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

I will commence by saying that, despite all the criticism this week of Senator Wong, I think at times she actually gets it right. Three years ago in February 2008, when she was addressing an Australian Industry Group lunch in Melbourne, she said this:

The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.

Senator Wong was right three years ago. I can prove she was right. Have the Brazilians started to move in anticipation of a global agreement? No. What are the Russians doing? Have they said they are going to lower their emissions? They have not. Have the Indians said they will? These are the major emitters. Have the Chinese said that they will? These are the major emitters in the world and yet somehow this government says we should move before there is a sufficiently comprehensive global agreement. That case has never been made out.

The question is very simple. Is it in our national interest, in the interests of our country, to move before there is a sufficiently comprehensive global agreement? The government has never made out that case because, despite all the rhetoric about a tax on polluters and so forth, the fact remains that the cost of living for average Australians will go up. The cost of living will go up; Senator Cormann was dead right about that. How can it be in our national interest to increase the tax burden on ordinary families, on those working families that Mr Rudd used to talk about? How can that be in our national interest?

How can it be in our national interest to willingly, knowingly increase the cost of living? How can that be in our national interest? How can it be in our national interest to damage our industries, particularly our export industries? Why would you knowingly and willingly do that before there was a sufficiently comprehensive global agreement? The government have never answered that. Why would you want to prejudice the employment prospects of young Australians without any certainty of any environmental benefit whatsoever? This has been the critical point of the debate for the last 2½ years. Right from the beginning, the government have never answered this particular point. Why should Australia sacrifice its interests before we have an agreement at least among the G20 and certainly including Brazil, Russia, India and China? The government have never made out this case. They seem to think it is quite okay to sacrifice Australia’s national interests, to sacrifice employment and, in fact, to be certain that there will be an increase in the cost of living. If it was okay and it made sense, other countries would be doing it.

Professor Garnaut, Senator Wong and others have never justified why we should move in anticipation of a global agreement—never, not once. If it was such a good idea, the Brazilians, the Russians, the Indians and the Chinese would be doing it. I am sick to death of this government parading around with this moral vanity that somehow people on this side are troglodytes who do not care about the environment. That is not the point. There is absolutely no certainty that their policy will lead to a better environment for the world. In fact, as Senator Wong said in Melbourne three years ago, it could even make the environment worse.

Question agreed to.