David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is not responsible policymaking; it is the art of delay. It is the art of delay from an opposition that are determined to find questions to hide the fact that they are opposed to there being any action on climate change. The tragic political truth is that your obstructionism has imprisoned your leader politically in an unsustainable position—and, to be honest, I do at times find that as delightful as you do, Senator Cash; I genuinely do. But the bill before this parliament has consequences which are far too important for us to play these small and irrelevant opposition games, even when they are as entertaining as this.

I have done some political modelling. I think, to be fair, the inputs into my political modelling are the same sorts of inputs that have occupied the minds of those opposite in recent days. There are some interesting findings. One of the consequences of the political modelling is that the opposition are going to crush the tiny remnant of their leader’s credibility. But those opposite do not care about that, and I suppose, in the final analysis, neither do I. But the Australian people want this bill passed, and my political modelling shows that if those opposite persist in being the Dr Noes of Australian politics then there will be a reckoning. There will be a reckoning. As Tony Abbott has implored you, you must see sense, because this is simply an argument that the Australian people will punish you for prosecuting. You stand in the face of a government mandate, you stand in the face of the will of the Australian people and you stand in the face of a global determination to take action on climate change.

The political fate of those opposite is, while fascinating and at moments delightful, not the most important consequence of their causing the Senate to reject this bill. Far more important would be the fact that as a result of the Liberal and National parties having made Australia irrelevant to international climate change policy for 11 years—11 years during which carbon accounting schemes were designed that do not operate to the best effect for Australia, and we heard extensive evidence of that in our committee deliberations, and 11 years during which we failed to exert the influence we needed over this very important piece of policy—we would tragically continue to not exert the policy influence over those systems going forward.

Despite the fact that this government ratified the Kyoto protocol, the opposition remain resolved to making us irrelevant in this important debate for another 10 years. By preventing Australia putting a carbon pollution reduction scheme in place, they are putting us behind the pack in action on climate change, in transforming our economy and in taking the steps that everyone now understands need to be taken. Future generations of Australians will contemplate the damage done to our economy, to our environment, to our tourism industry, to our agricultural industries and to our international standing by the position of those opposite and my political modelling says those opposite will suffer a grim fate as a result.

We have now had months and years of debate about climate change and the best way to tackle it. We have had Senate inquiries. We have had weeks of hearings, at which everyone with an opinion, and indeed some with an uncertain opinion, have had their opportunity to have their say. We have had several reports and those reports have given rise to important public debate. The time for delay has now ended. Australia needs action, the Australian people want action and, God forbid, the climate needs action. The future of Australia depends on the action of this parliament and the action we as senators take on this bill. If the bill is rejected, we will bring it back again and we will keep bringing it back until those opposite meet their responsibilities.

I commend this historic and important bill to the Senate and I implore those opposite to act not only in the country’s interest, not only in the interests of their own fragile and tottering leader, but indeed in their own narrow political interest because for them this may very well be a question of survival.