Senate debates

Monday, 30 November 2009

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Excise) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — General) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2]

In Committee

11:56 am

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

And they are not nut cases, as is alleged over the other side. These are respected scientists, some of them coming from James Cook University, where I come from, up Townsville way. The fact is that they have a scientific view that is different to the scientific view of other scientists—and it makes one wonder when you consider the recent revelations in email traffic about the thoughts of some of the scientists who are leading the charge for anthropogenic greenhouse emissions as a scientific fact. I have spoken to many scientists that I respect who assure me that the problem is made worse by man’s actions. But, equally, I have spoken to many scientists that I respect who tell me quite differently. So, quite frankly, I do not know.

I have, however, always had the view that if the world is going to do something then, sure, Australia should be part of it. But why would Australia lock in a position three or four days before world leaders get together to tell us what their countries have legislated to do? I heard the argument from Senator Wong the other day that we know what the Americans are going to do because we saw a press release from President Obama, and that we know what the Japanese are going to do because we saw a press release from their Prime Minister. Kevin Rudd has issued a press release saying what he is going to do, so if it is good enough for the Americans, the Chinese and the Japanese, why is it not good enough for Australia? Why do we have to legislate ourselves into a position where, if the rest of the world decides in a few days time to do absolutely nothing, we are locked in, Australian jobs are put at risk and we become uncompetitive in some of the big industries that keep an income earner in our working families?

I cannot for the life of me believe that the so-called workers’ party, made up in this chamber of people who have made their living out of the workers by being paid union organisers for those workers—

Comments

No comments