Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of, I hope, all members of the House, I apologise to that rather large group of visitors in the Speaker's gallery, who could take no more during the contribution by the member for Indi and walked out en masse. I cannot blame them, because that really was what I would describe as a rather embarrassing contribution to this matter of public importance. It was full of bluster, it contained no facts and was, typically, an attempt to scaremonger.

But the member for Indi was not on her own. The shadow Treasurer was not much better. I do excuse him just a little. He used his contribution to say something about the national accounts, which, of course, were released today, and I would expect him as shadow Treasurer to take any opportunity he can to speak about them. So we will go easy on the shadow Treasurer. It was not a bad contribution; he tried to say a few positive things. The significant thing is that he totally ignored his own leader's MPI. We have seen from the shadow Treasurer this week, mainly via his rather interesting contribution by way of a letter to the Australian Financial Review, that at the moment he is a bit on the fence. He does not know which way to jump at this stage because there is some heavy competition going on between the current leader and the member for Wentworth, who is seated at the table. Joe just does not know which way to jump.

That brings me to what I thought was the most embarrassing contribution of all, and that was the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition. He raised an MPI in this place on a substantial issue—it is one worth debating: a carbon constraint is the most interesting and topical issue of debate in this country at the moment—but he did not say anything about it. He came in here without one fact, with no thoughtful ideas and with no real contribution to make to the debate. Instead, he made a leadership speech full of one-liners that he was hoping would rally those sitting behind him at a crucial time for him, when he is struggling to maintain their support. The really interesting thing about him introducing the MPI on this topic is that this debate is not about climate change. It is not about whether the globe is warming. It is not even about whether man makes a contribution to that heating. Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, accepts that. He accepts it so fulsomely that he has a policy to address it. We do not like the policy and the broader Australian community will not like the policy when they come to understand it because it is a policy to tax them more and take that money and use it to subsidise the big polluters. That is something that the latter will of course greet with open arms, but there will be nothing in it to ensure that they use that money for the purposes for which it is intended. The member for Wentworth on Lateline belled the cat and made the point that this is a road to everywhere or nowhere, I am not sure which. Certainly it is a policy for which the costs cannot be controlled. We appreciate the member for Wentworth's very, very honest contribution on that topic.

I am going to share the worst kept secret in this place and that is that the Chief Government Whip has some say in who contributes to the MPI debate. I know my colleagues will be shocked, but that is a fact. Today, anticipating the lowbrow contribution we would get from the Leader of the Opposition, I thought, 'Let's have a guy from the Hunter and let's have a guy from the Illawarra.' It is interesting because the Leader of the Opposition used up—I wish I had had the clock running—at least 33 per cent of his contribution going around the electorates. 'What about the member for Hunter; what is he going to do? What about the member for such and such; what is he going to do?' I have another confession, Mr Deputy Speaker: I used to occasionally do this in opposition too. With 30 minutes to speak on a tax bill you are struggling sometimes, so you fill it up by going around each electorate and introducing a bit of politics into the debate. I know that some people listening to the debate will be shocked, but I am happy in this place to solemnly declare and confess my sins of the past, and that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did today.

How sad is it when the Leader of the Opposition in this country cannot come in here for 15 minutes and make a constructive contribution to the biggest debate in this country at the moment without putting in a filler, without spending five minutes of his time running a scare campaign seat by seat? I listened to the member for Throsby and I congratulate him on his response to the scare campaign from the Leader of the Opposition—that he had nothing to say, no facts. The government has not even released the detail of its policy, but do not worry, it will soon. Therefore, by definition everything the Leader of the Opposition said today has to be confected, has to be made up. There can be no other explanation for the way in which he made his contribution today.

I want to say something very important about the Hunter because, like the member for Throsby and others, the Leader of the Opposition had a bit to say about impact in certain regions. Let me let him in on a surprise: the overwhelming majority of people in the Hunter want us to do something about global warming. They want us to take a responsible approach and that is what we will do. Here is the point the Leader of the Opposition misses: the mining union and unions generally in the Hunter Valley support action on climate change. They support a carbon constraint. They want their industries to be sustainable into the future. Sensibly they are coming with us on that front.

There was bluster from the Leader of the Opposition about whether the member for Hunter has told his workers. Well, my workers tell me. My workers come to me and say, 'We want you to ensure that our jobs in the Hunter are sustainable.' Indeed, that applies to manufacturing too. There are only two real threats to manufacturing at the moment. One, as has been mentioned, is the very high Australian dollar and the other is the abandonment on the part of the coalition of a commitment to the market and to market based policies. The best thing we can do for manufacturing in this country is to put them on a sustainable footing and to introduce new opportunities through a carbon constraint world, and that is what we will do.

The other point he misses is the projections on the consumption of energy in this country into the future. The Leader of the Opposition rhetorically said, 'How many factories can you power off solar?' What a ridiculous thing to say. The Hunter produces something like 80 per cent of New South Wales electricity consumption. In the future New South Wales will need all the coal fired and gas fired electricity we can produce in the Hunter, but it will need to keep up with the demand of significant renewable energy as well. The Hunter is very, very well placed. We already have a foot in the door on solar. We have had solar in the Upper Hunter for some time now. We have the expertise. The Prime Minister spoke during question time about the significant investment we are making in solar in the Hunter Valley. The experts who determine these things have come to the conclusion that the Upper Hunter is the second best geographical region in the country for geothermal energy. What a great opportunity for the Hunter. Wind-mapping done by New South Wales demonstrates that the Upper Hunter around Scone is, I think, the second best place in New South Wales for wind technology. These are big opportunities for the Hunter. Even if there are still some sceptics on the other side, they should ask themselves this: even if you do not believe in climate change, even if you do not believe in man's contribution, why is it that a number of big polluters continue to pump their pollution into the sky without charge but that when the member for Wentworth goes to the council tip with his box trailer, having done the clippings around his stately mansion, he has to pay the council for the right to dump that waste? Why is it that small business people in this country—and those who produce waste; maybe a plumber who ends up with significant waste at the end of a working day—have to pay the local council tip when they go to the dump yet the polluters continue to freely emit their pollution including carbon into the atmosphere? That is a distortion of the market and the government will remove that distortion and produce economic efficiencies in those markets. (Time expired)

See this speech in context