Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will come to that, Senator. Then in July 2010, on ABC Brisbane, Mr Abbott said:

I don't necessarily think that carbon dioxide is the environmental villain that everyone makes it out to be ...

And later—

... the scientific consensus is not nearly as solid as the climate change zealots would have us believe.

So who are Mr Abbott's 'climate change zealots' who try and tell us there is a scientific consensus on climate change? Could he be referring to award-winning scientist Professor Tim Flannery? Or perhaps Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb? Is he a 'climate change zealot'? I would be interested to know how many in the ranks of the opposition support Mr Abbott's comments on the science of climate change. We know that Senator Minchin is unconvinced by the science, and the same appears to be true for Senator Joyce. One has to wonder how much the opposition's policies are influenced by the fact that there are many within their ranks who have their heads in the sand because they just don't believe the threat exists. And if you think the threat exists, then remember that Mr Abbott was denying the threat less than a year ago. In fact, he is still denying it.

Exhibit No. 3 is the opposition's sham policy that serves as a proxy for something resembling a plan to tackle climate change. If you want to know the real motives behind Mr Abbott's so-called direct action proposal, you need only to have listened to Mr Turnbull on Lateline. When asked why the coalition's policy was better, Mr Turnbull replied that it could be 'more easily abandoned'. Mr Turnbull has let the cat out of the bag. He probably feels uncomfortable revealing what the rest of the opposition does not want to admit: that the coalition's direct action policy is no more than a tokenistic gesture to those Australians who support action on climate change. It is basically the policy you have when you don't really have a policy—it is a complete Clayton's policy. I am sure when the coalition adopted it they celebrated with a round of Clayton's to go with it.

Perhaps instead of recruiting Angry Anderson for their ads, the coalition could have signed up Fabio to promote 'I can't believe it's not climate change action'. Or perhaps a better description for the opposition's policy would be 'direct inaction'. That is what it should be called. It will cost Australian taxpayers $720 per household, it will punch a $20 billion black hole in the budget, and it will not provide any compensation for the rising costs that Australians face as a result. Moreover, it will not achieve the bipartisan target of a five per cent reduction in carbon emissions on 2000 levels by 2020.

The government, on the other hand, will make the big polluters pay. It will do so by putting a fixed price on carbon emissions as a transitional measure towards an emissions trading scheme. It is a market based solution. We know from a recent Productivity Commission report that market based schemes are the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. We know that some of the costs will be passed on to consumers, and we will be providing generous household assistance to compensate.

If you go back in history and look at the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—which was coalition policy until Mr Turnbull was unceremoniously rolled—100 per cent of low-income households and 50 per cent of middle-income households would have been at least fully compensated for the cost impact, with many actually being better off under the scheme. The details of the carbon price scheme are being negotiated through the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee and will be announced with plenty of time for Australian industry and Australian householders to prepare for the scheme's introduction in July 2012.

But Senator Fifield is not really arguing about the policy itself. His MPI is about consistency, and when the opposition seeks to lecture those on this side of the chamber about consistency, well they are living in a glasshouse. For a party with more positions on climate change science and climate change action than a professional contortionist, Mr Abbott's call for a plebiscite is a bit rich. It is also one of the biggest dummy-spits in Australian political history. Mr Abbott refuses to accept the verdict of the Australian people from the last election. As I said, they have not taken too well to opposition at all. He also refuses to accept the verdict of the Independents and crossbenchers when they rejected his $11 billion black hole—a black hole that he kept successfully hidden from the Australian people until after the election. Tony Abbott clearly is not faint-hearted about spending money when he is proposing to spend—