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

I want to make some comments firstly in relation to the Greens' support for Labor's amendment. I have to say, with all honesty, it is five years too late. The Greens had the opportunity to do this five years ago, when we were debating this through the CPRS legislation. If they had supported Labor then, we would not be here today. It seems to me that it is only now, when Australia is becoming the only country in the world to go backwards on climate change policy, that the Greens are starting to actually back down from their approach of all care and no responsibility. That is good, and I am pleased that the Greens are supporting Labor's amendment to implement an emissions trading scheme, but we were debating this very same amendment only a few months ago in this place, in March, and the Greens did not support it then. They did not support it then. They did not support the CPRS. But today they are supporting it, when the chips are really down, because we know that, in the next little while, unless we get the support of three more senators in this place other than the Greens and Labor, we will no longer have anything in this country when it comes to tackling carbon pollution. We will not have an emissions trading scheme. All we will have, going forward, is a policy that has been laughed out by every scientist and economist, and even conservatives, across the globe. So I am pleased the Greens are supporting an effective price on carbon in Australia, but I do make that point that it is a little bit too little, too late.

Having said that, I hope the Palmer United Party do listen to the comments of Senator Milne and the comments from Labor about the importance of this amendment. They have made it very clear that they are supportive of some sort of emissions trading scheme. It may not be exactly the one that Labor has brought forward today, but there is an opportunity for them right now to join with those senators that are supporting this amendment to actually save the baby, so to speak, and ensure that Australia can have a legal cap on pollution going forward, something that Clive Palmer has said that he does support in some way, shape or form. So I urge Palmer United Party senators to support this amendment. We know that, if this amendment is not passed in this place, an emissions trading scheme in Australia will disappear. That will be it. With that, the Prime Minister would truly be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The obvious way forward, we know, for business and for households, is for the Prime Minister to swallow his pride and the parliament to work together for an emissions trading scheme—to put politics aside for once and recognise the importance of putting a price on carbon pollution in this country for our children and our children's children.

This is about things beyond our time in this place. The history books will go back and see the way people voted: who voted in support of reducing carbon pollution; who voted to do something about global warming; and who voted to look at the fact that the scientific evidence is paramount when it comes to climate change and global warming.

I urge all senators in this place to support this amendment but, in saying that, I want to look slightly towards what happens if this amendment is not passed and to ask the government about their Direct Action policy. I am unaware of what modelling the government has done to explain to the Senate, the community and industry how their ERF, Emissions Reduction Fund—or, as some may call it, a dressed-up sludge fund—will achieve Australia's five per cent targets. I understand there has been some modelling done on the ERF by the Monash University Centre of Policy Studies as well as SKM-MMA. Firstly, is the coalition aware of the negative findings of this modelling that was done by the Monash University Centre of Policy Studies on the ERF; and, if they are aware of it, why are they pressing ahead with this negative policy?