Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was listening to the honourable member for Mackellar give her contribution in which she talked about the coalition’s plan. Even a cursory glance shows that it is not so much a plan but something that is cobbled together and a continuation of the con job on climate change. It is the continuation of the fear campaign that they are running in the community on this issue. Just to highlight some of the inconsistencies in the all-over-the-shop approach that they have to their climate change policy, if you could call it a policy, I would like to start with a few quotes. On 27 November last year the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, said that if there is to be a carbon priced awareness of coal fired electricity and oil driven cars an ETS may be the most market oriented way to do so. He said:

That’s why I think there is a strong case for an ETS but it’s got to be the right ETS. It’s got to be an ETS that protects Australian jobs and protects Australian industries …

That is precisely what the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which contains the emissions trading scheme of the government’s policy, is. It is about protecting the economy. It is about protecting the environment. It is a major economic reform and that is what is required to tackle climate change. There are a whole range of things that need to be done to tackle climate change and the Rudd government is doing them. It is not just one measure, but an emissions trading scheme as part of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is one of the key ways to do that. There has to be a cap on emissions. In whatever way you look at it there is no magic pudding answer that the coalition seem to keep coming up with. There has to be a cap and that is what the government’s policy to climate change is. There is a cap and it has to be costed. The biggest polluters under our scheme will pay. The coalition are saying that nobody will pay. They are in fairyland and fantasy land if they think that there can be no cost. Under our plan low- and middle-income householders will not have to pay and they will be compensated.

I heard some of the opposition members at the doors this morning talking about the finances of the government’s scheme and they were saying that they were ‘crap’ too. We are talking about Treasury modelling. We are not talking about something that we cobbled together one weekend and said, ‘This is how much it is going to cost and this is how much people will get back.’ It was Treasury modelling done independently. That is what we are acting on and we have taken advice on some of those issues. I am not sure where the coalition are getting their advice from.

I have some more quotes, and some of them are priceless and are absolute gems. The member for Warringah on 11 November 2009 in the Australian said:

… if the government substantially accepts our amendments—

to the CPRS—

there is no reason why this legislation can’t be passed.

In June 2009 the member for Warringah said:

The point I made about an emissions trading scheme is that I don’t like it one bit. I think it is economically suspect and I think the science behind the policy is contentious to say the least.

This flip-flopping that has been going on since last year, and in 2010 we are back in parliament with the same scenario.

The member for Warringah said that our policy was absolute crap. He also said that he was like a weathervane on climate change. I made the comment that he may have said he was like a weathervane, and we know what that is, but he is more like the weathercock in my yard that spins around and changes daily, depending on which way the breeze is blowing and depending on how things are going. One day it is this and the next day it is that. I have read about so many different positions coming from the coalition on climate change that it would be hard for anyone in the public to make sense of them. It is also like having two bob each way: ‘One day I will say this and the next day I will say that. Then there is another audience so I will say this and with the other audience I will say that.’

It reminded me of a movie that I saw a long time ago. It was a Red Skelton movie so that dates it a little bit. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, you might be familiar with it, given your interests. I have only ever heard one other person talk about it, Senator Robert Ray, which was when I decided that I would like him because he talked about that particular movie. It was about Red Skelton trying to play to both sides of the fence, to the Confederates and the Yankees. He had a uniform and a flag and was walking between them and playing to both sides. A gust of wind came, like the weathervane and the weathercock, which spun him around and he ended up with the wrong side of the flag facing the opposing parties. They all then started shooting at him.

That is how I see the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, on his policy of climate change. He is playing to all sides, and I am talking about all sides within his own coalition to start with, because they are all over the shop on it and are divided. If they are divided on this, despite what they say they have come up with today, how can the public trust them on this issue? I think that they are going to get caught in the firing line, like Red Skelton did, with all sides firing at them eventually.

They cannot continue to run a scare campaign without some facts. In absolute disregard of Treasury modelling, I heard the member for Warringah saying it would cost families $1,100 per year. That comment has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. He continued to peddle it in the face of the facts of the situation. The facts are that for an average family the Treasury modelling says costs will be around $624 a year, compensation will be $660 and the big polluters are paying. The big polluters paying means that money will go into a fund which is hypothecated. It is not going back into the coffers of consolidated revenue. It is hypothecated back to deal with the issue of climate change.

You hear other comments from the coalition such as, ‘Copenhagen, nothing came out of that.’ One big thing did come out of that which was that major advanced economies agreed they would keep the temperature rises in their countries to under two per cent. I noticed that the small island countries asked for something lower and other countries asked for different things. But they agreed to one key thing and all countries have a variety of mechanisms to do it. Yes, we have laws, we have policies and we have lots of other actions that we can do, but it is always better if it can be in a legal framework.

Another comment that the coalition has peddled about an emissions trading scheme, as part of the con job, is that ‘nobody is doing it’. That is not true. Thirty-five nations have either already introduced or are introducing emissions trading schemes. Why is that? It is because an emissions trading scheme has been proven to be the cheapest and most cost-effective way to limit emissions, and that is what we have to do. The nations and the leaders who say that they will have an emissions trading scheme are not limited to one side of politics; they are from all sides. We see the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who is from the conservative side of politics, adopting it; David Cameron, the Leader of the Conservative Party in the UK, is also adopting it. So it is not just one side.

One of the most reckless and irresponsible comments I have heard the member for Warringah make was recently when he said that if the temperature rises by four degrees it does not really matter and it is not a moral challenge for us. It is a challenge on any front. We have agreed to keep it below two degrees and he is saying, ‘If it goes four degrees or beyond, that is not a problem.’ If there were a temperature increase of four degrees we would face serious threats. The number of very hot days, over 35 degrees, would increase dramatically. The Great Barrier Reef and the billions of dollars from the tourism industry that rely on it would be devastated. A lot of this is documented in the report that Professor Garnaut produced. The Murray-Darling Basin would also be beyond salvation. Eastern Australia would have 40 per cent more droughts and there would be a 90 per cent decrease in irrigated agriculture in the nation’s food bowl.

All of this can be avoided, and that is what the Australian community and the people in my electorate of Page want to happen. They want us to get on with the business of tackling climate change, and that is what the government is doing; it is taking decisive action. The delay is coming from the coalition. We need to get on and do it. It is not beyond us; we can do it. The costs of inaction, though, start to be a real problem, and they can be sheeted home directly to the coalition with their delaying tactics, which are purely to seek some sort of electoral gain.

There have been some priceless quotes from the coalition, and one of them comes from Senator Joyce from the National Party, who said on Lateline in December 2009:

… man did not go to develop the wheel because they taxed walking and they didn’t tax horses to develop the automobile—

I can see the member for Cowper at the table, laughing—

So this idea that emissions trading scheme brings you carbon nirvana is ludicrous.

How could you even comprehend what he is talking about when he makes statements like that? It is a bit beyond my comprehension—

See this speech in context