Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to follow Senator Birmingham and pick up on his final point, which is the issue of hypocrisy. I do not think I have heard anything more hypocritical than the contributions today from members of the opposition in this matters of public importance discussion on the carbon tax. I suppose the reason that that is all we are hearing today is that there is no alternative policy that makes any sense at all and therefore those opposite come into this chamber with a view to demolishing and continuing to demonise the whole Clean Energy Future package.

We know from all of the work that has been done—not just by this government but by the previous, conservative government—that there has been an extraordinary amount of consultation and an intensive period of policy development from governments of both persuasions over many, many years to bring forward an emissions trading scheme. Working on the basis of the preliminary work of the Howard government, we are here today to bring this into effect and that is a significant event for all of us. The basis, the foundation, is immutable. It is absolutely understood that even the climate change deniers have to acknowledge the science that underpins this package. We did not hear much about that today but we know that this work will fundamentally make a big difference.

So, first of all, the science is in and the science is right. Despite those people who deny climate change, we are already seeing the social, economic and environmental impacts of climate change. We have heard about the extent to which human activities trigger the changes that we are witnessing. We are seeing the severity of climate change, how it plays out across our continent and across the world.

These are the important things. These are the concerns that Senator Thistlethwaite was expressing for the future of his children—and all our grandchildren, I would hope. We know from all of the work from the Climate Commission, from the scientific agencies, from individual sciences, from all the work that has been done, that we have to tackle climate change by cutting carbon pollution in our own economy and by playing a very responsible role internationally. The idea that we can put some kind of border around ourselves and pretend that we do not belong to a global economy and a global environment is such a nonsense that it beggars belief. Yet this is the kind of argument that we hear from the opposition.

We know too that the way to cut carbon pollution in our economy is to put in cost-effective measures to achieve the necessary reforms. That way is through a market-based mechanism. Senator Cormann would like to deny that that is what this is all about but it is absolutely what the government has in mind. It is our clear objective.

A carbon price, as is being introduced through this package of bills, goes to the heart of the issues because it makes activities that cause the problem more expensive and activities that address the problem less expensive. That is, in a nutshell, what this is all about. It is not just us saying that. This is the conclusion of many, many people. It is the view shared by the OECD, by the IMF, by the World Bank, by the Stern review and by the review undertaken by the previous government—by Professor Peter Shergold. So this is not politically motivated; it is economically responsible and environmentally sustainable, if this is what it is all about. Senator Thistlethwaite went to the issues of green jobs and strongly growing employment and opportunities. We really have to take action now. That is what this is all about and that is why those bills were introduced this morning.

I would like to make some reflections on the public debate. I am very disappointed this afternoon to hear yet again the continuing tirades and the most absurd, inane, nonsensical arguments being put up by the opposition about this issue. Nobody has challenged the policy substance because it is undeniable. The policy substance underpins this work. All we have from the opposition is a response aimed at engendering fear and dumbing down the politics—frightening people with deceit and misrepresentation and distortion going to people's basest fears and insecurities. Thanks, but that is not the way we need to have public policy debated in Australia. It is pathetic.

What the Leader of the Opposition has been saying in this policy debate has been quite nonsensical. He changes his mind every time he opens his mouth. On one day he has never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. On another day he says the simplest solution is: why not introduce a tax? He says one thing to one audience and something else to a different audience. I recall he said one day that one tonne of carbon dioxide is weightless. That is a very scientific basis, isn't it? We had better send him back to school.

The issue that concerned me today, though—Senator Cormann raised it, as did Senator Birmingham in question time today at the behest of the largest mining industry in Australia—was this nonsense that a carbon price is going to mean the ultimate death of the coal industry. That is such a furphy. We know that these industries and companies have been factoring in a price on carbon for quite a long time. We know that the coal industry has a sound future and we can see that in the investments happening around the country right now. Peabody's $4.7 billion investment in Macarthur Coal is an investment in the future of that industry. Rio Tinto and Mitsubishi's proposed buyout of Coal and Allied for $1.4 billion is another significant investment in industry here, along with Vale's approval just last month of an investment of about $870 million at Eagle Downs. This is not an industry that is falling over and going to disappear. This is an industry that is about investing in manufacturing and mining in ways that will continue into the long term.

We also hear time after time these tragic stories—as the opposition starts to use its carbon tax instruction package—about the worries of small businesses. It happened in my own community last week with Senator Abetz and the member for Hume, Alby Shultz, quoted yesterday in my local paper saying:

Both Wollondilly and Goulburn Mulwaree councils have grave concerns about the increasing in costs for ratepayers from the introduction of Labor’s proposed carbon tax and are telling me they are going to have to make some tough decisions on spending.

Small businesses are already experiencing colossal increases in the cost of doing business.

A carbon tax will devastate the bottom line of many small and family run businesses who can’t keep up with the increase in electricity prices as it is.

This is at the same time that, under the opposition's own proposed package, they are saying: 'No, we're going to introduce this; we're going to reach the same targets, but there will be no cost to families, no new taxes and no rises in electricity prices.' But, at the same time, we have an extraordinary effort by state and territory governments around doing some of these things. To me, the frustrating thing is that such a scare campaign is not doing any one of us any good. It really is destructive in the current environment for people to be worried and driven down to this base level of debate.

Fundamentally, the critical issue is that former Prime Minister John Howard understood the whole rationale for an emissions trading scheme. I suppose there may be people who are quite disturbed by the fact that the New South Wales Liberal Party today endorsed Arthur Sinodinos for the Senate—and the expectation is that he will go straight to the front bench—because of course he guided Prime Minister Howard through some of those initial discussions, and he will try to be a voice of reason in all of this. There are some people on the front bench over there who I think would be very worried about their jobs.

So let us just think about how we conduct this debate. It needs to be one of reason and rationale and certainly not one of hysteria and what could be called a white carbon policy. That is the best that this opposition can do and, quite frankly, it is pathetic.