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

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Today's Australian tells us that Senator Carr was offered Senator Arbib's job and former foreign minister Kevin Rudd's job last week. Senator Arbib told the Senate today that he told the Prime Minister on Monday, 27 February that he was resigning. If this is the case, whose vacancy did Prime Minister Gillard have in mind? There must have been someone in mind to roll in New South Wales to enable the offer to be given effect to. Or was Senator Arbib really pushed, despite his assertions to the contrary?

Minister Carr has confirmed the offer; Julie Gillard had denied it. Who is telling the truth? Given the PM's form on so many broken promises, we know who to believe. So much for the Prime Minister's alleged new assertiveness; the faceless men have forced the withdrawal of her offer. Julie Gillard has egg on her face. It is business as usual.

It was very interesting to hear Senator Arbib's response to Senator Brandis. I am sure, Senator Arbib, that you take away from this place a wealth of information. I have of course suggested that you write a book. As I said yesterday evening, I am sure it will be a bestseller. But perhaps now, Senator Arbib, that you are retiring, you could transfer your considerable parliamentary skills and return to our screens on a full-time basis. Many of our colleagues in this place would be unaware that, before becoming a powerful New South Wales right factional leader, and ultimately one of the faceless men, our Senator Arbib was a star of the small screen.

An opposition senator: What?

Yes, and he started early. At the age of 18 there was our Senator Arbib on our screens in no less than that iconic Channel 7 soapie Home and Away. In a precursor of things to come, episode 368, aired on 8 April 1989, shows young Mark Arbib in the role of Freddie Hudson—a young man visiting the youth centre because he was having a few hassles at home. And here is a photo of him—even with hair! Here he is with a serious, grim, focused look.

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

Senator Arbib, did you rise on a point of order?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Can I ask that that photo be tabled, please, or burnt—one or the other?

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

There is no point of order.

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

Senator Arbib, of course I am happy to table it. Here he is with a serious, grim, focused look; a prelude to the political bloodletting, cutting and thrusting which was to propel him to the heights of New South Wales and national politics—but, as Senator Arbib allegedly gave Richo as his reason for leaving, he was 'sick of being covered in blood'. Anyone interested in seeing this, go to YouTube; I will give you the reference—clearly an omen for the current soap opera of unhappy political families that have become a daily feature of Australian political life. The closing credits recognise Mark Arbib as playing the character called Freddie. Funny—the acting was something, Senator Arbib, that you omitted to mention in your maiden speech when you listed the many occupations that you held before entering parliament. Mark Arbib's career has certainly been stellar—perhaps not quite in the same league as other former soapie stars, like Kylie Minogue, but he has certainly become a household name. It is interesting to note, Senator Arbib, that in your maiden speech you made mention of your grandmother's great disappointment when you told her you were running for the Senate. You stated:

She questioned why I would take a job that lasted only six years and suggested I consider taking a more secure job as a bank teller.

Sadly for your grandmother, your job here lasted all of three years and five months. Perhaps, with hindsight, the bank teller job may have been a safer and more edifying career option.

Senator Arbib may tell us that he is leaving to help the healing process. Great sentiment, Senator Arbib, but all it means is that there will be one less faceless man. There may be one less, but they will remain in charge. The only way to restore hope, reward and opportunity is to go to an election. In the sentiment in which my contribution was made, I take the opportunity to wish Senator Arbib all the best in his new career.

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

It is only Thursday, and groundhog day continues with this obsession on the other side of what is happening in our caucus. We had questions put to Minister Arbib from Senator Brandis about his desire to move on. Senator Arbib has legitimate reasons: he is a family man. I have seen his two young daughters and they are legitimate concerns and legitimate reasons for him to consider his resignation.

Without casting aspersions on the other side, let us have a close look at what happens in their caucus room. Just yesterday—as you know, Deputy President Parry, because you were there—they were crying over spilt milk, or was it a glass of cheap milk? No doubt there were other members who leapt to the defence of the particular senator who was under attack by those from other factions when their group—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Why don't you pop your Alzheimer's pills, Senator Macdonald? I am not directing that at you; I do not think you take any pills. You seem a fit and healthy senator.

Then it was Senator Boyce's turn. She wanted to talk about the Rolls-Royce parental leave scheme that Mr Tony Abbott has proposed that will harm big businesses and jobs. There is no surprise in that, about harming jobs, because we know their record when it comes to jobs. When we on this side implemented the national stimulus package, we protected jobs in our communities. Up to 200,000 jobs were protected from the global financial crisis. And what did those opposite want to do? They wanted to oppose it, and they did oppose it in this chamber and in the other place to stop people being employed, to stop people having opportunities to sustain their employment out in the community. That is just a small snapshot of what happens in the opposition caucus: spilt milk and Alzheimer's pills. Put them together and what sort of concoction will you get? Who knows.

Let us talk about some of the other questions that were put to senators on this side in question time today, particularly on climate change. Once again we heard the climate change coalition sceptics complaining about what we are doing for the environment. If I reflect back a couple of years ago, some senators who are here—Senator Cameron and Senator Pratt—were on a climate change inquiry with me. We heard cold, hard facts and evidence from the likes of the CSIRO, from NASA and from over 1,000 top scientists globally about why we need to act on climate change. Senator Cameron was well informed, along with the rest of us, including the now Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Senator David Feeney, about why we need to act on climate change. Yet those opposite, the climate sceptics, buried their heads in the sand, like they always do, and denied it. What does Mr Abbott say about climate change? Doesn't he call it 'absolute crap'? It is fitting to use that sort of language, given the language that was used in the coalition's caucus yesterday, with some senator being called an 'f-wit'. This is the type of opposition that wants to gain government at some stage in the future. Let us hope that never occurs, because that is their style.

When it comes to the opposition's style, we know their position on policy and legislation in this place. It is a vacuum of empty cupboards. There is one word they are consistent with, though, and that is no: 'No, no, no'. They are consistently putting that position forward to present their case on how they wish to look after our great nation. But we are going to look after our nation. This government will make sure that at least nine out of 10 citizens will be assisted. Households will have permanent assistance as a result of pension rises of $338 a year and singles up to $510 a year. And that will be indexed as well.

I want to spend a little bit of time on the issue of what the coalition is going to do, conversely. They want to take back $1,300 a year from families as a result of what their policy will provide. In doing that, they will have their $70 billion black hole and they are going to have to run into severe deficit for a number of years. Where are they going to get that money from? Are they going to get it from pensioners? Are they going to rip it out of other areas where people need it the most? Are they going to rip it away from single mums and single householders that need that money the most? Surely that is the position they will come to. (Time expired)

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

Before I call Senator Mason, I remind senators about correct titles and about using language that suits the Senate.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I am going to have to raise the tone of the debate in this chamber and concentrate on Senator Wong's answers to questions today. Who remembers a few days ago, when the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Minister Combet, said this:

From 2020, all nations face binding obligations to reduce emissions and our major regional trading partners … will expect us to deliver along with them.

And what have we learned today from the front page of the Australian? What is one of our major trading partners, indeed the world's third-largest economy, doing about a price on carbon? What have we learned? Let us have a look at page 1 of the Australian:

Senior Japanese diplomatic officials in Tokyo have told The Australian there is 'no chance' of the country adopting a scheme similar to Australia's carbon tax or emissions trading scheme in the foreseeable future.

That is what the front page of today's Australian reports the Japanese to be doing.

The coalition's argument against a carbon tax is simple, has always been simple and can be said in one sentence: the carbon tax is not in our national interest, certainly not now. We argue that only when a sufficiently comprehensive group of our major trading partners, particularly those countries that are, like Australia, energy-rich, trade exposed nations such as Canada, Russia and Brazil, commit to a price on carbon will it be in our national interest to do so. The coalition has argued that from the beginning. If Australia acts unilaterally, it will not change the environment, it will not change our weather and it will not change the climate at all. It is a very simple argument, and has been from the word go.

China and India say they are going to do something, but I will believe it when I see it. The Economist came out on 25 February. Just off the press, it said:

China is still likely to consume 4.4 billion tonnes of coal in 2030, when its carbon emissions are expected to have increased from 6.8 billion tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent in 2005 to 15 billion tonnes.

That is more than double. The Chinese and the Indians can promise all they like, but their consumption is going up, and it is going way up.

The great lie is not about whether there should be a carbon tax or not. The great lie was not even the Prime Minister's dishonesty about whether there would be a carbon tax. That is not the great lie. The great lie is pretty simple: the Labor Party has argued very simply that it is in our national interest to have a price on carbon irrespective of what any other nation on earth does.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order. We have a very good system for noise in this chamber. Could the senator be requested to tone his—

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

It is not a point of order, but I take your point. Senator Mason, could you just monitor the decibels, not to curb your enthusiasm.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I was speaking very quietly, as I always do—and you know that, Mr Deputy President. This is the problem: the Labor Party has argued from the beginning that it is in our national interest to have a carbon tax even if no other nation on earth does anything. That is the great lie. That is the lie that this government should be pinned on. The Prime Minister's dishonesty comes and goes, but that lie will stick with the Labor Party from now to eternity because it is false and they know it is false.

In other words, the Australian Labor Party believe that Australia should act unilaterally, that it should act irrespective of what any other country on earth does. They are the great unilateralists. In the end, if we act fundamentally unilaterally it will destroy our economy and our way of life, and other resource-rich, trade exposed countries will take advantage of our leverage, our legislation and our carbon pricing. In the end, that is Labor's great failure. Only when this debate matures to the level where the Labor Party finally understands that we rely on the rest of the world to act will the government finally come to some sense, but I am not holding my breath.

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

Through you, Mr Deputy President, I assure those in the gallery that there is usually a far more serious debate in this place than they just heard from Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Here we are in a period where the global financial crisis is still destroying jobs around the rest of the world, where the US and Europe are trying to deal with huge problems, and what do we get? We get an absolute comedy routine from the opposition. Senator Mason's response was not much better; that was merely a comedy routine as well. If you know the coalition's policies—and I use the plural because you never know what their policy on climate change will be from one day to another—you will know that the coalition adopted a price on carbon to go to the last election that John Howard fought and lost. John Howard was arguing for a price on carbon.

Since people are showing things around, I will do a little advertising here. I picked up a book today called The Australian Moment: How We Were Made for These Times by George Megalogenis, one of the key economic commentators and writers in this country. He describes how John Howard dealt with climate change. He says that John Howard was a climate change chameleon: he changed whenever it suited him from one position to another. It is not just John Howard who is a climate change chameleon; the coalition are also climate change chameleons. They change their position whenever they think it suits their political position.

This is what George Megalogenis said about John Howard in this book, which was launched today and which I recommend everybody get a copy of to see the truth about the Howard government's position. In January 2007, it says, John Howard offered $10 billion for a federal takeover of the Murray-Darling without consulting Treasury for advice on the numbers. Those great economic managers over on the coalition side offered $10 billion and they did not even go to the Treasury to ask what it would mean and what it would do. So that puts the lie to the argument of economic responsibility on the other side. He said in June that he became a convert to a market based mechanism to deal with climate change after receiving his own report written by Peter Shergold, the head of the Prime Minister's department.

If you do not know, Peter Shergold is highly respected around the place. He was one of the key advisers to John Howard and he wrote a report that said we should put a price on carbon and it should be based on a carbon emissions scheme. John Howard promised a domestic emissions trading scheme, a cap-and-trade system, beginning no later than 2012. We heard all that nonsense—and the chameleons were at it again over there. He said for years he had argued against Australia moving before anyone else in the region—and now he wants to go first! This is John Howard. He wanted to go before anybody with a price on carbon, as Australia had done with tariffs. 'Australia will continue to lead internationally on climate change,' he said, 'globally and in the Asia-Pacific region, not in a way that lectures and moralises but in a way that builds support for global action to meet the enormous challenge of climate change.'

That destroys the argument Senator Mason was putting up that the coalition are acting responsibly by not moving on climate change. The coalition's own report, the Shergold report—and anyone from the coalition who stands up after me will have to deal with the Shergold report—says you have to act early to deal with climate change because climate change is real; climate change is what your grandkids are going to be living with in the future; we have to deal with it, and the most economically responsible way to deal with it is by putting a price on carbon. These lunatics do not realise that. (Time expired)

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

I listened very intently to Senator Cameron's contribution. It followed the lines of Senator Wong today in question time, applauding and lauding the carbon tax that is going to be imposed upon all Australians and send every Australian's cost of living up. Senator Cameron, if it is so good, why is it that your leader, the leader of the Labor Party, the current Prime Minister—this week, anyhow—promised before the last election that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads? If it is so good, Senator Cameron, please explain to me why your Prime Minister, your Labor leader, promised to the Australian public, hand on heart, that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads?

I want to return to the carbon tax shortly. But this debate started with reference to Senator Arbib's imminent departure. I wish Senator Arbib well. I did not have a lot to do with him, but I thought he was one of the more competent Labor ministers—not that that is great praise for him. I wish him well in the future. I do not know what Senator Arbib is going to do. Some suggest he might be joining up with his old mates Mr Eddie Obeid and Mr Eric Roozendaal from the New South Wales Right of the Labor Party. I understand they have had business dealings before. Perhaps they are going back into those business dealings. In fact, I just googled on my iPad a rather interesting article by Kate McClymont in the Sydney Morning Heraldnot a paper I usually read in Queensland—that made a very interesting connection between Senator Arbib, Mr Obeid, Mr Roozendaal and Mr Williamson, from the Health Services Union, who is very prominent at the moment. There is a sort of winding up of what seem to be business interests there. So I wish Senator Arbib well, and I hope that he enjoys life outside of parliament.

I want to return to the carbon tax debate that was mentioned in question time today. Let me read you a passage from Hansard:

Let us deal with a few facts. Let us have a scientific debate about climate change and its potential impact on the tourism industry. Globally, aviation contributes just two per cent of greenhouse gas emissions but eight per cent of world GDP—that is, 28 million jobs and $US3 trillion. Recently, the less than august Australia Institute—an organisation for which I have no respect because it seems to pride itself on belting low-income people in Australia—proposed a carbon tax, an elitist tax, on domestic flights and called for an end to the promotion of the aviation industry. Never mind that, according to the Australian Greenhouse Office’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, civil aviation contributes just 0.9 per cent of Australia’s emissions. If we got rid of the entire aviation industry, as the Australia Institute would have it, we would still be left with 99 per cent of Australia’s emissions.

Who said that? It was Mr Martin Ferguson, the current Minister for Resources and Energy. When he said that, back in 2007, he was the shadow spokesman on transport. Martin Ferguson is a minister who I think is reasonably competent—again, that is not a great recommendation when you consider the ministers that we have. Martin Ferguson is sensible. There was Martin Ferguson saying what a ridiculous idea a carbon tax was. And yet, to Mr Ferguson's undying shame, he was one who breached the promise that the Labor Party would never introduce a carbon tax.

In the north of Australia, which I represent, Airnorth has just started a new direct service between Townsville and Darwin. It is a great service, but the cost is going to increase by $7 each way because of the carbon tax. Come 1 July, prices for airline travel all across Northern Australia will have to go up because of this ridiculous carbon tax, which will just add to the cost of living of all Australians.

Question agreed to.