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

I speak on this motion to take note of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes interim report entitled, The carbon tax: economic pain for no environmental gain. This was a significant inquiry undertaken under the chairmanship of my colleague Senator Cormann, who spoke on this report the other day. What is noteworthy about this inquiry, before I turn to its findings, is that it is an inquiry that actually had the opportunity to undertake some real scrutiny of the carbon tax proposal. It actually had the opportunity to go into some real detail in looking at the carbon tax proposal. Uniquely, it took submissions from all comers and published submissions from all comers about the carbon tax proposal and travelled around Australia to hear from Australians of all walks of life with an interest in and concern about Labor's carbon tax proposal.

It stands in stark contrast to the next committee report listed for consideration, that of a committee that I had the pleasure of serving on. Although, it was not much of a pleasure because that was the joint select committee established to look purely at the government's carbon tax bills. In marked contrast to the committee that Senator Cormann chaired, we saw that committee have just three weeks to do its job—looking at more than 1,100 pages of legislation in 19 bills, which are being rammed through this parliament at present. We saw that committee try to undertake the mammoth task of scrutinising a sweeping change to the Australian economy. Of all the points in this debate that are argued over, I think the one that everybody around the chamber agrees on is that the carbon tax is a sweeping change. The government likes to claim it is a sweeping change, the Greens like to claim it is a sweeping change, the crossbenches acknowledge that it is a sweeping change, and the National Party and the Liberal Party certainly believe it is a sweeping change. Some think it is a change for the better and others think it is a change for the worse, but we all acknowledge and agree that it is a sweeping change—a fundamental change to our economy.

Such a fundamental change, you would have thought, warranted thorough and decent scrutiny, but no, it would seem that the proponents of the change want minimal scrutiny—the least amount of scrutiny possible. So they rammed through this three-week inquiry. There were six days for people to make submissions, with 4½ thousand submissions essentially ignored by the inquiry. They were rejected by Labor and the Greens using their majority on the committee to say, 'These aren't worthwhile submissions; we won't bother publishing them.' Hearings were held in the very diverse range of cities of Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra!

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not Wollongong?

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

Not Wollongong, Senator Fierravanti-Wells—no regional centres whatsoever.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wollongong—the carbon capital of Australia.

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

Certainly not Wollongong, the carbon capital of Australia.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, which committee report are you addressing in your contribution?

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

I am presenting a contrast, Madam Acting Deputy President, between the two committee reports. Indeed, you are correct to say that Senator Cormann's committee did take evidence in a wider range of places over a longer period of time. Senator Bushby was part of that inquiry. Importantly, the more detailed inquiry—the inquiry that actually took evidence from a range of individuals—found, quite sensibly, some serious concerns about the carbon tax. It did not have to make up the evidence. It actually had the time to scrutinise the evidence that was available—the evidence of the Treasury modelling.

We have concerns about the modelling. We believe that it is based on overly optimistic assumptions and we believe those overly optimistic assumptions probably understate the impact of the carbon tax. We should also note that some of the assumptions are things like there will be continued full employment, so its findings on the matter of employment are rather pointless in the extreme. But, all of that aside, it is at least the best we have got of any analysis of the economic impact of the carbon. It finds in its projections that over the forward estimates and beyond that right through to 2050 income will be lower than it would otherwise be. In fact, if you look at the Treasury modelling as to how much lower and the trend of that reducing income, you see that it continues to reduce. It keeps reducing and the trend line is still pointing down in 2050. The difference in income for Australians as a result of the carbon tax is shown by the trend line still pointing down in 2050. Beyond 2050, which is as far as the modelling goes, it will keep going down and down and we will see a bigger gulf.

The report of the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes chaired by Senator Cormann found very clearly that in the period to 2050 the cost—the difference in lost income for Australia—tallied up to $1 trillion. That is not a figure that is used very often in Australian politics or in Australian economic discussion. We may have a $1 trillion economy, but thankfully, unlike our close allies in the US, even this government has not managed to get our deficit to the stage where we have to start talking about trillions of dollars.

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

They will.

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

Senator Boswell is correct: if they are left there long enough they certainly will. That is the one thing we can be very certain of, especially with the carbon tax managing to run at a deficit. Senator Boswell, you remind me of the point—again highlighted by Senator Cormann and also highlighted in the dissenting report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation—that the carbon tax is like a miracle of the government. They implement a new tax worth about $9 billion a year and—guess what?—they manage to run it at a deficit. It is like the Magic Pudding in reverse for this government that they manage to apply a new tax to the Australian economy and the end result is the budget deficit increases by $4 billion over the forward estimates.

It is not just the forward estimates where we see the budget deficit likely to take a whack. It will stretch way beyond that—it will stretch way into the future. The government claims that the carbon tax will become budget positive in the future, but the reality is that, if they live up to their promise, the compensation will keep up with the cost of the tax and the deficit will continue to grow as a result of the carbon tax. Why is that? That is so because of the sale of international permits. The evidence received by both committees made it clear that Australian companies will go into the market and buy international permits. In 2020, they will be worth about $3 billion a year. By 2050, they will be worth about $60 billion a year. Between $3 billion and $60 billion a year will be going offshore to purchase international permits. What will the Australian companies purchasing these permits do? They will pass the costs on to consumers. That is accepted. Even Mr Comley, the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, provided that information and advice to the committee that I served on, and no doubt Senator Cormann's committee heard that as well.

So the costs will be passed on to consumers, but the money is going overseas. The question is: how does the compensation keep up without increasing the budget deficit even further? If, in 2020, $3 billion is going overseas yet the government claims the compensation to Australian households and industries will keep up, how is that going to stack up? How will you make it work without stripping elsewhere from the budget or without the carbon tax becoming a generator of even bigger deficits—deficits that continue to increase because the price and value and expenditure of those international permits continues to increase? From 2020 through to 2050, the $3 billion morphs into $60 billion. The money is still going overseas—it is not going into the government's pocket—but consumers are having to pay because companies have passed the cost on to them. Yet what happens? Where is the government going to fund it? There are only two things that can happen: either it breaks its promise about compensation—just like it broke its promise about there being no carbon tax—or it increases the deficit even further and we get even closer to that trillion dollar deficit that Senator Boswell remarked upon before. One or the other is most likely to occur under this regime.

Unfortunately, of course, Labor and the Greens are not willing to have proper scrutiny applied to their carbon tax by the normal processes of this parliament. It took Senator Cormann and his select committee to be able to do so. I praise the work that they have done. It is an outstanding report and I commend it to the Senate.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not surprising that the findings of Senator Cormann's report reflected the politics that those opposite are running in this debate. It really is just another piece in their armoury of mounting a scare campaign against actually doing anything on the climate. The problem with engaging in this debate in its totality is that very few people who sit on that side of the chamber, very few people who are in the coalition of the Liberal and National parties, actually believe that climate change is happening. They simply do not believe that climate change is happening. The logical extension of that—it is the logical extension; I understand their conclusions—is that if it is not happening you do not need to do anything about it. I understand that position.

I happen to believe that climate change is happening. I happen to believe that it is induced by human activity. And I believe that human activity or a change in human activity can reduce the consequences of climate change. I think this is an important responsibility for those that have been given responsibility to manage our environment, to manage our economy and to manage our society. It is not an obligation and it is not a responsibility that I as a legislator think we should simply walk away from and ignore.

Why do I believe that climate change is happening and that it is being created by human activity? It is because that is what the overwhelming body of reputable scientists who are specialists in this area say. In most other countries this debate is completely settled. The science has been accepted and people have accepted that we have a responsibility to do something. It is going to be a long-term change, and that is why there does have to be a significant change to the way we behave in our community. Part of that is putting a price on pollution.

If you put a price on pollution, activity will change because the market will seek to avoid paying that price. That is the way the market works. That is what I think most people in this chamber actually support. We actually support the process of the market.

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

You've been a union hack all your life; you wouldn't know what a market was!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Instead of actually trying to engage in the debate, Senator Boswell has simply reinforced that they do not believe that anything is happening, so they do not believe that we should do anything about it. We can engage in as many reports as we like but it will not change their vote. This report that has been handed down by Senator Cormann is simply part of the coalition's strategy of building up a case that supports doing nothing. You cannot make strawberry jam out of something that cannot be made into strawberry jam, and that is what you are trying to do.

I am not going to stand here knowing what we need to do, knowing there is a problem, knowing we have the capacity to address these issues and not take responsibility for doing something. I am not going to do it for me, because I will probably be gone before the serious effects of climate change really kick in. I am going to do it for my kids and my grandkids and for everyone else's kids. I do not want to be condemned by future generations when our generation—which has probably consumed more of the earth's resources than any other generation—knew what we had to do and what needed to be done and then failed to live up to our responsibility and left it to the next generations to clean up the mess. What we do know and what the Liberal Party used to know—what John Howard knew and what Peter Shergold knew—is that the sooner we act to mitigate the effects of climate change the cheaper it will be. The longer we wait the more expensive it will be. That is irresponsible to the next generation.

The model that we have put in place has been modelled over a long time. This is a culmination of a debate that has been going on for many years, going right back to the Howard government. Modelling was done. The Howard government commissioned Peter Shergold to come up with a process and they said that an emissions trading scheme was the way to go.

What all these systems have in common is that they actually put a price on pollution. That is the important aspect of this. That is what the coalition does not want to do. They believe that the big polluters in this country should be able to pollute our environment for nothing. They should simply be able to pollute our environment and there should be no costs involved in that. We say that there should be a cost because that pollution is damaging the environment. If you put a cost on that damage, people will seek to avoid that cost. It will drive innovation, it will drive engineering—

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

It hasn't worked in the European Union.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You say that, Senator Macdonald, but quite frankly I do not think you would know. You are running this scare campaign. You are part of the overall opposition strategy to be absolutely negative on this. This debate has been going on for many, many years and the Liberal Party have had several different positions on it. At the present time they have a very hardline position of denying that climate change is happening. That was not their position some time ago. In fact they went to the 2007 election with a policy of an emissions trading scheme. John Howard finally came to the conclusion, because of all the modelling that was done and all the research that was done, that we need to act and we need to act now. So that is the reality. We know that what we have now introduced will reduce our annual emissions by at least 159 million tonnes from where they otherwise would have been by 2020. That is equivalent to taking around 45 million cars off the road. People talk about the cost of it, but the coalition's policy simply says that the big polluters can continue to pollute for nothing, and we will give them taxpayers' dollars to subsidise them to maybe do something to reduce their emissions. Instead of letting the market drive that, they are just going to give a taxpayers' gift to these polluters. That is going to cost many, many times more than anything our price on pollution will be.

All the money collected through the price on carbon will go back to offsetting the flow-on costs, back to households. It will go towards helping businesses cope and make the adjustment and the investments in new clean energy technologies. It is actually saying, 'Let's put a price on carbon and let's use that price to help the economy adjust and drive the change we need to achieve.' The alternative is that we simply wait and do nothing. That would be so easy. We could do nothing and wait for the next generation to have to clean up and pay for it. Not only would they have to pay for it but they would have to pay so much more. Every year we wait, the costs of making the changes we need to make to address human-induced climate change go up.

I am very proud of what this government has done. We have not finished it yet. We have to get it through this Senate, and we are going to have some serious debate over this over the coming weeks. I am voting for this because I actually believe that climate change is real and that it is caused by human activity. I believe we have an absolute responsibility to do something about it. That is why I am going to be supporting this carbon price and that is why I am going to continue to argue for it. Again, we do not want to be in a position where we simply abrogate our responsibility to the future generations of this country.

The opposition really needs to grow up, accept the science and accept that something needs to be done. It is something they did accept at one time, but because of political opportunism they now reject the science. They reject the opportunity to be responsible.

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

I congratulate the Cormann group for the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes, upon which we are commenting. It is the only true scrutiny that these bills have been the subject of. Perhaps that is part of the reason 80 per cent of the adult population of Australia is condemning the government now for the undemocratic move we saw in this place only yesterday.

Yes, of course climate changes. 'Climate change' is a tautology: climate changes continually. It has always and will continue to. Go outside and you will see it changing. But the most important thing that needs to be considered in this whole debate is that this is a global issue. It is not an issue fenced around Australia. The previous speaker spoke about efforts of the past, about recommendations of the past and about actions of the Howard government, but it has always been predicated and always should have been on the global context. It is only this current Labor government that fails to understand that any action taken in Australia must be in the global context. As much as we think we are an incredibly important country, we are a very small player—a very small cog in an enormous wheel.

I draw your attention to the second part of the summary—'Economic pain for no environmental gain'. That it is for no environmental gain is the greatest travesty of this carbon tax, introduced and passed in the lower house yesterday. This country produces less than 1.4 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases. People have said that if we stopped emitting tomorrow there would be no change. Well, there would be a change: there would actually be an increase in global greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide, because efficient industry from Australia would move overseas.

The best example, from the state of Tasmania and the state of South Australia, is the refining of zinc. It is my understanding that our Australian refineries in Hobart and in South Australia convert a tonne of zinc for some three tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted. In the event that Australia were to stop this activity, zinc refining would move to China, where the equivalent figure per tonne of zinc refined is 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide. This shows the stupidity of this argument about environmental gain that is being put by the Labor government. Clearly there will be leakage out of this country, and the contribution to world greenhouse gases and climate would actually increase. Has anybody stopped to ask themselves why this country has done as well as it has and is as wealthy as it is?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That doesn't make it right to pollute.

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

It is a simple fact that it is not because of iron ore. We have only had income from iron ore in relatively recent years. It is not from much produced out of Tasmania, I can tell you, Senator Bilyk. And it is certainly not even from agriculture. Why is it that in a country the land mass of America, which has 300 million people whereas we have a population of 23 million people, we are so advantaged? The answer is two words: cheap energy. That is what has made this country the great country it is—cheap energy. That is because we are very rich in resources, originally coal but more latterly LNG, upon which we can generate cheap power. That is the advantage this country has for so long had. One has to ask the question: why is it that this Labor government wants to tax the very thing that has advantaged this country and given us such a high per capita income and such wealth? One need only have a look at the actions of the Indian and American companies when it was announced recently by the Prime Minister that the carbon tax was on the agenda: of course, they went straight in—Mittal Steel and their associates, Peabody—to make a bid for Macarthur Coal. Prime Minister Gillard came out and said it was a round endorsement by the Indians and the Americans of this decision by Australia on a carbon tax. What a lot of nonsense! It was simply the fact that Mittal and Peabody, two of the world's biggest steel manufacturers, saw the advantage of an Australian government that is now phasing out the use of coal in this country and therefore saw a capacity to grab hold of as much as possible of the best coking coal in the world for their own purposes. So here is the duplicity and hypocrisy of this decision, which actually says, 'We want to sanctimoniously try and reduce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, but we're going to continue to sell coal to the rest of the world so that China, India, Indonesia and other countries can go on polluting at will'?

What are other countries doing? What decision has the United States of America taken as the leader of the free world? It is making a decision to not proceed at all. What are the Indians doing? The Indians' greatest concern at the moment, as a stimulation to their economic wellbeing, is to get more access to Australian and other coal. We have heard the Chinese say, 'Oh, yes, we're going to have a look at all this.' Of course they are going to have a long look at it. They are going to have a look at it whilst Australia stupidly reduces its competitiveness. These were the issues that came out in the select committee.

I move now to the first of the points made, and that, of course, is economic pain. Who will suffer the economic pain? Of course, everybody will. As said by Senator Joyce yesterday morning, every power point in every home and every business, everywhere across Australia, will become a tax collector for the government. What will happen to business? Of course, business will suffer badly, with increased electricity costs and power costs for anybody who requires foodstuffs to be chilled, frozen or held in a particular condition. We have seen evidence, for example, that business development and stimulation will stop. There was the evidence given recently by my colleague Mr Truss in the other place, talking about abattoirs in Australia being faced with the prospect of a quarter of a million dollars a year more in power costs—but only if they stay at their current levels of production. If they increase their production and put themselves into a higher category, the costs will be even greater.

Reflect on the companies here in Australia that produce in competition with importers. They will immediately be disadvantaged because the importer from another country will not be suffering the same carbon tax in their country; they will be landing the product here, in competition with our own local producers. Why was it that Manufacturing Australia came out in the last few days sounding a warning to the government to not move on this in the current uncertainty of the world economic climate? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that climate changes in Australia and we must do something uniquely here but leave the rest of the world to do nothing and then turn around and say, 'Yes, we understand that the economics of other activities in the world do impact on this country'—and, of course, as we know, they do. I then come to those companies in Australia that are themselves exporters. They, of course, will be the subject of greater competition as they try to put products into markets overseas where the local suppliers are not subject to this same tax.

On the question of transport, I was in Kalgoorlie only the other day; I was in the wheat belt of Western Australia and in the northern wheat belt of WA. In every one of those places, Mr Acting Deputy President Furner—you, being from Queensland, would understand this only too well—everybody is so fearful, because we all know the importance of the cost of transport for freight. We heard Senator Singh say to us the other day, 'Oh, all trucks under a limit of five tonnes won't be paying this carbon tax or the equivalent for fuel.' There are not too many trucks in Western Australia that deliver anything outside the metropolitan area at less than five tonnes. To put it into perspective for you, Western Australian roads are now moving 400 million tonnes of freight a year. That is the roads. That is not rail; that is the roads. Imagine the impact of this carbon tax on fuel in that circumstance.

I conclude with these questions. Who are the '500 big polluters'? Imagine using the word 'polluter'. I have been trying to find out. We are not told. I would like to ask the question: how many of them are actually among our 500 biggest employers? How many are among our 500 biggest investors—our investors in R&D or in exploration? How many of those 500 operate overseas, where they are welcome in other countries and are not blasted as being polluters but are very, very welcome companies? I congratulate the select committee on its findings.

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

You have the call, Senator Boswell. What committee report are you speaking on?

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

I was going to speak on this report, but I understand someone else wants to speak. Is that correct?

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

I understand that Senator Kroger was returning to item 2.

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

Senator Kroger has not told me that, but if she would like me to yield then I will.

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

You are on your feet. Away you go, Senator Boswell.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was part of the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes, and I thought it would be appropriate for me to say a few words and particularly respond to Senator Marshall. Senator Marshall has said that we all have to do this. I accept that; I do not mind if we all do it and no-one pays the penalty and the rest of the world does it. I will accept it, and I think we would all accept it. I do not know—I never get into the detail—whether science is right or wrong, because I do not think it matters whether science is right or wrong. What matters is whether we can make a change. There is no point in Australia, with 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions, going out unilaterally trying to do something. After heavy questioning to the Treasury and the climate change department, the committee were told: 'Don't worry about it. Everyone in the world is going to come to a position by 2016 and we will all be committed globally to reducing carbon, in one way or another. Although Australia, New Zealand and the EU will be the only ones that will have a carbon tax.' So somehow miraculously everyone will be reducing carbon. I have a reasonably inquisitive mind, so I said, 'What is America going to do?' They said: 'Nothing. They have a couple of states with carbon taxes that don't really amount to much.' I said, 'What is Japan doing?' They said, 'Nothing, until America does something.' I said, 'What is India going to do?' They said: 'They cannot afford it. They are impoverished. There would be riots in the streets if they tried to increase the price of food, increase the price of cement and increase the price of steel. They have millions and millions of unemployed, so they can't do it.'

Senator Back would understand why I went to Jakarta to try to sort out the diabolical mess with the live cattle trade. When I saw the poverty there, I thought: 'How are these people going to cope with an increase in the price of food, an increase in the price of electricity and an increase in the price of steel? They have nothing.' It is so obvious that even if the rest of the world wanted to, and they don't, they could not. What we are doing here is an exercise in futility. Not only is it an exercise in futility because the rest of the world will not do it; the savings we make will be spent in one day by 2020. The 54 million tonnes that we are going to save will be blown by one day's effort in China.

When I first came to this place the Labor Party had a range of people. There were graziers like Peter Walsh, solicitors, doctors, retailers and waterside workers—people who actually did things. They had a world of experience. They understood what the world was all about. They had been in the real world. What do we have on the Labor side now? We have a bunch of party hacks and union hacks who are told when to put their hands up, and if they don't, they are told, 'Don't come knocking at the door for preselection next time because it will not be open to you.'

What we have on the other side is a bunch of people who have had no life experience. They would not know a market if they fell over one. They have never had to go out and put a pay packet in someone's pocket every week. We are being led by people who have no life experience. It is a tragedy. If you look at this side of the chamber, you will see we have farmers, accountants, a vet, a fisherman, a paint salesman, a winemaker and a carpenter, and we have a great range of experience across the whole spectrum. On the other side, they have union hacks who have never had the slightest bit of experience in the real world. Yes, they have stood over some workers and told them, 'Put your hands up and if you don't, you'll be in serious trouble.' That is not experience. Experience is going onto the factory floor and worrying, 'How am I going to pay those nine people?'

I got a letter yesterday from one of Queensland's leading fishmongers, Morgans Seafood. They have a restaurant and a reasonable sized coldroom. The electricity cost for the restaurant will increase by $8,000 and for the coldroom by $18,000—totalling $26,000. Mr Morgan does not mind me mentioning this; in fact, he encouraged me to mention it. He said: 'I employ 30 to 40 people. How am I going to do it?' He is going to battle to do it. He can do it a couple of ways. He can put up the price of his fish and chips. He can put up the price of his prawns. But a point will come when no-one will buy and that point will be reached very soon. Those are the sorts of stories the committee heard as it went right around Australia. We listened to the nickel industry and the sugar industry, and all the industries said these same things. We moved from one town to the other as we took evidence and we found time after time that these things came through. 'Things are tough.' 'The dollar is high'. 'How are we going to compete?'

Senator Back said it was going to cost the abattoir industry a quarter of a million dollars. I know two abattoirs that have costed their carbon emissions and their renewable energy costs at $3 million. If you work that back, it will mean $7 to $8 a beast by the time you put in increased transport costs. Those abattoirs are competing on a worldwide market. They are not competing in Australia; they are competing against America, Canada and Brazil. We have top producers, but no producer can cop a high dollar and then cop a carbon tax. If you put in a thousand head of cattle—and that is large—it will mean $8,000 off your income. There is no way in the world that an abattoir can pay an extra $8 to compensate the farmers. They will have to pay producers $8 less just to be competitive to sell overseas. That will mean $8 for every beast that goes through Australia. It is going to hurt the graziers—of course, it is—yet the government come in here and say what a wonderful thing they are doing for farmers. It is going to hurt the graziers. It is going to hurt the graziers but, by gee, it is not going to hurt the graziers as much as it is going to hurt those people who trust the Labor Party and pay their union fees because they think you people are looking after them. The Electrical Trades Union, Senator Cameron's union, and the mining industry union are kicking into the Greens. Would you believe, people are sitting over there representing unions that are paying Greens campaign fees? Isn't this the craziest thing in the world? If you believe in the Greens, go and sit with the Greens. If you believe in the Greens, do not sit with the ALP and pick up the tab and pay them.

In the last few seconds I have, we were told—and this is not a Ron Boswell figure; it was produced by economists—that there is going to be a cost of about a trillion dollars. We are going to keep our lights on and we are going to have to pay that by the year 2050. What are we signing up for here? Why are we putting this great encumbrance— (Time expired)

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

I am very grateful to Senator Boswell for that version of '"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan', from Australia's archives. We are dealing here with a report in 2011 entitled The Carbon Taxand that is a misnomer from the outset—Economic Pain for No Environmental Gain, an interim report by the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes. Mr Acting Deputy President, you may have seen the front page of that august journal the Australian yesterday which had an article—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

There are a few readers on the conservative side of the house, I see. It had an article by Sue Neales about Mr Roderic O'Connor, of Connorville in Tasmania, and it explained how keeping the forests on his magnificent property under the Great Western Tiers was potentially a greater money spinner for him in an age of carbon trading than running sheep or certainly logging the forests and trying to export them as woodchips or whatever. What is so fascinating in that article is the win-win situation that is underlined in the carbon trading future which all of us face. Listening to Senator Boswell and the opposition, you would think that the better option is the non-market option, which is very curious for a conservative political party, and that is the central state option—and this has overtones of Eastern Europe of some time ago—where the state pays the factories to hopefully get them to stop polluting. Doing that, of course, does not come out of thin air—it takes money off the taxpayers.

The alternative option by the Greens and the Gillard government is for the polluters to pay for the damage they are causing to the economy, to the environment and to society. This option allows that money to be collected and to go in a well-honed way to a number of pursuits, including offsetting the cost on householders, not least pensioners, low-income earners and middle-income earners as well and, at the same time, give a boost to renewable energy via energy sources of the future. That means relief to taxpayers who recognise there will be a cost of any action in an age of climate change.

We have here the extraordinary thing of a Labor government with the Greens going for the market option—the capitalist option, if you like—of requiring those who create the damage to pay for it. It is very simple logic. From the money collected, it is given across to those who suffer the consequences of the pollution of the most polluting industries—that is, householders, through increasing power costs. Also, it is to look at a better way for the future, which is to put somewhere between $13 billion and $15 billion collected in coming years into renewable energy, including solar, wind, geothermal and the other very promising options of the future.

In this report, we do not see any backing of that. It is largely a report based on the numbers in the committee system and the conservatives had those numbers. But what a different conservative we have under Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, here in Australia from those in Britain under its Conservative government, the Cameron government, which just a few months ago put into place a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in that country by 50 per cent—a whopping half—by 2025. If that were to be touted in Australia now there would be paroxysms from the conservatives and their backers down there in Holt Street, where the Australian newspaper, the Murdoch newspaper, is produced.

However, what is perfectly reasonable and has backing across the board in Britain is not contestable or debatable here in Australia. You have to think beyond the sections of the media that do not support reasonable, sensible and logical action on climate change in Australia. You ask yourself what it is that has made this huge difference in our country and then you come to the power of the mining industry, not least the coal industry, and its enormous ability to purchase the policy outcomes of this parliament against the public interest. We saw that last year when the then Rudd government proposed a mining superprofits tax which had been recommended by Treasury, that very conservative think tank. In doing so, they were following the simple principle of many other countries—Norway is a good example—of having a mining boom reined in at least to the extent of some money being put aside for the public from that mining boom to ensure the national wellbeing into the future.

In Australia's case, if Treasury's advice had been followed, the proposal would have brought in, over the next decade, some $100 billion more—$60 billion on conservative estimates—than the now proposed Gillard government alternative. That is because, in the course of a couple of weeks in this city, three big mining companies came to town—Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Xstrata—backed by a $22 million advertising campaign and the fury of that section of the press which resides in Holt Street, and the government dissembled. The outcome of the talks which followed was one in which the Australian people will lose $100 billion that should have been invested in their future over the next 10 years. Had it been left to the Abbott alternative, however—the opposition of Mr Tony Abbott—it would have been $140 billion going to the mining companies rather than to the people of Australia who own the coal, the iron ore and the other minerals which were to be taxed. They were only to be taxed, it should be noted, when superprofits were being made, not during ordinary times or if the companies were losing money at any given time.

That means that, because of the $22 million advertising campaign and the rollover of the big parties, in particular the opposition, there will not be the money for high-speed rail in Australia, there will not be the money to promote Asian languages as we would want to in this Asian century and there will not be the money to preserve Indigenous languages as we would like to in Australia. We have to be concerned that there will not be the money for a national dental healthcare scheme as there ought to be, there will not be the money coming from Canberra to help big cities get light rail and better transport systems and there will not be the money to help ameliorate the impact of climate change, including the impact on the 700,000 vulnerable properties on the eastern seaboard of Australia let alone, as we saw from a report this week, the impact of the loss of the ski fields with all the associated jobs. All the wherewithal of this nation—

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

You don't believe this, do you? Not even you!

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

Senator Macdonald, representing Mr Abbott on the opposition benches, is saying 'You don't believe this.' We have a sceptic and a denier in the seat. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate defer further consideration of the clean energy bills until after the next election for the House of Representatives.

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

Senator Brown, are you seeking leave to continue your remarks?

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

No, I think we should keep this debate going.

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

I will put the question.

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

I would like to speak on the reports, if I may.

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

On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President—

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

I am on my feet.

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

There is a point of order.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, by leave you can do anything. Senator Abetz has sought leave to move a motion. You can either grant the leave or you can disallow the leave, but by leave in this chamber you can do anything at all. He has sought leave and it is a question of whether leave is given or not.

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

Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. I call Senator McEwen.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: if you had been looking around the chamber, you would have seen the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate on his feet before the Government Whip. I think that he should have had the call.

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

Senator McEwen got the call. She stood first, I am afraid.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I too would like to contribute to this debate on the report currently the subject of a motion moved—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. There was a matter before the chair which had not been determined by you as the chair when you gave the call to Senator McEwen. That matter was subsequently dealt with. Senator McEwen could not have had the call when there was still a matter before the chair that you, as chair, had not finalised. You cannot say that Senator McEwen had the call because the matter before the chair was Senator Abetz's request for the motion that he had moved. You cannot give the call to Senator McEwen on the guise that she had the call before you dealt with that matter because you as chair had to deal with that matter before you could give anybody the call. The matter was essentially with Senator Abetz.

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

Senator Brown, you have a point of order?

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order. There are two matters here. Firstly, you were quite right in giving the call to Senator McEwen. We were dealing with the government responses to parliamentary committee reports and Senator Abetz tried to intervene on that with another matter. You quite rightly discounted his ability to do that, and that should have pertained. I welcome the President of the Senate to the chair. That was a correct ruling. However, Senator Abetz persisted in wanting to seek leave, which should have waited. When leave was not given he sat down. You then rightly gave the call to the senator on your right. That ruling should remain.

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

I have not been here for the situation, and I note the hour of the night, but I do understand that there is a question before the chair. The question before the chair is that the report be taken note of. That is the question that is before the chair at this stage.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator McEwen interjecting—

Order! The question before the chair has to be disposed of. That is the first thing that must take place in the order of debate. The question must be disposed of, and the question before the chair is that the report be taken note of.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald, I have not given you the call. Senator McEwen.

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

Mr President—

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

Point of order, Mr President!

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

Senator Macdonald!

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

Mr President, I have a point of order. My point of order is that I stood with the intention of taking note of the report listed at page 8 on today's Notice Paper. I made it quite clear that my intention was to contribute to the debate.