Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar tries to rewrite history and say he was the shadow minister for climate change. I table for her benefit the list of the shadow ministry, indicating that indeed the Hon. Andrew Robb MP was the shadow minister for infrastructure and COAG and shadow minister assisting the Leader of the Opposition on emissions trading design.

They are trying to wipe out their own history on this issue because the fact is there are three problems with their position that they have advanced today. Firstly, it does not actually require any action whatsoever by the polluters—no cap. Secondly, it slugs taxpayers instead of the big polluters. Thirdly, it is unfunded; it simply does not add up. They cannot say where the money is coming from. Indeed, it is time for some straight talking on climate change, as others have said. A member of this House said on 7 December 2009:

Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is “crap” and you don’t need to do anything about it.

Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing.

That was the member for Wentworth. What we have seen put forward by the Leader of the Opposition today is just that: an environmental fig leaf backed by the climate change sceptics opposite and backed in by what has now become a party not just of climate sceptics but of market sceptics. They do not believe that there should be a market based solution. Now they have gone back to their rhetoric of the Howard era, saying that emissions trading and market based mechanisms are a tax, whereas what we know is that, from their own words today, this unfunded scheme that they have put forward will require extra taxation from ordinary PAYE taxpayers. Those opposite simply do not understand what the business community has demanded, because they need for their interests the certainty that an emissions trading scheme would bring. But the member for Wentworth was absolutely right when he said that the plan would be a con job, because indeed the plan announced by the opposition is a con job that does less, costs more and will eventually mean increased taxes to be paid by Australians.

The fact is we need strong, responsible national leadership. We can seize the economic benefits that are available from the worldwide push to clean, renewable energy. This is not a question of Right or Left; it is a question of right and wrong. That was something that was agreed by those opposite when they said they would have good-faith negotiations, but they walked away from it because they did not have the courage of their convictions and they chose to walk away from good policy outcomes. This is about old ways or new paths. We on this side of the chamber believe that we need to move forward in every way—economically, socially and environmentally—into this century. We have had 20 speakers on this debate. They said they wanted a debate. They then proceeded not to be quite sure whether they wanted a debate. We have given them one and we are happy to continue debates into the future. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

See this speech in context