Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [3.33 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) supports the establishment of a carbon pollution reduction scheme principally operating as a national emissions trading scheme [ETS] as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and

(2) notes that this is current Liberal and National party policy adopted on Wednesday 10 September 2008.

It is fortunate that there are some within the political system in Australia and in the State Government who are prepared to take the lead on this issue. We claim that the New South Wales Australian Labor Party in government has done as much as anyone to ensure that we are best placed to take up this important matter and lead on it. The New South Wales Government is getting on with the job of implementing the landmark Climate Change Fund. As I said earlier, that was done in 2003. It is targeted at helping families, businesses and communities take practical action on climate change.

The New South Wales Government is committed to the Commonwealth's renewal energy target that will see 20 per cent of Australia's electricity come from renewable energy by 2020. We have established the Sydney Carbon Market Task Force to advise on making Sydney the carbon market hub for the Asia-Pacific region and capitalise on the job opportunities that this will involve. We have also demonstrated our commitment to improving energy efficiency and will roll out $150 million on our energy efficiency strategy and the commencement of the Energy Savings Scheme. It is the New South Wales Government that is getting on with the job of taking action on climate change seriously. In response to the Commonwealth Government taking action on climate change, the Federal Nationals Senate Leader, Barnaby Joyce, told The Nationals Annual Federal Council in August:

Our job is not to vary on our commitment—a commitment that is against this ETS. We maintain that. We will pursue that agenda all the way through.

Veteran Federal Liberal member of Parliament Wilson Tuckey opposed the Commonwealth's Emission Trading Scheme. He took shots at his leader, describing him as arrogant and inexperienced, and said that among
the Federal Opposition members of Parliament, "There's a very strong opinion that the ETS was not the solution to climate change." He also said most Liberal members of Parliament opposed taking action on the ETS, and therefore taking action on climate change at all.

The Opposition should at least have a clear policy position on this issue. The situation with The Nationals and the Liberals in New South Wales, which is consistent around the country, is that the Coalition does not have a clue. In fact, they are deeply divided on the issue and it is one of the major reasons that Malcolm Turnbull will not be successful at the next Federal poll. This is especially clear when one hears the Leader of the New South Wales Nationals crudely describing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as merely something to make doctors' wives on the North Shore feel good about themselves.

I challenge Opposition members to take a position on climate change. What is the position of the Leader of The Nationals? Unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber to respond and nor are the member for Murray-Darling and the member for Murrumbidgee. It is time for Opposition members to come out from hiding and to state their position on an issue that is critical to providing regional communities with an opportunity to benefit from a low-carbon economy. Do Opposition members support the establishment of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme operating as a national emissions trading scheme as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

If not, Opposition members should state their case. They should tell the people of New South Wales why the scientists are wrong. They should explain why they believe we can afford to dither on this issue, and they should explain why we should not prepare for a sustainable future. The New South Wales Government is committed to investing in clean energy. The New South Wales Government is taking action to help the people of the State transition to a prosperous, low-carbon economy. On the other hand, Opposition members are stuck in the Dark Ages. It is time they emerged from the darkness and told us what their position is on climate change.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [3.40 p.m.]: I speak to the motion moved by the member for Swansea and state at the outset that this seems a bit like Groundhog Day. I recall being involved in a virtually identical debate on 3 September when the points that were made were the same as the points that have been made today. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition acknowledges and recognises that our climate is changing, as was demonstrated visually yesterday when I noted that a large part of the electorate of the member for Murray-Darling was deposited on my front lawn and on the front lawns of many other members in this place. Clearly, there is a measurable increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases, and chiefly carbon dioxide. There is also a measurable rise in sea levels.

The preponderance of evidence points to the fact that humans are the cause of this rise in emissions. Recent research from the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales indicates that every capital city in Australia exceeded average maximum temperatures for August in 2009, with Brisbane recording its warmest August maximum temperature and Sydney recording its second warmest August since records began in 1859. Professor Matthew England from the New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre recently addressed the Liberal Party State Convention. On 7 October his colleague Dr Ben McNeil will address a climate change seminar in my community of Pittwater. I encourage all members to attend that seminar.

I refer members to the work of 350.org, which is something they might want to look at when they get back to their offices. The work of 350.org points to a vision of reducing emissions to 350 parts per million—currently they are at about 370 parts per million. A global day of action will occur on 24 October. I commend the Pittwater Climate Action Team for the work it is doing and will do on that day in Pittwater. Our job as representatives of the New South Wales Parliament is to focus on what this place can do to address the reality of a changing climate—not to postulate or debate, in some sort of academic or theoretical context, what the Federal Government might or might not do. It might be an interesting debate but, frankly, our job is to focus on what this State, this Parliament and this Government can do to address the reality of a changing climate. I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead:

this House calls on the Government to ensure adequate compensation of New South Wales based industries affected by the Federal Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Whatever the Federal Government chooses to do, a lot of jobs in New South Wales and much of industry in New South Wales will be exposed. I moved that amendment to the motion because I understand that it is imperative to do something positive about reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a national and a State level. At the same time we do not want to jeopardise Australia's economic growth. We do not want to jeopardise the New South Wales economy, which has been exposed to global competition. I would have thought that would have been something that the member for Swansea would have recognised, given the important role of Newcastle as the world's largest coal export port.

We must debate what we will do as a State in response to a global problem and to national legislation once it is implemented. The member for Swansea claimed that members of the Opposition were climate change deniers and ditherers. Frankly, that is a bit rich coming from a Government whose environment Minister said of Currawong—a beautiful natural environment in my electorate of Pittwater—"I can put D9s and chainsaws through it if I want." We have someone like that as our Environment Minister, a member of the same party of which Michael Costa is a member. I note that Michael Costa is a close personal friend of the member for Drummoyne. It is all a bit rich for Government members to suggest that Opposition members are dithering on climate change.

For many years the Government has failed to act on the sea level rise induced by climate change. I refer to the recent decision of the former Minister for Planning to challenge the decision of Justice Biscoe in the Land and Environment Court relating to the Minister's obligation to take in ecologically sustainable development as a mandatory consideration as an impact on the sea level rise. The former Minister for Planning said, "No, as a member of Government I am not obliged to take into account the principles of ecologically sustainable development", which is appalling. That is coming from a Government that claims, somehow, to be a leader on climate change. I refer to the sea level rise, a matter of real concern to people in my community for obvious reasons. The recent draft sea level rise policy has been widely panned by the environmental community. A recent article by Gillian Duggin in Impact, the journal of the Environmental Defender's Office, notes:

The NSW Government's approach is flawed ... It provides scant leadership and guidance for affected stakeholders, which is so necessary in the context of climate change, and does not establish any comprehensive plan of action to guide the NSW Government to adequately address sea level rise.

Most glaringly, a number of essential matters that should be addressed in any policy document about sea level rise are either fleetingly referred to or omitted, in particular, consideration of biodiversity and public health impacts ... It does not provide a comprehensive policy on sea level rise.

[Time expired.]

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.47 p.m.]: Since the mid 1990s the New South Wales Government has led the national debate on the need for a response to climate change. In 2003 New South Wales introduced one of the worlds first mandatory greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes. For this reason the New South Wales Government strongly supports the Federal Labor Government's efforts to implement a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. There is no doubt that introducing the scheme is a complex process and we recognise that it will have an impact on some communities. We cannot afford to do nothing and to put this nation's and this State's long-term environmental and economic prosperity at risk.

I understand that the Commonwealth has commissioned independent advice from Morgan Stanley to inform the industry compensation package required to ensure a smooth transition for coal-fired electricity generators. The Commonwealth has already announced $3.9 billion in direct assistance to coal-fired electricity generators through the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme. New South Wales and other States have also successfully convinced the Commonwealth Government to provide assistance to the emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. The New South Wales Government supports the Commonwealth's efforts to aim for emission reduction targets that are compatible with maintaining the strength of the economy.

Only a strong economy can drive the scale of investment in low emissions technology as well as the behavioural change that will be needed if we are to achieve deep cuts in emissions further down the track. What have the Federal Nationals been up to? The Nationals leader, Warren Truss, and Senator Barnaby Joyce went on a road trip down the South Coast to talk about the new policy platform that reportedly seeks to further differentiate their party from the Liberals—so differentiated that Senator Joyce admitted he would work to have an emissions trading scheme dismantled. The cracks are clearly starting to show in the Liberals-Nationals position on this important issue of national significance.

Let us get to the bottom of this mystery. Where does the New South Wales Opposition stand on the biggest environment issue this country has ever faced? Is it back in the Dark Ages or is it supporting the transition to a low carbon economy? Is it delaying action that will see billions of dollars of investment into clean energy projects across New South Wales or is it embracing the change in direction and opportunities presented by the introduction of the Commonwealth Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme? Perhaps today the member for Murrumbidgee will make the Opposition's position clear, but he is not in the Chamber. Or maybe the member for Murray-Darling could shed some light, given the recent approval for the $2.2 billion Silverton wind farm at Broken Hill, a project that will deliver 700 jobs during the five-year construction period and 120 ongoing operational jobs. That is a huge employment windfall for any country community.

We applaud also the passage of the Renewable Energy Target by the Federal Parliament and strongly believe that efforts should continue as planned on other national climate change measures, such as action on energy efficiency, and further investment in low emissions technologies such as carbon capture and storage. New South Wales has long been an advocate of a national emissions trading scheme as the primary way for Australia to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. When the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme comes into effect New South Wales will focus its efforts on measures that support and complement emissions trading as well as on adaptation. Some key roles for the Government include improving energy efficiency in our cities, homes and workplaces; designing our cities and infrastructure to require less energy; helping the economy and community adapt to anticipated changes in sea level, heat waves, rainfall, bushfire, water availability and—dare I say it—dust storms; developing opportunities for clean energy jobs growth; and reaffirming Sydney as the carbon trading and finance hub in the Asia-Pacific region.

We are already making progress in these areas under the $150 million New South Wales Energy Efficiency Strategy. Today, though, what are Opposition members doing? Do they support the establishment of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme operating as a national emissions trading scheme as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Will we at last see a unified voice from the major parties in New South Wales about one of the greatest policy and environmental challenges of this and future generations? It is time the New South Wales community knows the truth: Will the New South Wales Nationals finally take on its national colleagues and support the emissions trading scheme as the principal mechanism to drive emissions reductions and investment in clean energy across the country? We will wait and see.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [3.52 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by the member for Pittwater that this House call on the Government to ensure adequate compensation for New South Wale based industries affected by the Federal Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The businesses or entities covered under the proposed scheme are those that emit more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. It is interesting to note that the word "dioxide" is often left out in these debates. I am not sure the Government totally understands the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. The following broad sectors are responsible for those emissions: stationary energy, transport, industrial processes, waste and forestry. These include large emitters such as energy generators, particularly in the Hunter, which I am sure the Labor Party would appreciate, as well as some agricultural processes, for example, meat and dairy.

A carbon pollution reduction scheme will have its consequences. On this side of the House we are at one—I would even say with our national colleagues—about the responsibility of addressing climate change. How we reach the targets must be debated. The Government should not be asking for any commitment from anyone in this House, because the Rudd Government remains divided on the issue. Mr Rudd admits that the scheme requires amending. Peak oil and climate change should be considered hand in hand, but peak oil is never mentioned in these debates. A crude emissions trading scheme will equate to nothing more than an employment termination scheme.

The main consequence of being trade exposed with any crude carbon pollution reduction scheme is referred to as carbon leakage when an industry or entity decides to move its activities offshore from Australia with no benefit to global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. How that manifests itself in an emissions trading scheme remains to be seen. The only thing the Rudd Government proposal potentially is doing and the only thing the New South Wales Labor Government is doing is endorsing a process to move many industries offshore. Most of those industries and thousands of jobs will come out of Labor seats. Commercially those industries will be moved to parts of Asia, which we know the Government already has considered. That will lead to no greenhouse gas emissions savings at all.

This country produces less than 1.5 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. We are a primary industry natural resource-based country. We are very much oriented to the export market. Any crude scheme the Government comes up with for the sake of political spin and being seen to be doing something will be to the detriment of our communities. Let us return to the Hunter, for instance, where those mining, power and agricultural industries are based. People in the Hunter are shaking in their boots, but they are not going to Government members for help; they are coming to us, members on this side of the House. That is why those opposite conducted polls in their electorates two weeks ago. The majority of local concern related to emissions trading schemes, fear of job losses and exporting industries overseas. The State Government tried to sell off our power industry in lieu of building more coal-fired power stations. How is that being climate change responsible? The Government questions what we did at the last election. We had a commitment to target renewable energy sources by 2025.

It would be evidence that the Coalition was at one in looking at things such as a soil carbon sequestration scheme so that people in rural areas entering into best management practices worldwide would be rewarded. We were looking at biofuel targets, plantations, rewarding solar energy, targeting issues around geothermal areas—wind power—and, most importantly, putting more money into research and development, not light bulbs into Bunnings. The Government must get its priorities right. This motion is premature and ill conceived. It will be on their heads. Hopefully, agriculture will not be included in any emissions trading scheme until 2015, but the Coalition says that food production should not be included in any emissions trading scheme. The Government has not worked out the food security issue.

Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [3.57 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members representing the electorates of Pittwater, Drummoyne and Barwon for their contributions to this debate. The Liberals-Nationals have not provided any evidence of a document outlining a single approach to this important issue. The one thing Opposition members could do is go to their national counterparts and say, "This is our document, this is what we believe should take us forward into the next decades and generations" and explain that for the people of New South Wales. I take this opportunity to mention a couple of practical things this Government is doing in trying to address this important question. The New South Wales Government is delivering a $340 million Climate Change Fund and a $150 million Energy Efficiency Strategy.

By contrast, the Opposition has issued a single policy known as solar feed-in tariffs. In the 700 days since the most recent State election, the Opposition has laboured line by line to craft that little gem. The New South Wales Government's Climate Change Fund provides $100 million in rebates for solar and gas hot water, rainwater tanks, energy efficient installation and 4.5 star washing machines. That allows homeowners to make positive changes at the grassroots level. More than 120,000 rebates have been provided since July 2007, saving 12.2 million on annual household water and power bills. The rainwater tank rebate provides up to $1,500 for households to install a tank and connect it to toilets and washing machines. I am sure the Opposition would agree that that is a very popular scheme.

At 31 August 2009, 28,475 rebates for rainwater tanks had been paid, representing a fantastic response to the program. The tanks are estimated to save approximately 1,280 megalitres of water each year, and there will be more savings as more tanks are installed. As at 31 August 2009, 40,208 applications for hot water system rebates had been paid. Although I note that the Opposition's amendment relates to a separate issue, I point out that the improvements to households I have outlined are estimated to save more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year. Water heating constitutes the largest use of power in homes. It is very encouraging to note such a large uptake of low carbon water heating across the community. A total of 13,302 applications for insulation rebates also have been paid, which represents a saving of an additional 6,650 tonnes of carbon a year. More than 38,000 rebates were paid for 4.5 star washing machines from 1 August 2008 to 31 August 2009, representing a saving of more than 900 megalitres of water a year.

It is practical programs such as those I have outlined that effectively assist in reducing pollutants that find their way into our atmosphere. Under renewable energy precincts, the New South Wales Government is working to ensure that the State is well placed to capture a significant share of investment in renewable energy flowing from the agreed renewable energy target, which aims for 20 per cent of our electricity supply to come from renewable sources by 2020. In June the New South Wales Government announced details of a new solar bonus scheme for rooftop photovoltaic panels. The scheme will commence on 1 January 2010 and it is a net feed-in tariff model. In conclusion, I make the point that the Government will not support the amendment. The motion is very important. To complement all the marvellous work being done by the Government, we need an emissions trading scheme. The Opposition should state its policy and support the motion.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Ms Beamer Mr Brown Ms Burney Ms Burton Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Coombs Mr Corrigan Mr Daley Ms D'Amore Ms Firth Mr Furolo Ms Gadiel Mr Gibson

Mr Greene Mr Harris Ms Hay Mr Hickey Ms Hornery Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Khoshaba Mr Koperberg Mr Lalich Mr Lynch Mr McBride Dr McDonald Ms McKay Mr McLeay Ms McMahon Ms Megarrity

Ms Moore Mr Morris Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Terenzini Mr Tripodi Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Mr Baumann Ms Berejiklian Mr Besseling Mr Cansdell Mr Constance Mr Debnam Mr Dominello Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Mr Fraser Ms Goward Mrs Hancock

Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mr Humphries Mr Kerr Mr Merton Mr O'Dea Mr Page Mr Piccoli Mr Piper Mr Provest Mr Richardson Mr Roberts

Mrs Skinner Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Stokes Mr Stoner Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Mr J. D. Williams Mr R. C. Williams Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 181 applied.

Question declared resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.