House debates

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Bills

Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge — General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011; Consideration in Detail

8:52 pm

Photo of Amanda RishworthAmanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What we are seeing today from the opposition with their amendments is the biggest and longest dummy spit in the history of this parliament about losing an election. Because they could not form government, they have decided to take a politically opportunistic approach to this issue. What we have seen from them is absolute hypocrisy, and the member for Makin clearly pointed that out. In this debate, we have heard the member for Mackellar talk about how the seas are not really rising, saying that this is all a fabrication, people's imagination. We have heard the member for Riverina dispute the science and say: 'There's no point in acting. We shouldn't act, we shouldn't do anything about climate change.' This is what those on the other side have done: they have disputed the science and they have said that the rest of the world is not acting, so why should we. They have put forward inaccuracies followed by inaccuracies, one after the other. In fact, if the opposition really believe that there is no merit in acting, that we should not act on climate change—as opposed to what is being advanced by this side—then why do they have a five per cent reduction target? Why do they want to spend $45 billion of taxpayers' money?

We heard before that the opposition are concerned about this legislation being some sort of communist proposition. Well, the only communist proposition that has been put before the Australian people is the opposition's proposal, their direct action plan, where those in government have command and control, and will choose the winners. In government, they would spend $46 billion of taxpayers' money—

An opposition member: $45 billion.

$45 billion—or $46 billion; it will probably blow out—

Comments

No comments