Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Chris Evans) to questions without notice asked today by Senators Abetz and Bob Brown, relating to climate change and an emissions trading scheme.

What a pathetic sight on the government benches at 11.30 am today—the forlorn Minister for Climate Change and Water realising that it was all over, the game was up. After months of hyperbole, bluff, bluster and finger-pointing, the reality came home to roost to the Labor Party that Australia would not wear the job-destroying, poorly-designed ETS of Senator Wong and Mr Rudd. The reality came home to them that Australians were starting to realise that nothing Australia might do in advance of the rest of the world would make one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world.

While the minister certainly looked forlorn this morning, this was in fairly stark contrast to many behind her on the government benches. Their look of relief was palpable. I challenge Labor members who are going to speak in this debate—and I see Senator Furner writing madly—to put their hand on their heart and say that they were not pleased that this job-destroying proposal has been put to rest. Those Labor members who reluctantly sat on that side of the chamber realise like us, particularly those members who sat through any one of the three or four Senate committees have that have looked at this very closely, that jobs would be lost. Those from Queensland realise what a devastating impact this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would have had on workers and families. Mine workers in the Bowen Basin coalfields, in the mineral-processing area in Gladstone, in the power industry, in the cement industry in Gladstone, in the copper industry, in the nickel industry, in the zinc industry in Townsville and in Mount Isa were quite terrified that, had this gone through today, their jobs would have been put at risk. Labor members know as well as we do that this ill-conceived, poorly-designed scheme would have certainly meant job loses.

They realise also, as do most sensible Australians, that Australia acting on its own will not make one iota of difference to the changing climate. There is the breathtaking lie that has been propagated by the ALP and supported by the Greens political party, as they did in question time today, that, had we passed ETS legislation today, the Barrier Reef would have been saved. No-one is more concerned about the Barrier Reef than I. No-one is more proud of the Barrier Reef than I. No-one understands the same as I the importance of that natural wonder not only to the natural ecology but also to jobs and employment along the North Queensland coast. To suggest—as the ALP and Greens do—that passing a bit of legislation in Australia will have any impact on the Great Barrier Reef is simply a lie. They have tried to propagate that lie around Australia, but I think people are realising that, unless the world takes action—unless China, the United States, India, Russia, Indonesia, Columbia, South Africa and Argentina get on board and do something about it—Australia, with its less than 1.4 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, doing something will have no impact at all.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to rise to take note of the same answer as the previous speaker. One can well imagine this morning that, in the strategy-making of the Liberal Party, when it was decided that once more into the breach they had to mount an argument today on climate change, Senator Macdonald drew the short straw. Once more into the breach, Senator Macdonald. I note that, over all of the ramblings and utterances of Senator Macdonald, not for a moment did he dwell or pause to talk to this chamber about the Liberals’ plan for action on climate change. That is because they have no such plan. This week, we have seen this comedy of Malcolm Turnbull and his united front with Senator Xenophon—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind you that you must refer to people in the other place by their proper title.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Wentworth and Senator Xenophon together offered up a policy—no, I get ahead of myself; they offered up an input. This united front with Senator Xenophon is something that is worth dwelling on for at least a moment, because it is a marriage made in heaven, Senator Macdonald. Yonder, we have a party in search of a policy. Senator Xenophon had a policy in search of a party. One magical moonlit night, the two met and came up with the intensity model to try and put forward as your last-minute excuse as to why you could not support action on climate change.

One of the things that struck me about this marriage of convenience with Senator Xenophon was, firstly, the irony of the fact that the 37 coalition senators opposite needed to crowd behind the credibility of Senator Xenophon in this debate, so wretched had their own credibility in this debate become. There was worse still. After this joint press conference with Senator Xenophon, my heart literally broke for Senator Fielding, with his loyalty to the sunspot theory and his commitment to backing the Liberal Party in this debate step by step. There he was, left out of the final press conference, abandoned and ditched once more for Senator Xenophon. No loyalty!

The faustian pact was not complete until they secured the Greens’ votes here today. The cost of doing nothing is what united these two great extremes of the debate here in Australia. Yonder, we have a party that cannot reach a position, a party that is ultimately filled with climate change deniers, a party that has put their leader at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. It is ‘Mission: Raise the Titanic’ over there for the Turnbull forces. Over here, we had a party that was saying, ‘My way or the highway: only an extreme solution or else no action whatsoever.’ It is the Labor Party that comes to this parliament and puts before the Australian people a plan—not a slogan, Senator Macdonald, and not a wild aspiration, but a plan.

The other thing I enjoy about this debate is the sheer ferocity that Minister Wong arouses in the enemy. I have to say, Minister Wong, that I derive enormous delight from the fact that your position, your competence and your effectiveness in this debate rouses the other side to a very fever pitch of ferocity of hostility. One thing that has been clear in this debate from the very beginning—to paraphrase Calwell—is that no matter where this debate has been, no matter at what point this debate has got to, at every stage the 37 whites opposite have not equalled a Wong. We have trounced you at every step and we have trounced you at every turn.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Be careful.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did somebody tell you that that was going to be a good line?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Somebody did, Senator Nash. This debate has now finally reached a point where the Liberal Party and the National Party, amid a strange collection of allies of the moment, have actually defeated the CPRS legislation and adopted a policy of not having a policy. They have a leader whose credibility has been shredded and who offers inputs rather than plans. This is a party that now confronts the wrath of the Australian people because there is a strong determination in the broader community for there to be action on climate change. There is a sense that we must move and we must move now, that the costs of delay outweigh the costs of moving now. Senator Macdonald— (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to hear Henry V being quoted, but I do not think there is going to be any modest stillness or humility given to us today from the Labor side. It is very interesting to see that the stiffening up of the sinews came from this side of the chamber. It was not only from this side of the chamber; it was also from the Greens and the Independents because your plan for the emission trading scheme was so patently ridiculous. It was something that was obviously going to send regional Australia into a complete tailspin, looking at about a 20 per cent reduction in regional economies. We are worried about a recession; we are talking about two quarters of negative growth. How would you look with a 20 per cent reduction in your economy? This was modelling paid for by the Labor Party. So it comes from a reliable source! It comes from the sort of reliable source that may be the sauce bottle that Mr Rudd likes to shake.

The obvious issue here is: why would we put our nation in a position where there is only one outcome—that is, an economic suicide note for us? This was never going to do anything to the temperature of the globe; it was never going to change the climate, and because of that it was merely a gesture. You cannot make it so that the price of this gesture is the jobs in the coal mining industry not only in Central Queensland but in the Illawarra, in the Hunter Valley, in Mackay in the Surat Basin, in the Bowen Basin and in the new Galilee Basin that is going to open up. You cannot put all these people at risk for something that does not actually achieve anything.

But the part that really resonated with the Australian people—and they are coming on side in wanting to reject the ETS flat out; it is occupying talkback and the airwaves—is the effect of what happens when agriculture is included. If agriculture is included it could bring about the demise of the beef and sheep industries—both industries. If you cause the demise of both those industries you will not just have caused completely immoral destitution in rural Australia, it will also work its way up through every suburban street in our nation. Every suburban street will have to deal with the price of imported goods. How ridiculous it is that a country the size of Western Europe and with a population slightly bigger than Belgium will have to increase the importation of food because our beef industry has become unviable.

I can see Senator Hurley writing notes, so I will tell you exactly how we come to that point. The National Australia Bank modelling talks about the price of carbon being between $10 and $100 a tonne. We know that a bovine ruminant emits about 70 kilograms of methane, which is about a tonne and a half equivalent of carbon. For an ovine ruminant it is about 200 kilograms of carbon a year. If we say $50 a tonne we are talking about $75 per beast per year for cattle and about $10 per sheep per year. That is the end of the industry. There will be no industry. There is no point in talking about what you are going to offset it against. You are not allowed to offset it with soil sequestration because you have signed the Kyoto protocol, which specifically outlaws it.

You also mentioned the demise of the Great Barrier Reef. Everyone is concerned about that—if that is what you believe. But first of all you have to believe that what you are doing will change the temperature of the globe, which it will not. Some very worthwhile sources, such as Professor Peter Ridd of James Cook University, a well-noted oceanographer, have completely debunked that idea. Professor Ridd said that the Great Barrier Reef is vastly more versatile and robust than you seem to give it credit for.

With all of these moralising arguments that the Labor Party trotted out one after the other, it was a case of: the world is going to end, so we are going to tax you; teenagers drink too much, so we are going to tax them. Every time there is a problem their solution is a new tax. And this is a supertax; it is a supertax that people have to pay whether they are making a profit or not. This is a tax that people are going to have to pay merely by reason of the fact that they exist. You can go into some houses in rural Australia, and I did, where people are doing it so tough and life is so hard. They basically have none of the quality of life that we have. They almost live in poverty. And you are going to deliver upon them another tax. Why? Because it helps Mr Rudd’s ego. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The agricultural rump of the party has just spoken and delivered typical arguments that rely on outright inaccuracies and wild hypothetical imaginings in order to concoct an argument against doing something about climate change regardless of the concrete fact that climate change is, and has been for some time, affecting the agricultural industry more than most industries in this nation and that primary industries need to do something effective about climate change in this country. Their representatives are here in this parliament arguing wildly and improbably about what we should do about it instead of what most far-sighted people in primary industry have been doing for many, many decades over all sorts of changes, which is looking at the facts, looking at how the primary industries sector may deal with those facts and presenting them in an effective manner while being prepared to compromise. That is what primary industry needs, not the flights of fancy that we hear from Senator Heffernan and Senator Joyce.

As Senator Wong explained, the fact of the matter is that the agricultural sector is not included in the emissions trading scheme. The facts and figures cited by Senator Joyce about beef emissions may or may not be factored into what we achieve when and if the agricultural sector comes into the emissions trading scheme. But rather than addressing in an effective way what we have before us—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So why not come and plead the case with us?

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because basically you have no coherent response. The agricultural rump opposite prefers to think in wild conjecture and talk about issues that have no relevance whatsoever to the bill we voted on today. Climate change—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to disagree with Combet? Are you going to say that agriculture is out?

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Agriculture is not part of the emissions trading scheme bill that we considered today.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Hurley listened in silence and I suggest senators on my left do the same thing.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Climate change affects primary industries more than most other industries in Australia at the moment. That is true. We are going to have to deal with that in an effective way—climate change consisting of both pollution and the change in climate. Pollution—carbon pollution in particular—has been a matter of interest to countries around the world for decades. It is not a recent phenomenon. Carbon pollution was a matter of great interest to the United Kingdom. London dealt with the pea-souper fogs and the dreadful carbon pollution that it had by regulating against domestic coal and wood fires—principally coal. The resulting turnaround in the climate has been astounding. It has impelled the London and UK authorities to act further. In Europe, similar action was taken to combat acid rain which was affecting agriculture and other industries. European authorities started acting against carbon and other pollution decades ago, and that is why Australia is behind. That is why Australia is still a great pollution emitter, despite the natural advantages we have. This government and this minister are attempting to do something about that and it is being rejected.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Are you taking a point of order, Senator Heffernan?

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am getting ready.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please obey the standing orders of the Senate.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is trying to do something about Australia’s response, but the opposition and the Greens are rejecting it.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call you, Senator Heffernan, could I also remind you of standing order 185, which says that a senator shall not pass between the chair and a senator who is speaking, which you did while Senator Joyce was speaking.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am apologetic. I think it is probably fair to say that the previous speaker, Senator Hurley, in this debate to take note of answers has no idea about the bush and probably thinks that the bush is the rosebush in the front garden, as would apply to most people on the other side.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no-one in the government that lives and/or makes a living in the bush, and it is fair to say that the Prime Minister answered a question about agriculture accurately yesterday when he said, ‘We don’t have an answer.’ How is it reasonable to say to a farmer, who could have several million dollars worth of loan facilities with a bank, ‘Well, we’ll tell you in 2013; if we’re going to do something we’ll implement it in 2015’? If you have some millions of dollars and the government is deciding your fate, which could be up to a 30 per cent reduction in your profitability or, in the case of beef, a 200 per cent drop in profitability at $40 a tonne, how are you supposed to explain that to the bank and expect the bank to maintain confidence in your loan facility? This is silly stuff. This is an insult to Australia’s farmers. Senator, I know you are probably not aware of this, but the white paper says that, regardless of whether the government in 2013 decides that we are in or we are out, farmers will be charged a comparative tax. That is what the white paper says, doesn’t it, Minister?  I read it out yesterday. So, one way or another, farmers are going to cop this.

You would be aware that science says that, if the global population grows to nine billion people, 50 per cent of the world’s population is going to be water poor, a billion people will be unable to feed themselves, 30 per cent of the productive land in Asia, where two-thirds of the world’s population will live, is going to go out of production, the food task is going to double and 1.6 billion of the planet’s people could be displaced. That says to me that we have to do something about it. I am not going to stand here and argue all this political—I won’t swear, Mr Deputy President—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope not.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

rubbish. I am not going to argue about that. I am not interested in what is causing it; I am interested in what we are going to do about it. The world has to model the global food task. You laugh, but when you go to Woolies, Coles or Aldi and walk down the aisle and there is the meat, there is the milk and there are the vegies you cannot take that for granted. At $17 a tonne, I remind you, every irrigated dairy farmer is insolvent. At $40 a tonne, there would be roughly a 30 per cent increase in the cost of beef and sheep production due to the tax. We are not allowed to offset because of signing the Kyoto protocol. This was a great symbolic gesture for the world. It was almost like going to confession, saying, ‘Whew! We’ve got to do something about this. We don’t know what the outcome’s going to be,’ in much the same way as it was necessary for the nation to apologise to the Indigenous people. The apology made everyone feel good, but it did not do anything for the Indigenous people. They are still living 17 to a house in places, there are still 7,000 kids in the Northern Territory who have no access to high school, and every person in this parliament should be ashamed of that.

The global food task is the same thing. The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, was the dux of her class—she is no dope; it is true, she is smart—but she and the government cannot tell us what is going to happen to farmers. It is an insult to farmers to say, as you have calmly said, Senator, ‘We will tell you in 2013.’ If the Waxman-Markey bill gets through the US Senate, Australia’s farmers will be so seriously disadvantaged in the global market that they will be put out of business. Bear in mind that there are 250 million cattle in India for milk production. We have 28 million cattle. We used to have 210 million sheep; we only have 70 million sheep now. India has more cattle than Australia, Brazil and America put together. If they are out, why would we be in? If Brazil does not go in, why would we be in? If you have a feed of baked beans, your extractions, or whatever they are called, are going to be different to your eating white bread. It is the same with a cow. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I want to use the magnificent Annotated Standing Orders of the Australian Senate, edited by Rosemary Laing—I offer my congratulations to her on this fine book—to seek, pursuant to standing order 191, to make an explanation of a material part of a speech that I made which has been misquoted or misunderstood. Yesterday in a debate I said:

We have heard that electricity costs for ordinary Australian households will go up anywhere between 50 per cent and 200 per cent, particularly 200 per cent when you add the renewable energy scheme to the CPRS.

This morning in a debate Senator Wong said:

Senator Macdonald … claimed yesterday that electricity prices would increase by 200 per cent. His approach, I think, reflects an unfortunate tendency in this debate: if you do not like something, do not worry about the facts; just use whatever fact or figure you want in order to try and scare people.

I want to draw the Senate’s attention to page 47 of a Senate committee Hansard of 28 April. Ms Savage, the Chief Executive Officer of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, a witness appearing before a Senate committee, said:

From that perspective our estimate is that retail prices—

of electricity—

would rise by somewhere between 40 and 50 per cent by 2020.

Senator BOSWELL—Yes; thank you. So the average house would pay 40 or 50 per cent more?

Ms Savage—Somewhere in that order, yes.

I also draw the Senate’s attention—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I need just to draw your attention to the fact that you can under standing order 191 explain where you have been either misquoted or misunderstood but you cannot debate that position.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I am not debating. I am showing where the thing was wrong. I am not entering into any debate. I am simply referring the Senate to items of the Senate committee Hansard.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will listen carefully.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was one instance. The other instance—and this is the end of it, Mr Deputy President—is in a Senate committee Hansard of 28 April. Mr St Baker, the Executive Chairman of ERM Power Pty Ltd, gave evidence to a Senate committee. He had given certain evidence and I said, to be clear:

You are saying that retail customers, with MRET and CPRS, will by 2020 be paying 150 to 200 per cent more than they are paying now—

for electricity. Mr St Baker said:

Yes, that is right.

I say no more except that Senator Wong, in accusing me of making up those figures, was clearly mistaken. I was simply relating evidence that had been given to a Senate committee.