Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let me clearly respond to that. Before you rush into this scare campaign, that is exactly what you need to do: read the legislation and try and get a grasp of the policy issues that we are putting before this country and this parliament. In fact, there will be no carbon price on international aviation flying from Australia. Get that clear. Get that really clear. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the position that Qantas has taken today. The carbon price will not even come into effect until 1 July next year. So we have another example just today where the Leader of the Opposition in this very chamber misleads, once again, on the carbon price on aviation, trying to pretend to the rest of this country, to Qantas workers, to Qantas passengers and to clients of Qantas that somehow this government is responsible for the decision that Qantas has taken. As Minister Combet said in the press release he released just half an hour or so ago: 'Senator Abetz has today revealed just how far the coalition is prepared to go in its unprincipled fear campaign against a carbon price.' Once again, Minister Combet is right. He is absolutely right.

While we are talking about scare campaigns here, let us turn the tables a bit about the deceitful, unprincipled and reckless scare campaign that is being run by the opposition and their leader, Mr Abbott, as he tries desperately to prove to the people of this country that he is fit to lead this country, that he is fit to be Prime Minister and that in fact he has an alternative policy. There is an alternative policy, but it is far worse, much worse, in terms of its impact on households than you could ever imagine. I will get to that a bit later if I get a chance. Claim after claim from Mr Abbott can be clearly discredited. It is all based on fear. It is based on a lack of understanding. It is based on an inability to grasp the fact that climate is changing.

We want to have an impact on that change. We want to have an impact on carbon that is put into the air. We want to put a price on carbon and we want this country to be involved in that and be a leader around the rest of the world.

Let us have a look at the first claim from Mr Abbott. He said on 19 July:

I mean, that’s my position and that’s always been my position but I’ve never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme …

That is what he said on 19 July. Well, this is the real fact about that claim. Mr Abbott was a senior minister in the Howard government that went to the 2007 election—let us talk about that point in time, the 2007 election and what was said prior to that election, where the party of the people sitting opposite me went to that election—with a policy of introducing an emissions trading scheme. And yet he said:

… I've never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme …

So what does that mean? When the coalition parties went to the election in 2007, everyone wanted an emissions trading scheme—oh, that is right, except Mr Abbott, and he only just remembered that on 19 July this year.

He also previously said:

I also think that if you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?

Who said that? Mr Abbott said that. When did he say that? On 29 July 2009, not long ago. What did he mean by that? He said:

I also think that if you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?

In fact, that was not one year ago; it was two years ago that he said that. Here is another claim from Mr Abbott:

… climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it. I mean, that’s my position and that’s always been my position …

That was on 19 July 2011, just this year. The fact is that Mr Abbott has previously said that the science of climate change was 'absolute crap'. One minute he thinks it is crap but a couple of years later he says that climate change is real. So those opposite have the audacity to want to come into this chamber and debate what our leader has said—a credible Prime Minister who is trying to forge a path in this country in tackling climate change, making a difference and being part of the rest of the world in having an effect—but are not prepared to have a really good look and scrutinise what their leader has said.

I note that, as I started to quote from Mr Abbott, those opposite have run away—like Shrek and the donkey. They have run out of the chamber because, when you turn the tide back on this party and start to light the fire under the Bunsen burner and turn a bit of heat up, they all disappear and dissipate. They do not like it and they all run away. 'We don't want to talk about it. Let's not talk about Mr Abbott's view on climate change. Let's talk about anything else.' Mr Abbott does not have a view about climate change that is consistent. From day to day, week to week and year to year Mr Abbott does not have a view that is consistent about climate change and what he would do about it.

Then there was a third claim. Should I keep going? We might be able to get the others opposite to run away as well if I keep going.

Senator Williams interjecting—

Yes, that is right, this is cruel and the Australian public need to know how cruel it would be if they had such a leader as Mr Abbott as Prime Minister. Mr Abbott said on 19 July:

... there is no doubt that this package, as it stands, is going to do terrible damage to the aluminium industry in this country.

That is exactly what he claimed. What is the fact of that statement? If those opposite actually grasped and read our policy and reiterated our policy accurately, they would see that aluminium in fact will receive significant assistance under the government's Jobs and Competitiveness Program. Alan Cransberg, the Managing Director of Alcoa of Australia said:

I am confident the government has heard our concerns and provided measures that can help our Australian facilities remain globally competitive.

That was in the Alcoa Community e-news of July 2011. Should I keep going? Probably not. We could spend all night talking about Mr Abbott and his inconsistent views about this tax and his inability to reiterate and articulate a policy that would be credible amongst the Australian public.

Let us just talk about what we are going to do and the positive impact that this government will make. With our plan to cut carbon pollution we are also planning to drive investment in clean energy technologies and infrastructure. We want to do two things. We want to cut the pollution, the emissions, that are out there in the atmosphere and we want to turn this country into a clean, green energy future; a clean, green future that drives energy using the likes of solar, gas and wind.

I hear some people say, 'I don't think we are going to have much of an impact here.' That is a claim you will hear often from the people opposite. 'Why are we doing this? If the rest of the world isn't doing it, why should we do it? It's not going to have any benefit.' Well, the rest of the world is doing it. The rest of the world is actually addressing this problem, but most people opposite do not want to acknowledge or accept that. They would like you to believe that we are standing on an island, literally by ourselves, compared to the rest of the world. It is not true. It is absolutely not true.

Over 89 countries, which account for over 80 per cent of the world's global emissions and over 90 per cent of the global economy, have pledged to reduce or limit their carbon pollution by 2020. In fact scores of countries have already started the transformation to a low-pollution economy. Some 32 countries and a number of the US states already have emissions trading schemes in place. Our five top trading partners—China, Japan, the US, Korea and India, and, among others, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands—have implemented or are piloting an emissions trading scheme or carbon taxes at the national, state, or city level. We are not alone.

The fact that we are moving now at such a late stage in this country's development means that we are lagging behind. We could have done this 18 months ago but, of course, all we could do then was stand back and watch the circus on the other side decide that climate change was so unacceptable and so intolerable to tackle that they dumped their leader in favour of someone who was an absolute sceptic about it. That is about all the contribution to climate change we have seen from the Liberal Party in this country. They just drop a leader who had some commitment to climate change and replace him with a leader who has no commitment to it. In fact he believes it is 'absolute crap'.

New Zealand introduced a trading scheme in 2008 initially covering only forestry but then, last year, it expanded significantly to cover liquid fossil fuels, stationary energy and industrial processes. And then there is China. We had questions today in question time about China. China has indicated that it will introduce an emissions trading pilot scheme in a number of provinces including the industrial centres of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. China is on the program. Mr Abbott is not, but China is on the program. The World Bank recently indicated that these regional schemes may be expanded to a national scheme by 2015. China has the world's largest installed renewable energy electricity generation capacity. In 2009 China added 37 gigawatts of renewable power capacity, more than any other country in the world.

If we want to talk about another country that is continually raised by those people opposite, let us move on to India. India has a tax on coal which is expected to generate over half a billion dollars annually to fund research into clean energy technologies. The US is committed to achieving its target to reduce its emissions by 17 per cent by 2020. We have countries that are acting and we have countries that are moving on climate change and are committed to it. Let us have a look very closely at exactly what people are saying about our package as we move to introduce this legislation. Professor Garnaut stated on 10 July:

This is a strong climate change policy package. It will allow Australia to do its fair share in an effective global effort to reduce the risks of climate change, and to do so at reasonable cost.

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, in a letter to the Prime Minister on 31 July said this:

I was delighted to hear of the ambitious package of climate change policy measures you announced on 10 July and wanted to congratulate you on taking this bold step.

He must be a Conservative Party leader who does have a little bit of vision, unlike his comrade in the Liberal Party here in Australia. Geoff Garrett, Queensland Chief Scientist, said on 19 July:

The science indicates that we have anthropogenic (man-made) global warming and we need to reduce carbon emissions …

As such, I do support ... that in order to get the market forces going, you do need to put a price on carbon.

Many people have come out. I have sheets and sheets of them here, which I will not read out because I will not have enough time. We have an attempt by the people opposite to still pretend that we do not have to do anything to act on carbon. If we were to do something under their plan, households would pay and we would compensate polluters. We would provide them with incentives and at the end of the day householders would be far worse off under their plan.