Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

This morning on my way to Aussies I ran into two journalists in the corridors, Chris Uhlmann from the ABC and Christian Kerr from the Australian, and they both gave me some unsolicited advice which I think I will take. They said, ‘Hurry up’. I wonder whether others would have that view, either in this chamber or in the media.

At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to Senator Wong, the minister responsible—and I hope that this will not provoke a churlish response from the opposition. Despite the significant policy differences I have with her, I believe Senator Wong has conducted this debate with grace and aplomb, and I do not think anyone could surpass her in terms of her knowledge and her competence in terms of this very difficult policy issue. I congratulate Senator Wong for the way she has conducted herself in what has been a marathon debate. That does not mean we will not have our differences—very significant differences—but I congratulate Senator Wong for dealing with what has been, I think, the most difficult, diabolical, policy issue this country has ever seen.

I cannot support this legislation for a number of reasons. I cannot support it because I do not believe it is the right scheme. I do not take the view of my colleagues who are climate sceptics, and I urge them to consider this as an issue of fundamental risk management. Are they prepared to literally bet the planet that they are right and thousands of imminent scientists are wrong? We must deal with this as an issue of fundamental risk management and we must deal with it as an issue of urgency. My concern is that this scheme will not do what is needed to be done for the environment—to take into account what scientists are saying. That is why I supported the Greens in aiming for a minimum 25 per cent cut by 2020. I think it is possible. It is clearly possible if we have the right scheme and the political will to do that. If you are going to fix a problem, do not do it in a half-hearted way; do it in a way that will actually achieve results according to the scientists.

Senator Boyce, in her very good contribution, made the point that she comes from a manufacturing background, from a small and medium business background. My concern and fear is that this scheme will push up the cost of electricity for every one of the 750,000 small and medium businesses in this country unnecessarily. We have seen just this week the details of a leaked report from IPART, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal in New South Wales, which shows that there will be massive price rises in electricity in the next three years—30 per cent from the CPRS alone. These are matters that must be taken into account. My appeal to my colleagues in the coalition is: do not abandon your support base. Do not abandon those small and medium businesses by locking us into a scheme that I fear will not deliver the environmental dividends and will come at a huge economic cost.

Having said that, Senator Wong is right: there is no easy fix; this is not a cost-free solution. This is something that will involve a considerable amount of readjustment and structural change in Australia’s economy, and I think it is important that we consider the best possible approach. That is why I have championed the Frontier approach, which I believe has a way forward in terms of reducing churn, reducing the direct and indirect costs to the economy, and moderating price increases in a way that I think smooths out the carbon price, which is good for investment certainty in the context of the structural changes we need. I know the opposition have been flirting with the Frontier model. I am hoping that they will soon be able to embrace it under their new leader.

I think it also must be said that for the coalition to go to the polls without a credible policy to significantly reduce CO2 greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is not a credible option for the Australian people, and they will judge that. I think most Australians actually want action on climate change, although I note that something like 80 per cent of Australians do not understand this ETS. That survey was, of course, conducted outside this chamber, and I am sure the figure would be completely different for our understanding of an ETS.

I think it is important that we get on with it. As a developed country, we have an obligation to do the right thing—20 per cent of developed countries account for 80 per cent of emissions. We have an obligation to lead. We have an obligation to be up-front and to be ahead of the pack on this. Whatever Copenhagen does and whatever the Waxman-Markey bill ends up as, we still have an obligation to design a scheme that is right for Australia’s economy—a scheme that suits us.

Many see the defeat of this legislation as a dark day for the government. I am more optimistic. I think the Australian people want a plan that protects our environment and protects the economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the chamber and with my crossbench colleagues, the Greens in particular, so that we can have a scheme that works and delivers the cuts that Australians expect in order to make an effective contribution to combating climate change.

I think we have a chance to do this again and to do it right. We should be grateful for that chance and we should make the most of it. The people of Australia, and indeed the people of our region and the planet, are counting on us and other developed nations to get it right. If we work constructively together and if we work honestly and, dare I say, in a bipartisan spirit, I believe we can get it right. I cannot support the government’s bill, but I believe we can get it right sooner rather than later.