Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 [No. 2; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges—Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges—Excise) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges—General) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2] be now read a third time.

At the outset of this debate, I urged this Senate and this parliament not to fall short on the great national challenge of climate change. The government urged the opposition to act not in the party interest but in the national interest, to look not at party political advantage or party political interest but at the national interest, because this is an issue of the national interest. How far short did we fall? How far short did this chamber fall? How far short of the mark is this Senate? How far short of the mark is the opposition? Who would have thought that not only would a party’s interest triumph over the national interest but an extreme wing of the Liberal Party’s interests triumphed over the national interest. What we know and what we have seen tonight in this place and in these last days of the parliament is the hijacking of the future and the hijacking of the national interest by extremists—people who will do whatever it takes to stop action on climate change.

What we have seen in this place and in this parliament in recent days is unprecedented. Who would have thought that a party would so want to avoid action on climate change that it would be prepared to tear down its own leader? Who would have thought that some with extreme views inside a party would have been so opposed to acting in the national interest that they would be prepared to split their party, that they would be prepared to campaign against their own party and their own party’s decisions in order to spoil any chance of acting for the benefit of future generations? That is what has happened in this parliament in this last week. That, I predict, is what most, if not all of them, will do tonight or when this legislation is voted on.

The laws on which we are about to vote give Australia an opportunity that has been a long time coming, because with these laws this nation has the opportunity to move forward. After a decade of inaction, after a decade of neglect and after more than a decade of looking backwards, we decided to turn from the past and to face a future where we gave our children the opportunities we want for ourselves—the opportunity to pay respect to this nation’s great gifts, to preserve them and to ensure they survive beyond our own generation and the opportunity to prepare Australia’s economy for the new global economy. This scheme is all about beginning a responsible transformation to a clean green economy. This is a process that will take many years but it is urgent that it starts now so that we can capitalise on the opportunities and keep the costs low. What we know is that delay will simply increase the price tag. We know that. We had how many years of delay under those opposite? It is 10 years since the first report on emissions trading was handed to those on that side of the chamber. Since that time, work has been done under Prime Minister Howard and under this government for the introduction of this scheme.

Let us remember that this scheme will enable this nation for the first time in its history to start reducing its contribution to climate change. That is what this scheme is about. By 2020 this scheme would ensure that we could take, for example, up to 138 million tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere that otherwise would have been there.

There has been a lot of talk about jobs. Let us remember what the Treasury modelling told us: all major employment sectors will grow to the years 2020 and there will be an increase of 1.7 million jobs from 2008 to 2020 at the same time as we will be reducing emissions. What we know is that we can do this. We can grow our economy, we can increase the number of jobs in this nation and we can tackle climate change. But the reality is that those opposite will say and do anything to avoid action on climate change. I just remind everyone again, if we need reminding, of just how far to the extreme end of this debate they have gone. I remind them again of their policy before the election. On the front page of a newspaper was a picture of Mark Vaile, Peter Costello and John Howard—

They’re not in the parliament anymore, you might have noticed.

This was your election policy. This was the election policy with which you went to the election. This is the commitment you made to the Australian people when you said, ‘We too will take action on climate change.’ What did you say in that policy? You committed to establishing an emissions trading scheme—what you described as the ‘most comprehensive in the world’—to enable the market to determine the most efficient means of lowering greenhouse gas emissions. That is what you committed to. Now John Howard looks green by comparison with this Liberal Party. This Liberal Party is browner than John Howard.

If these bills are voted down, the Australian people will know that the first act of Mr Abbott as Leader of the Opposition was to block action on climate change—that the first act of the newly elected Leader of the Opposition was to block action on climate change—and that will define his leadership, an action characterised by the extremists in his own party and an action that is a breach of your own election commitment. That is how his leadership will commence. His first act: to seek to block action on climate change.

I have said for some time that, as we get closer to the possibility of action, those who have opposed this for years will get louder, shriller and more desperate. We know that they will do and say anything to avoid taking action on climate change. They have had three tactics: they denied the science—

More myths than MythBusters!

I will take that injection from Senator Bernardi, who is known for his measured and even-handed approach to this issue. They have three tactics. The first is denial of the science, as if we had not had enough warnings as leaders in this place—as elected representatives in this place of the Australian people—of what climate change means to us. Then, if that becomes too unpalatable, they try and hide behind delay. They say: ‘We’re rushing too much. We’re not thinking about this enough.’ After days in this place and the second time this bill has been before the parliament I do not think anybody believes there is any danger of the opposition rushing. Nobody believes that you are rushing. What you are doing is resisting every millimetre of the way.

Let us remember—and I have said it before and I will say it again—this legislation has been before this parliament in draft form first since May and it has already been before the Senate chamber. This issue has been the subject of 13 inquiries by House of Representatives, Senate and joint committees. On this issue—and I will come back to their third tactic—when people on the other side of the chamber ask for delay, there is really only one question they need to be asked: would anything change? With views such as the ones that have been espoused by your party and your members, does anybody honestly believe that more time would change your minds? It would not.

So the first tactic is denial, the second is delay and the third is, of course, the scare campaign, the last refuge of those who want to avoid action. It is a truism in politics that it is always easier to make people frightened than to inspire people to change. It is true: it is easier to frighten people than to inspire them to change. It is a mark of how desperate these extremists are that that is now where they are. They want to frighten people, they want to run a scare campaign and they want to tell untruths, as they have consistently done, about the science and about the implications of this policy, which was also their policy.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left! For those wishing to participate in the debate, there is a third reading debate which you can participate in at any stage when you seek the call.

Thank you, Mr President. As I said, it is always easier to seek to frighten people and run a scare campaign than to effect change. So we can expect a long scare campaign from those opposite, full of lies, full of misinformation and full of hyperbole. We can expect that and we know that. That is in many ways disappointing, but we will fight it. Both the parties of government went to the last election promising action on climate change. That the country is now back at a time where we are denying the science and being too frightened to act is really an enormous shame and one that stains the reputation of the Liberal Party.

We can expect phrases such as we have heard in the chamber from Senator Joyce and Senator Abetz, but of course what they never say, what they never tell Australians and what they never talk about is the cost of failing to act. They never talk about that. They never talk about the effect on agriculture. They never talk about the increased droughts. They never talk about the extreme weather events. They never talk about the higher risk of bushfires. They never talk about the science. They never talk about the effect on Australia’s agricultural exports. Most of all, they never talk about what this means for the next generation.

What makes this reform difficult and why the parliament was called on to show some leadership is that this is a reform in which this generation of Australian political leaders is asking Australians now to do something to reduce the risk for their children and their grandchildren. That is not an easy thing to do. It does require leadership across the parliament. That is why the government in good faith sought to negotiate with those opposite. We understand this is a long-lasting reform. This is a difficult reform, but it is a reform in the national interest. That is why we sought to negotiate and come to an agreement.

We know there will be a scare campaign and there may well be a whole range of illusory policies that pretend to do something about climate change while not actually changing very much at all. I remind those opposite that even Prime Minister Howard was more honest than them in this when he said:

... the idea that you can bring about changes that are needed and which many people have advocated, without there being any impact at all at any time on the cost to the consumer, is quite unrealistic.

One of the things the coalition never answer is: what is the difference? What is the difference between the policy they took to the last election and our policy? They had the opportunity in this chamber to move amendments to this legislation to make it more like their ETS, the one they say John Howard would have introduced, but they did not choose to do that. The reality is there are no free rides when it comes to tackling climate change. It is not an easy reform; if it were easy, it would have been done. It has not been done because there have been too many people in this parliament and in the opposition, formerly in government, who have not wanted to act. The reality is that they are still blocking action against climate change.

It is disappointing for this nation that has looked to these parties to act on climate change to see the level to which the debate has now descended and to see the fact that there has been a hijacking of this debate by some holding extreme views, who are fighting the current and who are wanting to return to the past. I am reminded of the Work Choices vote, where on the third reading I said, ‘We may lose this vote but we will not be beaten’. I say this to those senators opposite: we will not take a backward step. We on this side of the chamber will not take a backward step. We will not let these extreme views prevail. We will continue to press for action on climate change.

We made a commitment to the Australian people that we would act on climate change. It is a commitment we take seriously and, unlike those opposite, we are not prepared to abandon the future. We will not abandon action on climate change. We are not going to be spooked by the scare campaign that we know you will run, because we know that Australians want action on climate change. You are not good for action for the future; what you are good for is action for the past. You have demonstrated in this parliament in these last few weeks that you are truly a party of the past. We are a party and a government committed to the future. We will not abandon action on climate change. We on this side of the chamber will continue to act in the national interest and in our children’s interests for as long as it takes to deliver action on climate change because it is the right thing to do.