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

Mr President, on a point of order: I think you have missed something out of the order of business today. I am sure you would want to announce to the Senate who won the State of Origin this year!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I am sure the tie that you are wearing reflects the winner of the State of Origin series—for the sixth successive time—but I must remain impartial in these matters and I will continue to do so!

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

Mr President, I think the Senate has started off in a very bad way this morning, with these Queenslanders!

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

We're on a slippery slope now!

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

I think the slippery slope, Senator Birmingham, is the plebiscite; that is the slippery slope. We all know that the plebiscite is a mindless political stunt. I am going to do something I do not normally do. I am going to quote two sources that I normally do not quote. I am going to quote the Vatican and I am going to quote Paul Kelly in the Australian. Those who are on the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee with me will know that I have found a very important and serious document by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is made up of some of the most eminent scientists from around the world and advises the Pope on climate change. The report by a working group commissioned by the academy starts off by saying:

We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants …

The report then goes on to outline why serious governments, why serious politic­ians, around the world are dealing with this issue in a serious way. They outline in this document the glacier melting that is taking place around the world, why that is being caused by humans and how we should deal with this. I recommend to all of those in the opposition who every Sunday are in chapel, practising their faith, that they look at what the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is saying. I think it is a very important message to everyone in this place about the import­ance of dealing with global warming—because what we should understand is that this Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 [No. 2] is not about plebiscites; it is a short-term political ploy. That is all it is.

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

Is it a stunt?

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

Yes, it certainly is a stunt. What we have here is analysis by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that backs up everything that is being said by scientists not only in Australia but around the world—that is, that global warming is real, sea levels are rising and the climate is getting more unpredictable, and that there are significant health implications and significant implicat­ions for infrastructure around the world.

The only people in Australia that I see consistently standing up and opposing this consensus among scientists are those in the coalition who have been absolutely captured by the extremists and climate change deniers. We have Senator Cormann, who, as I indicated in my last contribution, does not mind sharing a stage with Lord Monckton, the biggest climate change denier in the world. People treat him as an absolute joke. But we had Senator Cormann queuing up to get Lord Monckton's autograph.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All the lunatics together!

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

Yes, all the lunatics together. So that is the issue. The issue is: are politicians going to take climate change seriously, are governments going to take climate change seriously and are we going to make sure that our children have an opportunity in the future to enjoy an environment that is sustainable? That is the issue. If anyone from the opposition wants to have a look at the paper from the working group commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences I would be happy to send them a copy.

The next one I want to quote is again from somewhere I do not like quoting from. I do not normally quote from there because most of the quotes are taken up by the coalition anyway. The coalition are in there quick smart. Whenever the Australian pontificates about something, the coalition are in there and quoting the Australian. But I think I would even have to concede that Paul Kelly, the editor at large, has some standing in political analysis within Australia. I must say that I think Paul Kelly's standing has been improved by this article that I am about to quote from. In the Australian of 22 June 2011, under the heading 'Abbott's plebiscite call a serious misjudgment'—not just a mis­judgment but a 'serious' misjudgment—Paul Kelly says:

An instinctive resort to populist tactics is contrary to all the party stands for.

I do not think the coalition stand for much these days. I think they are totally populist. So I think Mr Kelly has it a bit wrong there. They are totally a populist party, captured by the extremists on industrial relations, the extremists on climate change, those that would be extreme on the issue of race and those that would be extreme on the issue of making this country a good country to live in. So what does Paul Kelly say? He says:

THERE is no established practice in Australian national politics for plebiscites to determine policy issues for the obvious reason they are a bad idea.

Did you get that? Paul Kelly from the Australian says it is a 'bad idea'. He goes on to say that that bad idea 'advances neither democracy, good government nor sound public policy.'

In my view, I do not think the coalition are much interested in democracy, good government or sound public policy, because the stunts are absolutely at the forefront of how this coalition are operating. Paul Kelly goes on to say:

The plebiscite on the carbon tax proposed by Tony Abbott is not smart politics.

Would you expect smart politics from Tony Abbott? You would not expect anything smart from him on economics, because we know that he is not interested in economics. We know that you would not get anything smart out of the Leader of the Opposition on that. Paul Kelly goes on to say:

It does not assist Abbott's cause or his standing. It suggests the Coalition needs stunts, not sound argument, to buttress its case.

I have got a difference with Mr Kelly on that point: it is not a suggestion that they are relying on stunts to buttress their case; the reality is that the coalition are totally depend­ent on stunts to buttress their case. They have got nothing else going for them. They have absolutely no policy direction on the key issues affecting this country. They are a policy void; a policy wasteland. All they have is stunts. Paul Kelly goes on to say:

It is a mistake for the Liberal Party to propose 'government by plebiscite'. This violates the practice and philosophy espoused by its former leader, John Howard.

Remember that guy—John Howard, your former leader? Paul Kelly says it 'violates the practice and philosophy' of your former leader. He goes on to say:

It defies the principles of representative democracy that have served Australia well. There is one certainty: the notion is inconsistent with the principles of conservatism that Abbott is supposed to uphold.

We know why that is. It is because the Leader of the Opposition has no principles.

How can you point to any principle when a leader says 'I am a weathervane and I'll just point to what's happening at the time and tell you what's happening at the time'? How many different positions has the Leader of the Opposition had on climate change? One minute it is real and the next minute it is not real. I suppose it depends on who he was talking to the night before when he makes the statements on climate change. He is totally inconsistent and all over the place on climate change. But what we do understand is that he does not believe it. He believes it is crap. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said: 'It's crap'.

Every scientific body that has any credibility believes global warming is real. Every scientist in the field with any standing, with peer reviewed work, says that it is real. The only people I hear in this place arguing that it is not real are the extremist climate change deniers on the other side, who do not care about future generations, who do not care about what happens in the future. They have short-termism driving their position.

It is absolutely essential to deal with climate change. It is absolutely essential to give our kids a fair go in the future. That is what the Labor Party is about. What has happened here is that the Australian , that organisation that is quoted endlessly—and, I must say, mindlessly almost all the time—by the coalition has belled the cat on this issue of a plebiscite. The Australian has said that it is just a nonsense. Paul Kelly goes on to say:

Plebiscites are the road to bad policy in the name of people power. Consider. Should we have had a referendum to launch the post-war immigration program, to abolish the White Australia Policy, to remove the tariff, to move away from centralised wage fixation, to deregulate interest rates, to introduce the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, to float the dollar, to embrace a native title system, to introduce a GST and to accept Indo-Chinese refugees in the 1980s? Each of these 10 policies has been instrumental in improving our society and economy. It is likely none of them would have passed a plebiscite at the time.

So what Paul Kelly is saying to the coalition is: 'Stand up. Stand up for your principles. Stand up for the values that you claim to have.' I say to Paul Kelly: how can you stand up for principles and values when you are devoid of principles and values, as the coalition are? Paul Kelly goes on to say—

The policy plebiscite—

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

But your leader is a liar—the Prime Minister is a liar—so don't talk about who's got principles and who hasn't got principles, thank you very much. We don't need a lecture from you.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Ronaldson! Senator Ronaldson, could you withdraw that remark, please.

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

I will withdraw it if Senator Cameron withdraws his comments before. I am not going to sit here and take this.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ronaldson, I need you to withdraw that unconditionally, please.

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

I will withdraw it if Senator Cameron withdraws his comments previously about the Leader of the Opposition.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Senator Ronaldson. You have to withdraw your remark that you made. Could you withdraw that unconditionally, please.

Senator Bob Brown interjecting—

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

I do not need advice from you, thank you very much, Senator Brown.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, that interjection is not required. Senator Ronaldson?

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

I will withdraw.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ronaldson.

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

Thank you. From time to time, we all need a lecture, and I am happy to be here giving the coalition a lecture on what are supposed to be their values and their principles, because they are absolutely devoid of values and principles. Let me tell you: I am joined in this lecture by the Australianby Paul Kelly. He goes on to say.

The policy plebiscite undercuts the high practice of Westminster politics Australia-style where politicians govern for a three-year term, make their decisions for better or worse, and accept the public's judgment at the next poll.

Then he goes on to say:

When outgoing senator Steve Fielding, after meeting the Opposition Leader and hearing his case, repudiates it as a "stunt", then Abbott is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Well, is he ever! The king of stunts, former Senator Fielding, actually would not associate with this stunt. I just think that says it all, and Paul Kelly has really got you lot under control here in this little article. He goes on to say:

While Abbott said his intent was to "let the people decide", he refused to agree he would abandon his own opposition to the tax if any carbon tax plebiscite was carried. In short, he doesn't take his own proposal seriously. It may have been mildly interesting if Abbott had said he was ready to fall into line with the result. No such concession.

So what has Paul Kelly done here? He has exposed the hypocrisy of the coalition. They call for a plebiscite, but they do not really want a plebiscite; they do not want to accept any outcome from the plebiscite. Paul Kelly only puts it as far as saying it would be 'mildly interesting' if they were even serious about accepting the outcome of a plebiscite, which they are not. So this plebiscite is nothing more than a massive political stunt to add to the political stunts that permeate the coalition as a political party in this place—stunt after stunt. I did describe the Leader of the Opposition a couple of weeks ago as the Evel Knievel of Australian politics—all stunt and no substance. That is what the leader of the coalition is. Paul Kelly continues.

He—

this is the Leader of the Opposition—

did, however, demand from Labor the standard he refused to apply to himself—that Gillard act on the vote.

So he is saying, 'Let's have a plebiscite—let's spend $80 million of taxpayers' funds on a plebiscite—but only if the plebiscite goes the way I want the plebiscite to go will I accept the plebiscite.' You see, it is a one-sided plebiscite. It is not just a stunt of a plebiscite; it is a one-sided plebiscite that would apply only to the government but not to the coalit­ion. No wonder Senator Fielding looked aghast at the coalition—at the height and temerity of the coalition to run a stunt like this. When you have former Senator Fielding aghast at a stunt, you know it is the real big stunt of all time. This is a stunt to end all stunts—one that makes Senator Fielding blush. What a joke! Paul Kelly goes on to say:

This highlights another defect: a plebiscite is non-binding.

Eighty million dollars of public money to run a plebiscite to do what? A glorified poll to say this is what people think at the moment. It means nothing. It is non-binding. Paul Kelly said:

It is a government-sponsored and paid for national opinion poll whose authority derives from that fact. If parliament passed Abbott's bill then Gillard would be obliged to hold the plebiscite that Labor voted against. But Gillard would have no legal obligation to implement the outcome of the vote.

Then Mr Kelly goes on to outline the history of plebiscites in this country. I would call on the coalition to look at the history of plebi­scites and why you should not run divisive plebiscites in this country. So what Paul Kelly has done in one article is demolish any credibility that the coalition might think they have. You have no credibility on economic matters—we know that. You left this country ill-prepared to deal with the challenges of climate change and globalisation—absolute­ly ill-prepared. Your only economic policy was Work Choices, to rip away at workers' wages and conditions. Let me tell you: Paul Kelly has got you guys nailed. He has nailed you and he has said you are incompetent, you have no values, you have no principles and you have abandoned any idea that you have any way forward for this country. Paul Kelly has got you guys nailed. You should be ashamed. When you stand up here, you tell me how you deal with the Kelly argu­ment, because you cannot. (Time expired)

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

Well, isn't this interesting—Senator Cameron on the other side of this chamber telling us we have no economic credibility! I am sorry. Isn't this the government that just a couple of weeks ago increased its borrowings from $200 billion to $250 billion? Mind you, colleagues, they did not give us a chance to actually scrutinise this. Oh, no—they slipped it in with the appropriations bill. Of course, we all know that parliament accedes to those things so the operation of government can happen. They tried to hide it away—$250 billion. Do you know how much we are going to be paying in interest every day over the next financial year, Senator Cash? Fifteen million dollars a day in interest. So, Senator Cameron, do not sit on that side of the chamber and lecture this side of this chamber, which left you with a surplus, about our economic credibility.

The Australian people now are in absolutely no doubt whatsoever about what the government thinks of them. What the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 does is give the Australian people a say. It gives the Australian people the opportunity to say whether or not they want a carbon tax. What did Senator Cameron just call that oppor­tunity? A mindless political stunt. Senator Cameron and the Labor government think that giving the Australian people a say is a mindless political stunt. To anybody out there who might be watching this or who might at some point be reading this, that is what this Labor government under Julia Gillard thinks of you. It thinks that giving you a say is a mindless political stunt. I would say that any Australian, having been told that, would think: 'What is this govern­ment going on about? Why can't we have a say? Why can't we consider whether or not we as Australian families, workers and indi­viduals want to actually have a carbon tax?' But, oh no: this government will not do that.

Why don't you stay, Senator Cameron? Why don't you stay? It might be nice if you actually stayed here for the debate. Let us just have a look at Senator Cameron. Isn't it interesting when he talks about mindless political stunts? Mindless? The only other thing he was talking about as being mindless was his colleagues when he called them all zombies. That was the last mindless thing that Senator Cameron was talking about. So it is quite interesting to see him stand here today and lecture us when all we are doing is attempting to give the Australian people a say on whether or not they want a carbon tax.

Of course, a plebiscite would have a cost, and Senator Cameron has just raised that—$80 million. The hypocrisy from Senator Cameron and this government saying there is a cost attached to this plebiscite! Let me tell you, Mr Deputy President: they spent $80.9 million on administering an emissions trad­ing scheme that does not even exist. And Senator Cameron has the hypocrisy to sit on that side of the chamber and tell us we are potentially wasting money. It is just extraordinary.

The Australian people are waking up to this government, and thank goodness they are. How dare this government try to intro­duce a carbon tax, the biggest single issue that this country has had to deal with for decades, without letting the Australian peo­ple have a say—those mums and dads living in the suburbs in Sydney, those farmers out there in regional Australia, those workers, those truckies driving across the country, those people working in small businesses, those people in schools teaching, those nurses and those doctors? Everybody across the community has no chance to have a say and to tell this government whether or not they want a carbon tax. That is simply wrong, because we know that before the last election this Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, having managed to get to the position of leader of the Australian Labor Party through means that were somewhat less than elegant, said to the Australian people, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' It is always good for prime ministers to be very clear about what they say and to be very clear in their intent. There can be nothing taken out of context when you know exactly what they say and that that is what they mean. Julia Gillard said, 'There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead.'

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Nash! I let it go the first time, but you must refer to the Prime Minister by her correct title—and all members of the House of Representatives.

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

I must indeed. Which correct title, Mr Deputy President? There are probably several. But I shall use 'Prime Minister'. I do apologise, Mr Deputy President. The Prime Minister said to the Australian people in the election campaign—we can only assume it was a promise to the Australian people—'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' And what has she done? She has turned around and said to the Australian people: 'Oh, sorry about that—bit of a slip. There's actually going to be a carbon tax.' That is appalling. That is absolutely appalling.

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

How would you describe something like that?

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

I shall take that interjection; thank you very much, Senator Ronaldson. How would you describe some­thing like that? I think the question would probably best be directed to the Australian people about what they think about having been lied to by the Prime Minister.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's a novel idea!

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

That is a novel idea; thank you, Senator Cash! That is a very novel idea! Ask the Australian people—there's an idea. That is exactly what we are putting forward today. We are putting forward the opportunity for them to have a say. We are putting forward the opportunity for them to be able to say to the Prime Minister and this Labor government whether or not they want a carbon tax. How dare the Prime Minister say: 'I know what's best for you; you can have a carbon tax, and I'm not going to listen to you. Not only am I not going to listen to you, but I'm not even going to give you an opportunity to tell me what you think. Somewhere in between these elections, I will actually bring in this carbon tax and I will not give you a say on whether or not you want it.' That is about the lowest point this country has got to for a long, long period of time. Mr Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to—and I am sure my good colleague Senator Scullion remembers this from the campaign—the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, on 15 August 2010, saying when discussing the issue of whether or not there would be a carbon tax, 'Certainly, what we rejected was this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.' That is very interesting. Apparently my coalition colleagues and I, having said during the last election campaign that this govern­ment would be bringing in a carbon tax, were making a hysterical allegation.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh?

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

You mean a scare campaign!

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

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Apparently, Senator Cash, we were not hysterical after all. Apparently we were just spot on the money. We were dead right, and we were absolutely correct when before the last election we tried to warn the Australian people that there would be a carbon tax.

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

I know a scare campaign when I see one.

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

'A scare campaign,' Senator Furner says. Since when did putting the facts in front of the Australian people become as scare campaign? It is not and you and all of your colleagues on the other side of the chamber know it very well, Senator Furner. This is not a scare campaign. This is about telling the Australian people like it is—and they are listening. They are listening because they know what the ramifications of this are going to be. They know what the impact of this carbon tax is going to be. It is going to be disastrous.

But let me return to the 'hysterical allegation' that the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said we were making by saying that this government was going to bring in a carbon tax. As I said, apparently it was not hysteric­al. Apparently if you are hysterical you are correct. Interestingly the Labor member for Wakefield, Nick Champion, said in June:

It's important that people get it right and we have a measured and patient debate about it—

the carbon tax—

and not a hysterical debate that (Opposition Leader) Tony Abbott wants.

Apparently we were hysterical when before the last election we said there was going to be a carbon tax, so one can only assume that if we are being hysterical now, warning about the ramifications of this, we are right again.

I fear for the future of this country with a carbon tax in place, I truly do. I might be a parliamentarian, but first and foremost I am a wife and a mother of two teenage boys. Those boys are going to have to deal with this carbon tax in the years to come. There is nothing—no benefit—to come from this whatsoever. I worry for them and all of the other young people around this country who are going to have this carbon tax foisted on them having had no opportunity ever to have say about whether or not they want it. That is appalling. It is absolutely right and proper and appropriate for this side of the chamber to try and fix it so that the Australian people can have a say, because the impacts of this are going to be disastrous.

Why have we got it? Let us have a look at why we are going to have this carbon tax. It comes right back to the government, which can now only be described—and I am sure Senator Bob Brown actually likes this description—as the Labor-Greens govern­ment. I am sure he must like that description because he has already indicated that one day a Green will be in the Lodge and that the Greens will move to take over the Labor Party—oh, sorry, take over the Labor Party's space. I wonder what the Labor Party thought about that when on Monday Senator Brown so very humbly said that they may well move to take over and be even more important than the Labor Party. I do apolo­gise, Senator Brown, that I am not quoting you directly, but I hope I am giving the essence in the correct context.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you're getting it completely wrong.

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

Senator Brown says I am getting it completely wrong. I am sure he will clarify that for us later. What does not need any clarification is the fact that we have this Labor-Greens government running the country. Let me point out to my colleagues that there are 226 members of parliament, of which you are all very well aware. How many members of parliament do the Greens have? Ten—two hands—10 out of 226.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's it?

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

That is it. Thank you, Senator Cash. I was surprised too, when I had a close look. There are 10 out of 226, and the way things are going at the moment the Greens are running the country. I know they are probably very happy every time we say that, but let me tell you that the Australian people out there are not. I am happy to place on record that Senator Bob Brown got 1½ million votes; 1½ million voted for him—11 million did not. It is quite extraordinary that we have this situation with a carbon tax coming in as a result of the Labor-Greens government when the Greens have 10 out of 226 members of parliament and 1.5 million votes out of 12½ million. It does not sound like a really good case for democracy to me. It does not really sound like the majority of the Australian people having their say. It does not really sound like what the Australian people want is actually happening. I do not think it really sounds like that at all.

There is something really interesting, and perhaps one of the Labor senators can indicate about it in one of the times that they get to make remarks—and I am sure before Sunday there will be masses of briefings on the carbon tax to all the backbencher. Tell me, Senator Furner, do you think the Greens are going to get their briefing before the Labor backbench does? I would be very interested to know that before the end of this debate. Wouldn't it be interesting, Senator Adams, if in fact the Prime Minister were planning on briefing the Greens before she briefed her own backbench?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe she has briefed them. Maybe they have been briefed.

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

There may well already have been a briefing. I am not privy to any of this information. But I think it is important that the question is asked. If, all of a sudden, the Greens have become more important to the Prime Minister than her own backbench, then I am sure that her very own backbench would be rather upset. They would be rather upset to think that Bob Brown and his nine—10 all up, out of 226 members of parlia­ment—would get a briefing from the Prime Minister on something this important before the Labor backbench did. But who knows? Maybe somebody can clarify that for us throughout the course of the debate.

This carbon tax is something the Austra­lian people are going to have to deal with as one of the biggest issues this country has seen in a very, very long time. I am so concerned about the impact of this. I do not think I have ever been more concerned about the potential impact of a piece of legislation. And, Senator Furner, it is not scaremonger­ing. This is not scaremongering. We are not hysterical. We are out there every day trying to explain to the Australian people what the impacts and the ramifications of having a carbon tax in this country are going to be. They are going to be devastating on the cost of living, of food and of some aspects of fuel—goodness knows what we are going to hear on Sunday.

I put the government on notice: if you even try to touch the diesel fuel rebate—if you even try to touch the arrangements for off-road vehicles—a storm will come down on your head, the likes of which you have never seen. That excise is not paid because vehicles are off-road vehicles; that excise goes to road users because they use the roads. There is a very good reason that those off-road vehicles do not pay that excise. I say to the Prime Minister right now: do not even think about changing those arrangements, or the wrath of regional Australia will land on your doorstep.

It is not just that. There are so many areas where there will be an impact, and the impact on farmers and regional communities is going to be the greatest. Even Ross Garnaut said in his report that farmers, more than most other Australians, will face higher fuel and transport costs under the proposed tax. Certainly fuel might have been removed from the scheme for some users—who would know? We will find out on Monday. But I bet you pounds to peanuts it will still be on transport, which is a key component for regional communities. That is why this carbon tax will be so much worse for regional Australia—because of transport, because of the tyranny of distance. It costs more to get everything to the regions than it does to deliver it into a city area. That puts costs on everything, right across the board.

The extraordinary thing is that at the end of the day, in spite of all the bleating from the government on the other side of the chamber, it does not matter whether you believe man is contributing to global warm­ing or not. This carbon tax is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to the climate. That is something that we on this side of the chamber understand and that those out there in the community are starting to understand. They realise that we are going to put thousands of jobs at risk. We know that industry is going to move offshore. We know that the anticompetitive nature of bringing this carbon tax in is going to be huge. We know the impact it is going to have on our businesses.

I am particularly concerned as a regional, Nationals senator about the effect this is going to have on our farmers and our regional communities, because the effect it will have on farmers will flow right through those communities. Everybody out there knows that when the agricultural sector is not doing well it flows right through, down our main streets, to the newsagents, the clothes shops, the service stations on the corner, the teachers, the schools, policing, the numbers in schools—everything. It flows right through.

We have the NFF saying that if fuel used in agricultural production is included then the tax will slug beef producers with an extra $7,000 in costs every year and that cotton-farming families are going to face a five per cent cut to their farm income. It goes on and on and on. And for what? We are going to have a seismic shift in our economy that is going to hit families, carers, individuals, hip pockets right across the country. This government will stand up and say, 'No, it's not going to do that, because we are going to compensate.' What a load of rubbish.

Those emitters are going to pass those costs on, and when we move to an emissions trading scheme—which this government says we will—the price will fluctuate. Is the Prime Minister going to compensate people when that price is fluctuating day by day? Who knows where it is going to end up? It will be pushed by traders. It might get to the $100 a tonne that Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young would like to see, and that is not good enough. The Australian people deserve better. They deserve to have a say on this carbon tax. They deserve the opportunity to have their voice heard on this very important issue.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Nash and Senator Cameron for their earlier contributions. The Greens will be opposing this legislation—the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 [No. 2]—because it entertains a fair degree of silliness as well as a large degree of public expenditure. In fact, when you look at the cost of up to $100 million for a plebiscite, then, based on the argument we have just heard from Senator Nash about imposing on people a cost that is unwarranted, that ought to be at the outset a measure for ruling out the idea. It was no doubt a political move by the Leader of the Opposition that was then introduced into this place by Senator Abetz. Proposed section 6 of this bill, under the heading 'Question to be submitted to electors', says:

The question to be submitted to electors in accordance with section 5 is “Do you support the Government’s plan to introduce a price on carbon to deal with climate change?”.

So at the outset the whole of Senator Nash's contention is demolished because the question has nothing to do with a tax; it is about a price on carbon. I will come back to that in a little while because that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, is proposing to do with his alterna­tive—that is, to put a price on carbon which will be imposed on the people of Australia.

The difference here is that Mr Abbott and Senator Abetz want to have that price paid for in a reverse mechanism—they want to take money off the Australian people and give it to the polluters, with the aim that the polluters will use the money to reduce the pollution in their coal fired power stations and other polluting enterprises. The govern­ment, several Independents and the Greens are moving to reverse that and have the polluters pay through pricing mechanisms—therefore, forcing them to clean up their pollution because they will want to avoid that payment—and then use the money from the permits paid for by the polluters to enable the Australian economy to move to a clean, green basis in the future, creating tens of thousands of jobs and offsetting the cost by paying householders compensation for the flow-on costs of the carbon price in terms of increased prices in particular for energy and very minimal changes then to costs at supermarkets and so on.

So, in a nutshell, Mr Abbott and Senator Abetz are proposing that the Australian people have billions of dollars taken off them and given to the big foreign owned polluting corporations—and most of them are—whereas the Greens, the government and the Independents involved—the Hon. Tony Windsor and the Hon. Rob Oakeshott from the House of Representatives—are in the cabinet subcommittee looking at this matter to ensure that householders are looked after. People are beginning to understand that. There is going to be a change of mood in the electorate because the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition are taking the Australian electorate as being fools, but they are not. The Leader of the Opposition has changed his position and will continue to change his position according to a political tub-thumping approach which has no depth. We heard the Leader of the Opposition saying as recently as Friday, 1 July at a conference of economists:

It may well be, as you say, that most Australian economists think that the carbon tax or emissions trading scheme is the way to go.

Maybe that's a comment on the quality of our economists rather than on the merits of the argument.

We had here the extraordinary claim from the Leader of the Opposition that all the economists in Australia—and I mean all the economists in Australia—are wrong and he is right. Australians looking at that are going to recognise that it is the Leader of the Opposition who is wrong, because he cannot simply make that claim without substantiat­ing it and he has not been able to substantiate it. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, has changed his position quite frequently. He said in 2009:

If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax? ... Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate ... It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly ... raise the price on carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden.

So we had there Tony Abbott endorsing the very argument that he now opposes. We had there Tony Abbott putting forward a proposal supported by economists which he has since reneged on while the economists have gone on with further study to say that the government-Greens-Independents propo­sal is the most economically efficient and therefore is the cheapest for the Australian people to save us from the much greater economic impact of climate change, global warming and the destruction that has not just on our food-producing lands and our coastal cities, towns and properties but on great economic, environmental and job-producing entities like the Great Barrier Reef. In 2009 Mr Abbott said:

I think that the science is far from settled but on the insurance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precautions against significant potential risks, and that's I think why it makes sense to have an ETS.

It is an emissions trading scheme that he is now opposing. The very thing he proposed he is now opposing. You can imagine a referendum campaign in which the people of Australia are exposed to support for the government-Greens-Independent position repeatedly being out of the Leader of the Opposition's own mouth. It would be an exercise in futility and at great expense to the Australian people which would be lost. When we look at the position taken by Mr Abbott and Senator Abetz, which is to take money from the Australian exchequer, from the taxpayers, and give it to the polluters we find that Mr Abbott has said his direct action plan—

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

I thought your plan did that, Bob? Aren't you paying the top companies?

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald should not be interrupting the speaker.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Mr Abbott has costed his attack on the taxpayer's pocket at around a cumulative $10 billion by 2020. The problem with his $10 billion by 2020 is that the Department of Climate Change has estimated the plan would not see emissions at 2020 at his target of a reduction of five per cent; instead, emissions would increase to 13 to 17 per cent above 1990 levels. If you are going to get to the opposi­tion's claimed target of a five per cent reduction it would cost a further $20 billion including the purchase of overseas permits.

When you cost that out you find that by 2020 the Abbott plan would cost the average Australian household $720 per annum with no compensation. That is the fraud that is involved in that proposal. I reiterate that the alternative plan being developed by the committee on a climate price would ensure that householders are compensated—some people in the poorest circumstances would indeed be overcompensated—so that the impact of the carbon price will be completely offset. Not with Mr Abbott's plan. He will be hitting households—and very often they are big energy consumers because they do not have the wherewithal to have engaged in energy-saving devices and mechanisms—and that includes households in the coalition heartland, for $720 per annum. What a difficulty for the leader of the coalition and for Senator Abetz, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, whose absence from this debate, here and around the country, has been extraordinarily notable. The reason for that is that Senator Abetz, who has this bill before the Senate, simply does not understand the economics of it and has been not engaged in justifying the attack on the average taxpayer that is involved in the legislation.

Look at the question again: if this bill were to pass the Senate today do you support the government's plan to introduce a price on carbon to deal with climate change? The plan has not yet been publicised. It will be in the coming week. And so we have the silly situation for political purposes—

Senator Cash interjecting—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a proposal about a government plan which does not exist and has not been produced into the public arena. It quite properly will be introduced in the coming weeks for public discussion in the lead-up to a parliamentary discussion after the Australian people have had a good look at it over the coming months. We have a proposal here before the parliament on a question for a plan that does not exist. It is a nonsense, of course.

One of the problems for the government is a survey of Australian opinion on the alternatives. When you get to ask the astute Australian electorate, which is effectively being proclaimed by Mr Abbott and Senator Abetz as being unable to get its mind around this issue, you find—

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

Do you agree with the free use of drugs? What is the plebiscite on that?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are a funny, sad lot over there but that is the way it is. If you ever hear interjections like that, you know the opposition is in full retreat from what they are hearing in the Senate.

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

Why don't we have an election then?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having lost the last election, they want another one now at even greater expense to the Australian people, but they have to live on in vain. Acting Deputy President Bishop, I do ask you to ask Senator MacDonald to desist because it is quite proper that he is brought to order under the standing orders of the Senate.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, all senators should respect the customary decorum of this place. Senator Brown should be listened to in silence.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. It is so often the case that the conservatives break the rules and the laws, but there you go. What you find when you ask the Australian people whether they prefer their money to be taken and given to the polluters or that the polluters' money be taken and given to help offset them the great majority of Australians are in favour of the polluters being taxed, and that includes a majority of coalition voters. They do not support the contention from—

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

Where did you get those figures from?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator opposite asked, 'Where did you get those figures from?' He is going to find out in the next day or two. All I am saying is that at the moment an exercise in simply asking the average Australian—and this includes Liberal and National Party voters—shows people do not want to have their money given to the polluters. They want the polluters to be taxed to help them deal with the problem of the onrush of climate change.

What we see in the chamber today from the coalition is bad behaviour, interruption and trying to shout down a reasoned argument. I listened to the coalition senator in complete silence. It is part of the way in which politics is working at the moment. We have to accept that. We have negativity from the coalition and a refusal to enter into reasoned debate or to have the proper forms of debate which enhance a democracy. These forms are being eroded by this opposition, which does not stand for proper, decent public debate. But that is the position the Greens have taken.

Senator Nash said I indicated on Monday that we would move to take over the Labor Party. I have never made such a statement. The fact that that was a headline on Saturday in the Weekend Australian is a testimony to the ability of the Australian to lie on its front page.

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

The Prime Minister does; why shouldn't the Australian? Answer that.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do not like it. As I said, the Australian headline was completely wrong. It is repeated in a column by former Labor representative Gary Johns today and it has been repeated elsewhere. It is one of those things you have to up with put. I have broad shoulders, but being verballed by the Australian does not make it right. As I said to the New York Times in the last 24 hours, if we are going to be seen to be replacing somebody, we already have replaced the Liberal Party, at least in terms of the notion that, if a true liberal party exists in this parliament, it is the Greens. We are a liberal minded party which stands for the people and for action on climate change in the public interest, because that is what we went to the election on, that is what we have worked in this parliament to achieve and that is what we are looking forward to being finally and fully announced on Sunday to go into the public arena for debate and then back into this parliament for action, while the opposition simply wants to feather-bed the polluters.

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

I wish to contribute to this debate on the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011, but before I get onto the main subject matter I wish to draw an analogy as a Queensland senator. Last night in the state of Queensland we saw a historic outcome, with six consecutive series being won by Queensland. I think the analogy here is that there were players, spectators and even referees on the field that accepted the outcomes delivered as a result of that fabulous win. It is a case that needs to be reflected on when we go to the nature of this particular bill and Mr Tony Abbott's position on wishing to have a plebiscite on something on which we know that he has no commitment and no ability to deliver. So it is a farce that we are here today in this chamber debating this bill, because we know what the outcome would be should this bill be successful. Should the public of Australia be involved in a plebiscite, that would not only waste $80 million of taxpayers' dollars but also put the Australian public further into a position where they wonder at times what Mr Tony Abbott is doing as an opposition leader. He talks all day until the cows come home about how a carbon price is supposed­ly going to hurt our working families, yet he has no problem with spending that sort of money and asking the Australian public whether we should put a price on carbon at all and whether it is the right thing to do. He then says he would rescind it anyhow if he were in government.

I reflect on some notable occasions where he has been quoted. On 20 June 2011, the opposition leader was asked whether he would reconsider his position on the carbon price if the public voted yes. He said:

Well, obviously if the people have their say and their say is conclusive one way or another that should settle the matter.

The hypocrisy on this issue is shown in what he said later on that day to 3AW:

… my position on carbon tax is that I am against it in opposition and I will rescind it in government.

Therefore on one hand he is saying: 'Let's have a plebiscite. Let's accept the umpire's decision.' On the other hand he is saying, 'I'm not going to accept that at all, because I'm going to rescind it if I'm in government and I won't accept it in opposition.' Once again that clearly demonstrates the typical hypo­crisy in this regard. At a time when we know families are doing it tough out there and we are working responsibly through our inject­ion of nearly $43 billion into the economy for protection from the global financial crisis, he wants to go out and spend $80 million of working families' hard-earned wages. So our being in this chamber debat­ing this bill is really a waste of time.

Putting a price on carbon is the best way to move our country forward to a cleaner economy and environment. It is the right thing to do. How do we know this? Because the electorate told us at the last election that they want action on climate change. That is what the electorate really wants on this issue. Climate scientists have told us carbon pollution is causing climate change, and who are we to dispute this?

Let us look at some of the facts. 2010 tied with 2005 and 1998 as the warmest years on record. The last 10 years have been recorded as the warmest decade and 2010 is the 34th consecutive year to have global temperatures above the 20th century average. Each decade has been hotter than the decade preceding it and this has happened since 1940. If we take no action on climate change, we put Australia at risk. We put Australia at risk economically over a range of different sect­ors, including water security, the agricultural industry, health, coastlines, communities and energy industries. Rising temperatures lead to intensive weather conditions, and my state of Queensland has recently felt the brunt of those.

Queensland has a population of 4.5 million. Our state is known around the world for its sunny weather. No matter the season, it is the golden beaches that tourists flock to every year. With a stunning coastline come coastal communities and these are at risk if no action is taken. According to the Depart­ment of Climate Change and Energy Effi­ciency, between 48,300 and 67,700 residents' buildings could be at risk through rising sea levels of just 1.1 metre at a cost of between $15.4 billion and $20 billion. A rise of 1.1 metre would also affect 47,000 kilometres of Queensland roads, 570 kilometres of railway lines and 1,440 commercial buildings at a cost of more than $30 billion. Through the recent flooding and Cyclone Yasi up in the north we saw how extreme weather affected that infrastructure.

Not only is infrastructure at risk but also our health is at risk. The department believes that climate change could cause an increase in the number of days in Brisbane that have a temperature higher than 35 degrees Celsius, from one day up to 21 in a year. This would not only affect those who are sensitive to warmer temperatures like the elderly but also increase the chances of diseases such as dengue fever moving to areas of South-East Queensland.

Let us not forget the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which contributed $5.4 billion to our economy in 2006-07 and provides employment to 53,800 people. According to the department, sea surface temperatures across the Great Barrier Reef have increased by 0.4 degrees in the past 30 years, and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has also resulted in an increase in ocean acidity. These trends are expected to continue with climate change. Rising sea levels have also caused coral bleaching, and rising tempera­tures can have detrimental effects on marine life. The cost of inaction is beyond price. I had the opportunity many years ago to go out on the reef on several occasions and about 18 months or two years ago, I saw signs of that coral bleaching and the effect on our beautiful Great Barrier Reef.

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

I see it all the time.

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

I am sure you do, Senator Macdonald. You should be aware of all these issues that affect an area that you live in, but you are in complete denial. This is just a small snapshot of what we need to take action on for climate change, if not for ourselves, then for our children, our grand­children and their children. We do this so that they will have a future and a life they can enjoy.

We believe that putting a price on carbon is the cheapest and most efficient and effective way of reducing our carbon emissions and helping our nation's transition into a cleaner economy. Our plan is to charge our 1,000 top polluters for every tonne of pollution they emit. By doing this we will provide them with incentives to switch to renewable energy. We will be providing support to emission intensive industries as well as supporting jobs. Under our own policy polluters will pay. It will bring certainty to many sectors and, most import­antly, Australians will be given assistance.

More than 50 per cent of revenue collected will go back into assisting Austra­lians. Nine out of 10 households will receive assistance from the federal govern-ment through tax cuts. The pension will increase and family payments will be increased. This assistance will ensure that householders will not have to foot the bill for the increase in the cost of living and will allow them to do their bit to help the environment.

We know that our low-income house­holders do not have a lot of money to spare so we will be ensuring that they receive extra assistance. More than three million householders will get an extra 20 per cent in tax cuts and increased payments. We will also be providing assistance to those who rely on electricity for their medical equip­ment. The government knows of 110,000 Australians who rely on essential medical equipment like dialysis machines and life-support machines, just to name a couple, and we will ensure that they receive extra financial assistance to cover the cost of the rise in electricity prices with a special annual cash payment. This will be a huge economic reform and it is something that our govern­ment can be proud of.

Our policy has received support from different sectors. Fosters CEO, John Pollaers, said:

Everyone gets it has to happen, that is a trading scheme. I sometimes struggle with where this sits in the priorities in Australia at the moment. It has to be done, I think it is right we do do it. If the benefit case includes that we are going to create a green tech sector in Australia that gives leadership ... then let's get moving.

Stockland director, Carol Schwartz, said:

I would put a price on carbon and I would move to an emissions trading scheme. Absolutely Julia Gillard is going in the right direction and she needs to have the courage of her convictions not to negotiate away too much.

Mr Tony Abbott would have you believe that the carbon tax will increase electricity prices. Electricity prices have risen significantly in the last few years and uncertainty in the industry is driving them up. Implementing our policy will provide certainty in the sector and allow investments in the industry to take place.

Even Australian Industry Group CEO, Heather Ridout, said:

... while much concern has focussed 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 ...

Mr Abbott has also been running with the line that putting a price on carbon would increase the cost of living. Two years ago Mr Abbott believed in a carbon tax. He told Sky News on 29 July 2009:

I also think that if you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax?

Those were his words back in 2009. He went on:

Why not ask motorists to pay more?

That is obviously something he is denying now.

Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate of a carbon tax you've paid.

Even his former leader believed in a carbon tax. On 29 May, 2007 John Howard told Radio 3AW Melbourne:

Fundamental to tackling climate change and reducing greenhouse gas—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order under standing order 185, 'conduct of senators'. Standing order 185(1) is:

A senator shall acknowledge the chair on entering or leaving the chamber.

I would like to point out that I just watched Senator Bob Brown exit the chamber and now enter the chamber, and on both occasions he has been in breach of standing order 185(1). I would like your guidance as to what can be done. He is in breach of the standing order.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All senators on entering and leaving the chamber are required under the standing orders to acknowledge the person in the chair. I was unaware that Senator Brown recently left and re-entered the chamber. All senators should adhere to standing orders at all times. Senator Furner.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I was recapping on the position of Mr John Howard, the former Prime Minister, on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I generally do not quote this man because I have some issues associated with his mannerism and also the way he introduced Work Choices and extreme industrial relations laws into this country, but we have been fortunate as a government to be able to turn them back and introduce fair and reasonable industrial laws. But back in 1998 he made a point on plebiscites and referendums. On ABC Radio in Perth—in your home state, Mr Acting Deputy President—he said:

… unless you resort to a method of having plebiscites or referendums on each individual issue. And I think the Australian public will get very angry and tired about that. They would say: what's wrong with you fellas, we elected you for three years, you go away and take all the decisions you want to on individual issues and then when those decisions have been taken at the end of your three year period if we don't like you we'll vote you out. I don't think you can run it any other way.

That is clearly contrary to what Mr Tony Abbott, his protege, is doing in this bill before us today.

Those are not the only coalition members who have supported a price on carbon. On 20 May 2010 Joe Hockey said, 'Inevitably we'll have to put a price on carbon … we'll have to.' And on 1 December 2009 the former Tasmanian senator Guy Barnett said:

I support action on climate change; I support a price on carbon emissions. As a community we should give the earth the benefit of the doubt.

Then on 24 February this year the member for Moore, Mal Washer, said: 'If we don't price carbon both sides of politics will be guilty of putting up stupid feelgood progra­ms that are not cost effective. Taxpayers end up paying exorbitant prices for little reduction in CO2.'

The Gillard government are committed to supporting our working families. We understand the cost of living pressures and we are determined to deliver policies which will assist our families and the environment. Our track record has been consistent. We always have and we always will look out for working families. Since the Labor government was elected in 2007 we have provided tax cuts and assistance to small businesses. We have increased the pension and the childcare rebate and introduced the education tax refund. We abolished Work Choices, the Howard government evil policy which took away workers' rights; it took away leave loading and overtime rates and it was ultimately the undoing of the coalition government. For the first time in history Australia has a paid parental leave scheme, allowing working parents to stay at home and bond with their new additions without having to worry about the cost-of-living pressures, and this is on top of their employers' existing paid parental leave scheme. We accomplished all this within our tight budget. We will be delivering an increase of $4,000 in family tax benefit part A. We will extend the education tax refund to include uniforms and provide the option for families to receive the child-care rebate payments fortnightly. All our incentives are costed and fully funded. We are committed to a stronger economy and more jobs for Australians. We are investing in the future of our nation through infrastructure and investing in skills.

If those opposite really cared about our working families they would never have introduced Work Choices; they would never have taken away workers' rights. But the people spoke, they lost government and then Mr Abbott told everyone Work Choices was 'dead, buried and cremated'. A great analogy can be drawn with the recent election at the opposition's party council when there was a ballot for presidency between Mr Peter Reith and another gentleman, whose name escapes me at the moment. I want to refer to some of the comments made in an article in the Age where Mr Reith said:

Labour market reform is too important to be left in the Liberal political closet.

Even though I have spent many years as an activist promoting labour market reform, I promised Opposition Leader Tony Abbott I would suspend my interest in this if I became federal president of the Liberal Party. I thought that was the best way I could support Abbott and the team and quietly encourage great policy.

Mr Reith questioned Mr Abbott's commit­ment, saying:

It was good that Abbott publicly called for the business community to make the case for reform. I hope he means it.

I wonder what he means by that statement 'I hope he means it'? Is he questioning Mr Tony Abbott's genuineness in this area of reforming industrial laws?

Despite having given Peter Reith his commitment to vote for him, Mr Abbott instead voted for Mr Stockdale and then showed Mr Stockdale the outcome of his decision. We know this because it is in the press; the television cameras were rolling. Apparently he turned to Ms Bishop and said, 'Hell, I thought Reith would have won.' Certainly you can imagine the shock on Ms Bishop's face, because she understood that there was an arrangement and that a deal had been done. She responded, 'Yeah, well, he lost by one vote, Tony.' This is the disin­genuousness of this person, whether it be in important elections for the president of the opposition party or a commitment to put a bill such as this to a plebiscite on such an important matter. You really question whether this person is genuine enough to accept an outcome. He has clearly demon­strated that that is not the case; he would not accept the outcome and this is typical of the form of this particular person.

We know that the only position we can take is to make sure that we deliver a policy—and educate constituents to make sure they understand what is ahead of them—that will work towards effectively putting a price on carbon in the cheapest, most effective way, in a way that will support businesses and in a way that will not affect households, to provide a transition to a cleaner economy. (Time expired)

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

It is unusual for me but I must say I am almost speechless having heard the contributions from Senator Furner and Senator Brown. Senator Furner was talking about people being disingenuous; this comes from a member of a party whose leader one day before the last election put her hand on her heart and said, 'There shall be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That is not disingenuous; it is an outright lie. If that is not a lie, I do not know what is. Listening to Senator Furner lecture people about disingenuousness is making me almost speechless.

On the same note, we had the leader of the government, Senator Bob Brown, lecturing us on abiding by the rules in debate. Those of us with long memories remember how he used to regularly disobey police instructions, and disobey traffic rules—I think at one stage he was in trouble with the police for breaking the rules—and here he is in this chamber lecturing us about following the rules. As my colleague Senator Cash pointed out, he deliberately thumbs his nose at the standing orders of this chamber which say he must acknowledge the President, as we all do. Sometimes we forget. Senator Brown deliberately thumbed his nose at those rules, and at you, I might say, Mr Acting Deputy President, in his demeanour and his absolute contempt of this parliament, of this chamber and, indeed, of Australian democracy. For Senator Bob Brown to start lecturing us about abiding by the rules is just, again, almost making me speechless. I cannot wait for the time when Senator Rhiannon is head of the Greens. If I had a vote, Senator Rhiannon, I would be voting for you. I do not agree with you on much of what you do but I know that you are steadfast, that you do not involve yourself in hypocrisy as, some might say, your current leader does. I emphasise that even when it was drawn to Senator Bob Brown's attention that he should acknowledge the chair, he then deliberately got up, walked out and ignored the rules. For him to be lecturing anyone about following the rules is just mind-boggling. As I said, it almost leaves me speechless.

I wanted to participate in the debate. I have been sitting here listening to all of the contributions, because I wanted to find out from the Labor Party speakers what was in the carbon tax package that is going to be released, apparently on Sunday, with great fanfare. I had hoped that the Australian Labor Party speakers could tell us, because I know the other speaker this morning, Senator Bob Brown, knows exactly what is in the package. Yet Senator Furner does not. Senator Cameron, a very prominent member of the Australian Labor Party and of this chamber, does not know what is in it. But Senator Bob Brown does. And Senator Milne. Do you know what? Perhaps I do not have to tell you this, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Australian Labor Party members of parliament are going to be hooked up to a telephone call on Sunday to be told by their 'trusting leader' what is in the package. By the time that the Labor Party MPs are told what is in the package, the Greens will have already been briefed. As I said, I know Senator Bob Brown knows what is in it and, from some injudicious media comments that I heard today from other members of the Greens, I suspect that Senator Bob Brown has not kept the confidence—I only suspect that. But the poor old Labor Party, the lobotomised zombies—they do not know. They have not got a clue what is in it. They have been drip-fed on the good bits and drip-fed to leak out the goodish parts, the parts where you tax people and then compensate them by giving them their money back. Great economics! So typical of the Labor Party. That is all they know. They know as much as we do. When Senator Cameron spoke in this debate, I listened to his every word. I was just waiting for him to get off the politics and the personal abuse and actually tell us what was in the carbon package, but we did not get that, because, frankly, Senator Cameron does not know. It amazes me that the Greens know every detail chapter and verse, but Senator Furner and Senator Cameron do not. Here is Senator Bob Brown back in the chamber, again acknowledging the chair, in accordance with the standing orders. He is deliberately flouting the rules of this chamber, as he has deliberately flouted the rules of the land over the years, and then he has the hide to lecture us about abiding by the rules—an action that could only be described as hypocrisy.

Regrettably, Senator Furner and Senator Cameron do not know; none of the Labor speakers know. Perhaps I could ask Senator McEwen or Senator Carol Brown. Perhaps they could tell us. But I know they cannot tell us, because they do not know either. Senator Bob Brown knows, but the Labor Party does not. Who is running this gover­ment? I do not need to tell you who is running this government. It is the Greens, led by a man—Senator Bob Brown—who deliberately flouts the rules of this chamber and, as we have seen from his history, civil law on occasion as well.

In these contributions from the Greens-Labor alliance members I did hear them say that everybody wants a carbon tax. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps all the opinion polls are wrong. Let me give them the benefit of the doubt. Let me take Senator Bob Brown's word. It will be the only time in history I have ever done that, but just as an exercise, let us take his word. If he is so confident that the people of Australia want a carbon tax, then let us have a plebiscite. What could be fairer than that? What is wrong with that? Why would you not ask the Australian people what they want? Mr Abbott has said, very publicly and very directly, that he will abide by the results of the plebiscite.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true.

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

It is absolutely true.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, please address your remarks to the chair.

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

Senator McLucas is again trying to mislead the Senate with her interjection. With thanks to Senator Cormann, I quote from Mr Abbott's speech at Parliament House on 4 July. He said:

If the arguments for a carbon tax are as clear and as convincing as members of this government say, let's have a vote. Let's put them to the people.

…   …   …

Let's bring it on …

He said that the government should be prepared to accept the vote of the people, and he has indicated quite clearly that he will as well.

So let us have a plebiscite. What could be fairer? What objection could you have to that? If you do not want a plebiscite, then let us go to the ultimate plebiscite. If Senator Brown is so confident that he will win this debate, perhaps he could move a vote of no confidence in the government and bring the government down. We can go to an election—make it a double dissolution. I know the Labor Party would be petrified of this, because Senator Cameron and Senator Furner would not even make it in a double dissolution, let me tell you. One is from Queensland, the other from New South Wales. Senator Sterle, from Western Australia, would not make it either. I can confidently predict that in Queensland and Western Australia Labor not only would Labor lose every lower house seat on this particular issue but also, I suspect, there would be very few senators elected from those states.

So let us have the vote if Senator Brown is confident that all Australians want this carbon tax—that all Australians want to increase their cost of living and want to be burdened. If many Australians want to lose their jobs, particularly up in Central Queens­land and North Queensland, where I come from—if he is so confident that that is what they want—let us have a vote. This is a democracy. What could be fairer than having a vote?

But will the Greens-Labor government that rules this country be interested in that? Are they at all interested in what the people of Australia might say? Of course not. What we have had so far from the Greens and the Labor Party—and this will ramp up incredibly with $12 million of taxpayers' money, which the Labor-Greens alliance is going to be using to run a political campaign to try to retrieve their electoral fortunes—is this dishonest campaign by the government.

The facts of the carbon tax are continually misrepresented by the Labor Party. Actually, in the last few years, the world's temperature has fallen, yet Senator Furner quoted some figures suggesting the opposite. I have pointed out before a CSIRO graph that shows that 140,000 years ago the sea levels were about where they are today. The graph also shows that over these 140,000 years the sea levels fell, until about 20,000 years ago, when they rose overnight to almost where they are now. I am not sure that industry and man's behaviour caused that rise in sea levels 20,000 years ago. I am only a simple person; I am not a scientist.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's exactly so.

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

We agree on that, Senator McLucas—one of the few things we agree on. But I can read the graph. It goes like this: sea level there; a fall down to there; and 20,000 years ago it went straight up like that. What caused that? Human beings' industrialisation? I do not know. Ask the CSIRO. In fact, I have asked them in a question on notice. I am still waiting for the response. So this is the sort of campaign that is being run by Labor and the Greens and this is what will happen.

As I say, I do not presume to lecture other people on things like science; I have always been quite clear on that. Of course climate is changing—there is never any doubt about that in my mind. Is man doing it? I do not know. I have been open about that. I have heard a lot of scientists say it is; I have heard a lot of scientists say it is not. If they cannot agree, what chance have I got? So my position has never changed.

But what I do say is: why do you penalise Australians with this sort of ridiculous, job-destroying carbon tax when nobody else in the world is doing it? I would hope someone in the Labor Party might get up and quote us the figures from the United States—'Well, there are lots of states doing it.' If they read recent history, they will find that most of the states in the United States that used to do something like this are withdrawing and getting out of it as quickly as possible, because these carbon trading schemes are a farce. The United States congress has made it quite clear that they will not be having one bar of any emissions trading scheme or carbon tax. The Chinese are often quoted, but even the government and, I suspect, Senator Brown, now have to acknowledge that, while the Chinese people are reducing their output of carbon by certain means, at the same time they are building new coal-fired power stations every day, so that the net result for China will be continuing increases in carbon.

What will this tax do for Australians? It will increase their cost of living, particularly for those of us who live remote from the capital cities. Of course, I know the Labor Party and the Greens are not interested in that; they do not get any support out in the real world. You have only to look at the fiasco on live cattle to understand that they have no interest in, no empathy for and no understanding of the human lives—let alone the businesses and family histories—being put at risk by things like the live cattle ban. As an aside, I say that thankfully Senator Ludwig has at last, after three weeks, woken up to what destruction he had done with that stupid decision. But it is typical of the Labor government to rush in and make a decision on pink batts, live cattle or school halls. They rush in, make a decision and waste all the taxpayers' money. It is not their money. I tell you that, if it were the Labor Party's money they were spending on these schemes, they would be a bit more careful; but it is the taxpayers' money. They do not care about the taxpayers' money. It is very easy to spend other people's money, and that is what the Labor Party are doing.

So, come Sunday, we are going to learn how the carbon tax is going to impact on us all. Today's leak was that it is not going to be 1,000 companies that pay; it is going to be only 500. How are they going to get to their targets? I would be interested to have Senator Brown tell me how they are going to halve the number of people they are going to attack and yet get the same outcome. If you are going to have this tax to pay everybody everything, as Ms Gillard is presently promising—not that anyone would take any notice of anything Ms Gillard promises—where is the money going to come from if they are going to tax only half the companies they said they were going to? The hypocrisy and the lack of truthfulness involved in this debate is absolutely mind-boggling.

But there is one way to fix it up: let the people of Australia have a say. What could be fairer than that? What objection can you have to that? Senator Brown says it will cost $80 million. Some of the programs that the Greens raise every day would cost much, much more than $80 million. But you would be giving the Australian people a say in perhaps the greatest taxation issue since the GST.

I mention the GST because that is a good example of how to do things right. When we were in government, we talked about a GST. We brought in all the rules and procedures and the draft legislation. We said to the Australian public: 'This is what we are going to do with the GST; now we're going to an election, and if you think that we're on the right track then you'll vote for us and we'll form a government and be able to put in the GST. If you don't think it's the right thing, you won't vote for it.' Why can't the Gillard government do that? I will tell you why: the Labor Party and the Greens know that, if they asked the Australian public—if you were at all a believer in democracy—they would both be annihilated. The people of Australia would say, 'We don't want this tax; we don't want this imposition on our cost of living, particularly when it won't impact in any way whatsoever—it will not have one iota of impact—on the world greenhouse gas emissions. All it will do will be to send Australian jobs overseas.' I am very distraught about the jobs up in the central Queensland area, up in North Queensland and up in Northern Australia, including the Pilbara. I am very worried about the impact the tax will have on the jobs of my fellow Australians. The Labor Party and the Greens do not care about that. They just want a tax. They want to get the money in. They have huge budget black holes. They will do anything to try to overcome their incompet­ence with money.

So I conclude by again asking Senator Brown or any of the Labor Party people who are prepared to discuss this particular bill: what is wrong with asking the Australian people what they want? What is wrong with having a plebiscite, as Mr Abbott proposes? What is wrong, indeed, with going to an election? Let us make it a double dissolution election. What could be fairer? Let us see what we in this democracy would say. But no—the Greens and the Labor Party will join together. They will ignore the wishes and will of the Australian people and push through this horrible legislation, which will have such an impact on our cost of living and, indeed, the jobs of our fellow Australians.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I set on the record that I believe that anthropogenic climate change is real. I believe that it does require decisive and effective action. I believe that we also need to have effective policies for adaptation because the science indicates—and there are too many good scientists who express very real concern about what will happen unless we act decisively on this—that adaptation also needs to be considered. I think that has not been part of the public policy debate.

I note that both the coalition and the government have similar policies in terms of reaching a five per cent target by 2020. It is just the mechanism by which they are proposing to reach those targets. The coalition has its direct action plan and the government is now proposing a carbon-pricing mechanism—I think the Prime Minister has referred to it as a carbon tax. The dilemma I have here is that the Prime Minister shortly before the last election said that there would be no carbon tax. I think it is important that, where there has been a change of government policy on an issue as fundamental as this, there ought to be an opportunity for Australians to have a say. A plebiscite would be a mechanism to do that.

The only issue I take with the opposition in relation to the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 [No. 2] is that the opposition must make it clear that the outcome of the plebiscite is one that the parliament ought to be bound by. If the Australian people say they do want a price on carbon, they want a carbon-pricing mechanism, to deal with climate change then the parliament ought to be bound by that. I for one believe that that is the right thing to do. Otherwise, you spend tens of millions of dollars on a plebiscite and it is very problematic if you are not bound by that.

In a parliamentary democracy in the ordinary course of events you expect elected representatives to do their jobs. You expect elected representatives to get on with the business of dealing with legislation and dealing with important issues. That is what a representative democracy is about. We do not have in this country the mechanism they have in Switzerland or in a number of American states for so-called direct democracy, for citizen initiated referenda. We do not have that mechanism and such a mechanism can be done only via an act of this parliament. I believe that, if the electorate does not approve of decisions, you can rectify that in the ordinary course of events at the next election. That is what you expect. But, if there is a fundamental change in policy where you cannot unscramble the egg once you have put it in place, there ought to be a mechanism to allow Austra­lians to deal with that issue.

For all the criticisms I have of former Prime Minister Howard, he did do the right thing by having an election on the GST when he said previously that there would never, ever be a GST. He at least took that issue to the Australian people. The issue of the government advertising campaign to buttress his position is very problematic for me but at least there was an ability for the Australian people to decide on that.

I support the plebiscite because it is consistent with the approach I took 13 years ago when the then Liberal John Olsen government said just before the 1997 state election that they would not privatise the state's electricity assets, the Electricity Trust of South Australia, ETSA. They said it would not happen. It was a key issue of the election campaign. It was a lineball election and the Olsen government was re-elected with the support of conservative Independ­ents in a minority government position. Within three months the Olsen government said they would privatise the state electricity assets because circumstances had changed. I felt then when I had a casting vote on that legislation that the only way to rectify the dilemma that the government had had in effect a reverse mandate not to sell the state's electricity assets was to have a referendum. In the end my vote did not count because two Labor members crossed the floor to vote with the government to pass that privatisation legislation.

There is an issue here of engagement. The traditional Labor voters I have spoken to in the electorate say that they have an issue with there being a change in the policy position. Unlike members of the coalition, I do not believe that the Prime Minister lied when she said there will not be a carbon tax. I believe she genuinely believed that. I also understand that the circumstances changed by virtue of minority government. It is not a criticism of the Prime Minister for changing her position, but on something as fundamen­tal as this, I think the Australian people ought to have a say.

Thirteen years ago I was heavily influenced by an article that Hugh Mackay, the social researcher and commentator, wrote called 'The lying game'. It was published in the Fairfax papers—in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Ageon 1 August 1998. It is still a very good read. He talked about the disengagement that Australians have in the political process. What Hugh Mackay said back then I think is as true or even truer today. He talked about the disconnection that Australians have with the political process. They are so disenchanted with the Australian political process. He said:

There are plenty of young Australians, for instance, who believe they can extract more useful information—and possibly more "truth"—from an episode of Neighbours than from a news bulletin or a current affairs program. The soap, they say, is about a lot of people telling it like it is, whereas politics seems to be about a lot of people telling it like it isn't.

I think there is that disconnection and disenchantment. I think having a plebiscite would allow the Australian people to engage in this process. I have a lot of confidence in the Australian people and their judgment. Hugh Mackay said:

With trust in the political process being eroded with every bent principle, every broken promise and every policy backflip, the level of cynicism has reached breaking point for many Australians.

That is what concerns me. I think engage­ment on this issue by the Australian people would be a good thing, but the opposition must be bound by the will of the Australian people in relation to this—in fact, I think the parliament ought to be bound by that.

I think the difficulty the government have is that there is a level of cynicism and disconnection amongst many of their traditional supporters. I genuinely believe that this would be a circuit breaker. Unless this occurs, whatever policy merits there may be in the government's proposal—and I do not want to pass comment on that until we see the details on Sunday—the government will be struggling to sell its message to the Australian people by virtue of the change in policy position. Again I emphasise that I do not believe the Prime Minster was lying when she said there would not be a carbon tax. She changed her position. I respect that but I think the respectful thing to do to the Australian people is to have a plebiscite to deal with this matter.

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

I also rise to speak on the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011, a private member's bill. I must say right from the start that this bill is an absolute sham. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to score cheap political points. We would not expect anything less from those opposite. They are led by a man who does not believe in climate change despite the evidence and despite the science.

There used to be members of the Liberal Party who stood for placing a price on carbon, but the sceptics took over. The climate change deniers took control. In one fell swoop they turned the opposition's climate change policy on its head. Those opposite used to belong to a party that believed in climate change. Those opposite used to belong to a party that wanted to take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Those opposite had an emissions trading scheme as part of their policy—but not anymore; not since the climate sceptics seized control. Those opposite have descend­ed into a party focused on mindless nega­tivity. The only motive that those opposite possess these days is to oppose everything and wreak havoc and destruction.

Those opposite do not seem interested in constructive policy debate and formulation. It is a real shame, because those opposite used to believe in climate change. For instance, we have heard a number of times in the debate here this morning that former Prime Minister John Howard believed in climate change and that he took a policy of an emissions trading scheme to the 2007 federal election. Former Prime Minister Howard said, 'Fundamental to tackling climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to have a price on carbon, because you cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless you have a price on carbon.'

There are a number of senators among those opposite who also believed in placing a price on carbon, and it is disappointing that they have backed away from this commit­ment. What we are left with today is an opp­osition which resorts to political stunts and mindless negativity. To make matters worse, their leader, Mr Abbott, is on the record saying that, even if we waste $80 million of taxpayers' money on a glorified opinion poll, he will not necessarily accept the results. That is right; Mr Abbott is committed to pressing ahead with a plebi­scite and spending $80 million even though everyone knows he will completely ignore the results. This is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

At this point I want to quote a former senator, Senator Fielding. I have probably never quoted Senator Fielding before. I have not often agreed with him but I think he got it right on 21 June 11, when he said, in response to a question about supporting the carbon tax plebiscite bill: 'It is really just a political stunt—an expensive, glorified opinion poll—and it is not going to be binding. Tony Abbott said that even he is not going to abide by it. So it is just a total waste of taxpayers' money and I will not be involved in such a political stunt.' He said:

Seriously, why should we waste $80 million on a glorified opinion poll just because Tony has got a problem?

That was absolutely right. Spot on. Senator Fielding at that time got that completely right. It is a stunt. It is a stunt that was probably thought up on the run, as Mr Abbott is always on the run. It was a little thought bubble and it has not worked well for Mr Abbott because people have seen through it. They have seen that this is just a waste of taxpayers' money.

We now have an opposition who come into this chamber and preach fiscal responsi­bility when in fact their own actions demon­strate that nothing could be further from the truth. They are fiscally irresponsible. Week after week we come into this place and are faced with private members' bills put up by members of the opposition which appropriate funds, but they fail to offset these proposed new spendings with any savings measures.

In addition to that irresponsibility they are also blocking $6 billion worth of savings. Those opposite are all talk and no action when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Whilst those opposite continue to play political games and preach fiscal irresponsibility, we on this side of the chamber are getting on with the job of placing a price on carbon and taking action on climate change.

As the government has made clear, this Sunday we intend to announce the full details of our carbon-pricing plan, which will help us tackle climate change and transition Australia's economy to a clean energy future. Whilst I have made contributions to similar debates in the past few days, I think it is important to recap the main features of the carbon price. The carbon price will only apply to the biggest polluters in the Austra­lian economy. This means that the biggest polluters will be required to pay for every tonne of pollution they emit. As the govern­ment has made clear, this is the most effective and the cheapest way for us to build a clean energy economy. The government has also been steadfast that all revenue generated from the carbon price will be used to support households with assistance, to support jobs in the most affected industries and to invest in clean energy.

Our position on placing a price on carbon is in stark contrast to those opposite, who are far more interested in running a scare campaign and in political point-scoring than taking action on climate change. This is hardly surprising, considering those opposite are led by a number of well-known climate change sceptics. Mr Abbott's own climate change policy would cost $30 billion. It is taxpayers who would be left to foot the bill, rather than the big polluters. Under Mr Abbott's plan, households would not receive any assistance to cope with rises in the cost of living; instead, they will be hit with an extra $720 at tax time.

The government remain committed to putting Australian households first. We have already confirmed that more than 50 per cent of revenue raised from a carbon price will be used to assist households, with further details of the assistance package to be released on Sunday. We know already that the govern­ment will assist households as well as industry when the carbon price is introduced. The government have made it clear that nine out of 10 Australian households will receive some form of assistance for their household budgets. We have also said on numerous occasions that most of those seven million households will not be worse off under a carbon price.

The government are committed to ensuring that low- and middle-income earners as well as pensioners are looked after under the government's assistance package, because we know that low-income earners are the Australians who are most exposed to cost-of-living pressures. That is why we are supporting low-income earners with a 20 per cent buffer or safety net. This means that over three million households will receive an extra 20 per cent in tax cuts and payments over and above meeting the price impact of the carbon price. We also know that self-funded retirees will require support when the carbon price is introduced. That is why we will be providing financial help for around 280,000 self-funded retirees, equal to the extra payments that we will provide to over three million pensioners, part-pensioners and carers.

We know that petrol forms a big part of the household budget, so we have announced in recent years that there will be no carbon price on any fuels, including petrol, diesel and LPG, for passenger motor vehicles and light commercial vehicles. This provides another example of a deliberately run scare campaign by Mr Abbott to mislead the public. He has been running around for months trying to scare people into thinking that petrol will be part of the carbon price, and we know now that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Mr Abbott has claimed more than 20 times in the past four months that the cost of petrol would rise.

Recently, the Treasurer made an address at the National Press Club to highlight the benefits and opportunities presented to the Australian economy under a carbon price and, as part of his address, released modell­ing from Treasury showing that, under a theoretical carbon price of $20 per tonne, the Australian economy would still grow solidly whilst also making deep cuts to carbon pollution. This modelling also showed that employment would continue to grow with the introduction of a carbon price, with Australia on track to increase national employment by 1.6 million jobs by 2020.

As we have made clear time and again, the Labor government are committed to taking action on climate change—evidence based, appropriate action that is in Australia's best interests. That action is a carbon price mechanism. We have opted to introduce a fixed-price phase of between three and five years to begin with, because it gives busi­nesses certainty and helps them make a smooth transition to a full emissions trading scheme. It will also give businesses the time to understand how a carbon price will affect them and give them time to change their business practices so they are better prepared for the introduction of an ETS.

We know that a carbon price will result in an increase in prices; we have been upfront about this. When you introduce a market mechanism, you have to expect that the market will respond. However, as I pointed out, under the government's plan we will provide assistance to households to offset the change in prices under the introduction of a carbon price—and, as I have mentioned, the government will not be keeping the money raised as part of the introduction of a carbon price; we will be ensuring that the money collected is used to help families and households with household bills.

The global economy is moving towards a clean energy economy. Thirty-two countries and 10 US states are already moving towards an emissions trading scheme. We cannot be left behind. We have the highest emissions per capita in the world, even higher than the United States, and for too long we have talked about taking action on climate change. We cannot delay any longer. We need to provide businesses with certainty so they can begin their transition to being part of a clean energy economy. The science behind climate change is clear: scientists are telling us that carbon pollution is causing climate change, and the government accept this science. In Australia, 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record, and each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the preceding decade. We must take action. Australia is facing huge economic costs from climate change across a range of sectors. If we do not act soon, we risk being left behind. It is essential we act now. A carbon price mechanism is essential. The carbon price will act as the primary driver of an economic transformation which will set Australia on the path towards a clean energy economy and achieve real emission reductions.

The difference between the two major parties is stark. We believe climate change is real and taking action is the right thing to do; the opposition are led by sceptics who do not believe in climate change and do not want to take real action. We want the biggest-polluting companies to pay for each tonne of carbon pollution they produce; they want to reward big polluters and make taxpayers foot the bill. We want to build a clean energy economy; they will endanger our prosperity and jobs. We want to support households and pensioners with an assistance package; they want to slug families $720 to subsidise big polluters.

The time to act on climate change is now, and that is what we will continue to do. The government believes in climate change and is committed to taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing a price on carbon. But we are not the only ones; many economists, community leaders, busin­es­ses and industries all believe that we need to introduce a carbon price.

In summing up, Mr Deputy President—and I congratulate the Deputy President on his appointment; I had not formally added my congratulations to the chorus of congratulations he has received—I urge the Senate to oppose this sham of a bill. I urge the Senate to see this bill for what it is: scare tactics and sham policy. It is a bill that would waste $80 million of taxpayers' money. Tony Abbott has not even committed to accept the outcome of a plebiscite. He must have thought this bill up while he was running around the place. I urge the Senate to oppose this bill.

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

It is an absolute pleasure to rise to speak on the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 [No. 2] because it is critically important. It should not be brushed off, as the Labor government is seeking to do; it should be seriously considered and it should be supported. It should be supported because there is a clear and present need for this bill to pass so as to provide a level of certainty and some opportunity for the Australian people to have a genuine, fair dinkum say on this most divisive of issues.

The Labor government, instead of fronting up to the debate around a carbon tax and engaging genuinely with the Australian people, are running scared, like a rabbit with its tail between its legs, from any proper scrutiny, proper debate and proper oppor­tunity to be questioned and provide decent answers to the Australian people. They are running scared from the parliament—the Senate and the other place, the House of Representatives. They do not want to front up and answer questions about their carbon tax in this place.

They have been working on this carbon tax for many months, and what are they going to do now? They are going to release the details of the carbon tax two days after the parliament rises for a five-week recess rather than allow a debate to happen in this place, the people's parliament. They refuse to come into this place and answer questions on the actual detail of their scheme. For months now, they have complained about the fact that the opposition is asking questions without knowing the detail of the scheme. Time and again, we have said, 'Show us the detail. Tell us what is in this carbon tax proposal.'

But, no; they have resisted. They have drip-fed titbits of it to the media, preferably the Sunday newspapers, hoping to appease community concerns by putting positive spin on tiny parts of it. But they will not tell us, of course, what the carbon tax is actually going to be. They will not tell us what the rate of increase on the carbon tax will be. We know it is going to increase every single year, but they will not tell us by how much it will increase. They will not tell us clearly what is in and what is out. Instead we get a story, like we did in last Monday's newspapers, saying that petrol will be excluded. But we hear nothing when it comes to the crunch and they are asked, 'What does that mean? Will it be excluded completely? What about trucks? Will petrol be included in the carbon tax regime for the trucking industry?'

Some senators on the Labor side are willing to speak the truth on this matter. Senator Sterle and Senator Gallacher, who I see in the chamber at present, have been willing to front up to their government and say that the carbon tax will have a devasta­ting impact on the transport sector if it is applied across the board. But Senator Wong in this place and Mr Combet and Prime Minister Gillard in the other place will not actually say which parts of the transport sector it will affect. And it is not just trucks; what about passenger buses? What about public transport services? You would have thought the Greens would have a particular interest in negotiating the carbon tax around public transport services.

There are so many unanswered questions when it comes to this carbon tax. We are told we are going to see some detail on Sunday, and I welcome that detail, but what I would welcome even more is the opportunity to be here on Monday asking questions of the government about the detail. But, no; they will not be here—they will not be in this place and they will not be in the other place. They will not front up and answer questions on the detail of their carbon tax in the people's parliament as they rightly should. They are running scared from the parliament. In their opposition to this bill, the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill, we see they are also running scared from the people. It is not just the parliament they are scared of but the people's judgment as well—because all this bill would do is give the opportunity for the Australian people to have a say on the carbon tax.

Julia Gillard went to the last election solemnly promising she would not introduce a carbon tax. She said solemnly: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That is the most straightforward and clear-cut statement that any political leader can make in an election campaign. She made it clearly and yet she will not allow the Austra­lian people to have a say on whether her justifications for breaking that promise are reasonable enough. We think the Australian people should have a say, and if they cannot have their say through another election to get this country back on the straight track then they should have their say through this plebiscite bill. That is why it should be passed.

We have a government that is running scared of the parliament and running scared of the people and that is based not just on one lie but on a series of lies. I mentioned before the monty of them all, the big one from the election campaign, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'—the clearest statement of them all. It is the clearest statement to be so convincingly broken as it has been by this government. It did not take long. The Prime Minister claimed that she had to break the promise because of changed circumstances. That is the full extent of her justification: changed political circumstances. Because she got a minority government in the House of Representatives, that is her justification for breaking this most solemn promise. Then she came along with some of the detail around the carbon tax and said petrol will be out and it will be out forever—except for the fact that we know that 'forever' in Ms Gillard's language is only until such time as circum­stances change. So 'forever' is not worth terribly much when it comes from the Prime Minister's mouth. 'Forever' is obviously quite meaningless because it applies only until the circumstances change.

But it is not just the overall 'there will be no carbon tax' statement that is the lie dogging this government; it is the process by which they go about trying to sell it. They go about trying to sell the carbon tax by arguing that somehow Australia will be left behind the rest of the world if we do not implement a carbon tax. But what did the Productivity Commission say when asked that question? The Productivity Commission report, released just last month, said very clearly:

… no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS.

That is a statement just about as clear-cut as, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'—'No country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions.' Yet this government wants to do exactly that: impose an economy-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions. It wants to do so claiming that somehow Australia will be left behind the rest of the world if we do not do so. The Productivity Commission say the opposite. Not only do they say that nobody else does it but they also clearly say that Australia rates around 'mid-range' in terms of resources allocated to abatement and abatement achieved without there being a carbon tax. 'Mid-range' is their description of Australia's current efforts in relation to greenhouse gas reduction. As a middle power and a middle sized economy that is exactly where Australia should be.

We believe and the government itself claims to believe that Australia should be neither ahead of the world nor behind the rest of the world when it comes to reducing emissions. We should do our bit. To get too far ahead would be to place too much jeopardy on jobs in our economy and our industries. To be too far behind would be irresponsible. We should be doing our bit, and the Productivity Commission report found that we are doing our bit, that we are in the mid-range and that we are doing as we should do as a responsible global citizen. So, far from the situation of Australia not pulling its own weight, we are pulling our own weight.

The debate we have in this place and publicly is not about whether or not we should continue to pull our weight in reducing global emissions; it is about how to do so most responsibly. On this side we believe the most responsible way to do so is through an incentives driven approach. We believe that, rather than putting on an economy wide tax unlike anything anybody else in the world has, and churning billions of dollars—it is likely to be $10, $13, $14 billion—through the Treasury coffers, and redistributing a whole bunch of it back, some to households, some to the Greens' pet projects and some to industry, instead you should run the country efficiently, run the budget efficiently, come up with the savings necessary and incentivise those areas of the economy that can most efficiently reduce their emissions or abate carbon. That is the best way to do it—target action where you can get the results rather than taxing the entire country.

We believe you can achieve the emissions reductions that are required and we believe you can do it by making the government tighten their belts and spending government dollars more wisely on emissions reduction activities rather than what Labor want to do, which is force every Australian household to tighten their belts with absolutely no guarantee of emissions reduction. Even Senator Wong has said that a carbon tax has no guarantees of emissions reduction. There is no guarantee you will get emissions reduction under a carbon tax. Even under their trading scheme it is quite possible that most of the reductions will come by purchasing permits offshore and you will get no emissions reduction in Australia. I can guarantee that under the coalition's plan you will get emissions reduction in Australia, you will get emissions abatement in Australia and it will happen at the lowest possible cost. So let us go to the people and give them a choice. Let us pass this bill and put our trust in the Australian people to decide this debate.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.