Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

None of that would be apparent to anyone who was listening to the speech that we have just heard from the member for Dunkley because he did not actually go to any of the aspects of pricing carbon, any of the aspects of the actual Clean Energy Future plan. We have a plan which will cut pollution. It will drive investment in clean energy technologies and it will drive investment in infrastructure like solar, gas or wind. It will help build the clean energy future that future generations deserve. It will help our children and it will help our grandchildren. It is, of course, disappointing to have this important debate raised in the way that it has been, as—so we have heard from the member for Dunkley—a risk to the economy or as a risk to business. It is astounding to see the degree to which those on the other side of this chamber have wilfully perpetuated their own ignorance. They have deliberately ignored the benefits of the Clean Energy Future plan for what can only be described as reasons of base political expediency. It is shameful to see them engage in what can only be described as an all-out scare campaign for months and months and months, claiming that our policy will have a negative impact on the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me make this clear: our policy will help Australia take part in the global economy of the future. It will reduce our emissions and position Australia business for the development of the global low-carbon economy. It is not our policy that represents a grave risk to the Australian economy. Rather, it is the opportunistic, false and deliberately misleading campaign by those opposite—indeed, what I would describe as the grubbiest opposition in the history of Federation—that represents a risk to Australian business. It is a risk because it reduces business and consumer confidence. It is a risk because it undercuts certainty. It is what we have come to expect from this opposition: the talking down of the Australian economy. It is no wonder that some Australians at least are concerned about the pricing of carbon because of the way this opposition has misrepresented the government's plan, the way in which this opposition has represented the effects of pricing carbon and, indeed, the way this opposition continues to talk down the Australian economy. And, worse than this, it is the ongoing economic ineptitude of this opposition that, should they ever be elected to govern—and I hope that day never comes—which actually represents the biggest risk to the Australian economy and the biggest risk to Australian business.

I say 'ongoing' because it has been for many, many months, going right back to the last election, that we have seen the economic ineptitude of this opposition demonstrated. I would go right back to an observation made by one of Australia's most respected journalists just after the last election. Writing in the Australian Financial Review on 3 September 2010, Laura Tingle said this:

There are two possible explanations for how an opposition presenting itself as an alternative government could end up with an $11 billion hole in the cost of its election commitments. One is that they are liars, the other is that they are clunkheads. Actually, there is a third explanation: they are liars and clunkheads. But whatever the combination, they are not fit to govern.

Nothing has changed since 3 September 2010. Nothing has changed since the opposition were caught out over the costings that they took to the Australian people at the time of the last election. They were caught out over an $11 billion hole in their costings produced by accountants who were later found to be guilty of professional misconduct. Nothing has changed except that they are now looking for cuts of $70 billion, not for cuts of $11 billion, and there is no explanation to the Australian people as to how they are going to produce those.

Labor governments represent working families. We know that the best way to look after those working families is to manage the economy for jobs and growth. As a result of our stimulus during the global financial crisis—which those opposite opposed—Australia stands out around the industrialised world. We have low unemployment, we have solid growth, we have moderate inflation and we have massive business investment and low public debt. Our policy to move towards a clean energy future will not hurt the economy. Rather, it has been designed to ensure that we can continue to manage the economy in the interests of working families.

Let me recap on what is at stake here and why the government must act on climate change and why we have put a price on carbon. There is clear consensus among climate scientists that climate change is real and will have significant future impacts if no action is taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. It is clearly in Australia's national interest to continue to work towards the international goal of limiting warming to below two degrees. To do this, it is imperative that we play a responsible role in international action and that we do so by taking strong action at home—which is something those opposite continually forget. That means we must actually reduce our emissions of carbon pollution into the atmosphere. Labor has a plan which is in line with expert opinion: a broadly based carbon price which directly creates incentives for businesses throughout the economy to reduce emissions and for all consumers to use energy more wisely. We are putting a price on carbon because we know this is the cheapest and most effective way to transition to a clean energy future.

A low-carbon global economy is coming and it is up to us to decide whether we help Australian businesses to take advantage of this or simply bury our heads in the sand. The Clean Energy Future Plan is one of the most significant industry and innovation policies that this nation has ever seen. Over $15 billion will be invested in creating the jobs of tomorrow, most notably in manufacturing. Those opposite would have our industries stand still as our overseas competitors reduce their pollution intensity and get a head start in competing in the low-carbon global economy.

And because we are the Labor Party, a party that represents working people, we are making sure that low- and middle-income earners receive assistance as we make these changes. Our tax cuts and increased payments through benefits and pensions are targeted at those who need them most. Labor will make sure that pensioners, low- and middle-income earners and families doing it tough are looked after. The rest of the world is acting, and if one needs any demonstration of that one has only to look at the agreement reached to go forward that was made at Durban last year. So the rest of the world is acting and our economy and our environment will be badly damaged unless Australia acts too. You would have to say that all of those opposite in the Liberal Party are in some kind of alternative universe, where they have wilfully divorced themselves from reality. We know that many of those opposite like to pretend that climate change is not happening. It is a bit like how they like to pretend when they talk about the economy that the global financial crisis did not happen.

Back to climate change, they ignore the facts and the overwhelming weight of evidence from the scientific community that climate change is happening. Those opposite have cobbled together a policy—their so-called direct action policy—which they have no intention of ever pursuing, if they ever hold office. No-one should be fooled by this. This policy is not designed to reduce emissions; it is a policy that is only designed to give an appearance of action—just a fig-leaf appearance that the opposition do actually care about taking action on climate change. This so-called direct action plan—if you can call it a plan at all—involves the purchase of abatement of emissions at taxpayers' expense.

It has been tried before and it has been found to be ineffective and very expensive. In fact, what the member for Dunkley should have faced up to when he spoke earlier was the analysis of the opposition's policies and its direct action plan by the department of climate change, which was provided in response to a question raised at Senate additional estimates, in February 2010.

The analysis found that the plan would be unlikely to achieve more than 40 million tonnes of abatement in 2020, that it could not achieve the level of abatement at the costs claimed by the coalition and that an average cost of carbon of $50 per tonne in 2020 would be the minimum realistic average cost for such a program. That of course is well above the cost of the carbon price that the government has brought in.

Families would be worse off under the plan that has been advanced by the opposition. You would have to pay $1,300 more in taxes and that money would be given by a coalition government straight to the big polluters. We have been debating this matter for years and it is time that the opposition put aside the mindless negativity that we have become accustomed to and let the rest of the country get on with it.

I have very briefly advanced reasons regarding the hopelessness of the opposition's direct action plan. That was why John Howard—the leading light of the conservative political class in this country—thought that a direct action response was inadequate and why he went to the election in 2007 with an emissions trading plan. We need an explanation as to why it is that those opposite have abandoned the policies that their former Prime Minister, John Howard, took to the 2007 election.

I just want to talk a little bit more about the absolutely shameful scare campaign that we are seeing from the opposition. We have had another instalment here today from the member for Dunkley. Australian consumers are already cautious in the wake of economic turmoil overseas. The last thing they need is the relentless, baseless and totally unprincipled scare campaign that is being run by those opposite at a time when global economic uncertainty is impacting on the savings of all Australians and when we have the Leader of the Opposition running around the country making patently false statements about the impact of the government's carbon price.

We heard that the coal industry is doomed, only to read of record takeovers in the next day's newspapers. We note that there is investment of $80 billion in the coal industry in the pipeline, with 87 new mines either under construction or awaiting approval. We heard from the opposition that the steel industry will be wiped out, only to hear that the industry is comfortable with the government's Clean Energy Plan. We heard endless statements about 'unimaginable price impacts'—that is the sort of language that those opposite use—on businesses and consumers when, in reality, these impacts will be modest and when nine out of 10 households will receive assistance in the form of tax cuts or increased payments in pensions and benefits.

Throughout this unprecedented scare campaign, the Leader of the Opposition has made it perfectly clear that he values his career over and above the wellbeing of those very Australians whom he claims to be fighting for. He has made it clear that he will say and do anything to get a headline. It is not possible that he is so economically illiterate that he believes what he is saying. Perhaps it is.

Just last week a report by the Australian National Audit Office was tabled in parliament. The complete lack of concern by the opposition about facts when it comes to climate change and the carbon price now stands exposed. Last July Mr Abbott wrote to the Auditor-General asserting—and then immediately told the newspapers about his assertions—that there were factual inaccuracies in the government's campaign. That assertion was accompanied by banner headlines, which asserted these supposed inaccuracies in the government's advertising campaign. Last week, the report tabled by the Australian National Audit Office, found that all of the factual statements in the government's 'clean energy future' advertising campaign were supported by the evidence. That means that the opposition leader has, once again, been caught out misleading the public, as we have grown accustomed to in this campaign on the carbon price. The report showed, in direct terms, with a line-by-line analysis of the advertising, that the opposition leader's complaints had no substance. It showed that the opposition leader stands totally discredited in relation to just about everything that he has said about the carbon price, because it showed that the facts are that the carbon price will apply to around 500 of the largest polluters, that more than half of the revenue will be used to provide households with tax cuts, increases in family payments and higher pensions and benefits and that nine out of 10 households will receive assistance. Those were the things that the Leader of the Opposition attacked, and they have been endorsed and verified by the Auditor-General in the report tabled last week. (Time expired)

See this speech in context