedures and agricultural practices will reduce carbon emissions. We need to allow farmers to participate in voluntary carbon offsets by being able to store carbon in the soil to increase its fertility and its moisture retention capacity. That is why carbon is an important commodity in agriculture and that is why, in the interests of global food security and because of the global challenges ahead of us, we must permanently remove agriculture from the CPRS scheme but also allow farmers to participate in voluntary carbon offsets. We need to put an incentive in place for them to utilise those carbon offsets for the benefit of the soil, which ultimately is of benefit to all Australians. We know we can measure carbon emissions from motor vehicles, trucks and power stations. But how are we going to measure methane from livestock? We cannot. This bill is going to bring the agricultural sector into the scheme by 2013 or 2014 and apparently we are going to be able to measure emissions from an animal—a living, breathing being. That is why this bill is so fundamentally flawed. If it were not so serious it would be laughable. We know that the global demand for meat is going to increase by some 80 per cent by 2030. Here is the catch-22, and I am sure you can appreciate it, Mr Speaker. Under Labor’s proposal, do we increase our livestock numbers to meet this global increase in demand, or do we reduce the number of livestock to meet the emissions targets? That is why it is so ludicrous that the Labor Party includes agriculture in this proposal. This goes to the absurdity of this part of the bill. Our amendment states that our trade-exposed industries should compete on a level playing field. My own electorate of Maranoa, as I said earlier, is a great food-producing bowl, whether it is the pig meat, goat meat, sheep meat or kangaroo meat industries, the beef abattoirs, cotton mills, milk processing plants, peanut processing plants or wineries. All of those are first-stage processing and food production. Most of them supply not only the domestic market but also export markets. Whether they are dairy farmers in the South Burnett and the Darling Downs or kangaroo harvesters in western Queensland, all of those industries, as first-stage food processors, should be taken out of the Labor Party’s proposal. I have very limited time before the House rises tonight, so in conclusion, whilst I have a great deal more to say on power, the natural gas industry, coal seam methane and the opportunities for a green energy revolution as part of the solution in Australia, can I say that we must wait for an outcome on the negotiations that take place at Copenhagen. To move before that if Labor’s bill is passed will impose a huge impact on Australian jobs. It will not cut emissions. It will tilt the playing field against all our export industries. Ultimately we will see jobs, as well as well as carbon emissions, exported to other countries. I urge the government to listen to what we have said, go to Copenhagen and come back next year when we sit in early February and bring forward legislation in line with an international agreement. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 pm, the debate is interrupted. 11366 23:00:00 House adjourned at 11.00 pm 11366 Notices The following notices were given: R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, and for related purposes. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation, and for related purposes. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1992, and for related purposes. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974, and for related purposes. ECV Hayes, Chris, MP Mr Hayes to move: That the House: notes that 25 November marks White Ribbon Day, the symbol of the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women; recognises that White Ribbon Day aims to prevent violence against women by increasing public awareness and education by challenging the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence to continue; asks all Australian men to challenge these behaviours, so that we can begin to drive real change in our community; notes with concern that one in three women will experience physical violence, and one in five will experience sexual violence over their lifetime; understands that domestic violence and family violence are primary causes of homelessness; acknowledges the cost of violence against women and their children to the Australian economy was estimated to be $13.6 billion in 2008‑09, and if we take no action to shine a light on this violence, that cost will hit an estimated $15.6 billion by 2021‑22; and asks all members to show that they are challenging violence against women by wearing a white ribbon or wristband on White Ribbon Day. 2009-10-28 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am. 11368 Constituency Statements 11368 11368 09:30:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —Last Friday, 23 October, I went to the St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School in Wanneroo to present an award to the school at their assembly. The award was for being the runners-up in the schools section of the Dorothea Mackellar Poetry Awards. As members may be aware, the Dorothea Mackellar Poetry Awards is the largest and in fact the oldest poetry competition for schools in Australia. The aim of the competition is to capture the imagination of students, inspiring them to express their thoughts creatively through poetry. The competition is named after Dorothea Mackellar, arguably our most famous poet and author of the famous poem My Country, and gives Australian young people an opportunity to strive for excellence in poetry. The awards are hosted by the Dorothea Mackellar Memorial Society, based in Gunnedah in north-west New South Wales. Four hundred and sixty-two schools participated, and I count it as a great achievement that St Anthony’s was second of all the competing primary schools in the entire country. Fourteen of the students submitted poetry, under the guidance of the gifted education coordinator and teacher, Sandra Corcoran. I presented an award that represented a telescope and a star, which reflected the theme, ‘Searching for stars’. Apart from the award, I also presented the school with a cheque for $750 and a number of books for the school library. After the school assembly, I met with the students. I acknowledge the success of Noah Ivulich and Tayla Short, from year 7. I say congratulations to Breana Kelly, Shannon Kelly and Elizabeth Simmonds, from year 6, and well done to Annette Briffa-Healy, Sian Douglas, Melanie Moroney and Keisha Omar, from year 5. The year 4s that did very well for the team effort were Bruce Patmore, Elaina O’Connor, Lauren Kincaid, Bronte Fresle and Shanelle DeLucia. The judges, in this case Dr Robert Kimber and Ms Sue Gough, made a comment about the better poetry in the competition, saying: It is emotion, deliberately given shape in the writer’s acute observations upon a theme which is very special to that writer at the time of writing. I take the opportunity of thanking the Dorothea Mackellar Memorial Society, project officer Helen Green and the judges for enabling this excellent competition to take place and upholding the standing of the literary arts in Australia, particularly poetry. I congratulate Mrs Corcoran and the 14 students for doing so very well in the national competition. I have always thought highly of St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School in Wanneroo, and I would particularly like to briefly comment on the confident and well-mannered students at the school. On the day I visited, I met and spoke to a number of the students. The older students were very respectful and yet had the confidence to speak with me. The younger students, while perhaps struggling to be confident in speaking to me, had no problem approaching me to receive their merit certificates and shake my hand. They are a credit to their parents, teachers and staff. Strong moral values are clearly embedded at the school. Once again I congratulate St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School, Wanneroo, for their success. I also congratulate the principal, Peter Cutrona, and all the staff at the school for the work they do and the success they have in providing a Catholic education in Wanneroo, Western Australia. 11369 11369 09:33:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I want to talk about the Building the Education Revolution program and the government stimulus package. I am very pleased to inform the House that, in the Chifley electorate, we have $140 million being spent by the federal government on Building the Education Revolution projects, a record amount. That $140 million is being spent at 66 schools, on 166 projects, including 82 projects in the National School Pride Program, at 66 schools, for a total of $11 million; 73 projects in the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, at 49 schools, for a total of $116 million; and 11 projects in the Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools program, at 11 schools, for a total of $13½ million. This is a profoundly large amount of money benefiting so many schools in my electorate. The sad thing is that the coalition is opposed to this program. For the parents and citizens, the principals, the teachers and indeed the students, if there is an early election in 2010 there is no guarantee that these projects will be fully completed or fully funded, more is the pity. I went to Willmot Public School, which received $200,000 in the National School Pride Program, $400,000 for a new COLA and $1.3 million to upgrade their hall, which was in poor condition, and existing COLA. Parents there were absolutely delighted about the announcement. I met with students, who were very excited about such a large amount of money being spent on their school. Unfortunately, Peter Corney, who is the principal at Willmot, was away on school business that day, so Carmen Cefai, the deputy, took me around. I confess that I am a bit of a gardener and I noticed on my walk around Willmot that they are starting a vegetable garden. I am pleased to say that Dick Adams had given me some very good Tasmanian seed potatoes, not all of which I could use, and I subsequently donated some Tasmanian seed potatoes to Willmot. I am looking forward to the harvest and I hope I am not offending any New South Wales potato growers! Congratulations, Willmot. I know that this will make a profound difference to your public school. 11369 11369 09:36:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —I rise to honour and recognise the life of a well-loved man in my electorate of Gilmore, Jason Stortz. Jason was tragically killed in a hit and run accident on Saturday, 17 October. He was cycling along Marshall Mount Road, training for an upcoming triathlon, when tragedy struck. I would like to start by offering my sincere and heartfelt condolences to Mr Stortz’s family, who know only too well that he is a man worth remembering. Jason was born in Shellharbour in 1970. He went to school in the Warilla area and when he was 17 he joined the Defence Force, where he served for nine years. The contribution he made to society and the sacrifices this involved should not be forgotten. Before he died, Jason worked for Kiama Council. His co-workers described him as an honest and genuine man who will be greatly missed. Jason’s family have revealed that he was recently accepted into the New South Wales Police Academy. I am sure he would have made a fine officer. Jason was also an active member of the local Kiama community. He was a committed member of the triathlon club, where he was well-respected and admired. Jason is survived by his wife, Kylie, and 15-month-old son, Harry, as well as his parents, four sisters and many friends. I am very proud of the way in which the people of Kiama and surrounding areas have shown their support for Jason’s family at this difficult time. They turned out in their hundreds on the weekend to remember the life of this respected local triathlete at the place where he lost his life. It is a testimony to the kind of man Jason was that some 300 cyclists took to their bikes on this day as a gesture of respect. It certainly speaks volumes about how deeply the loss of his life will be felt in our community. Jason worked hard to provide for his family. He was just 39 years old when he passed away, far too young and with still so much to give. He was known for being an all-round good bloke, a loving husband, an affectionate dad and someone with a great sense of humour. Hundreds of people paid tribute to him on local websites and many have shared their memories of him as a disciplined man who was regularly seen running as he followed his personal training routine. This outpouring of love and appreciation I am sure brings great comfort to the Stortz family. I hope this formal recognition of Jason’s life and the high regard in which he was held bring some comfort to young Harry, who might one day read this in Hansard’s official records. I say to Harry: in years to come you will read this and understand just how proud we in the community are of your dad. Once again, I would like to extend my sympathy to all who have been left behind. My thoughts and prayers are with you all, and for me, the local federal member, it is an honour to represent you, Harry, and your family. My wish is that when you are old enough I can personally present you with a copy of this speech so you can see for yourself how much we respected your dad. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sure the members of the Main Committee share in those sentiments. I congratulate the member for Gilmore on those great words. 11370 11370 09:39:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation and Industry 1 0 Mr MARLES —If you visit any great city in the world you will find at least one grand church, an art gallery of note and a museum that defines that city in time and place. In Geelong we have fine churches, including a basilica and several churches with important links to the early history of the Victorian colony, we have an art gallery with an outstanding collection of Australian and European art from the 19th and 20th centuries and we have several local museums. Our National Wool Museum is particular to our city. The wool industry bankrolled the growth of Geelong. It marked us as a major centre for export at a time when Australia rode on the sheep’s back, and this museum celebrates that central theme of Australian settlement. We have a maritime museum with a commendable collection of artefacts that trace the importance of our maritime heritage, and the highly popular Ford Discovery Centre is a favourite not just for car enthusiasts but for the whole Geelong community as it celebrates our continuing connection with the Ford motor company since the 1920s. These museums each tell a part of Geelong’s history—our agricultural, maritime and industrial heritage. We have in the National Wool Museum a strong municipal museum, but we are missing a museum of true national importance. For a city the size of Geelong, and one with such historical richness, this is a sad fact. We need a museum with a significant collection and active exhibition spaces that connect us to our history but also engage with other museums around the country and indeed the world. Last week I toured our National Wool Museum. It has some outstanding display areas and is currently showing a terrific exhibition from Questacon. But it is many years since this municipal museum has had any major investment and its age is starting to show. If the Wool Museum is going to move forward, what direction should it take? I understand the City of Greater Geelong is currently undertaking a review of the museum, and I congratulate it for doing this. I think it is an ideal time for us as a city to think about the sort of museum we want for our city. Is it time to broaden the scope of the National Wool Museum and make it a national museum that is about more than just wool? There is ample space to retain the best of the current exhibits and build on these to include other permanent collections and space for special events. There is also scope to include the celebrated Customs House in the orbit of this plan. So today I call upon the City of Greater Geelong to hold a forum with civic leaders and other interested people to discuss the future of the museum. This is an exciting opportunity for Geelong to have a conversation about our history and our future and, in the process, create something that we can truly be proud of. 11371 11371 09:41:00 May, Margaret, MP 83B McPherson LP 0 0 Mrs MAY —I rise this morning to promote the important work of the Gold Coast Stroke Support Group, an affiliate member of the National Stroke Foundation and the Stroke Association of Queensland. The Gold Coast support group provides invaluable assistance to those who have suffered from stroke or know of someone suffering from the effects of stroke. The support group provides its members with up-to-date information and education in the areas of prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and support. While many of us know someone affected by stroke, I doubt many of us are aware of the true extent. Stroke is Australia’s second single greatest killer after coronary heart disease and a leading cause of disability. Stroke kills more women than breast cancer. In 2009, Australians will suffer around 60,000 new and recurrent strokes. That is one stroke every 10 minutes. One in five people having a first-ever stroke dies within one month, and one in three dies within a year. In the next 10 years more than half a million people will suffer a stroke. About 88 per cent of stroke survivors live at home and most have a disability. Close to 20 per cent of all strokes occur to people under 55 years of age. Stroke costs Australia an estimated $2.14 billion a year. Perhaps the most important fact is that, according to the Stroke Foundation, stroke is preventable. While finding the cure for threatening illnesses and diseases is unquestionably important, prevention always has been and always will be better than a cure. It is time that Australians got serious about preventative health measures. We need to start taking more responsibility for our own health. We need to educate ourselves and each other about prevention. As a nation, we need to increase our commitment to a healthy and active lifestyle. Given the volume of information provided through interest groups such as the Gold Coast support group, the National Stroke Foundation and the Stroke Association of Queensland, ignorance is no longer an excuse. For too long we have relied on hardworking medical researchers to provide that lifesaving cure, while as individuals we absolve ourselves of any responsibility for our own health. It is imperative that we continue to raise prevention awareness. It is imperative that the great work of the Gold Coast support group is promoted and that the residents of the Gold Coast are aware of the preventive measures to reduce the risk of stroke. While certain sections of the community will always remain at a higher risk of stroke, there are a number of steps we can take to decrease its likelihood, and some of those are to give up smoking, to lower our cholesterol levels, to avoid excessive salt intake, to moderate our intake of alcohol, to pay greater attention to diet and to make a strong commitment to regular exercise. These are all fundamental to reducing many of the risk factors. I commend the Gold Coast Stroke Support Group for the work they do and encourage people to get along to their meeting on 4 November to hear more about the great work they are doing. 11372 11372 09:45:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —Today I would like to highlight the fantastic work of the Creswick community and congratulate them again on the continued success of the Creswick Forestry Fiesta. This fiesta was held last weekend. It is now in its 14th year and is attended by not only the Creswick community but many in the surrounding district. Regional festivals and shows like this are run right across the electorate of Ballarat; in fact, we call this time of year show season because there are a number of them on. These festivals involve lots of hard work from volunteers and they are great contributors to the local economy and local tourism. The Creswick Forestry Fiesta proved once again be a hit and, although it was an extremely windy day, the highlight once again was the parade. I congratulate the many voluntary groups and primary schools for putting such an effort into the parade and the floats that they have each year. The festival is also a great opportunity for me to have a chat to local residents in an informal setting not only about what is happening around the district and to receive feedback about the issues and concerns but also to receive feedback as to what is happening in their community with the Rudd government’s investment both through the Building the Education Revolution and the Community Infrastructure Fund. In Creswick itself there has been over $6 million worth of projects funded and, as a small town, it is making a significant difference to that community. Creswick North Primary School received some $50,000 through the National School Pride program and $250,000 as part of the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. Creswick Primary School has received $125,000 from the National School Pride program and $2 million under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. The Catholic primary school has also received $75,000 from the National School Pride program and some $850,000 under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. That is $3.35 million going into education infrastructure in a small country town. It is funding that not only I support but the families in Creswick also support. We have also funded the Creswick Interpretive Centre, a tourist information centre, which is now seeing many volunteers from the district help visitors who are coming in to see Creswick, Clunes and Daylesford as Creswick is the gateway to go through to the Clunes community. They have been very pleased with the investment of $450,000 from the Rudd Labor government. They are also very keen to see work start, and planning is well underway, on the Doug Lindsay Reserve, which has funding of $2.29 million under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure program. As I said, in total the projects in Creswick have injected over $6 million into that local community. I look forward again to attending the Creswick Forestry Fiesta next year and again being part of a government that continues to support and place infrastructure funding for local communities as such a priority. It really has made a significant difference to the small town of Creswick. Again I would like to congratulate them on the work that they are undertaking and also for the Creswick Forestry Fiesta, which again was a terrific festival and I think that it was worth well worth attending. 11373 11373 09:48:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —Volunteering is the lifeblood of our community and no more so than in my electorate of Stirling. Stirling volunteers play a vital role in maintaining the quality of life that we often take for granted. From the lifesavers at the two surf clubs, Scarborough Surf Life Saving club and Trigg Island Surf Lifesaving Club, to scout masters and the committed teams of workers preparing and delivering meals for our seniors, volunteers play an important role in all of our lives. It is because of the commitment of our volunteers that our children are able to enjoy and compete in organised sport, our ageing parents are able to engage with the community and our schools are able to offer a diverse range of support for our students. Without dedicated volunteers giving freely of their time and skills to fundraise, how would these extra costs be met? Our volunteers are helping to meet social and financial needs in our community every day. The benefits of becoming a volunteer and engaging with the community are many. The satisfaction and pride that come from giving to others is not to be overlooked or undervalued. Becoming a volunteer gives you the opportunity to make a contribution from a very young age. It gives you the opportunity to meet new people, build self-confidence, share life experiences and, most importantly, give back to your community. I have already listed some of the most recognised volunteer organisations, notably the surf lifesavers, but not all volunteer groups enjoy such a high profile and volunteers often go unrecognised despite the valuable contribution they make. Today I want to acknowledge the great work of the volunteers in Stirling and thank them for what they do. At the same time I would like to help promote their cause so that many people will be encouraged to participate in and experience the rewards of volunteering. Books on Wheels, a volunteer service operating from our city library, delivers library materials to housebound patrons, giving everyone the opportunity to share in the extensive range of resources on offer at the Karrinyup, Scarborough and Osborne libraries. New migrants in the Stirling electorate enjoy the great service provided by the volunteers at Mirrabooka’s Metropolitan Migrant Resource Centre. Uniting Church Homes in Karrinyup relies on its dedicated volunteers to work with occupational therapists to improve the mental and physical wellbeing of residents through activities such as craft, bingo and vocal exercises. The School Volunteers Program recruits, trains and supports volunteers to act as mentors to primary and secondary school students not just in my electorate of Stirling but right across Western Australia. The Riding for the Disabled Association of Western Australia in Carine is run by an enthusiastic team of volunteers that provide equestrian sport for disabled persons. Volunteers at the Animal Care Facility at the city of Stirling help find new homes for stray and unwanted animals while extending the message of responsible pet ownership throughout the community. Without the volunteers the Mount Flora Regional Museum would not be able to keep its doors open, Anglican Homes would be without their bus driver and the Salvos shop in Balcatta would be forced to close. Unfortunately I do not have time to list all of the fantastic volunteer groups in my electorate, but I would just like to say that I am very fortunate to live in a community where there are so many people who are so willing to freely give of their time and resources. 11374 11374 09:51:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I have spoken in this place on a couple of occasions about the need for the Central Coast to be recognised as a region. Today I rise to speak on that matter again and to talk about the launch on 7 October of the I Love the Central Coast campaign. Along with the New South Wales Business Chamber Central Coast division, represented by Mary Doherty, I was able to launch on 7 October this important campaign to change the institutions on the Central Coast to make sure that they have a focus on the Central Coast. Too many of our institutions are either Hunter based or Sydney based, and what happens for us on the Central Coast is that we end up missing out. I would like to acknowledge some of the people who are supporters of the campaign and were able to attend the launch or provide written statements supporting the campaign. First and foremost must be Laurie McKinna and the magnificent Central Coast Mariners, who have been right behind the campaign to have our region recognised and who do a great job in raising the profile of the area. I would also like to thank Dr Phil Godden from the Central Coast Division of General Practice. The Central Coast Division of General Practice is organised on a Central Coast basis, and he sees the need for us to organise all health on the Central Coast on that regional basis. I acknowledge Ms Sharon Brownley from the regional P&C, who again sees that education should be organised on a Central Coast basis rather than being, as it is now, organised out of the Hunter. We had Greg Florimo, who is heading the push to have the Central Coast Bears admitted into the NRL in a couple of years time. He was there to lend his support. Julie Goodwin, the winner of MasterChef, was there to lend her support, and she had some insightful things to say about how she constantly referred to the Central Coast when she was on MasterChef and people would say, ‘Where is that?’ She got a real sense that we were a region without an identity, and that has led to her great support for this campaign. John Singleton has been supportive as a local resident of the Central Coast in helping to push the identity. The mayors of both Gosford and Wyong councils have been supportive. The famous photographer Ken Duncan has lent his support, again, to this campaign. The surf lifesaving movement is an integral part of Central Coast life, and Chad Griffith from Surf Life Saving Central Coast was one of those who were there, again calling for recognition of this area. We also had there Kerry Ruffles, who works for the newly formed RDA, and Tourism Central Coast. I would also like to thank the state Liberal and Labor MPs who attended. Chris Hartcher from the Liberal Party was very supportive, as were Grant McBride and David Harris. This is a campaign that needs to succeed to make sure this region is properly recognised. 11374 11374 09:54:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —At St Augustine’s School in Rivervale in my electorate of Swan last Friday, they held a community water grant recognition ceremony, which I attended. St Augustine’s School had received a community water grant to the value of $49,986, which was used to save water by installing tanks and efficient taps, toilets and urinals. The harvested rainwater will be used to irrigate gardens and grass playing surfaces. The project is projected to save 201,810 litres of water per year. I would like to thank the principal, Art Lombardi, for inviting me and commend the school for taking the time to think about water and apply for the grant. This grant is particularly timely given that the Western Australian government has just concluded a two-month winter sprinkler ban, which saved 50 million litres of water a day or 22 Olympic sized swimming pools. We are getting smarter about water conservation in Western Australia. The community water grants were of course a scheme provided by the previous government, and I note that the scheme has been discontinued as part of the transition to Caring for our Country—the scheme which has already stripped $2 million from Perth NRM’s budget. Grants were available for water-saving and efficiency, water recycling, and water treatment—improving surface and groundwater health. St Augustine’s funding was just the latest in a long line of projects funded under this scheme. Back in round 1, Lynwood Senior High School received $31,000 to install constant-flow valves on taps, to seal leaks and to adjust urinal flush volumes. In addition to this, the school will trial a waterless urinal. These changes have saved 658,050 litres of water each year. Lathlain Primary School received $45,000 to introduce a more efficient subsurface system allowing night watering and thereby reducing the rate of water lost through evaporation. The project saved 500,000 litres of water last year. South Kensington School received $22,000 to implement a range of water-saving initiatives in the school’s bathrooms to save 383,000 litres of water each year. Wesley College received two grants of approximately $40,000 and Carlisle Primary School a grant of $4,650 for similar purposes. I will take a moment to make special mention of Carlisle Primary School Principal Margaret Jansen, who is suffering from an illness at the moment. Margaret is terminally ill. She has done a fantastic job with her school. I recognise the fantastic work she has done and wish her all the best. I have had a close relationship with Carlisle Primary School and the people there, and Margaret in particular. I was pleased that she invited me to the anti-bullying launch at the school earlier this year. My thoughts go out to her and her family at this time. Round 2 of the Community Water Grants closed in August 2006. It was highly competitive, with 4,532 applications submitted across Australia. Kent Street Senior High School received approximately $45,000 for water-saving devices in the school bathrooms. I commend the program that the schools have initiated and applaud them for taking part in it. 11375 11375 09:57:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —Last Friday I held a prostate cancer information morning at the Windale Gateshead Bowling Club. I would like to thank the Windale Gateshead Bowling Club for providing the facilities at their club free of charge and helping with the organisation of the day. I would like to thank also Professor Jim Denham, a senior staff specialist in radiation oncology in the Hunter. The morning was an outstanding success. It was an information session that brought together local health professionals and survivors to talk about the disease of prostate cancer, how it can affect men and their families, and what can be done about it. Prostate cancer impacts not only on men but also on their partners and families, and we encouraged men to bring along their partners with them to this session. Prostate cancer is a potentially fatal disease that affects one in nine men. It is the most common cancer in Australian men and is the second most common cause of cancer death in men. Every year close to 3,300 Australian men die of the disease. Prostate cancer can be treatable with early detection. We had an enormous response to this information morning. We had outstanding speakers—as I said, we had Professor Jim Denham, who spoke at length and gave a very factual and detailed presentation on prostate cancer. Then we had Geoff Fry, who donated $1 million to establish a prostate cancer centre at Waratah in Newcastle. He spoke about his experiences with prostate cancer and how the knowledge he has received has helped him. He is now providing that information to other people. We had a counsellor, Aaron Elliott, who also spoke. It was such an outstanding success. It was the third one of these that I have done. On 13 November, I will be holding a breast cancer awareness morning tea. Talking at the morning tea will be Professor John Forbes, who is an absolutely outstanding and world-renowned breast cancer specialist. We will be holding it at the Belmont 16ft Sailing Club and I thank the club for providing that venue. I will report back to the House on the success of the morning tea at the next session. I thought it was appropriate to announce it this week, Breast Cancer Awareness Week. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. 11376 Bills R4201 11376 Debate resumed from 26 October, on motion by Ms Kate Ellis: That this bill be now read a second time. 11376 10:00:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise today to support the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2009, which seeks to amend the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006, the ASADA Act, to reflect new structural and governance arrangements for the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. This bill implements recommendations of an independent review of ASADA, commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing in 2008. The review found that the current structure was impacting on the ability of ASADA to operate at its optimum capacity. The review also found that ASADA’s governance structure did not clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the ASADA chair, who was also the head of the agency and of the ASADA members. A number of recommendations and proposed legislative changes were made by the review to ensure ASADA operates solely as an agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. This will include an advisory group with a separate chief executive responsible for reporting directly to the minister. In line with the recommendations of the review, this bill will create a new ASADA chief executive officer position and a new advisory group to provide advice to the new ASADA CEO on sports doping, will establish a new Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and alter the way the National Anti-Doping Scheme can be amended by the new CEO. The creation of a new CEO position and a new advisory group is being proposed to clearly define the roles and responsibilities within ASADA. The CEO position will be responsible for directing ASADA in carrying out functions prescribed under the ASADA Act, including financial responsibilities normally expected of a CEO under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Public Service Act. The new advisory group created under this legislation will be just that: one with advisory functions. Members of the group will be appointed by the Minister for Sport and will have specialist skills in areas including education and training, sports medicine, sports law, ethics and investigations. It should be noted that members of the new advisory group will not be eligible for appointment to the CEO position. The new Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel being created by this bill will replace the current Anti-Doping Rule Violation Committee. The new panel will have responsibility for making decisions in relation to anti-doping rule violations and provide recommendations on further action to the ASADA CEO and staff. The panel will consist of members with specialist skills, such as sports law, medicine and pharmacology. In a move to avoid any perception of conflict, the ASADA CEO, staff and members of the new advisory group will be ineligible to sit on the new board. The third major part of this legislation is an alteration in the way the National Anti-Doping scheme can be amended by the new CEO. The National Anti-Doping scheme ensures Australia remains compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code. When changes are made to the World Anti-Doping Code, the scheme is amended to reflect these changes. Under the current arrangements, ASADA can only change the scheme as a whole by way of a written instrument. Under the new arrangements, the CEO will still make changes via a written instrument, but the bill will include additional matters on which the CEO can make changes. These allow for changing sections of the scheme as opposed to changing the scheme as a whole. The coalition supports the intent of the bill. We need to ensure that Australia’s anti-doping efforts are operating to their maximum capacity. The former coalition government improved Australia’s anti-doping efforts by establishing ASADA in 2006 and giving it strong powers to investigate and present cases as well as exchanging information with other enforcement agencies. ASADA was given the power to investigate suspected anti-doping rule violations, make recommendations on its findings and present cases against alleged offenders at sporting tribunals. In 2007-08, the former coalition government provided an additional $2.24 million to ASADA for enhanced investigation of alleged doping violations and the subsequent preparation and submission of briefs in relation to individual cases, bringing the total funding to $12.9 million. ASADA now conducts approximately 4,200 government funded tests each year. The former government also took a tough stance on illicit drugs in sport, which began in 1997 with the $1.6 billion National Illicit Drug Strategy, known as the ‘Tough on Drugs’ campaign. We launched the Stamp Out Doping hotline in March 2006 so that people could report information about possible doping in sport. We also established the Register of Findings in March 2006, which makes public the names of athletes who have committed a violation. The initiation of the Athletes Whereabouts Information Register was also implemented in March 2006 to further facilitate ASADA’s no-advance-notice testing program so that athletes could be located at any time and be tested. The policies of the former coalition government ensured that ASADA developed a strong international reputation as a world leader in best practice anti-doping regulations. The use of drugs in sport is a widespread problem in Australia and worldwide. The Australian Prescriber in an issue of their publication said: As sport becomes more competitive some people are tempted to cheat to improve their chances of winning. People who cheat by abusing medicines may be banned from sport if they are caught. They are also risking their health. Some athletes have died because they abused medicines. Unfortunately, we hear about and see in the media well-known sports stars who are caught up in drug issues, be they performance-enhancing drugs or social drugs. I was really concerned to read an article by Sean Parnell in the Australian dated 13 March, 2008, which stated that a survey conducted by Curtin University showed that ‘up to 30 per cent of Australia’s top athletes believe they could get away with using performance-enhancing drugs if they wanted to’. The article also referred to ‘the rationale for ASADA’s tough stance on drugs, including its work with Customs, targeted testing and long-term storage of samples’. What I did note in the article, however, was the quote that ‘higher level athletes endorsed tougher penalties for doping, with 72 per cent of Olympic and world championship advocating a life ban for a second offence’. We all know that sport is part of our Australian identity and culture. Australians love sport. Just look at the numbers who regularly attend and participate in AFL, netball—like my colleague Mr Irons—soccer, Rugby League and Rugby Union, cricket, the Olympics and golf. The list is extensive and the numbers of us who watch and participate on a regular basis is also extensive. But I believe Australians also support the notion of a fair go, the level playing field. We are all aware of the health benefits of sport: families simply sharing the day together with their children, the social interaction, a way of building friendships and, hopefully, improving skills and physical fitness along the way. It is also a wonderful way for children to just have fun together. Sport can also assist in reducing antisocial behaviour. We know of these benefits. The value of sport in regional communities, though, cannot be underestimated. It is often the glue that brings communities together and holds them together. Sporting clubs also provide a sense of belonging for young people with problem backgrounds or those who are facing major challenges in their lives. They often find very genuine and caring mentors around sporting clubs. We need to also give as much confidence as possible to the parents of children that their children are safe pursuing the sport of their choice both when they are young and in their community club or their sporting environment and throughout their time in their chosen sport or sports. We also know the value that sport and regular physical activity have and how highly valued they are by both parents and children, but we need to encourage safe, healthy options and, for career athletes, an illicit-drug-free environment. Drugs, as we know, put lives at risk and threaten something that is often overlooked by those who engage: it threatens the quality of life both during and after the sport itself. I note that the World Anti-Doping Code includes such substances as anabolic steroids, various growth hormones, diuretics and masking agents, stimulants, narcotics and other drugs. Athletes will face tougher penalties, with all of the nation’s 91 sporting organisations signing up to the World Anti-Doping Agency code effective from 1 January. This international code, which is a prerequisite for Olympic participation, will double the ban from sport to four years for athletes caught intentionally doping. Importantly for coaching and sporting support and assistance personnel, anyone involved in administering prohibited substances or athletes who fail a second doping test can now receive a lifetime ban. Athletes will also be tested for illicit drugs as well as performance-enhancing drugs on match day and will have to nominate a time period for random drug testing each day. I note that John Fahey, the President of the World Anti-Doping Agency, has said that ‘Australia sets a strong example in the battle against drugs in sport’. He also said: The information provided to ASADA by Customs and the Australian Federal Police allows a far greater likelihood of catching cheats than simply testing … I note the health and wellbeing of AFL players is a priority in the code’s illicit drug policy and on their website. Mr Irons would agree with that. AFL Players Association President Joel Bowden said: “AFL players are, no doubt, among the most highly-tested athletes in the world,” …            …            … “Not only do we have testing for performance-enhancing drugs with matchday in-competition testing, we also have out-of-competition testing with the illicit drug policy. “It is, no doubt, the most strenuous testing policy in Australia and to have such a [large] group of players volunteer for this shows that not only are they concerned about the image of the game— that wonderful game of AFL— but also about the health and welfare of their fellow players.” “Illicit drugs are an issue in society and they can be a problem if you don’t get on top of a bad decision or a poor choice in your life and make some improvements to that behaviour.” Bowden said the strategy, which was formulated in consultation with respected medical practitioners and health professionals, had been effective in helping to improve player behaviour and education since its implementation. “I support the AFL’s illicit drugs policy because fundamentally it’s based on the best medical advice,” he said. “We’ve had the illicit drug policy in now for a number of years and we’ve seen that it’s changing the behaviour of our players and we’re having less numbers of positives including the fact that we’re having more tests. “So the medical experts have agreed that this is the best policy and we’re sticking by it. “The key benefit of the policy is [to] the health and welfare of our players. A priority, Mr Irons. That is paramount in any decision that we’ve made in coming to [the introduction] of an illicit drugs policy. “We volunteered for the policy a number of years ago and we feel that there are wide-reaching benefits across our group. We acknowledge that illicit drugs are an issue in society, we know this and we want to combat it by saying no to illicit drugs. “We’ve put the policy in place to make a firm stand that AFL players say no to illicit drugs.” And I encourage them in that. With my personal significant interest in the AFL I encourage all players, coaches, trainers and personnel at every level of not only AFL but every sport to consider the health and welfare of players of all ages as their No. 1 priority as part of their duty of care. Often, our elite sports men and women have a limited time and opportunity at the peak level. There is much life after sport. There are many years of living beyond this highly competitive stage of your career or life. The longer term health and wellbeing of players should also be priorities for all involved, including the athletes themselves, who should take personal responsibility for the choices they make. Educating young athletes about the risks of drug use needs to become an integral part of each sporting code’s standard procedure. Several agencies at various levels of government are engaged directly in this issue, but at a local level in my electorate of Forrest there are a number of groups actively encouraging the public to say no to drugs. In a very simple way a local group of residents continually promote a ‘say no to drugs, say yes to life’ message through a series of informative booklets. The booklets are aimed at young people and teenagers. This group has a shared focus with the National Drug Strategy to minimise drug use through education targeted at the ages young people are statistically likely to be exposed to drugs. I am extremely supportive of the work and efforts in this field of this and other groups in my electorate. Given the continuing very serious issue of illicit drugs in sport and in society, the coalition endorses the restructure and governance arrangements for ASADA, and therefore supports this legislation. 11380 10:15:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I rise to speak on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2009. I would like to acknowledge the contribution from the member for Forrest, but I correct her and say that I played AFL and not netball. HWP Marino, Nola, MP Ms Marino —But you are good at both! HYM Irons, Steve, MP Mr IRONS —Yes, thank you. I also recognise contributions from the member for Makin, who has competed in sport at high levels, and also the member for Cowan, who was a state representative. I saw them make their presentations here yesterday. I have had some experience of professional sport in this country, having played at a semiprofessional level for the east Perth football club in the Western Australian Football League. From my experience I can say the majority of sportspeople do not take performance-enhancing drugs. Like many matters we discuss in this place we have to cater for the minority that deliberately break the rules. All of us have seen the damage done to sports by athletes caught taking performance-enhancing drugs. On these occasions sport is often brought into disrepute and this makes it worse for everyone who is involved in the sport. The actions of individuals often blight a country’s reputation on the international stage as well. The allegations against double Olympic gold medal winner Maurice Greene compounded a series of allegations against US sprinters. Marion Jones, who we all remember winning five gold medals in Sydney, is now serving a prison sentence for perjury after admitting to taking drugs. Tim Montgomery set a world record of 9.78 seconds in 2002 but was banned in 2005 after he was implicated in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, or BALCO, affair. Further back Ben Johnson was stripped of his gold medal at the 1988 Olympics in Seoul after winning the 100 metres in a world record time of 9.79 seconds. Jones and Montgomery were involved in the BALCO scandal, where athletes were accused of taking a concoction of performance-enhancing drugs, allegedly designed by the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, to avoid being revealed in urine and blood testing. Five drugs in particular are alleged to have been used, including EPO, which is a human growth hormone, modafinil, testosterone cream and tetrahydrogestrinone, or THG. Members will probably be most aware of EPO, which improves the ability of red blood cells to carry and transport oxygen. THG is a designer anabolic steroid, making the user bigger and stronger. This was the main drug distributed by BALCO and it ultimately proved to be the drug had brought down the organisation. BALCO sold the substances undetected between 1988 and 2002, until a US federal investigation began. At this time Don Catlin, the founder and then director of UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, developed a testing process for the drug THG. He then proceeded to test 550 existing samples, of which 20 prove to be positive for THG. The BALCO scandal tells us two things. First, it demonstrates how the actions of a few athletes can tarnish the reputation of not only a sport but also an entire country. Members will also remember the case of Raylene Boyle, who was robbed of two gold medals, and Renatta Strecher, which tainted the reputation of the East Germans. After the wall came down, we all know about the endemic problems in their sport; it was all about achieving gold medals and not about looking after their athletes. Second, it demonstrates the need to keep a close eye on the organisations that provide assistance to our elite athletes. If a BALCO had been allowed to develop in Australia and provide assistance to Australian athletes the good name of Australian sport would have been tarnished. These both point to the importance of Commonwealth involvement in this matter, the need for strong anti-doping laws and an effective anti-doping organisation in Australia. I certainly support the intent of this bill, which attempts to provide for the latter. The bill is based on the recommendations of the independent review of ASADA, which was commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing last year. ASADA has come under some criticism in the past, in particular for its handling of Ian Thorpe, who was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. I would not want to cast any aspersions on this case, but I accept that there are ways in which the structure of ASADA can be improved. I want to briefly make reference to the three main effects that this legislation will have. Firstly, the legislation will create a new ASADA chief executive officer to replace the chair and head of the agency and a new advisory group that will clarify the roles and responsibilities within ASADA. The Minister for Sport is to hand-pick this advisory group, which usually raises alarm bells when this government is concerned. This is of course the same government that gave us Professor Stuart Macintyre, a former Communist Party member, whose work includes a history of Marxism in Britain, and that promoted him as an independent voice on education, capable of designing a national curriculum. So we will be keeping an eye on the minister’s appointment for this ASADA position. The second part of this legislation is to establish a new antidoping rule violation panel, which will have responsibility for antidoping rule violations and provide recommendations on further actions to the ASADA CEO and staff. The third component that this legislation will alter is the way the National Anti-Doping Scheme can be amended by the new CEO. This is generally a technical amendment, whereby the new CEO will be able to make changes to the National Anti-doping Scheme, as opposed to the former system where changes had to be made by written instrument. The changes are fairly uncontroversial and, as I said before, the coalition supports the intent of this legislation. We want to ensure we are getting the most out of our antidoping efforts. We are the party that implemented ASADA in 2006, and I note that it has developed an international reputation as a world leader in best practice antidoping regulations. We are committed to the National Anti-doping Scheme, which ensures that Australia remains compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code. The practice of taking performance enhancing drugs goes back a long way. The Parliamentary Library have even traced the practice back to the use of hallucinogenics by the ancient Greeks. However, it was the death of an athlete at the 1960 Olympic Games which prompted a process of establishing guidelines relating to what constituted illegal performance-enhancing drugs. This eventually led to the establishment of the World Anti-doping Agency in February 1999. The Australian government was a signatory to the WADA Code and the International Convention against Doping in Sport and as such was required to implement code-compliant anti-doping policies. At this time the Australian Sports Drug Agency was only responsible for drug education. All investigations into the use of performance enhancing drugs were undertaken by the relevant sporting bodies in conjunction with the Australian Sports Commission. A much criticised investigation by Cycling Australia and the ASC in 2004 prompted the Commonwealth to create ASADA—the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. Today the World Anti-Doping Code 2009 states: Anti-doping programs seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport. The intrinsic value is often referred to as the spirit of sport; it is the essence of Olympism; it is how we play true. The spirit of sport is the celebration of human spirit, body and mind and is characterised by the following values: ethics, fair play and honesty; health; excellence in performance; character and education; fun and joy; teamwork; dedication and commitment; respect for rules and laws; respect for self and other participants; courage; and community and solidarity. Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport and undermines all of those beliefs. I agree with each of these points. My priority as a member of parliament and the director of junior development for Perth Football Club is to pass this message on to youngsters. This is partly about having a zero tolerance approach on the topic of performance enhancing drugs in Australia. Catching the cheats does send a strong message to the kids and ASADA now conducts approximately 4,200 government-funded tests a year, so many of our younger sportsmen and women will have been tested. However we must also look towards promoting the values of sport that I have just mentioned. Sport is about ethics, health, fun and joy and particularly community and solidarity and participation. Let us encourage excellence, but excellence should come after and as a product of the other qualities, so that doping does not even feature as an option in the minds of our future sportsmen and women. I fear this government has lost its way when it comes to sport. I was looking through the minister’s media releases the other day and I could find only a tiny proportion devoted to junior sport. I see that the parliamentary secretary, the member for Blaxland, is here to deliver the minister’s response. He and I participated in a momentous sporting event when we knocked off the media last year in a cricket game. There were certainly no performance enhancing drugs on that day. There are media releases on the website on support for a world conference on women in sport and proud announcements concerning the appointment of executives. I am sure these are all worthy projects, but the minister is ignoring junior sport. She is sleepwalking through this parliamentary term without getting to grips with or showing a thorough understanding of sport in this country. The government is more concerned about amending immigration laws to allow Russian ice skaters to win gold medals for Australia than it is with grassroots sport in suburbs in my electorate like Belmont, Queens Park and Linwood, who are desperately crying out for infrastructure support for their sporting clubs. I will continue to promote grassroots sport in my electorate and I will continue to urge the government to take a similar approach at a national level. I commend the bill to the House. 11383 10:25:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Employment 1 0 Mr CLARE —I am pleased to have the opportunity to sum up debate on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2009. The Rudd government is committed to ensuring that sport continues to be played in a domain which is safe and equitable for all Australian athletes and their support personnel and to ensuring that performance-enhancing drugs are detected, dealt with and deterred at every opportunity. These reforms will enable the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority to continue to deliver its prescribed functions efficiently and effectively and to be well placed to handle the ever-changing challenges within the fight against drugs into the future. These reforms will provide greater clarity and transparency to the structural and governance arrangements of ASADA and provide an effective framework for the delivery of the Australian government’s antidoping priorities to ensure Australia remains a world leader in the fight against drugs in sport. This bill brings into alignment ASADA’s governance arrangements with those of a traditional model for a Financial Management and Accountability Act, or FMA, agency. ASADA will remain an FMA agency but will cease to be a corporate entity with a separate legal identity from the Commonwealth. In addition, these changes will further deliver on recommendations of the independent review of ASADA which sees ASADA being headed up by a CEO who will be responsible for operational and strategic matters. In line with the recommendations of the independent review, an advisory group will be established to assist the CEO in the development, implementation and delivery of core business matters. The establishment of this advisory group will give the CEO access to individuals with specialist skills and knowledge to assist him or her on matters such as education, testing and investigation. The targeting of members’ skills and knowledge ensures that the advice and support that the advisory group provides are not only of the highest quality but are appropriate. Under the bill, the newly established Anti-Doping Rules Violation Panel will be responsible for making decisions on antidoping rule violations, recommendations about follow-up actions and sanctions. They will also be responsible for maintaining the register of findings. The Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel will consist of members with specialist knowledge and experience in sports law, ethics, medicine and pharmacology. Australian athletes and support personnel can be confident that the decisions regarding an antidoping rule violation will be at arm’s length not only from the government but also from ASADA, which is responsible for testing, investigation of possible rule violations and prosecution of such violations. The bill also gives effect to a number of other changes to ensure that the ASADA Act maintains consistency with the revision of the World Anti-Doping Code which came into effect on 1 January 2009. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 11383 Bills R4203 11384 Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Ms Roxon: That this bill be now read a second time. 11384 10:29:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009 will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to allow the minister to conditionally list prostheses on the Commonwealth prostheses list and to allow for the creation of rules for listing criteria. The Private Health Insurance Act requires private health insurers to pay benefits for prostheses for hospital treatment or hospital substitute treatment that is eligible for a Medicare rebate. Currently more than 9,500 prostheses are listed. Prostheses are listed on the advice of the Prostheses and Devices Committee according to mandatory and non-mandatory criteria. The mandatory criteria include: the prostheses must be registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; the prostheses must be provided to a person as part of an episode of hospital treatment or hospital substitute treatment; and a Medicare benefit must be payable for the service associated with the prostheses. As stated, there are also non-mandatory criteria. A non-mandatory criterion states that a listed prosthesis should be surgically implanted in the patient and be purposely designed in order to replace an anatomical body part, combat a pathological process or modulate a physiological process. As highlighted in the minister’s second reading speech, the bill will have particular relevance for insulin pumps. Whilst insulin pumps are currently listed, there has been some ambiguity concerning their status due to the fact that they are not surgically implanted and do not require hospital admission. Insulin pumps may not be surgically implanted but they do replicate the function of pancreatic cells, which produce insulin, and accordingly they may be considered a prosthetic. Insulin pumps provide improved glucose stability and assist in reducing the risk of the complications from diabetes, such as retinal eye disease, nerve disease and kidney disease. Type 1 diabetes currently affects 140,000 Australian children and adults. All stakeholders would recognise the importance of removing the ambiguity surrounding insulin pumps on the list, and the coalition supports such a move. There have been important initiatives over a number of years now to improve access to appropriate medical services and products for people with diabetes. This is particularly important given Australia has one of the highest incidences of type 1 diabetes, currently the sixth highest incidence globally. The coalition government provided $442 million between 2000-01 and 2005-06 for Diabetes Australia and the National Diabetes Service Scheme. The National Diabetes Service Scheme enables people with diabetes to access subsidies for essential products such as syringes, insulin infusion pump consumables and diagnostic products. The coalition government committed a further $667 million for the period beyond 2006-07. The current minister made reference to other measures being provided for people with diabetes in her second reading speech. Most notably, the minister mentioned the government subsidy for insulin pumps. The subsidy the minister referred to provides $2,500 for people with type 1 diabetes under the age of 18. Access to the subsidy is also means-tested. However, this subsidy has not been delivered as promised. The minister claimed that the subsidy would benefit nearly 700 children and young adults in a press release of 2 July 2008. Only families with incomes less than $60,000 are eligible for the full subsidy of $2,500. The government budgeted $1 million for the program in 2008-09; however, in Senate estimates it was stated that only $419,000 had been claimed. As of this month, I am advised that only 38 insulin pumps out of the anticipated 700 have been provided to eligible applicants. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation has been very effective in managing the scheme and communicating with families and health professionals and has successfully generated a high level of interest in the scheme. There have been over 500 enquiries and 164 applications, but uptake has continued to remain very low. With the existing means-testing thresholds, eligible families have been left with too great a co-payment. The co-payment on an average pump costing $7,500 is $5,000 for families earning less than $60,000 per annum. With this bill removing any ambiguity of the status of insulin pumps on the prostheses list, there is a clear incentive for families to take out private health insurance and claim reimbursement after the waiting period if they are in a position to do so, rather than incur the $5,000 co-payment. The coalition supports the provisions of this bill affecting insulin pumps. However, it seems contradictory for the minister to be prosecuting an ideological crusade against private health insurance whilst expecting insurers to cover for the underperformance of government programs, especially when 75 per cent of new pumps are already purchased through private health insurance. With respect to the conditional-listing component of the bill, there is an argument that certain devices which may not otherwise have been listed should be listed for limited interventions which are shown to be clinically appropriate and cost effective. There is a clear benefit to patients to have access to life-saving devices without blowing out costs to private health insurance. How conditional listing is implemented in practice may nevertheless prove problematic without careful consideration. Unfortunately, this bill and the minister’s speech provide very little detail as to the process for conditional listing and the conditions which may be imposed. Without sufficient detail, concerns may arise that ministerial power to impose conditions may be too great and curtail clinical decision making of surgeons. Will conditional listing just be imposed on certain types of surgery or will it extend to where surgery is provided, who provides it or to whom it is provided? As stated, there is a compelling argument for conditional listing, but the government needs to provide greater detail regarding the process of imposing conditions to alleviate such concerns. Similarly, without sufficient detail regarding the conditional listing process there is a risk that interest groups will intensively lobby for prostheses which have failed to meet listing criteria and whose clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness may be doubtful. The Health Technology Assessment Review is due to report in late 2009. The scope of the review includes ‘listing of prostheses for private health insurance coverage, as currently informed by the Prostheses and Devices Committee’. It would have been more prudent, in my view, for the minister to have waited for the release of the recommendations of this review before progressing with conditional listing. Waiting for its release may have alleviated the aforementioned concerns regarding ministerial power under this bill for the conditional listing process. Whilst the coalition do not object to the intentions of this bill, we have concerns about the lack of consultation undertaken, the lack of detail provided in relation to the conditional listing process and the adverse consequences that may result from any rushed implementation. On that basis, we provide support to the bill. We do have a number of concerns, which we hope the government may be able to turn their minds to. In closing, I acknowledge the wonderful work of many people in this parliament, on both sides of the House, in providing their support to the sufferers of type 1 diabetes. In particular, some of the young children who come to Parliament House on a yearly basis are afforded a very warm reception, and rightly so. The involvement of some of my colleagues has been nothing short of outstanding. Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, your involvement in the health area has been quite amazing. It is appropriate that Judi Moylan is in the chamber today. People right across the country have acclaimed the work that she has done for sufferers of diabetes over a very long period. The passion that she brings to the debate has resulted in better outcomes for sufferers of diabetes, in particular type 1. Long may she continue to do that work for the betterment of sufferers in this country. 11386 10:38:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 0 Mr BIDGOOD —I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to allow for conditional listing of prostheses in the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses) Rules and to allow the Minister for Health and Ageing to make rules specifying criteria for listing prostheses in those rules. Under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, private health insurers are required to pay benefits for a range of prostheses that are provided as part of an episode of hospital treatment or hospital substitute treatment for which a patient has cover and for which a Medicare benefit is payable for the associated professional service. The types of products on the prostheses list include cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators, cardiac stents, hip and knee replacements and intraocular lenses, as well as human tissues such as human heart valves, corneas, bones—part and whole—and muscle tissue. Under the current provisions of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, the act, there is some ambiguity as to whether a device can be conditionally listed where a Medicare benefit is payable for the professional service associated with the provision of the device. Conditional listing will require private health insurance benefits to be paid for recipients of the device where the conditions set out in the rules are satisfied. With further developments in medical technology, it is expected that there will be a greater need for listing prostheses on a conditional basis in the future. Conditional listing of prostheses in the prostheses rules will require private health insurance benefits to be paid in relation to a high-cost life-saving device to patients who are waiting for a heart transplant. It is expected that patients will be able to maintain a high quality of life with this device, which would be prohibitively costly without private health insurance benefits. Specifying criteria in the prostheses rules that must be satisfied in order for a prosthesis to be listed in those rules will enable listing of, for example, prostheses that are useful and cost-effective, such as insulin pumps, which will provide benefits to many privately insured families contending with diabetes. Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, we know from all the reports that are coming out, and as you are well aware, diabetes is becoming a major national and international issue. It is very much a lifestyle disease. Through the technologies of our age and through the provision of different types of food, the way those foods are made and preserved, we are seeing a steep rise in diabetes across the nation, and it is something that we do need to try to prevent. Once people have diabetes, particularly type 1, it is really disabling of their whole lives and lifestyle. It is a gross inconvenience to them and anything that we can do to make those people’s lives more contented and satisfied will be of benefit. The means and measures in the changes to these rules and the enablement of private health insurance to help meet the cost of some of these insulin pumps will be greatly beneficial to the lives of people suffering from type 1 diabetes and also the lives of type 2 sufferers who may need some help. As stated by the minister, products will only be listed where they are clinically effective, cost-effective, provide significant health benefits to patients and can prevent the need for expensive downstream medical costs. The whole decision-making process has been based on clear evidence that it is clinically effective and that it is the best means of dealing with a diabetic situation or any other situation whether it concerns the heart or any of the other organs that I have mentioned, particularly with human heart valves and things like that. It has to be clinically effective, cost-effective, proven and provide significant, not just slight, health benefits to the patient. At the end of the day the laws and the rules which we are putting down here are all about benefiting the patient and looking after the patient for their whole life—in the community, in the family and at work. If we can help people have a more wholesome, effective life then we have done a good thing. I believe that this legislation before the chamber right now is a good thing and that is why we are backing it wholeheartedly. The new criteria will not override any of the current legislative criteria for listing—that is very important. What it is doing is helping with medical cost. These changes will deliver significant benefits to consumers who are privately insured and seeking to use these and other devices. Once again, I go back to the fact that as we get older so many things come along which we just do not expect will happen to us. I have just turned 50 and I am beginning to discover a few health issues myself which I never thought would occur to me. God forbid that I should have to action some of the things that need to be done in some people’s lives; there but for the grace of God go we. Good government, good laws and good rules are about thinking about other people, not just ourselves. Even though things that I have mentioned here may not be happening to me personally, or to any of us personally, they are happening to people across the nation. While they may not be occurring in massive numbers, nevertheless, they are affecting people’s lives and their quality of life. People’s health is important and legislation like this goes to that. If we can prove clearly that we have things that are clinically medically effective and that are the most cost-effective and there is clear evidence that they improve a patient’s quality of life then I think we are doing a good thing. The Private Health Insurance Act 2007, which this bill amends, and the recommendations that are before us are good. It is a good act, it is a good amendment and it makes good provision for the Prostheses List. I can not say more plainly or more clearly how wholeheartedly I back this bill and commend it to the House. 11387 10:46:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —I spoke in this place recently about this matter but I think some of my comments bear repeating as there are some very important issues for this debate. The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009 provides that opportunity. Back in 2005 the Commonwealth government made a series of improvements to the Prostheses List arrangements so that insured patients had access to a range of clinically effective and appropriate prostheses at a reasonable cost. For us in this place one of the great challenges is how we can deliver best-practice medicine to people and at the same time make sure that the systems we put in place are cost-effective and make the best use of the available money in the health portfolio. Those tensions are not easy to manage. The Review of the Prostheses Listing Arrangements, which was chaired by Mr Robert Doyle, stated that the fundamental logic of the new arrangements was that prostheses should be listed if they were clinically effective; that items of equivalent clinical effectiveness should receive the same benefit, and that incremental benefits should be available for incremental improvements in clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness; that there must be a prosthesis available for every Medicare Benefits Schedule item, provided at no additional cost to the patient; and that sponsors wishing to charge more than the assessed cost-effective benefit could do so and the patient would then pay the gap. The arrangements were constructed so that independent clinical advice was central in determining questions of clinical effectiveness. We know that any debate about anything, particularly to do with medicine or science, is fraught with difficulty for ministers and for those of us in this place trying to pick our way through some of these complex bills, because there are a variety of viewpoints. You just have to read some of the literature on this subject to see the different opinions about the clinical effectiveness of some devices. The minister will have power to conditionally list prostheses. It has been argued that this power could be used as a tool to impose limitations on the clinician’s ability to choose the most appropriate listed prosthesis. Others have argued that without sufficient detail and safeguards governments will be relentlessly lobbied to include items on the list item which may not be cost effective. So we can immediately begin to grasp the complexities of administering such a program. On 9 September 2009, Amy Corderoy wrote an article in which she said: Identifying which Type 1 diabetes patients will benefit from public hospital-funded insulin pumps may be difficult, according to a clinical audit undertaken in Western Australia. “Patient selection [for insulin pump use] is important, as insulin pumps are cost-effective only if they reduce levels of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and the frequency of hypoglycaemia – although quality of life may also be an important benefit,” Dr Ken Thong and colleagues from Fremantle Hospital and the University of Western Australia wrote in the MJA. The endocrinologists identified over 100 patients who had received both public hospital-funded insulin pumps and privately health insurance-funded pumps (32 public and 77 private) over an eight year period. The public patients had had more hospital admissions than the private patients both before and after the commencement of insulin pump therapy (0.7 vs 0.3 admissions per year p=0.02). After commencing pump therapy, HbA1c levels fell significantly in the private patients (8.7% vs 8.0% p<0.005) but not in the public patients (9.2% vs 8.9% p=0.17). There was also no significant difference in diabetes-related admissions before and after commencement of pump therapy in either group. “We need to think very carefully about which patients we should be offering pump therapy to,” co-author Professor Bu Yeap told Endocrinology Update. However, he added that the study was too small to conclude that it was not cost-effective to treat patients with publically-funded insulin pumps. “The public patients tended to have more difficult to control diabetes in the first place and that may be why we didn’t see a similar improvement in HbA1c,” he said. “It’s a glass half empty half full kind of thing. It’s very pleasing that in the [private] group we did see a reduction in HbA1c… but it has made us think much more carefully about whether we should set up more formal criteria for pump usage”. I draw that to the attention of the House firstly to illustrate the complexity of the differing views and some of the studies that have been done on this but also because I wanted to focus on insulin pumps in particular in my remarks on this bill, which basically stipulates that private health insurers must pay benefits for prostheses that are provided as part of an episode of hospital treatment or hospital substitute treatment and for which a Medicare benefit is payable for the associated professional service. The Commonwealth prosthesis list contains all those products that fit the above mandatory criteria. The Minister for Health and Ageing determines what products are on the list, having regard to the mandatory criteria and also non-mandatory criteria. Currently, a product is either listed or it is not. This legislation will establish a conditional listing category on the list for products that are not appropriate for general use but are clinically effective in specific circumstances. In the second reading speech, the minister for health specifically pointed to insulin infusion pumps as an example of a product that should be conditionally listed. In that speech the minister said: The amendments proposed in the bill would enable the device to be listed on a conditional basis, ensuring patients have access to life-saving treatments in a way that controls the additional costs to private health insurance. All private health insurers make payments towards insulin pumps, as they are on the prosthesis list; however, there has always been some uncertainty about their long-term status on the prosthesis list because they are not surgically implanted, do not require hospital admission for initialisation and are not associated with a Medicare Benefits Schedule item. This uncertainty was recognised in the government’s review from which I just quoted. The review noted: Under current arrangements insurers are not required to pay benefits for products provided in these circumstances, even though the items are included on the List. Therefore, this legislation is aimed at resolving the uncertainty by creating a new sublist for devices such as insulin pumps that do not meet the mandatory criteria but should still be on the list in certain circumstances. Where an individual has access to private health insurance, they are not then eligible to receive the means tested insulin pump subsidy, and this is one of the matters I would like to raise in addressing the issues around this bill. There are other challenges, as well, in relation to insulin pumps. The devices are constantly being improved, there is new technology, and there are already other challenges facing us with new insulin pumps incorporating continuous glucose monitoring devices. The cost of the transmitter components of these devices is reimbursed through ancillary health insurance by only some private health insurers. The sensor components are not covered, nor are they eligible for any government subsidy. The insulin pump program has also not been as effective as we would have liked it to have been. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Health and Ageing is currently reviewing that program; that is welcome. I raise these issues around insulin pumps because, as I have said in this place before, back in 2000 we started the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group. I would like to acknowledge the participation and incredible work of the member for Moore, who is currently in the chair today. He has been a tower of strength in that group and has been able to help draw greater attention to the issue of diabetes within the community. Many of my other colleagues have joined us in that group as well. There are Senator Guy Barnett, who is part of the executive, and my colleagues the member for Lyons and the member for Isaacs. All of the members who agreed to join that group participate in the many activities that from time to time take place. I suppose that one of the most successful and moving of those activities co-sponsored by the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation was the Kids in the House program, where 100 children from all over Australia were flown to Parliament House with their carers to talk about what it is like to be a kid with type 1, insulin dependent, diabetes. Their stories, quite frankly, were heart wrenching. I think I have rarely, if ever, attended a function in this place where I have seen some of my colleagues actually openly weeping. They were very moving stories indeed. Juvenile diabetes really does rob young people of many opportunities, and that is what these young people talked about: the limitations that were placed on their lives, often from soon after they were born and diagnosed with insulin dependent, or juvenile, diabetes. These children also have a lifetime of high-level care to manage this disease. Every day, they have to pay attention to their insulin levels: to monitor them, to have multiple finger pricks to test the levels of insulin in their system and then, of course, to administer a dose of insulin where that insulin level falls too low. If their insulin levels fall too low, these young people can fall into a coma. I will talk more about that in just a moment, but it does have a dramatic impact. These young children who came to Parliament House on two occasions—and I think there is soon to be a third—had an opportunity to go around this parliament and talk one-on-one with their member of parliament and the senators for their state and to express to them the difficulties and the challenges they confront as insulin dependent diabetics and to plead with this parliament to consider directing funding to research. to find a cure for juvenile diabetes. The theme of the young people was ‘promise to remember me’. I do not think that anyone who spoke to the young people visiting here was not profoundly touched by that experience. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease, which is something people sometimes get mixed up about. Young children have said to me, ‘We’ve often been teased at school that we’ve got diabetes because we eat the wrong things and we’re overweight, or we’re overweight because we don’t look after our health,’ so there is a lot of confusion in the community. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease affecting some 140,000 Australian children and adults. There are a lot of children affected by this, and we have to be concerned that we have one of the highest incidences of type 1 diabetes globally—in fact we are sixth in the world—and that rate is continuing to increase in Australia by three per cent per annum. Ninety-five per cent of diabetes in children is type 1 diabetes. Type 1 sufferers experience more than 40 dangerous hypoglycaemic—that is, low blood sugar—episodes a year. As one mother said, ‘My biggest worry when I go into my son’s bedroom every morning is whether I can wake him up.’ The origin of setting up the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group was a visit to my office by a couple and their very young boy in his early year of primary school who had type 1 diabetes and was experiencing great difficulty. His medical practitioners were experiencing great difficulty even in levelling out his insulin levels. His parents would have to wake him up several times during the night, test his insulin levels and administer medication as required. This was interfering with this young boy’s ability to do his schoolwork. Being woken two or three times during the night for testing and then medicating, he would go to school the next morning feeling pretty lousy, so his schoolwork was not going well. This family, who were not wealthy people at all, scraped up the money to get him onto an insulin pump, which made a huge difference to their peace of mind and to his lifestyle. This young man went on to be dux of his school, and the family generally come to me once a year around Christmas time and he gives me an update. The difference has been really remarkable. What I want to do in this debate today is stress the importance of not just stating—as governments have done successively, which is good—that diabetes is a national health priority but then matching that rhetoric with the best possible medication and the best possible access to devices that will give children in particular a good quality of life and perhaps increase their lifespan. Young people with juvenile diabetes on average live fewer years than the rest of us do, even with the best of care, and they face a lifetime of really quite horrendous health complications. So we need to recognise that there are major lifestyle and quality-of-life issues around access to the best possible medicine and the best possible devices. When it comes to children, we should be generous in making sure that they have the best possible access. Every hypoglycaemic episode causes physical and psychological harm. Hypoglycaemic episodes affect cognitive function and memory as well. These pumps are not for everyone, but for many young people they can be a very important part of the management regime. Twelve to 15 years after the onset of diabetes, devastating complications can set in, and I have mentioned those many times in this place. Diabetes is the leading cause of adult blindness, heart attack, stroke and lower limb amputation and is the most common cause of kidney failure, at 40 per cent. Fifty per cent of people with diabetes die of cardiovascular disease. So there are myriad complications around this disease, and it is particularly tough for children and their families knowing that they have to face such life-threatening illnesses along the way. I also pay tribute to the work of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation because it was with them that we pushed to get the consumables that go with the pumps. These are things that have to be changed every couple of days. They are the devices that allow the pumps to do their work. In addition to the $7,000 or $8,000 that the pumps cost, the parents of the young boy that I saw came to me and said: ‘We’re paying out $2,600 a year for these devices. Can you get them listed on the NDSS?’ That is why we started our group. We went to work and convinced the then Howard government to list these devices on the NDSS and assist parents. Some families have several children with diabetes, so it can become a huge imposition. The insulin pumps are used to closely mimic the insulin delivery of a healthy pancreas for more predictable and tighter blood glucose control, and that is why these are so important. So, whatever we are doing in legislation—and with this legislation in particular—we need to be very mindful that we do not deny people the opportunity for improved long-term health outcomes by them not being able to access insulin pump therapy. I ask the minister to closely examine this legislation to iron out any of the glitches and also to look at the subsidy program that currently is not working as successfully as it should. I look forward to the outcome of that review and making sure that more low-income families can access insulin pump therapies for their children. 11392 11:06:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I speak in support of the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009 and, like the previous speaker, I want to focus on diabetes, but I will go through the conditional listing issues first. This is a good piece of legislation because it allows the minister to engage in conditional listing. It really means that in those circumstances where a prosthesis is necessary on the basis of clinical circumstances a listing can be given. There has been some commentary about ministerial discretion here and whether or not this is the right thing to do, but in the circumstances I think it is clear that we need to make these changes. There are a variety of different prostheses. I see a few doctors in the chamber at the moment. As a humble lawyer, I do not propose to make any comments about the various natures of prostheses except that they are many and varied and that medical technology has advanced enormously in our lifetimes. We can barely imagine the kinds of changes that are going to happen in the next century. But the legislation does require private health insurance operators to pay benefits for prostheses which are part of an episode of hospital-substitute treatment and for which a Medicare benefit is payable for the associated professional service. It is the case that prostheses enhance the lives of so many people. All of us in this place would know constituents, friends and relatives who have been saved by knee replacements, hip replacements, pacemakers—various kinds of prostheses which have not only saved the lives of individuals but also enhanced their quality of life. They enabled these people to enjoy and have an abundant life which they could not otherwise enjoy, and I can think of numerous friends of mine whose lives were full of sport and recreation who by virtue of age, illness and injury have suffered the travails of being immobile, and who have now received hip replacements and knee replacements and have enjoyed a quality of life which they could barely imagine during their times of disability. So what we are doing in this legislation is important. It is unclear, as the minister said in her second reading speech, whether a prosthesis can be conditionally listed in circumstances where a Medicare benefit is payable. I had a look at what the minister had to say, at the Bills Digest and at the other commentary on this matter, and it seems very clear that a surgically implanted device can be listed for general use or simply not listed at all. The conditional listing will enable the device to be listed in some circumstances. Where a patient can get access to life-saving treatments and other quality of life assistance, this will enable the person to live a productive, healthy life. That is a fair and decent thing to do in our society. It is important that we enable all our citizens to be part of community life and to enjoy the kinds of activities which they would have enjoyed previously. We believe in social inclusion. Providing assistance by way of prostheses makes a real difference in our community life. There are many people who can participate in RSL groups, in church life, in sporting clubs as coaches and in other activities which they otherwise would not have been able to do. I am happy to speak in support of this legislation because I have seen the benefit of prostheses amongst my friends, relatives and constituents. I have seen what it can do for their lives. The second aspect of this legislation deals with the issue of insulin pumps and ensuring that the Australian community can get access to those pumps. This will make a difference to people’s lives, particularly those of children suffering from type 1 diabetes. All of us see constituents in our offices on a weekly basis, but one of the things that really struck me the most was the meeting I had with a fellow in his thirties, married with a young son who, the next year, was intending to go to a local primary school in my home city of Ipswich. The parents came with their little boy and showed him to me and talked to me about him. They were extremely worried about how he would cope with primary school in 2008—the meeting took place just after I was elected in November 2007. I remember that meeting vividly because the mother had tears in her eyes and the father had a pained and anguished look. They had, because of their circumstances, had to borrow money from a relative to pay for an insulin pump. Even then, they were concerned about how their son would be able to manage it when he commenced year 1 the next year. It brought home to me the stark reality of the difficulties faced by parents who cannot afford a pump. It also brought home to me, who has been blessed with having two children who do not suffer from diabetes, the difficulties parents have to suffer—the anguish, anxiety and sheer agitation of thinking that their son or daughter might die at any moment of the day. I was pleased that the Rudd government undertook to provide a subsidy of up to $2,500 for insulin pumps for people with type 1 diabetes. I took the opportunity, after that meeting, to have a look at the impact of type 1 diabetes, and diabetes generally, on my local community. This legislation will enable a new part of the Prostheses List to include those devices which are not surgically implanted so that people with type 1 diabetes will be able to get access to insulin pumps, which are integral to their lives, in the circumstances. I have had a look at what diabetes was doing to my community and I have had a look at what the Australian Diabetes Map said about my electorate of Blair in South-east Queensland. I also noted that the International Diabetes Federation asserts that, by the year 2010, 285 million people will live with diabetes worldwide. The 2006 census says that, in my electorate of Blair, which is about 70 per cent of the city of Ipswich, the Lockyer Valley and the Fassifern Valley to the west and south-west, some 5,743 people have been diagnosed with diabetes. Local doctors tell me that there are likely to be vastly more people who are undiagnosed. On just about every statistic, whether it is on gestation or type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes, my electorate is almost always above the national average. For example, according to the 2006 census, there are 4,773 people suffering from type 2 diabetes in my electorate. The percentage of the group suffering from diabetes is 82.85 per cent but in my electorate it is 83.11 per cent. The number requiring insulin, which is a more pertinent statistic, is about 1,967 of that group of people who are suffering from diabetes. The national average is 32.15 per cent, but in my electorate of Blair it is 34.25 per cent. According to the census, there were 47 people using insulin pumps at that stage. Again, we are above the national average with 0.82 per cent whereas the national average is 0.71 per cent. In my community there are 327 veterans with DVA, which is 5.69 per cent as opposed to 3.95 per cent nationally. Also, we have a large Aboriginal community in my electorate, and again, this is above the national average in that regard. My electorate is more affected by diabetes than most others across the country so the legislation before the House is important. The fact that government is contributing large sums of money to the National Diabetes Services Scheme—according to the minister, it is in excess of $126 million—is important for my electorate. It is important that we enable families, like the family with the young fellow who came to see me after I was elected, to get access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for things like insulin. We do expend more than $300 million on those types of medicine through that scheme. People without private health insurance suffer greatly because they cannot get access to the assistance they require and have to rely on family and friends or their own resources. It is one of the reasons I support the private health insurance schemes in this country. I think it is important that we do it. The conversations that I had with that family, and with other constituencies who have subsequently spoken to me, is what the member for Pearce had to say: the anxiety and the worry of going into their son and daughter’s bedroom in the morning and finding they do not wake up as they have had an ‘episode’. This is how they euphemistically described it to me. As a result, their beloved child is no longer with them. Health complications from diabetes impacts not only those young people, but also those people who suffer type 2 diabetes. On 8 October I held a health forum in my electorate at the University of Queensland Ipswich campus. I want to commend Professor Helen Chenery from the Faculty of Health Sciences for her assistance and the University of Queensland Ipswich campus for their help. The University of Queensland Ipswich campus is undertaking an Ipswich study which is a long-term study into the health needs of a community in the Ipswich and West Moreton area. Professor Robert Bush is involved in that study. It is the site of the GP Superclinic, a $2.5 million commitment by the Rudd Labor government. The focus of the GP Superclinic will be not only chronic heart disease but also type 2 diabetes and assistance to parents of young children suffering from type 1 diabetes, which are so prevalent in my electorate. This topic came up at the health forum because preventative health is so crucial with respect to type 2 diabetes. I urge the government to consider the Ipswich and West Moreton area being designated as a regional health innovation site. Diabetes is just another reason that the government should think about that, and I urge the government to spend far more than simply two per cent of our total expenditure on health and hospitals on preventative health. That is why I am incredulous about the fact that the coalition can simply oppose the reforms that are currently up in the Senate. I find it amazing, because there are decent and good people sitting opposite as there are on our side. I cannot believe they cannot see that this is a very important health innovation measure to improve the wellness of our community. The legislation before this chamber is important. It is important because it will affect the lives of parents and young people suffering from type 1 diabetes, but it will also allow the minister to take a more clinical approach based on medical advice and make sure that prostheses are more available to and more cost-effective for our community. It will allow parents and patients to listen to the real needs of their bodies and their children’s bodies. This is important legislation. For this reason and for the health of my community I support this particular bill. 11394 11:22:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —I rise to add some comments to the debate on the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. As it has indicated, the opposition is not opposed to this bill. We see some virtue in it but, as with many things that the Rudd government does, the virtue in the bill is not matched by dexterity in its execution. That is one of the areas I would like to touch on today. Essentially, the bill will amend the Private Health Insurance Act to allow the minister to list a prosthesis on a conditional basis that specifies the purpose for which it can be utilised and, once it has passed a number of new tests aimed to ensure that it is of a life-saving characteristic, that the prosthesis has cost and clinical efficacy—all perfectly reasonable factors—and that it has been assessed as fit for the purpose for which it is intended to be implanted in the body. This is achieved by adding a new listing beyond the current listing arrangements which provides for the general use listing of prostheses. Broad, unconstrained use of prostheses has in some cases seen prostheses not listed because of the specificity of their intended use, and the only scope available for the current listing is on a general use basis. That of itself seems a reasonable thing to do with new technology bringing new devices, with the progress of health and medical innovation seeing new opportunities for prostheses to improve the standard of living of people to carry forward and nurture their health and wellness. We need to accommodate the new technologies where they can be listed for a particular purpose. As I said, at the moment there is only a general listing provision. This amendment seeks to offer a conditional listing facility to accompany the private health insurance industry’s funding of those particular devices. The thing that is quite strange is that, whilst that is all positive, you would have thought some internal consultation would have been worthwhile. It is ironic and, frankly, quite worrying that we have this bill before the House to give that new power to the minister. The power is a coathanger power. It does not specify precisely what devices it applies to and how it will be used. There is a whole lot of subordinate legislation in the form of regulations that will give effect to those listings, so that is all still to come. What is strange, though, is the imposition of limitations on the clinical use of prostheses. That is something that I would imagine many in the medical profession would be wary of. They would be concerned about the government mandating particular applications of technologies where they, in good conscience and driven by the patients’ best interests, might see another opportunity for the application of that technology for lifesaving health and wellness improvement. We do not know how that will work because these are very early days. We are assured that there will be sufficient safeguards, that the clinicians will continue to be very patient centred in their approach and that where they see an opportunity for improved health outcomes which involves a prosthesis there will be some machinery there to make that case. We hope those safeguards, though, will not see a relentless process of clinicians lobbying the government to recognise the application which they, in good conscience and considered clinical judgment, think is in the interests of the patient but is not covered by the conditional listing as it stands. They will have to say to the patient, ‘Just wait for a sec. The technology may have been designed for the purpose for which I am recommending it be used. This prosthesis is available. It is something that will have very positive and cost-effective clinical outcomes that will advantage your wellness and health. We can argue that it is cost-effective but it has not got the tick yet from the Commonwealth to allow it to be covered by your health insurer.’ We hope there will not be another group of lobbyists beating a path to Canberra. The place is jam-packed with lobbyists at the moment. It seems nothing can happen in this country unless you have sucked up to and spent a lot of time bonding with the government. Private enterprise seems to be dwindling, as businesses now need to get the Rudd government imprimatur for everything that goes on in this country. That is why the biggest growth industry in Australia at the moment is lobbyists, coming to see whether some of the taxpayer largesse that is being doled out in abundant volumes can come their way. Clinicians will have to make sure, as they come to lobby to get a prosthesis conditionally listed, that they can at least get a flight on a plane, to have the chance to get up here. They might need to arm wrestle and bump off some other people, as they all want to come to Canberra because all knowledge is here, apparently. It is quite amazing that, with that abundant knowledge and perpetual wisdom that we have now in Canberra under Prime Minister Rudd and his team, they have not quite managed to join up some dots. We see this in so many areas of government policy. You, Deputy Speaker Washer, were instrumental in releasing yesterday the report of a parliamentary inquiry into the impact of rising sea levels on the coastal zone. It is a very interesting report. I have enjoyed reading it and I commend you for a number of the measures in it. But it did make the point that we have not quite managed to join up government decision making. It is still very bitsy. It is even bitsier in the health portfolio. The diligent professionals in the health portfolio seem to have missed that there is a health technology assessment review going on and it is due to report later this year. You would have thought that the machinery that is being enabled by this legislation would have taken account of that review. The scope of the review includes: … listing of prostheses for private health insurance coverage, as currently informed by the PDC— that is, the Prostheses and Devices Committee. I would have thought that the work going on in that review would have informed this bill, but the bill is pushing on without having the benefit of that review’s findings. I hope some synchronicity can be achieved at some point down the track. You would have thought it would be sensible and wise to wait for the release of the review’s recommendations before acting on something that the review is designed to address. But this is the way things happen now at the ‘Kremlin’ here in Canberra, where so much is going on. That disconnection is worrying. That is not a reason for the opposition not to support the bill. It just highlights the abundant lack of consultation, the lack of detail and the lack of connected, coordinated decision making that seems to be very much a character of this Rudd Labor government here in Canberra. On that machinery, we will have conditional listing capability that will not remove the general listing provision that is there now but add a new listing capability. That should be a good thing, but, as I mentioned earlier, how clinicians will interact with it is another matter. As a former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I was highly exposed to some of the issues that the previous speaker spoke of. I regularly was approached and informed about insights clinicians could bring to the care, treatment and wellness of the veterans community, which in some cases involved the innovative use of clinical technologies and practices that had been developed and carried forward. We were very keen to accommodate that, as we aimed to give world-class health care and support to our veterans community. Here is an example where some of that innovation might run into a little bit of a roadblock with the listing process. However, the good thing is that conditional listing presents more opportunities than general use listing, which might not have seen some of these new technologies embraced in the first place. The second part of this is the listing of the insulin pumps. I am pleased that this has again come to the government’s attention. It is quite fascinating that the government announced its own scheme after initially resisting the opposition’s case, and the opposition’s election commitment, to introduce a taxpayer subsidy for insulin pumps for people coping with the challenge—and in some cases the despair—of type 1 diabetes. We had to drag the Rudd Labor government kicking and screaming to actually pick up that national campaign, which I am pleased to say was launched by the then Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, in my electorate back in April 2008. It was a great campaign launch. The then shadow health minister, Joe Hockey, was there, along with Richard Colbeck, the senator from Tasmania who was then opposition parliamentary secretary for health. It was a really good launch and a key outcome of the listening tour that Dr Nelson had undertaken. We had made an election commitment, one that the Rudd Labor government had not matched. We then had to go and make the case again in the lead-up to the 2008-09 budget to try and highlight to the Rudd Labor government not just the moral case for giving people with type 1 diabetes optimum opportunities to live full, rich and enjoyable lives but also the health case and the cost-effectiveness of supporting the deployment of the latest insulin pump technology. Thankfully that message was heard by the Rudd Labor government, and I for one was encouraged to hear welcoming noises in the 2008-09 budget about a subsidy program for insulin pumps. What has been most disturbing has been the fact—and I am sure the Australian public must be waking up to this—that the publicity, the headlines, the stunts and the media spin are just like a warm-up act. What actually happens afterwards looks very different in many cases. Sadly, in the case of this insulin pump subsidy, that is exactly what has happened. We were reassured, on the back of the opposition campaign for 5,000 children, particularly, to benefit from government subsidies, that the Rudd Labor government would pick up that measure. What has happened, though, is that the implementation has fallen so far short of the promise, the hype and the headline hunting of the announcement in the first place. That is not only a political travesty; think of the implications for the people involved. On the listening tour and at the launch that happened in a hospital in my electorate, we met parents and children who were so supportive of what the Liberal and National parties were trying to do, so encouraging of us taking the pressure up to the Rudd Labor government and bringing the case to Canberra to demonstrate the cost benefits as well as the lifestyle advantages of insulin pumps, particularly for children. There were examples that moved us. I remember a wonderful woman from Dingley who had two children that were type 1 diabetic and insulin-dependent. She was describing to me the emotional and financial obstacles that she had to face and the demands on her parenting. Her children were some of the most stoic and spunky little humans I have seen. They had so much go to them, even though every day started with an injection, every day they had to monitor their condition and every day their blood sugar levels were uppermost in their minds, even when they were trying to work out what Dora was talking about in Spanish on the latest episode of Dora the Explorer. Such gripping things that would occupy most kids’ minds were secondary; these young kids had to keep themselves healthy. She broke down while describing to me how much it was going to cost and what a difference these insulin pumps would make to her children’s lives and how there was no way on earth by which she could possibly afford to buy one. She was totemic of why we mounted this campaign—so totemic that no-one could come away other than completely convinced that this was the right way forward. So we have had the announcement that the government would provide these subsidies, but the subsidies have not been delivered up to what was promised. The Minister for Health and Ageing claimed the subsidies would benefit some 700 children and young adults. That was in Minister Roxon’s media release back in July 2008. The government had a budget estimate—it was about $1 million—and yet less than half of that has been claimed. Only 38 insulin pumps out of an anticipated 700 have been provided to eligible participants. That is from evidence tendered at a Senate estimates committee. How do we explain this to that mother from Dingley? How do we explain the eligibility criteria that see the subsidy so out of reach for people, even for those on regular incomes; that they cannot access it. She must be wondering, ‘Such promise; such hope.’ It is a campaign that was led by the Liberal and National parties and is one we continue with in opposition, making the case. Then we get the announcement from the minister and, typical of the Rudd Labor government, it is all announcement and no follow-through. And we have this appalling situation. An opposition member—All froth; no beer! 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr BILLSON —Absolutely. We are now faced with a very modest percentage of families benefiting from a program that for them was just such an enormous program of hope given that the government was going to assist them and those kids, who had such spunk, would have had support from the government. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —Will they get a laptop at school? 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr BILLSON —Who knows whether they will get a laptop at school. Just being well enough to learn as well as they can at school was their first hope. They recognised that what the opposition was advocating would deliver that. They then heard the echo from the Labor Party sometime afterwards and then found, sadly, from these figures provided to the Senate estimates committee that it was a hollow echo. It in no way matched the leadership that the Liberal and National parties were offering. What has happened now is—in a belated recognition that private health matters, that the public system has pressures and demands and plays a crucial role—we are now turning back to the private sector. We are now saying to the private sector through private health insurance, ‘Will you provide these devices? We will list these devices. Yes, we have just planned to introduce rules that prostheses need to be medically implanted, but an insulin pump is not medically implanted, therefore—gee—we had better put another listing together.’ Thankfully that listing will at least see the private health community fill this void—this void between expectation and political spin and delivery—that the Rudd Labor government has created. So here today we are debating a bill to allow the private health insurance sector to do what the Rudd Labor government promised it would do and has not. There are so many points you could make out of that. The totemic example of how this Rudd Labor government—this federal Labor party—governs for the country is captured through this. The example of people who promise so much and deliver so little is captured through this. There has probably been more money spent promoting the program than has been delivered—more effort gone into the press release than in the execution of the support for families that desperately need it. And then, at the end of the day, all is well and there is only wisdom in Canberra! That seems to be the prevailing attitude of the current government. Now there is a recognition that the private sector has a role to play—belatedly—and the private sector will have to mop up this underperformance of the Rudd Labor government. In my own community of Dunkley, there are about 878 people living with type 1 diabetes. The number registered with type 1 diabetes across Australia at 30 September 2006 was 122,000 plus. This has an enormous impact on young people. The rate at which type 1 diabetes is emerging in our younger population is very concerning, and the community that I represent has not been excluded from it. It has been the focus of local media coverage as those statistics about condition prevalence have come to attention. Diabetes Australia have done a remarkable job of highlighting how important this is to the local community. The Liberal and National parties understood that, acted, provided leadership, made an election commitment and carried that through after the election. The Liberal and National parties understood what was going on and educated the Rudd Labor government. The Rudd Labor government picked up the topic and made the statements but has not delivered. So this—a belated recognition that the private health insurance industry matters in our private-public community health model in Australia—is something that we should welcome. It again makes you wonder why the Rudd Labor government is undermining private health with its changes in the subsidy for private health insurance incentives, why it is again looking to private health to perform where the Rudd Labor government could not but at the same time making it harder for the private health industry to do more, as incentives and encouragement are wound back by Canberra. It is just another example where health policy seems to be very disconnected. I highlighted that there is concurrently a review about this very subject while we are debating the topic in the House. Here is an example of private health being asked to do more when it is actually being made less attractive for people and the private health industry is being put under pressure by this government. The Labor government is saying: ‘Do more, private health industry. We’re going to make it harder for you, but we’re going to expect you to do more.’ That is what this bill is about. It is like the medicentre in my electorate, where the 12,000 to 14,000 category 4 and 5 attendees at the accident and emergency department at the Frankston Hospital have an option. They can go to a medicentre, an after-hours GP clinic. The Rudd Labor government is going to halve the funding for that program, a program that has been going for decades with the collaboration and support of GPs, who have been able to stay in their practices knowing they do not have to get up, possibly every night, in the middle of the night to attend to their patients because there is a collaborative after-hours service available. It has kept GPs in the practice of being doctors. It has supported the health services in our area. And now, for all of that good work, it is going to have its funding halved. All that will do, potentially, is send a large chunk of those 12,000 to 14,000 category 4 and 5 patients back into the emergency department—the emergency department that is under such pressure. Rather than increase the resources, the state Labor government has increased the size of the waiting room. What is going on here? The collaboration that is needed in health policy is missing. It is evident in this, and we see it in so many areas. We are not opposing the bill, but there is a lot of work to be done to make it work. (Time expired) 11399 11:42:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Health 1 0 Mr BUTLER —I think all members of the parliament recognise the passionate advocacy of the former member for Bradfield, the former Leader of the Opposition, in this area and a range of other areas in the health sector, but it is rather graceless of the member for Dunkley not to confess to the sin of omission of the previous government in doing nothing in the area of insulin pumps for 11½ years. The member for Dunkley might also like to explain to his constituents who need insulin pumps his view that we should not proceed with the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009 pending the health technology assessment, when, if you read the bill, you know that, when passed, it will facilitate the uptake of insulin pumps. Leaving aside the internal inconsistencies and very selective reading of history by the member for Dunkley, I thank members for their contribution to the debate on this bill and particularly note that the government has noted the contribution of the shadow minister to the debate on this bill. The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009 will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. The bill provides for amendments to the act to allow for conditional listing of prostheses on the Commonwealth Prostheses List and to allow the Minister for Health and Ageing to make rules to specify criteria for listing prostheses on the list. Under the act, it is currently unclear whether a prosthesis can be conditionally listed where the prosthesis is provided in circumstances where a Medicare benefit is payable. The bill will allow for the rules to set out criteria that must be satisfied for an application for listing on the Prostheses List to be granted, including different listing criteria for different circumstances. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. 11400 Bills R4200 11400 Debate resumed from 16 September, on motion by Mr Shorten: That this bill be now read a second time. 11400 11:45:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 5) Bill 2009. This bill has a number of important schedules and was introduced on 16 September. Some of the schedules and matters dealt with are technical and some are quite straightforward. I say at the outset that the coalition will be supporting the passage of this bill through both houses. I will run very briefly through some of the schedules. The first deals with GST law and simply seeks to correct a recent interpretation by the Federal Court of the application of GST law. In doing so, the bill returns GST law to the original intention when the GST was legislated back in 1999 and began operation in 2000. It would be remiss of me not to mention in speaking on this schedule—and we obviously welcome it—that it was this side of the House that introduced the goods and services tax, and the intention was quite clear. In technical terms, the Federal Court sometime ago contradicted the intent of the law relating to incapacitated entities. The minister has outlined in great detail and the explanatory memorandum outlines in great detail how this simply returns the legal situation back to the original intention. It was widely made clear that this would happen back in February, when the Assistant Treasurer committed to doing just this down the track. So there has, from our view and in a bipartisan way, been certainty about this issue for a period of time, and we are now picking it up in a formal legislative sense in this bill. I welcome the fact that those opposite—including my friend and colleague the member for Melbourne Ports, who I have known for a very long time and who is in the chamber—are legislating in this tax law amendment bill on the goods and services tax. Every time they legislate on the goods and services tax it is of course a reminder of their now support, embrace and love of the goods and services tax. The member for Melbourne Ports, who was in this place to vote against the goods and services tax—and he is a friend of mine, I’m happy to say—is now, once again, going to be in a position to vote for the integrity of the goods and services tax. That is a great thing and he will take great joy out of knowing he was wrong 10 years ago. Now that he has seen the light he has a chance to make up for that wrong and vote for the integrity of the goods and services tax. Being 2009, I also find it impossible—and the member for Melbourne Ports would know this—not to mention in the context of the goods and services tax the 10th anniversary of fundamental injustice day, which was declared by the Prime Minister when he was then in opposition and speaking on the goods and services tax bill. He declared the day that the GST was being legislated through the House of Representatives was ‘a day of fundamental injustice’ that people would look back on, and I must look back on it—the member for Melbourne Ports would expect me to do nothing less. It was quite Rooseveltian. It raised images of days of infamy and Pearl Harbor. This was going to be a great and terrible moment in the history of Australia that people would look back on in 100 years time. It is great that just 10 years later, which is a long period of time, we are looking back and have officials responsible for the integrity of the tax act. It is great that in 10 years time there is no anniversary celebration of fundamental injustice day and no marching in the streets to recognise the horror of this day 10 years on. In fact, the person who declared ‘fundamental injustice day’ is now Prime Minister of the country, presiding over the goods and services tax and protecting the very integrity of it here today. That, of course, is a good thing. There are some on the other side—and I suspect, without being unfair, that my friend the member for Melbourne Ports is one of those—who all along knew that the goods and services tax was an important reform for our country. If that is not the case, he now is legislating something he does not believe in, and that is an accusation I would never make. ‘Fundamental injustice day’ aside, you will understand that, even on a tax law amendment bill on a number of technical issues, I find it absolutely impossible not to recall these events for the chamber. There is no way, having covered those important events, to traverse neatly into schedule 2 of the bill, which deals with taxation of financial arrangements, but I will deal with that very quickly. This schedule as it relates to the TOFA regime, which has been a longstanding reform issue begun by the previous government, has bipartisan support. This schedule relates to provisions of the pay-as-you-go obligations and it ensures that the introduction of those TOFA reforms does not enable the situation to occur where PAYG instalments can be reduced. Schedules 3 and 4 of this bill affirm and make clear that certain payments are tax exempt. That was always the intention and the case with so many payments, but this bill, in a belt-and-braces way, ensures that those payments are tax exempt. Schedule 3 deals with payments made with respect to autism, specifically the outer regional and remote payments made under the Helping Children with Autism package. It ensures those payments are exempt from income tax, as they should be. That has always been the intention, but this tax law amendment bill is necessary to remove beyond any doubt that those payments made to families living in regional or remote areas remain tax exempt. Similarly, schedule 4 ensures that payments made under the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme are also exempt from tax. Schedule 5 extends interest withholding tax exemption to debt issued by the Commonwealth. This really mirrors earlier legislation in a tax law amendment bill—I think at the start of the year—with respect to the states and territories. Last year the coalition supported the passage of that when it was announced and this extends that exemption to debt issued by the Commonwealth. Schedule 6 deals with some critical tax issues that have been complicated and have taken a period of time to resolve. I know the member for Melbourne Ports, as a fellow Victorian, will appreciate all of these issues. It relates specifically to the tragic bushfires that occurred in Victoria at the start of this year. As those opposite know and as my friend and colleague the chair of the economics committee knows, Australians from every corner gave generously to that fund. It was not just people in Victoria—every corner of Australia gave generously to that fund. The strength of those donations really demonstrated that community spirit we are so proud of in Australia. The schedule enacts an announcement from the Assistant Treasurer on 17 August. It allows for the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Trust to undertake a range of recovery assistance projects without any risk of the Red Cross losing its charitable status. Essentially, it means that those generous donations can be used in a wider variety of ways than would ordinarily be deemed to be charitable purposes under the law. This was complicated because the law relating to charities is very strictly defined. Clearly in the case of the bushfires and people making donations, the first step that we did here in this Main Committee at the time with the former Assistant Treasurer, Mr Bowen, was to ensure that the payments going into that fund were tax-deductible. The issue now is to ensure that those funds can be spent for the best purpose, that is, to help the most affected communities in the way that they want to be helped. The law relating to charities is very strictly defined. Without going through the history of it, which goes back over a very long period of time, a lot of things that we would expect to be able to be done were not able to be done with any legal certainty. It was frustrating because it has taken time to get the tax law right on this but essentially these amendments specifically enable that fund to spend money on a wider range of activities. They include providing long-term assistance to orphans aged under 18 years, reimbursing individuals or charitable organisations for eligible activities, providing assistance to individuals whose primary place of residence was destroyed by the bushfires, providing up to $15,000 in financial assistance to individuals who have lived or are still living in transitional housing, and providing up to $10,000 in financial assistance to primary producers. These amendments were, as I said, announced by the Assistant Treasurer back in August. He consulted with me prior to that announcement, and the announcement and this legislation ensure that the amendments have an effective date just prior to the Black Saturday bushfires—they are backdated to the fires that began in Delburn in Gippsland on 29 January. While tax law amendment bills deal with a whole range of matters, this is an important piece of law; it is a piece of law that ensures that recovery continues with some certainty in what has been a terrible year for those families and those communities in Victoria. We have supported legislation in this regard all along and we are very glad that it is before the House today and enacting that announcement of the Assistant Treasurer. 11403 11:57:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —It is always a pleasure and an honour to follow the member for Casey. He always has some gems to share with the House in his contributions. I always used to see him as one of the progressive Liberal Party members and he— IPZ Chester, Darren, MP Mr Chester —And he is! HVZ Thomson, Craig, MP Mr CRAIG THOMSON —Well he probably is because, unlike in the ETS debate where we have some of his colleagues harking back to views of the last century, the member for Casey is only stuck in the last decade. In terms of the Liberal Party and where he is, he is one of the progressives, which is good to see. It is always a little bit sad when you hear the member for Casey talking about the history of the Liberal Party through his rose coloured glasses. It almost brings a tear to your eye, talking about the glory days that used to be. But it is always a pleasure to follow him in terms of his contributions. I rise to support theTax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 5) Bill 2009. There are six schedules in this bill and I will endeavour to look at each one in a little detail. Firstly, schedule 1, as an overview, protects the GST revenue in light of an adverse Federal Court decision handed down on 12 December 2008. The decision in the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v PM Developments Pty Ltd is contrary to the stated policy intention that the representative of an incapacitated entity is liable for GST on transactions within the scope of its appointment. It is also contrary to the Commissioner of Taxation’s administration of the law since the introduction of the GST. These amendments will amend the GST law with effect from 1 July 2000 to ensure the law achieves the stated policy objective. Schedule 2 amends the pay as you go, or PAYG, instalment provisions to address unintended consequences arising out of amendments to those provisions contained in the Tax Law Amendment (Taxation of Financial Arrangements) Act 2009. The effect of the PAYG amendments to the TOFA Act is arguably to substantially change the basis on which a PAYG instalment liability is calculated but this had the potential to decrease PAYG instalment payments. Any decrease will result in deferral of revenue which will be recouped when the relevant taxpayer lodges the income-tax return. Schedule 3 exempts from income tax the outer regional and remote payment made under the Helping Children with Autism package. Schedule 4 exempts from income tax those payments made under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme. Schedule 5 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to extend eligibility for exemption from interest withholding tax to debt issued by the Commonwealth or Commonwealth authorities. Schedule 6 provides the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund independent advisory panel with greater scope to support communities affected by the 2009 Victorian bushfires. Looking at these amendments in a little bit more detail, under schedule 1, the Federal Court decision in the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v PM Developments Pty Ltd handed down on 12 December 2008 held that a liquidator is not liable for the GST arising from transactions occurring during the period of the liquidator’s appointment. Instead, the court held that the GST liability is a liability of the company in liquidation. The Federal Court decision is contrary to the stated policy intention that the representative of an incapacitated entity is liable for GST on transactions within the scope of its appointment. It is also contrary to the Commissioner of Taxation’s administration of the GST law. The proposed amendments are intended to restore the stated policy intention with effect from 1 July 2000, the introduction date of the GST, and we heard in such eloquent terms from the member for Casey his longstanding commitment to these laws. Transitional provisions will apply to ensure that the amendments do not adversely impact taxpayers who have complied with the commissioner’s interpretation of the law or who have acted in good faith. The proposed amendments will provide that a representative of an incapacitated entity is liable or entitled to the GST consequences of transactions within the scope of its appointment. For example, when a representative sells an asset of an incapacitated entity, if the sale is subject to GST and the price therefore is GST inclusive the representative will be liable to pay GST of 1/11th of the sale price to the commissioner. Similarly, if a representative purchases assets as part of managing the affairs of an incapacitated entity he will be entitled to claim an input tax credit to offset the GST included in the purchase price. The imposition of liability on a representative only relates to post-appointment GST amounts that are in relation to transactions within the control of the representative. Pre-existing GST liabilities remain with the incapacitated entity. The revenue impact of the court’s decision if no action is taken is estimated to be a reduction of $655 million over the forward estimates period, representing refunds of GST paid by representatives and ongoing revenue costs. The proposed amendments will have a nil or negligible impact over the forward estimates period as they seek to restore the status quo. We need to ensure that the GST revenue of $655 million which I have just outlined is protected over the forward estimates. The Federal Court decision is contrary to the stated policy intention that the representative of an incapacitated entity is liable for GST on transactions within the scope of its appointment. It is also contrary the Commissioner of Taxation’s administration of this law since the introduction of the GST. Retrospective amendment is not expected to adversely affect taxpayers but will protect the revenue by preventing claims for refunds of amounts paid by representatives of incapacitated entities. Turning to schedule 2 of the bill covering the pay-as-you-go instalments and taxation of financial arrangements interaction issues, the amendment contained in this schedule reverses the changes the Taxation of Financial Arrangements Act made to PAYG instalment systems, thus preventing a potential decrease in the amount of PAYG instalments paid. In addition, the amendment ensures that where an entity has become liable to pay a decreased amount of PAYG instalment prior to the commencement of this bill there will be a catch-up payment of the decreased amount in the quarter that ends after the commencement of this bill. The government intends to undertake consultation on a more appropriate method of addressing the interactions between the PAYG instalment system and the TOFA Act on an ongoing basis. The government is committed to the ongoing monitoring of the implementation of the taxation of financial arrangements reforms. The changes in schedule 2 address an unintended consequence arising out of the changes the TOFA reforms made to the PAYG instalment system. It is the intention of the government to develop a more appropriate method of dealing with the interactions between PAYG instalment systems and the TOFA Act. Schedule 3 of the bill concerns the Helping Children with Autism package. Schedule 3 exempts from income tax the outer regional and remote payments made under the Helping Children with Autism package. This payment is designed to assist families with children who have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and living in outer regional and remote areas to access early intervention and educational services. Exempting this payment from tax reflects the added difficulties that could be faced by families living in regional or rural areas in gaining access to these types of services. The exemption provides the recipients of this payment with certainty as to the tax status of those payments. Schedule 4 exempts from income tax those payments made under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme. This scheme replaces the existing scheme which provides subsidised products direct to eligible recipients. The replacement of the direct provision of the products with a payment allows eligible recipients greater freedom in their choice of products and suppliers. Providing an income tax exemption for the receipt of this payment will ensure that no recipients are disadvantaged under the new scheme. Schedule 5 covers exempting Commonwealth government securities from interest withholding tax. This proposal will make debt issued by the Commonwealth, including debt issued by the Australian Office of Financial Management and other Commonwealth authorities, such as Australia Post, eligible for exemption from interest withholding tax. This policy will improve neutrality in the tax system by providing Commonwealth debt, state debt and private sector debt with the same interest withholding tax treatment. It will also bring Australia’s tax treatment of Commonwealth government securities into line with most other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. Foreign investors investing in AAA-rated sovereign bonds currently have a choice between purchasing AAA-rated IWT-exempt bonds, such as those from the US, Germany, United Kingdom and state governments, or purchasing AAA-rated Australian government bonds and potentially paying IWT. This places Australian government bonds issuance at a competitive disadvantage in the international market and potentially results in the Australian government bonds being issued at a higher yield than would be the case were an IWT exemption available. It is expected that making Commonwealth government securities eligible for the current general IWT exemption will increase demand for Commonwealth government securities from overseas investors who have previously been deterred by the tax. The taxation changes will have a net cost of $52.4 million across the forward estimates. Finally, schedule 6 of this act addresses the 2009 Victorian Bushfire Appeal trust account. These amendments provide the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund independent advisory panel with greater scope to support communities affected by the 2009 Victorian bushfires. The panel oversees the expenditure of funds in the 2009 Victorian Bushfire Appeal trust account. The amendments permit funds in the appeal fund to be used for a broader range of purposes than the law would consider charitable, without jeopardising the charitable status of that charity that collects donations. The amendments ensure that any funds transferred from the Red Cross to the appeal fund, which is not itself a charitable fund or institution, will be disregarded in considering the Red Cross’ status as a charitable institution and a public benevolence institution so long as the funds are used for the allowable purposes. The allowable purposes for which the funds may be expended are restricted to provide assurance to donors that their charitable donations will be used appropriately. There are a number of allowable purposes but broadly they fit into three categories: Australian disaster relief fund purposes, public benefit purposes and other allowable purposes. Any purpose that is currently allowable under the general deductible gift recipient category of the Australian disaster relief fund will continue to be an allowable purpose. An allowable public benefit purpose would be a purpose to provide broad public benefits that are consistent with the purposes of one or more income tax-exempt entities, widely and publicly accessible, and provide commercial or private benefits only to an incidental and ancillary extent, if at all.  ‘Public benefit’ means the organisation must have a purpose aimed at achieving a universal or common good and that its benefits are accessible and directed to the general community. There are a number of categories of entity which are made income tax exempt in tax law, generally in recognition of their value to the community. These categories include, amongst others, charitable institutions, community service organisations, cultural organisations, health organisations, sporting organisations and local government bodies. To be consistent with the purpose of an income tax exempt entity, the funds must be used for activities that would be undertaken by an income tax exempt entity. This is a wide category of newly permissible purposes for the panel and includes rebuilding or establishing community centres, youth centres, halls or libraries and other similar purposes which meet the requirements of a public benefit purpose. They are very important in helping to rebuild these communities. Other allowable purposes include: the provision, without any requirement for annual assessments, of long-term assistance to orphaned minors; reimbursement of individuals or organisations who have paid for either Australian disaster relief fund activities or public benefit activities to be performed; provision of support to individuals who, because of the bushfires, have lived or are living in transitional housing—grants of up to $15,000 per household may be provided; assistance to individuals who are primary producers—the amendment allows the appeal fund to make grants of up to $10,000 to primary producers, which are open to be used for repair and restoration of farm activities, including re-fencing properties; and provision of assistance to families whose owner-occupied principal residence has been destroyed or damaged, ignoring the legal ownership structure of the residents—this has relevance to individuals who may use company or trust structures to own their residence. Recognising the truly unprecedented circumstances of the 2009 Victorian bushfires, the government is implementing legislative changes that widen the permitted use of donations by the fund. These amendments will give the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund Independent Advisory Panel extra flexibility to support bushfire affected communities as they recover and rebuild. This decision follows a significant amount of support from the Rudd government over the past six months. This includes appointing a Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Construction—Mr Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong—to spearhead reconstruction efforts and providing a range of financial and other assistance to individuals, families, businesses and communities affected by these fires. As you can see, the amendments in this bill cover a broad range of issues, all of which make our tax system a fairer one. I commend the bill to the House. 11406 12:12:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 5) Bill 2009. Without wishing to diminish the other schedules, which were so eloquently covered by the member for Dobell, I join the debate to mainly focus on two areas of particular concern to my community, being those issues dealing with the Helping Children with Autism package and schedule 6, which relates to the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services and Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction noted in his second reading speech, schedule 3 exempts from income tax the outer regional and remote payment made under the Helping Children with Autism package. This payment is made to assist families with children who have been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and who live in outer regional and remote areas to access otherwise scarce early intervention and education services. The amount of that allowance is $2,000, and I will discuss that more fully later in my contribution. Schedule 6 provides greater scope for the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund Independent Advisory Panel to support the communities affected by the 2009 Victorian bushfires. In relation to the bushfires and the broader discussion, this is an opportunity for me to update the House on the recovery initiatives that are underway in Gippsland and to report some progress. It is now almost eight months since that tragic event. To begin with, I want to again put on record my absolute respect and admiration for the emergency services workers and all the volunteers who have rallied together so magnificently, not only in Gippsland but right across the state of Victoria. If there has been a single positive aspect to have arisen from this tragedy, it is the way it has united my community. The test that was put to the people of Gippsland was quite extraordinary, but the resilience they have demonstrated in the last eight months is something to behold and something I am very proud of as the member for that region. We lost 11 lives in Gippsland at the height of the fires on Black Saturday and more than 250 homes in the 10 days where fires scorched across the communities of Ballara, Yallah, Callignee, Traralgon South through to Cornella and right through to Devon North. It was a very traumatic event and a tragedy on a scale that I hope none of us see again in our lifetime. There are probably people in the gallery here today who were affected by the Canberra bushfires, and they would probably understand the extent of the trauma that the people of Gippsland have gone through. In the immediate aftermath people have dealt with their losses. There was a certain degree of shock in our community, which is entirely understandable. But what has been on display, as I mentioned before, is the overwhelming support and the outpouring of generosity from people right across Australia. Everyone wanted to do their bit. It was quite extraordinary to go to a place like the Traralgon South recovery centre and see trucks pull up, full of goods, the sorts of goods that you do not think of automatically—things like work boots and overalls for the men wanting to get back on to their blocks and start cleaning up; fencing and repair material donated by major agricultural companies; and cosmetic and medicinal supplies from some of Australia’s major providers, such as pamper packs for the ladies and those who had lost everything. So it was an incredible experience to be there in those early days and to see the outpouring of support that came from people right throughout Australia—from the corporate sector, from the voluntary sector and from individuals keen to do their bit. We were very fortunate in Gippsland to be served by the Gippsland Emergency Relief Fund. It went quickly into action. It secured several million dollars worth of donations from the immediate local community and was handing out cheques to people from day 1. I commend the Gippsland Emergency Relief Fund for being able to dispense aid so quickly and when people needed it. Keep in mind that people were turning up to the relief and recovery centres with absolutely no form of identification, just with the clothes on their backs. To turn up and to have someone give them a cheque so they could go and buy some new clothes was something that they certainly appreciated. The broader appeal effort, which this amendment deals with, raised $375 million. That is testament to the care and compassion of the Australian public. We hear a lot of negative stories in the media, but I think we should focus on this incredible performance by the Australian public. I am well aware of many school groups who held casual days, for example, or kids who held garage sales to raise money. They made donations of $10, $20, $50 or $100; and every little bit helped. I commend the Victorian Bushfire Appeal coordinators and Governor John Landy. The project is now chaired by Pat McNamara, a former leader in the Victorian state parliament. I commend them on the work they have done. It has been difficult for them to work through the parameters of the task before them. One of the perhaps disturbing aspects of this issue, and the reason why I have taken this opportunity to speak today, is that there may be a sense in the broader community that the recovery has finished now—that we can all move on now that the media interest has died down and now that the bushfires are not on the front pages of the newspapers anymore—a sense that the communities of Gippsland, and the broader community of Victoria, affected by these fires have been fixed and it is all done and dusted. That is certainly not the case. We were very appreciative of the visits by the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary for Bushfire Reconstruction and several other ministers. They made the time to come to Gippsland and to carefully assess the local needs on the ground. I urge them, if they have been to Gippsland in the past, to return in the future. They would certainly be welcomed by the community. There is a sense for some in the community that they have now been forgotten. It does not need to be a rational view; it can be just an emotional reaction to the fact that they have been on the ground now for eight months trying to rebuild their lives. So it would do well for other members in this place to consider what opportunities they may have in the execution of their parliamentary duties to look for ways that they can get back into those communities. I am talking about not just Gippsland but also the broader bushfire affected communities as they recover from what has been, as I said, an incredibly traumatic experience. As time has gone by there is no question that the media interest has dropped and the visits from people outside the region have dropped. I get the sense now that the community is ready for more support in the sense of just knowing that people still care about them. There have been some exceptions to that rule about interest dropping. The local media has been very focused on the recovery effort, and I commend the journalists in our area for their efforts in that regard. The ABC statewide radio program Drive is hosted by Kathy Bedford, a good friend and colleague of mine who has gone out of her way to try to keep in touch with the fire affected communities and make sure her listeners, right around regional Victoria, understand that they need to be there for these people for the long haul, because recovery is very much a long haul. People recover at very different rates. Some people seem quite remarkable as their resilience is incredible and they seemed to have bounced back very quickly. They have taken on enormous burdens in their communities and got on with the job of helping others and helping their own families. As for others, we are talking about six to eight months down the track and sometimes there have been delays in getting permits to start building and family breakdowns as a direct result of the fires because some people simply cannot go back to those communities; they do not want to move back and rebuild in the same location when their partner might think it is a very good idea to move back. That level of social disconnection or breakdown is a real issue that we are dealing with in Gippsland at the moment. I have said many times in Gippsland that this will be a defining moment in our community and the lives of so many people. They will define their lives as to what they did before Black Saturday and what they did after Black Saturday. It will be a turning point for a lot of people. I am concerned for our young people in particular, that we have not always been fully cognisant of their needs given that they were very much at the firefront and were directly affected. I give credit to an organisation called Relationships Australia, which has gone out of its way in the past two weeks to hold an adolescents recovery day. Several hundred young teenagers came together for the day to enjoy some music and sit around with their mates in a relaxing environment. It is typical of the vagaries of the Gippsland climate that on that day rain poured down and washed out some of the events, a day when we were to there to reflect on a day when a 46-degree temperature scorched the area. So we had two inches of rain on a day when we would have preferred to be outside enjoying some of the other activities that were organised. Young people received some important messages that day to make sure they realised that they can seek help, that seeking help does not make you any less of a man or a woman if you are not dealing well with the trauma of the events that you have experienced and need to go out and get professional advice, and that it is okay to admit things are not necessarily going that well. I congratulate Relationships Australia for helping to build that bridge for our young people, so making them realise they have not been forgotten. Obviously, the long haul of recovery also relates to the environment. The damage that has been done to the Victorian bush has been quite significant. If you travel through the bushfire affected areas now, you note the vegetation is starting to re-establish itself and it is greening up again. The large mammals one used to see are not there yet in any numbers, if at all. It is a long haul, and I give credit to the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—and we have our clashes from time to time on a whole range of issues—for coming down to Gippsland and taking the time to see how the bushfires affected my community and also for making sure that additional Landcare funding is made available for the practical environmental work that is going to be required in the months ahead. As I have mentioned before, there was very much a bipartisan spirit in the early days after the bushfires. The Prime Minister visited the area, as did the minister for agriculture. I had a chance to take the minister around to see the infrastructure work that is required, and the infrastructure upgrades are also going to take a fair bit of time to complete. That is why I am particularly pleased by the changes that have been made in terms of the tax treatment of the bushfire relief appeal fund. One issue that seemed to slip through the cracks in the early days was primary producers’ need to repair and restore their on-farm equipment and activities, in particular fencing. We had hundreds of kilometres of fencing destroyed in Gippsland. I have seen the figures but they have escaped from my memory at the moment. I know there were thousands of kilometres of fencing destroyed across Victoria. Inevitably, in this area we are going to have future disasters, whether they be fires or floods, and we are going to lose fencing again. It almost seems as if it is going to be inevitable that we are going to again have this fight about what support is going to be made available to our primary producers when they are faced with such an enormous cost burden. We have a situation, one that needs to change, at a state level whereby where properties adjoin public land the state government does not assist with the replacement of fences. I think that is an issue that the state government needs to take on board coming out of this enormous tragedy across Victoria. The bill before the House follows some pretty practical, common-sense discussions that were had with the Prime Minister’s office, with the parliamentary secretary’s office and also with the members for McMillan and McEwen. It ensures that our primary producers do have access to some of the funding. I think the Australian public is quite comfortable with that. The funding in the initial stages went to people who lost their primary place of residence, who had major loss of property. But, given the magnitude of the fund—$375 million—I understand that the recovery fund committee have not been able to spend all the money at this stage. So it is quite reasonable to look at other options. I give credit to the government for moving in this regard. In particular, changes provided for in the bill will allow the fund to provide long-term assistance to orphaned minors. I am not sure of the exact numbers, but I have read of many cases where young people have lost both their parents. It also provides reimbursements to individuals or organisations that have performed eligible charitable activities and it makes the discretionary payments I referred to before. The bill is certainly going to be well received by the people of Gippsland. It is a small but welcome step in recognition of the need for additional support as we go forward. I encourage all members and those of the general public who may be listening today to recognise that the recovery is ongoing. It has been an extraordinarily difficult and complex process. We are going to need continued support for communities and the people in them for many years to come. I also want to refer to schedule 3 of the bill, which exempts from the income tax declarations the regional and remote payments made under the Helping Children with Autism package. Again, this is an important initiative and I commend the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services for taking it. We have an issue in our regional communities in particular. We need to make sure we are doing a hell of a lot more to provide decent levels of support and assistance to people with autism and their families. When the autism diagnosis comes, people liken it to a time bomb. When it goes off, when the diagnosis is made, mums and dads return home and wonder what they do next. There is a lack of support services in regional communities. I have written to the minister on this in the past, and I understand he is working in that regard. This is a very positive step towards ensuring that people in rural and regional communities have reasonable access to services in the future. Our carers are on the front line when it comes to providing a service for our nation. It is the toughest gig in town. Dealing with a child with special needs, whether it be autism or some other special need, is exhausting. The parents are often confused by the layers of bureaucracy they need to go through to access services. It can be very difficult for them to keep their family unit together while they are dealing with so many other emotionally draining issues. I have met with several families in my electorate who have had the diagnosis of autism. The experience follows a very similar pattern. There is a need for allied health services in the first place, but there is also a need for respite care. Families want to work their way through the system by using a one-stop shop approach. There is one program that has been very successful in the Bairnsdale community which I have written to the minister about. I congratulated him on the funding for it. That is the MyTime program. It provides a helper for up to eight children at one time to allow the parents to get together in a room and discuss their different ideas and the ways they are coping with a child with autism. Parents who have spoken to me are seeking the establishment of a one-stop shop which really helps them to identify support services and tells them where and how they can access them. I congratulate the minister for his interest in the issue. I also encourage him to continue to lobby hard for additional support services. Some of the concerns raised by people in Gippsland link into the government’s new package of $12,000 over two years for children with autism spectrum disorder. It is a good package, but there are some concerns within my community in relation to how people can actually access the services and whether they are available to them. I have spoken to families about this, and the information they have given to me is that early intervention is critical when it comes to autism. It is those first few years where you can make a real difference in helping young people achieve their absolute best later in life. There have been various international studies which have found that a young child with autism should have access to, for example, at least 12 hours of therapy per week, be it occupational therapy, behavioural therapy or speech therapy. But the package the government has implemented of $6,000 per year equates to about one hour per week. I know the families do not wish to appear ungrateful for that package, but it falls a long way short of where we need to go in the longer term. Low-income families and people from low socioeconomic areas have a great deal of difficulty in topping up the support services. It is only natural that parents want to get the absolute best for their children, but if you are a full-time carer obviously it can be difficult to earn the income to access the extra support services which are needed. I do commend the government for the autism support package which is available but I acknowledge that there is a long way to go in providing the services which meet the needs of our community. Another problem with the package at the moment is that you must be an authorised provider to have the $6,000 spent on your service. In the early days, there certainly were not any authorised service providers in my region; that is about to change in Bairnsdale, I understand. In other regions where approved service providers are not available, it is still going to be a problem for the government, going forward. That is where the $2,000 allowance for remote and regional access fits into this package, but it is a real issue for children with autism in particular to be travelling long distances to access services. The children themselves do not travel that well in a large number of cases and it just adds another stress and layer of complexity for the families involved. So the $2,000 certainly helps, but we do have a long way to go in providing access to those types of services within the regional communities themselves. I had the opportunity to speak to a paediatrician in Sale during the week who does a great job supporting children with autism. I think he has 150 children with autism on his books at the moment. He is comfortable with the package in that regard, but he does make the point that we do need to be investing more in our own young people in regional communities to make sure that we actually have those allied health services available in country communities in the future. Taking our young people with autism to Melbourne to access the services to use this funding is not an adequate solution for us. In the longer term, it simply will not change until more rural students are given preferential treatment to enter university courses and then given the opportunity to move back to regional communities to practise after the completion of their studies. I thank the House for this opportunity to provide an update on the bushfire recovery efforts in Gippsland and also on the autism package. I commend the bill to the House. 11412 12:32:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —In following the member for Gippsland, I acknowledge his very strong advocacy for the constituents of his electorate. I acknowledge the representation that he has given them through what has been a very difficult period, having faced the bushfires earlier this year and the great challenge of reconstruction that has followed. I will speak more specifically about that in relation to schedule 6 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 5) Bill 2009 later on. I do not intend to speak on each of the schedules of the bill, but I will be speaking on schedules 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Beginning with schedule 1, the proposals that have been brought forward in relation to the GST and representatives of incapacitated entities, I note that these are amendments that have been precipitated by a Federal Court decision which determined a matter in such a way as to render the outcome contradictory to what was the stated intention of the GST legislation when it was first introduced. That legislative intention is given effect by the comments that were made in the explanatory memorandum at the time. It is a timely reminder of the importance of ensuring that, while an explanatory memorandum can play an important role in providing some additional context and some additional guidance as to the intention of the legislation, it never takes on the force of law in its own right. This is something that draftspeople have to be eternally vigilant about, and this particular case does highlight some of the difficulties—where the messages being sent out in the explanatory memorandum can, in fact, be contradictory to the letter of the law contained within the act itself. In relation to the judgement that has given rise to these particular amendments, that was the case involving PM Developments and the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. I note that in handing down the judgement Justice Logan was critical of the explanatory memorandum to the goods and services tax act. The explanatory memorandum stated, at paragraph 6.271, if you are registered and you become bankrupt, or go into receivership or liquidation, the person who conducts your enterprise on your behalf is, generally, personally carrying on the enterprise. In addressing that part of the explanatory memorandum, Justice Logan said: The statement in para 6.271 of the explanatory memorandum as to who carries on an enterprise after bankruptcy, receivership or liquidation is true only of bankruptcy. It is not true of corporations who are placed in liquidation. Neither is it true of a privately appointed receiver. He then goes on to say: Such errors hardly, with respect, inspire confidence in the utility of the explanatory memorandum. The description in the explanatory memorandum is not matched by the language employed within Div I47 as enacted. That serves to amplify the point that the use or the utility, the benefit, of the explanatory memorandum and the guidance that it purports to provide to taxpayers, to advisers and ultimately to courts, is only useful to the extent that it is not seek to derogate from—or undermine or contradict—the written word of the act itself. I think that, whilst this particular set of amendments does seek to restore what may have been generally understood to have been the position, as I indicated earlier, I think it does serve as a useful reminder of the importance of maintaining complete and utter care in the way in which an explanatory memorandum is drafted, because of the particular significance these documents can take in guiding those—particularly in the tax field—in advising clients and ensuring that taxpayers understand their obligations and are able to set about diligently trying to observe them. That is the only comment I wish to make in relation to schedule 1 but I support the proposals. In relation to schedules 3 and 4, I want to offer a few general comments. In relation to schedule 3—the Helping Children with Autism package—whilst I note that this particular schedule exempts from income-tax those payments made under the outer regional and remote payment, I do acknowledge that the package is one that has delivered considerable benefits to families and communities right around the country. I know that it has been very well received in my local community. Autism presents a great challenge, in particular to the families of children who are given a diagnosis. The Helping Children with Autism package is principally designed to provide that assistance, so that early intervention services can be obtained and secured. The research is very clear that early intervention services can have a profound impact on the outcomes in terms of the extent to which the child might improve their functioning within the community. It is important that we continue to invest in providing support to families who—I must say, in my community—have limited access to the services they need. Notwithstanding those limitations, one of the largest limitations is the capacity to access those services financially, whether it be for speech therapists occupational therapists or for music therapy. There is a particular issue with music therapy because within my electorate the Nordoff-Robbins Foundation has provided considerable funding over the years for the Golden Stave Music Therapy Centre, which is located at the Kingswood campus of the University of Western Sydney. The music therapy that is provided—not just to children but teenagers and adults more generally, even some elderly people—can play a very important role in providing some of the therapeutic components to the overall strategy that one might employ in trying to assist a person with autism. Unfortunately, some of those services traditionally have not been of the type of service that would be considered as being eligible to be funded under these sorts of packages. That is something that I would like to see further work done on for people who are accessing those services, and ensuring that some of those music therapy services are in fact delivering benefits that are just as great as an occupational therapist or a speech therapist for a child that has autism. Recently I had the opportunity in my electorate to support a very worthy cause that I have mentioned before in this place, and that is the Luke Priddis Foundation. It was established to provide services and assistance to families that have children with autism. Just a couple of weeks ago I attended their annual fundraising event at St Marys Leagues Club. It was a trivia night and I am pleased to report to the House that my table came second by a quarter of a point—it was one of those four-point answers that brought us undone in the end. It was a great night, not just because of the entertainment and the fun that was to be had on the evening, but because of the money that was raised for a very good cause. I do wish to acknowledge Luke and Holly Priddis and the entire team at the Luke Priddis Foundation for the great work that they do—not just in raising funds but most significantly in raising the profile of autism and the need for autism-specific services in Western Sydney. I take my hat off to the Luke Priddis Foundation. I wish to thank them for a good night and for the great work that they do within our community. On the night Emma Husar, a local mother—her son Mitch is autistic—was able to speak to those who were in attendance about the particular challenges that she has faced as a parent of a child with autism. For those of us who are parents, I think we all look at the great job done by parents who find themselves in very difficult and trying circumstances. We look at the great job that they do with utter respect and a great deal of admiration, and I wish to express that here today. This particular measure obviously ensures that there is a relevant tax exemption for those payments made under that payment. In relation to the Continence Aids Payments Scheme, I note that this particular proposal has arisen as a result of some of the changes that have occurred to the administration of the scheme—the CAAS scheme, the continence aids assistance scheme, is what it was previously known as. The changes that have been brought about ensure that now there is more choice in the hands of the recipient of a payment to go out and to source the particular product. The way in which the scheme has been structured means there are payments being made to recipients, to individuals, and this provision is largely to ensure that there are no adverse income tax consequences that flow from those payments. Frankly, it would put people at a disadvantage if they were now paying income tax or those payments were treated as being assessable in their hands when under the previous system there were no such taxation implications. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the very good work in my community of the Nepean Social Club, which is a club that was established under the leadership of Kevin Finlayson, a great local identity. Kevin is in a wheelchair but he is someone who has been driving many a process in the advancement of the interests of people with disabilities in my local community over many years. He was awarded the coveted Wall of Achievement Award by the Penrith City Council some years ago. Kevin was the driving force behind establishing the Nepean Social Club. This issue under schedule 5, along with a range of other issues affecting people with disabilities, is one that he has brought to my personal attention, so I wish to acknowledge his advocacy. I know that he is a great leader within my local community and will continue to speak out and advocate on behalf of the members of his club but also, more generally, people with disabilities. The next schedule, schedule 5, deals with exempting Commonwealth government securities from interest withholding tax. This is an eminently sensible proposal and I note that it has bipartisan support. This is a change that has largely been necessitated by the succession of changes that have occurred in relation to the removal of interest withholding tax on corporate bonds which occurred back in 1999 and, more recently, on state government securities in 2008. This measure is principally about neutrality, ensuring that bonds of a similar type are treated similarly for taxation purposes. The main effect of the interest withholding tax provisions goes to the competitiveness of bonds that are issued by the Commonwealth government. Foreign investors with an appetite for investing in triple-A rated sovereign bonds currently have a choice between purchasing those triple-A rated interest withholding tax exempt bonds from other countries or indeed, within Australia, other jurisdictions, and acquiring those securities from the Commonwealth where, under the current law, there is no such exemption from the imposition of interest withholding tax. This is a levelling of the playing field in that respect. It is a very sensible move, one that has some financial implications. It is estimated that the net cost of this measure will be $52.4 million across the forward estimates. However, it is important to note that a large part of that will be offset by the increased demand that the removal of interest withholding tax from Commonwealth government securities will generate in that particular investment space. It is a proposal that I wholeheartedly support. Schedule 6 is concerned with the response by the Australian community and the Australian government to the Victorian bushfires earlier this year. The member for Gippsland spoke very genuinely, very passionately and very sincerely about the impact that those fires had on his community and also the impact of the response that came from the rest of Australia to help his local community try and rebuild. These amendments are largely directed towards ensuring that the widely held view within the community, and I think a view that has a very reasonable basis, is upheld. That view is that not only should the contributions that people made to the Red Cross in the first instance, at a time of national emergency and for which as individuals they received a tax deduction—and it is widely accepted in this country that donations of this sort should be tax deductible—be tax deductible but the way in which the mechanical transfer of those funds has occurred from the Red Cross to the appeal fund of which the Victorian government is the trustee should not in any way jeopardise the ongoing availability of the charitable status of the Red Cross. The government and the parliament have acted to ensure that the appeal fund is a deductible gift recipient. These amendments largely go to the more broad issue of the expenditure of those funds. Whilst there might be a need to extend beyond the limits of the existing provisions of the tax law to ensure that some of the items of expenditure that this bill proposes would be allowed to occur without jeopardising the charitable status of the entities involved, I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that those expenditures are completely in line with what not only the donors, being the rest of the Australian community, expect but also what the Australian government considers to be fair and reasonable. In acting on this particular proposal, the parliament will support that initiative and enshrine that in law. I am inspired by the fund-raising efforts that have contributed to the relief fund. In the order of $386 million has been raised, 18,324 payments have been made to individuals affected by bushfires, three-quarters of the fund will be paid out to individuals and families, and approximately $95 million will be distributed to community projects in bushfire affected areas. On the one hand this has been a huge fund-raising exercise where the generosity of Australians all around this country has been on display, but it is now about ensuring that their generosity is able to be tapped into for the longer term reconstruction and benefit of the communities that are affected. In closing I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Caring Hearts Community Quilters in my electorate who, through their own labour, provided a number of quilts to individuals that were affected by the bushfires. They did a great job. They are a wonderful bunch of ladies. I visited them recently and I know they will continue to do good work in our community. (Time expired) Debate (on motion by Ms George) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.52 pm to 4.03 pm 11416 Committees 11416 11416 Debate resumed from 26 October, on motion by Ms George: That the House take note of the report. 11416 16:04:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 0 0 Dr WASHER —I rise to speak on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts called Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. This is an important report with significant national impact. The key message which emerged from this inquiry is that the issue is very significant and worrying, resulting in a need for national leadership to manage Australia’s coastal zone in the context of climate change. The committee has considered the issues in great detail and the 47 recommendations focus on the provision of national leadership in collaboration with state and local governments and on engaging local communities in this initiative. A large percentage—in fact, some 80 per cent—of Australians live in the coastal areas, and this concentration of population with its attendant infrastructure makes us particularly vulnerable to the impact of climate change. There is a new urgency in improving the management of our coastal zones, and it is time to act now. There is strong scientific consensus that climate change is leading to rising sea levels and extreme climatic events. There is no question that rising sea levels will result in increases in flooding associated with high tides, storms and heavy rainfall. We need to alert coastal communities to the coming challenges and ensure that they are fully engaged in addressing them. Some of the key recommendations of the report address the need for nationally-consistent planning guidelines; increased research on sea level rise and extreme sea level advance; improved emergency management, including the establishment of a coastal natural disaster mitigation program; and the integration of the surf-lifesaving network into early warning systems. There are many issues that will need consideration: building codes, insurance matters and a comprehensive national assessment of the vulnerability of coastal infrastructure. We need to take account of the large numbers of Australians who holiday in coastal areas, putting pressure on local services and infrastructure. The Australian Bureau of Statistics could provide accurate data on the numbers and impacts of tourists in order to enable better matching of resources with demand for infrastructure and services. The committee has also recommended that the Australian government develop a coastal sustainability charter as part of a new intergovernmental agreement on the coastal zone to be managed through COAG. I thank all the committee members for their hard work and their bipartisan support on this important national issue. I especially thank the chair, the member for Throsby—who is a good friend of mine and did a great job—and all the members that served on the committee who were there from the beginning to the end. The staff, and especially the secretary, are to be commended on their excellent work in producing this important report. I particularly thank Dr Kate Sullivan for her work in leading the inquiry and also Julia. There is great interest in this issue in the community at large. The number of written submissions and presentations by witnesses to address the terms of reference, together with the committee hearings around Australia, have resulted in a report which makes a significant contribution to the national debate. We need to work collaboratively to address the problems associated with climate change and their impact on our coastal communities. Although some of the committee members—and especially myself, because I have had a grizzle in the past—say that governments traditionally ignore committee reports, this one was not ignored, and that is terrific. 11417 16:08:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —It is an honour to follow the member for Moore, who has worked so hard and so constructively across party lines on this report. A report can only be so important when it has that bipartisan support. If that does not happen, then the report is usually consigned to the dustbins of this parliament. The member for Moore worked very hard with the member for Throsby to make this report unanimous, and I think that is very important. It is also an honour to be speaking before the member for Lyons, who in parliament today asked a question on this report. I know that he has a deep concern about the effects of climate change on coastal New South Wales. He has his seat several seats above me, but we both share the same coast and many of the same problems. I made two submissions to this inquiry. I was privileged to have the committee come and visit the seat of Dobell and the Central Coast. In fact, it was the first visit it made in relation to looking at how climate change affects the coast of Australia. That is an important thing, because the electorate of Dobell is greatly affected by climate change. It is a beautiful place, probably the most beautiful place in Australia, but unfortunately the environment is very fragile. We have a thin coastline with developments there. In the middle of the electorate there is a beautiful lake which is prone to flooding as it has access to the sea. An issue such as rising sea levels affects everyone on the Central Coast, particularly those in my electorate. The report is also important because it creates national awareness of how climate change affects the places in which we live. We are engaged in a debate on this in the main chamber in which often the contributions are theoretical, with members talking about particular models, and very partisan in their approach. But this inquiry actually went out and visited places and in its report we find real people and real effects on real communities, so that is something else that this inquiry should be commended for. That is so important because it puts a human face on what is happening with climate change. It recognises the very real risks and threats to the areas of population on our coastlines which come from rising sea levels and storm events. Also, it pulls no punches about what needs to be done to tackle the issues. While they were in my region the committee members heard that not too long before they visited there had been a major storm event which had caused extensive flooding across the region and serious erosion of the backyards of many oceanfront homes. They saw firsthand some of the erosion. In my second submission I was able to show the committee images of a subsequent storm event, which I will talk about shortly. The standing committee’s report has a large list of recommendations. There are in fact 47, covering the sorts of measures that we as a nation need to take to counter the major issues facing coastal communities. The overriding message is that we must act now, not later down the track but immediately. That is what this government is doing: acting now. We are acting on the wider issue of climate change, yet there are still those opposite who are living in denial. When I walked along the beach at North Entrance earlier this year, inspecting the damage done by a major storm, the sorts of hazards that many of my constituents face by living so close to the ocean hit home for me. A whole street of homes had lost large chunks of their backyards. There were bits of fence overhanging the yards, concrete pathways sticking out, broken rails and trees uprooted along the fence lines. In the backyard of one of these houses a beautiful glass fence had been completely washed away. The residents had lost over four metres of their backyard because of this storm surge. Details of that particular storm surge were part of the supplementary submission that I made to the standing committee whose report I am referring to now. This report is comprehensive and covers most of the country’s coastline. The recommendations are far-reaching and extensive as to what we must do to tackle the many issues facing coastal communities. Given that there are 47 recommendations, I will look at some of them as there is not enough time to go through all of them. Although I know the member for Fadden is riveted and wants me to go into greater detail, nevertheless I will restrict myself to just a few. Recommendation 2 states: The Committee notes the importance of mitigation measures in addressing climate change impacts and accordingly recommends that the Australian Government continue to take urgent action to ensure that Australia can best contribute to a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. That is what we are doing. I am among many members who have been involved today in the debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation in the House. It is time that the opposition supported this legislation. Time has run out, excuses have run out and we need to act on our climate—and this particular report recognises that. Another recommendation is: … the Australian Government increase its investment in coastal based climate change research on: sea level rise projections and the dynamics of polar ice sheets, particularly in the Antarctic extreme sea level events, including as a result of storm surge and tropical cyclones regional variations in sea level rise— and the effects that changes in the oceans will have on Australia’s coral reefs particularly in relation to— higher ocean temperatures and changing ocean currents It was great to see recommendation 5 of the committee, namely, that the Department of Climate Change continue to fund research on such topics as establishing the wave climate around the coast so as to identify locations most at risk from wave erosion. Proper research is essential, especially in places in my electorate such as the North Entrance which on two occasions in the last few years have been greatly eroded by storm surges. Another positive recommendation is that the federal government continue funding under the Climate Change Adaptation Skills for Professionals Program. It was also recommended the Australian government liaise with tertiary institutions to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately skilled coastal planners and engineers. Recommendation 9 reads: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a coastal zone research network within the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and that it complete a coastal zone research plan. The committee also recommended the Australian government establish a national coastal zone database to improve access to and consistency of information relevant to coastal zone adaptation. I have been calling for better cooperation between councils and state government and federal government departments and agencies in tackling the issues associated with climate change for some time and in particular in this place on a number of occasions. I am glad to see the committee has recommended that this take place and that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government undertake a study into the human and resourcing needs of local governments to effectively plan for and adapt to the impacts of climate change. I have also spoken frequently about disaster mitigation, especially since the June 2007 long weekend on the Central Coast which caused widespread flooding and damage and over a thousand people to be evacuated. The report states in recommendation14: To further enhance Australia’s disaster mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery arrangements in the event of possible major coastal disasters, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a grants program, the Coastal National Disaster Mitigation Program, to fund natural disaster mitigation projects in the Australian coastal zone. The Committee also recommends that the Australian Emergency Management Committee … consider the following issues: improved data on coastal disaster risk assessment and vulnerable coastal sites improved access and evacuation routes for coastal communities; improved coastal community awareness of and resilience to natural disasters improved coordination of coastal disaster mitigation arrangements with other initiatives currently underway, such as reviews of the Australian Building Code and land use planning policies to take into account climate change impacts. These are all important recommendations. The surf lifesaving community on the Central Coast is a very strong community and it was good to see that the committee has made recommendations in relation to the role of surf lifesaving in the use of their network into emergency services preparedness, planning, and response systems and activities. I know that the good members who run Surf Lifesaving Central Coast, particularly Chad Griffith, who is the CEO there, will welcome this particular recommendation. On the issue of insurance, the committee has recommended that the Australian government request the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into the projected impacts of climate change and related insurance matters. Some of the focuses of this recommendation are: insurance coverage of coastal properties, given the concentration of Australia’s population and infrastructure along the coast estimates of the value of properties potentially exposed to this risk insurance affordability, availability and uptake existing and emerging gaps in insurance coverage, with a particular focus on coverage of coastal risks such as storm surge/inundation, landslip/erosion and sea level rise … This is a very important thing for people who have properties by the sea and it needs to be addressed by the government. In the seat of Dobell there are three areas in particular that have been hard hit by storm surges. The beach at Wamberal has been washed away on a number of occasions, as have the beaches at North Entrance. These beaches have extensive development on them. The beach at the little cove at Cabbage Tree Bay, Norah Head, has been closed for over 18 months now because there are houses on the cliff tops that are literally falling into the bay as erosion has occurred due to storm surges. My electorate bears the full brunt of these storm surges on the coast, but it also bears the brunt of storm surges that come up through The Entrance and enter the Tuggerah Lakes system which, in 2007, caused extensive flooding inland around the lake where most of the population in my electorate lives. That resulted in over a thousand people having to be evacuated and moved and a massive coordination effort. This report makes many recommendations in relation to our being prepared. It makes many recommendations in relation to action that we need to take to mitigate these natural disasters. It makes many recommendations as to why we need to act on climate change. This is a very important report that brings home to everyone who lives on the coast the need to act. We cannot put our heads in the sand and hope that this issue goes away. It is affecting our community now. The report should be commended and the recommendations should be endorsed. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—The question is that the document be noted. In calling the honourable member for Lyne, I would also like to welcome his daughter Olivia to the public gallery of the Main Committee. 11420 16:20:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —Thank you to all in this place for demonstrating family-friendly conditions. I, like the previous speaker, live on the coast. In raising a question in question time this afternoon I had to put up with some ribbing from colleagues because I did not declare an interest—so I will now. I do live on the beach. It is the classic Storm Boy house. I will be directly affected if the three tiers of government do not address this issue and address it soon. I believe this report, Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate, is a seminal report for coastline management in Australia today. I congratulate the members for Throsby and Moore and all the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. I think this is an outstanding start to the hard work that has to be done by the three tiers of government. On the mid-North Coast of New South Wales there are two standout locations that are currently under threat: the Lake Cattai community in the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council area and the Old Bar community in the Greater Taree City Council area. I was very pleased that the committee agreed to meet with residents from the Old Bar community and to see in the final report the evidence of one particular resident, Mr Ross Keys, being used as an example of the issues at stake. I am very thankful to the member for Throsby, in particular, for doing that. That example is a demonstration of how real this issue is and how time sensitive it is. I have heard comments over the last 48 hours that imply that coastal erosion and sea level rises are issues for 100 years away. They are not. They are here, they are now and they need to be addressed through a coordinated approach from the three tiers of government, led by the Commonwealth, which is indicated in the recommendations of this report. That is what makes it so seminal. Now it needs to be taken up by the executive and given a full and adequate response. The example of Mr Keys, for those who are not aware and have not read the report, is one that should ring alarm bells for all of us. He has been given demolition orders on two properties. He could rebuild at the furthest end of his property, away from the beach, but he has basically lost two houses to the ocean. He was blind-sided by another issue—the global financial crisis—which meant he had a great deal of trouble refinancing to do the rebuild. Here is a bloke living on the coast in Old Bar who has been hit by two significant global issues in the last 18 months. That is a real, timely example of the importance of government tackling this issue and starting to address it. I am very pleased with this report. I now ask all members in this place to move into the next stage, which is to get government to respond to these recommendations and respond in full. That was the exact reason I raised the question in question time this afternoon about how many of these 47 recommendations government is going to take up. I urge all members in this debate not only to talk about the wonderful work that has been done on this document but to now start to put the blowtorch on the executive to turn those 47 recommendations into reality in a full response from government. It would be a travesty if these recommendations sit on a shelf as we see, sadly too often, in the good committee work that is being done in this parliament. So I urge the Prime Minister, the relevant ministers and the executive generally to take up these 47 recommendations—the heavy lifting has in many ways been done—and use the report as an actionable document to start to coordinate the three tiers of government and answer some of the difficult questions around private title and public lands along the coast. The issue that the report identifies as being raised most frequently and most outstanding is legal liability along the coast. It is a difficult question to answer on the ‘buyer beware’ principle regarding private title and whether taxpayers’ money should be used to assist and compensate those who arguably should have been fully aware of what they were purchasing and the implications of the purchase. I am luke warm on that, and therefore the ALRC recommendation is important. What gets me across the line, however—and this should hopefully get the taxpayers of Australia across the line—is the loss of public lands. There are some beautiful public lands along our coastline that have been protected through many hard fights in many locations and in many communities. It would be incredibly sad to see those public lands lost through no action from government or through the inability of local councils to adequately resource and protect those lands. The fact that the Commonwealth has come in hard through this committee process is outstanding. The challenge now is for the executive to respond. I would strongly urge that, not only in the interests of the members for Throsby and Moore and all involved in this work but, more importantly, in the interests of the communities along the coastlines of Australia that are affected—in my electorate they are the communities of Old Bar and Lake Cattai, who are directly affected now—the executive responds as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. I would hope we are going to have a response with the full take-up of the 47 recommendations and with the government actioning that uptake as quickly as possible—preferably, in my view, before the end of the year. That is the challenge for all of us: push government across the line to do that. I hope everyone puts their shoulder to the wheel to do that, because I think we have a pretty good starting point with the work that has been done already by the committee. 11421 16:28:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 1 0 Mr MURPHY —I am delighted to speak to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. I want to begin by congratulating the chair of the committee, Ms Jennie George, the member for Throsby, who did an outstanding job. She showed real leadership in leading a bipartisan parliamentary committee. She was very ably supported by the member for Moore, Dr Mal Washer. In fact, all members, including my colleague the member for Fowler, worked very hard in the true spirit of bipartisanship. The subject of the committee’s inquiry concerns all of us. I pay tribute to the committee secretariat for doing such an excellent job. No-one could have asked for a better inquiry secretary than Dr Kate Sullivan, who is a true professional. So, too, is our committee secretary, Ms Julia Morris, as well as research officers Ms Sophie Nicolle and Ms Adrienne Batts, and administrative officers Ms Kane Moir and Ms Jazmine Rakic. I thank all of them for doing such an excellent job. As you know, we were charged with inquiring into issues related to climate change and environmental pressures experienced by the Australian coastal areas, particularly in the context of coastal population growth, having regard to: existing policies and programs related to coastal zone management, taking in the catchment-coast-ocean continuum the environmental impacts of coastal population growth and mechanisms to promote sustainable use of coastal resources the impact of climate change on coastal areas and strategies to deal with climate change adaptation, particularly in response to projected sea level rise mechanisms to promote sustainable coastal communities governance and institutional arrangements for the coastal zone. You can see the breadth of the terms of reference. The committee did such a good job over 18 months. It is noteworthy that there were more than 100 written submissions and something like 180 exhibits in this inquiry. In the public hearings that I have participated in since I became a member of this committee I have been truly impressed with the sincerity of all the witnesses, who clearly understood the issues and challenges that face us as a nation in addressing climate change. It is true that national leadership, as the chair of the committee, Ms George, has pointed out, is required to address climate change, and that is why the Rudd government, as we speak, is anxious to get the CPRS legislation through the parliament before the Copenhagen conference in December. This is indeed a great report. I like to refer to it as the George report because the chair of the committee put her stamp on it— 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —Hear, hear! 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —as the member for Fowler knows so well. If you do not believe me, you can look at the tremendous media interest that has been generated following the tabling of this report on Monday evening. It is quite extraordinary. I begin by highlighting the Sydney Morning Herald from yesterday. Full marks to Marian Wilkinson, the environmental editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, who did such an excellent job in reporting extensively on page 1. If you go over to page 7 and look under the headlines, you see ‘Councils “damned” on coastal plans’, ‘Beachfront properties may not get cover’, ‘Coalmine canaries face extinction in fatal trap’, ‘Another sting in the tail of mosquito-borne viruses’ and ‘Flood risk multiplies as the seas rise’. Full marks to Fairfax and the Sydney Morning Herald for doing such a great job in reporting it to those of us who come from Sydney and New South Wales. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—I am sure the honourable member does not intend that to be a prop! 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —It is not intended to be a prop, but I will give credit where credit is due. On page 1 again, this time of the Age—Fairfax again. I have never seen anything like this. This really points to the substance of the report: ‘$2bn threat from rising oceans’ by Adam Morton and Peter Ker. The report warns of Western Port damage. If you turn to page 6 you get substance: ‘Running the rule over risk’, ‘Rising to the challenge: sea level rise impacts in Victoria’, ‘Councils at risk over coastal projects’, ‘Emission cuts “well short of a safe result”‘, ‘Exotic disease risk rises’ and ‘Call to set new deadline for treaty’. This is fantastic media coverage and will go a long way to educating the public. It does not stop there. I have to give credit to News Ltd. On page 1 of the Australian— 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —There are more? 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —Yes, there are more! In ‘Beachfront blitz to curb development’ Andrew Fraser starts off by sending a very powerful message across Australia: A Federal parliamentary report has flagged new powers that would allow Canberra to block what it sees as inappropriate beachfront developments. You have only to look at the photo in this newspaper to get some idea, as in the Fairfax press, how serious this is. It goes on to say: The report, tabled yesterday in parliament, says national guidelines should be drawn up for development in sensitive coastal regions, and calls for local councils to operate within these guidelines. It goes on and on. There is some very good reading there too. It does not stop there. I have to give the Canberra Times a commercial, too, because they pick up on the title of our report—”‘Time to act is now’ on coastal climate risks”. David McLennan gives a very comprehensive report into the report of the committee. This report is quite something. If I go to the substance of the report, which is contained in the recommendations—and there are some 47 of them—you will get some idea of the extent and breadth of this report and why it is important to act now. The recommendations are calling on the Australian government to: … commission a study on international coastal zone governance arrangements, policies and programs for addressing coastal climate change impacts, and adaptation strategies. The completed study should be made public. I could not agree more with that. At recommendation 2: The Committee notes the importance of mitigation measures in addressing climate change impacts and accordingly recommends that the Australian Government continue to take urgent action to ensure that Australia can best contribute to a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. I must applaud Dr Mal Washer, the member for Moore, who has really put his back into this report in getting a message through to our political opponents. I am sure he is playing a very important educational role, because it would be wonderful if we could get a bipartisan result to our CPRS legislation—which, as I referred to earlier, is being debated in the chamber as I speak—before we go to Copenhagen. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —We are working on it. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —I am very grateful to the member who says that they are working on it, because the science is in no doubt. For those odd members in the other place who are just very selective in looking at the temperatures of the globe over the last decade instead of looking at what has happened over the last 100 years against a background of the rising CO2 emissions, this is so disingenuous and clearly has no support from the rational scientists. The committee’s recommendations go on to make it clear that the government has to increase its investment in coastal based climate change research. Recommendation 4 states: The Committee recommends that the coastal zone component of the National Climate Change Science Framework and proposed National Climate Change Science strategy be clearly identified by the proposed high level coordination group and involve key coastal stakeholders. In recommendation 5 the committee goes on to recommend that the Department of Climate Change continue to fund research, which is so important, to establish the wave climate around the coasts so as to identify those locations most at risk from wave erosion and to examine how the wave climate nationally interacts with the varying landform types. The committee recommends at recommendation 6: … that the Australian Government continue funding under the Climate Change Adaptation Skills for Professionals Program. In addition, the Australian Government should liaise with tertiary institutions to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately skilled coastal planners and engineers. The committee recommends that the government establish a coastal zone research network with the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, and that it complete a coastal zone research plan. Further, the committee recommended that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government: … undertake a study into the human and resourcing needs of local governments to effectively plan for and adapt to the impacts of climate change. And that: this study be carried out in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association and the National Sea Change Taskforce. This is terribly important. I do not really think that the local governments around our country understand the magnitude and the implications for them. At recommendation 11, the committee recommends: … that the Australian Government establish a National Coastal Zone Database to improve access to and consistency of information relevant to coastal zone adaptation. The report goes on with further very important recommendations. At recommendation 17: The Committee recommends that the Department of Climate Change, in collaboration with the Queensland Government, CSIRO and Indigenous communities in the Torres Strait, undertake a major study into the vulnerability of the Torres Strait to the impacts of climate change and provide assistance in the development of an adaptation plan. The committee, at recommendation 19, further recommends: that the Australian Government request the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into the projected impacts of climate change and related insurance matters, with a particular focus on: and this is terribly important— insurance coverage of coastal properties, given the concentration of Australia’s population and infrastructure along the coast estimates of the value of properties potentially exposed to this risk insurance affordability, availability and uptake existing and emerging gaps in insurance coverage … the need for a clear definition of the circumstances under which an insurance claim is payable due to storm surge/inundation, landslip/erosion and sea level rise, as well as due to permanent submersion of some or all of the land … This is a very substantial recommendation, and the Productivity Commission will certainly have its work cut out dealing with all that. There is a further recommendation that requires the Building Code of Australia to employ cyclone building codes and revise them with the objective of increasing resilience to climate change. The report further states: Noting the gap in research on legal issues and climate change impacts on the coastal zone, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government request that the Australian Law Reform Commission undertake an urgent inquiry into this area, with particular focus on— the clarification of liability issues. And it goes on. Recommendation 26 states: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government: expand the list of national priority areas identified under the Caring for our Country program to include climate change impacts on biodiversity Recommendation 29 recommends that the Australian government: continue working with the Queensland Government and local councils under the existing Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement to improve land use planning in the catchment And further, very importantly: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government urgently commission a detailed climate change vulnerability assessment for Kakadu National Park, in consultation with the park’s traditional owners and other stakeholders and drawing on the results of the ‘first pass’ National Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of the park. Importantly, the committee recommends that the government: … work through the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and in consultation with Birds Australia and other stakeholders to implement a National Shorebirds Protection Strategy. And further, that the government also: … work with the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and other stakeholders to develop an action plan to: ensure that coastal buffers, coastal habitat corridors and high ecological value areas are identified and included in Commonwealth, state and local government management processes Time, the enemy, is going to beat me here. But I encourage anyone who is taking an interest in this to go through the whole 47 recommendations, because they are ample testament to how serious and important this issue is. As it says on page 1 of this report, ‘The time to act is now.’ This is a most important challenge facing our government and, indeed, the world. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—I thank the honourable member for Lowe. Before calling the member for Dunkley, I would just remind all honourable members of the provisions of standing order 64, which provide that no member is to be referred to by his or her name. 11425 16:43:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —I follow the member for Lowe in this debate on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts called Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. I do not need to read out all the recommendations of the report; he has done that for me. So for people who are listening or who are interested in reading about the recommendations, the member for Lowe has done us all a service, and I thank him for that. I hope to shed some light on some of the recommendations. But, first of all, I commend the committee for its work. I had the good fortune of chairing this committee in an earlier incarnation and I recognise the bipartisan approach that was embraced by the members on the committee, particularly those who have now been elevated. The member for Throsby and I shared many a committee hearing and inquiry where we looked at things including sustainable cities; how we embed sustainability in our way of life, in business, in commerce; and how we provide reliable information for consumers and the business community to make wise purchases. Many good hours of work went into some very meaningful recommendations. What does not always happen, though, is the action that should flow from these committee reports. This report highlights earlier inquiries along the same lines essentially coming to a very similar conclusion—that is, the need for coordination, cooperation and collaboration between levels of government and government agencies, and taking a more strategic approach to the management and care of this very important part of our continent and landscape, the zones where we live where there is a lot commerce and lot of agriculture. That is a consistent theme running through the House of Representatives standing committee reports Management of the Australian coastal zone in 1980 and The injured coastline: protection of the coastal environment in 1991, and the 1993 report from the Resource Assessment Commission, Coastal zone inquiry: final report. It was not until the Howard government was elected in 1996 that we had a coordinated approach to coastal management. I know it well; I helped prepare the provision of the Coasts and Clean Seas initiative that sought to highlight the pressures on our coastline. That was born in large part out of my own experience on the Mornington Peninsula, where we are often concerned that the coastline is loved to within an inch of its life and could be loved to death. A lot of work has gone on through very many committed community organisations and the local council to revegetate, restore and rehabilitate the coastal area. The biggest threat to the coast is often its own popularity. In the community that I represent we are host to the largest remnant coastal vegetation in greater Melbourne—that strip line from Eel Race Road, running all the way down to Long Island, an area which is largely the Seaford foreshore. It is very precious and very important, and it is well recognised as a priority within our community. Embracing the best that all of us have to offer is the essence of this report. This report adds another pressure to act, and that is the impact of climate change. It comes as no surprise that some of the remarks are perhaps a little less gracious than they could be in the climate change debate currently going on in the parliament and what action we can take—and that has relevance to this report. The report recognises that inundation, the risk of rising sea levels, the viciousness of storm events and sea surges—not to mention where they may combine into a horrific cacophony of devastation—have an awful impact on coastal areas. Some of the locations that have been identified as being at risk include yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, and my own, the Mornington Peninsula. We need to make sure, though, that this is not just a bolt-on body of work—which, sadly, we see too often with the Rudd government. We are having a debate at the moment about cities policy. Those who have been here for any length of time would know that I have been all over that like a fat kid on a Smartie, if I can put it that way, for some time. I instigated and led the sustainable cities work, where again the emphasis was on inculcating this thinking into all the systems and decision making of government, not just bolting it on as an afterthought or as a feature piece. This is the concern that I have with many of the population pressure policy approaches, let us call them, of the current government, and the worry I have here. You could set up an agency and have a very visible post-it note response to this challenge but see very little change in the way decisions are made. That is the risk. This report, like the ones before it, says that kind of approach would be tokenistic and largely ineffective, and what is needed is a more coordinated, collaborative and integrated approach, a strategic approach that involves agencies and institutions, all levels of government and individual citizens in a way that sees a process of change and action rather than the odd event here and there that might be good press but does not actually address the challenges that this report outlines. That is the risk—that this good body of work will just be picked up and dealt with like safety was 20 or 30 years ago, where you would go into some companies and they would say, ‘Safety’s important to us; we’ve got a safety officer.’ That was dragged out there as a very visible demonstration of their interest. We have all learnt that that is not how it works, that safety is everybody’s business, and we have seen the changes that resulted from that awakening. This is the same thing here. We can have a very visible agency or effort that orbits everything else that goes on within government and not actually see any change to the day-to-day management and operation of the government, of the allocation of resources, of how investments funded by the taxpayer are chosen and implemented and of the support that is needed for private citizens when they making their contribution. The other risk we have is that we may convince the Australian public that doing one thing will fix this problem. I fear that with some of the debate on the ETS—or the CPRS, as it is termed by this government—it is thought that somehow the government getting what it wants will resolve this problem. That extraordinarily simplistic and misguided message is not one we should be putting out into the community, because it basically relieves everybody of the contribution they need to make because of the belief that somehow this economic instrument that provides for the trading of emissions permits in a cap-and-trade system will solve this problem. I was concerned that my friend and neighbour the member for Isaacs, Mr Dreyfus, with whom I often share a podium at citizenship ceremonies, offered a doorstop contribution yesterday where he was asked the question: How much would a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 reduce sea levels? He was on good ground to start with. He said: We have to start now. We have to get on with the job of reducing emissions. I do not disagree with anything so far. But then he was pressed further: How much would a five per cent reduction reduce sea levels? It was not ‘relieve the increase in sea levels’; it was, ‘How much would a five per cent reduction reduce sea levels?’ My friend and colleague the member for Isaacs said: It will reduce sea levels. So a five per cent reduction in Australia under the CPRS will reduce sea levels around the globe! Why wouldn’t you want a piece of that? But what utter nonsense! A five per cent reduction in Australians’ emissions will have a microscopic impact on the increase of sea level. How on earth it will reduce sea levels is beyond me. I respect the member for Isaacs. He has been a part of this inquiry, but he must have had a brain-fade at that point to claim that a five per cent reduction under the CPRS will actually reduce sea levels. The questioner thought that was amusing, because the questioner went on and said: Do you know by how much? Rather than quit while he was behind, the member for Isaacs went further and said: There’s a range within which it will reduce sea levels and doing it down to the millimetre in fact is not possible. The questioner said: Will it be a couple of millimetres? On it went about what the reduction will be. It is unfortunate that some are taking that message out to the community. Honourable members interjecting— 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr BILLSON —He is a very intelligent man who I have some time and respect for, but to say that a five per cent reduction from a CPRS in Australia is going to reduce global sea levels, in an act of biblical proportions, is something that he may well regret. I hope he clarifies that remark when he gets to speak on this report later. My point is, though, that there is no single action that will bring about the improved resilience and sustainability of our coastal environments, that there are challenges we face and that there is no silver bullet that will address that—certainly not a five per cent CPRS reduction. The other thing that needs to be recognised is that there are some challenges that need to be worked on further, and there are a number of recommendations that call for further reviews and further work. Some comments have pointed to local government not knowing quite what is going on, and I am pleased that, at least in the communities that I represent, there is a high level of alertness around this topic among the municipal councils that I am involved with. In fact, in other areas throughout Victoria, particularly in Gippsland and the like, they are quite activated by it. Individuals are seeing development opportunities denied them because of concerns about rising sea levels. My friend Greg Sugars, the Chief Executive of Opteon Property Group, which is Australia’s largest independent property valuer, has released a statement in response to this report being released, and he quite rightly points to the fact that in the commercial area, particularly if the recommendation about insurance schemes led by the Commonwealth and other areas of what I would call foggy law are addressed, there is a real need to engage the professions. Even if you had a nationally inspired insurance scheme, how you would value and price the risk to have policies available and then price the harm or damage that might activate a claim against those policies is very uncharted territory. Mr Sugars points out that his company and his alliance of property valuers around Australia do nearly a quarter of a million valuations per year for mortgage lenders. That valuation and the certainty that it provides gives comfort to lenders in offering finance, as mortgages, to homebuyers. Those clients will be watching very closely to see what happens to the value of properties and what impact that will have on the ability to attract finance in coastal areas. He emphasises: One of the key issues will be to provide accurate advice on values of the potentially affected properties, especially if the government looks at a compulsory land insurance scheme. Valuers will also need to familiarise themselves with any changing planning implications and carefully assess any future insurance considerations when undertaking replacement cost exercises. In some cases a recommendation is that replacement not proceed where there is a high degree of vulnerability as assessed by some of the tools that are recommended in this report. In closing, I welcome this report and found it a really interesting read, capturing a number of issues that emphasise the need for sustained, coordinated, collaborative action. There is no single solution to remedy these concerns. I have great admiration for the committee and the members that generated the report. I had the good fortune of working with them over a number of years and I recognise the diligence with which they go about their work. My last point is, though, that this is something that needs hard work and rigour, not headlines and statements of political rhetoric. It actually needs someone to put their shoulder to the wheel. I am confident that the coalition is very interested in this. As part of our broader strategy to improve the sustainability of our economy and of the built environment, this is very valuable input. I congratulate the committee for its work and look forward to the government’s response, whenever that might be forthcoming. 11429 16:57:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —The preference of Australians for coastal living is borne out by any analysis of the spread of our population. As the report notes, 80 per cent of Australians live in the coastal zones around the country, with over 700,000 living close to the sea and less than six metres above sea level. Protecting Australia’s coastal zone in a changing environment is indeed one of the greatest challenges facing our nation. As the report states on its titlepage, the time to act is now. This report makes the case for urgent action and details the first steps to be taken for us to begin to appreciate the full extent of the risks faced by those Australians living in coastal communities and a great many of the 16 million Australians living around our coastline. A feature of the recommendations in this report is the number which call for further research and data gathering. In looking at the impact of climate change on our coast, there is one thing we know for certain—that is, we need to know a lot more about the factors which can impact on our coastal areas. So it is not surprising to see that from recommendation 1, which calls for a study of coastal zone governance arrangements for addressing coastal climate change impact and adaptation strategies, the major emphasis of this report is on the need for further research. Recommendation 3 calls on the government to increase its investment in coastal based climate change research. Recommendation 5 calls for continued funding for wave climate research. Recommendation 9 calls on the government to establish a coastal zone research network. Recommendation 10 calls for a study of human and resource needs for local government to plan for and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Recommendation 11 calls on the government to set up a national coastal zone database. Recommendation 12 calls for further national coastal vulnerability assessments. Recommendation 13 calls for research into the relationship between climate change and disease. Please be assured I will not go through all 47 recommendations. Recommendation 16 calls for a comprehensive national assessment of coastal infrastructure vulnerability to inundation from sea level rise and extreme sea level events. Recommendation 18 calls for a major study into the vulnerability of the Torres Strait Islands. Recommendation 19 calls for a Productivity Commission inquiry into insurance of coastal properties. Recommendation 25 calls for the Australian Bureau of Statistics to measure the numbers of tourist demographic changes in coastal communities. Recommendation 30 calls for an urgent detailed climate change vulnerability assessment for Kakadu National Park. Recommendation 35 calls for a national repository identifying Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage sites in vulnerable coastal areas, and recommendation 42 calls for the expansion of the national coastal zone interface. So it can be seen that this report sensibly raises more questions than it answers. The calls for research and ongoing monitoring are the key to a focused approach to planning to adapt and deal with the impact of climate change on the coast. Those further recommendations seeking to prepare management plans can only be successful if the research groundwork has been done. We cannot afford to get it wrong when it comes to planning and implementing our response to the coastal impacts of climate change. So the research called for in this report is urgent and vital as it will form the basis for our strategies to deal with the inevitable change to our coast and its impact on the great proportion of our population. When we look at the key coastal issues, we can see the danger of merely looking at the overall picture. We can agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate of a global sea rise of 80 centimetres by 2100, but this must be interpreted in the light of local research. We know that we can expect major impacts and, as much as we can, set them out, as has been done in the 2007 national climate change and adaptation framework, which is quoted in the report as follows: The coastal zone is vulnerable to sea level rise, increased sea surface temperature, increased storm intensity and frequency, ocean acidification and changes to rainfall, run-off, wave size and direction and ocean currents. The combined influence of sea level rise, storm surge and storm events, including cyclones, may pose severe localised threats and result in damage from shoreline erosion, saltwater inundation, flooding and hyper-velocity winds. Increasing sea surface temperatures can lead to the spread of marine pests and changes in fish stock and bleaching of coral reefs. That is a prediction that makes the biblical plagues of Egypt sound mild in comparison. In the face of such predictions, you would expect the warning to go out for everyone to head for the hills. But we cannot expect our love for coastal living to be easily dampened. Indeed, we may even expect that the trend to coastal living will increase. And that makes it essential for governments at all levels to plan for the impact of climate change on our coastal areas. The first step in that planning process is, of course, to have access to the most detailed research data. We cannot rely on vague predictions; we need hard data and expert analysis if we are to address the challenges posed by climate change. That is why the emphasis in this report is on that research. As the committee found in its visits across Australia, in some areas we are already facing the consequences of rising sea levels and storm events. The most serious of these can be seen in the Torres Strait Islands and it is not hard to see the potential impact on such areas as Kakadu National Park. Closer to home storm erosion on the New South Wales Central Coast has exposed more than unstable shores. The legal consequences and liabilities of individuals and governments require urgent clarification as we can expect more widespread events to cause havoc in coastal communities. Faced with population pressure on our coastal areas, the planning process at all levels of government will be greatly strained. Given the greater research data that this report calls for, we should expect a greater appreciation of the stress placed on coastal areas by development. There can be no argument for allowing inappropriate development in areas at risk from the impacts of climate change. It will be hard enough dealing with the costly and disputed consequences of climate change events on existing private properties and public assets. This is a landmark report. It places the issue of the impact of climate change on Australia’s coastal zones squarely on the agenda and it makes it plain that the time to act is now. I must add that it has been a privilege to serve as a member of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts during the course of such an important inquiry. This afternoon, I do wish to pay tribute to a woman who I admire greatly, the committee chair, the member for Throsby, Jennie George. I know that this is an issue close to her heart and one that she has a passion for. As opposition parliamentary secretary with responsibility for coastal development in the previous parliament, the member for Throsby definitely did the lion’s share of the groundwork for Labor’s policy. From this background she has grasped the opportunity to place the issue of the coastal impact of climate change on the national agenda and I know she will continue to press for the implementation of the recommendations contained in this report. She is a very strong woman as you know, Deputy Speaker Moylan. I will be pleased to give her my full support in that endeavour. I thank Dr Mal Washer, the member for Moore and the deputy chair, and all committee members for this outstanding bipartisan report. I would also add my thanks to the committee secretariat, especially Dr Kate Sullivan who has been with the committee from the start—you have done an excellent job, Kate, and deserve the congratulations of all committee members. A report on a subject of this complexity demands an understanding of the issues as well as the ability to put the issues into a perspective which backs its recommendations with sound arguments. In the course of this inquiry the committee has taken submissions from a whole range of people involved with or affected by the impact of climate change. Some were distinguished experts in their field who presented a clear case for action by government. Others were ordinary Australians with the foresight and concern for the environment to passionately put their case. Some are already working on solutions while others have done much to improve community awareness and I offer congratulations to all of them. Throughout the community as well as the committee there exists the awareness and commitment to take action on the impact of climate change on Australia’s coastal zone. The ball is now in the government’s court and again, as the subtitle of this wonderful report states, the time to act is now. 11431 17:09:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —Even though I was not a member of the committee, I have elected to speak on this report today because of the direct relevance it has to my electorate of Canning. Evidence was taken from the City of Mandurah, which has a fragile coastline and extensive low-lying waterways, and also the Shire of Waroona, which has coastline as well as very fragile lakes and world heritage listed Ramsar wetlands. As has already been said by many, this report—Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now—looks at better ways to manage our coastal zone and makes a series of recommendations designed to help future-proof our coastal communities. This is very relevant to the area that I have already described. Importantly, many of the committee’s recommendations look at how the three tiers of government—federal, state and local—can work together to come up with viable solutions to these long-term planning issues. Australia is a country that is primarily built around its coast, with 80 per cent of our population living in what is classified as the coastal zone. In Western Australia, much of our coastal housing and infrastructure is at risk of storm surge and other severe weather events as our coast changes over time. According to Department of Climate Change figures, up to 94,000 buildings may be affected, coastal flooding may increase and beach erosion will continue, not to mention the impact that climate change may have on other infrastructure, such as road and rail. During the inquiry, the committee visited Mandurah in the electorate of Canning and toured the coastal suburbs of Silver Sands, Halls Head and Falcon, amongst others. Mandurah has the highest growth rate of any regional city in Australia, with an anticipated annual growth of 3.39 per cent. The population is expected to grow to almost 100,000 by 2021. The city of Mandurah has a strong record of environmental protection and addressing climate change. In 1999, Mandurah joined the Cities for Climate Protection. In 2000, it set a target to reduce corporate and community greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2010. In 2001, the city hosted the 1st Western Australian Coastal Conference. In 2008, it announced that it would undertake an assessment, which was completed in 2009, of the potential risk to Mandurah’s coastal zone. As you can see, Mandurah has certainly been involved in this issue, which is quite relevant to that city. The Mayor, Paddi Creevey, who I congratulate on her re-election in the council elections a couple of weeks ago, and her CEO, Mark Newman, should be commended on their commitment to productivity. They have enhanced disaster mitigation preparedness and response plans for the possible event of future coastal natural disasters. I understand from reading the report and the council’s submission that the committee met with representatives of the City of Mandurah to discuss the impact that changes to our coastline will have on urban development and planning in the future. Over time many suburbs in Mandurah will be affected particularly those along the coast, around the canal developments and the near estuary. Limited flooding of the foreshore already occurs in Mandurah when higher tides coincide with storm surges. A long-term rise in sea levels may also cause further beach erosion, particularly in suburbs like Silver Sands, from which I have had a number of representations over the years and where the beach has noticeably reduced over the past few decades. As I mentioned earlier, the City of Mandurah has already looked into many of these issues through its study, which identified and prioritised the risks for Mandurah’s coastal zones and waterways, in turn allowing the city to create contingency management plans through its climate change adaptation plan. The committee noted in particular the impact that rising sea levels will have on the extensive canal developments in several suburbs in Mandurah, including Wannanup and Halls Head, as the homes there are, by their nature, very low-lying. More generally, concerns were raised about the close proximity of some of the canal development to Ramsar wetlands. I recall the row that occurred over the Creery Wetlands and their ability to be developed. In my electorate of Canning, the Peel-Yalgorup wetlands are listed as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar treaty. As a member of Friends of Ramsar Action Group for the Yalgorup Lakes Environment, which has the acronym FRAGYLE, I am keenly aware of the sensitive issues facing our wetlands and am determined that should we find the right balance between housing development in such areas as Preston Beach on the one hand and protecting the flora and fauna of our unique wetlands on the other. The Yalgorup lakes are the home of a very ancient and primitive form of life, the stromatolites that are found in the lakes. They need all the protection that they can get, because they are a very ancient form of life. The committee recommends the development of an intergovernmental agreement formally endorsed by COAG to determine the roles and responsibilities of the three tiers of government. This is vital to ensure that we create an effective and cohesive coastal zone management system building on from the foundation work that has already been conducted by a number of different councils and governments across the country. I would like to endorse the committee’s recommendation for an urgent clarification of liability issues associated with private property holders, public authorities, risk disclosure and whether there should be a broader indemnification of local government authorities in relation to coastal hazards. This clarification will go a long way to allaying the concerns raised by many stakeholders throughout the committee’s investigation and will create a solid base for the determination of future responsibilities. In conclusion, I welcome the recommendations of the committee report and look now to the federal government to act and provide a coordinated approach to addressing the impact of climate change on our coastal zones by providing information sharing and access to funding for further research and planning to be undertaken. However, I do not subscribe to some of the hysteria surrounding the rising sea levels that ensues in some of the debates, because, as has been pointed out, what we are talking about in the first stage is very minimal, incremental increases of levels. However, over a long period of time we expect that there will be effects of climate change, as there is global warming, that will affect low-lying areas. I am not suggesting to people, particularly in my electorate, that they devalue their homes, nor am I trying to cause panic in terms of their titles because there is going to be a Noah’s ark type event in the near future, but I am pleased to see that the city of Mandurah, representing the majority of the coastal community in my electorate, have been so proactive in seeking to future-proof developments. I congratulate them on their work so far. Finally, as others have said today, I await Minister Wong’s response to the committee’s recommendations in due course. 11433 17:17:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I welcome the introduction to the parliament of this report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. I do not serve as a member on the committee, but I am very keen to speak to this report because, representing the southern bay-side suburbs of Brisbane, on one of the most beautiful stretches of water we have in this country, Moreton Bay, I am very concerned about some of the analysis and information that has been provided in this report about the impact on my electorate and the businesses and residents within its boundaries. When we see information regarding rising sea levels, we are concerned, but there is also clearly a concern regarding the increase in extreme weather events and the impact of high tides and storm surges on any businesses, property and residences along any part of our coastline, particularly in Queensland. That is certainly of concern, so I welcome the committee’s deliberations in this regard and certainly support the recommendations and thank the committee members for their efforts. As has been said on many occasions in this place, the impact of climate change is one of the greatest challenges that we will see within our lifetime. If we as a government, as a community, indeed as a global community, do not start to address some of the impacts of climate change, the reality will be not just a document this thick; the reality will be the impact on people’s lives and their livelihoods. I therefore welcome, as I said, this very comprehensive report. I welcome first and foremost that there is a great deal of analysis, information and scientific evidence contained within the report that I hope will, once and for all, convince those who are sceptical or reluctant to take action on this matter that we cannot continue that debate any longer, that we must move on and start to take serious action as a parliament and as a country. In that vein, I urge all members of this parliament to support the proposal of the Minister for Climate Change and Water for a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. What is critical about this report, as I have already mentioned, is that it talks about two key impacts which I think will be significant for my electorate of Bonner. One is rising sea levels. We see that climate change is impacting on sea levels and will continue to do so. The bayside suburbs are very old and very well established. So, whilst we may not have the issues around future development that exist in other parts of the Queensland coastline, those well-established communities depend on their land being stable and not being impacted on by rising sea levels. It is also a very beautiful part of Brisbane because it contains the river and several major creek catchments—the most notable being Bulimba Creek and Tingalpa Creek. All of these creeks and the river in our part of the electorate are tidal, so high tides increasing flooding and the combination of heavy rainfall and storm surges have a very direct and real impact on many residents in my electorate. First and foremost this report has given us some very clear information that not only spells out the consequences of what we are doing now but also talks about ways in which we can attempt to mitigate climate change and protect people in the future. Indeed, even in the last week we saw the impacts of extreme weather events. Brisbane, being a subtropical city, is obviously well known for its rainfall and its greenery. Up until last Monday, we had gone for 138 days without rain—a fairly significant event in Brisbane’s climatic calendar. That dry period was broken by an incredibly severe storm on Monday night. I know it was severe, because my husband—with other partners—had flown back after attending the Prime Minister’s wife’s lunch for Pink Ribbon Day. They landed in Brisbane at 6.30 and sat in a plane on the tarmac for 2½ hours because of the severity of the storm and lightning strikes, which prevented staff from going out, getting baggage and taxiing the plane in. Not only did I suffer personally an extreme weather event by having a fairly frustrated husband on the other end of the phone; it disrupted the running of the airport quite dramatically. Planes were delayed. People travelling to Sydney had to find overnight accommodation because of the curfew. The social and psychological effects as well as the economic effect of these events were clearly witnessed as recently as this Monday. I am very pleased that this report provides not just good analysis and information but very clear recommendations for the way forward. It does so in three key areas. There are 47 recommendations, and I also will not read them out. That number of recommendations indicates not just the seriousness of the problem but also the commitment of the committee to trying to tackle this problem in a very real and detailed manner. The first part of the report and its recommendations deals with the need—indeed, desire and necessity—for national leadership on this issue. The impact of climate change is of national interest and therefore as a nation we need leadership to deal with it. I am very pleased that there are a vast range of recommendations that deal with this issue: a COAG intergovernmental agreement on the coastal zone; a national coastal zone policy; the establishment of a national coastal advisory council; the establishment of a national coastal zone database; the promotion of 2012 as the Year of the Coast; the establishment of a national catchment coast marine management program; and, I think very importantly, funding support for the Australian coastal alliance in providing national information and communication information and interface between research organisations, local government authorities and other coastal stakeholders. I guess they come across purely as words, policies and advisory bodies at this point in time, but we all know that leadership comes from good coordination, good facilitation and the ability to bring everybody together—all of the stakeholders and interest groups—and to get everybody working together to deal with this issue. These are not just words on paper, they are very real and important developments that I think will help to resolve this issue. Another thing that is very important about these recommendations is that not only do they talk about national leadership but also working with the stakeholders at all levels of government. Coming from a local government background I understand full well the massive impact of planning decisions, made by councils up and down the coast of Australia, on local communities. In my own area very significant wetland areas in Hemmant and Tingalpa are subject to development. There are flooding issues, there are issues of tidal impact—the floods are impacted by tides—we are right on the border of a Ramsar site, Moreton Bay and Moreton Island, so every single decision by the council to clear or to develop land within those areas has a massive impact not just on the property itself but also on neighbouring properties. Once again leadership is needed to start to get councils to think strategically, not one development application at a time and certainly not simply giving regard to the existing zoning. It is important for them to have the information they need to get an understanding of what they need to plan for in terms of future changes. I also see that there are a lot of recommendations regarding coastal climate change and its impact on people and their livelihoods. In this report many speakers talk about issues around liability and insurance, genuine issues that we are going to have to tackle and that will have great impact on people living in these coastal communities, on the insurance industry and on our economic prosperity. At last we have the documentation to give us the information that will provide some policy development on this matter. In terms of the impact on residences and issues of liability insurance it is probably not as significant for my electorate, but I think the member for Bowman will be very interested in those issues and the impact of rising sea levels. He has many island communities and many canal estates in his electorate. I would say that he will grab this report with gusto and encouraging whatever action can be taken to protect his local residents as well. From my perspective I am concerned about the environmental impacts that have been outlined in this report. I have talked about creek catchments, the magnificent jewel in the crown of Moreton Island which is within my electorate, and many of the catchment areas like Hemmant and Tingalpa, the areas around Lota Creek and Wynnum Creek. The mangroves that run along the bay are very important and I am pleased to see that there are recommendations that I believe will go a long way to protecting those very precious areas. A proposal to amend the EPBC Act to address the cumulative impacts of coastal development, as I said not just isolated development applications, but the cumulative impact of allowing all the land that is currently zoned for development to be redeveloped. What will its impact be in terms of runoff, flooding and on our flood plains? An increase in the number of coastal wetlands classified as Ramsar sites and ensuring that all Ramsar listed wetlands have effective management plans. I believe that we have good management plans for Moreton Island and Moreton Bay, but we need to be vigilant about making sure that they are adhered to and that the recommendations and actions within those plans are implemented. I also commend the work of one of my local environment groups, particularly Daryl Evans, who runs the Hemmant and Tingalpa Wetlands Conservation Group. He is very diligent in his commitment to protecting these wetlands and he is very diligent in providing me and others with significant information regarding these issues. Indeed, Daryl has been providing articles and information about rising sea levels for a number of years now. I am pleased to see—and I am sure he will be pleased to see—a report coming out of the Australian parliament that reinforces the arguments that he has been presenting. I join with him and will be approaching the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts to have those wetlands considered as a Ramsar site. What is also important is the recommendation that Commonwealth and state natural resources ministers develop an action plan to improve the management of coastal biodiversity, including coastal buffer zones, habitat corridors, nationally consistent coastal and marine biodiversity monitoring and reporting frameworks, and coastal and marine biodiversity regional planning processes that incorporate regional climate change adaptation plans. That was a very long sentence; it is a very long recommendation. But, for the environment of Bonner, it is very significant. Brisbane is the most biodiverse capital city in this country. Its biodiversity comes from its proximity to the mountains of Mount Coot-tha and the Great Dividing Range, from its magnificent river and extensive creek catchments, and of course from it feeding into the beautiful Moreton Bay. If we do not get biodiversity right around our coastal suburbs and regions within the city of Brisbane then the biodiversity of the whole city will indeed be impacted badly. I want to reinforce that recommendation because, whilst it is wordy and may sound confusing, it has very important impacts for the community of Bonner and the city of Brisbane. I once again welcome the committee’s deliberations and appeal most strongly to the parliament and all of its members to understand that we must take action in order for the impacts in this particular report to be mitigated. It is not too late. We need to reduce our emissions if we are going to deal with rising sea levels. We need certainty for businesses and communities, not just those existing ones but those in the future. We certainly need to protect the lives, the livelihoods and the economy of existing and future residents, particularly in Bonner. I commend the report to the House. 11436 17:32:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to speak on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts report Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. Members may be aware that I became part of this committee in November 2008, partway through this inquiry. Even though this has been done previously, I would like to recognise the work of the chair, deputy chair and other members of the committee. I see that we also have present members of the secretariat, and I thank them as well. They were very important to the committee, and I know the chair has acknowledged the work of the secretariat. The continuity of the support and advice that was offered was very valuable to the committee and I thank them for that. The terms of reference for this inquiry were basically the existing policies and programs related to coastal zone management, taking in the catchment-coast-ocean continuum; the environmental impacts of coastal population growth and mechanisms to promote sustainable use of coastal resources; the impact of climate change on coastal areas and strategies to deal with climate change adaptation, particularly in response to project sea level rise; mechanisms to promote sustainable coastal communities; and governance and institutional arrangements for the coastal zone. Given that the Busselton foreshore area is featured on the front page of the report, showing the very serious-sized sandbags, I strongly support the committee’s recommendation that funding continues for research to establish the wave climate around the coast so that we identify those locations most at risk from wave erosion and to examine how the wave climate nationally interacts with varying land form types. This further supports the methodology for vulnerability assessments and the importance of encouraging regional applications from local councils like Busselton in my electorate. For a shire like Busselton, with considerable pressures on the council from its very rapidly growing population and land use intensification, as well as the associated continuous demands for additional services and local infrastructure, the committee’s recommendation that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government should undertake a study into the human and resourcing needs of local governments is particularly relevant. We constantly heard in public hearings and during site visits all around Australia about the limited resources available to many local coastal councils and the challenges of shared natural boundaries such as the Peel-Harvey Inlet, which is shared by the Mandurah City Council and the Murray Shire Council. There is a need to coordinate resources to enhance Australia’s disaster mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery arrangements in the event of possible major coastal disasters through a grants program, taking into account the need for improved data on coastal disaster risk assessment and vulnerable coastal sites. There is a need for improved access and evacuation routes for coastal communities, improved coastal community awareness of and resilience to natural disasters, and improved coordination of coastal disaster mitigation arrangements with reviews of the Australian building code and land use planning policies. Very importantly, there is a need for improved early warning systems for coastal areas in the event of storm surge, erosion, flooding, extreme sea level events, and the recognition of one of the greatest resources we have, the surf lifesaving group network, is an integral part of emergency planning and responses. This is extremely relevant for coastal communities in my electorate. As I said, Busselton is one of those, one with beach erosion issues for local property owners and for the council itself, with low-lying populated areas, a Ramsar wetland backing onto a canal development, as well as serious challenges in relation to existing and future planning and further coastal developments. This was referred to in the report following the committee’s visit to my electorate and taking into account the issues raised on site by Busselton shire representatives. I quote from point 5.117 in the report: In terms of housing developments encroaching on coastal Ramsar sites, the committee was particularly concerned about a canal development in the Port Geographe area in south-west Western Australia located within close proximity to the Vasse-Wonnerup Ramsar site. As Professor Short commented, some of the big issues at Mandurah are those canal estates, and at Port Geographe, which are not only very low-lying but also cutting into acid sulphate soils and with all sorts of other issues. This merely begins to explain the key emerging issues of insurance, planning and legal issues relating to the coastal zone, matters frequently raised by those participating in the inquiry. The key issues are who is liable, who knew what and who knew it when. Coastal councils controlling public property and local private property owners are very concerned about planning and building codes and the issues of liability and responsibility as well as the insurance and risk issues, the availability and the affordability, the need for very clear definitions of how and when an insurance claim is payable due to storm surge and inundation, due to landslip, to erosion and combined effects of sea inundation and riverine flooding. The possible withdrawal of insurance for certain risks or regions, as noted in the report, will place increased burdens on governments and taxpayers, which in part supports the need for a nationally consistent COAG action plan on the coastal zone. Given the consistently expressed concerns of local governments and individual landholders with regard to liability, I strongly encourage the minister and the government to address recommendation 23 in the report that the Australian government request that the Australian Law Reform Commission undertake an urgent inquiry particularly focusing on clarification of liability issues with regard to public authorities acting or not acting on a legal basis to deal with protection, redesign, rebuild, elevate, relocate and retreat regarding possible coastal hazards; clarification of liability issues for private property holders who act to protect their properties from the impacts of climate change—something the committee witnessed in my electorate; legal issues for existing development; mechanisms to ensure harmonised local and state government mandatory risk disclosure to the public; and one very serious issue for all local governments, whether there should be broader indemnification of local government authorities. I cannot stress enough the importance of this issue to the minister and government. We came across several areas, of which Cottesloe was an example, where there was just a road between existing housing and the beach itself that may be subject to storm surge and weather events. In that particular area we had a range of government services underneath the road such as water and sewerage. In the event of those particular services being removed by way of erosion to do with a storm surge or weather event, the houses would be unable to be inhabited as a result of not having access to those services. Who is liable, who is responsible and who pays? They are the issues that came up on a regular basis and will continue to come up. The report noted the need for ongoing ABS data, particularly for regional areas like my electorate, and the need for very accurate and consistent information. This is partly what those coastal areas need, particularly local councils. They need consistent information on long-term demographic trends to assist in coastal zone planning and management. The Busselton Shire Council is front and centre in this issue, as it is experiencing continued growth. Planning and design of new infrastructure will also require additional capacity building in coastal local governments. Coastal communities of all sizes, whether they are a small community or a large one, will benefit from awareness campaigns enlisting the continuing membership and support of the extensive network of volunteers. Nominating 2012 as the year of the coast is an ideal mechanism to increase coastal zone management issues and awareness. Individuals and their genuinely interested and engaged communities are often the key to practical and simple on-the-ground work that is so critical in natural resource management strategies. This would include coastal stakeholders, volunteer groups and the broader general community. Ongoing information provided by the national coastal zone database should include environmental data management and coastal zone planning information. A key recommendation of the report is to develop an intergovernmental agreement to be endorsed by COAG which would define the roles and responsibilities of local, state and federal governments involved in coastal zone management and establish a national coastal advisory council that would have a key role in providing independent advice to government and, most importantly, ensure that there is very direct community input into national coastal zone policy, planning and management. Much in this report reflects the statement made by Professor Woodroffe but shared by so many Australians whom I met and continue to meet. The Australian coastline represents one of our most iconic treasures, but there is no collective long-term vision for our coast. This report and the government’s response to it will determine whether this is perhaps part of a first step in changing this perception. I will be very interested to see which of the recommendations the minister and the government respond to and when. 11439 17:44:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I must start my contribution to this debate on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts called Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now firstly by acknowledging the fine work of the committee, particularly the chair, Jennie George. She has visited my electorate and knows how important the issues that are raised and the recommendations that are made in this report are to the people of Shortland, the people of Lake Macquarie and the people of Wyong shire. It is a very intense report, covering a wide range of issues, and it puts forward recommendations that I believe can work as a blueprint for governments at all levels into the future. Leadership and direction in this area have been needed for a very long time, and this report gives us that. In my very first speech in this parliament I raised the issue of coastal development and the impact that it has on the electorate that I represent. Shortland electorate is a long, skinny electorate situated between a series of lakes and the ocean. It is one of those electorates that are exceptionally vulnerable when it comes to climate change and rises in the sea level. If we do not act then areas like Shortland will really bear the brunt of that inaction, of our failure to recognise what an important issue this is. The committee met with some representatives from my area. I would first like to concentrate on issues that were raised by Lake Macquarie City Council. I ask Wyong Shire Council to forgive me for not going into the details of their submission but I have a history with Lake Macquarie council; I was actually the Deputy Mayor of Lake Macquarie council and I know intimately the details and the problems that development has created within that council area—issues that pertain to pressures that are being put upon Lake Macquarie council—as well as the fine work that has been done by staff at that council in planning and addressing this important issue. I would like to refer to a document that has been issued by Lake Macquarie council: the Sea level rise policy fact sheet. This fact sheet outlines the impact that sea level rises will have in Lake Macquarie; it looks at the rise in the level of the lake if sea levels rise. Remember I stated that the lake is one side of Shortland electorate and the ocean is on the other side. It will have an enormous impact. In fact, it has been predicted that, if sea levels do rise to the level that is predicted, my office will be under water, as will the whole of Belmont and Swansea. This is based on modelling. I do not think that that is acceptable and the people in my electorate do not think it is acceptable either. We all live in that area because it is such a beautiful area. We live there because it is a coastal area, we live there because of the lake and we live there because of its access to the ocean, but we also know that we have to respect and nurture our environment. The impact of sea level rises on Lake Macquarie will be coastal and foreshore erosion, a retreat of the foreshore, more storms and severer storms that cause enormous damage, and an increased rate of erosion of the beach alignment. We have seen this happen. It will lead to increased flooding, salination of water in creeks and groundwater, increased storm surges and long-term inundation. The ecological impact will include threats to ecological communities unable to adapt to changes in salinity levels and to changes in wetlands and mangrove distributions, and there will be other flora and fauna impacts. There will be damage to public and private infrastructure, it will have an impact on morbidity and mortality rates, it will lead to increased insurance premiums and investment will be needed for a number of climate-change mitigation actions. It is pleasing to see that insurance was one issue that was referred to in recommendation No. 19, which picked up the fact that the projected impacts of climate change will affect insurance coverage on coastal properties. I know that during the severe storms we had in the Hunter in 2007 there was enormous property damage, particularly in the coastal areas. At that time a number of insurance issues arose and that is still the situation—we are still dealing with some of those issues. I am pleased to see recommendation 19 in this report because it deals with an issue that is going to become more and more prevalent as time goes by. Another recommendation I would like to refer to is recommendation 15, which refers to the extensive surf lifesaving network that is in Australia. In Shortland electorate we have five surf lifesaving clubs and they are very mindful of the impact that rising sea levels will have in our area. There have been occasions when some of the surf clubs have been threatened by the impact of rising sea levels and severe events, so I am pleased to see that this report recommends including the Surf Life Saving association in the solution, because they know how important protecting our environment and looking after our coastal areas is in ensuring the ongoing viability of our communities. I would like to turn to a couple of other groups from Shortland electorate which gave evidence to the committee. One was the Catherine Hill Bay Progress Association, which gave evidence about a development that was proposed and approved for that area. Catherine Hill Bay is a unique little coastal village that has been featured in national newspapers as one of the places that people should visit. It is pristine and it really encompasses and retains part of the mining history of the area—a little coal mining town. There was a proposal for extensive development of that area, which would have had impacts on the environment. The development would have led to more erosion, it would have led to problems with extinctions of species and it would have led to enormous pressure being placed on the infrastructure of that area and on other environmental factors. Recently, the Land and Environment Court in New South Wales rejected that application. While we are looking at this report I have to place on record my support for the action taken by the Land and Environment Court. There was a very similar situation with a proposal by the same company, I believe, for the Gwandalan-Summerland Point area. Gwandalan and Summerland Point are two towns of about 1,000 to 2,000 population each, on quite a fragile little peninsular. Development was planned for both those areas but, once again, because of the impact on threatened species and other issues, the Land and Environment Court revoked the planning approval that was given for that area. It is really important to note that one of the recommendations in this report refers to that very issue of ensuring that the proper environmental assessments are conducted. I commend the committee for including that in their report. The Shortland electorate, because of its very nature and its beauty, is constantly under pressure from developers who want to develop the area. I am pleased to see the member for Macquarie sitting next to me. He was a minister for the environment in the New South Wales government. At that time, he was aware of a proposal for extensive development in what is a wetland area. That was not approved. Now there is a proposal for that to be a wetland park and that wetland park will have the Fernleigh track going through it. That has recently received funds from the federal government. It will have walking trails, wetland viewing areas and a plethora of environmentally-friendly activities taking place in that area, and these things will also help preserve the environment. Those are the kinds of activities we need to be promoting. In my first speech, I raised the issue of the Belmont Wetlands and how they were under threat. To see a proposal to restore that area is really pleasing. That proposal will benefit the whole of the area. It will be very, very important for the environment. It is very important that we see that all of these proposals actually take place—the threatened species and the sand dunes—all those things that need to be preserved and enhanced. That links in to this report, Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now, because it is by promoting areas like the Belmont Wetlands that people can see that there are areas like this in amongst the coastal development and the beautiful houses—and people love to live in the area, because of its beauty, as I have already said. We need to have these green areas that can be the lungs of the cities in which we live. It is the type of project that fits in with the recommendations in this report. One of the recommendations is that there be more Ramsar listed wetlands. That is something that I welcome with open arms, because it is all an integral part of ensuring that our coastal zone is protected. I could talk at length about a number of inappropriate developments that have been proposed for the Shortland electorate, but I would like to conclude by saying that this report is a blueprint that will see the development that takes place in coastal areas like mine take into account all the important issues that need to be considered when you are looking at planning the future and ensure that the Shortland electorate—(Time expired) 11441 17:59:00 Sullivan, Jon, MP HVS Longman ALP 1 0 Mr SULLIVAN —I am pleased to rise to take note of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. In doing so, I commend the chair, Jennie George MP; the deputy chair, Dr Mal Washer MP; and the members of that committee that has brought to us such a substantial and worthwhile report. I have to admit from the start that I have had the opportunity only to make a first reading of this report, but I felt it was important that I come into the chamber and make some comments on behalf of my local community. I also acknowledge the great work of the committee secretariat, which has supported them in building this report. The electorate of Longman, which I have the honour and pleasure to represent in this parliament, contains a number of coastal villages. In particular I would like to mention the Pumicestone Passage villages of Toorbul, Donnybrook and Meldale. It also contains the bayside villages of Godwin Beach, Deception Bay and Beachmere. It also contains Bribie Island. The report points out that there are 711,000 dwellings within a three-kilometre range of the coastline less than six metres above sea level and that these are potentially threatened. On Bribie Island, where I live, there is nowhere more than three kilometres from the shoreline or greater than six metres above sea level, so my entire community of 20,000-plus people, not to mention some very nice national parks, is under threat from the effects of global warming and rising ocean levels. The report does not go overboard. It indicates quite modest sea level rises, in my view. However, what it also does is suggest that the sea level rises of themselves are not the main problem. It suggests that it is the more frequent and more severe weather events that are going to create a great deal of the problem for people in those properties. The truth of the matter is that on Bribie Island an occasional king tide will break the seawall on Pumicestone Passage and put salt water on our roadways. We have been able to recognise, from the beginning of my association with the island some quarter of a century ago, beach erosion as a consequence of wild storms. There is regular pumping of replenishment sand from Moreton Bay onto the foreshore to shore it up, and at the moment there is concern—though it has probably died down a little—that Bribie Island itself will break through to Pumicestone Passage to the north, near Caloundra. That is something that the community in Caloundra—particularly in that part of Caloundra—are very concerned about. These things become a little more certain if the scenario that is suggested in this plan, as I read it, comes to fruition. The other thing that I think would be very interesting for people in my state to understand is that this report indicates that Queensland is going to take a disproportionate amount of the hit from a rising sea level. Of those 711,000 properties that I mentioned earlier, it is supposed that one-quarter of a million of those are in Queensland. This, of course, interested me; the report having been released and questions having been answered on it in parliament yesterday, I was able to pick up a Melbourne paper today and see an article in that paper suggesting what areas are potentially going to be worst affected and to open my local newspaper and find not a word. We are the state that is going to be worst affected, and the paper is ignoring the issue. If I can coin a phrase from a former administration, this is something about which we need to be alert and alarmed. This is a report that suggests that our whole way of life is under some threat. I was pleased to see that the committee in its deliberations had discussed plans that might be useful and there was some suggestion by the Queensland government and by the Planning Institute of Australia that the South-East Queensland Regional Plan would be a good model for the governments to follow in planning for the future. Praising the Queensland government’s SEQ Regional Plan, the Planning Institute of Australia highlighted its socioeconomic and environmental inclusions, and I think that as we approach what may be the outcomes of these events we need to be sure that we take the socioeconomic and environmental considerations into account in order to make long-term plans for the region. A great many of the people who are moving to Queensland and are putting pressure on Queensland’s infrastructure are settling in the south-east corner. As a resident of that part of the state I have to say it is probably the best place in Australia to live and we welcome them there and look forward to them continuing to come in sufficient numbers for us to have a sustainable, viable and ongoing community. As part of its work the committee identified key challenges. These key challenges are not new to anybody, but to my knowledge they have never been codified in this fashion before. Importantly, the first of those key challenges is involvement by the national government. One of the things that I find to some degree frustrating in talking with my constituents is the level to which the federal government is disempowered by the national Constitution. The Constitution sets out—I think in section 51—what the powers of the federal government are and it makes it very plain that all other powers will remain with the colonies, or the states as they became. On a daily basis a constituent will indicate to me that they believe the federal government has the power to stop a state government doing anything the state government might propose to do that the constituent does not like, and that is not the case. Similarly, with coastal management there are huge limitations on what the federal government is able to do. The important thing is that we need to create an intergovernmental role here, and the first point that the committee has identified is the involvement by the national government. On page 287 of the report in paragraph 6.129 our Queensland state government has provided what the committee has referred to as a useful outline on what the national government’s leadership in coastal zone management could be. It is the sort of role that my constituents believe the federal government should play: Lead the development of regional scale climate change projections …; Lead the development of a set of nationally consistent default climate change scenarios …; Coordinate and provide financial assistance …; Lead the development of nationally consistent methodologies for assessing climate change risk …; Collaborate and provide financial support for States … These are issues that are truly the province of a leadership role and federal government leadership in this matter is important. I noted today that in question time, in response to a question as to what the government’s response would be to this report, the Prime Minister gave an indication that the government was trying to take, essentially, an audit of coastal risk before responding to this report. The reality is that there are risks and we need to be concerned about those risks, particularly if we have substantial coastal involvement. As a local member I have that in my electorate as would a number of other MPs. I have a substantial area of the coastline of South-East Queensland in my electorate and this sort of report tells me that the people I represent need to be mindful of what is occurring. For example, one particular suburb, Banksia Beach, has an upmarket development—I will express it in those terms—where people are investing serious money in buying canal-side houses, large houses, and they are under some threat. When we first moved to Bribie Island, my wife and I met a fellow in one of the local bowling clubs who, with the encouragement of half a dozen beers, jocularly suggested that Bribie Island had been put in place by a cyclone and that one day a cyclone would take it away. We built there anyway and the reality is that he may have been right. If we think about the fact that Bribie Island is less than six metres above sea level and if we think about the fact that there are already an increasing number of severe weather events, and it is severe weather events this report suggests are the problem as I read it on my first reading, then Bribie Island is at some risk. Cyclones may come south again. It is a long time since there has been a cyclone that far south in Queensland but severe weather events are the risk and that is what we can look forward to. In closing, I congratulate the members of the committee, who I believe have done a particularly good job. They have delivered a report which, on my first reading and with the knowledge that I have which is not extensive enough to be called scientific knowledge, but the report is sound. It is a report that I will now be taking back to my community and suggesting to them that we need to be very mindful of what is going on. As much as anything else, in communities like mine, this report actually underlines in bold the fact that in this country we do need to get our carbon pollution reduction scheme legislation through this parliament and off to the conference in Copenhagen so that the world, not just Australia, can get on with the process of trying to correct the damage that we have done over hundreds of years to our environment. One young lady wore on her T-shirt, although talking about nuclear power at the time, a slogan saying that when she grew up she wanted the world to be here. We want the world to be here for our kids and climate change and the effects of climate change are the biggest threats to that. I commend the report. 11444 18:14:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —This report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate, is an important contribution to the national debate on climate change. It was a privilege to be a member of the standing committee in its inquiry and to participate in the report, which the House should note is a bipartisan report. I commend the member for Throsby for her role as chair of the standing committee and the member for Moore for his role as deputy chair of the committee. Before I note some of the key features of the report, I would like to thank the very hardworking secretariat, who assisted in the production of this report. I thank the secretary to the inquiry, Julia Morris; the research officers for part of the time of the inquiry, Sophia Nicolle and Adrienne Batts; and administrative officers Kane Moir and Jazmine Rakic, who also served for part of the time of the inquiry. Most particularly I would like to thank the inquiry secretary, Dr Kate Sullivan, who was with the inquiry for the entire time that it was conducted and who worked tirelessly, putting in some extraordinary hours, I would have to say, in the production of the report. I pay direct tribute to her because the high quality of the report is in no small part due to her efforts as well as, of course, the efforts of all members of the committee. The report deals at considerable length with the science that underlies observations of climate change that have occurred around the world and the science that underlies the now accepted means that are going to have to be employed to reduce carbon emissions. One of the reasons that the committee saw it as necessary to deal at some length with the science of climate change is that, regrettably, throughout the Australian community and among the members of this parliament there are still people referred to popularly as climate change sceptics and perhaps referred to in more pejorative terms by some. These are people who do not wish to accept a very clear consensus that has formed among scientists around the world as to the reality of climate change and, most importantly, the contribution that human activity has made to the occurrence of dangerous climate change. If members of the parliament or the public were looking for a very fine summary of the current state of the climate science, this report would be a very good place to start. The report goes on to explain that what is needed in relation to dangerous climate change is mitigation, in the sense of reducing carbon emissions. That is, of course, the matter that is being debated in the chamber as we speak, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation that will be introducing an emissions trading scheme to Australia following on from the example of emissions trading schemes having been introduced throughout the developed world already. The report talks about the need for mitigation, but that is not the focus of this report. Its primary focus is adaptation measures. In other words, the focus is on what can be done by, in particular, the national government and also by state governments, local governments, industry and householders throughout Australia to adapt to the climate change which is already occurring and the climate change which is inevitable even if Australia and the rest of the world—because it is a global effort that is required—are able to bring emissions down to lower levels than they are at presently. That is for the simple reason that has been explained by other speakers in this debate and by countless others: that carbon emissions remain in the atmosphere for some hundreds of years and we are going to experience temperature rises and the other effects on climate which have been identified even if emissions can be brought down. The report notes in particular the direct physical effects that are likely to occur on the Australian coast as a result of climate change, pointing notably to the risks of sea level rise and noting for every state the number of coastal buildings—houses, commercial properties and public infrastructure—that are going to be placed at risk by the projected sea level rise. There is not agreement on the projected sea level rise that is likely to be experienced by the end of the present century, but there is agreement that it is likely to be substantial. There is a possibility that it will be measured in metres rather than centimetres but, at present working on the basis of a sea level rise of around one metre—and different states have adopted different predictions—potentially hundreds of thousands of properties will be affected. I want to bring that home more locally for my state and my electorate, which is to say, as noted in the report, that some 80,000 coastal buildings and infrastructure in Victoria are at risk from the projected sea level rise. Bringing it home a bit more locally still, in my electorate there are some 11,000 homes which would be affected by inundation if there were to be the Victorian projected sea level rise of 0.8 metre by the end of this century. What we are talking about is not merely a higher high tide. We are talking about increases in storm tides, storm surges and flooding from heavy rains, the effects of that on communities, and more of what could be called ‘specialised effects’ like increased salinity in wetlands. The report speaks at some length of the effects that will be felt on the Kakadu National Park as a result of rises in sea levels caused by climate change, which will lead to increased salinity, which will lead to a complete alteration of the ecosystem in that vast and beautiful park. There are other climate change effects which will also have an impact on the coast: warmer seas, more acid seas, and the report deals at some length with the projected disastrous effects of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. In essence, the report calls for national leadership. It calls for action now, and it identifies the areas in which there can usefully be national leadership—noting areas like mapping, increased research, leadership in strategic and, to some extent, statutory planning, law reform and a national effort in relation to the insurance problems which are identified in the report. The response yesterday, at least publicly, by some members of the opposition was regrettable. I would point particularly to Senator Abetz, whose response to this report was about whether there was a need for speed to act on coastal erosion. He said: That is something that is going to have to be taken into account for future planning but, having said that, I assume it’s not going to be happening overnight, so we’ve still got some time. I need to say to Senator Abetz and to other members of the opposition—or to any members of the public who might be thinking that—that, as the subtitle of this report suggests, the time to act is now, and the sooner we act the lower the costs will be to the Australian community. The report deals with the problems that were identified for us not merely by members of the public who made submissions to this inquiry but also by the Insurance Council of Australia, which provided helpful and detailed material to the committee about the unavailability of insurance in parts of Australia from the risks of events caused by climate change. They are described differently but usually as things like ‘storm surge’, ‘land slip’ and ‘sea level rise’—and of course it is a major problem when general property insurance is no longer available to property holders around Australia because of the identified risk, and the insurance industry has identified very, very high risks. We then have a problem as a community because our system of property holding depends in part on the availability of insurance. That is why one of the recommendations that the committee has made is for an inquiry by the Productivity Commission into the insurance difficulties that are being encountered in relation to dangerous climate change events. The other matter that I want to draw attention to is the detailed consideration of statutory planning that has taken place to quite different degrees in different states. Members would appreciate that planning controls are likely to be very useful in terms of recognising the future effects of climate change and, as far as it is possible to achieve it, ensuring that the possibility of sea level rise in land that is close to the coast, particularly low-lying land that is close to the coast, is taken into account in making decisions about development and building in such areas. The committee looked at the planning regimes that exist presently in all Australian states and territories, and I can exhibit a little bit of state pride in saying that the committee singled out the work that has been done by the Bracks and Brumby Labor governments in Victoria over the last 10 years to develop a Victorian coastal strategy, which is entitled the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008. The committee commended the Victorian Coastal Strategy—I do not have time to go to the detail of it—as an excellent model in the way in which it had identified the characteristics of a sustainable coastal community. The committee identified the Victoria Coastal Strategy as setting out a very useful policy framework and detailed actions that might be taken by state and local authorities. The committee in particular singled out the Victorian Coastal Strategy for the integrated approach it takes to coastal governance. I mention this not merely to say it is terrific that the Victorian coast will now have the benefit of some integrated planning but to make the point that national leadership and national coordination of approaches to a common problem that is shared right around the coastline of our vast country is required in order to avoid reinventing the wheel, where one state, in this case Victoria, has progressed greatly and has developed a model of governance and a model for planning control that are able to be followed by other states. I hope that it is going to be possible through national coordination, through COAG processes and through leadership shown by the national government for strategies, planning controls and governance arrangements that have already been developed to be rapidly applied in other states and territories so as to avoid them needing to reinvent the wheel. In particular I draw attention, and the report notes this, to the adoption by the Victorian government—it is now written into all planning schemes that apply to the Victorian coast—of a requirement that all development and planning decisions have to take into account a projected sea level rise of 0.8 of a metre by 2100. That has major consequences for decisions on where to build and how to build, and it is going to ensure that, whatever the position that was placed in Victorian planning schemes before, there will be consideration of that in future. The Prime Minister noted today, following on from a major speech that the Prime Minister gave to the Business Council of Australia in Sydney last night, that the national government will be progressing through COAG a national approach to climate change effects on our coasts as part of a national emphasis that is now to be given to the development of some strategic priorities for urban planning in relation to cities. As I said earlier in the speech, these are the adaptation measures that the committee has recommended be adopted. I hope that they will be implemented by the government just as much as I hope that the mitigation measures—(Time expired) 11447 18:29:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I was pleased to be in the chamber to listen to the comments made by the member for Isaacs on the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts report entitled Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. We served on this committee together and I certainly appreciated his input into the work of that committee. I note too that he congratulated the chair, the deputy chair and the secretariat of the committee and so I will not repeat in detail the comments that he made. However, I certainly concur with him in every respect on the considerable work that they all did and the leadership shown by both the chair and the deputy chair. I particularly acknowledge the member for Isaacs because, in the course of our inquiry, his interest and expertise in this area was very useful in sourcing information from some of the people who made representations to the committee and also in providing the committee with information. I am very grateful that he was one of the members. The ‘time to act now’ report is one of many reports on our coastline and the environment generally that this parliament has presented. The other reports that I refer to in particular are the Management of the Australian coastal zone report of 1980; The injured coastline: protection of the coastal environment report of 1991; and the final report in 1993 of the coastal zone inquiry. All of these reports, which I have skimmed through in the time that I have been a member of the committee, drew very similar conclusions to those drawn in this report. But I suspect the difference between previous reports and our report is, as the title of our report quite rightly says, ‘the time to act is now’. Hopefully, the title will ensure that notice is taken of this report in much more depth than was perhaps the case with previous reports. I would be very disappointed if it is not, not only because of the amount of work that went into the report but because, after having listened to the people who made submissions either verbally or in writing to the committee, the words in the title of the report, ‘the time to act is now’, are absolutely appropriate. The report was the culmination of some 18 months of investigations and inquiry by the committee. In my view what was very useful in terms of the investigations and submissions made to the inquiry were the up-to-date observations, scientific research and predictions provided on the changing nature of our coastline and its association with climate change. I believe this report highlights that climate change is real and that it presents the Australian people with very, very serious consequences which we cannot ignore and which we have an obligation to take urgent action on—an obligation both to Australians today and to future generations of Australians. The report contains some 47 recommendations. In the time allotted to me, I cannot possibly do justice to each of those recommendations. I say that because each of the recommendations are very serious matters that the committee would like the government to at least take note of. I will summarise what I consider the key aspects of the report. The report talks about increasing research and monitoring of climatic changes to Australian coastal areas; increasing the sharing of information between agencies and governments; investing in professional development, particularly for the local government sector; and putting into place disaster response strategies and coastal natural disaster mitigation programs. The report also recommends paying special attention to the Torres Strait region. The committee considers this region to be more vulnerable than other parts of Australia and that it deserves special attention because of the risks it faces with the changing climate. The report particularly notes that iconic environmental sites such as the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park and all the Ramsar listed wetlands need to be monitored for the impacts of climate change. The committee was able to see the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu and hear firsthand from the people on the ground. They are very familiar with what is happening to these iconic sites and they said that in recent years they have been noting changes to them. The report also recommends that the Productivity Commission inquire into the insurance related issues and the value of properties exposed to risk. This is an important aspect of the report and certainly one that drew a lot of media attention—and quite rightly, because it is an important issue. The committee is also recommending that the Australian Law Reform Commission provide further advice on the liability issues associated with climate change. The committee also recommends that the Australian Bureau of Statistics monitor demographic and tourism trends. I will speak a little bit more about this later on, because, again, it is a critical aspect of what we should do and how we should plan for the future. The last comment I will make about the committee’s recommendations is that the committee recommends that an intergovernmental agreement be reached, where each tier of government has clear and defined roles and responsibilities. Again, that is one of the critical issues that arose from the committee’s inquiry. Time and time again, people who made submissions—whether they were individuals, organisations, the local government sector or the state government sector—said that they wanted to see leadership from the federal government, because the lines of responsibility between the three levels of government are not absolutely clear. Certainly, whilst it might be clear in terms of the planning aspects as to who is responsible—and most of those responsibilities fall between state and local government—in terms of getting the information that those authorities need in order to make the right planning judgments and planning policies, they rely heavily on the federal government. So, again, a COAG agreement that clearly defines who is responsible for what and how each of the parties can support each other, I believe, is a very important first step. This report also highlights that the most effective action that we can take in Australia, along with people from around the world, is in fact to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world. We need a universal scheme of doing that. Hopefully, we might be able to get one in Copenhagen in December. That is so critical, because, whilst we can take all the adaptive measures that we might be able to predict, the truth of the matter is that the best action we can take is to try and reverse some of the damage that is occurring and is trending in a direction that will cause even far greater damage than what we have seen so far. If we can get a universal scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then we might be able to at least control some of the impacts that we are likely to face if we do not. It was interesting that, of all the submissions that came to the committee, whether they were written submissions or verbal evidence, I do not recall one person saying they did not believe that climate change was real or that greenhouse gas emissions were contributing to it. Certainly, some of them were not sure about what was causing it, but there was consistency in that they did believe that climate change was real and that it was posing real threats to our environment, and particularly to our coastal areas. The cover of the report shows part of our coastline. What was interesting in terms of the sites that we inspected—and we certainly inspected a lot of areas along our coastline—was to see firsthand some of the damage that has already been caused by coastal erosion. The issues relating to the Byron Bay coastline are now well known. Those issues highlight the damage, the extent of the cost, the complexity and the seriousness of what we are faced with—not just a seriousness that is based on dollars that might be lost but a seriousness that brings in all of the three levels of government in terms of who is responsible for what and a seriousness that goes to the heart of the other matter that I touched on earlier, as to whether such properties in the future will be able to get any form of insurance at all. On the question of insurance, which is a critical issue, it was interesting to hear a response in question time yesterday that, since 1967, 19 out of the 20 major insurance claims across the country were related to climate factors. In another response, it was suggested to us that, by 2040, the climate insurance associated costs to this nation could reach a trillion dollars. If those predictions are right, my conclusion is that one of two things will happen: either insurers will stop insuring a whole range of different properties and sites or, alternatively, insurance premiums will skyrocket. Either way, it is not a good outcome, so we need to do whatever we can to ensure that we do not get to that point. It was also interesting to hear only today the Prime Minister talk about the future population growth of Australia, which is expected to hit about 35 million in about 40 years time. Bearing in mind that some 80 per cent of the Australian population already lives in coastal areas and bearing in mind that, all bar Canberra, our capital cities are located pretty much on coastal areas I think one could quite properly draw the conclusion that most of that population increase of some 12 million or 13 million people is going to occur in coastal areas. That means that the amount of infrastructure investment that we would see take place along our coastal areas over the next decade or so is going to run into billions of dollars. The critical thing is that, before we spend billions of dollars, we need to know exactly what we are going to be spending it on and whether it is a wise spend of taxpayer dollars. The only way we can do that is if we do the necessary investigations, do the necessary research as to what the impacts are likely to be in those areas where we are going to make those expenditures and then ensure that whatever infrastructure we build, whatever homes we build, are built to a design standard that is likely to withstand whatever climatic changes occur. On the question of climatic changes, most of us keep talking about what is going to happen by the year 2100. Well, the world does not stop at the year 2100—everything does not suddenly come to a standstill and, at 2100, everything is going to be okay. The world will continue and so will the climatic changes and the possible sea level rises that are predicted. So when we talk about sea level rises of somewhere between 0.8 of a metre and maybe 1.5 by 2100, it does not necessarily mean that that is where things stop. And I would hope that the infrastructure that we might want to build today might even go beyond those times. One of the critical areas that came to the forefront in the course of this inquiry was that local government, which has a prime responsibility in these areas, is simply not well enough equipped to deal with the problems they confront. They do not have the professional expertise on hand. They do not have the information they need in order to make the best possible decisions for their local communities. And, almost without exception, they were all calling for leadership by the federal government. I think it was the member for Longman who, earlier on, quite rightly made the point that constitutionally there are restrictions in respect of what kind of leadership the federal government can show. But what I would say is that this is a matter that all three levels of government do need to work very closely on together and it is a matter that we need to act on now. 11450 18:44:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I would like to take this opportunity to thank the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts for tabling, and giving me the opportunity to speak on, this very important report, the report being Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. As I said, I welcome this opportunity to speak on this report as it is about an issue which is one of the most serious that Australia has ever faced. When you represent a seat like Hindmarsh, the western border of which is the coast, this is a big issue. It is a big issue for the residents in Adelaide’s metropolitan area. My electorate has many suburbs, such as West Beach, Glenelg, Somerton Park, Henley Beach, Grange, Tennyson, Semaphore and West Lakes, where there are residential areas in which houses have been built just metres away from the sand. We are contending on behalf of the liveability of our cities and the sustenance of our economy. We are concerned with the impact of climate change. This issue concerns the rain that falls on our land, the searing heat of our summers, the productivity of our farms, the very existence of our rivers, our susceptibility to drought and our exposure to raging fires. As I said, all of this is concerned with the impact that climate change is having on the world. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts has reported on the danger faced by our coastal zone, now and in the future, as a result of climate change. The report is based on the best available scientific consensus—a consensus about the threats our regions and population centres face from rising sea levels, the changing character of the sea through acidification and the increasing potential for damage to our coastlines, inhabited areas and infrastructure as a direct result of increasingly large waves, storm surges and king tides. The report notes that the science is continuing to be developed. A lot of scientific work is happening in this area. People are continuing to study current observations and drawing comparisons with what has happened in the past. The size of the future threats we face, and the likelihood of their impact on our coastal regions, continues to feature prominently in our scientists’ research. What we are told is that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projection of an 80 centimetre rise in sea level continues to be the most likely change that will occur around our coastline over the course of this century. To put this into context: through much of our human history, average sea level change has been 0.2 millimetres per year. From the 19th to the 20th century, this increased in excess of eight times to 1.7 millimetres per year. From 1993 to 2003, this average annual increase almost doubled to 3.1 millimetres per year—from one millimetre per decade to 31 millimetres per decade in around 200 years. The anticipated increase through this century suggests an average increase of around three times again—an average annual increase of 80 or more millimetres per decade. These are indeed dramatic increases. The rule of thumb is that, for every one metre rise in sea level, the sea will intrude inland by between 50 and 100 metres. As I said, I am extremely concerned about this and most members of parliament who represent coastal seats would be concerned. My electorate starts just outside the city and finishes at the sea. In fact, when I want to give a description of my seat, I say, ‘It is from the city to the sea with the airport right in the middle of it.’ Its border is the Gulf St Vincent. While much of my electorate is by the Gulf St Vincent, it also has sand dunes—very interesting sand dunes in that they are some of the last sand dunes left in the metropolitan area of Adelaide. The threat is also great to neighbouring seats, such as that of Port Adelaide, which is in the Lefevre Peninsula. The threat to our coastlines is not limited only to the increase in sea level. Greater threats, through this century at least, lie in the violent, destructive forces that come to the coast in the form of extreme sea levels. These extreme sea levels are what we see during acute weather events in the form of large tides, storm surges, severe waves and more frequent king tides, all of which sees the erosion of our sandy beaches in the Gulf St Vincent in my electorate and in fact in all of the areas of metropolitan Adelaide. We have seen these over recent years especially, as I have said, in the electorate of Hindmarsh. One particular beach, West Beach, has beautiful sand and sand dunes but we have seen the erosion of that beach gradually taking place over the last few years. People have witnessed jetties being battered and broken up. People have seen the power of the ocean crashing onto the coastal walls. I am sure the residents around Glenelg remember the ends of streets being submerged with water that had come crashing through into suburbia. A lot of damage was caused by that one particular storm. Sea water was thrust up onto what we previously expected to be safe land. This water was coming up and going into residential areas. Reports from people around the Glenelg area with flooded properties were of sodden garages and the reports were full of possessions being damaged. These reports were quite numerous at the time. All this is what we continue to face along the coastline of my electorate. Now, with the rising sea levels that we are experiencing, we can expect to see such damaging and dangerous events occurring more and more frequently. Dr Hunter from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre gave evidence to the committee as follows: … if you get a sea level rise of only 20 centimetres, which was pretty well what we got last century, that will increase the frequency of extreme events by a factor of about 10 … The events will happen 10 times more often, and this compounds … If you get a 50-centimetre increase, or half a metre, which is about the middle of the projections for this coming century, then you get a factor of about 300 on average for Australia. What this represents statistically is this: if we have had one storm surge swamping a suburb in my electorate, such as Glenelg, on average each year, we can expect in the not too distant future this event to be happening every single day of the year. That is the statistical likelihood of what eventuates with seasonal variations, but, again, seasonal variations may of course well be different. But it points to big weather impacting on our coastline over and over again for each and every year, causing enormous damage. This is what we will be facing by the time many of us here are in the latter times of our life. It is within view. It is not that far away. It is within our lifetime. The degree to which our beachside suburbs can cope with the onslaught is highly questionable. Also in my electorate in the suburbs of Somerton Park, Glenelg, West Beach, Henley Beach, Grange, Tennyson and Semaphore Beach we are already seeing the erosion of beaches. We are already feeling the impact of climate change. As I said earlier, we have already seen the erosion of our protective dunes. We have beautiful dunes at West Beach which are disappearing very quickly, and we have the last of the remaining natural dunes along Tennyson Beach and Semaphore Beach. Also, there is the infiltration of sea water into our rivers and onto our plains and through our suburbs and onto our properties. We are experiencing that now around the seaside suburbs. How long before the effects are felt elsewhere and further inland? In fact, a few years ago the CSIRO did a study which showed that the coastline could come in as far as Adelaide airport in my electorate. That was in a front-page story in the Advertiser showing where the new coastline would be. A half-metre to a full-metre increase in lake levels will do untold extreme damage throughout the suburbs, including my electorate’s suburbs of West Lakes and West Lakes Shore. I am disappointed that what the opposition says to all of this is that we should not do anything to prevent worsening climate change and that we should get ready to repeatedly and constantly rebuild our shattered coastline communities. The opposition in the Senate, which has already stopped this government’s attempts to reduce carbon pollution once, says that we should sit on our hands until our homes and our communities are swamped, and only then should we do something. Logically, this is the same attitude that earlier this week voted down the government’s Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill. These examples show that they are not interested in doing anything until it is too late. They are not interested in preventing any level of change or the destruction that it can bring, preferring to conserve their persona—that only they in the whole world have the facts, have access to the truth and have a grip on what is actually going on around the world. Climate change is a reality. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues that face not only our government and our nation but the entire world, and action is required now—not tomorrow, not next month, not next year, not in five years and not in 10 years but now. We should be taking action and the opposition are preventing us from taking that action. The committee report contains numerous recommendations, some of which the government is already working towards and some of which no doubt the government will take up in the months ahead. As we pass through the summer from 2009 to 2010, the government will be able to say to the Australian people, ‘You elected us to work to combat climate change, and we have.’ The Rudd government was elected to combat climate change, and the work of this committee provides additional direction for the work already underway. I am sure that the nation as a whole is looking forward to the debate in the Senate over the CPRS. They will all be looking to see whether their representatives in this place, some of the people who you would think would be most concerned about the effects of climate change, do the right thing by their constituencies and enable Australia as a nation to build on our own systems for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody else can do it—not those in the US, not those in China and India and not those heading to Copenhagen. We have to build our own systems here in Australia ourselves. Targets will come and go over time, but we need the infrastructure, the market systems and the ability to see what we are doing and where we are going into the future. We need that worked out here in this parliament, and the sooner the better—better for the emitters, better for the mitigators, better for the investors and better for all of us. 11453 18:57:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 0 Mr ADAMS —I would also like to speak on the report that has been handed down, Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now, put together by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. In this inquiry, the committee was charged with having particular regard to: existing policies and programs related to coastal zone management, taking in the catchment-coast-ocean continuum the environmental impacts of coastal population growth and mechanisms to promote sustainable use of coastal resources That is all very good. I am sure you, Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin, would be pleased to have that as a reference. The terms of reference continued: the impact of climate change on coastal areas and strategies to deal with climate change adaptation, particularly in response to projected sea level rise mechanisms to promote sustainable coastal communities governance and institutional arrangements for the coastal zone. I do not think many people realise quite how vulnerable we are to the effects of climate change in our coastal areas. It was quite an eye-opener when I travelled to North Queensland with the caucus environment committee during the previous parliament and took part in hearings about what was already happening on our coastline and what was being built there. There were very large houses, mansions, being built right on the seafront, with little in front of them except trees. This was only a few years ago, but people were still building very close to the shore in coastal regions. It is not so much the rise in sea levels that is of concern to me but the changes in climate and the fiercer climatic events that we will have to face. Those have already led to some extreme erosion, and not just on the coast. I watched the river in my home town rise to quite high levels this year. Although that has been quite usual at times in the past, it has caused enormous damage to the land on either side and on the hinterland, to some degree, because of the untimely removal of vegetation from the wrong areas. Yes, they were basically weeds and really needed replacing with natives along the banks, but the lack of understanding of climatic events led to some silly decisions being made. I do not find it odd that many of the findings in this report relate more to the lack of information at a local government level than to deliberate acts by people to desecrate the landscape. Today one of the papers in Tasmania had the headline ‘Rising tides of alarm’. The story states: MORE than 20 per cent of Tasmania’s coast could be affected by rising seas in the next 50 years. …            …            … A federal parliamentary report says 17,000 buildings in Tasmania and 21 per cent of the state’s coast are at risk of erosion and recession from sea-level rise within the next 50 to 100 years. The media can be a bit of a panic merchant. Although we do need to take the warnings in this report seriously, there is no need for people to shut down and move away. There has to be some sensible assessment of what the risks are and how we manage them. Councils will have to review how they charge for works to fix and protect coastal areas, and residents might have to be differently rated depending on where they live and how their buildings are structured. In Tasmania the local government association’s chief executive, Allan Garcia, said to the Mercury: “Along the coastlines and around … rivers in Tasmania there is certainly going to be far more scrutiny as to the standard of building,” he said. He said people wanting to build on the coast would have to prove their houses could withstand climate-change impacts, and developments on reclaimed land would be less likely to get approval. “Any canal estate development is going to have some significant hurdles to jump,” he said. In North Queensland they build to meet high-wind and cyclone standards, and that is what we are starting to look at in other parts of Australia to address changes in our climate. That is not to say development of any sort should be banned, but it should be able to withstand extreme weather, and this is a new level that we will need to come to in regulations. One of my constituents in Primrose Sands who bought a block of land there 11 years ago joked in the paper that he would shift the sand dunes to improve his view. Now they are fighting to preserve the dunes that protect their dream retirement home from changes in sea level. Storm surges have already pushed through and widened a gap in the dunes from 100 metres right up to his front yard. So people must become more informed and aware when they are seeking a sea change of the consequences of building in very low-lying areas. We have some particularly vulnerable spots in Tasmania, and of course our island has a very big coastline. Some of those vulnerable spots are well known, but there are others that might need some attention. This report gives us a heads-up to take into account in our planning schemes and in our overall strategy planning at a state level. There needs to be overarching federal leadership. Coastal problems are national, not just state or local, but they do have those local manifestations, as I have mentioned. We really need some national direction and technical and financial support on it. So many of the local and regional bodies do not have the resources to provide the continuation of policy thinking, technical and information backup, and funding to meet the challenges of population growth in some of these areas. Infrastructure is how communities can best adapt to climate changes, especially if the sea rises a bit and there are storm surges and high winds to contend with. This report gives a measured and close look at some of the problems we are facing and comes up with a number of carefully considered recommendations. I welcome the report and congratulate the bipartisan committee that has put the time and effort into reminding us of what can happen if we do not take the appropriate action now. 11455 19:06:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —The response to the report Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now, prepared by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, has been so positive in most quarters that it indicates to me two things. First, there is a recognised need for action to be taken to protect, mitigate and plan properly for our coastal communities, where approximately 80 per cent of our population lives; and, second, there needs to be clear, consistent leadership. The report has a recommendation noting that national leadership is one of the big issues, and that is clearly one of the things that is needed. I thank the chair of the committee—and the deputy chair of the committee, who has just joined us—for the work that they did in bringing together not only the report, which I have had time to work through if not to read in depth, but also the science, the knowledge of planning and all of the things that were needed for the report to come out. I make a few points on it. I have a coastal community in my seat of Page. That stretches from Ballina down to Wooloweyah. Ballina is part of the coastline that goes into Byron Bay. I note that there has been lots of commentary about Byron Bay, particularly Belongil Beach. I have a rural seat but I have a coastal community. A lot of the population live there. It has been an issue of concern. The mayors of the local government areas that have that coastal strip have talked to me frequently about it. They have said that we need some national leadership on it as well. The report also notes a number of other factors and says that we have to look at legal and insurance issues. Over the past period, in my area, as elsewhere, we have experienced some extreme weather events. They are increasing and their intensity is accelerating; therein lies the problem with climate change. I have had lots of flooding, storm surges and all sorts of events. Since I was elected and came into this place, I have been in a conversation with certain insurance companies and with members of the Insurance Council of Australia about this very issue, because it appears that some people could end up being priced out of insurance and not being covered. Some people are not being covered, but I have to say I have had good cooperation in working with the insurers when we have had those extreme events. There are a few other things that have been happening. The report talks about the legal issue, but I would have to say that encroachment, erosion and liability are not new issues. There might be a different characterisation with the phrase ‘climate change’, but they are not new issues, particularly when you look at land law and climate change. There might have to be a different response, and there may be more of those cases that come before the court. Therein lies the challenge in what to do. I welcome the report. It provides guidance, particularly for coastal communities, in my seat as well as elsewhere. I know that local government was looking forward to this report coming out. On the issue of national leadership, which is a big issue in the report, I hope that we can find some way forward. The last point I will make is that I have had a look at the maps that show what rising sea levels mean around Tasmania—because the work has been done on that since the fifties; the expertise is in Tasmania—and the extrapolated work looking at Australia, and it does give you some cause for concern. The report captures that. With those comments, I commend to the report to the House. 11456 19:11:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —I would like to add my voice in support of the report Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. On Monday the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts presented this long-anticipated report. Climate change is certainly affecting everyone. It is one of the most important issues facing not only Australia but our region and the globe. A great diversity of people were involved in the consultation in Darwin. We had Stuart Blanch, from the World Wildlife Fund; Luccio Cercarelli, Director of Technical Services in the City of Palmerston; me; the guy from the Northern Territory division of the Planning Institute of Australia; Lord Mayor Graeme Sawyer, from Darwin City Council; George Roussos, from the Chamber of Commerce; Charles Roche, from the Environment Centre Northern Territory; and Dr Steve Skov, from the Northern Territory Regional Committee of the Australasian Faculty of Public Health Medicine. That just shows the diversity of people that are involved when it comes to the challenge we are facing with climate change. Just to localise it for a moment, obviously we have got World Heritage listed areas within the Northern Territory, such as Kakadu, that are under threat through the tidal surges that are occurring in our major rivers, the South and East Alligator, through climate change. For too long I think that this subject was not broached. It is happening all around Australia. I was on the Great Ocean Road with the Prime Minister’s Country Task Force this year, and in the coastal regions of Lorne and Apollo Bay they spoke about the erosion and how they had never seen it as bad. They had never seen the sea encroaching as far as it is and causing erosion, which obviously affects their tourist industry and affects the livelihoods of those coastal communities. I congratulate the member for Throsby, Jennie George, who is the committee chair, and her deputy chair, Dr Mal Washer. They had a very responsible job and did fantastic work in preparing the report. I must admit that I have only just begun to read it, but I think that all members should make the time to read this report. It is vitally important to all our regions, regardless of whether you are in central New South Wales, in South Australia, in the Kimberley, in Darwin, in Cairns or down in Tasmania, as the member for Page alluded to. As a parliament, I really do hope that, over the coming weeks, we can sit down with the opposition and work through the issues with regard to the ETS and the CPRS. I think it is absolutely vital that we as a parliament have a firm policy in place when we go to Copenhagen. It is far better for us to be in the room negotiating and protecting our industries that are emissions intense. Certainly being in the room, we can go into bat for industries such as the coal industry and agriculture. By not having a policy and not being firmly in agreement across the parliament as to how to approach this, you are not in the debate. It is so important that we take a responsible view as a parliament and that we can work together. I commend the member for Groom for his efforts in bringing in a position from the coalition’s point of view that they can work with with Senator Wong and Minister Combet in relation to coming up with a position that Australia can take forward, so that we can really be part of the solution regarding climate change and not part of the problem. That is vitally important. I once again commend the chair of this committee on the diligent work that she has done with this report. I think it is one of the most anticipated reports in the time that I have been in this place, and I look forward to reading it in its entirety. I congratulate everyone who was involved in what is, I believe, one of the most important reports that this parliament has produced over the last 12 months. 11457 19:16:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —I too am pleased to make some comments on this report of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts into climate change and its environmental impact on coastal communities. This committee was very ably chaired by my good friend the honourable member for Throsby. She is to be commended for this excellent report, which I think will make a real difference to the way Australians think about the possible impact of climate change on their everyday lives. I too represent a coastal electorate, including the bayside communities of Port Melbourne, South Melbourne, Albert Park, St Kilda and Elwood. Must of the western part of my electorate is built on sand dunes. If you look at the old maps of Melbourne, you will see that much of my electorate was saltwater swamp before the seawalls were built. Over the generations, thousands of homes, ranging from workers’ cottages in Port Melbourne to the mansions of the wealthy in Beaconsfield Parade, have been built along the foreshore. These many coastal homes as well as beaches, foreshore parks, marinas, yacht clubs and many other amenities in my electorate will be put at risk if the sea level continues to rise as a result of the uncontrolled climate change brought about by human activity. Even a slight rise in average global temperatures causes the volumes of the oceans to rise as water expands when it gets warmer. This is felt in increased sea levels. The report of the standing committee on climate change documents that the damage caused to Australia by rising sea levels will be far more serious than the loss of suburban amenities, although this is certainly important to the people of my electorate. It will cause grave and irreversible harm to some of our great national assets. These include the Great Barrier Reef, which will be put at risk if the surrounding waters get both warmer and deeper; Kakadu National Park, which is at risk of flooding with salt water; the Coorong and Lower Lakes of South Australia, already in serious trouble because of the drought, also risk salt water flooding; the beaches of the Gold Coast, and we saw that in all of the television coverage of this excellent report; the Sunshine Coast; the 90-mile beach in Gippsland; and the great suburban surf beaches of Sydney and Perth— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —And New South Wales. WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr DANBY —Sorry, and Newcastle. They are all in danger of being washed away if sea levels rise. I am frankly astonished that members of the opposition continue to deny that this is a real problem and that they are continuing to obstruct our CPRS bill in the Senate. The Australian today too denies that this is a real problem. Its editorial commenting on the standing committee’s findings states that there is no need for the alarm inherent in this report. Both the Liberal Party and the Australian are at sea on this issue. There is almost no major country in the world in which a greater peril as a result of uncontrolled climate change exists than in Australia. We are already the driest inhabited continent. A rise in temperatures could devastate many of our inland agricultural areas, depriving our grazing lands of water as rivers dry up and kill off our irrigated farming industries. I hope members of the National Party, in particular, are ready to explain to their constituents why they are blocking the government’s efforts to do something to stop climate change before we reach that tipping point at which it becomes irreversible—which scientists warn us may not be too far off. Today’s Canberra Times acknowledged this excellent report and said, ‘Now is the time to act’. In an editorial entitled ‘Government must act on sea rise warning’, the Canberra Times argued that this report should not be dismissed and that the action against further climate change must begin now. To be frank, a lot of the reports this parliament produces are a waste of paper, but this one is genuinely important. It demonstrates in plain, everyday terms what the effects of uncontrolled climate change will be for millions of Australians and how it will cause economic and social loss as well as environmental loss. Its significance was reported in the important British newspaper the Guardian in an article entitled ‘Climate change threatens Australia’s coastal lifestyle, report warns’. The article said: With 80% of Australians living along the coastline, the report warns that “the time to act is now’’. This report is a testament to the political wisdom of the member for Throsby and her colleagues on the committee. The member for Throsby’s independence of judgment generated the big ideas behind this report. It is her great legacy to the future of Australia. I hope all Australians get a chance to read this report. I am going to put it on my website for my constituents to read, and I hope all my colleagues do the same. 11458 19:20:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I seek leave to say a few words in conclusion to the discussion. Leave granted. NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr Forrest —I hope that the member for Throsby remembers the gesture. JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms GEORGE —I will, certainly. In concluding the discussion that has proceeded this afternoon, I have tried to follow most of the contributions that have been made. I genuinely want to thank all members who took the time, in the short space of time since the report was tabled, to be involved in this discussion. I must say that one conclusion I came to was that all the contributions that were made confirm the timeliness of our report and the 47 recommendations that come with it. On behalf of the committee I want to make it clear that we have never sought to sensationalise the issue, but the ‘business as usual’ approach must come to an end. The individual contributions this afternoon and into the evening confirm the appropriateness of the theme of our report, which is on the front page: ‘The time to act is now.’ I am pleased that the contributions made by a range of members reinforced the practical relevance of our considerations for real people and real communities who are feeling the impacts now. For them it is not a theoretical debate; it is real. You only have to look at the front cover to see what is happening in the electorate of the member for Forrest or at the back page to see the homes precariously perched on top of a primary dune in the electorate of Dobell. The member for Bonner spoke, and I must say that we visited Moreton Bay and that I can see and understand why she loves that area so much. Recommendation 24 picks up a very good water quality project that operates in that catchment, and we are recommending that that be a forerunner of other environmental accounts that we might put in place. I think the member for Canning epitomises the responsibilities of a member in an area of growing population. Mandurah and the surrounding areas have huge population pressures, which are being faced by a lot of councils. They also have the pressures of development near a Ramsar listed wetland, and of course they are not unique in having canal estates with some of the attendant problems that we saw. Like me, the member for Shortland has a lake in her electorate, Lake Macquarie. It and its surrounding areas are particularly vulnerable, and I thank the community and the council for their submissions to the inquiry. We did not get to visit the member for Lyne’s electorate, but the contribution of Mr Keys as a witness is there in full. I think the problems of Mr Keys at Old Bar really highlight the level of uncertainty about issues to do with insurance and legal matters. I would encourage the member for Solomon to continue reading the report, because if he continues to read it he will find a very nice photo of himself and witnesses who appeared in Darwin. Similarly, I say to the member for Lyons that we have visited Tasmania. There is some very interesting work going on among the scientists in Tasmania in regard to the science of climate change. The member for Hindmarsh and the member for Port Melbourne have similar issues. To the member for Hindmarsh I say that I have been there and visited the Gulf of St Vincent. Recently we visited Port Adelaide, which is another hot spot. To the member for Port Melbourne I say that I had the great pleasure of living in his electorate for some time when I lived in Melbourne in a former life before I came to federal parliament, and I know the beauty of the bay there as well. The members for Fowler, Lowe, Makin and Isaacs were all members of the committee. They spoke in the debate and they played a very important role as members of the committee, and I thank them particularly for their contribution. I note that the member for Lowe could not help but refer to the media coverage that our report has generated. I do want to thank all the media for helping the committee raise public awareness about these very important issues. Having a QC on a committee like ours sure helps, particularly when we got into very tricky matters relating to insurance and legal liability. Recommendations 19 and 23 of our report recommend that governments give some urgent attention to issues regarding liability and insurance matters, and I thank the member for Isaacs for his assistance with that. It is a great committee. We work together very well. Each member has their own particular contributions to make to it. But I cannot let this occasion pass without extending my special thanks to the deputy chair, the member for Moore, Dr Washer. The bipartisan nature of this report continues a historic tradition since I have been a member of the committee, and the member for Dunkley referred to this in his contribution. I am delighted that the report came out as a bipartisan report, and I think much of the credit goes to the member for Moore and the way he handled the challenges of the issues we were confronted with. On a personal level, I want to thank Professor Bruce Thom and Alan Stokes from the National Sea Change Taskforce for their input and advice. I thank them for their support and encouragement. The Department of Climate Change provided very valuable input into our report. The many initiatives that have already been undertaken in the short time that the department has been in place speak volumes about the quality of that department. We have their Smartline project, and we are all anxiously awaiting the first pass National Coastal Vulnerability Assessment. That will certainly move the agenda along substantially. This report, like any report, is the result of collective endeavours. Our committee was supported throughout so well by our secretariat, currently headed by Julia Morris. I want to acknowledge the work of the secretariat in providing research and administrative support. I want to thank Sarah Hafez, a member of my electorate staff, for the assistance she has provided in the ongoing history of the development of coastal policy. I thank the secretariat for their wonderful research and administrative support. We had 28 public hearings, 170 witnesses, over 100 submissions and nine site inspections. Getting all of that organised is no mean feat. Of course, the report would not have appeared without those who made the submissions and appeared before us. I trust that all your concerns have been properly described and dealt with. We do not have any magic solutions to some of the problems that came up before the committee, but we do believe that our report and its recommendations chart the way forward and bring forward your issues of concern, be you an individual property owner, a local government authority or a regional community. Whatever concerns we heard, at different levels of engagement on these terms of reference, this is, I think, the first time the federal parliament is dealing with these issues in a comprehensive way. Before I conclude, one person deserves the special thanks of us members of the committee—that is, the inquiry secretary to the committee, Dr Kate Sullivan. Dr Sullivan has been with us since day one, and I think we all appreciate, as members of committees, the importance of continuity and having Dr Sullivan with us from day one till the end. It is really hard to express in words her commitment and enthusiasm, her professionalism and her knowledge. I just want to say, and I hope the Clerk of the House of Representatives is listening, that people like Dr Kate Sullivan and their professionalism and exemplary work reflect very well on the quality of assistance that parliamentary staff provide for our work. So thank you, Kate; you did a great job. Thank you, finally, to Ministers Wong and Garrett for the reference to our committee back in March 2008. I know it has taken time to respond but it is time that we believe was well spent. Now I just want to say that we all eagerly await the government’s response to the contents of our report and the 47 recommendations that go with it. 11460 19:30:00 Main Committee adjourned at 7.30 pm 11461 Questions in Writing 11461 11461 1010 11461 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 September 2009: Can he indicate the Government’s position in relation to Israeli settlement construction activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Has the Government expressed its view to the (a) United States, (b) Israel, and (c) Palestinian authority, in response to President Barack Obama’s call for a halt to all construction; if so, what was expressed. 11461 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Stephen Smith —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government’s position is that Israel needs to freeze all settlement activity.  This is one of Israel’s obligations under the Roadmap for Middle East peace.  The Government believes it is important that the parties, with the support of the international community, honour the agreements they have entered into as part of the Roadmap.  This means the Palestinians must also honour their agreements, including continuing to dismantle terrorist infrastructure and to halt violence and incitement. The Government’s position on settlements is guided by Australia’s strong support for Israel’s ongoing security, the Middle East peace process and a two-state solution, and the striving for a just and enduring peace. The Government position on settlements has been stated publicly and in discussions with the parties to the peace process. 11461 11461 1030 11461 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 17 September 2009. By what date will she respond to letters from: Mr David Allen of Lighthouse Beach, NSW, dated 1 April, 27 June and 7 August 2009, about the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. Mr Daniel Bohannon of Port Macquarie, NSW, dated 23 May and 7 August 2009, about the stimulus payments. Ms Irene Barrett of Tinonee, NSW, dated 8 April, 27 June and 7 August 2009, about stimulus payments. Mr Southward of Port Macquarie, NSW, dated 8 April, 11 June and 7 August 2009, about stimulus payments. Mr Schwab of Port Macquarie, NSW, dated 8 April, 27 June and 7 August 2009, about stimulus payments. Ms Joan Grant of Eastwood, NSW, dated 8 April and 6 July 2009, about the stimulus payments. 11461 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I responded to your representations on behalf of Mr Allen on 3 September 2009. Your representations on behalf of Mr Bohannon, Ms Barrett, Mr Southward, Mr Schwab and Ms Grant were referred to the Treasurer’s Office for response. The Treasurer’s Office responded to your representations on behalf of Mr Schwab and Ms Grant on 25 September 2009. The Treasurer’s Office responded to your representations on behalf of Mr Bohannon, Ms Barrett and Mr Southward on 7 October 2009.