Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Senate is debating a suite of 11 bills that will establish an emissions trading scheme—an ETS—in Australia. In doing so, Australia is embarking on a solo voyage to a new frontier. Of all the countries in the world, none have established a scheme that threatens the competitiveness of their key industries and the accompanying jobs and investment. None have prejudiced their natural competitive advantage by taxing it, except Australia. The bitter side to it is that this ETS will not do one thing to stop global warming, to save the Barrier Reef or to save a polar bear.

I believe that Australians want us to do our share to reduce emissions but they do not want us to go over the top without covering fire. They do not want our industry savaged with effectively a carbon tax while none of our competitors face a similar tax. That would mean jobs would be lost and we would sacrifice our economic survival. Rightly, Australians do not want us going it alone while other countries wait to pick off our markets, our jobs and our industries. We are not a nation of green monks willing to give these things up to high-polluting rivals; we are an industrious, creative and practical nation. We are an island that has lived on trade since Macarthur sent the first bale of wool overseas. If the rest of the world agrees to accept a carbon price then we will all be in it together and there is a chance that we can reduce emissions. But if our trading competitors are not involved, or if their involvement is heavily qualified—like the EU—then Australia will be battered on the foreign shores of her reckless solo ETS voyage. Macarthur’s global vision would not have survived the good ship ETS.

I have heard many arguments, attended many committee meetings, and spoken with numerous industry heads, small businesses and farmers. When the ETS is understood, there is overwhelming opposition. It is basically a tax on energy. It is a tax on everything that moves in your house, in your shop, in your hospital, in your school, in the factory where you work, the tools you use, in the pubs where you have a cold drink, in the abattoirs and in the fish processing factories. All these things need energy to work and they all produce emissions.

Overnight, producing and doing all these things will cost more money: that is the core of this legislation introducing the CPRS. Yet, still there are the ETS deniers, the sceptics, who cannot face the economic facts of this debate. Some of them are rent seekers who have a vested interest and who stand to make millions from the churn of money going from businesses and householders to government via financial instruments and their brokers. Many members of the Business Council of Australia and AiG fall into this category. The other economic sceptics are those who cannot see past the green camouflage on this legislation. They see the smokestacks and the flooding waters, not knowing that it is harmless steam they are looking at on old file footage. They are just smoke and mirrors and camouflage. I would not be so quick to dismiss talks of the Left’s new green agenda to save the planet with a decarbonised revolution. I believe it is working well. People forget that communism looked good to some educated people too.

As a long-time senator, in fact the father of this house, I can tell when the political balance that secures our fragile democracy is threatened. Under the coalition government the equilibrium was pretty stable most of the time and Australia met its challenges in a robust and healthy way. But now there is a close alliance between Labor and the extreme greens, the balance is being lost. The great problem with that is that it brings both extremes into play, the extreme Left and the extreme Right. That is what we are seeing today. Instead of exposing extreme green elements for what they are, Labor has got into bed with them to secure preferences and votes. Meanwhile, there is a corresponding opposing reaction in the Right. My colleagues know it is springing up out there; it is boiling in the bush. The last time that level of unhappiness and frustration happened, we saw the rise of One Nation.

In cyber Australia right now there is a growing groundswell of disaffected people. I think probably up to a million people have been listening to Lord Monckton’s view of the now defunct draft treaty. It is up to us, especially the Nationals, to keep the debate on the rails and prevent it from becoming extreme. If we are not the voice of regional Australia, whether by absence or by timidity, people will look to the charlatans and the extreme Right for their political representation. I have heard this view circulating among some of my colleagues. One view is that the coalition can get away with supporting the CPRS because who else will the Right vote for come election time: the Right has nowhere to go, they are in the bag. I have heard my colleagues say this. But to those tempted to think that, let us think again. Recent history has shown that, when there is disenchantment on the Right, Labor stays in power, thanks to renegade and rogue elements that hijack and split the conservative vote. The Senate can prevent that move to the extremes by giving rural and regional Australia a fair hearing on the ETS. To ignore or belittle their views would be a grave mistake. They are the ones who would have to wear the ETS far more than the leafy suburb professionals. This is a warning that we must not forget these people. Their views must be considered and the government must be accountable for the widespread negative fallout from a carbon tax.

Those in regional Australia will be the hardest hit by this ETS; therefore, they should be the first to be considered. And do not insult them with promises of green jobs. They are seldom in the places where the non-green jobs are being destroyed, nor do they pay as well as miners rates. The people out there are not stupid. They know from past experience when they are being made to pay for a political crusade that benefits someone else, somewhere else. Do not treat rural and regional Australians as though they were mugs, Mr Rudd. It would be the greatest folly, economically and politically, if this ETS were to pass against the wishes of regional Australia.

What people everywhere also want to know—I have a right to know, and they have a right to know—is an area that I have been chasing the government over for months. What is our international commitment in terms of climate assistance to developing countries? What is the green-aid tab for Australia? And how will it be funded—by what new taxes or regulations? This is clearly a major part of the Copenhagen process, as is verified by the ridiculous terms of the draft treaty which is causing so much angst. So why won’t the government come clean? The Prime Minister says we will pay our fair share—but everyone wants to know what that fair share is. What is that fair share, Mr Prime Minister?

The Treasury modelling has played an enormous role in this debate, but a false one. Many people, from the Prime Minister down, have used it to back up their claims that this ETS is doable and will not cost too much—who dare gainsay it, in the face of the Treasury modelling? But I urge all thinking Australians to consider this: the Treasury modelling has not been done on the CPRS before us. Secondly, all its outcomes are based on the fact that other countries come in and have an ETS equivalent as well. That is why, in the Treasury modelling, the dangers are not so immediately apparent. The figures are based on a totally unreal hypothesis. We know that Copenhagen is a dud. We know that our trading competitors like India, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia and so on are not accepting a carbon price, so the Treasury analysis and its outcomes fall apart and are worthless.

Debate interrupted.