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

I know Senator Cormann, who is interjecting, just wants to oppose this. You know what I say to you, Senator Cormann? Why don’t you be brave enough and bring it into the parliament? Why don’t you be brave enough to debate it? What is occurring over there is an act of cowardice. But I will come to that.

In terms of what has occurred, this was a policy with which we went to the election. I hasten to add it was a policy Family First went to the election with. Senator Fielding, your policy in the lead-up to the election was for an emissions trading scheme—also the Greens, and of course the opposition. The opposition also went to the election with an emissions trading scheme as part of their election commitment—something they now have forgotten. I think there is over 10 years of analysis—I am pretty sure it was the 10-year anniversary of the very first report to the Howard government on emissions trading which we passed early this year. So the country has been debating this for over a decade. Both major political parties went to the last election with a commitment to legislate an emissions trading scheme. The opposition, the alternative government, went to the election with a commitment to an emissions trading scheme. This was based on the taskforce that Prime Minister Howard put into place, the Shergold taskforce. I remind the opposition that they said, ‘Let’s not wait until the rest of the world acts.’ So there has been a change of position over there. As I said, Senator Fielding—I think you were on the phone—Family First also went to the election with an emissions trading scheme as part of your election policy.

We go to the election and we then go through a process of consultation. The government a year ago put out a green paper: a detailed set of policy propositions building on work that had already been done, and I will give credit where credit is due, by the previous government, and doing far more detailed work. That was put out in June or July for consultation. In addition, the government does the largest economic modelling exercise in the nation’s history, where the Treasury models a range of emissions reduction scenarios predicated on the Garnaut review as well as the government’s own position, that comes out in October. Whilst this is occurring, Professor Garnaut is also doing his report and he issues a range of reports—modelling reports, interim reports, reports on various issues. Then of course there is the Garnaut review, which held public meetings in every state and territory, which had many people around the country contributing to it.

The government then put out our white paper in December of last year and set out in detail the policy propositions which we propose. I think it was some 800-odd pages, from memory, building on the green paper, considering what the Treasury modelling had said, considering what the Garnaut review had said and putting forward a set of propositions saying, ‘This is what we will legislate, this is what the government’s policy is.’ This takes us to December, and at that point the government is already saying, ‘This is when we will legislate; we want to legislate mid next year.’ We also put out exposure draft legislation on the CPRS, which was sent to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. The economics legislation committee reported and the Senate considered the exposure draft of the legislation at that time. I mention that because the government actually chose to send draft legislation to a Senate legislation committee because we recognised the importance of this issue and because we wanted the Senate to engage early on this issue.

The government announced in May revision to some aspects, including the timetable of the CPRS, after consultation with the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group as well as the Australian Conservation Foundation, WWF, the Climate Institute, the ACTU and ACOSS. This is the level of discussion there has been and the level of consideration. The government then put this legislation into the parliament as we said we would consistent with the timetable we have previously made public. That is the backdrop to the debate we are having now.

What have the opposition been doing? That really explains what we are seeing today in this chamber. What we are seeing is really an extension of a tactic that the opposition have been engaging in for months. All they are taking today is the next step in their delay tactic path, which has been consistent. I have to be honest with you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will say this about the opposition: they are not consistent on anything in climate change policy. They are completely divided. The only thing they can agree on is the need for delay. That is the only thing those opposite can agree on, and that is why they moved the motion that is before the chamber now.

Let’s remember what the opposition have said over this last year and a half or so on whether or not they were going to take any position on this issue of public policy importance, this issue of importance to the nation. Let’s remember how many excuses they have come up with. They said they would delay until the Garnaut review, but they have not had an answer. They said they would make a decision after the Treasury modelling. Oops! That came and went—no decision. They said they would make their decision after the white paper. Oops! No decision. They said they would make their decision after their very own review—is it the Pearce review? That came and went, with no decision. Then they said they would make their decision after the exposure draft legislation. Oops! No decision. Then they said they would make their decision after the Senate committee had reported. Oops! No decision. And now they say they do not want to make a decision until after these bills have been discussed or, alternatively, they actually do not want to talk about it until next year. That is what is occurring.

This is an extraordinary act of weakness by those opposite. Essentially what the alternative government are saying to the Australian people is this: ‘We are so divided we can’t make a decision, so we want the national parliament to hold off.’ That is what your position is. ‘We are so divided we can’t make a decision, so we want the national parliament to hold off.’ What a pathetic act of cowardice from the alternative government. If you had the courage of your convictions, you would come in here and debate this bill, but you do not have the courage of your convictions. You are hiding behind a weak and cowardly procedural tactic, and everybody knows it.

The fact is the opposition are only united on one thing, and the one thing is that they do not want to vote. That is the only thing the opposition are united on. I want to remind them of this, because they seem to be unable to listen to the Australian people who voted for action on climate change. They seem to be unable to listen to the Business Council of Australia, to the Australian Industry Group and to a range of large companies who are saying very clearly: ‘We need certainty.’ I remind the opposition of the comments of the Investor Group on Climate Change, a group of investors who have around about $500 billion of funds under investment saying that they want certainty. We are not delaying a signal to investors by deferring the start of the scheme by one year, but those opposite are continuing the same investment uncertainty which bedevilled them in government.

One wonders whether or not the opposition remember being in government. Do they remember that John Howard, their great—