Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I do not come to this debate as a sceptic, but I do come to this debate as a senator representing over four million Queenslanders whose futures will be more affected by these bills, Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills than any other legislation to come before the Senate in my time in parliament.

Some people say that the earth is warming, others that it is cooling and still others that it has been relatively stable. This debate is not about that. Some people say that human-made gas emissions are to blame for climate change; others say that any changes are part of natural cycles from time immemorial—indeed, if the climate stopped changing, we should be really worried. This debate is not about that. Some people say that any climate change will be a calamity; others say that a warmer earth is a more fertile and prosperous earth. This debate is not about that. Some people say that in response to climate change we should adopt emission trading schemes, others argue for carbon taxes and others argue for grand geo-engineering schemes to modify the climate. This debate is not about that either.

What this debate is about is this: that Kevin Rudd wants to rush through the biggest, most far-reaching tax in our nation’s history. Kevin Rudd wants to introduce it now, before we know what, if anything, the rest of the world decides on in Copenhagen and before our major trading partners introduce any emission reduction schemes of their own—if they do at all. This legislation before the Senate today will change the way we live and work, it will cost jobs, it will reduce economic opportunities and it will damage Australia’s competitiveness. That much is certain. Yet Kevin Rudd is willing to sacrifice it all to be the first—and for all we know—the only one. There are no credible reasons—no scientific reasons, no environmental reasons, no economic reasons—to rush this flawed legislation through right now, this very moment, before the rest of the world acts.

There is just one reason to rush in first before the rest of the world acts—that is, Kevin Rudd’s bloated moral vanity. We have seen in this debate the ugly devolution of Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd, the nerd from Nambour, wants to transform himself into Kevin Rudd, the cool kid from Copenhagen—and, for that ugly transformation, thousands of Australians will be losing their jobs. Kevin Rudd wants a pat on the head from President Obama, a photo opportunity with Al Gore and high tea with Ban Ki Moon—and, for that, every Australian will be paying more for everything they buy, from food, to energy, to services. Kevin Rudd wants the recognition and validation of the trendy, international jet-set crowd—and, for that, our industries will be handicapped and our standard of living put at risk. It is not about a healthy planet; it is about Kevin Rudd’s unhealthy ego. And though they might both be of a similar size, they are not the same—because what is good for Kevin Rudd is not good for Australia, Australian jobs and Australian working families.

Mr Acting Deputy President Hutchins, do you remember working families? Isn’t it funny how we do not hear much anymore about working families? They will be the ones paying for Kevin Rudd’s moral vanity. Every day when working families pay more for everything from the moment they wake up and put a kettle on to the time they switch off the TV and go to bed, they can thank Kevin Rudd. Every time working families lose jobs or their children cannot get a job because our economy is being battered by our competitors, they can thank Kevin Rudd. When working families’ standard of living declines in comparison with that of the rest of the world, they can thank Kevin Rudd. They can thank Kevin Rudd and his bloated moral vanity, because Kevin Rudd wants to be cool and wants to be the first. He wants to lead the world even if he sells out Australia’s national interest.

Why would you do that? Why would you do something you know goes against the national interest and against the interests of the people you are supposed to represent? Why would you want to disadvantage a kid from Bankstown who is doing a diploma and wants to get a job in the mining industry? Why would you do that? Why would you disadvantage him? Why would you want to impose extra tax burdens and costs on a family in Caboolture who are already struggling in difficult times? Why would you do that? Why would you want to make it more difficult for a small business to carry on, employ people and contribute to the local community? Why would you knowingly do that? Why would you knowingly make it harder for Australians to compete? Why would you go out of your way to make it harder for small businesses to compete? Why would you knowingly do that? Why would you want to make it harder for a kid in Sydney to compete with his overseas competitors in Singapore? Why would you knowingly and willingly do that? All this would be for no environmental benefit in the absence of global action—none, zero, zip. Why would Kevin Rudd do all that? Why would he do all that? Because he wants to be the Astro Boy of global politics.

Some say that we need to pass the ETS bills speedily for the sake of business certainty, but there can be no certainty for Australian business or agriculture until international benchmarks and standards have been established. In a global economy, it is global benchmarks and global standards that matter. No outcome negotiated prior to Copenhagen will result in certainty for Australia’s business and rural sectors—none, let alone the fact that none of us have seen the regulations that business will have to follow in the future. None of us have even seen the actual regulations. There will be no certainty for business until well after Copenhagen.

Over the last few weeks there have been a lot of negotiations, talks and lobbying around Parliament House. Not surprisingly, everyone wants to ensure that their sector gets the best deal out of the ETS, and that is understandable. But remember this: every group the lobbyists succeed in securing a better deal for means a greater burden for millions who do not have lobbyists spruiking their interests in this place. Do not forget that. Who speaks for the pensioner in the outer suburbs of Melbourne who will see the cost of everything go up? Who speaks for them? Who speaks for the miner and his young family in Broken Hill who might lose a job? Who speaks for them? Who speaks for the small business man in Perth who might no longer be able to keep his business afloat? Who speaks for him? Who speaks for young Australians whose futures are now compromised? Who speaks for them? Who speaks for all those people who will ultimately pay Kevin Rudd’s tax? It will affect ordinary Australians, not the big end of town. Who speaks for the ordinary Australians who will lose their jobs, ordinary Australians who will see their standard of living decline, ordinary Australians who will see their opportunities reduced? Who speaks for those who are not organised, who cannot employ lobbyists to plead their case, those who will pay the bill for this tax? Who speaks for the working families and who speaks for the forgotten people? It is not Kevin Rudd and it is not the Australian Labor Party.

Let me repeat: it is ultimate folly to try to rush through and pass an emissions trading scheme before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen and before our major trading partners introduce similar schemes. To do so will risk Australian jobs and Australia’s standard of living for negligible environmental benefit. This is a global problem and, more than any other I can think of, requires a global solution—not some quixotic action by a Prime Minister who is willing to sacrifice the national interest for his own personal interest and personal aggrandisement, all under the guise of helping the environment.

We all want to help the environment. We all agree that it is beneficial to shift from fossil fuels to cleaner fuels. We all want to leave a better world to our children. The difference is that Kevin Rudd wants to encumber Australia with a new tax, even if no-one else in the world will do so in their own country. I can only look my voters in Queensland in the eye and support an ETS if it is part of a global effort, if we all from Brisbane to Bangalore and from Baltimore to Brussels and Beijing share the responsibility and the burden and ultimately, we hope, the rewards of global action. At the very least, why would Australia want to enact an ETS and prejudice its industry before the United States and other developed nations have done so? Quite simply, it is not in our national interest.

No-one can tell me why Australia should charge in first, why we should proceed with an ETS before Copenhagen and before our own major trading partners come up with responses of their own. No-one can tell me because it makes no sense. It is not in our national interest and it is not in the interests of Australia’s working families. It is not even in the interests of the environment, because any action by Australia alone, in the absence of action by major global emitters, will have virtually no effect on the climate. So, if you are voting for these flawed and premature bills in the absence of any similar action by anyone else in the world, go tell the people of Australia how increasing their energy prices is in our national interest. Go tell the people of Australia how increasing the prices of every good and service traded in our country is in our national interest. Go tell the people of Australia how reducing their standard of living is in the national interest. Go tell the people of Australia how handicapping our export industries is in our national interest. Go tell the people of Australia why their children in Brisbane, Melbourne, Mount Isa and Wagga Wagga will find it harder to get jobs while their peers in Bombay, Manchester, Pittsburgh and Shanghai will not have the same challenges. Go tell them that.

Mr Acting Deputy President, vote for these bills today and go out there into the real Australia outside Parliament House and tell the people of Australia what you have done. Under the guise of genuine community concern with the environment and pollution, the government will seek to pass legislation they know is not in our national interest simply to satisfy the bloated moral vanity and to stroke the ego of one man. I guess this is the Christmas present this parliament intends to give to the Australian people: a less competitive country and a bleaker future for our children. It is a shame and it is a disgrace.