Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Hansard source

When I was but a wee boy, the leader of the British Labour Party was the Rt Hon. Michael Foot. He had a shock of white hair. He was a great journalist; he was an appalling politician. He believed in unilateral nuclear disarmament. He believed that it was a good idea for Britain to take the lead and unilaterally get rid of its nuclear weapons. He believed that superpower conflict would somehow stop if Britain unilaterally got rid of its nuclear weapons. He believed also that other countries would follow. He was sincere, he was well meaning, he was idealistic and he was wrong. He was very dangerously wrong. The Cold War did not end because of unilateral nuclear disarmament; it ended because of strength by the West.

By the same token, this is a global problem. Temperatures will not fall unless there is global action, and this carbon tax will not make one iota of difference. Australia should never ever apologise for acting in its national interest. The government are undertaking what some commentators have called 'unilateral economic disarmament'. They are actually taking away economic prosperity from our country unilaterally before the rest of the world, hoping others will follow.

I accept that belief in the carbon tax is sincerely held, often with even religious zeal. But it is wrong. It will not make any difference. Why would a country like Australia—which has a marvellous comparative advantage in that it is energy rich and export oriented but is also trade exposed—do this? Why would it introduce a carbon tax? It is not in our national interest. Why would a government do this at a time of international economic crisis, particularly at a time when our trading position is already exposed and weakened? Why would a government do this? How can they argue that this is in our national interest? Why are they doing this? Why would a government impose this punitive tax on its own people when no other government around the world is prepared to introduce a tax of similar impact, reach and severity? Why would a government do this? And, yet, this is what they are proposing to do.

The Labor government will tell us that we have to lead by example, just like the Rt Hon. Michael Foot thought in the 1970s. I would say it is more like being the first lemming to jump off a cliff—and, believe me, there will be no-one behind us. As if any of our competitors are going to shoot themselves in the foot to assist us. As if developing countries like Brazil, Russia, India or China will follow Australia's example and bind their own hands and compromise their own economies. They will not do that. They will not prejudice their national interest and neither should we.

As if the developed world is going to reduce its growth and employment at a time when it is under enormous international stress. What about the United States of America? When is the last time you even heard President Obama talk about a carbon tax or a carbon pollution reduction scheme? Have we even heard that in months? No. What about the European Union? The European Union is spending more time investigating the fraud in its emissions spot market than actually trading on it. The Treasury modelling on which the govern­ment relies to sell this tax to the public is based on an assumption that countries around the world embrace an international trading scheme. That is an assumption of something that Michael Foot found out in the 1970s just does not occur. Countries do not unilaterally act against their own self-interest and neither should we. (Time expired)