Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection and for highlighting that point. Charging the polluters is really important, because if you do not have a method by which you can actually make this happen through a compulsory system—a set of rules—then it just simply will not happen. A voluntary system—a compensation fund or something else where people could voluntarily dip in or dip out—might suit one or two, but it is not the basis on which the globe can change or through which we can make real efforts towards carbon pollution reduction in the future. We know the outcome of simply trying to make it a voluntary system. If it is slightly difficult, then people simply do not change. Unfortunately, that happens to be a human trait.

By charging the polluters we ensure that the incentives are built in. They are built in for the market solution for the biggest polluters not only in Australia but in the rest of the world. The big polluters will clean up their act. They will do it for one of two reasons: either because they see a business opportunity or because the penalties are too high and therefore they must clean up their act. This is already happening. I am not talking about something that may or may not happen in the future. I am talking about things that are taking place right now.

A whole range of emitters right across the country, big and small, have already taken on the challenge. They are a step ahead of government. In fact, they are two steps ahead of the opposition. But the reality for them is that they have already agreed that something has to be done. They have seen the writing on the wall. They feel the change that is coming and that it is global. They understand that, to compete, you must compete hard but you are going to have to compete in a new world. This is not unusual. Through industrialisation, through other changes in human history, it is the forward thinkers—the ones who are prepared to take a risk, to lead, to demonstrate how things can be done—that win. We are going to be left behind unless we make the changes. I can assure you that, whether the opposition or anyone else in this place doubts what is happening out in the market, business has already led that change. That march is taking place right now. Only through charging polluters and having a market based system will that actually work. In particular, as I said, this is about making sure that the right people pay, not the taxpayer at large.

The third area that I mention, the three Cs, is that of compensation. Yes, we do—and I do—accept that all these things do not come for free and anyone who tries to tell you that or somehow guise it in the view that it is all for nothing is wrong. There is a cost associated and we are prepared to talk about it. Not only are we prepared to talk about it but also we understand that it will be about one per cent of the cost of living. Where that is the case, we will compensate people. That is the fair thing to do. We do not believe that working families and people on low incomes should have to bear the heaviest burden. We think the heaviest burden should be for the heaviest polluters. They are the ones who pollute and profit greatly from it. Their contribution back is to (a) cut down their pollution and (b) pay for it. It should not be up to every single taxpayer to make that commitment. But consumers and people who use it can be compensated where there is an increased cost. Again, this is a fair and credible set of rules, a way forward, a policy which is not just an Australian policy. It is a global policy, a global system. This is the way that we will be moving forward.

I want to touch on—and I do not have a lot of time left—a range of issues which I think are important. Copenhagen has been pilloried across the opposition benches as being a complete failure. Let me just say that the agreement is not perfect. That is for certain. It is not a perfect agreement, but it is an agreement. There actually is some progress, little be that progress, but progress is better than nothing at all. In contrast to that progress, we have an opposition who like to see us go backwards. They would like to see every country fighting over this. For the first time in history we have rich countries and poor countries agreeing at least on a way forward, however small that may be. It is a crucial step, and what it means is that we ought to all move forward, not move backward.

Australia, as we all know, is a very dry and quite barren country in most parts and prone to a lot of drought. We will be the hardest hit, so there is a bit of self-interest here. I think we have to do something for ourselves here. If we do not lead, who will? I can tell you from talking to my Pacific Islander friends and neighbours that for places like Tuvalu and others it is very real for them right now, today, because they understand it and they see it more than most do.

The science is always an issue. I want to be brief on this; I do not want to argue the science, because I think I would be wasting my time. The reality is that I am not a scientist but neither is anyone else in here a scientist who is an expert on climate change. I take it on good faith. I read, I listen, I attend forums and I use my own intelligence to make decisions—but is that not what we always do on these things? Rather than criticise the science, I either say that I believe it or I do not believe it. I either accept what is being told to me or I do not. Do I accept the CSIRO or the Australian voices? Do I accept it or not? I am no more an expert than anyone else but I do accept it. For me the science is real. The risk of not listening to the science is that we deal a very poor hand for future generations. I am not prepared to take that risk. I think we ought to do something.

That risk might be measured in different ways in relation to how much it will cost us. It might cost us a little; it might cost us a lot. But, whatever that cost is, I am prepared to take the risk and say that we need to do something, because I believe this is real. I know some people believe it is not real. I accept that they believe that it is not real. You will always find some article or somebody who says it is all a con job—a global con job; a global new world order and somehow we are all in on it. By the way, they think you are in on it as much as we are in on it. I do not subscribe to those views. I think we have something real to deal with and we ought to do something about it.

You might think that it was just the Labor Party saying this in this place, but it is not just us. I am not just talking about our belief and conviction. I know that in the Liberal Party—I cannot talk about the National Party; they are a creature of their own design—there are some good, sound minds who did believe in it and who continue to believe in it. In fact, one of them used to be the leader of the Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull. In his contribution to this place he made clear not only his belief but also what we should do, and he talked about a market based solution. He has the three Cs—he has courage, conviction and commitment—and he is prepared to run his own career in those terms.

There are a few things that I also want to say in terms of the differences between our policy and the opposition’s policy. Our policy does not slug the taxpayer; it slugs the big polluters. It is a policy that will actually deliver an outcome. It is costed. It is affordable. We admit that there is a cost, but people will be compensated. It will work. It will actually deliver what we say it is going to deliver, because there has been a sound basis for it—unlike the opposition’s policy. The opposition’s policy is just a big tax fund, and people can volunteer to it. By all accounts, it is actually going to make things worse, not better.

The challenge is now for the opposition: come back to the table and give us the costings. We have already heard the opposition finance spokesman, Senator Barnaby Joyce, say that there are going to have to be big cuts to spending to pay for this new fund, this new tax, that the opposition are putting forward. He has also talked about the Public Service—I wonder if that is Defence or whether he is talking about hospitals or education. The money does not come from nowhere; it is not for free. (Time expired)

See this speech in context