Download Fragment

Thursday, 22 September 2011
Page: 6819

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (12:19): I, too, would like to contribute to this debate and I indicate that I oppose the motion moved by Senator Fifield to amend the Selection of Bills Committee report. The reason I oppose the amendment is that once again this is just a delaying tactic by the opposition. They want to delay parliamentary consideration of a package of bills because, as we know, they are determined to do only one thing, and that is to never take any action on damaging climate change.

So that people understand it, the proposal here from the opposition is that the clean energy bills be referred to no fewer than eight Senate committees. The proposal is that those eight Senate committees would all be looking at the same legislation. It is a ridiculous proposition because the same legislation is currently under consideration by a joint select committee established, as Senator Milne said, by both houses of the parliament. Indeed, as we have heard, Senator Birmingham and Senator Cormann are on that committee and have an opportunity there to participate meaningfully in the debate on these bills. But they have chosen not to participate in—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Furner ): Order! Senator McEwen, resume your seat. I call Senator Cormann to order.

Senator McEWEN: As I was saying, there is already a process in place to examine this legislation. It is entirely appropriate that a significant select committee was set up by both houses of parliament to do that. It is not necessary to refer these bills to further Senate committees. That is just a delaying tactic on the part of the opposition.

As well as the bills already being considered by another committee of the parliament, we should also acknowledge that the debate about carbon emissions, carbon policy and policies to address climate change is hardly new to this parliament. It is also worth nothing that, although it may not be entirely apparent to most people, there is consensus in this parliament that we do need to do something about our carbon emissions. Both of the major parties and indeed the minor parties are signed up to reducing our carbon emissions. However, you would hardly know that from the kind of rhetoric we hear from those opposite because, of course, they do not believe in human induced climate change. They think they know better than the world's most prominent scientists in this regard and they choose to prosecute the case for, 'Steady as she goes; do absolutely nothing.' They put forward ridiculous proposals called 'direct action' which will be massively expensive for ordinary Australians and will deliver no benefits in terms of reducing carbon emissions.

The government's legislation will, once and for all time, address the fact that polluters in this country should pay for the damaging carbon pollution they put into the atmosphere. The government's position reflects what the majority of well-regarded scientists but, more importantly, well-regarded economists say—that if you want to stop a bad behaviour the best way to do it is to put a price on it. Indeed, former Prime Minister John Howard also had that view, as has been acknowledged many times in this parliament. Any sensible person would have that view as well—that, if you want to stop a behaviour, you put a price on it. The government's legislation does that.

It also includes the compensatory mechanisms that the government has worked on with the assistance of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to ensure Australians are compensated if necessary for the effects of a price on carbon. The govern­ment are very proud of this legislation. We are not embarrassed by it, Senator Cormann. We are proud of it. Those opposite are the ones who should be embarrassed because, like a bunch of troglodytes, they come in here every time there is any debate about anything to do with climate change and oppose doing anything.

I would just like to confirm that the government will be opposing this amend­ment to the Selection of Bills Committee report. We want to get on with examining this legislation in the parliament. It has been subject to numerous inquiries. It has been subject to a lot of debate in the community, as we know. It is time to get on with it. The government, as I said, will oppose the amendment. (Time expired)