Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I would be very keen to hear from Senator Cormann on a number of factors. Mid last year the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry came out in quite a high-profile series of announcements calling on the government to consider an emissions trading scheme and I would be interested to know whether Senator Cormann, then in opposition, discussed this with them then and also whether there have been any discussions with the big end of town about an emissions trading scheme.

I would also be interested to hear from Senator Cormann on how some of the Direct Action strategies, such as soil carbon and tree plantings will work without a price on carbon. It does not make sense that you could bring in a scheme that attempts to value carbon reduction without actually being able to put a value on that carbon. Of course, that is not just a volumetric thing but also a value thing, with a price. So I would be interested to hear about that as well.

My kids actually showed me a YouTube clip last month—going back to 2007—featuring our current Prime Minister in an interview, saying he supported a carbon tax but did not agree that an emissions trading scheme was the right way to go. No doubt that was some sort of short-term strategy for him to elevate himself within the Liberal Party which, of course, eventually happened when your party voted on an emissions trading scheme and the Prime Minister became the Leader of the Opposition. Senator Singh said the Greens stood against an emissions trading scheme. So for Senator Singh's benefit, I think it is worth considering her comment about whether we would have an effective emissions trading scheme now if we had implemented one back then.

What we have been reduced to today is the result of a concerted campaign by our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, when in opposition, to undermine a good policy. I have absolutely no doubt, Senator Singh, that he as Leader of the Opposition would have done exactly the same thing against an emissions trading scheme had that been in place.

One of the main reasons for a fixed price period was to get the information from the polluters so that we could effectively issue 'cap and trades'—volume based measures—that were coming into place. Sadly, that did not happen in Europe. They overallocated permits and, given supply and demand, we saw a collapse in the price of carbon over there. So that was to be avoided.

I have no doubt that the reason we are here today and why the bells will ring very soon on a division is that this was a short-term political strategy of the coalition to grab power and get themselves elected. They saw an opportunity, which Senator Milne talked about earlier, around the word 'tax' and they have reduced this good policy and this transition to a new economy in this country.

We are the global leader of three-word slogans, which the coalition claim got them elected at the last election. But when those bells ring it is worth all of us asking—to use the words of Wilfred Owen—for whom the bell tolls and exactly what we in this country have given up and what we have signed up to. It is not just the loss of a policy that took years to put together, a policy that is working and has put us on the global leadership map in terms of climate action, along with our world-renowned scientists and the work they are doing on climate change; it is the symbolism of what this vote today will mean. It is worth focusing on that. It will mean for students of history and students of politics that a political party, for its own cynical, self-interested agenda, has been able to run a smear campaign, the most negative political campaign in Australia's political history, to put the interests of its party, the Liberal Party, ahead of the interests of this country.

Senator Cormann, if you think you got elected on the back of your campaign on the carbon tax, I would ask you to have a look at your result in Western Australia in the recent by-election where you stood up in this chamber—I do not know how many times—saying there was going to be a mandate on the carbon tax. In the end, it did not turn out to be that way.

I think today is a very important day, to be on the right side of history, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to stand up here today. I was listening to a lot of the debate and I want to respond to this comment from Senator Bernardi that he does not believe it is at all challengeable that the coalition got elected on the back of the carbon tax and the repeal of the carbon tax. I think the coalition got elected because it rose from the ashes of the Labor Party at the last election. In my first 12 months in the Senate, I witnessed the Labor Party, with their leadership struggles, tearing themselves to pieces. If you think you got elected because of the carbon tax, I think you need to have a good, close look at what has happened in this building in the last two years. You got elected by default. That is my firm opinion. And that is what underlies your arrogance on this budget that is in front of the Australian people—your lack of ability to compromise and to consult. You are so out of touch, because you have the arrogance to assume you got elected on the back of a carbon tax repeal agenda. It is not true. You got elected because this mob over here had a major stoush and it will take them a long time to recover from that. If you do not realise that and start focusing on what the Australian people want, which is strong action on climate change, then I hope we do go to a double dissolution and let the Australian people vote on this. If not, I am sure that, in 2016, this issue of getting proper action on climate change will be front and foremost of a political agenda in this country.

Now that I have had my rant, Senator Cormann, could you please answer whether you have had discussions with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the big end of town and how a Direct Action scheme that values soil carbon and planting trees can work without a price on carbon?