Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to take note of the answers given by Ministers Chris Evans and Conroy today. I begin by highlighting that Senator Evans’s response was quite clear that we recognise the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will indeed have a modest impact on prices but the government is providing substantial assistance to help households adjust. In contrast, what the coalition has put before us is a giant climate change con job. We know that sceptics have beaten a path to their door. The coalition have tried to argue that the CPRS is a giant tax on households. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The coalition’s policy is certainly a tax. How will it get funded? Certainly that revenue will have to come from the taxpayer. The coalition’s policy completely fails the test. It does not reduce pollution. We know that pollution may indeed grow under the opposition’s policy while billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money—money the government will have to find and taxpayers will have to pay—will be spent on this scheme, and for what? For no outcome. It is a Liberal climate change con job. There is no cost-free way of tackling climate change, as Senator Evans highlighted in question time today.

Who should pay: the taxpayer or the polluter? You say the taxpayer; we say the polluter. Australian emissions under the coalition’s plan will grow and Australian households, who you purport to be so concerned about, will be no better off. Unless you put a hard legislative limit on carbon pollution, polluters will keep polluting and climate change will just get worse. That is why the CPRS puts a limit on emissions. That is why the CPRS charges polluters. If they in turn need to pass costs on to consumers then we compensate them.

By contrast, the climate con job put forward by Mr Abbott does not put a limit on pollution. Mr Abbott thinks climate change is crap, and he has confirmed that again and again. The opposition leader’s climate change plan is nothing more than a climate con job. It does less, it costs more and it will mean higher taxes for Australian families. The opposition’s scheme has three key problems. Firstly, it does not work, it does not require anything of the polluters and it has no cap on pollution. Secondly, it will slug taxpayers instead of big polluters. Thirdly, it is unfunded and it will mean big cuts in services, or higher taxes.

To tackle climate change we know that we need a CPRS or an ETS to transform our economy and to drive pollution down. We have to get on with the job of getting our pollution sources under control, for a greener and more sustainable Australia. The sooner we do this, the less it will cost Australian households. Abbott’s plan will cost this country. Why? Because big polluters will not have a framework to drive down their emissions. Our industry will fall behind what the global effort requires. The coalition has shown that it is out of touch on this issue. The sceptics have beaten a path to the coalition’s door.

We know that more than 30 countries already have emissions trading schemes like the CPRS in operation, and others are working towards schemes of their own. Why? Because they know that these schemes are the most efficient. These schemes will reduce costs for their citizens and their families. We are in step with the rest of the world. There is one lone wolf in this scenario, and that is the Leader of the Opposition. His approach is not being taken by anyone in the world. On the other hand, the Rudd government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is fully costed and funded. We know how much it is going to cost: $3.3 billion over 10 years. The cost is to be met by polluters and, where the cost is passed on to consumers who buy those goods and services, the Commonwealth government will compensate the consumers. By contrast, Mr Abbott’s costings, his climate con job— (Time expired)