Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I will take Senator Abetz in a debate any time, but he keeps foaming at the mouth in this debate. He has not actually drawn breath in terms of interjections since I have been on my feet. I am sure he will have the opportunity to put his views, which are more conservative than Mr Howard’s, shortly. But he might do me the courtesy of at least drawing breath at some point during my discussion. I remind those opposite of Mr Howard’s report, which occurred while they were in government. I did not hear them at the time jumping up and down and saying that Prime Minister Howard was going to act too precipitously. I did not hear them at the time publicly saying this was going to be a dreadful thing and how appalling it was for Australia to go down this path. I would like to remind those opposite what was said in this report, which was presented in June 2007, before the election. It said:

… waiting until a truly global response emerges before imposing an emissions cap will place costs on Australia by increasing business uncertainty and delaying or losing investment. Already there is evidence that investment in key emissions-intensive industries and energy infrastructure is being deferred.

You received that advice in government two years ago, and you are still arguing a position that you do not want to give business the signal on certainty that was called for when you were in government, and that even then Prime Minister Howard took heed of. I will remind you that the task group also said:

… the Task Group has concluded that Australia should not wait … It believes that there are benefits, which outweigh the costs, in early adoption by Australia of an appropriate emissions constraint.

What have we seen since then? We have seen this extraordinary crab-walk from the other side. Frankly, the climate change troglodytes, those who simply do not believe that climate change is real, have gradually, gradually gained control of the party room. Their voices, when in government, were muted; but now, when in opposition, they have gradually pushed the opposition to a more and more extreme position on this issue. The position that is occasionally articulated by Mr Turnbull is the same position that Mr Nelson took and was, as I recall, one of the reasons you replaced him as leader, because those in the Liberal Party thought he had taken the wrong position on climate change policy. Mr Turnbull has now taken the same position. So I am not quite sure where the consistency is.

I remind those opposite also of the timetable that was proposed when they were in government, which included the passage of the legislation in 2009. That was your policy. It is interesting to note the way Mr Turnbull’s position has changed on this issue. Mr Turnbull said at the Press Club on 21 May 2008—and you should listen to this, Senator Joyce, because you will really enjoy this, particularly after your Press Club performance:

The Emissions Trading Scheme is the central mechanism to decarbonise our economy.

Do you agree with that, Senator Joyce? The fact is that Mr Turnbull used to believe in this. On 26 May, some five days later, he said:

The biggest element in the fight against climate change has to be the emissions-trading scheme …

He then started to crab-walk away from it. What is the reason for this? How do you go from having the trading scheme as the biggest element to now saying that it is not necessary at all? There is really only one explanation for that about-face and that is that he is worried about his leadership, he is worried about the numbers in the party room. He is running now an entirely different position because he is concerned about those in his party room who still think climate change is not real.

I want to go back to why we need to have this inquiry and why we want to bring it in in the June sittings, as we previously publicly and transparently indicated. It is because this is an overdue reform. We want legislation passed this year because we want to give business the certainty that they are calling for. Those opposite might not like to remember that the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group—and I know this will get Senator Boswell going—have all said they want the legislation passed this year. It seems extraordinary that those opposite could be so focused on their own internal issues that they do not listen to the calls from the community, including the business community, about the importance of giving business certainty.

The second reason why we want this passed this year is that Copenhagen is important. Australia needs to go to Copenhagen with targets that are backed by a mechanism to meet them. It is extraordinary that those on the other side say they want a global agreement in Australia’s national interest but are not prepared to ensure that we put targets on the table which are responsibly backed by a scheme to meet them. They say they want a global agreement in the national interest. Well, give the government and the negotiators the legislation that enables them to maximise that chance.

What is occurring in this place and in this debate is that the self-interest of the Leader of the Opposition is trumping the national interest. Malcolm Turnbull knows this is the right thing to do. He is trying to delay taking this into his party room. He is delaying taking a position on this because he is scared he does not have the numbers. We are seeing from the other side the self-interest and weakness of one man overriding what is in the national interest.

This is an overdue reform that has been the subject of intensive and detailed consideration by the parliament. There has been an extraordinary amount of community engagement through the Garnaut review processes. As well, people have had an opportunity to comment on the green paper. This has also been the subject of the exposure draft inquiry by the Senate and has been out for community consultation. The only reason that those opposite would argue for a delay is that they do not want to take a position on this, because some in their party room—and Senator Joyce would proudly number himself amongst them, I am sure—do not believe climate change is real. No matter how long we talk about this and no matter how much consideration is given, they do not want to vote to actually take action.

It is self-interest trumping national interest. It is time for us to engage in this reform. We want this reported on so we can commence the debate on this in the June sittings, as we said to the Australian people we would do.