Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that the National Party are full of gloom and doom. There is never a positive position for the rural sector. Like Hanrahan, it is always, ‘We’ll all be rooned.’ The position that carbon is not a problem and that we do not have to deal with it is not reality. The reality is that carbon is there, we are going to have to deal with it, the world is going to deal with it, Australia needs to deal with it and we need to deal with it right across our economy. That is the point and that is what this government is doing. The Liberal position has changed from John Howard, to Mr Turnbull to the position that they have now. It is an unsustainable position. They know that but they are trying to find something in a political sense.

The previous speaker, the member for Mallee, dealt with a couple of matters. Of course we have to use fertiliser, but there are people who are working hard at farming with a lot less fertiliser, a lot less sprays. There are people out there doing it. That cost is not going away, whether there is a price on carbon or not. That price is still going to be there and is still going to increase. We know that and those opposite know that, so it is a false argument to bring that into this debate. No-till farming, harvesting moisture—of course they are doing that. And the smarties out there are really into that in a positive way. Mechanical agriculture: more use of that is going to continue to help meet costs. Being able to produce more with less: we have seen farmers do that with water and there are a lot of people out there—a lot of very good farmers—doing that in a positive way. The member talked about the workforce. There was no bigger change in the workforce than when tractors replaced horses. If you want to look at statistics those are the biggest statistics to look for in agricultural change.

We really need to come to grips with getting a price for carbon. Calling it a carbon tax is probably a bit misleading at this stage. We really need to work on a carbon price that can be in place by 2012; we need to get legislation passed through this parliament so that can occur. A carbon price would be a market mechanism. It is incredible for me, from where I come from, to stand in this parliament and say the Labor Party is going to use a market mechanism to achieve an outcome, while the other side, the Liberal Party, is opposing that and have an idea that they are going to win government on it. I do not know where Menzies’ philosophy would fit into that thinking. It is a really interesting thing to stand in this parliament and think about that. But that is the position the Liberal Party are in in their political manoeuvrings. It is really quite a strange thing to have occurred.

Following getting a fixed price on carbon, there is clear intent that there would be a smooth transition to an emissions trading scheme. That is the government’s position; that is what we should be moving towards and that is what we are moving towards. Detailed issues including the starting price, the length of the fixed price period, and assistance arrangements for households, communities and industry will be addressed as we go through this debate. We need to have a debate based on facts, not fear. We need to get on to the facts about this issue that our country needs to deal with. We need to have a calm and rational conversation about what is best for Australia and how to tackle climate change and build a clean energy economy. We have certainly seen some of the worst aspects of the Liberal Party on the television today from the doorstops this morning.

The Leader of the Opposition should really be having a conversation where he is putting out his party’s position based on the facts of this debate and not about fear. The coalition’s direct action policy will cost $30 billion and ensure that taxpayers, rather than those putting out carbon, are the ones who pay. That is what the Liberal Party’s and the National Party’s positions are. They say that those that are polluting do not have to pay, but the ordinary taxpayers of Australia will pay $30 billion. Now when we start talking about who is going to get hit under what policy, it is their policy that will take the hit. Government rather than markets will pick the winners. It is really astounding that the Liberal Party has a position like that. There will be no investment certainty provided for industry. That is what industry tells me they want. A lot of industry leaders know the world is going to have a carbon price. There is going to be carbon. We are going to reduce carbon in the atmosphere and we are going to reduce what is producing carbon. Industry leaders want certainty so that they can get on with their decision-making and their industry-planning and their investments. Much needed economic reform will be ignored and replaced with this stop-gap political solution. Households will not receive any assistance to cope with the cost-of-living issues; I understand they will be slugged about $720 on their tax bills because of the Liberal and National parties’ policy position.

Under the Gillard government’s policy position, the people who produce the carbon will be the ones who pay. The market will pick the winners. We will sort out where we are going to go in the new world of reducing carbon. Industry gets investment certainty; households will receive assistance to help them with their household bills. We will look after communities and households. And the national economy will undergo significant change as we move to a clean energy future with certainty and a means of doing so.

Agriculture, which is being used by the National Party in this debate, is exempt from a carbon price, as has been repeatedly stated by the federal government. So their arguments are false; the argument on which this debate is based today is a false argument. Of course we went around looking at what carbon meant. In a report brought down by the House committee, Farming the future, we certainly went into some of those things. There was certainly one thing that came out of that report—that is, healthy soil, healthy food. That is certainly something that we need to get to our heads around.

No doubt, when a carbon price is worked out and we move to an emissions trading scheme, the agricultural industry may benefit from going down that path. In the report of that committee we certainly looked at those issues and the adaptation prospects and impacts of climate variability and climate change on agriculture. There could be a lot of positive things in that area. There could be a lot of opportunities into the future, especially for the farm-forestry area. We took evidence from Mr David Matthews, a farmer at Kilcoy, Queensland, who described its importance. He said:

… soil organic carbon is the building block for all vegetation.

Of course, he is exactly right.

This is an argument based on fear. The falseness of the debate will come back and really work against the Liberal-National Party, who are trying to have a debate on a political point. They will not win on that because this is too big an issue to just have a political position on. A carbon price will cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy. A carbon price is the cheapest and fairest way to reduce pollution and invest in clean energy. This Labor government we will always support those who need help to meet an increase in their cost of living—especially pensioners and the most vulnerable. (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context