Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on this matter of public importance. We do know why this MPI has been proposed today: it is because it is all part of the opposition’s con job when it comes to climate change. What we have seen in the last two days since the opposition released its policy on climate change is the Leader of the Opposition and the frontbench really ducking and weaving on the truth about their climate change policy. What we have seen when it gets down to it is that there is a stark contrast between the government’s CPRS and the opposition’s con job when it comes to climate change policy.

17:37:00 That contrast is simple. The government’s CPRS is all about charging the big polluters and encouraging them to reduce their pollution. The opposition’s scheme is putting the burden on taxpayers. That has become quite evident despite the opposition trying to avoid this point. We have already heard on the radio today that Barnaby Joyce has not ruled out tax increases when it comes to funding their $10 billion con job.

The opposition really has to face up to how they are going to fund their climate change policy. As I said, Senator Joyce indicated that they may increase taxes. I think the member for North Sydney was probably misplaced when he brought the matter of public importance to the House today about the intention to increase taxes. He probably should have taken this MPI to the joint party room of the Liberal and National Party on Tuesday because he has not been clear. He, like the rest of Australia, would want to know how the opposition is going to fund this $10 billion proposal.

This proposal is three times more expensive than the government’s proposal. It has not even been shown that it will reduce carbon emissions. This is a particular problem that the opposition really has to come clean with. The government has been very clear that it will not only charge the big polluters; it will also compensate families. In fact, 90 per cent of families will be fully compensated for the modest increases in the cost of living. The opposition has not done this. Rather, they have refused to say where the money is going to come from. They might increase taxes or, logically, they might reduce services.

We do know that the Leader of the Opposition has a history of cutting services. In fact, he cut $1 billion out of our hospitals. We do know that he does have a track record on this. While Senator Joyce might be advocating an increase in taxes to pay for the opposition’s plan, the Leader of the Opposition is likely to cut services. I know that my electors in the seat of Kingston do not want another billion dollars cut out of hospitals. This is especially because they have approved what our government has been doing in increasing funding to hospitals. My electors should be very concerned that Tony Abbott may cut $1 billion from hospitals to spend on his climate change plan.

One thing about this con job that did catch my ear was the idea that there will be a fund set up for the government to divvy out money to reward people and reward businesses. My mind did turn to the proposal by the member for Wentworth, who was very keen to get $10 million for cloud-seeding operations. He was not able to get that money because of the changes. If the Leader of the Opposition’s program does come into effect then maybe the member for Wentworth can talk to the right people and get his cloud-seeding program funded through this big fund.

It is a very concerning climate change policy because it directly takes aim at the taxpayers of Australia but not at the big polluters.

See this speech in context