Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have really heard it all now in relation to the opposition's position on climate change and their terrible opposition towards pricing carbon, which they really cannot cope with because they are so divided on whether or not they even believe in doing something in relation to climate change—so much so, of course, that the hardliners, the sceptics like Senator Eric Abetz, and perhaps Senator Johnston falls into that category as well, continued to deny the facts right up until the time that they decided to roll their leader at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, on the subject because they simply could not live with the fact that pricing carbon was something he wanted to do, because they could not believe in it. That was despite the overwhelming science. We know how much science is out there and we also know that for decades in this parliament—and this goes for other parliaments across the world—we have been in conversation about the need to tackle climate change. Even their own former Prime Minister, John Howard, was willing to tackle climate change. He actually said an ETS was the least-cost option for families, that pricing carbon was a major reform and that you could not reduce emissions without a carbon price. That was their leader, their Prime Minister, but now that he has left the other place they are happy to walk away from coalition policy which was, in fact, addressing climate change—and addressing it with an ETS. Why are we doing the ETS? Because we know it is the most cost-effective option, as opposed to the opposition's so-called direct action policy. The ETS is the most efficient way to reduce emissions as well, with targets to meet our obligation to reducing carbon dioxide by five per cent by 2020 levels.

Senator Johnston talked—like he was some expert in the field—about how the rest of the globe are not introducing an ETS and how nothing is going on in relation to climate change. His comments could not be further from the truth. In fact, he has misled this place by stating that China, for example, is not having a bar of it. That is absolutely incorrect and I urge Senator Johnston to correct the record and to actually look at exactly what China is doing. He can go online and see very easily that, in their new, 12th five-year plan, from 2011 to 2015, China have launched an energy saving and emissions reduction plan, establishing carbon-trading pilot schemes across seven provinces and cities to start in 2013. Why are they doing that? They are doing that in order to establish whether they will then introduce a national ETS, to be ready by 2016. We are talking about the biggest polluting country on the globe taking action on climate change in the form of none other than an emissions trading scheme. So we have an emissions trading scheme on which action is being taken by a developing country that has recognised that it needs to improve its image, that it is the largest polluter now, that it has overtaken the US as being the largest polluter with its rising economic growth, that it does not want to continue on a path of growth at any cost and that it wants to look at growth at a sustainable level—sustainable so that it is meeting its economic development plans in a sustainable way. In doing so, it has allowed the emergence of NGOs and the media to monitor compliance with its ETS and other schemes.

This is the world's largest emitter of carbon, China, taking action—let alone the European Union, who have been active for a long time. The reason why China has delayed doing so up until now is that there is a belief in those countries of the developing world that we are in this global pollution situation because of the activities in earlier decades by the developed world—by Australia, by the US, by the EU nations—and that it is actually our responsibility to lead the way. That is exactly what Australia is doing, as we should. We should show those developing countries that, while we did do a lot of polluting in the past, not knowing the effects on our environment that those emissions were causing, now that we do know we are righting those wrongs of the past. We are leading by example and we are taking care of that responsibility in introducing an emissions trading scheme. In doing so, we encourage the developing world—which we need to be on board with us if we are going to reduce our carbon emissions and that is especially so with nations like China, who are the biggest polluter through their economic growth—to ensure that they do something about it too. So they are watching us to see what action we are taking.

Now, if the coalition had their way, China would not act. Some of those other developing nations would not act if developed countries did not do so themselves. So it is absolutely a furphy for Senator Johnston to come in here and say China is not having a bar of it. I ask him to do his homework and understand exactly what is going on in other countries, both developed and developing, in the world. Of course, the opposition want to roll back the numerous tax cuts that we are introducing through this package. Let us make it very clear, just in case the opposition senators have completely forgotten the way in which this package works. We will be taking the revenue that we receive from the biggest polluters and providing half of that revenue in assistance to households right across the country, including, as Senator Johnston alluded to, those Tasmanians who may be cold at night—including Tasmanians who need our support. In ensuring that we do so, how are we doing it? We are introducing a higher rate of family tax benefit. We are introducing an increase on pensions. We are introducing the tripling of the tax-free threshold. We are introducing other benefits and allowances to help households with the modest cost-of-living impact of the carbon price.

If, as Senator Thistlethwaite said earlier, there are power prices that are increasing right now, that is because the companies increasing them need to do so because of their ageing infrastructure requirements. We do not have a price on carbon yet. It is not 1 July yet. But we are ensuring that, come that time, we can provide the necessary benefits and requirements to support those households in meeting that cost so it will be offset. It is really a no-brainer. It is a simple policy of providing support to those people who will need it, through offsetting the increase on their electricity through the carbon tax.

Why are we doing all this? We are doing all this because we know that it is the right thing to do for not just this generation but future generations. We believe in taking responsibility for our future and for our children's prosperity, and that is why we introduced the clean energy future bills. Once we are gone from this place, we will have done our bit to ensure that our nation's contribution to our planet has ensured that it is there for many, many, many millennia to come. The science tells us that our own increased emission of carbon into the atmosphere is having an impact. It is having an impact on our oceans. It is having an impact on our atmosphere. It is having an impact on our way of living. We need to ensure that we amend those mistakes of the past by introducing a price on carbon which will result in an emissions trading scheme which will change behaviour for companies, for business, for the way in which we live. It is something that we are already doing every day in the way we live to reduce our carbon footprint on this planet as much as we possibly can. Through our assistance, households will receive that increase of $9.90 a week, while the average assistance will be $10.10 per week, all assisting us to introduce this incredible reform policy by 1 July. It will ensure that we very much improve our standing globally and our standing as a nation, for us and our children, in relation to carbon pricing and climate change as we go forward into the future.