Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (17:05): The difficulty in engaging in this matter of public importance debate with the opposition is that they do not actually believe in climate change at all. They do not believe that the climate is changing and they certainly do not believe that the climate is changing due to human activity. The problem they have when coming into this place is that they do not want to engage in the science and they do not want to engage in a rational debate. All their utterances are about generating fear and trying to scare the public for their own short-term political opportunity. We see this because, while those over there say they do not believe in it and they do not believe that pollution is a bad thing for the environment, they still have their own policy, which seeks to reduce carbon emissions to the same level that we seek to reduce them to. But the fundamental difference between the way the government goes about it and the way the opposition propose to go about it is that they say: 'You're still free to pollute. Pollute as much as you like. The biggest polluters in this country are free to continue to pollute our environment as much as they like.' The opposition will take taxpayers' dollars and give those taxpayers' dollars as a gift to those companies in the hope that they may introduce some carbon abatement and may reduce their emissions. They say, 'Pollute as much as you like,' and they expect us and the taxpayers to actually give those companies who are the biggest polluters taxpayers' money to help them through the process. Our approach is the one that is supported by the market. It is the approach that John Howard supported in the previous Liberal government. It is the approach that they came to after a long, detailed and lengthy study by Peter Shergold, on behalf of John Howard, for the previous coalition government. They came to the conclusion that the way to reduce our pollution of the environment was to put a price on it. There are a number of ways in which to put a price on it and, clearly, with our legislation we are now proceeding down a path of putting a price on pollution. What is the importance of putting a price on pollution? We know the market reacts to price signals. Every time you put a price into the market, the market that has to pay that price will seek to avoid it. How will it avoid it? It will be avoided by doing things in a more efficient manner, by investing in clean technology and in materials that cost less to heat and less to cool and by having buildings that cost less to heat and less to cool. New products will be developed in order to avoid paying that price signal, which will affect the way business conducts itself. It is very important to keep focused in this debate. We know that the tax that will apply to pollution will apply to the 500 biggest polluters, not to anyone else. But we know that many of those companies, certainly in the first instance, will simply seek to pass on some of those costs, and it will work its way through the economy. But all the money raised through that tax still sends that price signal. It still puts a price on pollution so that people will try to avoid that process all the way through the economy, all the way through the market. Every cent raised will go into supporting households, jobs and new technologies that will help industries and our society adapt to the very important challenge ahead of us—that is, reducing pollution and the impact of human induced climate change. I do believe in the science, and right across the world everyone else does. Australia is a little odd in the sense that we are having this debate when, really, the science has been settled for a long time. As a developed country we are in the position of knowing the effect of human induced climate change. We know what we have to do about it. We know that we can do something about it, yet those in the opposition simply seek to avoid the whole issue and use it as a political opportunity. Instead of taking the responsible path of acknowledging that the science is there, that overwhelming science is there, that we need to act and that we need to change the way in which we act in our society to reduce pollution, instead of acknowledging that we need to do something about it, they simply say: 'It's not real. It doesn't exist. Pollution is safe.' In fact, I think they have started up Friends of CO2. I think that former senator Nick Minchin and several other senators that I see on the other side—well, there are only three of them— Senator Cash: The three likely culprits. Senator MARSHALL: But three of the best ones, and they have probably joined the club too. Really, it is such an irrational process they have engaged in; they seek to engage in an irrational debate. But on this side of the chamber we know what we have to do and we know why we have to do it. I for one am not going to be condemned by my children and my grandchildren, and everyone else's children and grandchildren, for being part of the generation that probably consumed more of the Earth's resources than any other and that knew about the impact of climate change but refused to stand up and take responsibility for doing something about it when we could do something about it. We know, and every economist will tell you, that the earlier we act to reduce human emissions the cheaper it will be. John Howard knew it because that was the result of Peter Shergold's study. That is why the coalition had a plan which was effectively a carbon tax plan, and that is why we have one too. We know that the sooner we act the cheaper it will be for our economy. We are not doing it for me; we are doing it for the next generation and the generations after that. We are taking responsibility for what has happened before us, but previous generations did know the impact of what we now know—that is, human induced climate change is actually happening. So we have an absolute obligation to act. We have a responsibility to future generations to act. We have an absolute responsibility to the environment to ensure that the market can help solve this problem for us. We as legislators need to do that. We need to put in place those market based signals and put a price on pollution. That will drive many new industries. It will certainly change in many respects the way in which we work in our economy. But we will make sure that nine out of 10 households are not worse off. In fact they will be better off because we will put in place a compensation package to ensure that, whatever the impact of climate change is on them—and extensive economic modelling has been done on that—they will be compensated by the very tax that is raised from the biggest polluters. So we put the price signal on through the 500 biggest polluters, raise the money and compensate people with that money. I have heard people say that that is just the money churn, but what they forget is how the market operates and how businesses will seek to become more cost-effective and more efficient. It will drive new technologies. It will drive R&D. People will seek to reduce their electricity bills. People will seek to reduce a whole range of polluting activities because that will now add a cost and, if they can avoid that cost, they will. If they do not try to avoid it, someone else will come along with a different style, a different technique or a different process, and they will avoid the cost and they will be cheaper. That is the way the market works. That competition will be there and it will drive innovation; it will drive a change in the way that we act in our environment. It is essential to this country that we do that not only in the cities but also in the country. We are not the only country that is acting. Right around the world people are well ahead of us in what they are doing to fight human induced climate change and its impacts. It is happening all around the world. We really need to get over this scare campaign, this irrational position that is constantly put by the opposition. Accept the science and let us get on with our responsibility as legislators and as Australians to do this thing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Boyce ): Order! The time for the debate has expired.