Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, I know that you often start your sentences with 'We don't accept the basic premise' or 'We don't accept the science or an emissions trading scheme' and the like. The Senate would like to know why. The question is: why do you not accept an emissions trading scheme? I outlined earlier today the difference between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme. I know that many of you once supported an emissions trading scheme. The question is: why do you not support an emissions trading scheme? I understand that the coalition felt, in the past, there was inaction by major emitters such as the US and China and that was a reason you put forward for holding back on acting on carbon pricing. But now we know that both of those countries have embarked on very ambitious plans to control their pollution. For example, the US is committed to reduce its national emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. China has committed to reducing its carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 per cent by 2020. There is a range of activity in emissions trading schemes within those countries now in place and continuing to be developed.

The question is: why is the coalition of today, as opposed to the coalition of 2007 and 2008, so opposed to an emissions trading scheme? You are deplored by your own conservatives around the globe. The Prime Minister tried to create a coalition of the unwilling in Canada. That failed dismally because of the incredible amount of action going on in Western countries and in developing countries wanting to reduce their carbon pollution—and I applaud them for doing so. But our own Australian government does not seem to get it. I tried to explain really clearly the difference between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme. An emissions trading scheme is a market based mechanism. You would think that the Liberal Party, of all parties, would support a market based mechanism. That is what is before the Senate right now. This amendment is for a policy that the Liberal Party once supported, but now Senator Cormann starts his sentences with 'we don't accept the basic premise' or 'we don't accept the facts'—do not accept, do not accept. That is fine, but please explain to this Senate why you do not accept a market based mechanism to reduce carbon pollution for this country?