Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

I want to raise a couple of matters. But, first, Senator Macdonald, your contribution was very surprising in the sense that I think the day the Senate takes advice from you will be a very sad day for this democracy. And I do need to correct you: it is actually Lord Deben, not Lord Debenham as you repeatedly said; so could you get that right next time.

I did want to raise some of the issues that Senator Xenophon highlighted, and I understand Senator Xenophon's position in relation to this amendment. I would urge him to reconsider his position and vote with the opposition for this amendment for an emissions trading scheme. But I understand what he raised in relation to price. Of course an emissions trading scheme is a market based mechanism, but we have got emissions trading schemes in the world—some are fledging; some are more developed. The EU's emissions trading scheme is very developed. Its price has declined, based on a range of factors. As schemes become more developed and you look at the cap and you look at the development of any market that can show that volatility, price changes. Obviously we have seen a price stabilise in the EU, but I do think that, as further markets develop in the world, we are likely to see that international market change over time. It is certainly not something that is fixed like the carbon tax—it is a market based mechanism, so it is about business working out that price—so I urge him to reconsider his position, understanding the points that he raised.

Before I talk about the government's position and the Palmer United Party's position, I would like to talk about the Greens' position. The opposition is pleased that the Greens are supporting this amendment for an emissions trading scheme. However, I would draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Australian Greens party have voted against an emissions trading scheme three times so far. They are purportedly the party for clean energy, but they have voted against an emissions trading scheme at least three times. I am pleased that they are voting for this scheme now, but if we are to strive to address climate change, then it is Labor's position that has been consistent on moving from a fixed price to an emissions trading scheme. We put this amendment in March when the Senate had a different make-up and, on that basis, this amendment could have passed in this place. So it is disappointing that their vote in support of this amendment has come too late. Having said that, Labor obviously supports their support for it.

In relation to the government's position, and the Palmer United Party's position of supporting the government—that is, not supporting this amendment for an emissions trading scheme for this country—what exactly will the government and the Palmer United Party achieve if they do not achieve this amendment? What will they achieve for our children and for our children's children? Voting with us on these amendments is the only way of ensuring a cap on pollution; it is the only way of ensuring that we will reduce our carbon emissions. This is my last-ditch attempt to ask the Senate to see some sense and vote with the opposition for an emissions trading scheme. We know that the replacement is a tokenistic attempt to have a climate change policy; Direct Action falls very short of achieving anything meaningful in relation to acting on global warming.

The furphies put out by the Prime Minister on his recent overseas trips and the like have not been supported by other global leaders. He has tried to create a coalition of the unwilling and was pretty much left standing on his own. Senator Cormann talked about the fact that the US does not have a national trading scheme—other than all the states that are moving that way. President Obama said recently to students at the University of California: 'I'm going to talk about one of the most significant long-term challenges that our country and our planet faces, and that of course is the threat of a rapidly changing climate.' So President Obama does get it, and that is why, as I said earlier, the United States and China have signed a partnership pact. Of course, when the New Zealand Prime Minister heard of what Tony Abbott was trying to achieve with his coalition of the unwilling on climate change, he made it very clear that he did not want a bar of it—as did the UK, another conservative government that does not support this conservative government.

In abandoning Labor's commitment to an emissions trading scheme the Abbott government is taking Australia from being a world leader in addressing climate change to a nation standing out from the international community in refusing to acknowledge this pressing problem. The Abbott government, in isolating Australia from the international community on an emissions trading scheme, is denying the country the ability to play a meaningful role in addressing this challenge on both a national and global scale. In putting this amendment, I ask the government: if you vote down Labor's amendment, how can you guarantee that Direct Action will deliver our reductions of five per cent by 2020, and is there an emissions trading scheme that you will accept?