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

Can I say: hooray for the opposition! After nearly 12 years of debate in this House, 35 parliamentary inquiries and countless, almost infinite, number of words spoken on climate change, I have changed my mind—I am convinced! I have just heard the convincing words that we do not need to change. In fact, not only am I convinced, but climate change has ceased—that is it! It is all done; it is all said. Methinks climate change is fixed!

The reality is that this MPI is just like every other MPI, every other bit of political claptrap that we have heard from the opposition. They come in here actually misleading people on what the facts are, on what they will do and on the impact of what we are trying to do, shirking their responsibilities in terms of the national interest and what is happening globally. Instead, they are interested in one thing, and we see it in here repeatedly, day after day: the political game, the political advantage. But, unfortunately for the opposition, you can play that game—you just have to introduce some facts. That has to be the bottom line for any debate: there at least has to be some facts you can underpin your argument with. You cannot come in here and not even make an argument but just read out other people's comments. There are plenty of other people's comments, but unfortunately they do not underpin the science, the facts or what this government is actually trying to do after more than 10 years of debate in this House, under consecutive governments, and 35 different parliamentary inquiries.

I think the debate has been had, and I think we have actually passed the legislation. It is actually going to happen. Finally, there is a government with the courage to stand up and make it happen. And guess what? It is going to happen: we will take action, we will do something about climate change and about our competitive position in the world. Because if we do not do something, let me assure you there are 30 other countries doing something right now. You have a choice. You can either get with the program, get on board with what the rest of the world is doing, or end up in the ludicrous position that, for example, China find themselves in right now, where they refuse to pay the carbon price for flying their aircraft into Europe or the United States because they are going to be slugged with a penalty as they do not have a carbon price system. So they are now in this ludicrous position of having to make a decision: do they no longer fly their aircraft into Europe or the United States because they do not want to pay the penalty? Do we really believe in Australia that we are going to do the same thing? I do not think so.

What we are doing is really clear; it is really simple. The 500 largest companies in this country have for more than 100 years been allowed to pollute the environment, the air and our rivers. If anyone does not believe me, have a think about it: where would big industry always set up their factories? Next to a river. Why was that? Because that was the natural sewer; that was where you dumped all the chemicals, the rubbish—the whole lot. But then we woke up one day and we said: there is actually a cost to doing that—a cost to society, to the environment and to us individually. So smart governments over the years introduced laws that said you cannot just dump all of your pollutants and rubbish into the river. And guess what? Then we woke up to air pollution. We said, 'You can't just dump it all into the air, you can't just dump it all into the environment; you have to do something.' And the same principle applies here. The 500 biggest polluters are now going to have to do one of two things: either clean up what they are spewing into the environment or pay a penalty for doing so where maybe they cannot do that as effectively. So what we are going to do is put an incentive in place so that these polluters do not do that any longer.

From the revenue that is raised from the carbon tax we are going to do two things, which are very simple again. First, we are going to compensate average families and households—nine out of 10 households in Australia will get some compensation—because we understand that there is a cost and we are honest about it: because there is a cost, certain things will go up in price. But, let me tell you, it is a very small price. There have been a lot of issues made about, for example, how much a kilo of meat, say rump steak, will be under a carbon price. There has been some really good work done on this. It equates to just 1or 2 cents. When we take into account the normal fluctuations in given prices between different shops and outlets, and inflation, it is not a big burden to pay. But we will compensate families.

The other part of the revenue that comes from the carbon price will go to something that I think is just as important, if not more important—as it is going to be the job creator, the future generator of jobs in this country—because it is about productivity, it is about innovation, it is about competitiveness. And that is because we are going to invest in R&D. We are going to invest in the future. We are going to make sure that, unlike the last 30 years, the next 30 years are going to be about future industries. And you can do that at the same time that you support existing jobs. I think that is a bit lost on the opposition. For them it is black and white, all or nothing. On this side we can actually walk and chew gum at the same time. We can be in a position where we are planning for the future and also supporting existing jobs.

If we are going to talk about existing jobs in the aluminium industry, let us be honest about what is happening in the aluminium industry. We may live on an island but we are not in isolation from the rest of the world. What happens in Australia is not just linked to domestic markets; it is linked to global markets. There is a curious fact. Countries that have already introduced carbon pricing, carbon taxes, on the most polluting industries—of which we all accept aluminium is one—for example, Germany, have seen their aluminium industry grow. It has grown in size, in profitability—it has grown across the board. Why is that? Because the Germans understood that, if their economy was going to thrive and grow into the future, they needed to make the change, they needed to make the investments.

There is one other little thing that really sets this off, and that is demand. There is a high demand for aluminium right across the planet. Unfortunately, Australia has two things working against us right now. First there is a high Australian dollar, at around 106/107 US cents, which is unfortunate for our exporters and for the aluminium industry. It is also unfortunate, as a matter of fact, that the price of aluminium has reduced sharply in recent years, which is putting a lot of pressure on our industry. So we have accepted all of those things and we are actually working with the industry.

But, while I say all of that, you have to remember: this is before a carbon price comes in, this is before there is a carbon tax, this is before anything that the opposition is talking about has taken place. So we have already accepted the fact that there is some pain and some change—we have called them 'growing pains' in different sectors—but we are going to help and we are going to assist and we are going to do it through a number of packages. We are going to make sure we do not lose our manufacturing sector; that we do not lose our aluminium smelting sector; and that we support, underpin and invest in those jobs. And we have actually done something concrete about it—not just drafted a plan. We have actually put money on the table; we have passed legislation.

What is curious, though, is that the other side talk about supporting jobs but they come in here and vote against jobs. They vote against the support packages. They vote against those workers, whom they are trying to frighten and scare—those families who are looking at their own industries and sectors and are unsure about where the future may take them. I would be unsure, too, if I continually heard on the radio members of the opposition, the shadow Treasurer and others, basically pooh-poohing their sector, carrying on like it is the end of the world and there will not be an aluminium smelting sector in Australia or any other manufacturing, when that is just not the case. This MPI is completely meaningless, except for the fact that it is a cheap political point-scoring exercise, because we have already passed all the legislation that needs to be passed. The opposition should now get on with the reality of life—start supporting industry, start supporting the legislation that we bring into this House that will actually support jobs, make sure that we have a strong and growth focused manufacturing sector by supporting the proposals that we are putting forward and make sure that they do not go out there and frighten industry and frighten workers. The opposition has made all sorts of baseless claims about jobs. I say baseless because there are no facts attached. They talk about jobs going because of the carbon price, but it has not come in yet. What is the cause of what is happening out in industry? I think it is pretty clear to everybody what it is.

The coalition say they have a plan. I will be brief when listing their plan because it is not very complicated and it does very little. They call it the Direct Action Plan. It is really simple: they will directly charge consumers and every taxpayer $1,300 on average per household. That is the exact amount under the opposition's plan, which will cost around $13 billion in 2020. We are doing the opposite. We are saying that those who pollute ought to pay the price and those who will be impacted by it should be compensated. That is our plan. That is what we are going to do. That is what has been passed by the parliament and that is what will happen. People will be compensated for any extra costs they incur and it will mean that Australia will move on to a clean energy future, to jobs for the future and to industries for the future, industries that will survive under our plan.

See this speech in context