Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders has raised this matter today because what he fears most in this current debate is any independent voice on what the science of climate change means for Australia's efforts to reduce its own pollution. What we have heard today is a ringing independent voice, that of Professor Ross Garnaut. Professor Garnaut is, I repeat, an independent voice, and that is what the opposition cannot stand about the report that he released today. I add my thanks to those the Prime Minister expressed earlier today in question time to Professor Garnaut for the continuing excellent service he has rendered to our nation over the course of his working life.

This debate today is not, as the topic chosen for it by the member for Flinders might suggest, about the role of government. It is not about the role of parliament, which will continue to be the body that has responsibility and accountability for the legislation that it makes. It is grossly misleading for the member for Flinders to come into this House and make any suggestions about what the government is proposing to do in relation to the carbon price scheme that we will be announcing in the middle of the year and introducing legislation for later in the year. It is grossly misleading for him to have made the suggestions that he has made about what the government is proposing.

The fact of the matter is that the opposition is fundamentally opposed to any climate change policy that achieves the long-term reductions in pollution that we need to make. As outlined in his recent interview on the 7.30 Report, the member for Flinders has admitted that his polluter subsidy policy is only a temporary solution that has nothing to offer Australians for the long-term adjustment that Australia needs to make. The coalition's policy will not make a dent in Australia's emissions and fundamentally ignores the economic transformation that our nation needs to make. Far from being a long-term vision, which is what one might expect from a mainstream political party, the coalition's policy is a fig leaf to convince the sceptics who sit opposite and make up a large proportion of the coalition parties that, in proceeding with the direct action policy, they have committed only to a pot of money that can be quickly reallocated and abandoned once they gain power. As outlined by Professor Garnaut today, direct action is immensely more expensive than a price on carbon. To make it clear what our policy is, the carbon price that we aim to introduce in this country is a price on pollution, which will make dirty energy more expensive and clean energy like solar, gas and wind cheaper. The carbon price will apply only to the biggest polluters in our economy—fewer than 1,000—and they will be required to pay for every tonne of carbon pollution that they emit. It is the most effective and the cheapest way for us to build a clean energy economy and every single reputable economist has said that, in comparison to the fig leaf of a direct action policy that the coalition has put forward, it is absolutely clear that putting a price on carbon, a market mechanism, is to be preferred.

I do need to make clear what the governance arrangements for the carbon price might be—first, by making clear that those governance arrangements are still under consideration by the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. No decisions have been taken on aspects of governance, which are those that have been raised in this matter of public importance by the member for Flinders today. All details will be announced once the deliberations of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee have been finalised, but it is apparent that it is necessary to correct a complete misconception that has been advanced today by the member for Flinders not about the government's proposal, not about what has been decided in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee but about Professor Garnaut's proposal for an independent committee.

See this speech in context