Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Hansard source

In summing up the contribution of colleagues on my side of the chamber, I say that climate change is an issue of great consequence. In that regard, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009, which we are considering in the House today, is perhaps the biggest deliberate structural change yet in our history. But what do we see on the other side? Apart from the government members, no-one supports this bill. This bill is friendless. No-one supports this bill. The Greens do not support this bill; the crossbenches do not support it; the coalition does not support it; and nor, in fact, do those in the community who are informed about the bill. So many green groups have approached me and my colleagues saying, ‘Vote against this bill; it is not in a position to do the job.’ So many industry leaders who are supportive of a price for carbon have said to me, ‘This bill is deeply flawed and will cost jobs.’ Why are they opposing this bill? They are opposing it because it does nothing for the primary task it sets out to achieve—that is, in reducing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. It does nothing. In fact, it could increase global levels of emissions in the atmosphere, and, as a consequence of carbon leakage, it will also see thousands of jobs go offshore, it will see investment collapse in the resources sector and it will see many industries under great competitive pressure because of the nature of this bill.

You would think that opposition would lead the government to ask, ‘Why?’ You would think those on that side would be starting to query and to reach out to all those groups to find solutions for the deeply flawed nature of this scheme. But not on your nelly! There has not been any suggestion of any contemplation of any changes. It is a ‘take it or leave it’ approach, basically. It ignores what is happening in the rest of the world. It is an arrogant approach. And why? They have forged on because their arrogant approach to this bill is driven by politics. It is dripping with politics. The Prime Minister is sticking to a scheme that is so awful that it cannot be supported by anybody so that he can go to an early election claiming that he tried on climate change. ‘Oh, I tried!’ But he will blame the inaction and incompetence of everyone else. We have seen this pattern of behaviour before. In regard to any difficult issue that the Prime Minister has had to confront, he blames somebody else. He shifts the blame but says that at least he tried. This is a cunning strategy, but it is dripping with cynicism; it is a shameful strategy.

This is an issue of great consequence. The scheme has been rushed and ill considered and it is grossly misleading. People have not been given any sense of what would happen if this bill comes in and our major competitors do not engage in a similar scheme within 10, 15 or 20 years—or more, for that matter. None of that work has been done. People have been misled and kept in the dark for crass political reasons.

The main argument of the government is that it will provide certainty. This is a nonsense argument. This bill will in fact do the opposite. It will lead to great uncertainty. So many leaders have said that to me. I think the feeling was summed up by the CEO of Anglo, who said, ‘I don’t need the certainty of a bullet.’ That captured the sentiment of so many in industry, so many who want to do something constructive but feel deeply threatened by this. It is a bill that has five or six pages out of 450 pages on trade exposed industries. Yet the real substance of the impact of this bill will be in the regulations, which are months away and which will change again once the rest of the world does something. This bill is deeply flawed. We need to wait and see what the United States does and we need to wait and see what happens at Copenhagen. So much is happening internationally. We need calm common sense at a time when the economy is under great pressure. We need to do this thing correctly. We will urge the government again in the other house to defer the vote on this until after the new year, when all of these things have been decided. For that reason, we will not be supporting these technical amendments.

See this speech in context