Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I set on the record that I believe that anthropogenic climate change is real. I believe that it does require decisive and effective action. I believe that we also need to have effective policies for adaptation because the science indicates—and there are too many good scientists who express very real concern about what will happen unless we act decisively on this—that adaptation also needs to be considered. I think that has not been part of the public policy debate.

I note that both the coalition and the government have similar policies in terms of reaching a five per cent target by 2020. It is just the mechanism by which they are proposing to reach those targets. The coalition has its direct action plan and the government is now proposing a carbon-pricing mechanism—I think the Prime Minister has referred to it as a carbon tax. The dilemma I have here is that the Prime Minister shortly before the last election said that there would be no carbon tax. I think it is important that, where there has been a change of government policy on an issue as fundamental as this, there ought to be an opportunity for Australians to have a say. A plebiscite would be a mechanism to do that.

The only issue I take with the opposition in relation to the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 [No. 2] is that the opposition must make it clear that the outcome of the plebiscite is one that the parliament ought to be bound by. If the Australian people say they do want a price on carbon, they want a carbon-pricing mechanism, to deal with climate change then the parliament ought to be bound by that. I for one believe that that is the right thing to do. Otherwise, you spend tens of millions of dollars on a plebiscite and it is very problematic if you are not bound by that.

In a parliamentary democracy in the ordinary course of events you expect elected representatives to do their jobs. You expect elected representatives to get on with the business of dealing with legislation and dealing with important issues. That is what a representative democracy is about. We do not have in this country the mechanism they have in Switzerland or in a number of American states for so-called direct democracy, for citizen initiated referenda. We do not have that mechanism and such a mechanism can be done only via an act of this parliament. I believe that, if the electorate does not approve of decisions, you can rectify that in the ordinary course of events at the next election. That is what you expect. But, if there is a fundamental change in policy where you cannot unscramble the egg once you have put it in place, there ought to be a mechanism to allow Austra­lians to deal with that issue.

For all the criticisms I have of former Prime Minister Howard, he did do the right thing by having an election on the GST when he said previously that there would never, ever be a GST. He at least took that issue to the Australian people. The issue of the government advertising campaign to buttress his position is very problematic for me but at least there was an ability for the Australian people to decide on that.

I support the plebiscite because it is consistent with the approach I took 13 years ago when the then Liberal John Olsen government said just before the 1997 state election that they would not privatise the state's electricity assets, the Electricity Trust of South Australia, ETSA. They said it would not happen. It was a key issue of the election campaign. It was a lineball election and the Olsen government was re-elected with the support of conservative Independ­ents in a minority government position. Within three months the Olsen government said they would privatise the state electricity assets because circumstances had changed. I felt then when I had a casting vote on that legislation that the only way to rectify the dilemma that the government had had in effect a reverse mandate not to sell the state's electricity assets was to have a referendum. In the end my vote did not count because two Labor members crossed the floor to vote with the government to pass that privatisation legislation.

There is an issue here of engagement. The traditional Labor voters I have spoken to in the electorate say that they have an issue with there being a change in the policy position. Unlike members of the coalition, I do not believe that the Prime Minister lied when she said there will not be a carbon tax. I believe she genuinely believed that. I also understand that the circumstances changed by virtue of minority government. It is not a criticism of the Prime Minister for changing her position, but on something as fundamen­tal as this, I think the Australian people ought to have a say.

Thirteen years ago I was heavily influenced by an article that Hugh Mackay, the social researcher and commentator, wrote called 'The lying game'. It was published in the Fairfax papers—in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Ageon 1 August 1998. It is still a very good read. He talked about the disengagement that Australians have in the political process. What Hugh Mackay said back then I think is as true or even truer today. He talked about the disconnection that Australians have with the political process. They are so disenchanted with the Australian political process. He said:

There are plenty of young Australians, for instance, who believe they can extract more useful information—and possibly more "truth"—from an episode of Neighbours than from a news bulletin or a current affairs program. The soap, they say, is about a lot of people telling it like it is, whereas politics seems to be about a lot of people telling it like it isn't.

I think there is that disconnection and disenchantment. I think having a plebiscite would allow the Australian people to engage in this process. I have a lot of confidence in the Australian people and their judgment. Hugh Mackay said:

With trust in the political process being eroded with every bent principle, every broken promise and every policy backflip, the level of cynicism has reached breaking point for many Australians.

That is what concerns me. I think engage­ment on this issue by the Australian people would be a good thing, but the opposition must be bound by the will of the Australian people in relation to this—in fact, I think the parliament ought to be bound by that.

I think the difficulty the government have is that there is a level of cynicism and disconnection amongst many of their traditional supporters. I genuinely believe that this would be a circuit breaker. Unless this occurs, whatever policy merits there may be in the government's proposal—and I do not want to pass comment on that until we see the details on Sunday—the government will be struggling to sell its message to the Australian people by virtue of the change in policy position. Again I emphasise that I do not believe the Prime Minster was lying when she said there would not be a carbon tax. She changed her position. I respect that but I think the respectful thing to do to the Australian people is to have a plebiscite to deal with this matter.