House debates

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

Bills

Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge — General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011; Second Reading

11:45 am

Photo of Christopher PyneChristopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills or the carbon tax package of legislation. I begin by saying that in 2007 and 2008 I was a supporter of an emissions trading scheme. The Howard government proposed a policy in favour of an emissions trading scheme based on the Shergold report. Throughout 2008 and then into 2009, when the debate occurred over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, while the opposition at the time had serious concerns about the CPRS and attempted to make it better and assist the government to introduce an emissions trading scheme that was not able to be done for a number of reasons. Many of those reasons were because, in the negotiations that the opposition had at the time, the government, instead of accepting the good faith of the opposition and working with the opposition in order to bring about an emissions trading scheme, turned it into a political issue and used it to bludgeon the opposition on a daily basis.

We have seen already the precedent that this government establishes when it wants opposition support. It does not come to the opposition and say, 'Can we work together?' Even when the opposition offers to get the government out of a bind of their own making what we do not see is the government attempting to work with the opposition. What we instead see is the government abusing, hectoring and bludgeoning the opposition as though that will achieve the outcome that it is seeking. And so we saw that with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. When the member for Wentworth was Leader of the Opposition and did attempt to bring about an outcome that would see an emissions trading scheme he essentially had sand kicked in his face by the then Prime Minister, the now foreign minister, and the attempt to work together with the government was stymied by them in not negotiating in good faith.

Then of course the world changed at Copenhagen at the end of 2009 when all the goodwill that countries like Australia had invested in the Copenhagen process of bringing about a world response to climate change faltered on the rocks of the Copenhagen conference. China was one of the leading nations at the Copenhagen conference to ensure that there was not a world agreement to move forward and try to bring about action on climate change.

I support action on climate change. I believe that climate change is occurring and I believe that it is a mixture of natural impacts that occur whatever human beings do and of human beings playing a part in bringing about some change to the climate. I do believe that we should act on climate change and I did support an attempt to do that between 2007 and 2009. But the Copenhagen conference dramatically changed the world outlook on action on climate change.

The government responded in two ways. Firstly, they pretended that the Copenhagen conference had been a tremendous success and that they were going to plough on with their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Secondly, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education convinced Kevin Rudd, the then Prime Minister, to abandon the CPRS. They did that for base political reasons because they believed that they were losing politically on the issue. Having done that the government dumped the then Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, and during the election campaign the Prime Minister deceived the Australian people in a bald-faced way by telling them that she would never countenance a carbon tax in any government she led. After the election the Prime Minister ditched that promise to the Australian people and that is the hole in the heart of this Prime Minister's stewardship of this government. That is one of the reasons that the Australian people have utterly lost faith in this government and in the authority of the Prime Minister.

Now we see the government trying to introduce a carbon tax which will do tremendous damage to the Australian economy. It will obviously export our emissions to overseas countries. It will export jobs to those same countries. It will not produce any environmental benefits. In fact, emissions will increase. It is a great big new tax built on a deceit during the election campaign which will push up the cost of living of every Australian whether they are a family or an individual and, of course, it will push up the prices for every business. I support the direct action plan of the coalition to address climate change. It is a 'no regrets' policy. What that means is that, even if you do not believe that climate change is happening, even if you do not believe the government should take action on climate change, because it is a hologram, these are still good policies and good changes that will benefit the environment and ensure that the Australian government is playing its part in ensuring that we have a better environment in the future and better environmental practices.

The direct action plan of the coalition achieves exactly the same target as the government's plan: a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020. It does it without any cost to families, it does it without any new taxes and it does it without raising electricity prices—which of course the government will raise through its carbon tax. I can make that claim because every one of the $3.2 billion that has been allocated over the next four years for the coalition's direct action plan is funded out of savings which we announced at the last federal election.

There are no new taxes to pay for this policy, no new increases in prices, no imposts on business, no exporting of jobs and no exporting of emissions. And it is a 'no regrets' policy, which means that it is a good policy in spite of any views about climate change. There are no new taxes, yet the government keep making the claim that we will add an impost to Australian households. That is a complete fabrication from a desperate government prepared to say and do anything to try and convince the Australian people that they are not one of the most incompetent and inept governments in Australian history—'Please don't vote us out, because the opposition is worse.' The government are now at the point where they are trying to argue that, even though they admit they have made many mistakes and cost the Australian people many hard-earned dollars through wasted taxes—

Comments

No comments