Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Not for one moment. I am only having a discussion and a bit of a concern about people who cloud the water with the so-called ego-pulling metaphor, which was completely not required. I acknowledge absolutely the convictions of some people, especially Senator Nash, who has given up her job as a shadow parliamentary secretary because of her belief in this. That is something that is decent and good and right—that people have that sort of conviction still; that people have the ability to look at the dignity of this chamber and to rise above what crumbs are offered to them and do what they think is right. That is refreshing to the Australian people. I also note some of the talkback that is happening on some of the radios, where Senator Nash is now a person who is placed in high esteem because of her conviction on this issue. And, once more, we get the smarmy smile. It might pay for dinner at Morocco’s, but it is not going to cut it with the Australian people.

If we go to the essence of this, this takes out something that is more or less a tax deduction for those who can afford it most, to be paid for by those who can afford it least—manipulated by those who have the most influence in this place. It tells a whole story: to bring about a sense of market manipulation which will bring about the further demise of regional towns. It makes a statement that food on the table for Australian working families is not worth as much as currying favour with certain corporate interests. It says to those who want to be part of this that their belief in certain peculiar and very small and very influential groups is really what they are on about. It says that there is a whole range of belief and structure that is easily put aside when the right people make the phone call.

I look forward to an explanation from the minister on just one thing. Why did you not exclude land from the legislation as being a capital expense deduction? Why did you have to rely on an extraneous body? Why did you not have the conviction to put that into the regulations and the guidelines, so we would not have to move this amendment? Why did you not do that? What stopped you? What was the process that made you come up with an idea that swamps and the clearing of land shall be specifically excluded—and that is where you stop? Was it that people said, ‘We have every intention to claim other things as capital expense deductions, so don’t put them in the legislation’? Was that the process?

Our position is that this is the first step on the path to an ETS. You cannot for one moment stick with the current guidelines and not support this, vote against this, and then say in another breath while with another group, a community of people, a group of friends, part of our caucus or part of your group in this chamber that you are somehow against the ETS—because you voted for it. When you vote for this legislation, you vote for an ETS. Your foot is on the sticky paper and you are on the path to it; you now believe in it. Your actions will always speak louder than your words.