Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The impact of the Government’s carbon tax on the Australian economy.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very important that we debate the impact of the government’s carbon tax on the Australian economy because this is perhaps the biggest single tax change ever proposed for our economy and it is a tax change that has not been thoroughly scrutinised by the Australian people. It is the biggest change in years, yet it is not a change that this government had the guts to take to the Australian people at the last election.

It is very interesting that the Prime Minister apparently told the caucus today that she was very confident that she could win a debate about the carbon tax—that confidence I hasten to add did not actually lead to her doing this prior to the election—but one she presumably is not confident she could win is the debate we sought to have earlier today about her integrity. She shirked a debate about her own integrity. It is very understandable that she did not want to have that debate, because the words that are going to haunt this Prime Minister to her political grave are: ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.’ Those are the words that she repeated in one form or another before the last election and the words she has subsequently given the lie to by her behaviour.

There are two important things: first, we have a Prime Minister who would not defend her integrity before this House and, second, we have a government that did not actually want to have a debate on this matter of public importance. They preferred that this MPI debate not proceed, given the suspension that took place earlier today.

The impact of the government’s carbon tax on the Australian economy will be immense and it will ramify. The first impact of the government’s carbon tax on the Australian economy will be that no-one looking at our economy will believe anything that this Prime Minister says and no-one looking at our economy will trust this government with anything, given that you could not trust this government or this Prime Minister to tell the truth about their intentions before the last election. It is very damaging to have a government that has utterly lost any reputation for integrity. A Prime Minister’s word should count for something. A government’s word should be able to be believed. This government cannot be trusted, and this Prime Minister’s word can obviously be jettisoned as soon as it suits her political self-interest to do so.

That is the first impact of the government’s carbon tax on the Australian economy. It will damage confidence and it will damage the faith that investors have previously had in our economy. It will damage the reputation for being a low-tax economy that we used to enjoy under genuinely reforming governments in the years up to 2007. The main impact of the government’s carbon tax on our economy will be that it will drive prices up and it will drive employment down.

Over the last few days members opposite have claimed that we have no justification for our statements that the price of electricity will go up $300 a year per household on average and the price of petrol will go up 6.5c a litre, and that is just for starters. I tell the House and the listening Australian public that those figures are based on the $26 a tonne carbon price that was precisely the price on which the Treasury modelling was done to underlie the emissions trading scheme that this government was formerly committed to.

We are simply taking the figures that were good enough for the Treasury and were good enough for the government. If they were good enough for the government before the election, they are good enough for us after the election. We will keep using those figures because they are true. I tell you what: that is just the start; that is just the beginning. The price per tonne will rise month after month, year after year because the only way the government will be able to achieve its objectives and stop people from turning on their air conditioners and stop people from driving their cars is if the price becomes prohibitively expensive, so there will be a massive rise in prices and a massive cost in jobs.

I will give you some examples of the various estimates and forecasts that were made of the government’s former emissions trading scheme by reputable modellers such as ACIL, Access and IPART. There will be a 25 per cent increase in electricity prices, up to a five per cent rise in grocery prices, 126,000 jobs lost in regional Australia and 16 major coalmines closed, with 10,000 jobs lost in the coal industry. This increase in prices will be on top of the massive increase in prices that we have seen over the last three years, which were at least in part driven by the poor economic management of this government.

The struggling families of this country are hurting because this government cannot be trusted to manage an economy. This government cannot be trusted to prudently and frugally manage the finances of this nation. This government has turned a $20 billion surplus and an international reputation for prudence, frugality and fiscal responsibility into a $57 billion deficit. Last year it was a $40-odd billion deficit. This year they say that they will eventually get back into surplus on the basis of their mining tax and their carbon tax. They never will because they are addicted to spending. It does not matter how high the taxes are, they will never keep pace with this government’s addiction to spending.

Do you know why they want this carbon tax? It is really crystal clear. They want a great big new tax to give them a great big new slush fund so they can provide great big handouts to politically favoured groups and buy their way to an undeserved victory at the next election. The households of Australia are struggling. The families of Australia are struggling, and if members opposite were not so cocooned in their political closed shop they would understand better. Electricity prices are up 44 per cent since December 2007. Gas prices are up 29 per cent since December 2007. Water prices are up 46 per cent. Health costs are up 15 per cent. Education costs are up 17 per cent. Bread is up 12 per cent. Groceries are up 10 per cent. Rent is up 19 per cent, and it is all going to get worse.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Much worse.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Much worse under the government’s carbon price, because making electricity more expensive makes everything more expensive. Making fuel more expensive makes everything more expensive, because a modern economy simply cannot work without electricity and fuel. Power and transport are the foundations of a modern economy. Power and transport are the foundations of our standard of living. Power and transport are the foundations of our way of life, and they want to undermine those foundations. They will make everything worse.

It is no wonder that the chief executive officer of one of Australia’s largest manufacturing companies, BlueScope Steel, said that this government’s carbon tax is nothing short of economic vandalism, and he told the truth when he said that this government seems to hate the manufacturing industry. It does not understand the manufacturing industry of this country and it is trying to destroy it by driving jobs offshore, by destroying employment in this country, by sending jobs and employment to countries where they are not guilty of the kind of economic vandalism of which this government is so obviously guilty.

Why does this government hate the coal industry so much? What is wrong with the coal industry? Why does this government want to ensure that so many regions of this country—the Illawarra, the Hunter, Gippsland, the Bowen Basin, Central Queensland—are destroyed? Why does this government want to destroy the economic foundation of those communities? Why does this government want to take away the livelihoods of those struggling families? Why suck the life out of the economy of regional Australia by putting the coal industry under a handicap that will surely kill it? Why does the government want to do this?

This government must explain, and this opposition will make this government explain day in day out, moment in moment out, all the time until the next election, because this change should not be happening without the opportunity for a full consideration by the Australian people. The most shameful thing about what the government are now proposing to do is that they have tried to hoodwink people, to hide this from the Australian people. That is the only possible explanation. There is no other possible explanation for the statements of the Prime Minister, who said, ‘There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead; I rule out a carbon tax,’ and the statements of the Treasurer, sitting opposite, who said, ‘It’s just a hysterical allegation.’ Well, Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, I am afraid that it has come true and, if you want to have any shred of integrity left, you have got to explain to this House, to the people and, above all else, to yourself why you made that statement. Come on, Treasurer. Are you a man? If you are, give us the explanation.

And while you are dreaming up the explanation, let me tell the House that there is a better way. Let me say it, lest it be questioned by members opposite: climate change is real; mankind does make a contribution; we should take sensible precautions against the risks of climate change. And that is exactly what the coalition are doing with our practical and effective plan to take direct action. We will actually reduce emissions. We will not make our way of life prohibitively expensive in the hope—the vain hope, I suspect—that people will suddenly decide that they cannot drive and cannot use their air conditioners. We will not whack a $13 billion tax on the economy, and that is just for starters. We will spend up to a billion dollars a year; we will plant more trees; we will get better soil; we will use smarter technology; and we will make our industrial processes, our power generation and our farming more efficient and more effective. We will reduce emissions in sensible ways that will provide all sorts of additional environmental benefits. That is what we will do. That is a better way and, above all else, it is a more honest way.

That is the plan we had before the election. That is the plan that we had after the election. That is the plan we have. That is the plan we will continue to have, because the most important thing of all is the trust that the Australian people should be able to repose in their leaders. I understand—we all understand—that sometimes people change their minds. But, if they are honest and they really have changed their minds, they should take the new position to an election. Have a bit of guts, have a bit of honesty—and that is what you should do, Deputy Prime Minister.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard from a political conman who does not have the guts to take any difficult decisions. He behaves like a political faith-healer, who thinks he can simply wave his arms and every problem will simply go away. Electricity prices: no problem.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the Speaker has already ruled the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister out of order during question time, and I would ask you to ask him to withdraw it now.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to assist the House by withdrawing.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. He behaves like a faith-healer, who somehow pretends that if he waves his arms—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the Deputy Prime Minister withdraw using the words, please.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did, Mr Deputy Speaker; I withdraw. He behaves like a political faith-healer pretending that he can solve any problem. If he stands up in the House and says he can solve it, he can solve it. Electricity prices would be going down if he were in power, according to the Leader of the Opposition. He can do something fundamental, he says, to reduce prices across the board. This is nonsense. This is fairyland stuff. This stuff is la-la land politics and la-la land economics.

I can see the embarrassment on the faces of many opposite who know the emptiness of what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. Like all conmen, he will be found out in time. He wants to slide into the prime ministership of this country by demonstrating that he has absolutely no economic expertise whatsoever. Difficult problems such as climate change, such as dealing with a global recession and such as responding to floods require difficult decisions. What this Leader of the Opposition has proved during the global recession, during the floods in Queensland and during this debate is that he cannot be trusted in times of crisis and he most certainly cannot be trusted in times of challenge. He simply does not have the expertise, he does not have the economic knowledge and he does not have the temperament to deal with these challenges like a national leader does need to deal with these challenges.

The fact is the business community of this country absolutely understands the need for a price on carbon, for business certainty. It goes to the very core of our future prosperity. In the past in this country Labor governments have had the guts to take tough decisions, to take decisions which are hard politically. But we have done it in the long-term interests of economic reform and of wealth creation. Floating the dollar, bringing down the tariff wall, enterprise bargaining and competition policy are all great reforms of previous Labor governments. But the big reform that is required in the 21st century to cope with the biggest market failure in the history of the globe is to put a price on carbon, because the failure to price carbon has meant that it has been omitted in ways in which it should not be and it is gradually poisoning our planet. We have a responsibility to deal with it, not just an environmental responsibility but an economic responsibility. It is a great economic challenge.

Economists around the world from both left and right, governments from both left and right and think tanks from both left and right all understand the importance of putting a price on carbon, but not the Leader of the Opposition. I know at least half of those opposite understand the importance of a price on carbon. After all, they voted for it in the last leadership contest within the Liberal Party. They voted for a price on carbon, which is why the member for Wentworth was so explicit in his interview on BBC television when he reminded the interviewer that he only lost by one vote. What he was simply saying is a carbon emissions trading scheme in this country was not implemented because of one vote in the House of Representatives in the Liberal and Nationals party room. That is what it came down to. The threat that then flows from that to this country’s prosperity into the future is indeed substantial.

Of course, there is a furious debate about this, and so there should be. It is a very important economic decision. It is one that we have argued for long and hard for a long period of time. Following the last election, we thought it was our responsibility to get the price of carbon in place, working with the composition of this parliament, and that is what we have done. We do not apologise for that. We understand there will be political pain associated with it. But that is the right thing to do by the country.

I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition thinks of companies like Shell, Origin Energy, Santos or BHP Billiton, but they are very, very big investors in this country. They are responsible for a large number of jobs in our economy and they are making more and more investments. But the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and talks of anyone who is supporting a carbon price as if they are somehow irresponsible. The irresponsible person in this House is the Leader of the Opposition, who is wrecking business certainty in this country not just by opposing a carbon price but by now saying to the people of Australia and to the international investment community he will repeal it if it is passed. That is a very substantial threat to investment in our community, and it is absolutely reckless for the Leader of the Opposition to make that statement and for the Liberal Party to talk about it in those terms. What we do know is that he will be giving to subsequent generations, if we do not act, an even bigger burden of paying the price for climate change. He is transferring the cost to subsequent generations, to our children and to our grandchildren.

That is why we need to be brave now, why we need to be firm now: to put in place the arrangements that will assist in getting this in place, so they will benefit. The cost of inaction is far greater, far greater, than the cost of action. This is not something that the Leader of the Opposition understands but it is something that the investment community understand. Our largest companies understand. They certainly understand that we have to become much more carbon efficient. What this requires in particular is investment in cleaner energy and of course renewable energy, particularly when it comes to our power sector. What appalled me in the comments from the Leader of the Opposition today was his ignorance of the fact that the failure to invest in that sector is what is driving electricity prices upward and that, if we do not deal with certainty of investment in that sector, they will go higher and higher, and—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is completely false. It is not remotely true.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Flinders will resume his seat.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

those opposite will be responsible for that. So this is a very important reform for Australia—on a par with floating the dollar, on a par with bringing down the tariff walls, on a par with introducing enterprise bargaining—because it goes to the very foundation of productivity and efficiency in our economy. That is where it goes. But we do not see any understanding of that. The Leader of the Opposition would rather be Prime Minister of a high-polluting, struggling economy. He would rather have an economy that was high polluting and struggling than one where the right decisions were taken for future generations. That is what he is effectively saying. He would rather see the country fail than see this government succeed in preparing us for the future. That is how irresponsible he has become.

In addition, there is the way in which the Leader of the Opposition is characterising what we have already done and how we are planning to put in place a price on carbon. That is important. Our plan charges polluters. It charges polluters so we can provide assistance to households and to industry. That is what it does. The plan that the Leader of the Opposition is outlining is to tax families so he can hand money to polluters. That is the difference. It is a clear, stark difference—not one that the Leader of the Opposition understands, but I know it is one that is understood across the back benches over there and of course on the front benches, because the member for Wentworth has put it very clearly. He had this to say on 8 February 2010 of such a plan:

Having the government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale, and there will always be a temptation for projects to be selected for their political appeal.

In other words, the Leader of the Opposition wants the people of Australia to pay—and pay and pay. If they are going to get the emission reductions that are required, he will be spending a lot more than $10 billion. This is the crew that had a $10 billion costing con job in their costings for the last election, where the Treasury said they were so incompetent they could not even put together a budget. Of course, the opposition were warned about the approach that they are still articulating in the Treasury blue book. This is what the Treasury said to the coalition about their so-called direct action:

Direct action measures alone cannot do the job without imposing significant economic and budget costs.

That is what the Treasury advised the opposition.

The other big lie we have had in this House from the Leader of the Opposition is to do with his use of the word ‘tax’. He runs around the place talking about carbon pricing as if it is a revenue-raising measure which is just going to some general government services. It is doing no such thing. All of the revenue, every cent, that comes from the carbon price will be going back to households, into industry and into climate change policies, as it should. It does not suit his three-word slogans, but that is where it is going. There will be a day of reckoning for those opposite when budget time comes around and they have to stump up one or two alternatives. It will be a real day of reckoning.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We cannot wait!

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Frydenberg interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then we had his ridiculous discussion of the MRRT. This is a mob—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The members for Higgins and Kooyong ought not to be interjecting from outside their seats.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a mob of people who, at a time when our mining companies have record profitability, some making super profits, have the view that the mining industry is paying too much tax. What planet do they live on? The mining industry is paying too much tax! So when we put in place a regime which picks up the resource rents and uses that money to cut corporate taxes, they oppose it. The once great Liberal Party have come to that. It is just unbelievable that they could oppose a revenue stream from a resource rent tax on the mining industry, particularly one which is going to assist the savings of people on low incomes, build infrastructure and give a corporate tax cut. ‘Oh, no, we can’t have that. We should give the miners more money. They should pay less tax.’ Nothing demonstrates more than that how incompetent and bizarre those opposite have become in the bitterness of their opposition.

We also saw this kind of display when it came to the flood levy. Before then, there had never been a levy that Tony Abbott did not support. He supported six levies while the Howard government was in—never a levy he did not support. But then a levy came along that was for Queenslanders and Victorians, and he voted it down. It was a modest levy, far less than any other that he had voted for previously. Yet again, this demonstrates how irresponsible and reckless the Leader of the Opposition is.

They have another big lie about tax. That mob opposite was the highest taxing government in Australian history. They got the tax to GDP share up to 24.1 per cent. The other lie is their pretence that a global recession never happened. They pretend it did not happen and talk about the fact that we should not have gone into deficit to fund the stimulus. But what if we had not done that? Where would Australia be today? Unemployment would be far higher. Tens of thousands of businesses would have hit the wall. We acted responsibly and, all the way through that, we got more of this opposition. They opposed us every step of the way, once again proving that they are simply not capable or up to the mark when it comes to modern economic management. When this country was threatened by recession, we put in place a world-class stimulus which produced world-class results for Australia. The reason that unemployment at the moment is at five per cent is that the actions of this government put in place the correct economic policy to support our economy at a time of need. And we were opposed every step of the way. We were opposed when we put in place the bank guarantees that were absolutely fundamental and we were opposed on the stimulus, because they are not up to handling the big challenges that Australia faces. All of that is now surfacing in this very important debate.

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about Treasury modelling as though somehow what we are doing now is absolutely identical to what was done in the CPRS. I do recommend reading the CPRS material—and he did use some of it—but we have not yet taken the decisions on coverage in this emissions trading scheme. So there is no way anybody could make the sorts of assertions they have been making about cost impacts.

But there is one big difference between us and those on the other side of the House: we will provide the assistance to households that are affected. There is no plan for assistance by the opposition to provide for all of those people who are being hit by rising electricity prices right now. We will do the right thing by the people of Australia, the right thing by our economy in the long term and the right thing by our industry so that we can put in place the reforms which will produce the next generation of prosperity in this country and maximise all of the opportunities that should flow to this country from the mining boom. We will get the investment in renewable energy that is required. All of these things are essential decisions for Australia. They are the hard decisions and they are the decisions that the Liberal Party has not got the guts to take.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The headlines last Friday said it all: ‘PM’s broken promise will hit families hard: $300 TAX SLUG’, and that is only the beginning of the new taxation regime this government is determined to impose upon the Australian people. But what is also fundamentally at stake in this debate is the credibility of the Prime Minister, the woman who leads this country, and the people who sit behind her. She said to the Australian people on 16 August 2010:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

Was she telling the truth? Were the Australian people expected to believe her, on the eve of an election, when she said that there will be no carbon tax under the government she leads? Maybe I should put a good construction on this; maybe she was telling us the truth. Maybe when she announced the reversal of policy it was early advice of her resignation and she is no longer going to be the leader of the government. Or was she telling the Australian people, ‘Actually I do not lead this government at all; it is actually Bob Brown who is the leader of this government.’

If anybody can remember the pictures in the Prime Minister’s courtyard, when the Prime Minister came out surrounded by a bevy of Greens and Independents, Bob Brown shoved her away from the microphones so that he could make all of the key announcements. Maybe the Prime Minister is right: she does not lead this government and therefore she is free to break all of her promises. Indeed, wasn’t it strange that the Treasurer was not in the Prime Minister’s courtyard? It was completely taken over by Greens and Independents and there was no room for the Treasurer, even though the Prime Minister was announcing the biggest new tax in Australian history. The Treasurer was not even there to be involved with this big announcement.

What is more, the gossip tells us that the Prime Minister did not even consult the cabinet about it before she made the announcement, let alone the zombies who have all disappeared from this chamber. They were not consulted either. The Prime Minister just said, ‘We’re going to have this great big new tax.’ With all of my attempts to excuse her I really cannot explain away why on 20 August, right on election eve, she said:

I rule out a carbon tax.

The Treasurer said similar things. He ruled it out; it was not going to happen. This government has not told the truth to the Australian people. Some people actually believed her when she said that there would be no carbon tax. The Commonwealth Bank’s ACCI survey of business expectations says, ‘Eighty per cent of small business took her at her word and have not factored a carbon tax into their business plan.’ When she said no, people said, ‘We believe no.’ In fact, when she said no, was she already meaning yes, or have the Greens taken over and delivered this new tax to all Australians?

What we need to be aware of with Labor’s great big new carbon tax is that this is a tax on everything we do, every day of our lives. This great big new tax will add to the cost of every item on every shelf in every store. It will not just add to the cost of those items; it will add to the cost of everything we do with those items. Indeed, it is designed to do that very thing. It is designed to make things so expensive that we do not do them anymore. We cannot afford to run our air conditioners, so we turn them off. We cannot afford to run our lights, so we live in darkness. That is the purpose of this tax—to change people’s behaviour.

The cost of things on the shelf will go up. The cost of petrol that we use to drive the goods home to our houses will go up. The cost of the refrigerator that we put our fruit and vegetables in will go up. The refrigerator itself will cost more. The electricity to run it will cost more. When we cook the meal the stove will be more expensive. Electricity and gas will be more expensive. When we take the garbage to the dump, it will cost more. Transport, to cover the fill, will be more expensive. It will cost more to build your house in the first place, as it will cost more to build your roads and streets, install the services, operate the sewerage systems and the like. They will all cost more.

Your car will cost more. Your bus fares will cost more. Your aeroplane fares will cost more. If you want to go somewhere, it will cost you more. Your holidays will cost more. Indeed, the Minister for Tourism is on the record as saying that a carbon tax would kill the aviation industry, both domestic and international. So he knows that this tax will be very damaging to the Australian people. Your birthday cake will cost more and your funeral will cost more. This is an invasive tax that you will pay again and again and again. It will multiply and cascade through the cost of everything that you buy. It is $300 for electricity now, and we know that this is a tax which is also designed to go up, up, up and up. The government intends to continue to collect more and more. We know that this will tax everything that we do.

There is another thing it will tax that ought to matter to all Australians: it will tax your job. It may well tax your job out of existence, because this government is designing a tax that will put an extra burden on the price of doing everything in Australia. It will be more costly to manufacture here. It will be more costly to visit this country. It will be more costly to grow food in this country. It will be more costly to do the things that we need to do to earn our way in the world.

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency said on the ABC only yesterday that it was too early to tell how a carbon price will affect farmers’ costs. Yet if he had read the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics paper of August 2009 he would know that they estimated that the additional charges will cut a beef farmer’s income by 13.6 per cent, dairying by 9.7 per cent, sheep by 11.4 per cent and wheat and other crops by 8.5 per cent. But if you move to manufacturing you get exactly the same story. We are told that shopkeepers expect that they will have to put up prices—80 per cent said they will have to put up prices and 70 per cent said they will have to get rid of staff. That is the direct effect of Labor’s great big new tax.

Let us look at what Labor intends to do with the revenue it proposes to raise from this massive new tax. Firstly we are told that everyone is going to get compensation. The government is going to give everybody compensation, or even make a large number of families better off, the Prime Minister said. Only Labor could believe that a new tax will make people better off. I have never seen a tax that makes people wealthy, but this government thinks it is going to do that. It is going to provide compensation to people, so why turn off the light bulb? Why make a change? Why save CO2 emissions if, in fact, you are going to get more than adequate compensation for every additional cost you have? There are no grounds for making the savings that the government wants us to make. So in reality the tax will not even work. It will not reduce CO2 emissions at all because the government intends to compensate people. Of course, we know that all will not be compensated and that most Australians will be worse off.

The government also intend to spend some of this money on green programs, things like reducing CO2 emissions. Maybe they will have a new home insulation scheme. That is something they could spend it on—four dead, 200 homes burnt down, billions wasted. Maybe a new green loans fiasco—where millions have been spent training people but there are hardly any loans to be given. Or what about the green car fund? We could reinvent that—axed at the beginning of this year because it had not brought any new technology to our country in spite of the spending of tens of millions of dollars. And what about cash for clunkers? We have got the money now. We can afford to have cash for clunkers—axed before it even began. Now we will have a new tax to pay for this kind of nonsense.

Labor cannot be trusted with $12 billion a year. So perhaps they could have a citizens assembly to decide how to spend the $12 billion. What we do know is that Labor will waste this money. They intend to give $2 billion away, incidentally, to other countries to spend because they know they will waste it themselves. They have got more confidence that maybe Libya or Zimbabwe can spend it more wisely than they.

This is in fact a tax that everyone will be paying. The Treasurer said today that some people are not paying enough tax. I do not think there is anyone that Labor thinks is not paying enough tax. What this will do is affect families. Families should be suspicious that another promise will be broken and there will be no real compensation. This government has not been truthful and it should not be trusted to deliver compensation or any kind of program that will make a difference to our climate. (Time expired)

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

Again we have heard from the opposition, from the Leader of the Opposition and from the Leader of the Nationals, the disgraceful scare campaign that we are going to hear more and more of. That is what has been promised over coming months from the opposition. Since last Thursday, since the announcement was made by the Prime Minister of the framework for the carbon price, all that we have had from the opposition—particularly from the Leader of the Opposition and from the member for Flinders, and we have just heard a bit more of it from the Leader of the Nationals—is made-up figures, nonsense about what the carbon price scheme is going to be and taking quotes out of context, which is what we had from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in question time today.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting

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

Only half of the quotation that was read by the Leader of the Opposition in fact was said by the Prime Minister.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a UN climate change document.

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

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition now mentions the false accusation that she made in question time based on a false story that appeared in the West Australian about the government’s intentions in relation to contributions from Australia to any green climate fund, being the fund that was negotiated and is in the process of being established following the agreement reached at Cancun in December last year. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows that the document she was quoting from was a United Nations document produced by a task group assembled by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in which a number of individuals participated. One of them was Bob McMullan, not in his formal capacity as a parliamentary secretary because he had retired from that position and had retired from the parliament. I would ask for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if she is going to raise this again, to actually read the document and to stop making false accusations about where funds will go.

As I said, we have a disgraceful scare campaign by all of the opposition members who have spoken thus far today and, indeed, since Thursday. It consists of making up figures, taking quotes out of context and failing to recognise that what has been announced is the framework for the carbon price—in other words, the mechanism. It is what has thus far been discussed, and agreement has been reached on, by the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.

We know on this side of the House that a carbon price will cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy. We know on this side of the House that a carbon price is the cheapest and fairest way to reduce pollution and invest in clean energy. And as a Labor government we will always support those who need help to meet an increase in their cost of living, especially pensioners and especially the most vulnerable. We have announced that a carbon price could start, if agreement on all of the details is reached and legislation is passed, by 1 July 2012.

We have announced that the mechanism that we favour, and that some level of agreement has been reached on in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, is a market mechanism commencing with a fixed price for a specified period of three to five years. The clear intent is that, following this fixed price period, there will be a smooth transition to an emissions trading scheme. As the opposition well knows, although you would not know it from the scare campaign that they have mounted, detailed issues including the starting price, the length of the fixed price period, and assistance arrangements for households, communities and industries are to be dealt with in subsequent discussions.

We have had, from the opposition, no recognition of the state of the parliament, no recognition of the fact that, for every single piece of legislation that comes before this House—and indeed through the Senate—there needs to be negotiation of the terms of the legislation and agreement reached for the legislation to get passage. The way in which the government has proceeded since the election is to work through a process of negotiation and agreement on a carbon price mechanism, which will be the subject of legislation. In that way, there will be certainty for business and for the Australian community.

The opposition would recognise that if they were concerned about economic matters at all. It is patently obvious that they are not; it is patently obvious that all the opposition is interested in is drumming up fear and confusion about what role a carbon price is going to play in the Australian economy and about the need for a carbon price to push the Australian economy in the direction it needs to go—the direction of becoming a low-carbon economy.

The Leader of the Opposition has continued to make up numbers—he has massive form for making up the numbers on the back of a cigarette packet and spruiking them as fact. In the wake of the election campaign, honourable members will remember, we saw a gaping black hole in the coalition’s election costings of some $11 billion. With a little bit of smoke and a few strategically placed mirrors, they summoned it from nowhere. You would think that, after having an $11 billion hole in your costings, and with that sort of thing having happened in the past, you might have learnt something, but not the Leader of the Opposition.

He again rolled out the smoke machine at a petrol pump in Western Sydney—you can expect him at petrol pumps near you!—and, another media photo opportunity, at a bus depot in Queanbeyan, which the Sydney Morning Herald described in these terms:

Abbott donned a fluoro safety vest. He filled the petrol tank of a bus. He back-slapped workers (one of whom called him ‘‘Mr Costello’’. Awkward.)

It is awkward, because the Leader of the Opposition is not Peter Costello. The Leader of the Opposition entirely lacks the economic credibility of Peter Costello—he has none. He demonstrates it every time he opens his mouth on the subject. Imagine the surprise of the lucky drivers on Sunday, who had the Leader of the Opposition leaning into their car windows, petrol pump in hand and cameras in tow, telling them that they would pay exactly 6.5c extra per litre at the bowser. Today’s effort was at the Queanbeyan fruit shop; the Leader of the Opposition seems to think he is back on the campaign trail. The AAP reported:

At the Queanbeyan fruit shop, Mr Abbott brushed aside the idea of an assistance package for households, saying: ‘It sort of defeats the purpose of making everything more expensive and it creates this giant money-go-round’.

That is showing how little Mr Abbott grasps of economics—that is the sort of incredible economics we are getting from the Leader of the Opposition.

As any of the people in this parliament involved in the serious negotiations on the carbon price mechanism could tell him, we have not set out what the carbon price is going to be—nor have we set out what the level of assistance is going to be.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did you announce it?

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

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interjecting again, asking why we announced it. As the Prime Minister made clear, we announced the progress that has been made in the negotiations that are taking place in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. The opposition know they are welcome to participate—

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chester interjecting

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gippsland should return to his seat, leave the chamber or remain silent.

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

in the deliberations of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. That is the place they should come to if they wish to participate in the economic future of this country, if they wish to engage in serious debate. But, no, the Leader of the Opposition and some others in the opposition—not all of them; there are massive divisions in the Liberal Party on this—are back on the campaign trail. They are not interested in debating issues of public policy, discussing how we can build Australia’s economy and making the big decisions for the future of this country. (Time expired)

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance today, at its heart, is about jobs. The coalition is fighting for tens of thousands of Australian jobs. The Prime Minister is interested in only one job, and that is her own. The Prime Minister was a lawyer in another life. Before she became the ‘Prime Misleader’ of this nation she was a lawyer in training and practice. This Prime Minister knows what it is like for people to be on trial. When she said in this place, in her own words, that there should be a standard for honesty in public life, she invoked her legal background. She said:

If the minister had been a businessman and offered a promise like that and not kept it, he would have been sued. If the minister had been in a court of law and made a statement like that and it turned out not to be true, he would have been tried for perjury. If the minister had been in a church and made a statement like that and it turned out not to be true, the congregation would have known that he had broken the ninth commandment. I do not see why the standard should be different in business, should be different in churches or should be different in courts from the standard in public life. If anything, the standard in public life should be higher.

Do you know what this Prime Minister did on that occasion? She called for the resignation of a minister because she said he said one thing before the election and another after. Members of this House, the Prime Minister is on trial. She is on trial in the court of public opinion. Specifically, it is the integrity of the Prime Minister and the character of this Prime Minister that is on trial. As the Prime Minister said on this occasion to the House:

This minister went to the Australian electorate before the last election and gave his word, and he did not keep it.

‘The minister should resign’ were the words of the Prime Minister. On the fundamental question, ‘Did this Prime Minister lie to the Australian people at the last election over a carbon tax?’ is she guilty or not guilty?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members—Guilty!

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Guilty as charged.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The people in the electorates around Australia are saying this Prime Minister is guilty of misleading the Australian people in a most fundamental and significant way. If the Prime Minister wanted to claim a shred of integrity, she would take her carbon tax to the Australian people, let them exercise their democratic right and let them judge her on her honesty and on her integrity, because she gave a solemn promise at the last election that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. By now, the Prime Minister’s promise, on the eve of the election, that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led is indelibly imprinted in the minds of all Australians.

But the Prime Minister misled the country in yet another respect. She promised, when she gave a major climate change speech, that she would not take action on climate change until she had built community consensus. Let me spell this out in case anybody on the other side missed it. The Prime Minister now claims that she spent the whole of the election campaign arguing for a carbon price. Oh no, she did not! I have gone back to the speech that this Prime Minister gave when she launched the government’s climate change policy and it shows there are even greater levels of deceit than we had realised. The Prime Minister gave a speech in July to launch—wait for it—‘Moving forward together on climate change’. This is the speech that promised the now defunct citizens assembly, which was the first broken promise of the post election Labor-Greens government. It is a speech worth reading in detail as it is somewhat different—I say, diplomatically—from her current argument that she made it abundantly clear before the election that she would implement a carbon price after the election. It is worth noting that her only reference to ‘carbon’ and ‘price’ in over 4,700 words was in just one sentence. There is no mention of a carbon tax, but in one sentence she said:

Adopting a market based mechanism to price carbon will transform the way we live and the way we work. Such a major change cannot be made and unmade on the oscillations of the political pendulum.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with the carbon tax that she now seeks to introduce, but it is referring, in a loose kind of way, to some sort of emissions trading scheme. But this is the critical point: the Labor policy was to not proceed with an emissions trading scheme or any other such mechanism without creating bipartisan consensus first. So the various statements she made in that speech that day include—and I will read them into Hansard:

We need national consensus on this vital, long term issue of national interest.

We need consensus among political parties.

But we need consensus in the community even more.

When that community recognition and support exists—

HWP Marino, Nola, MPMs Marino—When.

The Prime Minister said ‘When’:

it means that a choice by a political party to reverse bipartisan support would not destroy the consensus.  Instead the consensus would remain and the political party would be repudiated by the Australian people.

She went on—there is more:

In my view, consensus on this issue should not depend solely on a fragile agreement between political parties.

               …            …            …

… this transformational change must have as its foundation the genuine political support of the community, a consensus that will drive bipartisanship.

Listen to this statement by the Prime Minister:

And if I am wrong, and that group of Australians—

the citizens assembly—

is not persuaded of the case for change then that should be a clear warning bell that our community has not been persuaded … as required about the need for transformational change.

What is absolutely crystal clear is that the Labor election policy—Labor’s solemn promise—was not to proceed with action on climate change, not to proceed with an emissions trading scheme or anything like it without bipartisan and community consensus. And then, on top of that, the Prime Minister promised there would be no carbon tax under a government she led.

This was the Prime Minister before the election. Yet the Prime Minister throughout the community consensus dropped what has become another stinker of a policy, a citizens assembly, and she did her secret deal with the Greens. The Prime Minister has no community consensus, the Prime Minister has no bipartisan support, the Prime Minister has no mandate, the Prime Minister has no credibility on this issue and the Prime Minister’s integrity is in tatters. The coalition will abolish this carbon tax if we are elected.

As for the carbon tax and the impact on the economy, the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Peter Anderson, said this:

… is a blow for the competitiveness of Australian business, especially small and medium sized enterprises.

           …         …         …

The extra lead in the saddlebags of Australian business will not reduce overall global emissions, nor will it help save the jobs that will be exported offshore to countries without a carbon scheme.

I think these are rather interesting headlines from today’s Australian: ‘Abbot vows to scrap tax’ and in the line underneath, ‘Labor loses key carbon supporter’. For those who did not see the front page of the Australian today let me read a little from this article. It says:

Tony Abbott has vowed to scrap Julia Gillard’s carbon tax and demanded she seek a mandate for the plan as Labor’s closest business adviser, Heather Ridout, refused to back the Prime Minister’s package.

The article goes on about Julia Gillard being a fraud and then it says:

… Ms Ridout, the Australian Industry Group chief executive, last night declined to back Ms Gillard’s proposal to introduce a fixed carbon price from July 1 next year and an emissions trading scheme three to five years later.

“The jury is very much still out on the introduction of a carbon price in Australia, with industry very concerned about the competitive impacts,” Ms Ridout said.

“In this regard, all options should still be on the table, including that of rollback until the final shape of the government’s proposal is clear.”

The article further quoted Ms Ridout:

“While certainty is important for decision-making around major long-term investments, this certainty should not come at the cost of a loss of competitiveness that sends jobs and emissions offshore or risks the continuity of energy supply.”

This government stands condemned for misleading the Australian public. For trying to take away Australian jobs this government stands condemned.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the matter of public importance before the House.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalminers will be pleased!

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With great pleasure I do so. As I come from five generations of coalminers I have great pleasure in supporting the government in its actions to introduce a price for carbon into our economy. It may well interest those opposite that the previous member for Throsby, Jennie George, the current member for Throsby, Stephen Jones, and I worked closely with our community through the various issues in terms of pricing carbon, and we were returned with increased majorities at the last election, you will be very pleased to know!

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to those opposite that they might want to settle down a little bit. Perhaps they are interested in generating their own levels of carbon with the heat and light they are creating in this debate but the words in today’s Illawarra Mercury from Mr Andy Gillespie, the AWU organiser in the area, should be heard well by those opposite. He says.

The scaremongering over the effects of a carbon price should stop.

If those opposite were genuinely interested in the wellbeing and future of an economy like mine in the Illawarra I would encourage them to contribute by having an informed and calm debate about this policy issue, which is of national significance, rather than engaging in the scaremongering that they are running in communities, including communities such as mine and the member for Throsby’s.

This has been an issue that has been confronting this nation for several years now. It is a difficult issue. It is a challenge to do major reform for your economy. It is never easy, and it should be the subject of an intense debate in this place and in this nation. It may surprise those opposite that we would welcome that. We would welcome a proper debate on this issue but we are not getting it. There are enough of those who sit opposite who understand economic reform and who believe that the point that I am making is absolutely correct. I think we saw that on display last night on the television.

We need a debate about the future of this nation as we transform to confront a carbon constrained future and work out how to ride the back of that to grow this economy into the opportunities that can exist for us into the future. In the Illawarra we know the challenge. We live it. We are at the forefront of every economic reform, and we come out stronger and more diversified.

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

It is also true of the Hunter.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is also true of the Hunter, as my colleague indicates. We come out stronger not because we run around like Chicken Little waving our hands and saying, ‘The sky’s gonna fall in’ and ‘How can we make people afraid of reform?’ The members of the great party of economic reform on the other side should hang their heads in shame about the standard of debate they are putting up in this case.

We come out stronger because we rise to the challenge. We have been doing that for several years now in our region. Together with Jennie George, the former member for Throsby, I have worked closely with existing traditional industries including the companies—such as BlueScope Steel Australia—and their workforces and representatives. Along with Stephen Jones I will continue to do so. We work closely with our coal industry. We also work closely with our diversified economy.

The reality is that the RDA Illawarra has been working for a number of years now on a Green Jobs Illawarra program which looks, for example, at the opportunities for windmill creation on the back of our steel industry. We understand the capacity for transformation in addressing and dealing with the challenges of a carbon constrained economy and we want to get on the back of the opportunities that that creates. We want to build jobs for the future so the kids of our region have really good, long-term, sustainable jobs in manufacturing, in the mining industry and more broadly in research and development, tourism and education—all of the areas where we have built on our existing strengths to diversify our economy.

The great disappointment in the whole debate has been the fact that there are some among those opposite who are capable of engaging in an informed debate about the mechanisms by which we should address the challenge confronting us. They have the knowledge and understanding about reform agendas and how to drive them. They may have some legitimate issues that they want to raise with us about the ways in which we are doing that but they are silent. They are not being heard.

They are not being heard because they have a leader driving their agenda and driving their party on the basis of scaremongering and looking for the lowest common denominator: ‘Don’t look at the national interest; only look at what is going to get us a bit of a poll increase in the immediate future. Find or grab whatever you can in order to create fear, uncertainty. Distract the community from dealing with the very real challenges that confront us.’ That is the great shame in the whole debate that we are having in this nation. I can only hope that more members—like the member for Wentworth last night—come out and engage in a debate that is actually about the national interest.

Sitting opposite are members of a once-great party of economic reform. It was a party that believed in the capacity of the market to drive real growth and opportunity into the future. Over many decades we have engaged, across the chamber, on the details and processes of those sorts of reforms. We should be doing that now, and we are not.

What we are dealing with is a Leader of the Opposition who has had so many different positions on climate change that it is almost impossible for me to enumerate them in the 10 minutes I have available to me today. He has said himself that his position is predicated on wherever he sees the political advantage on that day—it is not even that week, or that month, or that year, it is that day; it changes as regularly as that. The question for those of us engaged in this important national debate is: how on earth do you debate somebody who moves their position around constantly and, in an even greater disappointment, moves the party around in the same way? I am sure there are people sitting on the opposite side who actually understand that this is an important economic reform debate and have something they can contribute to that. I do not presume that contribution to be agreement with us, but I presume they would have something of value to add to the debate. But they are gagged and silent—and more shame to them. This is a generational reform debate.

This is about communities like mine in the Illawarra. The international community is moving towards addressing and dealing with the carbon challenge that we have internationally. There are countries that are moving to address those forms of pollution in their own economies. We will confront the reality of their decisions in the future and we will have to deal with them. There are countries in the European Community that are jumping on board. President Obama recently said about his own community that here is an opportunity. How do we get in there and develop businesses and industries and innovations in our own economies that are going to allow us to be the world leaders into the future and build wealth for our own people and our own nation into the future on the back of this reform?

But what are we doing in Australia? We are a country that has driven so much innovation. Why do we say that we punch above our weight in this nation? I will tell you why. It is because we have researchers and tradespeople who have capacity to lead the world in innovation and adaptation. That is what we are so good at. That is why we punch above our weight. They deserve a government that supports that. They deserve a government that is driving that agenda. They deserve a government that is interested in long-term economic reform and building future wealth. That is what this government is all about. That is what this debate should be about. That is what the responsibility of every member of this House is about. That is what our commitment and responsibility to our communities and our nation is about.

Those opposite are failing this nation abysmally in the standard of their contribution to this debate. You could forgive that if you assumed that, at the end of the day, that is the best capacity they have got. You could forgive that if you looked around the ranks and thought: ‘It is a pretty poor standard and there’s a failure of debate and a failure of national commitment, but they are really not able to do anything else anyway. This is the level of their capacity and ability.’ But that is not the case, and those opposite know it. I challenge them to rise above the scaremongering lowest-common-denominator politically expedient debate of their leader on a nationally important issue and rise to the challenge of having the debate that we need to have in this nation. (Time expired)

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is worth reflecting on why we are even having this debate. We are having this debate because the scientists have told us with certainty that the planet is heating up. The last decade, from 2000 to 2010, was the hottest on record. We also know, with as near to certainty as one can get on questions as complex as the planet’s weather system, that humans are contributing to it and that there is a tipping point not far away from us, after which we will not be able to predict the effects of runaway climate change. But we do know that in some sense the effects are going to be potentially catastrophic. In the same way that we would not get on a plane if it had a 50 per cent, a 20 per cent or even a 10 per cent chance of crashing, it is incumbent on us now to manage the risk we know is there that we might exceed that climate change tipping point.

What do the scientists, especially Professor Will Steffen from the ANU, tell us about how close we are getting to that tipping point? They are telling us that, as a planet, we have a carbon budget that we can spend between 2000 and 2050 to give us a 70 per cent chance of staying under that tipping point. They have also told us that, in the first 10 years of that 50 years, we have spent 30 per cent of that budget and, if we keep on going the way we are going, within a couple of decades we will put ourselves at risk of exceeding the climate change tipping point, after which we do not know what the effects will be. Feedback loops will increase. As Arctic Sea ice starts to melt and exposes more of the dark surface of the sea, the process will speed up. We know that the same feedback loops are likely to occur elsewhere in the Arctic. As more ice melts, the permafrost is exposed, more methane is released into the atmosphere and the process speeds up.

It is this guardrail that we have to avoid—and at Copenhagen all the leaders from all around the world committed to staying below it—and firmly keep in mind when we are having this debate. This is not about whether something that was announced as a scheme by one party during an election amounts to a tax. It is not about the confected outrage from the party that invented the distinction between core promises and non-core promises in terms of whether a statement is being met. It is about what we are going to do to address the looming climate emergency.

In that context it comes as no surprise—and indeed it was the hot topic during my election in Melbourne—that there are distinctions between the Greens and the Labor Party on the question of how best to deal with climate change. For example, despite the confected outrage from the opposition, I note that the coalition and Labor are in agreement that all we need is five per cent pollution reduction targets by 2020. That is nowhere near the range that has been recommended by scientists and by the Bali roadmap, which says we need to be looking at 25 to 40 per cent. We will also continue to say to the Labor Party and the Labor government that, just as the market has never built a single piece of infrastructure in this country that has lasted the country, we are also going to need significant government investment to make sure that the renewable energy grid is up to speed, a feed-in tariff that will encourage a solar and large-scale renewable energy industry in this country, and continue to find appropriate amounts of money for research and development.

But despite those differences the occasion is on us and this parliament gives us the opportunity to start to find areas of common ground. One thing that is absolutely clear and that the Greens stand very firmly on is that putting a price tag on pollution is an essential element if we are to tackle climate change. Without doing that, none of the other measures will have enough effect. We need to put a real price tag on pollution. Part of that means having an honest debate about what it means to put a price tag on pollution. Not a misleading debate, but an honest debate. What it means is this: up until now, we have treated the atmosphere as if we could put as much pollution into it as we would like without consequences. Big polluters have continued, and still do continue, to put carbon dioxide and other polluting gases into the atmosphere and imagine that it has no consequences and pay no cost for the privilege of doing it.

We have dealt with this problem as a community before when companies used to pollute rivers, and we said, ‘Although it might save the company a bit of money, it has a detriment to the community so we are going to do something about it.’ Now, by putting a price tag on pollution, we will do the same with carbon dioxide and other polluting gases. We will say that those big polluters, if they are going to put pollution into the atmosphere, must pay for doing so and they must do so in order to reduce the amount that is going in there so that we stay below that guard rail. If they choose to pass some of that cost on to consumers, then consumers will be compensated for it from the revenue that is raised,. But overall it will have the effect of driving Australia’s transition to a renewable energy economy—an economy that has an enormous number of clean energy jobs, the kind of jobs that can set Australia up for the 21st century.

The Climate Institute recently said that with a $45 a tonne carbon price there will be 8,000 permanent jobs and 26,000 temporary jobs created as we move Australia to that clean energy future. But we do not have a rational debate about that; we have a debate that is reduced to cheap political point-scoring about lies or not lies. And we have a manufactured scare campaign, the likes of which we have seen many times before. We have seen it from big tobacco and we have seen it from the big mining companies. Just as the big mining companies and the ‘Rolex revolutionaries’ took to the streets of Perth in their billionaire protest, so too are we going to see the big polluters pretend to be proletarians again over the next few month. They will no doubt take to the streets, arm in arm with the radio talk-show hosts and the opposition, as they seek to confect outrage.

The Leader of the Opposition has come out swinging on this as hard as one could imagine, but as every prize fighter knows, you have to be aware of the rope-a-dope. You have to be aware of punching yourself out too early and getting to the point where your warnings become increasingly shrill. That is what is going to happen over the coming years. Certainly in my electorate of Melbourne and right across the country—and especially amongst our young people, who read the science and understand the threat that is coming to them, that they are experiencing now, and that they will have to deal with in their lifetime—people understand that we need to take urgent action and that Australia needs to do its fair share to commit to the global effort to combating climate change. There is growing support. I am confident that, once the Australian public has the science in front of them, understands that low-income earners and households are going to be compensated, and that this is going to have the effect of making Australia’s 21st-century economy a clean-energy, renewable-energy-jobs economy, there will be support for this.

In the same way that there was howling from the rooftops that the flood levy was going to be the end of this government and how could anyone support it—no-one talks about that any more—yet that seems to have sailed through, so too will this be in place. If we can reach an agreement for an environmentally and economically effective outcome, this will be in place and people in Australia will see that the opposition is full of so much hot air on this question. The opposition has made this about a number of questions—about integrity, about truth and about what was said—but there is one question that the opposition has not addressed, and that is: what if the mainstream science is right? What if the science is right and in 20 years time people are reading the Hansard of this debate and looking back at the opposition’s contribution to the single greatest issue facing our planet at the moment and realise that it was not about putting an alternative plan about how we are going to get Australia on the road to a clean energy economy but it was one about cheap political point-scoring.

They may not have realised it yet, but the debate is moving on. And as I said—and I will conclude on this—many people, especially young people, in my electorate come to me every day and they say: ‘We’ve been taught the science at school. We understand that we only have 10, 20 or 30 years to act. Why aren’t we doing it? Why are there still people who even want to debate whether the science is real? Why aren’t we getting on with it?’ It is that tide of history that is moving and is going to sweep the opposition away, and there are many on the opposition benches who know it.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no other speakers, the discussion has concluded.