Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The Gillard government's determination to introduce a carbon tax despite the Prime Minister's solemn promise not to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

Today we mark the anniversary of the Prime Minister's carbon tax lie. Today we mark the anniversary of the Prime Minister's broken promise, which she solemnly and emphatically made on 16 August 2010 in the shadow of a difficult election that was just five days away and that she knew she was at serious risk of losing. Five days before the last election, when the Prime Minister knew she was in trouble, the hollow men in her office and the spin doctors at Sussex Street in Sydney and around Australia were telling her, 'Unless you make an emphatic promise that there will be no carbon tax under a government you lead, chances are that our government will be history and you will no longer be Prime Minister come 22 August.' The only reason the Prime Minister looked down the barrel of that camera and talked directly to the Australian people, five days before the last election, is that she knew that she had to rule out a carbon tax otherwise she was not going to be Prime Minister for more than another five days.

The carbon tax is a bad tax based on a lie. It is a broken promise and it is a policy we oppose, firstly because it is a broken promise, but also because it is bad policy for Australia. The carbon tax is bad for household budgets, it is bad for the economy and it is no good for the environment either. The lie continues, because the Prime Minister tells us that the whole point of the carbon tax is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. She tells us that somehow this carbon tax package will help Australia make a contribution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. But, of course, it will not do anything of the sort. The lie continues to this day.

The carbon tax will push up the cost of everything, it will make Australia less competitive internationally, it will cost jobs and it will hurt small business, and all of that without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. It will make overseas emitters more competitive than even the most environmentally efficient equivalent businesses in Australia. Helping overseas emitters to take market share away from businesses in Australia is not effective action on climate change; it is a reckless and irresponsible act of economic self-harm.

I note that we have a senator from Tasmania in the chamber with us. I have travelled around Australia over the past five or six weeks, including to an aluminium smelter in Bell Bay, in the seat of Bass. I am sure that Senator Polley well knows which company I am talking about. It is a company that over the past 20 years has done much to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. It has done much to reduce its energy intensity. It has done much to reduce the emissions it produces. In fact, as Senator Polley would know, as a manufacturing business in the great state of Tasmania it draws most of its energy from hydro. I see Senator Polley is nodding, so she agrees with me.

But, do you know what will happen with this carbon tax? Aluminium smelters in China will become more competitive than the aluminium smelter in Bell Bay, near Launceston. Aluminium smelters in China will take market share from the aluminium smelter in Tasmania. That is what they have told us. I see that Senator Polley is now shaking her head, so she no longer agrees. But I know for a fact that the Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, was there meeting with the good people at the aluminium smelter on the same day I was there. We were both told that in this current economic environment, where they are right on the edge in terms of international com­petitiveness—given the strength of the Australian dollar and given the state of the economy internationally, generally—that this carbon tax will seriously undermine and put further pressure on their international competitiveness position. They told that to representatives from the government as well as representatives from the Liberal-National party. They have said that this carbon tax will help businesses in China, who would be more polluting, to take market share from that particular business in Tasmania. That is not effective action on climate change. As a US congressman observed, this is more akin to an act of unilateral economic dis­armament.

I will go through some of the lies that are still being perpetrated now. I just talked about emitters in China. Manufacturing businesses in China cannot wait for this carbon tax to come into place. They know this will help them take market share from Australian manufacturing businesses. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Treasurer and others keep talking about how we are somehow going to reduce emissions by sending business overseas. But reducing emissions in Australia in a way that increases them by more in other parts of the world does not do anything for the environment; it actually leaves the world worse off environ­mentally. People here in Australia have been asked to make a sacrifice. Their jobs have been put at risk. They have been asked to pay more for their electricity, they have been asked to pay more for their gas and they have been asked to pay more for their household goods, and what for? Only to shift emissions to other parts of the world.

Let us just have a look at the impact that this carbon tax will have on emissions. Emissions in Australia are going to continue to go up. At present, according to the information that was released as part of the package, we put out levels of about 578 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in Australia in 2009-10. Under the core policy scenario, by 2020 our domestic emissions will be 621 million tonnes. Now emissions are continuing to go up. So the government says: 'Don't worry about that. They'll be lower than they otherwise would be. The reason we can say emissions are going down is that without a carbon tax they would go up by more. They're not going to go up by quite as much.'

Let us look at that argument. We turn around and say, 'What is going to be the impact on jobs?' We are told that jobs will continue to grow. The economy is going to continue to grow. But hang on: economic growth is going to be lower. There are going to be fewer jobs, and the government is saying that there is not going to be an impact of the carbon tax. When it comes to jobs, when it comes to the economy, you have to compare things with current levels. Compared with current levels, supposedly jobs are still going to go up, even though they are going to be lower than they otherwise would be. When it comes to emissions you cannot compare with current levels; you have to compare with what the situation would have been. You have to decide. If you say that emissions are going down just because they are going to be lower than they otherwise would have been, then you have to admit that jobs are going to go down as well—and of course the Treasury modelling assumes that real wages are going to go down.

Let us look at the impact on emissions globally. Only three years ago Treasury did what they said was the most comprehensive modelling ever done on anything to do with carbon pollution and so on. They assumed then that China, in 2020, would put out 16.1 billion tonnes of emissions. Three years later, they have revised their modelling. Now they think China will put out 17.9 billion tonnes of emissions by 2020. So just by having revised their expectations, they now think that Chinese emissions are going to be 1.8 billion tonnes higher in 2020 than what they thought three years ago. That is more than three times—

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

Three times Australia's total.

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

That is three times Australia's total annual emissions, which are currently less than 600 million tonnes. In 2005, China's emissions were at 7.2 billion. The global community now expects that China's emissions will be at 17.9 billion tonnes in 2020. That is an increase of 10 billion tonnes in emissions between 2005 and 2020.

This carbon tax package is a joke. It is a broken promise. It is bad for Australia. This is a bad tax based on a lie, and this parliament should not support it. The Prime Minister will stand condemned for her deceit of the Australian people.

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

I always like following Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann has learned absolutely nothing from the inquiry that his party set up to look at the carbon tax. He has obviously not listened to Treasury. He has obviously not listened to any of the scientists. He is obviously determined to be a climate change denier and part of the right-wing group in the coalition that actually do not care about the long-term future of this country but are only interested in short-term politics. I think we have to come back, from time to time, to remind ourselves what this is all about. It is all about trying to deal with carbon pollution that is warming the planet.

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

Carbon is not a pollutant.

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

I hear Senator Williams interjecting that carbon is not a pollutant. This is typical of what I think is the bulk of the coalition's view. It is unscientific. It is antiscientific. It is trying to deny the science of climate change. Senator Williams at least does not make any bones about the fact that he is a denier of this stuff. That is to his credit. I do not accept what he says, but at least he does not deny it. The worst elements in the coalition are those that say, 'I agree with the science, but …'—and then they have all the arguments about why the science is not relevant. It is a nonsense.

Senator Birmingham will be talking here later. I think Senator Birmingham is one of the most tainted politicians in this chamber in relation to climate change. Senator Birmingham was a strong supporter of putting a price on carbon but, when he thought he could make some political progress within the coalition, he dumps his values, he dumps his policies—and what does he do? He takes up 'direct action'.

We have another group in the Senate who are obviously climate change deniers: the DLP. The DLP are here. I am never quite sure what pocket the DLP are in—whether it is the Nationals' pocket or the Liberals' pocket—but he is always in one of those pockets, let me tell you.

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

He's not in your pocket!

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

I really don't want him near my pocket! But let us see what the eminent scientists in this country say is the real issue. There is the CSIRO. Senator Williams would rely on the CSIRO plenty of times to get information about the climate, about the weather, about what is happening with carbon in the soil—he would rely on that. But he does not believe what the CSIRO say in their recent book, Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia. What do the CSIRO say? This is not a political party; this is Australia's scientists. They say: 'Climate change is one of the greatest ecological, economic, and social challenges facing us today.'

We agree on this side that these are huge challenges, but it takes the Labor Party to deal with big challenges. What you get from the coalition is misinformation, fear campaigns and an idealisation of people like Lord Monckton. What do we have? We had Senator Cormann, as I said in the last session, lining up to get Lord Monckton's autograph in Western Australia! That is the sort of level of anti-science that is in the coalition. It is clear that the climate change deniers are in control.

What do the CSIRO say? They say: 'The impacts of climate change are already clearly visible in Australia.' It is not a theory; it is 'clearly visible', according to the scientists. They say:

Southern and eastern Australia’s water supply reliability is expected to decline as a result of reduced rainfall and increased evaporation, affecting irrigation, domestic and industrial water use, and environmental flows.

How could any person who says they stand up for the bush deny the science? It is absolutely a joke.

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

You're clearly committed to do to the Labor vote what you've done to the AMWU membership!

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

And here we have Senator Cormann! Senator Cormann must have gone up to have a look at Lord Monckton's autograph and he is all fired up and he wants to come after poor me, trying to deal with the scientific facts.

Senator Williams interjecting—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

We have the climate change deniers over there attacking me when I am dealing with the scientific facts. So, anyway, the National Party are doing a great disservice to the bush by being climate change deniers. The CSIRO go on to say:

Development and population growth in Australia’s coastal regions will exacerbate the risks from sea level rise and increase the likely severity and frequency of coastal flooding.

People who have a scientific brain are saying these things, but you can't expect Senator Williams, Senator Joyce, Senator Cormann or the DLP to actually understand these issues, because this is a political exercise for them. It is not a scientific exercise; it is an exercise in political denial. It is an exercise in misinformation. It is an exercise in fear campaigns. That is what the coalition are about.

The CSIRO go on to say our infrastructure is under threat. They say heatwaves, storms and floods will have a direct impact on the health of Australians. They say:

Moderate warming in the absence of rainfall declines can be beneficial to some agricultural crops, and higher levels of carbon dioxide can stimulate plant growth.

We hear this from the opposite side all the time. But the CSIRO say:

However —

you know that word 'however'—

… these positive effects can be offset by changes in temperature, rainfall, pests, and the availability of nutrients. Production from cropping and livestock is projected to decline over much of southern Australia, as is the quality of grain, grape, vegetable, fruit, and other crops.

Senator Williams, you are doing your so-called constituency a great disservice by being a climate change denier, because you are denying the scientific facts. This is not an argument about whether the government's position is more economically responsible than the coalition's position; it is actually a debate between science and the deniers—and the deniers are in control in the coalition. Malcolm Turnbull actually knows the real position. I will come to Malcolm Turnbull in a minute. On the science, where is the document The science of climate change: questions and answers from? It is certainly not from the coalition. It is from the Australian Academy of Science. They explain climate change. They explain how the earth's climate has changed in the past and how it has changed in the recent past. They say unequivocally that human activities are causing climate change. They list the causes, similarly to the CSIRO. Then they ask the question of how we deal with the uncertainty of some of the science. They say this:

Although climate forecasts are uncertain and will remain so, the broad conclusions of climate change science as outlined above—

And I hope that the DLP are listening—

are based on many lines of evidence that together give a high degree of confidence. Partly because of scientific uncertainty but also because many aspects of human life are involved, decisions about action on climate change will need to involve extensive consideration of issues beyond science, including ethics, economics and risk management.

I have heard people argue that it is the sun that is doing it. NASA, who have more information and understanding about the sun than anybody else on the planet, do not agree with that proposition. I suppose that the NASA scientists are part of the climate science communist collusion against democracy—NASA. What NASA says is that the Arctic sea ice minimum has declined 11.5 per cent in this decade, that carbon dioxide is now 391 parts per million, that sea level is increasing by 3.27 millimetres a year, that global temperature has gone up 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit on average since 1880 and that Greenland's land ice is reducing by 100 billion tonnes per year.

That is the science of the issue. We now have to deal with the politics. And the politics are underpinned on the other side by a lack of scientific understanding, a lack of scientific acceptance and attacks on our scientists. They are the cheerleaders for Alan Jones against people like Professor Karoly. Actually, I am not sure who is cheering who on. Why do they have this position? If you look at why they are doing this, they do not accept the science. They want to back in their big business backers in the mining industry. They want to back in the billionaires, such as Twiggy Forrest. They want to back in all those people who are opposing this because it might affect their profits. It is about time that those on the other side stood up for the Australian nation against the billionaire miners in this country. It is about time that they stood up for their constituency, because that constituency will be harmed. But what they are doing is simply relying on the donations flowing in from the billionaire miners and because of that they are taking a position against the national interest in support of the billionaire miners.

I have gone through some of the issues. But there is at least one—and there is more than that; we know that—coalition MP who knows the real truth here. Who is that? Malcolm Turnbull, who you all hailed as the most economically literate leader that you had ever had—back when he was your leader. But after he was knifed by the right wing—the extremists of the party—he suddenly became not economically literate. But he does have some economic literacy. I do not agree with everything that he says, but I agree with what he said about direct action, which is your supposed policy. He said that it was a recipe for fiscal recklessness. And you dare to come here and lecture us about fiscal responsibility when the most competent economic analyst on your side, Malcolm Turnbull, has got you pegged. He said that the chief advantage of the opposition's direct action policy is that it is easy to stop if you do not believe in preventing climate change. You do not believe in it.

What the government has done is take the challenge up. We are making sure that the polluters pay and not the community. You have a $70 billion black hole that you are trying to cover up. And one of the things that you are going to try and do is get rid of the department of climate change. You will want to get rid of the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology next. You are an absolute disgrace. Short-term politics are driving you and the national interest has dropped to second best. You are a disgrace. You are a rabble. You will fall apart and be exposed. And I hope to be there exposing you all the way down the line. (Time expired)

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

I note that Senator Cameron said that those on the other side use misinformation and fear campaigns. Senator Cameron, please do not leave the chamber. Stay here: I have some messages for you. He talks about carbon pollution. But what is it? Why is it when you go on to Google and you search for a list of pollutants carbon dioxide does not come up? 'Carbon pollution', Senator Cameron says. But 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the food that we eat is carbon. Did you enjoy your lunch of pollution today, Senator Cameron? Under your description, that is exactly what it is. That is misinformation, deception and propaganda.

One year gone since the big promise from the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' She said it twice. And who was that backed up by? The Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, Mr Swan, with words to the effect that the accusations by Tony Abbott and the coalition that if Labor were re-elected they would introduce a carbon tax were 'hysterical'. The highest elected office in the country is Prime Minister. And what did she do? She betrayed the Australian people. The second highest elected position in this nation is Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Swan is also the Treasurer. He betrayed the Australian people as well. There are 150 members over in that other chamber, the House of Representatives. I know of 145 at least who went to the last election saying there would be no carbon tax. But now what is the government doing to the Australian people? Senator McLucas shakes her head. Well, there are 72 Labor members over there who said there would be no carbon tax. There are 73 coalition members. That makes 145. That was the policy of 145 of those elected members of parliament prior to the last election: 'There will be no carbon tax.' And what have we got? It was a big false claim. There was a backflip.

This is what is wrong with this government. The Australian people have lost trust in this government. They do not trust it to manage the money. We have seen the waste of money. They do not trust it to balance the books. We have seen debt—I looked at the website of the Australian Office of Financial Management last Friday—of $197 billion. That figure is renewed on the website every Friday. The Australian people do not trust you with money. They do not trust you in the way you spend it. They do not trust you in your borrowing and wasting of it. They do not trust your promises about no carbon tax. That is why the Labor Party, the Australian Labor Party—I should clarify because we have another Labor Party in this chamber now, the Democratic Labor Party—has a 2 in front of its primary vote in the polling: because the Australian people do not trust you. It is as simple as that. There is mis­management and waste and the government says: 'We will have the budget in surplus come next year. Next May there will be this big surplus budget.' But now it is backtracking on that. Surplus budgets are something that the Australian Labor Party does not understand. In the last 17 years of government under the Australian Labor Party, there have been four government budget surpluses. The ALP only sees red print all over its budgets.

But I will go back to this argument about the carbon tax and the cost to business. The cement industry are going to get a 94.5 per cent discount. That means they are only going to get taxed about $9 million. This is an industry that is facing huge competition from cheap imports from places like China. We have just seen the announcement of the closing down of the Kandos factory, with the loss of 98 jobs directly plus the truckies' jobs and all the other jobs that rely on it. They are gone. And you are going to put $9 million on that industry, which can hardly even afford to remain financially viable because of the high Australian dollar—brought about, I might add, by the high interest rates brought about by government waste and spending. Here is the government, foot on the accelerator, stimulating the economy, and the Reserve Bank has got its hand on the handbrake, pulling on it hard, with seven interest rate rises in a row—and we wonder why the Australian dollar is way above parity with the US dollar. That is one of the main reasons: our interest rates, including the 4.75 per cent official cash rate.

What is the cost to business? The cement industry, which is already in trouble, will be in more trouble. In our Senate Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes, chaired by the very capable Senator Cormann, we have heard about Bindaree Beef, an abattoir in the local town where I live, employing 630 people. I believe it is the biggest employer in the seat of New England. I hope Tony Windsor actually thinks about that one day before he votes on this tax. There will be a cost of $2.74 million to that abattoir in the first year. We can go around the countryside and show you the abattoirs closed down. You can go to Broome, Derby, Katherine, Coonamble, Guyra, Gunnedah or Byron Bay—you can go around and see them closed everywhere. And what is this government going to do? It is going to put taxes on these businesses. Do their competitors in America have to face a tax? No, they do not. It is just another nail in the coffin.

Then we have the cost to the transport industry. On 1 July 2014 there will be another 6.21c tax on the truckies' diesel—in other words, there will be less rebate for the truckies. The government has already taken 3½c off their rebate. The return to the truckies per litre of diesel was 18½c when Labor won government in 2007. Now it is down to 15c. The truckies use eight billion litres of diesel a year, so the government has already charged the trucking industry over $240 million. As Tony Sheldon told our committee, this carbon tax is a death tax. Truckies will be forced to work harder, work longer and drop the maintenance on their vehicles. That is what your Transport Workers Union colleague and supporter said. Senator McLucas may shake her head, but the evidence is in Hansard if you want to read the transcript of the committee hearings. It is all in Hansard. He referred to it as a death tax because he is showing common sense about the effect on the transport industry.

Now we get to the most amazing thing of all. What is this going to do for the globe? When we get to the committee stage of this legislation, when it gets to this place, I will have a question. We know there are about 380 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere now. I want to know how much this tax will do to reduce those parts per million. That is what I want to know. The fact is that by 2020 our CO2 emissions will have gone up 43 million tonnes a year in Australia. We are not going down; we are going up. We have heard the figure today from Senator Cormann. China is going to go up by about eight billion tonnes to 17.9 billion tonnes. So we are going up. What are we going to do then? With some of that $72 billion taxed from the 500 largest emitters, we are going to buy carbon credits. This is when it is going to get really interesting. We are going to buy those credits from places overseas like Nigeria—they might be selling carbon credits—Brazil and Argentina. Who is going to check and police those carbon credits, to make sure they are for real and are not fake, fraudulent? This is opening up a whole new game around the world to transfer money off to other countries. That is what this is about.

In Australia, we are going to have the carbon cops. Bob Carr and Kim Yeadon, when he was minister—Kimberley Maxwell Yeadon, the jumped-up shop steward, as John Laws used to refer to him—brought in the tree police. A farmer who pushed over a tree faced a fine of up to $50,000. They talk about property rights. We are going to have the carbon cops. If a company puts in the wrong information, there will be a fine of up to $1.1 million or 10 years jail or both. They are going to be going around policing our companies. But what is going to happen with these credits we are buying from overseas? We will have no idea, but the billions will flow. I think the greatest statistic of all is that the emissions trading scheme that has been in place in 27 European Union countries plus three other countries—30 in total—for more than 5½ years, covering about 500 million people producing 14 per cent of the world CO2, collects approximately $500 million a year. That is $1 per person—$1 for producing 14 per cent of the world's emissions. We are going to tax Australians almost $400 per person—400 times the amount—for producing one-tenth of the emissions, 1.4 per cent. Is that justice? Is that fair? Emissions are going to go up. I am a firm believer in climate change. I believe the climate has been changing for millions of years and will continue to do so. They say the sea levels are rising. Why has Deb O'Neill MP bought a house down near the beach? Why is Minister Carmel Tebbutt moving down near the beach? If the sea level were going to rise, that would be the last place you would be going. They do not even think it is going to rise. I will check those statistics out, but that is the information—that is two Labor MPs who have moved down close to the waterfront, having total faith that the sea levels will not rise. This is a farce. In this inquiry we are having in the committee that Senator Madigan is part of, the more we dive into this whole carbon tax plan, the more ridiculous we can see the whole plan is. (Time expired)

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

That rant and rave just show you how important it is to come into this chamber and have these debates. I welcome this debate. I think I and my colleagues would be happy to be here minute after minute and hour after hour debating this issue, because—

Senator Nash interjecting—

Senator Williams interjecting—

You keep interjecting but with no alternative points of policy and no alternative points of fact. We just listen to ramble after ramble. Let me give you a—

Senator Nash interjecting—

Senator Williams interjecting—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Crossin is entitled to be heard in silence.

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

Thank you very much, sir. Let me just give you one really good example of a ramble. I am surprised—but maybe the next speaker might go to this. This is an example of why we would be happy to debate endlessly in this chamber our policy on putting a price on carbon. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Abetz, just today, talking about the position that Qantas has taken in taking jobs offshore, said this:

Clearly Labor’s Carbon Tax has not assisted Qantas in its need to compete internationally.

Suddenly, today, that is the carbon price's problem. That is this government's problem. Senator Abetz went on to say:

Planes can’t fly without fuel and the imposition of Labor’s Carbon Tax will have on operating costs is bad news for the aviation sector.

Guess what? This is another example of the mistruths, mismanagement and clear lack of understanding that we have from the opposition in this parliament, because—wait for it—there is actually no tax being applied to aviation fuel. Not only that, but our policy kicks in on 1 July next year, so how can you possibly blame the position that Qantas has taken—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is clear. On actually stating the truth there, it is clear in the legislation that it is going on—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams, could you explain the point of order.

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

the fuel, domestic fuel, aeroplane fuel.

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

Let me clearly respond to that. Before you rush into this scare campaign, that is exactly what you need to do: read the legislation and try and get a grasp of the policy issues that we are putting before this country and this parliament. In fact, there will be no carbon price on international aviation flying from Australia. Get that clear. Get that really clear. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the position that Qantas has taken today. The carbon price will not even come into effect until 1 July next year. So we have another example just today where the Leader of the Opposition in this very chamber misleads, once again, on the carbon price on aviation, trying to pretend to the rest of this country, to Qantas workers, to Qantas passengers and to clients of Qantas that somehow this government is responsible for the decision that Qantas has taken. As Minister Combet said in the press release he released just half an hour or so ago: 'Senator Abetz has today revealed just how far the coalition is prepared to go in its unprincipled fear campaign against a carbon price.' Once again, Minister Combet is right. He is absolutely right.

While we are talking about scare campaigns here, let us turn the tables a bit about the deceitful, unprincipled and reckless scare campaign that is being run by the opposition and their leader, Mr Abbott, as he tries desperately to prove to the people of this country that he is fit to lead this country, that he is fit to be Prime Minister and that in fact he has an alternative policy. There is an alternative policy, but it is far worse, much worse, in terms of its impact on households than you could ever imagine. I will get to that a bit later if I get a chance. Claim after claim from Mr Abbott can be clearly discredited. It is all based on fear. It is based on a lack of understanding. It is based on an inability to grasp the fact that climate is changing.

We want to have an impact on that change. We want to have an impact on carbon that is put into the air. We want to put a price on carbon and we want this country to be involved in that and be a leader around the rest of the world.

Let us have a look at the first claim from Mr Abbott. He said on 19 July:

I mean, that’s my position and that’s always been my position but I’ve never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme …

That is what he said on 19 July. Well, this is the real fact about that claim. Mr Abbott was a senior minister in the Howard government that went to the 2007 election—let us talk about that point in time, the 2007 election and what was said prior to that election, where the party of the people sitting opposite me went to that election—with a policy of introducing an emissions trading scheme. And yet he said:

… I've never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme …

So what does that mean? When the coalition parties went to the election in 2007, everyone wanted an emissions trading scheme—oh, that is right, except Mr Abbott, and he only just remembered that on 19 July this year.

He also previously said:

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

Who said that? Mr Abbott said that. When did he say that? On 29 July 2009, not long ago. What did he mean by that? He said:

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

In fact, that was not one year ago; it was two years ago that he said that. Here is another claim from Mr Abbott:

… climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it. I mean, that’s my position and that’s always been my position …

That was on 19 July 2011, just this year. The fact is that Mr Abbott has previously said that the science of climate change was 'absolute crap'. One minute he thinks it is crap but a couple of years later he says that climate change is real. So those opposite have the audacity to want to come into this chamber and debate what our leader has said—a credible Prime Minister who is trying to forge a path in this country in tackling climate change, making a difference and being part of the rest of the world in having an effect—but are not prepared to have a really good look and scrutinise what their leader has said.

I note that, as I started to quote from Mr Abbott, those opposite have run away—like Shrek and the donkey. They have run out of the chamber because, when you turn the tide back on this party and start to light the fire under the Bunsen burner and turn a bit of heat up, they all disappear and dissipate. They do not like it and they all run away. 'We don't want to talk about it. Let's not talk about Mr Abbott's view on climate change. Let's talk about anything else.' Mr Abbott does not have a view about climate change that is consistent. From day to day, week to week and year to year Mr Abbott does not have a view that is consistent about climate change and what he would do about it.

Then there was a third claim. Should I keep going? We might be able to get the others opposite to run away as well if I keep going.

Senator Williams interjecting—

Yes, that is right, this is cruel and the Australian public need to know how cruel it would be if they had such a leader as Mr Abbott as Prime Minister. Mr Abbott said on 19 July:

... there is no doubt that this package, as it stands, is going to do terrible damage to the aluminium industry in this country.

That is exactly what he claimed. What is the fact of that statement? If those opposite actually grasped and read our policy and reiterated our policy accurately, they would see that aluminium in fact will receive significant assistance under the government's Jobs and Competitiveness Program. Alan Cransberg, the Managing Director of Alcoa of Australia said:

I am confident the government has heard our concerns and provided measures that can help our Australian facilities remain globally competitive.

That was in the Alcoa Community e-news of July 2011. Should I keep going? Probably not. We could spend all night talking about Mr Abbott and his inconsistent views about this tax and his inability to reiterate and articulate a policy that would be credible amongst the Australian public.

Let us just talk about what we are going to do and the positive impact that this government will make. With our plan to cut carbon pollution we are also planning to drive investment in clean energy technologies and infrastructure. We want to do two things. We want to cut the pollution, the emissions, that are out there in the atmosphere and we want to turn this country into a clean, green energy future; a clean, green future that drives energy using the likes of solar, gas and wind.

I hear some people say, 'I don't think we are going to have much of an impact here.' That is a claim you will hear often from the people opposite. 'Why are we doing this? If the rest of the world isn't doing it, why should we do it? It's not going to have any benefit.' Well, the rest of the world is doing it. The rest of the world is actually addressing this problem, but most people opposite do not want to acknowledge or accept that. They would like you to believe that we are standing on an island, literally by ourselves, compared to the rest of the world. It is not true. It is absolutely not true.

Over 89 countries, which account for over 80 per cent of the world's global emissions and over 90 per cent of the global economy, have pledged to reduce or limit their carbon pollution by 2020. In fact scores of countries have already started the transformation to a low-pollution economy. Some 32 countries and a number of the US states already have emissions trading schemes in place. Our five top trading partners—China, Japan, the US, Korea and India, and, among others, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands—have implemented or are piloting an emissions trading scheme or carbon taxes at the national, state, or city level. We are not alone.

The fact that we are moving now at such a late stage in this country's development means that we are lagging behind. We could have done this 18 months ago but, of course, all we could do then was stand back and watch the circus on the other side decide that climate change was so unacceptable and so intolerable to tackle that they dumped their leader in favour of someone who was an absolute sceptic about it. That is about all the contribution to climate change we have seen from the Liberal Party in this country. They just drop a leader who had some commitment to climate change and replace him with a leader who has no commitment to it. In fact he believes it is 'absolute crap'.

New Zealand introduced a trading scheme in 2008 initially covering only forestry but then, last year, it expanded significantly to cover liquid fossil fuels, stationary energy and industrial processes. And then there is China. We had questions today in question time about China. China has indicated that it will introduce an emissions trading pilot scheme in a number of provinces including the industrial centres of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. China is on the program. Mr Abbott is not, but China is on the program. The World Bank recently indicated that these regional schemes may be expanded to a national scheme by 2015. China has the world's largest installed renewable energy electricity generation capacity. In 2009 China added 37 gigawatts of renewable power capacity, more than any other country in the world.

If we want to talk about another country that is continually raised by those people opposite, let us move on to India. India has a tax on coal which is expected to generate over half a billion dollars annually to fund research into clean energy technologies. The US is committed to achieving its target to reduce its emissions by 17 per cent by 2020. We have countries that are acting and we have countries that are moving on climate change and are committed to it. Let us have a look very closely at exactly what people are saying about our package as we move to introduce this legislation. Professor Garnaut stated on 10 July:

This is a strong climate change policy package. It will allow Australia to do its fair share in an effective global effort to reduce the risks of climate change, and to do so at reasonable cost.

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, in a letter to the Prime Minister on 31 July said this:

I was delighted to hear of the ambitious package of climate change policy measures you announced on 10 July and wanted to congratulate you on taking this bold step.

He must be a Conservative Party leader who does have a little bit of vision, unlike his comrade in the Liberal Party here in Australia. Geoff Garrett, Queensland Chief Scientist, said on 19 July:

The science indicates that we have anthropogenic (man-made) global warming and we need to reduce carbon emissions …

As such, I do support ... that in order to get the market forces going, you do need to put a price on carbon.

Many people have come out. I have sheets and sheets of them here, which I will not read out because I will not have enough time. We have an attempt by the people opposite to still pretend that we do not have to do anything to act on carbon. If we were to do something under their plan, households would pay and we would compensate polluters. We would provide them with incentives and at the end of the day householders would be far worse off under their plan.

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

It is a pleasure to rise on this matter of public importance on this very significant anniversary of the Prime Minister's most solemn election promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. Perhaps she does not lead this government. Perhaps the leaders of the government are not in the chamber at present but are found over in that quarter of the Senate chamber. Perhaps they are the leaders of the government.

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

Who leads your party, Simon?

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

Thank you for the interjection, Senator Crossin. Let me deal with some of the things that you raised. You wanted to talk about Senator Abetz's comments on Qantas. You wanted to talk about Qantas and what the impact might be on them and on the aviation industry. Let us be very clear: the aviation industry is a shining example of why this is bad policy. Why is that? Because you are going to put up the prices for the aviation industry that is operating in Australia. It will be far more expensive as a result of the carbon tax for people to hop on a plane and go on holiday in North Queensland—

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

How much?

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

In your home state, Senator McLucas, it will be more expensive for people to take a trip and holiday than to go overseas. Senator Crossin was right: flights out of Australia will not have the tax applied to aviation fuel, but flights in Australia will. So this is a tax that discriminates against domestic tourism. It is a tax that makes it more expensive for people to holiday at home and cheaper for them to go and spend their money overseas. That is what this government has set up. Just as the CEO of Coca-Cola Amatil highlighted some time ago, this is a discriminatory tax because it makes everything in Australia more expensive compared with things imported from overseas. That is the truth of it. There is no arguing about that. Imports do not face a carbon tax impost whatsoever, but locally produced goods and services do and the same applies for the tourism industry, which will be particularly hard hit.

Senator McLucas interjecting—

I am sorry; I will have to be a little quieter to hear your interjections, Senator McLucas. Qantas was not the only company to announce job losses today. Unfortunately OneSteel joined Qantas in announcing 400 job losses. OneSteel is a major employer in the South Australian regional city of Whyalla in my home state. They announced losses of 400 jobs as a result of seeing an 11 per cent decline in their profit over the course of this year.

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

You are not going to blame that on the carbon tax, surely.

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

Senator McEwen, what I am going to do is quote OneSteel. I would not want to misrepresent their position at all. In terms of One Steel looking at their forward outlook and 'factors that could cause actual results or perform­ance to differ materially', they highlight 'legislative changes, regulatory changes or other changes in the laws which affect OneSteel's business, including environmental laws and the carbon tax'. They certainly see in their risk factors, in their profile for the future, the carbon tax looming large. That is unsurprising given that in the presentation they released today it states that the carbon tax, as we now know, will be $23 a tonne. It would be nice if the government did some Treasury modelling on that price rather than a made up price of $20, which the carbon tax is not. That is a different matter. OneSteel go on to say, 'Based on FY10 production expected tax for scope 1 and 2 emissions would be $18.4m'—$18.4 million off the bottom line. You would have to reconsider your employment and your outlook when you face an $18.4 million hit coming down the line at you. It is little wonder, especially in these times of such international uncertainty, the high dollar and the weakness in parts of the Australian economy. All of these things combine with an utter lack of comprehensive global action to demonstrate that this is the worst possible time to be contemplating something like this and inflicting it on companies like Qantas or OneSteel or anybody else within Australia.

Senator Crossin wanted to paint a rosy picture of international action. Here is a challenge for the government: does anybody in the government believe that when they go to the Conference of the Parties in Durban later this year to discuss climate change there will be a new legally binding agreement? Will there be something to replace Kyoto when it expires in 2012? That is right: the current legally binding agreement expires next year. The jig is almost up; time is almost out. Does anybody in this government actually think, after the debacle of Copenhagen, that they are going to get anything more than the flimsy pledges that are made, which are hardly worth the bits of paper they are written on given the utter lack of action by governments around the world to back them up? Most governments around the world could not even bring themselves to meet the allegedly legally binding com­mitments they made under Kyoto, so lord only knows what they are going to do when it comes to meeting these pledges that have been made to date.

Senator Crossin decided she wanted to highlight India putting a price on emissions in the coal industry or the use of coal. She said it is going to raise half a billion dollars. Isn't that exciting. It is going to raise half a billion dollars.

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

A billion people, half a billion dollars.

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

A billion people indeed, Senator Williams, and they are going to raise half a billion dollars from their carbon price. Well, our much smaller economy with a much, much smaller 22 million Australians is going to raise $9 billion. We are going to raise 18 times what the Indians are going to raise. And Senator Crossin thinks this is a good comparison and a good demonstration—

Senator McEwen interjecting

You want to go to budget responsibilities, Senator McEwen? I do not have the time to go to budget and fiscal responsibility with you lot. I have the carbon tax to deal with first. Senator Crossin thinks that half a billion dollars raised in India is comparable and is justification for us to have a $9 billion slug on the Australian economy. It really is just remarkable.

Senator Cameron spoke earlier in this debate and he actually had a few things to say about me. I thank Senator Cameron for flattering me with his attention. It is nice to get that, even when you are not in the chamber at the time. He accused me of being tainted in this debate. 'Tainted' was the word he wanted to use. I would love to know, in a fair analysis, what on earth Senator Cameron thinks the Prime Minister is. If I am 'tainted', what is the Prime Minister? She is utterly compromised in this debate now. She stands with no credibility left, having convinced the former Prime Minister to ditch his ETS and having gone to an election. Let us be honest: she went to an election, and we would all be saying, hypothetically, that she lied at the election, were it not unparliamentary to do so. That is what people would be saying: the Prime Minister misled, led the Australian people up the garden path, told mistruths—however you want to put it. It is crystal clear what she did. We all know what the words were—'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—one year ago today.

We know what Wayne Swan said one year ago yesterday: 'Well, certainly, what we reject is this hysterical allegation somehow that we are moving towards a carbon tax. We certainly reject that.' One year ago today it was an hysterical allegation. Not long after that, it was fact. It went from hysteria to fact because the government was misleading at every single step of the way. This govern­ment wants to come in here and try to debate everything and anything but the reality that they lied to the people at the last election, that they lied their way into office. As a result of that, they are now pursuing a policy that has absolutely no mandate, that was rejected by the Australian people, and they are not game to take it back. They are not game to go back and give Australians a fair chance, a fair choice to actually decide this. That is the challenge to them. Front up to the people. Let them have their say. Have courage in your convictions. That is when we might actually see a fair debate on this issue.