Senator WONG (Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (4:21 PM) —I rise to oppose this motion of censure against the government after quite an hysterical contribution by Senator Joyce, full of a whole range of inaccurate assertions. I do not propose to go through all of them, but I have to say that if opposition senators come into this place to talk about the cost of living the first thing the Australian people should remind them of is that they are the senators who voted for Work Choices, to rip away wages and conditions from working people. They are the senators who voted for Work Choices and are still wishing to do more on that front. We know that Senator Abetz cannot help himself. He really wants to revive that policy and every time it comes up you see him say something on discipline until they put him back in his box again.

I remind Senator Joyce, who talks about the cost of living, that this is a government that put in place a stimulus package to protect the jobs of working Australians families. It was a stimulus package that you opposed. We know you would have been happier if hundreds of thousands of Australians were on the unemployment queues. This is also an opposition that, when it talks about tax, let us remember, went to the last election with a tax hike. That was what was funding your paid parental leave scheme. You come in here and talk to us about taxation, but you do not remind people that not only did you propose increased taxation but also you are proposing to take over $10½ billion out of taxpayers’ funds and give it to polluters without any net environmental advantage. If you want to talk to us about a policy which is crazy, Senator Joyce, have a look at what Mr Hunt has cooked up for your side of politics.

At the last election the Labor Party said very clearly: we believe climate change is real, we believe carbon change is real, and we want to move to a market mechanism that puts a price on carbon. The Prime Minister announced a proposal to come to a market mechanism that puts a price on carbon. There has been a lot of talk about truth and people not telling the truth. I remind the opposition that Mr Abbott is the Leader of the Opposition who said that people should not take anything he says as the gospel truth unless it is written down—‘Don’t take it as the gospel truth unless I have actually written it down.’ I do not think anybody watching the debate on climate change over the last three years, including in the election campaign, would be under any allusions about the fact that the Labor Party believes that climate change is real and we wanted to introduce a market mechanism to price carbon. That is what has been announced.

Senator Brandis —Why did you not introduce a tax?

Senator WONG —Senator Brandis keeps interjecting. One of the more ironic moments in this Senate was Senator George Brandis SC lecturing us about the common man. At least I will cop a bit of that from Senator Joyce because he might actually go to the pub occasionally but, seriously, Senator Brandis SC telling us that we should understand what working people want really is irony in the extreme.

Senator Cormann —You are so close to working families, aren’t you?

Senator WONG —Senator Cormann, if you want to go personal, we can, I am sure. One of the things that I think is important for us to remember is why we are doing this, because there has been an enormous amount of hysteria, yelling and screaming from the other side, and an enormous amount of chest beating, but very little discussion about the real policy issue here. After all the heat and light of this debate has finished, after all of the argument in the parliament and on talkback radio has passed, that in five or 10 years time will be the policy issue—

Senator Brandis —Why don’t you care about working families, Penny?

Senator WONG —Dear me. We will come back to that another time. Where was I? The policy issue that really matters is the one that people will look back on in five or 10 or 15 years time and that is how did this government—how did this parliament—deal with the issue of climate change. Let us remind ourselves of what the big policy issues are, when we get beyond Senator Joyce screaming at us. First, the science: unlike the other side, we on this side have a belief that the science is clear—that climate change is real and human beings are contributing to it and, more importantly, that climate change poses a substantial risk not only to the globe but also to us in this country. If you do believe that, then the question really is: what do you want to do about it? The second point is that we are, if not the, certainly one of the highest per capita emitters in the world. What does that mean in simple terms? It means that we pollute more per person than almost any other country in the world. It is not viable for us to say that this is not something that we should deal with. It also tells us what sort of an economy we have. We have an economy that is very much predicated on putting a lot of pollution into the atmosphere.

Senator Brandis —You believe it, but why did the Prime Minister lie about it?

Senator WONG —Have you finished, George? I listened to you. Poor George SC. Mr Acting Deputy President, do we have to listen to the whining interjections all day?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mark Bishop)—Order! Senator Wong, resume your seat, please. I remind all senators that interruption is disorderly. Senator Joyce was listened to in virtual silence for the entire period of his contribution and the same courtesy should be extended in a routine manner to Senator Wong.

Senator WONG —Thank you. I was pointing out the fact that we as one of the highest polluters per head in the world shows our economy is predicated on putting a lot of carbon pollution into the atmosphere. There may be some in this chamber who think that that is a good thing and we do not have to worry about it. There are others who ask whether, in five or 10 or 20 years time, we want the same old-fashioned economy that polluted as much as we do today per person or an economy that is far more based on clean energy, on less polluting ways of doing things. Just as the rest of the world is seeking to move to cleaner energy, to less polluting ways of doing business, so too must Australia. If you believe that the world will increasingly put a premium on low-carbon goods and services, if you agree in the long term—as business does—that the world will move to pricing carbon, as it is, then really the question is: how do we move and how do we do it in a cost-effective way? We do not wish to lead the world, but we cannot afford to be left behind on this key economic reform. So the policy question is: how do you do this at the lowest cost?

We are a Labor government and there has been a lot of talk about us not reflecting Labor values in this policy—assertions from those opposite, which I completely reject. We are a Labor government and we will bring Labor values to this policy area as we bring Labor values to all policy areas. You saw that in how we approached this before; you will continue to see it in how we approach this.

As the Prime Minister has said, every cent that is raised through putting a price on carbon will go back to Australians—either households, which will be our first priority, or various other mechanisms—to help move us to a low-pollution economy of the future. That is the reality; that is how we will approach it. What we have seen today from the opposition, as we have seen from them since the announcement and over the last three years, is the same hysteria, fear campaign and bandying around of figures which are not true. They are led by a hollow man and they are hollow people. They are people without a vision for the challenge that is so important to Australia’s future. All they can come up with in the face of a challenge like climate change is a scare campaign. That is all they can do. They have no answer other than a fear campaign and a three-word slogan which has now morphed into something else.

They do, however, seem of late to have had a propensity to look outside of their own party for their policy announcements. It has been quite interesting to observe where they have got some of their savings ideas for the floods package. They appeared to be surprisingly similar to some of the things that we have seen on the One Nation website. We have seen Mr Morrison making a range of comments which sound surprisingly similar to some of the things we have heard in other political circles. I found an interesting quote from Mr Abbott on climate change. He said:

Interestingly, One Nation say on their website:

Isn’t it interesting where the opposition are getting their advice? Why the surprising similarity between what Mr Abbott said and what has been said on the One Nation website? The reality is that those on that side have no policy on this area. They have no policy, actually, on very much at all. The only thing that they seem to be able to do is to say no and to say, ‘This is a really bad idea and we are going to campaign against it. We are going to run a scare campaign. We are going to run a fear campaign. This is a great big new tax,’ or some other slogan. That is their only policy position. This is an issue that is central to the nation’s future. It is about the competitiveness of this nation going forward. This is about dealing with an issue that will not go away, and all the opposition can do is oppose. That is all they can do—oppose. They have a leader whose knee-jerk response to any policy proposition that is put forward by the government is to oppose it.

I want to remind the opposition of some of their views previously, because they come in here beating their chests as if this is somehow something they have never agreed with and never wanted to do. In 2007 the then Prime Minister John Howard went to the election with a policy for an emissions trading scheme.

Senator Abetz —In the event of world action, and you know that.

Senator WONG —No amount of interjecting, Senator Abetz, is going to change that. It was your policy. People like you inside the Liberal Party who have extreme views on this issue did not like it, but it was your policy. It was your policy because it was the most sensible policy response to climate change.

I also remind the opposition of what Mr Abbott is on the record as saying. He said:

Surprise, surprise! Now the sky is going to fall in because the government is proposing to price carbon when Mr Abbott is on the record as saying he wants a price on carbon through a tax. That is what Tony Abbott said. In July 2009 Mr Abbott went on the record supporting a carbon price through a tax. But, now, if we do price carbon then the sky will fall in. That is Senator Joyce’s position. That is your position, Senator Abetz.

We also heard Mr Turnbull describe Mr Abbott’s straight talking, or not straight talking, most pithily when he said:

Mr Abbott has altered his position many times on this issue because each time his judgment has been based only on what he thinks is politically necessary and not on what he thinks is the right thing to do. That is the true reason, Senator Abetz, your party have had so many different positions on this. You have previously advocated an emissions trading scheme. You have previously advocated passing the emissions trading scheme with amendments. You then tore down a leader rather than pass the emissions trading scheme, and now you are running a fear campaign. The reason you have had so many positions on this issue of importance to the nation is that you never judge it by what it means for the future. You only judge it by what it means for your political position today. That is the reason why you have no policy when it comes to climate change.

The world is moving on. We know that business is already recognising the importance of a carbon price. We know from talking to business that it believes a carbon price is coming, and many in the business community want the certainty that a carbon price will provide. When it comes to electricity prices—and I am happy to deal with that directly because Senator Joyce talked about it—what is the primary factor driving increases in electricity prices in this country? It is the need to invest further in the network. That investment is being recovered in part through electricity prices. What is one of the factors that is leading to investment uncertainty? It is the lack of a carbon price. This is something the electricity sector itself has said on a number of occasions, that the lack of certainty is leading to poor investment decisions and that if we want to do something sensible we need to give business that certainty because we know investment is a long-run proposition.

I also make this point about other countries. There continues to be peddled by the opposition this incorrect information—some might even call it a lie—that other countries are not acting. We know that emissions trading schemes are already in operation in 31 European countries and 10 US states. We also know that a recent economic study estimated that the US, the UK and China have implicit carbon prices well in excess of Australia’s. We do not believe we should lead the world but we do not believe we should be left behind as a nation. This nation does need to begin the economic reform, the economic change that is required to move to a lower carbon, cleaner energy economy. The cheapest way to do that is not the way you propose, which is both to say no but also to give polluters billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. The cheapest way to do that is to price what is currently free, and that is pollution.

In closing I say this. This is a tough debate. This is a hard debate. This is a debate where it is easy for people to score political points today. But I have always been of the view that the climate change debate is a debate that will be best considered if you look at the longer term and, if you think forward, as I said, five or 10 or 20 years from now, what people will say and think about the decisions that were made. I hope that what we will see is people saying that we actually grasped the nettle, we actually faced the future with confidence, we priced carbon and we reformed our economy so today the nation is amongst the most competitive clean energy economies in the world. That is what I hope we do. If we take the path that those opposite demand, what we know is that we will continue to be one of the most highly polluting countries, an old-fashioned economy, and people will look back in 10 or 20 years time and say, ‘That Senate, that parliament, missed the opportunity to do the right thing for the next generations of Australians.’