Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, my apologies. The member came in when that was the Liberal Party's policy. Other members of the opposition campaigned in 2007, as the opposition did, on an emissions trading scheme. Then, we had a white paper, a green paper, an exposure draft. It went through the House of Representatives. It tried to go through the Senate twice. There were two years of debate on this, during which both sides of politics agreed that an emissions trading scheme—a market based mechanism—was the way to go. And that was right up to 2009.

In 2010, on Julia Gillard's first day as the Prime Minister, she said she would introduce a price on carbon. In the week before the election, she made a statement at the press club, which was reported in all the major press as Julia's 'carbon price promise', where she said that if she was Prime Minister after the election she would take that as a mandate to put a price on carbon. Rewriting of history is great, but in that week leading up to the election, two people—

Mr Chester interjecting—

The member might actually like to google 'Julia's carbon price promise' and read the entire statement, because she actually said both things in one sentence. She said 'market based mechanism', said yes to a price on carbon and said no to a tax. And that is why we have a market based mechanism, a trading scheme with a fixed price for three years—which, incidentally, was Liberal Party policy, and you did not call it a tax then. It is amazing how, when you had a policy of a fixed price, it was an emissions trading scheme, and now, remarkably, there is a different word. The misinformation—I am reluctant to use the word 'deception', because I think it is actually ignorance on the other side over there—regarding your own policy, and our policy for that matter, is quite extraordinary.

We have always been committed to a market based mechanism—certainly for as long as I have been a member of this parliament, and that was what I campaigned for in 2004—and we remain so. And so will you be. As soon as you change leader again, you will go back to your natural state, which is a market based mechanism.

Mr Chester interjecting—

As soon as you change your leader again, is what I said. I was silent for you, even though I thought you were talking nonsense, and I would really appreciate the same courtesy, thank you.

Mr Chester interjecting—

No wonder your electorate is a little alarmed; they have you as a member. It is not surprising. Both sides of politics believe we need to act on this. Both sides set the same target, and both sides agree to act. The difference between the two sides is that the Liberal Party's and the National Party's policy is far more expensive and will rip the money out of the pockets of taxpayers. This is an absolutely astonishing motion.

We have at the moment an opportunity in this country to grasp the future in both hands. I saw the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, interviewed recently and he was asked about peak oil and what it meant. It was clear that he did not know what it meant, but when someone explained to him that it meant that production would eventually start to fall in the world—we would find the biggest oil reserves and, over time, production would start to fall—he made this extraordinary claim that that did not matter because, as the price of oil went up, we would be prepared to go to greater lengths to obtain it. This is all true, but the amazing thing was that he was happy enough for us as a country to go through a process where the price of oil and coal goes up and up and up because they get harder to find and not to act on it.

We have an opportunity now. As a nation faced with climate change but endowed with the most extraordinary resources for renewable energy sources and a capacity to develop those renewables that is unmatched in the world, we have an obligation to grasp that future. The opposition might want to stay in the past. We heard from the previous speaker that that is exactly where he wants to stay. He thinks we can stay with fossil fuels forever. Well, we cannot, because the rest of the world is moving. It is moving now and we are well advised to go with it. That is why I support our policy and totally reject this motion. (Time expired)

See this speech in context