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

I just withdrew. He has put forward to this chamber facts which are incorrect, over and over again, after I have told him on a number of occasions they are untrue. He says he is going to oppose what he calls this tax. Senator, do you know who pays most under this scheme? It is the big polluters. We are actually taking money from the big polluters by charging them for the first time in history for polluting, and then we are giving more of the money back to low- and middle-income Australia than it will cost those families. So we are taking from big polluters and giving to Australian families as we address climate change. So really the senator should be coming in here and explaining why he is standing up for the big polluters, because that is who is going to pay under this scheme.

He talks about pensioners, and I will put this on the record again, because if we are going to have this debate we should do so on the basis of facts, not fear and ranting. He claims that we are slugging pensioners. This is what the government has calculated this scheme will cost pensioners and this is what we are giving them. For a single age pensioner on the maximum rate, we calculate the average cost of living impact to be $286. The amount of assistance we are giving is $455. So, Senator, either you did not hear that the five or so times I told you that or you might simply not be putting what is factually correct on the record because you want to run a scare campaign.

There are three tactics that this senator and all those in the coalition who deny that climate change exists have engaged in. They either deny the science, they try and delay or they run a scare campaign. There are really only three tactics, and what we have seen over this last week and a half in the parliament is the same tactics over and over again. Senator, if you are going to talk about the level of assistance, you could at least do so on the basis of what is correct rather than continuing to put forward facts which I have now told you on many occasions are untrue.

I again say this: what is wrong with making the polluters pay for their pollution? That is the key question. What is wrong with that? Why has the senator got such an issue with trying for the first time to start to reduce the amount of pollution we put into the atmosphere by charging people for it? Why does he think people should be able to pollute for free? That is the question. Who is he really standing up for in this place?

We have had a lot of discussion in this country for a long time about climate change. I have said before that it has been 10 years since the first report was given to the Howard government on the prospect of an emissions trading system. As the senator knows, at the last election there was a policy supported by Mark Vaile, his then leader, Prime Minister John Howard and Mr Costello as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party to introduce a scheme of the sort that is before the chamber. Is he saying that somehow John Howard before the last election was a rabid greenie? Is that really the proposition? Or is it just that Senator Joyce has decided that it is in his political interests to run this scare campaign to differentiate himself from the Liberal Party as it previously had a position on this issue?

I just remind the senator again why we are acting. He says we should not act because we cannot do anything. Well, I can tell you something: if we do not do anything, what we know is climate change will worsen. That is a fact. If we do not do something, climate change will worsen. If we do not do something, we are making an active decision to increase the risk for our children and our grandchildren. That is what this generation of political leaders and community leaders would be doing—making an active decision to ensure our children and our grandchildren face higher risks. I do not think that is a responsible course of action and I do not think most Australians think that is a responsible course of action.

We know what the science tells us. We know that we face the prospect of irrigated agricultural production in the Murray-Darling dropping by over 90 per cent by the end of this century. We know that we have extended droughts and that the current extended drought in south-eastern Australia has been linked with global warming by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. We have been told by those two agencies—Australia’s own Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO—that there will be up to 20 per cent more drought months over most of Australia in the next 20 years and up to 40 per cent in the next 50 or 60 years. We know that exports of our agricultural commodities, in the absence of action on climate change, are projected to fall by 63 per cent over the next 20 years. That is a 63 per cent reduction in Australia’s agricultural exports in the next 20 years. I do not understand how it is that a party that claims to represent regional Australia can come in here and argue for a do nothing policy on an issue that is going to have such an impact on the livelihoods and communities that they purport to represent.

The fact is that climate change is real and that we have an opportunity as a nation to contribute to confronting it. We have never said this scheme will fix everything. We know climate change is a global problem, but this plan enables Australia to be part of a global solution. It is about doing our fair share, because we can never get what we need—which is global action on climate change—if we simply sit back. It is just a sense of logic. If everybody in this world sits on their hands and says, ‘I will wait until the next bloke or woman acts,’ are we going to act? Is that the Australian way? As a nation we have always been prepared to do our fair share, and what we are putting forward is a plan that will enable Australia to do our fair share on an issue that we have such self-interest in.

I remind the senator again that of 8.8 million Australian households we will provide assistance through this scheme to 8.1 million—that is 90 per cent of Australian households. And yes, we are making polluters pay, and that is an economic change. That is a cost that is not there now, but why do we have to do that? Because we will not change, and we will not reduce what we are putting into the atmosphere unless we start to put a limit and a price on it. We know that if we continue business as usual we are making an active decision to make things worse for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. We are making an active decision to ensure climate change worsens. How is that responsible?

This generation has lost the opportunity to stop any climate change. We have lost it. We needed to act earlier than we have done. We have a small opportunity as a generation of political leaders to reduce the risk and it is a very small opportunity, because if we do not act within the next few years as a globe we will not be able to hold temperature rise to close to two degrees, and we know what the scientists tell us will happen if that occurs. How is it possible that we should simply turn our backs on that responsibility? That is what Senator Joyce is advocating, and he is advocating it not on the basis of sound science and sensible policy discussion but on the basis of that rant—that scaremongering and fearmongering campaign. It is always easier in politics to scare people. It is always easier in politics to run a scare campaign to frighten people. It is much harder to say, ‘No, we want you to do something hard because it is the right thing to do by the nation and for the country’s future.’

But that is where this government stands. We are focused on doing the right thing by this nation and the right thing for the future. Those over there are the extremists who brought us Work Choices and who do not believe that climate change is real. They have demonstrated by their actions in these last days that they will do and say anything, including tearing their own party apart, rather than act on climate change. That will be forever to their shame.