Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

In summing up, I first thank all senators for their contributions to the debate. In relation to the comments we have just heard, the best way of characterising most of the contribution from Senator Abetz is ‘the shallowest response to the deepest of the nation’s problems’. In many ways his contribution could have been summed up with one sentence: ‘We do not support action on climate change.’ In many ways the Australian people might have given him more credit for honesty then.

I want to respond to just some of the arguments in this debate before the debate is closed—first, the comments of Senator Joyce, which were many, varied and quite loud. The first is that this is not about the science; this is about the economy. He is partly right. It is about both, because you do not tackle climate change unless you change your economy. It is very simple: you do not tackle climate change unless you change your economy. You have to make polluters pay, and if you do not make polluters pay then you will not tackle climate change, because you will not change the very behaviour that caused this problem in the first place and continues to contribute to it. So, when Senator Abetz says, ‘We will have a policy on climate change but it will be easy,’ he is not to be believed, because there is no easy solution to this problem. If there were, it would have been dealt with by now.

The reality is that the former Prime Minister, John Howard, was honest about this. He said you could not take this forward—you could not make these economic changes—without some impact on prices. The Liberal Party have made clear their intentions. They will try and pretend they are taking action on climate change without going to the cause of the problem, but there is no escaping the cause of the problem. You have to put a price on pollution; that is the only way you can respond to climate change.

The second point I want to make is about the scare campaign which has been in practice already in this chamber in recent days. It is always disappointing when politicians, instead of debating the issues and the facts, resort to putting forward things which are untrue—and which often they know to be untrue—in order to block action. Senator Joyce has come into this place and said that that lamb roasts will cost over $100. He knows that the Treasury has said that in the first year of this scheme the estimated increase per kilo for a leg of lamb is 4c. Why does he believe it is responsible for an elected representative to come into this place and put forward something that is so obviously incorrect? There is only one explanation—that is, when you cannot fight the argument, you run a scare campaign. He has accused us of making pensioners poor. He has accused us of not supporting working families. This is from the party that delivered Work Choices—the irony of that is clear for all to see.

I will remind the chamber that this government is ensuring through this plan, endorsed just one week ago by the Liberal Party room, that the largest single share of assistance under this legislation goes to Australian households. For example, we estimate a single pensioner’s costs will rise by about $286 a year. We are providing them with $455 a year worth of assistance, which is more than the anticipated costs, because when we say we want polluters to pay because that is the only way we can act on climate change we also say we want to support Australian households, particularly low-income Australians, through that transition. To Senator Joyce I say this: do not come in here and peddle things which are not true in an attempt to oppose action on climate change. Why do you not just come in here and say, ‘This is all bunkum; we don’t believe in climate change; we don’t believe it’s real’? That at least would be more truthful.

Then there is the argument that we should not act because it does not matter what we do. Australians as a nation have always done our bit and we have never said we should simply sit in the grandstand and watch others do the work. This is about doing our bit as part of a global agreement. This is about doing our bit as part of responding to what is a global challenge. The government has never pretended that this nation on its own can tackle this problem. What we have said to the Australian people is that we too in this nation have to act.

Then there is the argument about who understands what. I say to the opposition: Australians understand one thing. They understand that you do not want to act on climate change. The fact is that the arguments put by the opposition do not stack up. They are sham arguments from people driven and now led by people who do not believe that climate change is real. What has been demonstrated in this session of the parliament is that they will do and say anything to avoid taking action. They will do anything to block action on climate change. These are people sprinting back to the past.

Another furphy in this debate has been that we are going first. I again remind the chamber of the falseness of that argument. Countries that have either legislated for trading schemes or committed to them include the European Union—which includes nations like the United Kingdom, France and Germany—New Zealand, Japan and the United States. These are some of the actions which have already been legislated for or committed to and I have in this chamber many times pointed out what else is happening. There is no danger of this country rushing ahead but, as a result of the actions of the opposition, there is a risk that this country will be left behind. That is the greater risk: that we are left behind. Action on climate change has been supported and called for by no less than the Queen, John Howard, conservative Prime Minister John Key from New Zealand and David Cameron in the United Kingdom. This Liberal Party makes John Howard look green. They are not only out of touch with most of Australia; they are out of touch with most conservative parties around the world—a fact that Mr Turnbull has reminded them of on many occasions.

I will briefly mention the Greens and I will just say this. This legislation may well fail on the Greens’ vote and, whatever rhetoric those Greens senators engage in, they will have voted for Australia’s carbon pollution to continue to rise. They will have voted against action on climate change.