Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is bipartisan support for a carbon price necessary so Australia does not get left behind in the race to invest in clean energy?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She is right. It would certainly be better if we saw bipartisan support for the major reform that lies in front of this nation. It would be better if the opposition had not given way to denial of the science of climate change. It would be better if the Liberal Party had not turned its back on its traditions and denied the power of markets. It would be better if the Liberal Party accepted what I believe it would have accepted at any other point in its history, which is that it is not right to take money from taxpayers and use that as a subsidy for big polluters, which is what the Leader of the Opposition stands for. It would be better if this major transformation of our economy so we can be a prosperous nation in the future and so we can make our contribution to combating climate change—this big reform—had bipartisan support.

Of course, pricing carbon has had support from time to time before they gave way to being in perpetual scare campaign mode and standing for absolutely nothing except raising fear in the community. The government is committed to pricing carbon. We are committed to doing that because I do not want this nation left behind. I want us to invest in a clean energy future. We have to make a start because the rest of the world is moving. We have a high-pollution economy and we cannot afford to be left behind. We need to start to have our economy transition.

Yes, this is going to be a difficult process of reform; I absolutely accept that. But it is a reform the government is determined to lead notwithstanding the fear campaign and scare campaign coming from the opposition. I take the House to the following words—it would be better if the opposition remembered some of these words:

Despite an initial protest from industries taxed not only have they survived but many have flourished because the cleaner industry has often proved to be more efficient.

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

That is my 1990 thesis.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These words were from an opposition member: ‘Pollution taxes encourage companies to decrease discharges of pollutants to the extent that it is less costly to treat waste than to meet the tax bill.’ He said these words: ‘Producers have responded to the tax in two ways. First, they have switched to less polluting production processes. Secondly, they have developed new technology to minimise waste created by existing production processes.’ There we go. We have those wise words and the member for Flinders owning up to them. No, it was not the member for Wentworth who said that. It was not the member for North Sydney. It was the member for Flinders in his 1990 thesis. We know, of course, that then he was a believer in dealing with climate change. We know that he then endorsed carbon pricing.

The truth is that many thinking members of the Liberal Party still do. I appeal to them to be their best. I appeal to them to walk in the reform tradition of the Liberal Party. I appeal to them not to give way to this fear and climate change scepticism and denial. I appeal to them to maintain the historic mission of the Liberal Party: understanding the power of markets. What that means is that they will not be able to follow this man any longer.