Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate my colleague Senator Williams on a well-presented piece. I rise to support all my colleagues on this side of the chamber on what are momentous and controversial bills, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. As all speakers have said, the bills place a tax on carbon, where industry must purchase permits to be able to operate. In the first year, the government tell us that they will cap it at $10 per tonne and then in the second year it will be opened up to the full market, and it is estimated it will be as high as $40 per tonne. I heard Senator Williams say that some of the estimates are even higher than that—we do not know for sure; it will be open to the market. But we do know that $40 per tonne is really what we are basing our objection on. Any more than that and you reach a really devastating situation. While the government tell us there will be compensation distributed and paid out to certain trade affected industries, it is on a sliding scale over five years. It is a transition payment, if you like, and only a transition payment.

This is a very complex piece of legislation, and it is not yet properly completed. The devil is in the detail of this legislation, and we have yet to see the detail of this legislation. I will not be voting for these bills—the emissions trading scheme—in any shape or form until there is an international agreement that is indeed active. I should add to that: in place and active. I have the firmest conviction that these bills are not in the national interest. We often see bad bills come into this parliament, at least from our perspective, and we have seen the effect of bad bills that have not been stopped in this parliament. These bills are worse than bad: they are a hoax. They are pulling a hoax on the parliament and the Australian people. Moreover, it is the rural and regional areas in Australia, as my colleagues have previously said, that will be the most adversely affected. This has been my base constituency since being first elected to the parliament. I give evidence to that claim from a well-presented report by the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy on the economic and environmental costs of the government’s CPRS scheme. It is a very good report. Frontier Economics, who were commissioned by the New South Wales government, tell us from the report that modelling has found that the impact on rural and regional areas will set them back by 20 per cent over 20 years. It is not as if they are going to go forward; they will go backwards over 20 years. That same report then refers to the Australian Local Government Association’s State of the regions report which comes to the exact same conclusion—that rural and regional areas will face a double effect if this bill is passed.

So I believe my stance does carry very strong electoral support, in particular in rural and regional areas. Where my view is not carried, I am willing to put and argue my case and beliefs. After all, that is our first duty as elected representatives. That is what we come into this parliament with—the ideal of public service and reflecting our constituency, who have entrusted us and elected us to speak for them up here. That is the essence of the oath of office we take in this place. When it comes to the crunch, is that not the responsibility of every representative? At some point, the politics stops and the principle begins, and this is one such occasion.

Having said that, I am also very mindful of the need from time to time to be pragmatic in politics. It is necessary and proper to be able to weld the many views that make up this parliament, but there will always be a line drawn in public life, and indeed in any sphere of life, and this is a line I cannot cross. For me to cross it would forever dull my conscience and, if I may say, I have always striven to keep my conscience very sharp in politics. I think after all this time I will continue to do so and I will see it to the finish.

As every one of my colleagues has said, this is a momentous piece of legislation, but we have to ask: what is the government’s view on this, outside of what the Prime Minister and his ministers have said? What is the view of the other side in this debate? We have not heard anyone other than three speakers. We have put up 35; the other side to date have put up three speakers. Why aren’t their backbenchers coming forward and debating the case? They have just left it to the frontbench, and I see one from New South Wales sitting over there, very hushed now. He did not mind throwing in a few objections at the beginning of other people’s speeches, but why wouldn’t someone like Senator Forshaw stand up and give his point of view and debate the matter? Is it that he is not up to it? No, Senator Forshaw is up to it. Some of them are not up to it, I should add. Are they cowards? Well, most of them are but Senator Forshaw is not. Are they under the Prime Minister’s instruction—the gag? Yes, all of them are. Three of them have had the courage to stand up and give their point of view. I do not agree with it. Senator Furner was agonising. It was sad, actually, what he had to say, but at least he got up. He ran the old line that the Barrier Reef is going to be destroyed. I do not think time permits me to tackle that issue. I did on Thursday night.

Who else got up? Senator Lundy got up. It is very easy for someone from the ACT to get up and talk about the issue, but I think I would prefer to rely on Senator Humphries, as I turn around and see Senator Humphries from the ACT. As I say, I would prefer to rely on Senator Humphries’s contribution than Senator Lundy’s. Then there was Senator McEwen—good old Senator McEwen. She focused on the link between bushfires and climate change. What an absurd link that is. Not even the $100 million plus Victorian royal commission came up with that link. Why don’t you try something like the link between the state government’s management of those forests and those bushfires? But as I stand up as a Victorian—