Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Fifield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Gillard Government’s flagrant breach of promise to the Australian people not to introduce a carbon tax.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

For Australia to introduce a price on carbon, whether through a carbon tax or through an ETS, is bad public policy. That was the conclusion after three years of public policy debate over the past parliament. That was the conclusion that was reached indeed in the lead-up to the 2007 election by then Prime Minister John Howard, who has been quoted in vain by many contributors to debates today. I will quote what then Prime Minister John Howard said a couple of weeks before the 2007 election when the then Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, had to pull Peter Garrett into line about what was described in the Australian on 30 October 2007 as ‘Garrett’s Kyoto blunder’, ‘Reversal on targets after blunder’, ‘Rudd seeks climate control’ and so on. This is what John Howard said at the time:

We can’t have a situation where Australian industry is bound to take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but competitive countries like China are not bound.

This is the crux of the debate. The emissions trading scheme debate, the debate about putting a price on carbon, changed at the time the talks in Copenhagen failed towards the end of December 2009. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, as then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd also realised, knew that that was the case. They knew it was no longer in the public interest for Australia to proceed with a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, which is why before the last election the Prime Minister made an absolute ironclad promise that there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. And the day before the election she said, ‘I rule out a carbon tax.’ It could not be any more clear. Why did she say these things? Why did she rule out a carbon tax the day before the election? Because she knew that she had to say so in order to survive the next day at the election. She knew that the Australian people had come down on the side of coalition policy when it came to a proposal for a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, which is why the Prime Minister before the election promoted coalition policy on the carbon tax and emissions trading scheme, which is to be opposed to it, only to turn around after the election and adopt the policy of the Greens. I understand why Senator Farrell would leave the chamber now, because I am sure that he is embarrassed that his Prime Minister would be joining with the Greens on something like this.

But Prime Minister Gillard has got form on this. She is the Prime Minister who said back in May 2010: ‘If Stephen Spielberg rang me from Hollywood and asked me to star opposite Brad Pitt in a movie, would I do it? Well, I would be a little bit tempted but, you know what, I don’t reckon Stephen Spielberg is going to give me a call.’ That of course was her way of saying she was not going to challenge Kevin Rudd for the leadership. She said she would be more likely to go to Mars, she would be more likely to go around the world sailing solo a dozen times and she would be more likely to be the full-forward for the Bulldogs than she was to change the leadership of the Labor Party. History has shown that that was yet another occasion when this Prime Minister deceived the Australian people and of course deceived her predecessor.

Consider the sheer arrogance with which this government proceeded: on the day they passed the floods tax grab through the House of Representatives the Prime Minister went out with Senator Bob Brown of the Greens and various other people and announced the carbon tax. She must have been so excited at getting a tax through the House of Representatives that she decided this was the time to make an announcement about yet another tax, even though it was a complete breach of everything she promised to the Australian people before the election. She went off and gave the Australian people the two-finger salute.

Today we are getting sanctimonious lectures from the Labor Party on how important it is to whack yet another tax on people. We are getting lectures on how this is important economic reform. If it was such important economic reform, if it was such an important thing to do, why didn’t the Prime Minister tell the Australian people before the election that that is what she was going to do after the election? I ask this question to senators in the chamber: if this is such an important reform, if this is such an important thing to do, why did the Prime Minister not take this proposal to the cabinet and why did she not take the Labor Party caucus into her confidence and let them have their say about this important economic reform before announcing it with Greens leader Bob Brown last Thursday? Does the Prime Minister trust Greens leader Bob Brown more than she trusts her own cabinet or Labor Party caucus?

On past occasions we have heard Senator Cameron talk about there being ‘lobotomised zombies’ on this side of the parliament. This time we have not heard anything from Senator Cameron because he is quite happy that Prime Minister Gillard is cuddling up to Senator Brown. His side of the Labor Party are very comfortable with that. They want that shift to the extreme Left of Australian politics. They do not want the government to stay in the mainstream of public policy here in Australia. What has happened to the once-proud New South Wales right wing of the Labor Party? This Prime Minister has completely castrated what was once an effective political machine. This is a Prime Minister who has gone back to her socialist roots and who is now doing deals with the Greens leader before even talking to her own caucus colleagues about what everybody, from the Prime Minister down, now suggests is an important economic reform.

The reality is that this was all about political strategy not about good public policy. It was not about acting in the public interest; it was about a Prime Minister who was told—after fake Julia and real Julia—that we needed a Prime Minister who was seen to be standing for something. One of her spin doctors, maybe her new chief of staff, who recently came on board, said to her, ‘Prime Minister, your problem is that people don’t think you stand for anything, so you should pick a fight. If you pick a fight on an issue that is going to be controversial, people are going to think you actually stand for something.’ My message to the Prime Minister is that she picked the wrong fight, because what she is proposing is not in the national interest. The reason it is not in the national interest is that it is bad public policy. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, to put a price on carbon in Australia in the absence of an appropriately comprehensive global agreement is bad public policy. It will make our businesses less competitive than more polluting businesses overseas. It will put pressure on the price of everything—electricity, petrol, groceries—it will cost jobs and it will put pressure on the economy for no environmental benefit.

If we reduce emissions in Australia to the extent that emissions are increased in other parts of the world, we will not have achieved a thing; we will have forced people in Australia to make sacrifices for no benefit at all. I will mention two examples that are relevant to my home state of Western Australia. The emissions trading scheme, a carbon tax, will make it harder for us to maximise our opportunities through LNG production, because LNG production in Australia will result in increased emissions in Australia. Exporting LNG to China or Japan where it can displace coal is actually going to be in the world’s best interest. If we are truly focused on helping to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions then we should actually be prepared to increase emissions in Australia if that is what is required to reduce emissions in the world. There is example after example. Magnetite is a process whose whole life cycle is actually more environmentally efficient than traditional iron ore production and use. However, if you only look at the Australian process in isolation, the process at the start, and not at the whole-use cycle, including the component in China, then you will actually make it harder for a process that overall is more environmentally friendly to get off the ground. That is not in the world’s best environmental interest; but it is going to be the consequence of these sorts of decisions.

The Prime Minister made this announcement without having done any homework. She clearly was keen to have a political announcement to grab a headline and be seen to be picking a fight, but Treasury was not aware of it and was caught off guard. When we asked Treasury whether they done any new modelling since 2008, they said that no such modelling had been done. That was the modelling that assumed that the United States of America was going to have an emissions trading scheme by the end of 2010. Newsflash! The United States did not have an emissions trading scheme by the end of 2010; neither does China, which is supposed to have one by 2015; neither is India on track to have one and nor are many other countries.

This carbon tax is a blatant broken promise from an arrogant Prime Minister who is desperate to look like she stands for something. Nobody on the Labor side is standing up to this Prime Minister who is treating them with absolute contempt. You would have thought that proper due process on something as important as this involved cabinet, caucus and party room discussions. It never happened. (Time expired)

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

I have been really interested in this so-called debate on this matter of public importance on carbon pricing this afternoon. I think the tone and quality of the debate are epitomised by what we have just heard from Senator Cormann. He argues that this debate is about the extreme Left. I do not understand that, because it is not about the extreme Left. Madam Acting Deputy President Troeth, you know, as do we all here, that people like Professor Ross Garnaut, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, Senator Boyce and yourself have all got concerns about where this is going. It is an absolute fabrication to say this is about a Left versus Right issue. Do you know what this is about? This is about my grandkids, Scott and Amy, and the grandkids of this country having a life in the future. It is about them being able to enjoy the same economics, society and environment that we have enjoyed. If we fail to deal with this seriously, if we want to just be climate deniers and climate sceptics, then we will not be doing the right thing by the grandchildren of communities right around this country.

You know that global warming is real. The science is in. There is no argument about the need to do something about this, yet the argument we have heard from the coalition today is an argument based on finger pointing, denial, fear and the lowest politics that you can find in this country. I do not think it is good enough. I have been quite angry today listening to the quality of the debate from the opposition on this issue. Let’s cut to the chase: the Australian public are sick and tired of the climate sceptics, sick and tired of the climate deniers and I think, even worse, sick and tired of the political opportunists who actually know we have to do something about this but are not prepared to stand up within the coalition and say: ‘Yes, this is a worldwide problem. Yes, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with.’

People on the opposition side know that this is real, so the fundamental question for the opposition is: is climate change real? If the answer is yes then you have to deal with the scientific issues that are before us. If you want to be anti-science, if you want to be anti-intellectual, if you want to be anti the real economics of climate change, you will do exactly what you have been doing here all day—that is, stand up and ignore the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is that climate change is real. Everyone who stands up to speak in this debate should be saying whether they believe climate change is real or climate change is a fabrication. There is no doubt in my mind and no doubt in the minds of the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and by far the majority of our scientists that we need to deal with global warming and that carbon pollution is real.

If that is the case, I come back to how I opened up. I want a future for my grandkids. I want them to have a decent environment to bring up their families in the future. If we do not stand up for it now then they are the ones who will suffer the consequences. It would be easy for me to say: ‘This is unreal. This is not right. I don’t believe in it. Nothing is going to happen.’ I might have a few years left, but when I am gone my grandkids will still be here and they have got lives that they must lead. If there is any truth to what the scientists are telling us then what we have to do as a parliament in Australia is stand up for them, not score petty political points about who said what and when they said it and who said the other thing. The reality is that there is a political consensus growing that carbon pollution is real, is a danger and has to be dealt with. That is the reality.

With every challenge there come opportunities and I want Australia to be part of the opportunities that arise from dealing with climate change. For instance, there will be jobs in a whole range of areas arising from putting a price on carbon and dealing with carbon pollution. In the UK they are talking about the revitalisation of the north-east of England because there is such a huge demand for specialist welders, facilities and skilled tradespersons to build the fleet of wind turbines that is going out into the North Sea. One hundred metre tall wind turbines are being built right across Europe.

The argument from the conservatives in the UK is not about who said what and who did what. They are saying we have got to get on with this. David Cameron—who is absolutely no relative of mine, let me tell you; he must have come from the black Camerons—at least understands the issue of getting on with creating the jobs of the future. David Cameron has said he is putting £60 million into the shipyards in the north-east of England to give them an opportunity to work with the 18 million tonnes of steel that is required to build these wind turbines. He is not arguing as we hear the conservatives argue here. He is not arguing like the Liberals argue here. He is saying we have got to get on with it and deal with this issue. That is the reality of leadership. The problem here is we have got no leadership on the other side except from a few Liberal MPs who know that this is a serious issue and know that it is about the future of the country.

I would not normally quote David Cameron but I may as well given that the Liberals are wont to quote him. He made a speech on 14 May 2010 at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. He said:

The three things that I would pick out are, first of all, the green economy.

Do you ever hear the coalition here talk about the green economy? They never do because they are not interested in jobs. They are only interested in looking back. They are only interested in petty political points. They are only interested in trying to destroy the building of this nation for the future. David Cameron said:

We’ve got a real opportunity to drive the green economy – to have green jobs, green growth, and make sure that we have our share of the industries of the future.

Where are the David Camerons in the coalition? Madam Acting Deputy President Troeth, I must say that you were the equivalent of David Cameron. You stood up and argued that this is a real issue that has to be dealt with. He went on to say:

Clearly there’s the climate change agenda, where we’ve got to get back on track, both nationally and internationally. And third, there is the issue of energy security, which I think is vitally important, which we need to do a huge amount of work on.

On 25 October he went on to announce £60 million for the green jobs economy. He said:

We need thousands of offshore turbines in the next decade and beyond …

Before the break I was quoting the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and I want to finish that quote. The Prime Minister said:

… there is a hugely compelling economic case to be made for fighting climate change that is barely out of the blocks yet.

This is not the Australian Prime Minister; this is the Conservative British Prime Minister. He goes on:

Both developed and developing countries have the potential to make massive gains from a green economy; the low carbon market is already worth up to £3.2 trillion and is forecast to grow by around four per cent a year over the next five years.

What could be more of a difference—the British Conservative Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, who really does not think that climate change exists. For us on the Labor side we understand that this issue has to be dealt with. We understand that you have to put a price on pollution. What we have said, as distinct from the fear campaigns that have been promoted from the coalition—and fear campaigns will not have the legs to see you through on this, let me tell you—is that every cent raised out of the price on carbon will assist families with household bills. It will help business make the transition to a clean economy and it will tackle climate change.

We are the party dealing with the big issues. We have dealt with the issue of providing decent rights to workers. I found it absolutely galling to see the Leader of the Opposition in Western Sydney, yesterday, asking people if he could pump petrol into their cars. He was a Work Choices warrior! He wanted to rip away workers’ rights, rip away the penalty rates, rip away their annual leave loading and rip away the right to collectively bargain. That was the biggest ever hit on workers’ standards of living in this country. We are the party that provided decent rights for workers. We will provide a decent health system. We will provide fairness in the tax system. We will make sure the mining companies pay a fair share of tax. We will provide a fair go for pensioners. We will provide a fair go for families. And that is on top of dealing with the global financial crisis.

As I have said before, the science on climate change is overwhelming. The only issue we have is that the extremists have control in the coalition. Tony’s troglodytes are triumphant in the coalition. The extremists on industrial relations are in charge. The extremists on race are in charge. The extremists on the environment are in charge. But we are going to take you on. We are going to take you on on every one of those issues because we are about building a sustainable society in this country, a society that is looking after the future, not looking over the shoulder to the past.

I say to the coalition senators: have a look at what is happening with the Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, in the UK, where there is a consensus of political views on the need to deal with climate change. It is only the Republicans in the Tea Party in the US and the Australian coalition, linked to One Nation and the Tea Party, that are opposing dealing with climate change in the interests of the nation.

The debate has been an absolute disgrace. The debate from the coalition side has been about fear campaigns. It is about denying the science. It is about being climate change sceptics and the worst thing is that people like Senator Birmingham who believe in climate change are running the same agenda of denial and opposition. I have to say, Senator Birmingham, it is worse coming from you because you know the truth on climate change. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Cameron for the lead-in, although I think it is high time to dispel some of the myths that Senator Cameron and others want to peddle, and they want to peddle them in this debate as much as they have in any other climate debates of recent times. First and foremost I want to dispel the myth that this is, somehow, still a debate about science. It is not a debate about science. Certainly, from my perspective, it is by no means a debate about science. As the coalition spokespeople and our leader keep reinforcing, time and time again, this is by no means a debate about science. It is not a debate about whether we should take action or not take action. By no means is it that. It is a debate about what action we should take, about what action is appropriate, and about the transparency, processes and mechanisms used to get to that action. These are the important attributes and aspects of this debate. It is not a science debate.

To answer the challenge that Senator Cameron threw up: I accept the science. I have said many times in this place before now that I am not a scientist. I am not a climate scientist. I look around me and I do not see any other climate scientists, or any scientists, in the room either. However, I acknowledge the balance of the science and accept that the world should be acting. I am disappointed, indeed, that the world is not acting in unison in the type of way that would allow far more effective action to be taken overall than can be taken in a world where we see very piecemeal commitments from most of the major emitting nations, nations far larger in the size or scope of their emissions than Australia.

Senator Cameron also wanted to talk about whether or not we could have green jobs and green industries. He cited the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, at length. The answer is yes, we can have those green jobs and those green industries. We can have them and we should have them, but we do not need to have a big new tax across the entire Australian economy to have them. What we need is to drive the type of targeted investment in those industries that is necessary to facilitate their growth and necessary to facilitate the investment and innovation that will get them into the state of efficiency where they can compete. We do not need taxes across everything in the belief that somehow that is going to drive innovation and investment in those sectors.

This debate is a contrast of stories. It is a contrast of the approaches of those who went to an election knowing what they were doing, knowing what they wanted to plan for, committing to it and still standing by it and of those who went to an election saying or doing anything and back-pedalling and backflipping as fast as they could after the election. If we look at the contrast, we see that the coalition went to the last election with the direct action policy that was released more than a year ago now. It remains our policy. At its heart remains the $10.5 billion emissions reduction fund. This policy is the bedrock of our plan. We took it to last year’s election. We are standing by it after last year’s election. No doubt we will finesse it as we approach the next election to make sure that it meets the needs for that election and beyond, but we stand by the approach, the plan and the mechanisms of our policy.

Contrast that with what the government did. They went to the last election having backflipped and back-pedalled on their policies during their term in office, having changed Prime Minister in unprecedented circumstances. They threw up a climate change convention, a random selection of punters from the white pages. They threw up a cash-for-clunkers scheme to get old cars off the roads. Those were their great climate change policies at the last election. And, of course, they made rock-solid, rolled gold promises that there would be no carbon tax. Their solution was the cash for clunkers and the talkfest of the convention. Those were the things they were going to do.

We on this side are still committed to our policy, whereas the government have ditched every single climate change initiative or policy they announced during the election. They have thrown them all out in favour of doing exactly what they said they would not do. Let us look back at some of the words of the Prime Minister, not the first and most often quoted words at present—I will come to those—but words she spoke in March 2009. At that time, she said:

I think when you go to an election and you give a promise to the Australian people, you should do everything in your power to honour that promise.

Well, she went to an election as the Leader of the Labor Party, as the incumbent Prime Minister, having rolled Mr Rudd to secure that job. During that election, on not one occasion, not two occasions but many occasions, she ruled out introducing a carbon tax. She point-blank ruled it out. In the days leading up to the election, she stared down the barrel of the television camera and spoke directly to the Australian people, as the media training had told her to do, and she said as she stared down that barrel:

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

It could not have been any more black and white. It could not have been any clearer. This was the promise she gave to the Australian people. If we go back to her earlier words, where she claimed ‘you should do everything in your power to honour that promise’, one has to wonder why she has not lived up to those words. She has done nothing in her power to honour that promise—nothing at all.

This Prime Minister has simply decided to overturn all that she said, to bail on it all, all on the false premise that somehow the new parliament has demanded it. But the new parliament did not demand it; the Prime Minister has offered it. That is what has occurred. The Prime Minister has offered it to this new parliament. She has offered it to the Greens. Indeed, if we take a look at exactly what the Greens have said in recent times, Senator Milne said, ‘We have ownership of this policy because it’s one that we proposed.’ Those are the words that Senator Milne has used since the glorious doorstop press conference announcement outside the Prime Minister’s office last Thursday, when we saw the Prime Minister, Minister Combet, Senator Brown, Senator Milne and two Independents from the other place all there patting each other on the back for an announcement of this almighty reversal of policy intention by a government.

The government stand condemned, because it is bad policy. It is policy that will cost Australian jobs, that will push prices up for Australian households and that will inflict pain. The government equally stand condemned because it is a policy they said they would not deliver. We stand by our policy, a policy that would deliver action on climate change but would do so without the negatives they impose. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor government has been clear before, during and the since the election that we want to tackle climate change, unlike those opposite. And the best way of doing this is through a price on carbon. We have never resiled from this position. Climate scientists worldwide are telling us that carbon pollution is contributing to climate change, and we as a government accept the climate science and accept that action is needed. We know it is not ‘absolute crap’, to quote the Leader of the Opposition—and, what is more, we are ready to take action.

There are many of us in this place—on this side, on the opposite side and on the crossbenches—who witnessed the government’s concerted, genuine effort in the previous parliament to address the issue of climate change. We even had support from those opposite for a while, until of course the far right of the Liberal Party got control and suddenly those who believed, those who supported addressing the very serious issue of climate change, appeared stone faced. Even as the debate was had in this chamber today there were those opposite who looked very uncomfortable—I will not name them; they know who they are—because, despite the argument they are now putting forward, they know that putting a price on carbon will cut pollution and it will drive investment in clean energy. They know that a carbon price is the cheapest and fairest way to reduce pollution and invest in clean energy—it is just not their policy.

Last week the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Minister Combet, spoke of the scare tactics used by the opposition in relation to a carbon price. I agree with the minister that the tactics of those opposite are completely unprincipled—not only that; in fact, they look prehistoric when it comes to climate change. They bury their heads in the sand and refuse to accept the need to deliver essential economic reform to propel our nation’s move towards a clean-energy future. It is a fact that those opposite are putting all their energy—very inefficiently, I might add—into scare tactics to make sure nothing changes in Australia and that we plod along the same route, oblivious to the perils of climate change.

In the past few days the opposition, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, have been out there trying to mislead Australians about this important debate. But that should not surprise anyone: he is just continuing his mission to stop, wreck, destroy and mislead. In stark contrast the Gillard government is committed to tackling climate change and promoting investment in clean energy. For the second time today I say: we are prepared to do the hard yards.

So why are the opposition so flustered about this issue? It is because the Gillard government has released its plan to cut pollution, tackle climate change and deliver the economic reform Australia desperately needs to move to a clean-energy future. Our plan makes the opposition look like they mingle with hairy mammoths rather than belonging to modern-day Australia. Our two-stage plan for a carbon price mechanism will start with a fixed price period for three to five years before transitioning to an emissions trading scheme. A carbon price is a price on pollution. It is the cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution and build a clean-energy economy. The best way to stop businesses polluting and get them to invest in clean energy is to charge them when they pollute. The businesses with the highest levels of pollution will have a very strong incentive to reduce their pollution. We will propose that the carbon price commences on 1 July 2012, subject to the ability to negotiate agreement with a majority in both houses of parliament and pass legislation this year. The government will then use the money raised—and this is a very important point—to assist families with household bills, help businesses make the transition to a clean-energy economy and tackle climate change. The government will not shy away from this difficult but vital economic reform to move Australia to a clean-energy nation.

The Australian economy is an emissions-intensive economy. The terrible reality is that  Australia is one of the largest carbon polluters per capita in the world. We emit around 27 tonnes of carbon pollution for every person every year. The US emits around 24 tonnes per person and China emits less than seven tonnes per person. India emits under four tonnes per person. The 2010 Intergenerational Report highlights that, without action to combat climate change, Australia’s GDP will fall by eight per cent by 2100. No responsible government can ignore these findings, which is why we are making a start to reducing carbon pollution now. A carbon price mechanism is the key to our economic transformation and reducing our carbon pollution. It is an interim first step towards an emissions trading scheme. A carbon price is not only an important economic reform; it is the right thing to do. Those opposite can call it what they want, but we call it essential.

A carbon price is also the least costly, most efficient way of reducing carbon pollution in our economy and driving investment in clean energy. As the Prime Minister pointed out, the opposition know that a carbon price has not been announced, nor has the household assistance package, but there they are out there throwing made-up figures around, doing what they do best: scaremongering. Businesses and the economy can rely on a stable, predictable price on carbon for the first few years to ensure a smooth transition to a clean-energy economy.

Sadly for the opposition, it seems members of the public are more up-to-date with the need for action on climate change than those who sit opposite. Interestingly, a constituent rang my electorate office in Adelaide today to pass on a message. This is what she told my staff:

We accept that pumping pollution into the sea has negative effects, we accept that pumping pollution into soil has negative effects, yet the opposition seem unwilling to accept that pumping pollution into the air has negative effects.

I think there was a lot of that going on today. The fact is that 32 countries and 10 US states already have emissions trading schemes in operation, with many more moving towards a low-pollution economy. In a global economy which is moving to cut pollution, we must not be left behind, because it will hurt our economy and cost us jobs. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance and, unfortunately, express my great concern about the government’s continued and flagrant breaches of its promises—in this case, the Prime Minister’s clear and unequivocal promise not to introduce a carbon tax. In the words of the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, ‘This Prime Minister has never met a tax she didn’t hike.’

Australians would be forgiven for beginning to think that this Prime Minister struggles to make a promise that she does not later want to break. Why? It is pretty simple: because the government may be in government but they are not in power. They are not in power when it comes to environmental policies and climate change policies; the Greens are in power. They are in government but they are not in power when it comes to workplace relations. Senator Cameron dares to stand in here and say that his party, the government, have stood up for workers. No they have not. What a joke. The only organisation or group that the Labor government have stood up for when it comes to workplaces is the union movement. The government are in government but they ain’t in power in Australian workplaces. The union movement is in power, clear and simple.

And what about the National Broadband Network and NBN Co., a government business enterprise? What sort of scrutiny is that supposed to be subject to? Not much according to the very well-paid—although he donates some of it to charity—boss of NBN Co., Mike Quigley. He is starting to reckon that he is subject to too much scrutiny. Again, the Labor government may be in government but they are not in power when it comes to the National Broadband Network, the greatest infrastructure spend in the history of this country. No, that venture is starting to look like it is in the power of NBN Co., and its head, Mike Quigley.

Returning to the environment and the carbon tax, who was at the photo opportunity in the Prime Minister’s courtyard when the government announced its backflip on the carbon tax? Well, there were as many Greens members as there were government members. There were six people there: the Prime Minister, Minister Combet, Senator Bob Brown, Senator Milne, Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor. There were as many Greens as there were government members. And Senator Milne said that the creation of the climate change committee was a Greens idea and the Greens had ownership of the carbon scheme because it is ‘the one we ourselves put on the table’. So the Greens are dictating policy to the government. The government is the government but the Greens are in power and they are claiming credit, again, for a backflip and broken promise by the government.

And take a look at the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. Senator Milne is deputy chair, Senator Bob Brown is a member and the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, is assisting the committee. When you add the number of Greens to the Independents, they can outvote the government on the government’s own committee. The government is not in power; the Greens are in power.

In Australia’s workplaces you do not have to look very far to see that unions are being implanted in workplaces. We only need one member at a workplace before a union is implanted at the bargaining table. There is pretty much unfettered right of entry for union officials to Australia’s workplaces, and the union movement is saying: ‘You know this genuine, good-faith bargaining; what that actually means, Prime Minister, is that, unless an employer is prepared to actually reach a collective agreement, there is no genuine bargaining. There is no good-faith bargaining.’ What is the point of trying to define good-faith bargaining when you have a union movement saying to this Prime Minister, ‘The only way you can be shown to be bargaining in good faith, Prime Minister, is if we actually manage to strong arm an employer into a collective agreement.’ Look no further than the building industry, where the CFMEU is claiming a 24 per cent wage hike over four years. They have the temerity to not even talk about productivity gains in exchange for it.

The Prime Minister kind of pretends she is staring the union movement down by hanging on to the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, just for that little bit longer. But she knows she is going to bring it to an end. The union movement, and in particular the CFMEU, have been emboldened by the election of the Labor government and they will make sure that the building industry goes back to where it was before the creation of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner—if the Prime Minister proceeds to pare back and ultimately abolish the building industry cop.

Regarding the National Broadband Network, Mr Quigley was reported in the Australian Financial Review in an extensive interview he did with that paper. He said: ‘The NBN Co. could become dysfunctional if it has to report to too many politicians and oversight committees and bureaucracies. There comes a point at which it just kind of becomes dysfunctional. Every man and his dog oversighting the place.’ Well, Mr Quigley, get used to a government business enterprise and that being transparent and accountable to the Australian people.

Regarding the carbon tax, we were not going to have one and now we are going to have one. Is petrol in or is petrol out? This government is doing a dance with the Greens and the Independents. Well, let’s do the hokey-pokey: let’s put the petrol in, let’s take the petrol out, let’s put the petrol in and let’s shake it all about—or shake the Greens about and see if we can change Christine Milne’s mind. And whilst we are at it let’s turn the Greens right around. (Time expired)

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

I do not know what to say. I rise this evening to speak on this matter of public importance and to reiterate the Gillard Labor government’s commitment to take action on climate change. For the past three years, this government has been serious about implementing legislation to help reduce our carbon emissions. As a senator from the state of Queensland, I know what is at stake if nothing is done. Many people rely on tourism in my state. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the natural wonders of the world and something that we could lose if we do not change our ways. Without the reef, we will lose the beautiful coral and marine life that thousands of people flock to see every year. We will lose our tourism industry, which contributes $6.9 billion to Australian economy each year and 53,000 jobs. Through rising sea levels, we will lose our golden beaches to erosion. In addition, if temperatures continue to rise, it will affect those with sensitive health, including our elderly. Rising temperatures will also affect our agricultural industry, which I am sure that Senator ‘Wacka’ would support. We would also see tropical diseases and pests spread around our nation, which would be detrimental to our health.

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

Senator Furner, I am sorry, but I need to remind you about using the correct names of senators during your contribution.

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

I am sorry; I will withdraw that, Senator Williams. He approaches me in that exchange, but that is fine. To continue, this is why we need to act and why this government is serious about getting the job done.

In our 42nd Parliament, I was fortunate to part of a Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the exposure drafts of the legislation to implement the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy. In the latter, we heard from all walks of life, including leading scientists, trade unions, government department staff, industrial associations, businesses, community organisations and economists on climate change. The Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy received more than 8,000 submissions. Ten hearings were held around the country and 188 witnesses presented their views on the CPRS.

This level of involvement goes to show that many people are talking about this issue and many believe that action needs to be taken. Throughout this inquiry, climate scientists told us that human activity is posing a great threat to the physical wellbeing of planet Earth. From what we heard over those 10 days, government senators recommended that the government must act on climate change. Unfortunately, those opposite were against the policy, and we saw the bill fail to pass the Senate.

However, the opposition and Mr Abbott operate that way. Their mentality is ‘just say no’. We saw the former Leader of the Opposition Mr Turnbull come to the table to discuss action on climate change and senators willing to cross the floor and vote with the government with amendments. We saw the sacking of that leader, and someone who describes climate change as ‘absolute crap’ took the leadership of the coalition. Five months ago even opposition Treasury spokesperson Joe Hockey said: ‘Inevitably, we’ll have a price on carbon … we’ll have to.’

The Labor government is committed to tackling climate change and moving Australian into a greener economy. We believe that a carbon price mechanism is the right way to move forward with this. If passed, the scheme would come into effect on 1 July 2012. We will have a fixed price period for three to five years before transitioning to an emissions trading scheme. By introducing a carbon price mechanism, we are introducing a price on pollution. This will help reduce the amount of emissions businesses are emitting and help them to invest in cleaner energy alternatives. Businesses that are the highest polluters will be encouraged to seek greener alternatives and therefore emissions will be reduced.

All money raised by the government with this scheme will be given back to the community through household assistance and measures to help businesses become green. While the framework has been released for this, the government will be working with the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to work out the specifics of a carbon price. The specifics which need to be established include the carbon price and the assistance that will be provided to businesses and households during this transition to a cleaner economy. Before we went to the election, the Labor Party were supportive of taking action on climate change. In our last term, we tried on three occasions to pass our emissions trading scheme legislation but were denied by both the opposition and the Greens.

In 1996, John Howard promised to never introduce a goods and services tax. He said:

Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia.

In 1999, the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 was introduced, and it came into effect in 2000.

On 27 September, the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee was established by the Prime Minister to explore options on implementing a carbon price. Having the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee involved in the process will ensure that this policy will have input from all members who wish to be involved. This committee will also be supported by expert advisers, including economist Professor Ross Garnaut, who conducted the Garnaut review. Professor Garnaut found that if we sit here and do nothing then the expected rise in temperature will be damaging to our environment and to our economy.

Even without seeing the particulars of this policy, Mr Abbott has already condemned it. The coalition have been using their usual scare tactics to tell the public that putting a price on carbon will drive up the costs of living. We know that electricity prices have been climbing in the past three years. But these prices are set to increase with or without a carbon price. According to the Australian Industry Group CEO, Heather Ridout:

While much concern has focused on carbon pricing, energy prices are going up significantly with or without it. Some of those cost drivers could be reduced by a well-designed carbon price. This could eliminate the policy uncertainty that is damaging investment in new electricity generation.

The government expects pricing to increase under this program but items which are manufactured by greener methods should be cheaper, and the Labor government will ensure that any impact felt by our working families will be combated by household assistance.

In closing, rather than talk about doing the hokey-pokey or something ridiculous—as the previous speaker did—I say that it is about time the coalition got out of their Neanderthal caves and got on board with the implementation of a policy that is going to help our economy and help our future environment.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Furner, you might as well do the hokey-pokey. When Australia produces 1.4 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases—550 million tonnes approximately—you are going to bring on a tax to reduce it by how much? Let us say 100 million tonnes. Let us say that Australia’s production is going to go from 550 million tonnes back to 450 million tonnes. In the meantime, India and China alone by 2020 will be producing another five billion tonnes—‘b’ for billion—and our 100 million tonnes is going to save the Great Barrier Reef and save the world! This is outrageous.

But let us get back to the whole crunch of this matter of public importance and what the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, said. Let me give you some quotes. My colleague Senator Birmingham has already quoted this. Ms Gillard, in an interview with Jon Faine on 20 March 2009, said:

I think when you go to an election and you give a promise to the Australian people, you should do everything in your power to honour that promise. We are determined to do that. We gave our word to the Australian people in the election, and this is a government that prides itself on delivering election promises. We want Australians to be able to say well, they’ve said this and they did this.

Is that true? No, it is false. Another quote from Ms Gillard comes from the ABC’s Lateline on 16 June 2009:

We’re always there delivering our election promises. That’s important to us. And we’re always there acting in the national interest.

I can give you more. At a press conference on 20 March 2009, Ms Gillard said:

…we will deliver in full the election promise we took to the Australian people—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly, Senator Nash: but. We know what happened prior to the 21 August election: the promise that a Gillard government would not bring in a price on carbon—a carbon tax.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you say that again, Senator Williams?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just prior to 21 August, Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister, said, ‘We will not bring in a carbon tax.’ I quote Ms Gillard again:

Look, we’ve said we would work through options in good faith at the committee …

A committee was formed after the election, and they were going towards an understanding that Mr Windsor would seek to participate in that committee as they prepared to break their election promise. The journalist asked, ‘So you’re not ruling it out then?’ Gillard replied:

Well look, you know I just think the rule-in, rule-out games are a little bit silly.

That is a comment made by Ms Gillard on 16 September 2010. Let me quote the Treasurer, Mr Wayne Swan, on the carbon tax:

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

That was on The 7.30 Report on the ABC on 12 August 2010. The journalist asked, ‘Can you tell us exactly when Labor will apply a price on carbon?’ Mr Swan replied:

Certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax. …We reject that.

On Channel 10, on 15 August, came the statement ‘There will be no carbon tax.’

I will give you one example of what this tax will do. Our cement industry produces 10 million tonnes of cement in Australia each year. For every tonne of cement, we produce 0.8 of a tonne of greenhouse gas. So the industry produces 10 million tonnes of cement and 0.8 million tonnes of CO2. We also import two million tonnes of cement. In China, where they produce more than a billion tonnes of cement every year, they produce 1.1 tonnes of greenhouse gas per tonne of cement. While Australia’s 10 million tonnes of cement produce eight million tonnes of greenhouse gas, 10 million tonnes in China will produce 11 million tonnes of greenhouse gas. So what are we going to do? If the Greens get their way, this industry—$26 a tonne, eight million tonnes of greenhouse gas, 14 factories, more than 1,800 jobs plus all the truckies and transporters and everyone who relies on the industry—will have $16 million of tax on it. Goodbye, cement industry. Goodbye 10 million tonnes of cement and eight million tonnes of gas. We will then import it from China, where it produces 11 million tonnes of gas. And this is going to save the Barrier Reef. This is going to lower sea levels. This is going to cool the climate.

This proposal is absolutely outrageous—putting a tax on energy and on industry, costing jobs. You people in the Labor Party—the 26 of you out of the 32 senators in the Labor Party who have come from the union movement—will be held accountable when those jobs are gone, when those people lose their industry and their jobs are transferred overseas. They will look to the Labor Party and say: ‘You are so weak you were run over by the Greens. The Greens rule you, the Greens will continue to rule you and you will destroy those industries. (Time expired)

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

Order! The time for discussion of the matter of public importance has expired.