Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Fifield, I move:

That the Senate notes the Gillard Government’s decision to blatantly break its unequivocal commitment to the electorate not to introduce a carbon tax.

Labor are addicted to spending, which is why they are addicted to new taxes. Whenever there is an issue, whenever there is a challenge, whenever there is something that Labor think needs to be addressed, there is only one solution—whack on a new tax. In the last term of government we were told that there was a binge-drinking epidemic. What was the solution to that? A 70 per cent increase in the tax on alcopops, ready-to-drinks. At the time we asked: where is the evidence that this tax will actually do anything to address this problem? There was none. In fact, around the world there was evidence that this tax would not work and now the evidence is here in Australia as well. We have got evidence that the alcopops tax has failed. We had Kevin Rudd in the lead-up to the 2007 election—

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

Order! Senator Cormann, you must refer to a person by their proper name.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had Mr Rudd in the lead-up to the 2007 election talk about the greatest moral challenge of our time, about the need for Australia to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. What was his response to that challenge? Just another great big new tax. They called it, in Orwellian fashion, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. When you looked at the detail you saw there was quite a process because they wanted to make it look like they had actually thought this through. We had a green paper, a white paper, Treasury modelling and a range of other bits and pieces floating out there, including the Garnaut review report. Ultimately they said that Australia should set up this great big Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which essentially was the chosen method at the time to impose a price on carbon.

Australia is an economy that is in competition with economies around the world. We have businesses and industries that compete with equivalent businesses and industries around the world. For Australia to go down the path that was proposed by the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, would have actually made no difference to the stated objective of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, yet it would have done significant damage to our economy. What Labor proposed in the last parliament would have pushed up the cost of everything, it would have put pressure on our economy and it would have cost jobs. It would have increased the cost of living and it would have increased electricity prices. And all of that for no beneficial outcome for the environment in terms of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Our businesses that compete in the global environment access electricity from coal fired generators. If we reduce emissions in Australia in a way that increases emissions in other parts of the world then really we have asked Australians to make a sacrifice with absolutely no environmental benefit whatsoever. That is what the Labor Party wanted to do in the lead-up to the last election.

As the debate developed there were a lot of attempts to keep things secret. I remind the Senate that to this day the Treasury modelling that tried to downplay the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on our economy has not been released, so we never actually got the true picture. A whole range of assumptions in that Treasury modelling were false. For example, one assumption was that the United States would have an emissions trading scheme in place by the end of 2010. We now well know that that is not going to happen. It was never going to happen. There was also the assumption that China would have an emissions trading scheme by 2015 and that India would have an emissions trading scheme by 2020. That was never going to happen.

There were a lot of ups and downs in the debate, but clearly, at the end of the day, all the government proposed was a great big new tax on emissions that was not actually going to help reduce emissions. It was a new tax with supposedly a deserving objective—the objective of helping to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. It was not actually ever going to help achieve that objective. As the debate progressed—as we approached the election, as the pressure on the government increased and as the scrutiny imposed by this Senate forced the government to reconsider—what happened? Kevin Rudd backed down in the face of an election. Understanding the increasing levels of concern across the community, Kevin Rudd backed down. Then he made a few other mistakes trying to pursue yet other taxes without any evidence, like the mining tax. In relation to the mining tax the problem was that the mining industry, in the then Prime Minister’s view, was too successful. He came to Western Australia and said, ‘We’ve got a two-speed economy. We’ve got to have this mining tax to slow the Western Australian economy down.’ That was the then Prime Minister’s approach to the mining tax. And of course he lost his job in the wake of all of that.

So what did the new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, say when it came to emissions trading, when it came to addressing the greatest moral challenge of our time and when it came to Australia’s commitment to helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? She said there would not be a carbon tax over this next term of government. We are always very suspicious when it comes to Labor prime ministers making commitments because these Labor Party leaders come up with all sorts of pre-election commitments which they then do not follow through on once they get elected—in particular when it is in relation to taxes. I am just going to go through student taxes for a moment. This was another tax on which, before 2007, the Labor Party said, ‘No, we’re not going to introduce student taxes,’ and then of course after 2007 they did. And yesterday they reintroduced a punitive proposal to impose taxes on students across Australia.

Let us get back to the carbon tax. On the Friday before the election the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, stated categorically:

I rule out a carbon tax.

That was on the front page of the Australian on 20 August. The reason she said that was that she knew she had to say that in order to scrape in at the election on 21 August. The reason the Australian people turned against this government is these sorts of stunts. They made promise after promise before the 2007 election and then they broke them after that election. People were absolutely disgusted with this government for their broken promises, for their failure and for their incompetence, and they punished them for it. The Rudd Labor government got into trouble because of their broken promises and because they were a bad government. The Julia Gillard led government nearly lost the election because people were unsure as to whether that government would be any better. Of course, the evidence is starting to come in. This is a seamless transition from broken promises to broken promises, from incompetence to incompetence, from more taxes to more taxes. This is a high-spending government addicted to more new taxes, and the Senate, on behalf of the Australian people, has to stand up against this government’s high-taxing agenda. A big new tax does not solve the problem just by whacking on a tax.

I will just go through some more prime ministerial quotes. Julia Gillard, on 16 August, said on Channel 10:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

Wayne Swan, on Meet the Press, on 15 August 2010, said:

Well, certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation somehow that we are moving towards a carbon tax …

Does that sound familiar? It reminds me of the promises made before the 2007 election that a Rudd Labor government would retain the existing private health insurance rebates and that allegations by the Liberal Party that the government had a secret agenda to get rid of them were hysterical. It is the same thing here. Again, on 12 August on The 7.30 Report, Treasurer Wayne Swan said:

We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.

Julia Gillard, of course, as we all know, has now broken that promise. I will quote Julia Gillard from 16 September. This is after the election and after she was able to—

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

Order, Senator Cormann! You must refer to the Prime Minister by her proper title.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, after she was able to scrape in by cobbling together an unholy alliance in the other place, was asked by the media about the carbon tax. This is what she said:

PM: Look, we’ve said we would work through options in good faith at the committee that I have formed involving, of course, the Greens, and it’s my understanding that Mr Windsor will also seek to participate in that committee. We want to work through options, have the discussions at that committee in good faith.

JOURNALIST: So you’re not ruling it out then?

PM: … I just think the rule-in, rule-out games are a little bit silly. …

So before the election she categorically ruled out a carbon tax. Her Treasurer categorically ruled out a carbon tax. Yet after the election, when asked whether she was going to fulfil that ironclad guarantee of there being no carbon tax under a government she leads, she says it is a silly game to her ask that question. Julia Gillard has made it clear that a carbon tax is now on the table. Whatever you want to call it—whether it is a carbon tax, whether it is an emissions trading scheme or whether it is any other mechanism to impose a price on carbon—it will just be another tax. It will be a tax that will push up the cost of living, that will increase the price of electricity and that will hurt working families across Australia.

The New South Wales government, for example, has admitted that a carbon tax would mean a short-term additional 25 per cent increase in electricity prices. That is on top of significant increases already in the cost of electricity over the past few years. I make this observation: when the Prime Minister, the day before the election, can make such a black-and-white statement and give an ironclad guarantee that there will be no carbon tax under her government, only for her to put it on the table immediately after the election, how can anyone trust what this Prime Minister has to say? This is exactly the problem that Mr Kevin Rudd had in his government and it is exactly the reason he got into trouble before the last election. Labor, of course, are using the hung parliament as an excuse for a carbon tax. They talk about political reality, that we have got to face the new paradigm. I would say that Kerry O’Brien was right, though, when he asked Greg Combet on 22 September: ‘But what does that do to the Prime Minister’s credibility after her very clear, unequivocal statement on the eve of the election, “I rule out a carbon tax”?’ A good question. The Australian people are still waiting for an answer; we still have not had it.

We had this absolute fiasco in the lead-up to the election. There were three things that the new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was going to fix: the mining tax, the failure to protect our borders and the quagmire that the government got themselves into over climate change. In the lead-up to the election, in order to get herself past the election and neutralise the issue politically, she came up with the proposition of setting up a citizens assembly of 150 people chosen at random to have a bit of a chat about how to address climate change. It was the policy that you have when you don’t have a policy. It was a process to get herself past the election. Immediately after the election, she sets up a committee with a predetermined outcome. Everybody who goes onto that committee has to agree that there should be a carbon tax, whatever way you want to describe it. People who go onto that committee have to agree with a price on carbon, which ultimately, in the absence of an appropriate global agreement among our trade competitors or partners, is just another great big new tax.

For the Labor Party’s electricity tax committee, the third term of reference states that the committee is established on the basis that a carbon price is an economic reform that is required. So there is no open question. They are just going to work out who they are going to whack most. I read in the media that Professor Garnaut was going to be asked to update his report to the government and this particular increased electricity tax committee. While they are at it, I think they should also ask Treasury to review its modelling, because it is now obvious that the Treasury modelling was based on completely flawed assumptions. We now know that the US will not have a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme in place by the end of 2010, as the government had assumed. So the government’s assessment of the impact of a carbon pollution reduction scheme or a carbon tax—or whatever they call it—on jobs, the economy, the budget, the cost of living and the price of electricity was substantially underestimated. That is very clear, and I would suggest that the government knew that at the time. The government had a political objective to make it look as if the impact of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme was going to be minimal. When I asked Treasury officials during one of our committee hearings about why they had chosen assumptions which lacked complete credibility, the answer I was given was: ‘We chose those assumptions at the direction of the government.’ So it was a political decision. The government had an agenda to make it look as if they could sneak in a price on carbon without hurting anyone.

Senator Cameron over there, who pretends to care about working families, should be really concerned about this. He should be concerned about the impact of a carbon tax on working families across Australia. He should be concerned about what it will do to the cost of living. He should be concerned about what it will do to the price of electricity. He should be concerned that working families across Australia will be asked to make a sacrifice for no proper benefit. Australians care about the environment. We want to make our contribution to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. But if we ask people to make a sacrifice it ought to be on the basis that that sacrifice will actually make a difference. The government knows that, in the absence of an appropriately comprehensive global agreement, reducing emissions in Australia in a way that increases emissions by more in other parts of the world does not make a difference, yet the cost of living pressures will be suffered by working families across Australia anyway. That is not an appropriate way to conduct public policy in Australia.

I was very concerned that the Rudd government was very secretive. Despite any suggestions in the lead-up to the election about openness and transparency, the Rudd government was a very secretive government. It was very hard to get any information out of the Rudd government. Indeed, Prime Minister Gillard must agree with that because when she became Prime Minister she said, after the election, that she had learnt her lesson and there was going to be a new era of—guess what?—openness and transparency in government. Operation Sunlight was mentioned. You can guess my surprise when I heard about Operation Sunlight. That was a term that the then finance minister, Lindsay Tanner, used in December 2008. It was all talk and no action then, and it is still all talk and no action. They cannot even change the slogans they use. They used Operation Sunlight then without following through; they still use Operation Sunlight. At least change your names if you want to make it look as if you are now fair dinkum about openness and transparency. This committee which the Prime Minister has set up is going to be a secretive committee: it ‘will ensure that its deliberations and papers remain confidential’. What’s that all about in terms of taking people with you?

I am running out of time but I will just say: there is a better way. There is the direct action way. There is a way to reduce emissions in Australia that does not increase them in other parts of the world, and that is the coalition’s way. That is the way that I commend to the Senate.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it quite bizarre to be lectured by Senator Cormann on the needs of Australian working families when Senator Cormann in this place supported Work Choices and supported the ripping away of workers’ rights on the job, resulting in lost pay and conditions for workers right around this country. So I do not take kindly to a lecture about working families from the extreme side of the coalition that is epitomised in Senator Cormann.

It is also a bit hypocritical to be lectured about broken election promises by the party who invented core and non-core promises. It is a bit rich, I must say. What we have decided to do is accept the reality of the election outcome. We have decided to accept what the Australian public were telling us, and that was that they wanted change. We had a position on climate change going to the election that the public were not happy with. We have listened to that. We paid a heavy price for not being in tune with those Australian families who want to take a long-term view of the economic and environmental issues that face this country. It is families with kids and, like me, with grandkids, who want to make sure that we leave not only a strong economy but an environmentally sustainable country and world. We heard nothing from Senator Cormann about the real issue of climate change.

Climate change is here. Climate change is real. Climate change requires a response, and this government is prepared to do that. We are prepared to take on the fear campaign that was mounted by the coalition extremists—the campaign that brought down their leader, Malcolm Turnbull, because he was in tune with the emerging view of Australian business and the view of Australian public: climate change is real and requires a price on carbon to deal effectively with it.

I go to the latest analysis that I can find in relation to the environmental issues that we are facing—again, something that Senator Cormann did not address. He spoke in the abstract. He spoke as if climate change were not an issue, as if all we were having was some esoteric debate about a price on carbon. Not once did he mention the reality of climate change—a reality that many on the coalition side, including their former leader, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, accept. The document is called The Copenhagen diagnosis: updating the world on the latest climate science and is dated November 2009. You should listen carefully to what leading Australian scientists are saying about the need to take action on climate change. They said in their principal findings that greenhouse gas emissions are surging. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40 per cent higher than in 1990. Even if global emissions are stabilised at current rates, 20 more years of emissions would give a 25 per cent probability that global warming will exceed two degrees Celsius. For all the climate change deniers—all the extremists—on the other side, these are the issues that you have to deal with. The scientists are telling us along with Mr Turnbull and senior economists in this country that every year of delayed action increases the probability of damaging climate change in this country.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate that global warming is human induced. There is no argument about this anymore. The only argument we hear is from the extremists and the wreckers in the coalition who want to make short-term political points in relation to climate change. The report goes on to say that over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade, in lockstep with predictions based on anticipated greenhouse gas emissions. The greenhouse gas emissions are increasing exactly as was analysed and predicted. Over the past decade, despite a decrease in solar forcing, a warming trend continues. The globe continues to warm. Natural short-term variations are occurring as usual, but there is no change in the warming trend. Senator Boswell will need to address these issues. It is no use coming up here with your fear campaigns, your rhetoric and your nonsensical arguments. You must deal with the factual position that the scientific community in Australia and the scientific community worldwide have found: global warming is real, global warming is dangerous and global warming needs to be addressed. That has resulted in the melting of ice sheets and ice caps, and the melting of both ice caps and glaciers is accelerating. All available measures demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate.

Summer melting of Arctic sea ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea ice melt in 2007-8 was 40 per cent higher than anticipated by the IPCC assessment report for climate models. Satellite data demonstrates that the global average sea level rise of 3.4 millimetres a year over the past 15 years is about 80 per cent greater than previous IPCC predictions and is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. I did not hear a word about that from Senator Cormann. It will be interesting to see what Senator Boswell says about these scientific facts that are there before the political decision makers of this country.

The report goes on to say that by 2100 global sea level is likely to rise at least twice as much as anticipated by Working Group 1 of the IPCC Assessment Report. For unmitigated emissions, sea level rise may exceed one metre by 2100, with an upper limit of about two metres. These are not scaremongers. These are reputable, highly respected scientists, and they say sea levels will continue to rise for centuries, even after global temperatures have been stabilised. Several metres of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries. Who will have to face this several metres of sea level rise? It will not be the extremists in the coalition who are trying to oppose change and action to deal with this. It will not be you. It will be the children, grandchildren and future generations who will have to deal with our lack of action on these issues due to the blocking and irresponsible actions of the coalition. If sea levels do rise that amount, it will destroy billions of dollars worth of property and infrastructure along the coast of my home state of New South Wales, including central Sydney. The Thames barrages would become inoperable and central London would be submerged along with major cities around the world, including New York City, Amsterdam, Buenos Aires and Mumbai.

This is not a fear campaign by me. This is the scientific analysis, and the facts are being put forward by the leading scientific community in the world. They argue, along with the economists who deal with this issue, that delaying action risks irreversible damage. Vulnerable elements of the global climate system, including the Amazon rainforest, the West African monsoon and continental ice sheets, could be pushed towards abrupt, irreversible change if warming continues unabated through this century. The risk of passing through tipping points increases strongly with ongoing climate change. Standing still, waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty than the very high degree of certainty that currently exists, risks transgressing tipping points before they become apparent to us. The time for action is now. If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of two degrees Centigrade above preindustrial levels, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly.

According to the current science—and understand, Senator Boswell; it is the science—if we are to stabilise the climate, average annual per capita emissions around the world need to be below one ton by 2050. This represents reductions in the order of 80 to 95 per cent below 2000 levels in the developed countries. No amount of dissembling, no amount of rent-seeking and no amount of ignorance dressed up as pseudoscientific scepticism will change these facts. That means we need to start reducing our carbon pollution levels now.

In this area the government has three priorities: first, to continue our strong support for renewable energy; second, to promote energy efficiency; and, third, to work towards the introduction of a carbon price. We will do that in the face of the scare campaigns that will be mounted by the extremists and the wreckers in the coalition. We will not back away from this commitment. We will stand up for future generations, something that the coalition are not prepared to do. Deep in your heart and deep in your scepticism you know that the most efficient way to reduce carbon pollution levels, as we have all heard but only you choose to ignore, is through a market mechanism, in particular the development of a carbon price. A carbon price is a key economic reform that is in the nation’s interests. It will provide an incentive to reduce pollution levels. It will unlock investment in renewable energy. It will unlock investment in low emissions technology. It will generate certainty for business. It will position this country well for our long-term economic competitiveness.

The Treasury had this to say about this particular issue in the blue book that was recently issued:

The introduction of a pricing regime will support strong long-term growth by steadily transforming the economy instead of imposing sharp, more costly adjustments in the future. This is a key economic reform in respect of which it is important that we build consensus for such a public policy position.

The Treasury went on to say:

Whatever approach is taken to limit national emissions, it is also in Australia’s national interest to rely overwhelmingly on market based mechanisms—in respect of both mitigation and adaptation.

These are the market based mechanisms that have been denied and abandoned by the coalition who claim to be the bastion of market based policy in this country. The Treasury goes on to say:

Introduction of a pricing regime will support strong long-term growth by steadily transforming the economy instead of imposing sharp, more costly adjustments in the future.

A carbon price is mainstream economic thinking. That is not where the coalition is. We watch and see now the fear campaigns, the rhetoric, the denial and backflips that have taken place and the coalition now being marginalised more and more in mainstream economic and political thinking in this country. Sadly, the coalition is no longer prepared to be part of the mainstream. You are at the outer levels of real thinking on this because the coalition have been taken over by the climate change deniers, the climate change sceptics. There are economic wreckers leading the coalition at the moment epitomised by your leader, Mr Tony Abbott, who thinks that climate change is crap. That is where you are, on the outer on this issue and you should not be trying to occupy the fringes of thought on policy on climate change. Let me tell you where you are. I have been getting emails. I have emails that were promoted and supported by the coalition. I got an email from a Mr RS of Mascot. He says:

Please don’t let this ETS go through as it is just an excuse to create a world government.

This is where you guys are. You are in this world government area. This is where your mainstream support is in relation to climate change. A Mr Steve G says:

If sea levels really are rising; why did Al Gore buy WATERFRONT property in San Francisco at the same time as he’s making a documentary on Global Warming; why did the Queensland Government buy WATERFRONT land to build a Hospital on the Sunshine Coast.

From a Ms JH:

Disgracefully, the science underpinning climate change/global warming theories had been doctored and falsified and therefore cannot be relied on.

I am not sure that Ms JH is a climate scientist. She may have heard Senator Boswell in one of his rants in parliament on this issue and suddenly become a sceptic, a denier and a wrecker, the same as the coalition. Then we have a Mr James G:

Man made global warming is one of the biggest scams pulled on the world. It is just an excuse to bring in world government and you can’t have a world government without a global tax to fund it.

From a Mr Slade:

You lot of communists will be punished for this.

This is where you are. This is where the coalition is. This is your constituency on global warming and climate change. We are going to change this. We are going to get a consensus and we are going to make sure that the people in the coalition who actually believe in this like your former leader, Malcolm Turnbull, have an opportunity to bring some common sense to the coalition.

I was part of the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy. In that Senate select committee we had the chair, the Hon. Richard Colbeck, Senator the Hon. Ron Boswell, Senator Michaelia Cash, Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald and we had Senator Abetz, Senator Fisher and Senator Joyce make appearances from time to time. This is the committee’s view, the view of those senators except for Senator Michaelia Cash. It says:

The balance of the evidence discussed above suggests that climate change is occurring, is driven by anthropogenic factors and is a grave threat to accustomed ways of life and natural systems. If this view is right, the calculations above make a virtually unarguable case for taking global action.

Senator Boswell, you signed off on that. The only one who had the courage to change it was Senator Michaelia Cash. (Time expired)

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me just clarify a couple of things. Senator Cameron suggested that the Labor Party won the election. It is on the record that the Labor Party is sitting in government, but if the people had their will, if the people had their say, things might be different. The people of Lyne and the people of New England make up the two most conservative seats in Australia, with a Labor Party vote of eight per cent in New England and 13 per cent in Lyne. New England has had one Labor member, in 1913. If those members had voted the way their electors wanted and the way those electors will in the next election, we would be sitting over there and you would be sitting over here.

That is not going to happen. We live by a system; I recognise the system. They made the decision against the will of the people. I accept that and all you can do is suck it in and take it. But let us put it on the record that an electorate with an eight per cent Labor vote voted for the Labor government: Mr Windsor put a Labor government in with a vote for the Labor Party in his electorate of eight per cent. Mr Oakeshott with a vote of 13 per cent for Labor in his electorate voted for a Labor-Green government. Let us put that on the record first.

I opened this debate many years ago. Some things have changed and some things remain the same. I remember when I asked a question, Senator Wong lectured me that we were in the middle of a drought and she had to do this for farmers. The farmers would respond and thank them. Things have changed. Dams were then at 17 per cent; they are now at 97 per cent full. The Murray is flowing. It has rained. Australia is harvesting its biggest wheat crop ever.

The thing that has changed is that the Greens have formed an alliance with the government. Whether it is an alliance, a coalition or an agreement, in this nation the de facto deputy prime minister is now Bob Brown. Bob Brown is the deputy prime minister of this country.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, I need to remind you that you need to refer to senators in this place by their proper title.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do that, Madam Acting Deputy President. The government went to the election with a commitment: ‘There will be no ETS and no carbon tax.’ It went to the election with that commitment. On a billboard very close to my home, there was a picture depicting the Green candidate saying, ‘We will not backflip on a carbon tax.’ I knew then and there that we were going to get a carbon tax if the government were elected. Why did I know that? Because I knew the government would not have the guts to stand up to the Greens. It has never had the guts to stand up to the Greens, and the problem is this: the Greens have got stronger and stronger and stronger and the government has got weaker and weaker and weaker till it is at the point where it cannot win an election without the Greens, so it has to bow its knee to the Greens every time. Every time there is a toss-up or argument between the Greens and the government, you can put your money on the Greens: they will always win.

That is why I knew there was going to be a carbon tax. The carbon tax is back on. We are going to have a committee to examine it. Everyone on that committee has to be a signed-up ETS supporter. That committee will burn the clock down till the Senate changes, and then when the Greens get the balance of power in this house we will come down with a carbon tax. There is no doubt about it in my mind, because the Greens once again will win. It is the blue-collar workers that will lose, and their jobs will be on the line, but the Labor Party considers them just voting fodder. Let me issue a warning to the Labor Party. Let me illustrate what happened in Queensland when the Labor Party decided to thumb its nose at the blue-collar workers and close their fishing grounds, something the blue-collar workers could understand. What happened? Every seat down the coast bar one fell to the Liberal National Party. You are riding into another storm like that.

This is the problem I have with Senator Cameron’s proposition if we go down this track and listen to what he says and what the report says. I can come up with as many reports as he can that will defy exactly what was in that report. The reports are out there. The icecaps are melting; the icecaps are building up. The sea is rising; the sea is falling. Temperatures are going up; temperatures are going down. You can get just about any report you want. But let us assume for the sake of argument that Senator Cameron is right. I do not accept it, but let us say that he is right. I have an open mind on it. Let us say that he is right. We could reduce our emissions to nothing tomorrow and it would not make the slightest bit of difference to the temperature of the world or the climate changes in the world. That is where I have this basic argument. What are we going to do? Penalise our own industries, sack our own workers, destroy our industries and destroy our way of life for nothing?

I want to refer to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald after the Copenhagen conference. The article says:

On his return from Copenhagen, the Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, told Parliament his mandate had been to protect India’s right to fast economic growth, and listed killing off binding targets to reducing emissions as a key victory for his country.

Does that sound as if we are going to head for universal climate controls right across the world? He then said:

… Brazil, South Africa, India and China—had worked to protect the rights of the developing world.

How can we, as sensible Australians that are responsible for the economic wellbeing of this country, say there is going to be a world commitment on climate change when Indian members of parliament are proudly saying that they stopped this in Copenhagen?

But let us not even worry about India. Let us put India aside for a moment. In the last couple of weeks in America, the biggest economy in the world and a country that is aligned to us in many ways, during the election campaign they had a vote in the Senate. There is an article in Green Energy Reporter headed ‘Senate Democrats kill cap-and-trade bill’. It says:

Cap-and-trade is officially dead. This afternoon Senate Democrats—

not the Republicans but the Democrats—

in a caucus meeting, decided not to pursue legislation that would seek to cap carbon and other green house gases by pricing them, a market-friendly scheme known as cap-and-trade.

So America has walked out on it. These are the Democrats, the people that pursued climate change policy. They cannot get their votes. While it is true that a filibuster presented a high barrier for any climate energy action, the reality is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might have struggled to get 51 per cent support for the stronger bill, because Democrats from various areas, such as John D. Rockefeller, Evan Bayh from Indiana and many other Democrats, have seen that it would penalise jobs for their workers.

This is the Green tail wagging the government dog. The Greens are wagging the dog. There is no chance at all that India, China or Brazil can do this. They cannot do it. America has a 10 per cent unemployment problem—9.6, to be accurate—and it will not move. The government has tried many ways to shift it, but it is locked in at 9.6 per cent. Do you think that the American Congress and Senate are going to be so stupid to drive that 9.6 per cent unemployment upwards? There are going to be huge changes in the mid-term elections, and no-one is going to be that stupid and increase the unemployment rate.

Senator Sherry, you know this, I know it and so does every other person who is sensible in this parliament. How can India, with its poverty and its people living in squalor—living in cardboard boxes or near open sewers—penalise its own industry and increase its already probably 20 per cent unemployment? Its mission must be to get its people reasonably well fed, accommodated and clothed. That must be its priority.

But, no, the Labor Party thinks that magic is going to happen in the world and that every country in the world is going to sign up. If you could guarantee it, or if you could accommodate it—if you could make it work—then you may get some support on emissions trading. But the unfortunate thing is that it is not going to happen. All we are going to do is penalise our own workers, penalise our own industries and penalise the primary industries. And to what avail? So we can say, ‘Australia led the way. We led the way in this brand new world that Senator Brown wants to take us to’—as deputy prime minister of this new government. It is a world of higher taxes, taxes on mining, taxes on carbon, increased costs for transport, no new coal mines and no refurbishment of the existing coal mines.

But you can say this for Senator Brown: he is totally wrong. He has no concern for anyone else. He will always be able to get a quid; he is a doctor—he can hang his shingle out and get his couple of hundred thousand a year—but he has no consideration for the rest of the people. But at least he sticks to his guns. You guys cannot stick to your guns. You do not know whether you want to back this. You do not want to back it. You backed out of it because you could see a catastrophe coming in the election and then you got cold feet. Now you want to back it again. You are on a hiding to nothing. If you could confirm that the rest of the world will do it then I think you would have some chance of doing it. But there is as much chance of that as an ice cream existing in hell. It just will not happen.

If Australia wants to go ahead, we are going to fly solo. Not many people in the rest of the world will follow us. You will put a carbon tax on mining, have no new coal mines, increase transport costs and introduce gay marriages. This is the world where no other nation wants to go. The Labor Party does not want to go there, but they are being dragged along by the junior member of the coalition. It is being dragged along to where the tail is wagging the dog.

If we go down this path, we are going to go virtually on our own. We are going to penalise every industry in Australia. We are going to penalise our high standard of living. We are going to penalise our four per cent unemployment level. We should all be overjoyed that we have got that. The government claims that the stimulus package got us out of trouble. We claim that we paid all the debt off and left a float in the till. Maybe there is bit of truth in both. But what keeps Australia strong? What is our forte—our strength? Why do we have this low unemployment? I suggest it is because we have industries. We have export industries getting our minerals out to the world at the lowest possible cost and in the most efficient way that we can meet the market, and they employ hundreds and thousands of people right across this great nation.

We can process bauxite into aluminium. But we have got to do it with low power costs. Already, with the threat of this new tax one of the aluminium companies has said, ‘We’ve got to stop and think a bit before we put another project into Western Australia.’ We have got to allow BlueScope and OneSteel to be able to meet competition coming in from cheap Chinese steel mills. They make a better product, but we have got to allow them to exist. We cannot handicap them by putting a tax on and making a higher cost of electricity. The town of Whyalla depends on it.

We have got to be able to let our industries compete. The dairy industry, the cattle industry and the processing industry for both of them employ hundreds and thousands of people right across regional Australia, and the last ETS was going to penalise them severely. These industries are already struggling under a high dollar. It is due to great mining prospects, but it is penalising these industries that we need to employ people.

I reiterate: unless we have a reasonable degree of knowing that the rest of the world is going to come with us we are going to achieve absolutely nothing. We are not going to reduce the CO2 emissions. If we close down the new coal generators tomorrow then in six month’s time the new coal generation in China would take out every bit of gain that Australia has made and sacrificed for. What is the point of this? Why are we going to do this? What will our achievement be if the rest of the world does not follow? Why do we have to penalise our workers? Why do we have to penalise regional Australian manufacturers of cheese, milk powder operators and Goulburn Valley dairy companies? Why do we have to do this? It is because the Greens want it, and the government is not strong enough to stand up to them.

There is an old axiom: ‘He who feeds the tiger gets eaten last.’ And you, the Labor Party, have come within one seat of being eaten. If there had been a true indication of what the people wanted, and the member for Lyne and the member for New England had voted the way their people had elected them to vote, you would have been eaten. You have had a near-death experience. I would advise you not to ever touch this. You have seen what happens when you ignore the blue-collar worker. You saw it in Queensland. You saw the blue-collar workers say, ‘Hey, I don’t mind the Labor Party, but when the Labor Party joins the Greens it’s time for us to get out and vote for the coalition.’ And that is exactly what happened—every seat fell, bar three or four. You put one hand in the fan and lost all its fingers, and now you are going to put your other hand in the fan and you will lose all those fingers too. You are on a hiding to nothing. Unless you can get a world commitment on this, drop it like a hot cake.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion, because it is important for this chamber to be clear about the difference between the Labor government and those opposite when it comes to climate change. There is a huge gulf between the two. The Labor government acknowledges that climate change is real, and has been and will continue to be willing to take action on climate change.

Senator Boswell remarked on developing countries struggling to feed and clothe their citizens. What Senator Boswell failed to acknowledge is that these are the very people who are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. You need only look at the devastating floods in Pakistan, and to see the terrible impact that is having on millions of people, to appreciate that for us to be, as a developed nation, contributing to such catastrophes—as the science of climate change shows we have the potential to do—is a catastrophic thing. So I am pleased that the Labor government and the nation are acting on this important issue. Those opposite, you can continue to stick your heads in the sand about climate change and be climate change deniers. Because of your continued denial of climate change and its impact, you have no real solutions or ways of addressing what is a really serious and critical issue.

The Labor government accepts the climate change science that shows climate change is occurring. We accept that carbon pollution is causing climate change. We also know that our economy and our environment are at great risk of harm from climate change. That is the basis of our action. We believe the best and most efficient way to reduce carbon pollution is by putting a price on carbon. A price on carbon is an important reform for the Australian economy and it is an investment in the long-term future of our environment, our people and our economy. We know that there are sound economic reasons for putting a price on carbon. A price on carbon will create an incentive to reduce the level of pollution that we create. It is not a tax, unlike the opposition’s policies, which will need to be funded through taxes. It is a market-driven incentive to reduce the level of pollution that we create.

Australian businesses are calling for certainty. They know a price on carbon will create certainty for them. That certainty helps encourage investment in this country. We know that a price on carbon will help drive investment in renewable and low emission technologies and that this will help ensure our economy remains competitive. That is the reality: more jobs, especially in renewable and low emission technologies; more jobs to strengthen the economy and build a sustainable environment. But we cannot do this without consensus—a consensus that builds support for the implementation of a carbon price.

We have a number of policy options on the table that have been debated in the Australian community, but it is important to achieve a community consensus on a carbon price and the timing for its introduction. I am really pleased that we have taken a new direction on climate change that will see Labor establish the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, as recently announced. It is a committee that is charged with helping build consensus on how Australia will tackle climate change, a committee made up of representatives from around the parliament. And the government has extended an invitation to representatives from the coalition, the Greens and independent members of parliament.

What Senator Boswell failed to acknowledge in his comments about the recent election was that the very problem of climate change is one of the reasons why some of those Independents chose to back the Gillard government. They know that it is a significant issue that their electors and other Australians want to see action on.

The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee will be chaired by our Prime Minister, and our Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, will be its deputy chair. I am pleased that Greens senator Christine Milne will serve as co-deputy chair. I am also pleased that Mr Tony Windsor has already indicated his willingness to be a member of this committee. As members of parliament we will all have a chance to engage with our colleagues through this committee and discussions on these important issues. We know we must act with urgency if Australia’s contribution to the climate crisis is to be addressed, but we must also debate this issue thoroughly and get our response right. We now have an opportunity, one that we must act on. It is a new opportunity to explore options for the introduction of a carbon price—an opportunity that the coalition has been invited to participate in and one that it has rejected, choosing to keep its head in the sand and oppose meaningful action on climate change every step of the way. It is a crying shame, because I know that there are good members of the coalition who believe in the importance of addressing this issue.

As I said, I am pleased that Mr Windsor has agreed to participate in the committee. He made it clear that climate change, along with the NBN, was a major reason in his decision to back the Gillard government. He understands that climate change needs to be addressed and he has acknowledged the significance of the Garnaut review’s contribution to Australia’s discussion of these issues. It is interesting to look at Mr Windsor’s deliberations on a carbon price, his having voted both for and against the government’s CPRS legislation. I think this demonstrates his willingness to come at this with an open mind and engage with us on the issue of setting a carbon price. I would have thought that those in the coalition were in a position to do this too, considering their own record of support for a carbon price in the past. It would be terrific if the coalition were prepared to bring their own ideas to the table, because we know that what this country needs is a lasting consensus on climate change, one which will empower us to take action for the sake of our climate and the planet but also, vitally, for the sake of our economy—for, without a price signal on carbon, we will continue to invest in old technologies and carbon-intensive industries that will not adapt to and change with the times. We are currently failing to keep up with moves made by other nations to make their industries climate competitive. If we do not do this, it will result in the loss of thousands of jobs around the nation. Yet again, Mr Tony Abbott wants to play the role of wrecker on this critical issue.

The government have always been clear that we believe climate change is real, we believe in tackling climate change and we believe that the best way of doing that is by putting a price on carbon. The reality is that no party has a majority in their own right on this issue and we are going to have to work together to achieve an outcome in the national interest. That is why we are pursuing this option of a committee. I think it is a significant mechanism to help us deliver a carbon price. We have to have consensus on this issue so that we can make what is a much-needed and sensible economic reform. It is a reform that taxpayers and businesses are demanding from us. This is in stark contrast to the opposition’s position. It is vital that we have people coming together from a broad section of the community to test their ideas so that we can find a way forward. I note that part of one of the committee’s terms of reference is:

… provide advice on, and participate in, building community consensus for action on climate change.

I note also that the question of a citizens assembly on climate change is now a matter for the committee—similarly, the question of a price on carbon in Australia.

The opposition accuses the government of breaking election promises. It is a ridiculous assertion. As members of this place you all know that our capacity to implement any legislative policy is dependent on the will of the two houses in this parliament. If we are too rigid, if we do not listen to and learn from each other, we will never make progress on these critical issues, because we will be precluded from negotiating and making compromises in the national interest. It is time for all parliamentarians to start looking at these issues afresh and get on with tackling climate change. We the ALP, the Greens and the Independents are willing to undertake this task; but, sadly, the coalition is a no-show. Frankly, the climate change committee represents an opportunity for the coalition to put forward its policies too, but you refuse to engage and play ball.

We know that it is important to engage on the question of a carbon price. We have to create an incentive to reduce pollution, an incentive to drive investment in renewable energy and low-emission technologies, and an incentive for business, government and all citizens to change our behaviour. Importantly, Australia needs to provide certainty for business, to keep our economy competitive and strong. If we fail in this mission, if we fail to put a price on carbon, then the longer we delay the greater the economic cost. The government knows it and the business community knows it, but it is something that the coalition flat out fails to acknowledge.

The Climate Institute found that uncertainty caused by delay could cost the economy about $2 billion—$2 billion a year, in fact—or around $600 a household by 2020. In Western Australia currently we have many householders feeling significant pain from increased electricity prices, increases that have been necessary because successive governments have withheld investment from the energy sector and infrastructure. We look like we are going to repeat this experience nationwide now because businesses cannot make investment decisions to guarantee the energy supply of this nation in the future. That is because of the uncertainty about a carbon price. So what will happen is that we will have a bottleneck and a massive spike in energy prices for consumers in years to come.

The Barnett government’s decision to raise power prices by 46 per cent is hitting Western Australia’s most vulnerable. WA households are applying for emergency assistance to pay their soaring electricity bills at nearly three times the rate that they were in 2008-09. In contrast, as demonstrated by the relief provided within our previous CPRS, Labor knows that vulnerable consumers must be protected from electricity price rises as we adjust our economy. That is something the coalition fails to acknowledge. Labor will always protect the interests of low-income earners in making these necessary and vital economic reforms. Under our previous scheme, the average weekly impact of the carbon price forecast by Treasury was going to be $12. In turn, we had proposed household assistance packages to address this problem, to fully offset for low-income households the estimated impact of these increases. If you have the Barnett government, a Liberal government, in Western Australia behaving in this way, who do you trust to take care of consumers who are most vulnerable to these increases?

The coalition has no policy to compensate or help low- and middle-income earners with rising costs caused by their inaction on this issue. Just like the Barnett government, what the opposition intends is a big price shock when, after many years of coalition delay, we will suddenly find ourselves playing carbon catch-up—hitting consumers hard. This will compound the pain of Western Australian families if we do not provide an efficient incentive for investing in low-emissions electricity generation. The coalition are being economically and socially irresponsible. They are being socially irresponsible for failing to accept mainstream economic thinking and failing to take action on climate change.

To compound this irresponsibility, Australians will have to pay more tax for the coalition’s so-called direct action plan. The coalition have proven just how bad and just how inefficient their direct action policies can be. They proved this when they were in government, when they promised over $400 million over four years for 11 million tonnes of abatement. Instead, they spent only $132 million and achieved an abatement of just four million tonnes.

In contrast, we know a carbon price is a major economic reform that will create an incentive to reduce pollution. It is about driving investment in renewable energy and low-emission technologies. Business leaders in Australia understand that this is an important economic reform that we must make. We must make it so that we can be internationally competitive over the long term. Our industries must become less carbon intensive, and the best way of doing this is by establishing a carbon price in the economy.

Businesses need certainty. They need certainty so they can plan ahead with confidence. Delay is currently costing Australian industry. They need to know the form of a carbon price. Currently, businesses in Australia are calculating a great deal more risk into their investment decisions. What does risk equal? It means Australia is more expensive than it needs to be; it means less investment and it means fewer jobs. We know the longer that we delay the greater the adjustment cost, which is why business leaders around Australia are calling for action. That is why we can no longer delay. The Australian people know this, the Labor government knows this, and Australian and international business know this. Just ask BHP Billiton’s CEO. He said:

To remain competitive in a future carbon-constrained world, Australia will need to turn into a lower carbon economy.

Business Council of Australia President Graham Bradley said there ‘will inevitably be the need for a market based mechanism that will give us the lowest cost approach to reducing the carbon intensity of our industries’.

I ask: why would those opposite want to wreck the government’s plan to take steps to move us closer to a lower carbon economy when we know that the Labor government are taking a responsible course of action by looking at getting a carbon price into our economy? The government are not approaching this issue with a closed mind but with openness, ready to engage with our colleagues, ready to engage with the people of Australia and with a willingness to approach this issue to create a consensus. The other members of the committee are willing to do this too. Mr Abbott and his team, by not being part of this, are seeking to wreck the process and they are being economically irresponsible because what we need now is a way forward together, a way forward for our environment, for our community and for our economy. I call on those opposite not to knock it but to join us. (Time expired)

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

I think that everybody in this chamber knows that Australians absolutely despise liars, and they despise more those unmitigated liars who deliberately tell untruths. Australians are embarrassed when our standard bearers overseas are known by our overseas friends as unmitigated liars. And, rightly, we are all embarrassed when we find that we are now led by a Prime Minister who simply cannot discern what the truth is.

Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, I will just give you a couple of quotes. In an interview on 10 May, Neil Mitchell said:

So will you promise you will not be the leader at the next federal election?

And the respondent said:

I can, completely. Neil, this is, you know, it makes good copy for newspapers but it is not within cooee of my day to day reality. You may as well ask me am I anticipating a trip to Mars. No, I’m not, Neil.

And who said that? It was Julia Gillard, the person who 13 days later participated in one of the most brutal political executions in this country, after promising just 10 days earlier that she would not be the leader of the Australian Labor Party.

On 17 May Julia Gillard was quoted as saying:

... there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the Dogs than there is of any change in the Labor Party.

Yet six short days later she actually became the leader of the Labor Party, after the most brutal backstabbing known in Australian political history.

On 14 May, in an interview with Chris Smith, she was asked:

Now the NAPLAN issue is a second, but I first want to talk to you about when you are going to become Prime Minister, firstly. Has there been a Hawke-Keating or a Howard-Costello deal done with Kevin Rudd yet?

Julia Gillard replied:

No, no. Nice try but no news. I know we’ll be welcoming Jessica back to Sydney this weekend after her round the world epic feat. I tell you there’s more chance of me going around the world sailing solo a dozen times than this chatter in the media becoming anything more than that.

There are three deliberate examples of untruthfulness from the person who is now our Prime Minister.

So we go to the election campaign and the subject of this debate before the parliament at the moment, the imposing on Australians of a carbon tax by the Greens-Labor alliance. On the Friday before the election Ms Gillard deliberately and emphatically said:

I rule out a carbon tax.

On 12 August the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Swan, was equally unequivocal when he told Kerry O’Brien in answer to a question about whether there would be a carbon tax:

We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.

On 16 August, five days before the election, Ms Gillard stated on Channel 10:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

Yet here we are, a few short weeks later, debating—and we will be debating in this parliament in the very near future—the imposition of a Labor Party carbon tax.

It is one thing to promise verbally just before an election and break the promise verbally a few days later. In this case, though, our Prime Minister went even further and not just verbally broke her promise but signed her name to a document that said:

Australia will reduce carbon pollution by 2020 and this will require a price on carbon.

That is the written agreement with the Greens political party signed by our Prime Minister. How can any Australian trust anything this person says? She has shown that she simply is incapable of understanding the truth and keeping her word and her promises.

In relation to the carbon tax, my view on emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes has always been the same. I confess that I do not know whether greenhouse emissions are causing climate change. I have always accepted that there is climate change—it changes all the time. That is a given. But is it carbon emissions that are doing it? I do not know. I have said time and time again that the world’s 10,000 top scientists are split about fifty-fifty on the cause of global warming or climate change, so I do not get into that.

What I say is that, if the rest of the world is doing it, Australia might as well do it too. We will keep pace and keep faith with the rest of the world. But if Australia does it before the rest of the world, all we do is put a financial impediment on all of our industries, on all of our exports, making them less competitive overseas, therefore returning Australia less income and reducing the standard of living of all Australians. It is such a no-brainer, Madam Acting Deputy President. Why would you penalise Australia’s economy and our way of life and our standard of living for absolutely no benefit to the environment? Until China and the United States and Russia actually do something—they are the big emitters; remember Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions—nothing we will do will make any difference to the changing climate of the world, if that is the cause of it. Until the major emitters do something, Australia taxing itself will only mean Australians will lose. This was the point that the coalition made in the 12 months before the election.

I refer my colleagues in the Labor Party to some results in the recent election. I will mention a number of electorates: Flynn, Dawson, Herbert, Durack, O’Connor, Grey and Capricornia. I ask Labor members what those seats have in common. I will tell you. All of Australia’s mining industries are in those seats. I will tell you what happened in those seats in the election. In Flynn, which is a very important mining and minerals-processing town, Labor lost the seat in a landslide and it was won by the Liberal-National Party. What happened in Dawson, another seat that is very reliant on mining industries? Again, it was lost by Labor and won by the coalition. Herbert, which is a big minerals-processing town that has a lot of fly-in and fly-out miners, was lost by Labor and won by the Liberal-National Party. What happened in Durack, the big Western Australian seat that contains most of the Pilbara and the Kimberley? The Labor vote in Durack was 24 per cent. The Liberal-National vote in Durack was 62 per cent. That seat contains the most substantial amount of Australia’s mining industry. In the electorate of O’Connor the Labor Party could not even come second in the poll; they came third with 17 per cent of the vote as opposed to 67 per cent to Liberal-National Party.

The Labor Party do not understand that miners, blue-collar workers do not like emissions trading schemes and do not like carbon taxes. If I were being political, I would say, ‘Bring it on,’ because the only two seats which Labor holds north of the Tropic of Capricorn would fall to us in a shot. In the seat of Capricornia—one of the few seats that Labor holds—which contains all of the big Bowen Basin mining towns, Labor’s vote went backwards by eight per cent. There was a massive swing against the incumbent Labor member of some eight per cent.

I refer my Labor friends to the mining town of Moranbah, which is a big unionised town that is full of traditional unionists and Labor supporters. What happened in the last election in Moranbah? Labor’s vote plummeted by about 10 per cent. Doesn’t that mean something to the Labor Party? People do not want a carbon tax that will only impact on their standard of living and have no positive benefit for the environment.

I refer senators to the electorate of Kennedy, which is a very substantial mining electorate. I quote here the Senate results because you would appreciate that this is the seat that Mr Katter won as an Independent. For the Senate in Kennedy the Labor Party vote again crashed by 10 per cent and they ended up getting only some 26 per cent of the vote. People might say that that is because Ingham, Innisfail and the Atherton Tableland are seen as being traditionally conservative. I want to point out the results in the Senate in the polling booths in Mount Isa. Everybody knows that Mount Isa is a big mining town that is full of miners, blue-collar workers and traditional supporters of the Labor Party. What happened to the Labor Party Senate vote in Mount Isa? The Labor Party got 32 per cent of the vote and the Liberal-National Party got 37 per cent. So even in the heartland territory of the Labor Party their vote plummeted in places like Mount Isa.

Similarly, in Cloncurry, a town that is substantially involved in and reliant on mining, Labor got the massive sum total in the Senate of 27 per cent, as opposed to the Liberal-National Party, which got 41 per cent. What happened to the Labor Party vote in Charters Towers, which, again, is a town that is very reliant on mining and has a lot of miners living in it? The Labor Party got a princely 28 per cent of the vote, as opposed to the Liberal-National Party, which got some 43 per cent.

The Labor Party must understand that their traditional supporters—the unionists and the blue-collar workers—do not believe, as I do not, that a carbon tax is good for Australia. Why are the Labor Party bringing back an emissions trading scheme or a carbon price after their leader promised faithfully on the Bible before the election that there would be no carbon tax? I digress by saying that you could see the relief on the faces of many of my friends in the Labor Party on the other side of the chamber when we defeated the emissions trading scheme. Perhaps the next speaker will confirm or deny what I say. It is a case of no name, no pack drill in these committees, but I know there were many Labor senators who were desperate for us to knock off the emissions trading scheme legislation because they knew what it would do to them politically and they knew that their union members, who have traditionally supported the Labor Party, did not want it and do not want it now.

So why are the Labor Party, when they know all of this, now, contrary to Julia Gillard’s solemn promise before the election, going to bring in a price on carbon? It is because they have reached this unholy agreement with the ultra left-wing political party in this parliament: the Greens.

Those of us who follow history know that years ago in Europe and in Asia parties of the extreme Left were called the Communist Party. They realised that, as the world got more wealthy, no-one would be interested in their extreme left-wing economic and social ideology. So what did they all do? They said, ‘We need to get votes. We want to stay in power. We know that nobody is at all interested in our ultra left-wing economic and social philosophies anymore. So we’ll take on the mantle of something that people do like: animals and trees.’ And so the Greens political movement across the world was formed. It was formed from those ultra left-wing people who realised they would never succeed politically with an ultra left-wing platform but they might just succeed if they hid those ultra left-wing economic and social philosophies behind the facade of looking after the environment. Now the Labor Party have got into bed with this ultra left-wing faction of the Left of Australian politics.

The Greens care little for Australia’s economy. They care little for the standard of living we enjoy so much in this country through hard work and effort. The Labor Party are being led along by this ultra left-wing group to introduce this carbon tax. The Labor Party know, as I do, that they will never have any success electorally in their traditional areas whilst they embrace the carbon tax or ETS; call it what you will. They know that their members, as I do, see how futile it is to destroy our standard of living for no benefit for the environment. And so to retain power, power for power’s sake, the Labor Party have agreed to ignore their traditional supporters, ignore their traditional base and go along with the Greens in their crazy left-wing radical agenda—just so Ms Gillard can remain as Prime Minister and all of her team can have the quite substantial trappings of office.

It is power for power’s sake; it is remaining in power to have the glory and indeed the rewards of being a minister and of running the government. To retain that power and to retain those personal embellishments, they are prepared to sup with the devil to bring in policies which they know will be bad for Australia—and many of my friends on the other side know that a carbon tax will be bad for Australia. We will, I predict, in the next several weeks or few months have again an uprising of that popular vote—that popular voice that was so prominent when the Labor Party’s last attempted emissions trading scheme was around. Australians will not stand for this, and the people will let their voices be heard.

I love my country; that is why I am opposing the carbon tax. If I were being maliciously political then I would encourage the Labor Party to do this because I know that politically it would be great for our side of politics. But I do not want it to happen because I do not want to be part of destroying the sort of lifestyle and the fabulous economy that this nation has. I would certainly hope that those listening to this debate will make it known to their Labor member, if they can find him or her, that this is not on for Australia. It should be put aside. Ms Gillard should be made to honour her promises. (Time expired)

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise to speak in this debate to discuss with Australians the need to take action on climate change and to defend against Senator Fifield’s motion:

That the Senate notes the Gillard Government’s decision to blatantly break its unequivocal commitment to the electorate not to introduce a carbon tax.

Climate scientists tell us that carbon pollution is causing climate change. It is a reality. It has been published. It has been covered in many inquiries now and circulated in many journals and the media. Greenhouse gases absorb heat from the sun in the atmosphere and reduce the amount of heat escaping into space. This extra heat has been found to be the primary cause of observed changes in the climate system over the 20th century. These changes include increases in global average air and ocean temperature, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global sea levels. The extra heat in the climate system has other impacts such as affecting atmospheric and ocean circulation, which influences rainfall and wind patterns. We have seen a lot of that recently not only on our continent but also across the globe—for example, in Pakistan.

As a senator for Queensland I know firsthand how climate change could have a devastating effect on the environment, the economy and prosperity in my state. Queensland is known for its golden beaches, its sunshine and of course the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef covers close to 350,000 square kilometres and is the only living thing on earth visible from space. It is of great significance to Queensland and Australians and is protected as a marine park. It has been a World Heritage area since 1981.

The Great Barrier Reef is home to more than 4,000 mollusc species, about 1,150 fish species, most of the world’s marine turtle species, the dugong, dolphins and whales. The tourism industry supports 53,000 jobs and brings $6.9 billion into the Australian economy. I want to digress slightly from the subject of the Great Barrier Reef and refer to a speech delivered in the other house by the member for Tangney, Dennis Jensen. It is one of my favourites because it goes to the type of suggestion for dealing with climate change that the opposition believes in. That member said:

Just off the top of my head—

so it is not a well thought out plan to fix global warming—

I can think of two.

First he says we could have aerosols and global dimming. I do not know where the dimming came from—probably off the top of his head. Then he goes on to the most absurd suggestion I have ever heard, and that is:

... what about some sort of shadecloth put in orbit?

This is a member of the opposition in the other house, talking about putting some sort of shadecloth up there. I do not know how you would get it there. Maybe he is relying on My Favourite Martian or maybe the Robinsons of Lost in Space to get the shadecloth into space. These comments and ideas are coming from no doubt an educated person—he is a doctor. This is the type of suggestion we are getting from the opposition on dealing with climate change.

I cannot even comprehend how inaction would affect my beloved state. If the temperature rises we will lose our Great Barrier Reef. We will lose the marine life that makes this natural wonder of the world a world attraction. If the sea levels rise we will lose our golden beaches. If temperatures soar, our agricultural industry will be destroyed. Soaring temperatures would affect those sensitive to the heat, including our ageing population. Tropical diseases and pests would spread across the country and would be detrimental to our health.

This is not just about Queensland. This is a global issue. Already we have seen the outcry from our Pacific neighbours. Last year I recall having a delegation come to my office in the seat of Dickson. They were Pacific islanders from Tuvalu, Kiribati and Micronesia. They came to bring to my attention the climate change that is affecting the small islands out in the middle of the Pacific. When you talk about sea level rises of half a metre you would not bat an eyelash, but if you live in a Pacific island this is a very serious problem. Rising sea levels are causing their islands to decrease in size, being swallowed by the ocean, and flooding is becoming all too familiar. Because of this, their water is being contaminated by the saltwater, and their farming industry, which many of these islanders rely on to survive, is being greatly affected. The higher waters are making their way into some of the islanders’ homes, which is of huge concern for the welfare and safety of residents as well as of their property.

If all those reasons are not enough to compel those opposite to act on climate change and support the government in wanting to take action, then let us look at some facts. A strong economy depends upon a sustainable environment. Australia’s economy and environment are at great risk from climate change. That is why the government will continue its strong support for renewable energy, to promote greater energy efficiency in industry and households and to work towards the introduction of a carbon price. The government believes the most effective and cost-effective way to achieve reductions in carbon pollution is through a price on carbon. Putting a price on carbon is a significant economic reform of the Australian economy and is an investment in our long-term future. The economic and environmental case is clear: a carbon price will create the incentive to reduce pollution, drive investment in renewable and low-emission technologies, create certainty for business investment and ensure our economy remains internationally competitive in the long term. This reform will therefore create jobs, strengthen the economy and build a sustainable environment. As the Treasury said in their blue book recently:

Whatever approach is taken to limit national emissions, it is also in Australia’s national interest to rely overwhelmingly on market-based mechanism—in respect of both mitigation and adaptation.

It also said:

Introduction of a pricing regime will support strong, long-term growth by steadily transforming the economy instead of imposing sharp, more costly adjustments in the future.

This is something the business community understands. As Marius Kloppers, the CEO of BHP Billiton, has said:

To remain competitive in a future carbon-constrained world, Australia will need (to) turn to a lower carbon economy.

By taking no action, AGL and the Climate Institute have found, the uncertainty caused by the delay in a carbon price would cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or around $60 per household in 2020.

The Labor Party have always supported taking action on climate change and we have been denied that by this chamber three times. But the reality is, and from the unexpected results of the election and the increase in protest voting, that it is clear the Australian public wants action on climate change—and that is what we have set out to do. The landscape has changed, but we have always been clear that we believe in climate change, that we believe in tackling climate change and that the best way to do that is by introducing a price on carbon. While no party holds a majority, it is important for us to work together and take notice of what the public has told us. We have to work together in the nation’s interests to achieve change. That is why we established the climate change committee to look at the best way to deliver a price on carbon. This will be an important mechanism that will help us deliver on the outcome of a carbon price. The committee will properly examine the issues around a carbon price, and the government is determined to introduce an economically responsible reform. It is important that we build consensus around this issue so that we can make the sensible economic reform that taxpayers and the business community, people such as Marius Kloppers, want us to make.

Our approach stands in stark contrast to the negative and opportunistic position of the Leader of the Opposition. We all know that he thinks climate change is, in his own words, ‘absolute crap’ and that he opposes the consensus on climate science. We are now discovering that he also opposes sensible economic reform—reform that the business community is pushing. Such a position may help him as Leader of the Opposition, but it demonstrates that he is not fit to manage our economy.

The Labor government has engaged in a number of consultative processes on climate change and I was privileged to be included in the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy, as was the previous speaker, Senator Macdonald. Ten hearings were held around the country and 188 witnesses presented their views on the CPRS. Witnesses came from all walks of life, including people from government departments, industry associations, business, trade unions and community organisations, and leading scientists and economists. There were also representatives from mining, industry, farming, energy supply, financial and commercial interests. More than 8,000 submissions were received from organisations and individuals.

The result of this committee was not unanimous, with coalition senators disagreeing on the CPRS. This decision is detrimental to our nation’s fight against climate change. The position of the government senators on this committee—Senator Doug Cameron, Senator Dave Feeney, Senator Louise Pratt and I—is that action must be taken as soon as possible.

After years of inaction by the previous government it is up to us to implement the CPRS to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions and therefore save the environment. With many scientists here and abroad spruiking that climate change is caused by human activity, I wonder why those opposite do not believe climate change is occurring. After inviting all scientists to present their views at these committee hearings, we found that not one climate scientist with qualifications and experience disputed this view. If the scientists—those who study climate change for a living—believe that climate change is caused by human activity and believe that it is potentially damaging to the state of this planet, then who are we to dispute this?

According to the Garnaut review, put together by Ross Garnaut—economist and former adviser—if we sit here and do nothing the expected rise in temperature would be damaging to our environment and to our economy. In our report handed down after the inquiry, the government senators found that inaction would cause temperatures to soar and that that, combined with a decline in rainfall, would greatly affect agricultural production. We would see the Great Barrier Reef destroyed by mid-century. Our snowfields and beautiful beaches would just be a distant memory. This would put an end to our tourism industry as many travellers flock to Australia to dive at our reefs, relax on our golden beaches or attend the snowfields.

The President of the Business Council of Australia, Graham Bradley, has said that there ‘will inevitably be the need for a market-based mechanism that will give us the lowest-cost approach to reducing the carbon intensity of our industries.’ Getting a carbon price into the economy is the responsible course of action. That is the view of the mainstream business community and it is the view of the government.

AGL and the Climate Institute have found that the uncertainty caused by the delay in a carbon price could cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or around $60 per household in 2020. The Leader of the Opposition is being economically irresponsible by refusing to accept mainstream economic thinking.

The Leader of the Opposition is also out of step with the member for Wentworth, who said:

There are powerful arguments in favour of a tax versus a cap-and-trade scheme but, you know, the political reality is that putting a price on carbon will increase electricity prices and the coalition’s policy is, rather than having polluters—you know, the industry pay those costs and passing them on to consumers—to have the cost of abatement paid for out of taxpayers’ dollars.

The simple fact is that Australians will have to pay more tax to pay for the coalition’s so-called ‘direct action plan’. This fact has been reinforced by the Treasury. I suppose we should not expect anything else from a man who thinks climate change is, in his own words, ‘absolute crap’, and even people on his own side of politics, such as Peter Costello, say that he cannot be trusted on economics.

A carbon price is a major economic reform that will create an incentive to reduce pollution and will drive investment in renewable energy and low-emission technologies. A carbon price will also provide certainty for business investment and ensure the long-term competitiveness of our economy.

I move now to electricity prices. The fact is that the lack of a carbon price is creating investment uncertainty in the energy sector, and this in itself will cause electricity prices to rise. That is because investment in new base-load electricity generation capacity will continue to be deferred, and the long-term cost will be higher. When I reflect back on those inquiries I remember a number of businesses making that very point—that inaction will cost our economy greatly. The managing director of TRUenergy, Richard McIndoe, spoke about what would happen if a carbon price is not set in place. He said:

If it’s not done in this government and if this uncertainty continues, not for two to three years, but four to five years, and nobody is building, then you will have power shortages and insufficient capacity.

There would be blackouts.

The CEO of BHP Billiton has made the point that each investment decision in the power generation sector will lock in carbon emissions for the coming 30 to 40 years. We therefore need to lock in low-emission technology now by introducing a carbon price. This is supported by analysis undertaken by AGL and the Climate Institute. They estimate that uncertainty caused by a delay in a carbon price could cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or around $60 per household in 2020. The simple fact is that the biggest risk to electricity prices is the Leader of the Opposition and his lack of leadership on this important issue.

I turn to household consumption. In contrast to the coalition a Labor government will always protect the interests of low-income earners when making this necessary and vital economic reform. In terms of the impact upon households, under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the average weekly impact of the carbon price forecast by Treasury was $12. In turn, the government had proposed a household assistance package that ensured that low-income households received assistance to fully offset the estimated impact of higher prices and middle-income households received a significant amount of assistance.

A Labor government will always provide compensation to offset these increases for low- and middle-income households. In contrast, the coalition has no policy to compensate or help low- and middle-income earners for the rising costs that will be caused by the coalition’s inaction on this issue. Also, our reforms in the area of energy efficiency can help households cope with any rise in costs. Quite small changes in household behaviour can reduce energy consumption and provide annual savings of over $1,200. These changes could include switching from incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent lights and switching off appliances at the power point.

The reality is that after the last election it is clear that no party has a majority and therefore we need to work to build consensus around major economic reforms. As announced by the Prime Minister, the government has established a multiparty climate change committee to explore options for the introduction of a carbon price. The committee will report to cabinet through the minister with a range of possible policy positions informed by discussions with independent experts, environment groups and industry. The committee will start from the position that a carbon price is an economic reform that is required to reduce carbon pollution, encourage investment in low-emission technologies and complement other measures, including renewable energy and energy efficiency. The committee will also play a role in establishing community consensus for action on climate change.

The point was made earlier that this is about trust. Using the words of the previous speaker, Australians ‘despise liars’. We should never, ever forget the position taken by the opposition leading up to the last election and, in particular, the comments made in the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply on paid parental leave. He had indicated earlier that he would never, ever introduce new taxes. In that light, I would like someone to explain to me this statement in his budget reply:

…the fairest way to have a paid parental leave scheme anytime soon is through a modest levy on companies’ taxable income over $5 million a year.

We all know what companies we are talking about; we are talking about the Coles and the Woolworths, where working families go and do their shopping. The only way that a big new tax on that business would be passed on to those consumers would be through their shopping carts. People walking the aisles, picking up their cans of Golden Circle pineapple and so on, would have to be compensated in some shape or form by the additional tax passed on to those big businesses through this big new tax that Tony Abbott intended to implement. That shows how people like Mr Abbott despise the public and is also a strong indication of how they are bound to tell lies just to get elected. (Time expired)

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Acting Deputy President Boyce, for this opportunity to speak on the Labor government’s breaking of its unequivocal election commitment to not introduce a carbon tax. That is where my pleasure at rising to speak begins and ends. This is yet another broken Labor promise. The Australian electorate will not forget the Labor government’s broken promises prior to the election: its broken promise to have a Fuelwatch scheme, its broken promise to have a GroceryWatch scheme, its broken promise to deliver X number of computers in schools and its broken promise to create 260 child-care centres and 35 GP superclinics.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell interjecting—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As if, Senator Farrell—as if! This time around, the day before the election, we were told unequivocally—as no doubt others have said—by the now Prime Minister, Prime Minister Gillard: ‘I rule out a carbon tax.’ It was front-page news. The Treasurer said to Meet The Press on 15 August 2010:

What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.

More broken promises—as we are coming to expect from the Gillard Labor government.

The Prime Minister has also announced a committee to investigate, assess and hear from experts about a carbon tax, says Senator Furner. No, no, no, Senator Furner; no, no, no, Labor government. This Labor government is proposing to set up a committee for which there are two prerequisites for joining. Firstly, you can only be on the thing if you believe in a carbon price. Secondly, you can only be on the committee and do the work if you are going to agree on the outcome—that is, that there should be a carbon price. That was made clear in the Prime Minister’s letter of invitation to the committee, which said that parliamentary representatives:

… who acknowledge that … reducing carbon pollution by 2020 will require a carbon price—

will be invited to join the committee.

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

Ha!

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are quite right, Senator Macdonald. This is vintage Labor—you cannot join the committee unless you believe in a carbon price. It is vintage Labor, vintage union movement. It is akin to ‘no ticket, no start’: ‘No belief in a carbon price? Then no start on the committee; no seat at the table.’

Term of reference No. 3 for the committee is:

3. The Committee is established on the basis that a carbon price is an economic reform that is required …

Well, there is a lot of choice in that, a lot of freedom of association—union membership is obviously non-compulsory! It is vintage Labor—you must believe in the outcome before you are entitled to a seat at the table. Not only does that show a lack of freedom of association; it strikes another chord fundamental to the cause of the union movement—which, of course, bankrolls the Labor Party—and that is the ‘closed shop’. In other words, you have to have a closed mind before you can belong to this closed shop of a climate change committee. Your view must be, No. 1, that a carbon price is necessary to reduce carbon pollution and, No. 2, that carbon pollution is the culprit that the Labor government would have us believe—broken promises writ large.

The next aspect of the broken promise is the secrecy, the ‘Sh! Do not tell’ of this committee’s terms of reference. Term of reference No. 8 says:

The Committee will ensure its deliberations and papers remain confidential to the Committee and the Cabinet until a final position is agreed or all parties to the Committee agree otherwise.

What has happened to the Prime Minister’s promise:

So let’s draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in, let our Parliament be more open than it was before.

It is obvious. It is vintage Labor—no ticket, no start on this committee. It is a closed shop: a closed mind before you get on the committee and a closed mind to the outcome. And, by the way, thou shalt not speak—silence, a shroud of secrecy around the committee and its deliberations.

Why should that be a surprise to the Australian people? Well, it will not be when we reflect on the broken promises and the botched delivery of the Home Insulation Program. That program was supposed to do three things. Firstly, it was supposed to stimulate the economy. That certainly happened, didn’t it! We are now in the process of, essentially, backing money out of the economy as the government tries to mop up the mess left by its botched and bungled Home Insulation Program. Secondly, it was supposed to create jobs. Yes, workers flocked to the industry at the behest of the government, only to have their jobs taken out from underneath them by the stroke of a ministerial pen when the scheme was scratched. The insulation industry had its reputation unjustifiably tarnished, and thus far the government has broken its promises to help the industry get back on its feet. Thirdly, the Home Insulation Program was supposed to help the environment. How so, when in so many homes that had insulation fitted there was no analysis done to ensure that it was the right sort of insulation—if it was even insulation at all—to be installed in that sort of ceiling and in that sort of climate? In those situations where insulation now is to be taken out, some of that insulation is not even biodegradable. So there is no evidence—indeed there is evidence to the contrary; there are plenty of carbon miles involved in this—that there was any benefit to the environment through the Home Insulation Program. To the contrary, the only indications are that there was harm done to the environment by the broken promises and botched delivery of the Home Insulation Program.

What about the National Broadband Network? Broken promise. NBN round 1 was supposedly about fibre to the node. The government trashed NBN round 1—they broke that promise—when it became apparent to them that the private sector did not have sufficient confidence to join with the government and invest in NBN round 1, at a cost of some $4.7 billion. Never mind that; move to promise No. 2, at a cost of some $43 billion. ‘We will promise,’ said the Labor government, ‘fibre to the home.’

So there are broken promises on the National Broadband Network in terms of moving from NBN round 1 to NBN round 2, in terms of the delivery time frame and, even more fundamentally than that, in terms of the Prime Minister’s promise to let the sun shine in. How is the sun coming in on a National Broadband Network that has had no cost-benefit analysis and has an implementation plan that makes a raft of assumptions? If the assumptions are proven true, they show that this thing can be built but we are left wondering and unable to see the empirics as to how McKinsey and Co. got to the assumptions upon which the implementation study is based.

There is no NBN Co. business case. At the last Senate estimates, Minister Conroy triumphantly said, effectively, ‘You can’t see the business case today, you can’t see it tomorrow and you won’t see it once it is done.’ Mr Quigley of NBN Co. now tells us that NBN Co. is in the process of revamping its business case in light of the government’s deal with the so-called regional Independents, to prioritise delivery of the NBN to the bush. On what basis is the government able to plan that it will deliver to the bush as a priority, as it says it will? When it says it will deliver to the bush straightaway, what is ‘straightaway’? On what basis is the government making its plans to deliver to the bush and at what price to places in metropolitan Australia which presumably were going to have the build earlier rather than later, prior to the deal with the Independents? What impact does the rejigging of the NBN build have on NBN Co.’s potential returns?

We do not know the answers, because Gillard Labor is not going to let the sun shine in. We are not going to see the empirics of the assumptions made by McKinsey and Co. in their implementation study. We are not going to see, says the minister, NBN Co.’s business case. Worse than that, this government has not done, and promises never to do, a cost-benefit analysis, because, to paraphrase the words of Mr Quinlivan from the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy: ‘Why do a cost-benefit analysis of a policy commitment a government has already made? Why do a cost-benefit analysis of a policy that a government has said it is going to implement anyway?’

The implementation study makes a raft of assumptions. Industry experts question whether they will come about but say that, if those assumptions do come about, then this thing can be built. But the implementation study does not say that the NBN is a thing that should be built, and it is reprehensible that this government thus far has got away with not doing a cost-benefit analysis on the National Broadband Network to show that it is a thing that should be built.

The Australian people are probably, unfortunately, not surprised by the government’s breaking of its promise to not introduce a carbon tax. They are probably not surprised by the fact that, in breaking that promise and in walking towards what it seems to hope is the inevitable result, a carbon tax, Julia Gillard’s Labor government is demonstrating vintage Labor, vintage payback to the union movement and its core principle of closed shops—no pre-belief then no start; no ticket, no start, no seat on this committee.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always interesting to be in the chamber when Senator Fisher makes a contribution—we will not worry about any facts, we will not talk about the realities! What we need to do is put on the public record quite clearly that we on this side of the chamber, the Gillard Labor government, accept climate change and accept the science on it. We recognise that Australia’s economy and environment are at great risk from climate change. We are determined to act to reduce the impact of climate change on our great nation.

Opposing action on climate change is like sentencing our nation to a death wish. The coalition, with their failure to even recognise the science of climate change, are placing the future of our great nation in jeopardy. Our commitment to the Australian people is that we will maintain a stable nation. Australian parents want to know that their children and grandchildren will grow up in a nation full of opportunities. I repeat: we on this side of the chamber want to ensure that there is a prosperous future for our children and our grandchildren.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And their generations.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And generations thereafter. I hope that I am still going to be in this chamber to ensure that those future generations have those great opportunities, and I am sure my colleague Senator Furner will be here as well. We recognise that climate change will severely impact on the nation, our environment, our lifestyles and our future. It is our duty, it is our responsibility to the Australian people, to ensure that future generations of Australians will thrive in our great country, that they will have the opportunities that we have had. Therefore, we need to act together. We need to act soon and we need to protect our nation. We need to protect our environment and we need to protect our economy.

Since coming to office the Labor government has already acted to reduce our levels of carbon emissions in a number of ways to lessen the impact of climate change. The Gillard Labor government will continue strong support for renewable energy to promote greater energy efficiencies in industry and households and to work towards the introduction of a carbon price. I know that we have great opportunities in renewable energy in my home state of Tasmania.

It is our belief that that the most efficient and cost-effective means to achieve a reduction in our levels of carbon pollution is through placing a price on carbon. Not only will it help our environment but placing a price on carbon is a significant economic reform for our economy and an investment in our long-term future. We can either work on this together as responsible elected representatives of the federal parliament or not. Mr Abbott has already demonstrated that he is only interested in being a wrecker, tearing things down and being negative.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does he think of a carbon price?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It depends. We all know—because he said it on the public record—that what he says is not necessarily what he believes or what he will deliver. We now know that not even what he writes down can we take as gospel. Like many Australians, we are a bit confused about what we can believe. The record is quite clear about Mr Abbott and what he is able to do. One thing we do know though, Senator Furner, is that he was very good at ripping the guts out of the health system when he was the health minister.

The government has seized the opportunity we believe this new parliament presents and we will work in a methodical way when considering all the options for pricing carbon. We have recognised that we need to work together in a bipartisan approach in order to gain a consensus to act on climate change. We have invited to join our climate change committee all those people who accept climate change and accept that placing a price on carbon is necessary. I repeat: we are inclusive. We are inclusive on this issue, as we are with so many others, to make sure we benefit the Australian community and make sure that our economy remains strong. We are going to go through a proper process with this multiparty committee. Of course the government will make the final decisions about what the government’s position will be, but we will go through this process step-by-step, in good faith, for the good of our nation.

The Leader of the Opposition may have noticed that, at the election on 21 August, the Australian people voted for this parliament. This means that there needs to be consensus and cooperation. We need to work together—in particular, in relation to very complex propositions. The executive government cannot come into the chamber with a piece of legislation and expect it to be automatically passed. We senators know that that is what is happening and the other place. We senators know that that is what has been occurring for some time in this chamber. We know the realities, and we as a government accept that. We have listened and we have heard what the Australia people have said. We understand that this is the parliament that the Australian people voted for. Given that this is the parliament the Australia people voted for, we are honour bound to explore the potential of this parliament.

I could go on and talk about this issue for a long time, but I want to look at some of the comments Senator Fisher made in her contribution in relation to broken promises. We do not have to stretch our memory back too far to remember the broken promises of the Howard government. Senator Fisher made some comments in relation to the National Broadband Network. I remind the chamber of some comments I made earlier today in relation to the response to the rollout of the National Broadband Network in my home state of Tasmania. It was very clear not just from the election results but from the overwhelming support of the Tasmanian community that Tasmanian people support the NBN. The Leader of the Opposition in the Tasmanian parliament, Mr Hodgman, also sees the benefit the NBN will bring to Tasmania and Australia generally. The Tasmanian opposition support the NBN. It does not matter whether you are talking to people in health, education, small business, tourism or farming: those people with vision and who have an interest in the economy can see great benefits in rolling out the National Broadband Network.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for consideration of this matter has expired.