Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that we are debating a very serious issue. It is the big new tax on everything: the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which deals with $114 billion being churned. It is a big issue in anybody’s language. Secondly, it is clearly within the province of the Commonwealth parliament. It is something which we are responsible for dealing with. So I say to those senators, like Senator Xenophon and the Greens, who do not seem to be interested in another Senate inquiry: that is fine, there is no compulsion—you do not have to go—but do not deny those of us who actually want to engage in the detail of this matter the opportunity to further inquire into and deal with the issues that have arisen since the last inquiry. It is dissemblance at its worst, with respect to both Senator Xenophon and the Greens, to assert that this area has been dealt with time and time again. Certain aspects have been dealt with previously, but I will remind honourable senators and read into the record the terms of reference. What we want to know about is:

... the outcome of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen in December 2009 ...

Has that ever been inquired into? Absolutely not. It is a completely new term of reference. Why is it that the Greens in particular, and Labor as well, do not want to know about the failure of Copenhagen? We also want to inquire into:

... the current state of progress of other countries in implementing emissions and abatement measures to meet non-binding emissions reduction targets ...

Has that been inquired into? Absolutely not. So, with respect to Senator Xenophon, the Greens and the Labor Party, saying these things have previously been inquired into is just wrong. How you can assert it so blandly is beyond me. These things have not been inquired into. There is another clause:

... the status of, and likely prospects for, the United States of America’s emissions trading legislation.

Since the last inquiry, this issue has moved a long way, especially on the international scene. The importance of that is—and again I say this with respect to Senator Xenophon, the Greens and Labor—sure, we have inquired into the architecture of the scheme, but there have been underpinnings in relation to the scheme which have been relied upon. There were underpinnings such as: we would be part and parcel of the global action which would come out of Copenhagen. That was one of the fundamental underpinnings. We now know that Copenhagen has been a complete failure, yet Labor are desperate to push it along despite the fact that one of the fundamental underpinnings has been taken away. Sure, the architecture remains the same, but you are now building a house—if I can extend the analogy—in a completely and utterly different environment. Therefore, if that is the case, you might have to address the architecture as well when you know that the underpinnings are so substantially different. That is why we, as an Australian community, should be informed as to whether the United States are going to go ahead.

I recall Senator Wong time and time again telling us that she had the support of the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and that the United States were moving down the track. She could no longer say that in the Senate today. That is the reality. She knows that the United States are running a hundred miles an hour from an emissions trading scheme and she knows that those business groups that she used to quote no longer support the government’s emissions trading scheme. The underpinnings have changed. The question then is: why have those organisations changed their position? Why has the United States changed its position? Are those matters worthy of inquiry? Of course they are.

We are dealing with a fundamental change to the Australian economy—$114 billion worth. Regarding the scheme, the Prime Minister cannot tell the Australian people how much it is going to impact on a litre of milk or a loaf of bread. We do know it will impact; we just do not know how much. You know what? I reckon the average Australian is interested in knowing how much it is going to impact on a litre of milk, especially in circumstances where other people around the world will not be having a similar emissions trading scheme to our own.

This is a fundamental change that is being proposed by Labor. It used to be dressed up as the greatest moral challenge of our time. Now Labor has gone very quiet on it. It did not even put it on top of the Senate agenda for consideration when we resumed. The Prime Minister no longer talks about it, but somehow it is still allegedly the greatest moral challenge of our time. That is how it was uber hyped, overhyped, by the Prime Minister. It was so very important, yet now Labor no longer wants to have an inquiry. I can understand why because it is a dog of a scheme. But why Senator Xenophon and the Greens would not want an inquiry does beggar belief. If they are not interested, fine; no compulsion, don’t come along. But some of us are genuinely interested in what has happened to the underpinnings of this scheme.

Indeed, another underpinning of this scheme was Australia’s projected population by the year 2050. In the 12 months since the legislation was first introduced, that figure has now changed by about two million or three million people. When you have got a population of, what, 21 million or 22 million people, such a change in the population projection is a 10 per cent change in one of the underpinnings, and that within 12 months. The questions have to be asked: how were the underpinnings of this scheme obtained; who was responsible; and how come these underpinnings are now being pulled out or collapsing and no longer sustainable? Sure, the architecture might still be the same, as Senator Xenophon and Senator Milne told us. But a house is not only the architecture that you see, it is also the foundations—and the foundations are being pulled out, time and time again, in this scheme. It is vitally important that we see what happens in that regard.

I do not know why I bother because I trust not many people believe what Senator Milne and the Greens assert in this place, but she asserted that a deal was done with the coalition. No deal was done with the coalition other than to explore opportunities and possible amendments, but the coalition did not sign off on those amendments. Even if we would have, which of course is incorrect, the opportunity for community organisations and experts to put on the public record their views of the changes that are now in this legislation would have been of great benefit, I would have thought, for everybody.

In relation to the amendment that Senator Fielding has moved, in general terms it is similar to that which we have in our motion. I say to Senator Fielding: unfortunately we cannot support it, for reasons that I have explained privately but also put on the public record. Our wording is that the committee should ‘seek’ evidence from, amongst others, the Productivity Commission; Senator Fielding says the committee ‘ must invite’. I am not sure that there is much difference, but we as a Senate cannot direct the Productivity Commission and therefore we cannot support Senator Fielding’s amendment, albeit that overwhelmingly it is moving in the same direction as we have moved for this inquiry.

To sum up: to assert that this inquiry is the same as those gone by is just false because subclauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) of our motion deal with that which has occurred since the last inquiries, like the failure of Copenhagen. I do not know how the Greens do it—straight-faced, they get up and say, ‘We’ve inquired into all these things previously.’ Well, I would like the Greens to tell us: when did the Senate inquire into ‘the outcome of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen in December 2009’? We never have. Yet she stands here, hand on heart, and asserts that we have. It is just false.

I must say one of these days I might think of transforming into a Green. You would not have to worry about truth. You would not have to worry about robustness. You would not have to worry about intellectual rigour in your contributions here. Just make the assertion and then, when somebody pings you on it, just move on to the next assertion. But enough of that.

The point has been made that there are new matters in this inquiry. This inquiry would not delay the legislation because under the Senate’s own rules—and, might I add, a very good point made yesterday by Senator Fielding—this legislation cannot be debated until May. So we now have a window of opportunity of two months plus to look at this. It will not delay the legislation in any way, shape or form by having such an inquiry, yet we are being told we should not have one. I do not understand that. It will not delay. It will be looking at new matters.

I see Senator Xenophon coming into the chamber—my good friend. I just remind him, in the closing stages of this debate, with a view that he might change his mind, that the Senate has never inquired into the outcome of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen. We have never done that. Have we inquired into ‘the current state of progress of other countries in implementing emissions and abatement measures to meet non-binding emissions reduction targets’? No, we have not. Have we looked at ‘the status of’—and that is the current status—‘and likely prospects for, the United States of America’s emissions trading legislation’? No, we have not. These are all new areas, all worthy of investigation, and as a result I ask all honourable senators to support the proposal.