Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow Senator Cameron in any debate! Senator Cameron has a nice way of building himself up into a frenzy, thinking that he is addressing a union branch meeting of some of the only 14 per cent of Australian workers in private industry who bother to belong to a union. I might say to the previous speaker that that sort of rhetoric might impress some of those whom Senator Cameron, as a union boss in a past life, might have related to, but it certainly does not contribute to a serious debate on research and development.

I understand that this bill very much mirrors a bill that was introduced by the former government—one which, unfortunately, was not dealt with through this parliament before parliament was prorogued. Why wasn't it dealt with? Because the Labor Party in government demonstrated time and time again that they could not manage themselves, they could not manage the parliament and, indeed, they could not manage the economy of Australia.

So it is a bill that is principally the same as a bill that the government of which Senator Cameron was part actually introduced. It targeted access to research and development tax incentives to small and medium-sized entities that were more responsive to increasing their R&D spending as a result of government incentives. I think the second reading speech on this bill has clearly indicated that it is a bill worth supporting. It is good. It better targets the limited money we have available for research and development. It would be easy to spend a whole 20 minutes going through some of the achievements that have been made over the years by the assistance that government has given to industries through research and development support.

This is a debate, and Senator Cameron raised the issue of governments lying. This comes from a man who was part of a party whose leader, the then Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, supported by the then Treasurer, Mr Wayne Swan, before the 2010 election promised, hand on heart, that: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'! Remember that promise? Everybody in Australia remembers that promise, and they remembered it pretty well at the last federal election. They understood: here you had a government that made a deliberate, major, much-televised promise to never ever introduce a carbon tax. Within three months of making that promise, the Labor Party government—of which the previous speaker was, at the end, a minister for a few days—introduced it immediately, in deliberate breach of the commitment and solemn promise they had given. Senator Cameron cannot stand this; he is leaving the chamber, because the truth always hurts him. He is one to talk about governments lying! His party in government set the standard for lying in government. I am always amused when Senator Cameron dares to raise that issue, which just attracts more and more attention to the inconsistencies, the untruthfulness and the mismanagement of the previous Labor government.

I also want to take issue with Senator Cameron on the impassioned plea in his speech about manufacturing industries in Australia. I think he is going to be followed in this debate by Senator Carr, who was, during the term of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, the industry minister for a period of time. Senator Carr and the Labor Party presided over a government that did more damage to Australia's manufacturing industry than any government of any other country over many, many decades. They shut down industry. They sent it overseas. How did they do this? They did it by making Australian industry uncompetitive. Australian industry could not compete with industries in Europe, America, South-East Asia and Asia generally, because the Labor government introduced a tax on energy that impacted so heavily on manufacturing industries that it simply made Australian industry uncompetitive; it made Australian manufacturing unaffordable. It is the greatest problem that has seen our manufacturing industries over many, many decades. There have been other issues; there is no doubt about that. But the work of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments with their tax on energy has been the greatest failure for Australian manufacturing. You will hear Senator Carr after me try to find a few things where he will say they have supported industry. He will spend a lot of time attacking any other government over their lack of support for industry. But I can assure the Senate that any industry will tell you that, during the Labor period, they simply became uncompetitive because of the carbon tax. That, more than anything, has hastened the demise of Australia's manufacturing industries.

I note a recent announcement by a couple of world leaders. I am delighted to say that one of these world leaders will be joining us in this parliament building later on this afternoon—the Chinese President. I warmly welcome him to Australia, and I warmly welcome his close involvement with Australia. What I am reading in the media is that there will be the signing of a major free trade agreement with one of the world's biggest economies. Coming on top of free trade agreements with the United States, Korea and Japan, this agreement with China will be a wonderful boost for Australia and for many Australian industries. I look forward to it. However, I note that the Chinese government joined with President Obama—I will not say the government overall of the United States, but the one man who is the President of the United States at the moment—to announce a promise to do something about carbon emissions by, I think, 2030. As you see from the Labor Party, promises are easily made but much harder to keep. The Labor Party promised 'no carbon tax' but immediately broke that promise. I understand the Chinese government has entered into some sort of non-binding agreement with the American President to do something about carbon emissions. Good luck to President Obama and to the Chinese President if they have this wish, this goal, of reducing carbon emissions. It is also a goal that all Australian governments have had for some time. The current Australian government has a goal of reducing emissions by five per cent, which is the same goal as that of the previous Labor administration—that is, to reduce Australia's emissions by five per cent.

I have to point out that, when dealing with commitments in this area, there was the Kyoto agreement. Does everyone remember the Kyoto agreement? Many nations signed up to it and made commitments to reduce their emissions. Which country actually achieved the promises they made? Australia was one of the few. So when Australia says, 'We will reduce our emissions by five per cent by 2020,' you can believe that we will do it, because under the Howard government and to a certain degree not interfered with by the Labor government and now under the Abbott government this five per cent target will be reached. Those who were around at the time, as I was, remember the Kyoto agreement and the great work that the then environment minister, the then Senator Robert Hill, did at the Kyoto gathering to get commitments from nations. The Australian government was at that time determined to make a commitment that we could keep—and we have done that.

President Obama indicating that America is going to reduce its emissions by some substantial amount into the never, never is not the same as the Australian government's commitment to a five per cent reduction, which the world knows we will keep. President Obama may have certain views on this, but I suggest they are not shared by his parliament, the congress of the United States. Indeed, my reading of American politics is that a recent nationwide election in America returned a political party that does not agree with President Obama on the sorts of promises he is currently making. Everyone knows that President Obama is a nice fellow—but he is a bit of a lame duck president at the moment; he has only got a couple of years in his reign left—but of course he has the Congress, a parliament elected democratically by the American people, who on many issues including this one disagree with him. So what weight do we put on his promises? Not a lot, I would say. I know the Greens political party are lauding this as a magnificent breakthrough—as they did before the Copenhagen failure; they said that was going to be the great breakthrough. But of course, sensible people know this will not be the case.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I laud the fact that the President of America and the Chinese government have a vision and a commitment towards a goal of a reduction in carbon emissions, and that is great. But so they should have a goal to reduce emissions! Because China emits 22 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon, and President Obama's country emits 15 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon. Australia, I might add, emits less than 1.4 per cent. And I will repeat that: Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon.

Now if carbon emissions are destroying the Great Barrier Reef, as President Obama seemed to say, then his country, and China and India and the European Union, should reduce their carbon emissions to an extent where it will make a difference. It is not Australia's 1.4 per cent that is—according to President Obama—destroying the Great Barrier Reef; it is the emissions of countries like his own, and like China. If the emissions are destroying the Barrier Reef—and I must add, I do not think they are—but if they are, then it is no good President Obama coming to Australia and indirectly lecturing us. He needs to look into his own backyard, and do something about the 15 per cent of world emissions which his country is putting into the atmosphere and which, according to him, is destroying the Great Barrier Reef. So President Obama: lovely to see you in Australia—a great leader, a great man—but do not come here and raise issues of domestic politics when you have a real problem in your own country. Your country emits 15 per cent. From what I understand on my reading of American politics, you have got Buckley's chance of getting any real movement on that over the foreseeable future. Australia, by contrast, has a five per cent target, which we will keep and which we will meet.

Again I say: the Greens political party get all excited about this; the ABC get all excited about this—President Obama and the Chinese government have made this agreement. But they do not seem to realise that the Chinese nation emits 22 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon, and that the United States emits 15 per cent. Sure, they should do something—but what they emit makes Australia's situation tiny, by comparison. We always need a reality check when it comes to theses highfaluting, fine-sounding promises—and they are no more than promises—about reduction of emissions. And I emphasise, they are only promises. I again remind the Senate that it was the Labor Party promised, hand on heart—hand on Bible, almost—that there would be no carbon tax. So we can see what promises mean. We want action. We want to see things happening. Under the coalition's Direct Action Plan, we are already seeing that happen, and it will increase in speed as the legislation to support plan that is passed through the parliament and is put into effect. Those are the reality checks we need to have, when we are talking about this whole issue of research and development, and about the manufacturing industry. Australia under the Labor government nobbled our manufacturing industries. At the same time, manufacturing industries in China and America—who had very little or no constraints whatsoever on carbon emissions—increased and exploded. Australia's manufacturing industries, under the stewardship of the last government and particularly its industry minister, sent Australian jobs overseas, as Labor made Australian industry uncompetitive.

Finally on this topic, I want to say that research and development is very important in relation to clean coal techniques. A lot of research has been done in this area, and I am forever proud of James Cook University of Townsville and Cairns—and, I might say, the next speaker, the former industry minister, seems to have a bit of a thing about James Cook University: he is there criticising it whenever he can. But I greatly support that great institution, which is one of the leading tropical universities in the world. They are doing a lot of work on algae functions and on research that can help clean up emissions from power stations. It is great research, and that is supported, and has to be supported, by government help—taxpayer help—for research and development.

That is why I think this bill is timely. It is very much along the lines of a bill introduced by the former government, and I would assume that the Labor Party would be supporting it because it is, by and large, their bill. We need research and development: I support the bill.