Stephen Parry (Tasmania, 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 Government's continued failure to release the full details of its broken carbon tax promise for parliamentary and public security.

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—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, might I also congratulate you on your appointment to the lofty heights of the chair. It is interesting how the Labor Party is always leading us down these paths of half-truths and half-lies—the quandary of what is the Labor Party. Yesterday, merely a day ago, we heard the Prime Minister of this great nation stroll up and say that she is going to protect fuel from a carbon tax. What she should have been saying is that she is going to protect her own people from her own policy. The Australian people already have no carbon tax on fuel. The Prime Minister is not giving them anything that they have not already got. They are not afflicted with the problems of a carbon tax. Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister of Australia, is saying that she is not going to endow the Australian people with her tax—that she is not going to inflict on the Australian people her tax. That was merely a day ago, and now a day later we find that she is going to put a tax on fuel. She has only been telling us half the story. You see, they are going to be putting a tax on fuel for big business but they have not actually told us yet what big business is. Who are these big businesses who are going to have the tax on fuel? Which ones are they? How big do you have to be before you are big enough for Julia to tax you? That is the question that is on everybody's lips: how big do you have to be before you are big enough for Julia, the Prime Minister, to tax you? We do not know.

Wayne Swan got out there and talked about a 'battler buffer'. It sounded like a toy. I do not know what a battler buffer is—sounds like something you buy in Fyshwick. Apparently the battler buffer is only going to happen in certain areas. It seems that the battler buffer might not be there if you are a bit too big. If you are big, you are going to be exempt from the battler buffer—you are actually going to have to pay the tax.

So which companies are we talking about? Are we going to have the transport com­panies—do they pay the tax? If the transport companies pay the tax, what does that mean? Obviously it means the tax is on fuel. What about the bus companies—are they going to pay the tax? If so, it is going to be on tickets. What about diesel? What about farming? Is it going to be on farming? Are they going to have an amendment on excise so that it is on farming? That is another little unanswered query, a point of pondering: is it going to be on farming?

And how does this actually work, seeing that it is not on fuel? The Prime Minister, nearly a day ago, said that it was not on fuel. Does that mean that it is now exempt for refining? They use a lot of power in refining: are they going to say to the refining companies that they are not going to have to pay the carbon tax? I think that it probably will be on refining. Then, 24 hours later, we find that indirectly it is on fuel. What about those dens of iniquity, the fuel stations—those terrible places? Are they going to be exempt from the carbon tax? Quite obviously not. They are going to be paying the carbon tax, the refiners are going to be paying the carbon tax, the people who transport the fuel are going to be paying the carbon tax and, if you are big enough, it is going to be on the fuel itself. What a marvellous promise! What an endowment the Prime Minister has given us! In fact, it starts to become hard to understand who is not going to be paying the carbon tax on fuel. And the answer, of course, is that everybody in Australia is going to be paying the carbon tax on fuel.

Mr Windsor has done an absolutely superlative job. He has managed to get a carbon tax on fuel. Maybe he was not paying attention or maybe he does know and does not want to tell us. It is always a mystery. Every day Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott re-endorse this Labor Party. Every day they say that this is the way to go; this is the way to govern. Every day we see Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott doing such things as voting in support of the Labor Party's ban on the live cattle trade, even though the vast majority of the electorate actually have cattle. So it is a wondrous new world we live in.

I was interested today to observe the Greens. As you know, we have seen the corsage in Bob Brown's lapel when he signed the book—when he signed the register with Julia Gillard with all the attendants—the maid of honour and the best man—standing beside them as they signed the register for this new wondrous form of government. Now they pretend that they are separated—living in the same house but separated, sleeping in different rooms. But it is all a farce. If they are not together then let's call it divorce. Let's throw the party. Let's change the government.

But they are together and the Greens, you see, want the tax on fuel. They think fuel is too cheap. They believe that the price of fuel should go up just as the price of power is going to go up. They believe that the Aust­ralian people are doing it too easy at the moment and need to pay more. I never knew carbon was free; I never knew coal was free; I never knew fuel was free. There is already a price on carbon, a massive price, a price that so many people in the Australian community cannot afford right now. What is their answer to that? We see the Greens, we see Senator Rhiannon, saying that in 10 years time Sydney has to be carbon free. I do not know what they are going to do with the wooden furniture; that is going to be hard. I do not know what a carbon-free Sydney looks like—no fuel stations and no cars. Electric trains are run by power and power is made by coal—so no electric trains. What a marvellous world this is going to look like.

How are they going to actually make any money? How do they pay for all this? Do we print the money or do we just borrow it? No-one is going to lend it to us, because there is no way that we can live. We have no real relevance. As Senator Madigan has said, a country that does not make anything or grow anything is a country of nobodies, and that looks like what they are going to try to turn us into—a country of nobodies with massive debts.

So we have a peculiar state of affairs. Before the election Ms Gillard said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and, straightaway after she got in, the government she leads has a carbon tax. Nearly 24 hours ago she said that there will be no carbon tax on fuel. She made the announcement. She credited Mr Windsor. He is 'a wonderful man': 'He saved you from me.' Then we found out that even that is not true. There is a carbon tax on fuel. There is a direct one on the big fuel users—and who knows what 'big' is? We are about to find out. It is in that secret multiparty discussion of the Greens and the Labor Party and the Independents. There is a tax on fuel and there is an indirect tax on everybody.

So this is the world we have been led to. This is what is in front of us. What will happen, of course, is that fuel prices will go up. Maybe they will have Fuelwatch on that. We will be able to watch them go up in a voyeuristic expose of what they are doing to the standard of living. And we will be able to ask Mr Swan, the Treasurer of Australia, how the battler buffer is going, how it is making him feel and whether it is making him feel excited. We do not quite know what is happening with the battler buffer, but these issues will be before us. What promises are going to be broken in the next couple of days? How ridiculous does this government have to get? How absurd does our nation have to become? How much more bizarre can it get than it is already? What more could they possibly do to make our nation a complete and utter pythonesque fiasco? It is incredible. Instead of business trying to glean what they can from various incomplete news reports, this is incompetence from the incompetence of this government.

It is going to be an interesting couple of days. We have all come back here to stroke the ego of our new colleagues on the left side of me here, who talk about themselves as being the majority. That means that we must be in the minority and that they must be part of the government. They are part of the government that has closed down the live cattle trade, the government that has engaged in the brick-through-the-window diplomacy with our nearest neighbour and the government that has had oversight of the closure of the Murray-Darling Basin, as they agreed 7,600 gigalitres have to go from the Murray-Darling Basin. Now with the carbon tax they want to close down everything in between. That is the new world we are living in.

I was fascinated to see today the Greens turn up one after the other in their own cars. I thought they would have been riding here on pushbikes, unicycles and horses, but no, they all took a car to the Senate today.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance debate on a carbon tax highlights the void that exists in the opposition's policy formulation. On examination, the policy formulation and constructive debate from those opposite, I am sad to report, is severely lacking. I think that was amply displayed today by Senator Joyce as he went on a frolic in his contribution to this matter of public importance debate. I think that the opposition putting these sorts of debates up highlights exactly where they are coming from. They do not believe in climate change. That is one of the reasons why they have a policy that does not work. Of course, from the contribution of Senator Joyce we now know he is not taking it seriously.

Unfortunately, this lack of policy and constructive debate is nothing new from those opposite. Catchy slogans, misinform­ation and scare campaigns have taken the place of legitimate public policy debate. It appears that the only policy in the opposition's cupboard is negativity. It is extremely disappointing that the sole policy focus that those opposite seem to pursue is to oppose everything. Time and time again we are confronted by an opposition led by a leader renowned for his negativity and lack of policy detail. He does not seem interested in engaging in positive policy debates.

Again, last week we were exposed to Mr Abbott's true colours. In what can only be described as a political stunt gone wrong, Mr Abbott proposed a $70 million opinion poll through the use of a plebiscite. Let us not forget that, even if a plebiscite were agreed to by the parliament and then voted on by the Australian people, Mr Abbott was going to totally ignore the results. This exposed the plebiscite for exactly what it was—a political stunt that fell flat in a day. I think this move to introduce a plebiscite exposes exactly who the opposition are—an alternative government totally devoid of public policy ideas. This lack of policy detail stands in stark contrast to this government, which believes in climate change and which is taking action on climate change by placing a price on carbon. Placing a price on carbon is placing a price on pollution. It is the cheapest and most effective way for us to build a clean energy future. The carbon price will apply to the 1,000 biggest polluters in our economy. As the government has stated previously, all of the revenue from the carbon price will be used to provide house­holds with generous assistance packages, which I will touch on later in my contribution, to support jobs and to invest in clean energy.

Those opposite need to accept that the broad coverage of the economy using a market mechanism, like a carbon price or an emissions trading scheme, is the cheapest way to reduce emissions. The market based approach we have outlined was endorsed by the Productivity Commission as recently as 9 June 2011, in their report Carbon emission policies in key economies, and is the best way forward for Australia. Unlike the direct action regulatory approach of those opposite, a market based approach is endorsed internationally. In fact, that same Produc­tivity Commission report showed us that countries around the globe are implementing policies to reduce emissions and transform their economies. Seven of our top 10 trading partners have adopted emissions reduction policies. The report also shows that there are over 1,000 policies in operation in selected countries aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

In spite of this compelling evidence of global action on climate change, along with the bulk of the climate science, those opposite still insist that climate change is not real or is not caused by human activity. The best they can offer is a direct action policy, which will involve higher costs to the budget, have a greater impact on prices and create higher taxes over time. Their plan is not to assist households either. All their policy does is shirk responsibility for taking effective action on climate change.

In contrast, the government's plan to price carbon will ensure Australia transitions to a clean energy economy in a way which fits within our economic context and that assists households and businesses. Australia's carbon price will not include the agricultural sector, but our scheme will cover the resource sector. That is the best fit for our economy. The Prime Minister has also announced in recent days that there will be no carbon price on any fuels, including petrol, diesel and LPG, for passenger motor vehicles and light commercial vehicles. At his recent address to the National Press Club, the Treasurer, Mr Wayne Swan, released a snapshot of the Treasury's carbon price modelling and, whilst the details of the carbon price package are still being worked out, we know that, under a theoretical carbon price of $20 per tonne, our economy would still grow solidly as we make deep cuts to carbon pollution.

That modelling also showed employment would continue to grow with the introduction of a carbon price, with Australia on track to increase our national employment by 1.6 million jobs by 2020. We have also had modelling that suggests that the demand for low-emissions goods and services will increase dramatically with a price on carbon. This would lead to stronger growth in the less emissions intensive and renewable sectors.

As we have made clear time and time again, the Labor government is committed to taking action on climate change—evidence based appropriate action that is in Australia's best interest. That action is a carbon price mechanism. The government will assist households as well as industry when that price is introduced. As the Treasurer has outlined, around nine out of 10 Australian households will receive some assistance for their household budgets. In fact, the vast majority of those seven million households will not be a single cent worse-off under the carbon price. Low- and middle-income earners as well as pensioners will be the focus of the government's assistance package as these are the people most exposed to cost-of-living pressures. These low-income earners—over three million households—will receive a buffer of up to 20 per cent in tax cuts and payments over and above meeting the price impact of the carbon price. The government also recognises that self-funded retirees will need support. That is why we will be providing financial help for around 280,000 self-funded retirees equal to the extra payments we will provide to over three million pensioners, part-pensioners and carers.

The key point to take from the assistance package is that it will be the top 1,000 biggest polluters who will pay, and the revenue from that will assist households—unlike the scheme proposed by those opposite. The coalition's direct action policy would have the taxpayer footing the bill and subsidising big polluters. Mr Abbott does not believe in climate change, which is why, as I have said before, he has a policy that does not work. In stark contrast, the Labor government is engaging in effective policy formulation through the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, which is hard at work on the details of the carbon price package. The plan is to introduce a mechanism on 1 July 2012.

The carbon price will operate with a fixed price. After this time it is our intention to move to an emissions trading scheme. We know that the best way to stop businesses from polluting is to charge them every time they pollute so that businesses themselves will begin to invest in, and transition to, clean energy. We know that we have to act now to try and prevent the devastating impact of climate change. If we do not act now, the climate science is clear that we will see more extreme weather events such as bushfires and droughts, we will have more days of extreme heat and our coastlines will flood as sea levels rise.

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

Thank you, Senator Brown. Senator Bernardi, there may be no left turn for you, but thank you for patiently awaiting your turn, given my premature call a little earlier.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. You were very generous in extending those extra seconds to Senator Brown for her less than impassioned plea on behalf of justifying this government's deceit and deception of the Australian people. It is quite an extraordinary thing to hear a less than impassioned defence of one of the government's key policies—and I notice that Senator Brown was reading from prepared notes from the Prime Minister's office. She is defending this Prime Minister when the simple fact is that we cannot believe a single word that your Prime Minister says because she has lied repeatedly to the Australian people. This is a gross deception and it is characterised by your choice of language, to start with.

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

Senator Bernardi, would you care to withdraw your reflection on the Prime Minister.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw my remark that the Prime Minister lied, because it is unparliamentary. But there is no question that the Prime Minister did not tell the truth to the Australian people, just like those opposite are not telling the truth to the Australian people now—and that is characterised by the choice of language that Senator Brown has repeated again today: 'carbon pollution'. This has nothing whatsoever to do with carbon; it is about carbon dioxide. There is a very significant difference, and that is lost on the other side. This is the same crew that say this is somehow pollution, notwithstanding the fact that only last week the US Supreme Court said carbon dioxide is not pollution. I can accept that it is pollution in the sense that they are exhaling it on that side of the chamber—as we all are—but that does not justify the words they continue to use.

This is a tragedy, because the deception that is being played out on the Australian people is being compounded again and again and again. It is characterised by the fraudulent use of language—the misrepre­sen­tation of an environmental scheme that is going to do absolutely nothing for the environment—and the simple fact that the Prime Minister will not reveal any detail.

Senator Brown and other speakers say we are going to have compensation packages and there is not going to be any tax on fuel. But we cannot believe a word the Prime Minister says. She said she would have a citizens' assembly—but that is gone, ditched, out the window. She said there was going to be no carbon tax under a government she leads—but that has gone out the window. She said Kevin Rudd had her full support—oops, sorry, that was right! She convinced Kevin Rudd to ditch the emissions trading scheme and then she knifed Kevin Rudd and did him in as well. The Australian people are right not to trust this government and particularly this Prime Minister because we have been deceived again and again and again. This policy development of the Labor administration is a shoot first, aim later program: 'We need a policy. Gosh, we've got to announce something enormous. We will do that. Oh my goodness, the consequences of what we have done are devastating!' And they continue to shift the target and change it as they go along. How else can we believe that they are going to create 1.4 million jobs by taxing the Australian economy? That beggars belief. It does not pass the common-sense test. How can they say that this is a tax on 1,000 big polluting companies but they do not expect the costs to be passed on to consumers? It is a tax on every single taxpayer in this country.

How can we believe this government when it said all the money—and it did say 'all the money'—raised by this tax was going compensate people for their behaviour? That has been mitigated now to about 50 per cent of the money raised. It has not detailed how much it is going to send off to the United Nations to be redistributed around some of the most corrupt regimes in the world. This is a government that has no idea of the detail of policy development and how it is going to affect the Australian economy. It has no idea because it really does not want to know. Its whole ambition is to cling to power, to keep itself in government, to pedal furiously so that it looks like it is doing something and hope that the Australian people will not wake up to this and the consequences of it before it is too late.

I could give the benefit of the doubt to the government and say that perhaps their intentions are good, but by their own admis­sion—by their own parliamentary secretaries, by their own ministers—they have said that this is not going to make one cracker of a difference to the environment. When challenged, 'How much is the temperature going to drop by?' they say it is not going to drop. Mark Dreyfus wrote a letter the other day saying 'No, it's not going to change the temperature one iota.' Even their own paid spruiker, the alarmist of the year, Tim Flannery, who has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultancy fees from the government, has said that it is not going to make any difference. What are we doing it for? That is the simple question.

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

That is not true. Get the facts.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask Senator Pratt, who is obviously going to get up in a minute and prattle on, to disclose exactly how much the temperature is going to drop under their carbon tax and their emissions trading scheme. I ask you, Senator Pratt: if you are so proud of the detail in your policy development and how effective it is going to be, to tell me what price is going to be put on carbon. What price is the tax going to come in at? What compensation will there be for pensioners? If you cannot answer these questions, Senator Pratt, you are not worthy of standing in this chamber and defending such an idiotic policy as this carbon tax. The reason I know you cannot answer these questions is that none of you has any idea. You have not got a clue about what is going on. You are in the dark. You are like mushrooms pushing themselves up through the mess that has been left behind by the factional stooges.

The problem is that you might well push your way through the mess but the stink is going to stay with you forever. The stink is going to stay with the Labor Party forever and a day because you have proved yourselves to be inept. All of you have proved yourselves to have endorsed a Prime Minister that has been the most deceitful and deceptive Prime Minister we have ever had. You know I did not have any personal rapprochement with Kevin Rudd and I know that all of you dislike Kevin Rudd more than I do, but that is not the point. At least when Kevin Rudd said something you could almost believe him, unlike the current Prime Minister.

When it comes to policy, and effective policy, it is always the detail that brings people undone. It is not the great first lie, it is the detail and the subsequent lies that follow, and this is what we have found with this government. We know that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted. We know that the Treasurer has no idea what he is doing and talking about most of the time. We know he cannot be relied upon to give a straight­forward answer either. We know that, amongst the shadow ministry, they do not have much input into what is going on—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ministry!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon, the ministry, you are quite right. It will be the shadow ministry one time soon, Senator Collins, don't worry about that! When a government is so untrustworthy it looks for any sort of beacon of hope. We know that the Labor Party has now clung to the Greens as its beacon of hope. It thinks that if it aligns itself with the Greens it can somehow achieve some notoriety. When we see a government pursuing an ideological extremist agenda that is not going to have any impact in a policy sense on its desired outcome, when we know that the govern­ment is captive to any sort of extreme flank or pressure from an extremist lobby group like the Greens, we know that the Australian people are suffering a gross disservice.

I have no doubt that it is only a matter of time before this government is thrown out. I only hope that it will be thrown out well before this obnoxious, ill-advised, ill-considered and, quite frankly, deceptive tax is imposed upon the Australian people. Make no mistake: it will not have any impact on the environment. It will not create jobs. This just beggars belief. It will not do any of the things that the government claims, except take $12 billion out of the pockets of Australia's mums and dads and put it in the government's pockets for them to lord around and hand out largess as they see fit—including the funding of Kevin Rudd's promotion to the United Nations in the years ahead. Make no mistake: that is what they want more than anything else. Sorry, that is the second thing they want more than anything else—they want to get rid of Mr Kevin Rudd but they also want to cling to power. They think that by handing money back to taxpayers they can somehow ingratiate themselves with taxpayers.

I put to the Australian people that this is a fallacy. The Australian people have wised up to big government. They know it is wrong. They know this government is wrong. It cannot be trusted and, accordingly, it will be thrown out at the next election.

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

I acknowledge Senator Bernardi's somewhat pointless contribution to the climate change debate in this matter of public importance. As a climate change sceptic, he clearly has no imperative to help Australian households, businesses or our climate adapt to a carbon constrained future. Even though sceptics are very much discredited in this debate, he still sees fit to put these views forward. Clearly, as a senator in this chamber, he has the right to do so. What he expresses is certainly not in the national interest. I certainly know that many of his colleagues on that side of the chamber do not agree with him.

Frankly, it makes me very happy to have this timeslot in the MPI debate to yet again open it up to talk about the importance of acting on climate change. I am very happy to stand here and talk about the important work being done to get this policy formulation right before the details are completely announced. There is nothing wrong with working through the detail and taking the time to do that, but there is a lot of important detail already on the table and there is more to come. I make no apology for the import­ance of working through the premises.

We know that the 1,000 largest polluters should be paying every time they pollute under a carbon price. We also know that the government has committed to using every cent raised through putting a price on carbon to get our biggest polluters to pay for providing the household assistance to help with family budgets, protect jobs and businesses as they make the transition to a clean energy economy, tackle climate change and invest in new, clean technology. This stands in stark contrast to the kinds of policies we see the Liberals put in place, including the policies of the Barnett govern­ment in Western Australia. They are cutting the feed-in tariff from 40c to 20c from 1 July. We have also seen massive electricity increases. We have had the fifth price increase in less than three years. There is a five per cent increase hitting now. There has been a total increase of nearly 50 per cent since 2009 in Western Australian electricity bills. But there have been no offsets for those households—there has been no care factor whatsoever—whereas we know that in pricing carbon we need to help households adjust to any price impact, and that is why we will provide generous household assistance to help with family budgets.

We know, for example, that as part of the assistance package the Australian com­munity will get more than 50 per cent of the money collected from big polluters. That will go straight to households. We also know that petrol will be—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's the carbon price, then? You must know if—

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

No. I said that we know that it is 50 per cent of the money collected. It is going to depend on how much money is collected. This means millions of households are, in fact, going to be better off and they will be able to invest in reducing their energy consumption and pocket the difference. Most importantly, we know this assistance will be permanent. I do not see why you are calling on us to rush this. When people see it, when they are taken through the detail, this package will win people's confidence. A price on carbon is a price on pollution. It will make dirty energy more expensive and clean energy—like solar, gas and wind—cheaper, as it should. It is only going to apply to the biggest polluters in our economy—fewer than 1,000—and they will have to pay for the pollution that they emit. This is the most effective and cheapest way for us to build a clean energy economy.

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

They won't pass it on—no.

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

Of course they are going to pass it on, but they need an incentive. They will pass some of it on and they can reduce their costs. That is why we have a transition package. That is why we help households adjust. That is why we have a transition package for those industries to be able to adjust. It is a market mechanism. A price on carbon is a price on pollution. It is the most effective and cheapest way for us to build a clean energy economy.

No-one is denying the fundamentals of what this looks like. We know that all revenue from a carbon price will be used to provide households with fair and generous assistance. It will support jobs in the most effective industries and will support investment in clean energy. It is about making the economy transition. It is about helping households transition. It is critically important to this nation's future. It is critically important to our children's future.

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

What about China?

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

It is particularly important to the children of China and to the children of Australia. China is acting. It is critically important to the developing world, because the developing world will not want to play their part in reducing emissions. We have had decades of economic growth in this country on the back of being an energy-intensive country. Senator Bernardi asks: why should Australia act if we are not going to make one iota of difference? If a country like Australia cannot act, and it has already had a huge economic benefit, then what is the incentive for any other nation on this earth to act?

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

They'll laugh at us.

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

They are looking to us to act so that they can also act. It is only fair. We know it is only fair. It is the right thing to do for Australia. It is the right thing to do for our economy, our jobs and our environ­ment. Taking this action is not easy, but we will not shirk this responsibility like those opposite. It is the right thing to do. It is not about winning votes. It is not about lever­aging off scare campaigns and leveraging off discredited sceptics like Lord Monckton. We have a responsibility to be guided by good science and policies that make good econ­omic sense and good environmental sense. I have heard the critique of senators opposite time and time again. They say that Australia does not count and that it is too small to matter, but that is simply not true. Other nations are acting and they expect Australia to act. This is a diabolical global problem and we all have to play our part in taking on this issue.

It is in our interests—our environmental and our economic interests—to act. It is predicted that we are to be impacted harshly by climate change. Western Australia has suffered a dramatic decrease in rainfall since the early 1970s. I, like many other Western Australians, feel this very acutely. We have had dramatic rainfall decreases and rainfall is predicted to continue to decrease under the impacts of climate change. So we need the world to act to cut emissions and we cannot expect the rest of the world to act if we do not. It is in our economic interest.

We need to do our best as a nation to adapt to the future. Staying locked into the old ways will put us behind other nations who are acting. Other nations are adapting their economies in response to a climate restrained future. Thank goodness they are, because we desperately need the rest of the world to act. Our climate future here in Australia depends on it. And there are many Liberals that agree. The shadow Treasurer said, on that issue just last year:

inevitably we'll have a price on carbon … we'll have to.

As the former Leader of the Opposition said:

… politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is 'crap' and you don't need to do anything about it.

This continuing inconsistency from the opposition demonstrates that they are clearly unfit to be the alternative government. It is also deeply impacting on investment and investment certainty in this nation. That is something that we will require through these reforms. (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I quite like Senator Pratt.

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

Thank you!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do! I think that she honestly believed some of the things that she said. But I have never seen better attack points for our arguments about the carbon tax than we saw from the senator today. If someone told me about that speech and I had not heard it, I would have said, 'That's not right; she couldn't possibly have made those comments.' I would have had to go to Hansard to double check. I would have said, 'No, no, she wouldn't have said that today, surely.' Luckily enough I am here to hear it. I consider myself one of the luckiest senators in this chamber today because I was here. I can see the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations at the table thinking to herself, 'Should I call a quorum so that we do not expose—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. I ask that the senator not misrepresent me in the chamber.

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

Senator Ronaldson, would you care to rephrase?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I said, 'I looked at the parliamentary secretary and thought to myself, "I bet she wishes she could call a quorum to stop this."' And I can understand why the parliamentary secretary would want to put an end to it. Sometimes 10 minutes is far too long. I am not sure that three minutes would have saved your bacon but it certainly would have stopped this.

We have been told by the good senator today that there is absolutely no issue about working out compensation if you do not know what the carbon price will be. According to the senator it is quite easy and she wonders why you would be worried about setting a compensation package with­out knowing what the carbon price is. How utterly silly of us to think that you can get a compensation package without actually knowing what the price is! Silly old us! We have clearly missed the point here.

Silly old us because we have been saying for some time now that if you tax business, business will pass the cost on. 'No,' said the Prime Minister, 'That is outrageous.' 'No,' says the Treasurer, 'How can you possibly say that?' Fortunately I was here today to hear the good Senator Pratt acknowledge it. I quote her: 'Of course they're going to pass it on.'

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

She speaks the truth.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth. There is a lot more truth from the good senator than from her leader, who said before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' We have the truthful senator across the chamber here and we have the untruthful Prime Minister in relation to the carbon tax.

We have been saying for some time that none of these other countries is going to act. Particularly, the developing countries will not act in relation to this issue. We have been saying that that is a real matter of concern because, given our contribution to pollution levels, that is an issue. And the good senator has said today, 'They are not going to play their part.'

So we have had today an extraordinary contribution. If one of my own had made this speech I would have patted them on the back and said, 'That was a marvellous speech.' But it was not from one of ours. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary, who is now jumping up and down and who probably wants, even more, to call a quorum, is aware of a Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report, which was tabled today. My good friend the member for Kooyong has alerted me to this issue. The Commissioner of Taxation revealed today that the Australian Taxation Office was not consulted prior to the announcing of the latest incarnation of the carbon tax. I will repeat the quote from the ATO's supplementary submission to the committee. The parliamentary secretary should listen to this:

The ATO was not consulted on the current proposal for a carbon price, as the matter was being handled by another department.

It was not consulted. That is extraordinary. Who is going to be administering the tax?

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

The tax office.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian tax office. And they were not consulted—what an extraordinary revelation today from the ATO. What an extraordinary revelation: they were not consulted. But does it really surprise you when it comes from a govern­ment who has now got the reputation of being a knee-jerk reaction government who have completely and utterly lost any ability to govern this country?

We had a question which I am quite indignant about today from the senator from the Northern Territory about Indigenous issues, when she should have asked Senator Arbib: 'What are you doing about Indigenous employment as a result of this knee-jerk reaction in the Northern Territory?' That is the question that should have been asked today. How many of those stockmen are going to lose their jobs as a result of your government's knee-jerk reaction? Did you consult with the Indonesian government? No, you most certainly did not.

I will just have a quick look through some of the recent press in the time that is left to me to tell the Australian community again—of course, Senator Pratt will accept everything that I say because she and I agree on a lot of things!—that when we look at the Greens-Labor alliance—

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

And the Inde­pendents.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Independents have again made their little contribution to this, and people, in New South Wales particularly, will not forget what Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have done in relation to these issues. For example, today it was reported that RMIT economists have issued a report, and their research shows that if the Greens policy to shut down the coal industry was implemented it would see 200,000 jobs lost and cost our economy between $29 billion and $36 billion a year, without reducing global carbon emissions—200,000 jobs. I ask those opposite: are you serious about having as your partner a political party that will destroy the coal industry? Are you happy to have as your partner a political party which will destroy the cattle industry?

Another report shows that the Cattle Council of Australia and the NFF, the National Farmers Federation, have con­ducted independent research which shows that there will be a $700,000 impost on cattle producers with a carbon tax. That impost will range 'from $4,200 for beef producers in Victoria to $9,200 for graziers in Queensland'. So we have the coal industry, the Australian Taxation Office, which has not had any input into this at all, and the cattle industry.

Then, of course, we have the senior partner, the leader of the Greens-Labor alliance, who happens to sit in our chamber, the man who fronts up every Monday morning in the Prime Minister's office and says: 'This is what you're going to do.' What did Senator Brown—this is not the senator who changed her name to Rhiannon, I hasten to add; this is Senator Bob Brown—say about the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday in relation to the effect on petrol with a carbon tax? I will read it so those in the gallery can hear and so those opposite can hear, because they are the ones, quite frankly, who need to know what is going on. This is from an article in the Age this morning by Richard Willingham:

But Senator Brown, who had campaigned for petrol to be included—

Senator Polley interjecting—

Oh, so you do not like the Age now, either? So the Australian you don't like and now you don't like the Age: there's no-one left, Senator, for you to dislike in the media! The article says:

But Senator Brown, who had campaigned for petrol to be included in the tax, said: ''Forever is a very brave word in politics. Down the line I think there is an inevitability that all fossil fuels will, under the weight of evidence that they should, pay the full cost of the creation of climate change.''

In other words—

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

Sadly, Senator Ronaldson, your time is up. Of course, you did intend, didn't you, Senator, your references to be to 'Mr' Oakeshott and 'Mr' Windsor during your interesting discourse?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did indeed, Madam Acting Deputy President.

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

I rise this afternoon to contribute to this matter of public importance, because it is a matter of public importance. I am sure it is a matter that the public wish to have some sensible debate on and hear some informa­tion on. This is not a case of mounting a scare campaign and frightening people about what will affect them and what industries will be affected; we have a developing plan around this issue, and the Gillard Labor government is working hard to design a carbon price which will tackle climate change and enhance opportunities and prosperity now and into the future.

Unfortunately, there is no-one in the chamber opposite that was involved in the two inquiries I and other senators from the government were involved in. I am referring to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and climate change inquiries, where we heard firsthand the opportunities in renewable energy—opportunities for industries to foster and grow and for jobs promotion in this area. For some reason, those opposite did not think the contributions and evidence from those inquiries was relevant. Well, it is easy to stick your heads in the sand being climate change sceptics, or whatever you refer to yourself as; I refer to you as the coalition of climate critics, because I have not heard anything from you that contributes to dealing with climate change.

I guess it is easy for me, being a Queensland senator, to understand the importance of this issue. In the likes of Cairns, starting from around Mackay and going up to the Great Barrier Reef, thous­ands and thousands of jobs will be lost in the tourism industry if we do not act on climate change. I know those opposite claim to be the champions of industry, employers and jobs. Why aren't they prepared to put their hands on their hearts and start protecting those people in vulnerable industries and areas of Queensland where this will greatly impact on jobs? It is not just jobs—you need to look at the residential properties along the coastline, and not just in Queensland; other coastlines will be affected if we do not act on climate change. I am pretty certain that those opposite know that.

We do need to take some action on climate change to ensure that future generations are able to enjoy this beautiful country that we share. It is an environment we treasure and it is an environment that we need to make sure we look after. That is why it is our responsibility as a government to make sure we act on this particular issue. We need to be in a position today where we can deliver on an environment that is healthy and economic resilience for Australians for tomorrow. We have a strong economy. We know we can deal with this issue. We know we can work hand in hand on what needs to be done to assist this particular area. We have a track record on that in the way we handled the global financial crisis. We made sure that our industries and jobs in this country were protected and shielded from the global financial crisis. I remind people opposite, over there in the opposition, that they voted against that package, the $43 billion package that saved jobs and protected the economy—yet you voted against it. I could not believe that. Those in the public gallery should always remember that the opposition opposed good economic measures, measures that protected our economy. We never had an impact from the global financial crisis in this country, but those opposite opposed the package hook, line and sinker.

The other point we need to be reminded about is that Australia is the highest polluting country per capita in the developed world. The science is out there on these points. We need to put on record what this means. Climate scientists around the world are telling us that carbon pollution is causing climate change. There is no point in denying that. The government accepts the climate science on this. Globally, 2010 was the warmest year on record. It tied with 2005 and 1998, with 2001 to 2010 being the warmest decade. You would know that, Senator Williams, coming from the land. You would realise the changes that are happening as this affects our climate and our country. In fact, 2010 is the 24th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. In Australia, 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record and each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the preceding decade.

Australia faces huge economic costs from climate change across a range of sectors, including energy supply, water security, agriculture, health, coastal communities and infrastructure. The climate scientists are also telling us that with temperatures rising we would expect to see more extreme weather events, including more frequent and intense droughts, floods and bushfires. Unfortuna­tely, we saw a lot of devastation in Queensland this year. No doubt there was a contribution from climate change to severe floods and the horrific Cyclone Yasi that devastated some of the communities in North Queensland. That is another reason we need to act on this issue.

We cannot be left behind. We need to be part of this global economy as it moves to clean energy. Many countries are already acting to reduce greenhouse emissions by setting renewable targets and introducing emissions trading schemes. Fourteen of Australia's trading partners have renewable energy targets. Even President Obama has recently proposed that the US have 80 per cent of its electricity coming from clean energy by 2035. Emissions trading schemes already operate in 31 European countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Emissions trading schemes are under discussion elsewhere, including in Canada, the EU, Japan and South Africa. So do not believe those comments that you hear either from the press or, some cases, from those opposite indicating that we are acting alone. We are not acting alone; we are part of an outcome and solution acting in concert with other countries around the globe.

Our policy means that 1,000 of the top polluters will be responsible for paying for the pollution they emit. They are the ones who are polluting. We will be pricing per carbon tonne for them to clean up their act. How it works is that it provides generous household assistance to help with family budgets. It will protect jobs as businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy. It will tackle climate change, including investing in new, clean technology. That is, in principle, how the government's carbon price framework will operate in relation to our scheme.

Conversely, if you look at how the opposition will operate, their direct action will cost families and the budget. It will cost the average family $720 a year and it will cost the budget over $30 billion. What an irresponsible position to take in dealing with one of the most significant issues that we have to handle at this particular time. Figures show that the coalition's direct action policy would cost over $30 billion rather than the claimed $10.5 billion. The rising costs of direct action mean that a future coalition government would face a $30 billion budget black hole. Direct action is ineffective. It is a scheme that is so environmentally ineffective that it will deliver only 25 per cent of the carbon pollution abatement required for the coalition to meet the bipartisan target of minus five per cent. What an irresponsible position to take in handling this major issue.

Today the Leader of the Opposition fails to deliver on good policies and plans for the nation. We believe in climate change and the science is there to show its effect on our planet. There are some reasonable quotes from those who are knowledgeable about Mr Tony Abbott's position on climate change, which is that it is 'crap'. There was a comment recently that that was a comment on the quality of our economists rather than on the merits of their argument. I think that is a typical example of how irresponsible the opposition is when it comes to this matter.

Debate interrupted.