Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, thank you for confirming that no-one has produced the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate. The UN has never done that. You've just spoken in generalities. I'll accept that, thank you very much. I've talked about the corruption—the lack of specific quantified effect that anyone has produced. Minister, you implicitly smear and denigrate me because I challenge you on the science, yet, when I asked you for the science, you gave me 25 papers, not one of which produces the logical scientific points showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. You gave me papers that included the impacts of climate change, not the cause. Minister, you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Let's continue with this theme. Your safeguard bill doesn't even define what a safeguard mechanism credit is. It's not in the bill. If the parliament passes this bill, we'll just have to trust the minister or some bureaucrat to tell us later. The biggest producers of goods in this country will be told to cut their production of carbon dioxide, with the amount not defined in the bill. It may be 4.9 per cent a year; that's what the rumours say. If they don't, they'll be forced to buy undefined carbon dioxide credits. Companies will be forced to buy carbon dioxide credits—forced—and will add the bill to their prices, which the people of Australia will pay through increased costs of living.

Let's continue with the undefined components of your bill. We do know that the safeguard mechanism credits will be defined as eligible international emissions units, meaning they will be able to be traded overseas. If Maurice Strong was still alive, he'd be rubbing his hands together with glee. Al Gore is still alive, and he will be rubbing his hands together with glee.

Let's look at Australian National University environmental law expert Professor Andrew Macintosh. He said that Australia's carbon dioxide market is 'a fraud on the environment', suffers from a distinct lack of integrity and is 'potentially wasting billions of dollars in taxpayers' money'. He goes on to talk about the review. On 9 January he said:

The review panel acknowledged the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credit scheme, but says "it was also provided with evidence to the contrary". Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists.

What are they hiding from the people of Australia?

The Chubb review was a complete sham designed to give a scam-filled industry—and I've talked about the fraud already—a green tick of health to pave the way for this bill. With Ian Chubb's whitewashed review conveniently in place, Labor has given itself permission to rush this bill through, while the scientists who originally raised the integrity issues scream that none of the problems have been addressed. Ian Chubb has repeatedly taken money from Liberal-National and Labor-Greens federal governments to peddle unfounded, false and scary claims. He's a paid gun for hire to push the government line. That's who you got to do your review.

The bill places huge power in the minister, with out-of-touch bureaucrats in the Canberra bubble left to later fill in the details. It's another ministerial power to decide the details. This is a bill to give the minister a blank cheque on who this policy will apply to—he or she will decide that—how much they will be forced to cut, how quickly they will be forced to do it and much more. Almost all of this policy will be made via legislative instrument and executive dictate from the minister. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Senate granting this wide-open power over some of the most significant changes to our economy is unconscionable, just as Senator Canavan highlighted brilliantly last night. The design of this bill—based on a product that is rife with corruption internationally, unfounded—is to minimise parliamentary scrutiny. It's a spit in the face of the parliament, it's a spit in the face of democracy and it's a spit in the face of the Australian people, who you are meant to serve in this chamber.

Let's go to Labor's talk about consultation. To consult means to actually listen, Minister. Labor obviously had no intention of listening. Numerous stakeholders noted the staggered release of the draft bill, the legislative instruments and the Chubb review. These steps combined limited the ability to consider the implications of the proposed reforms. How the hell can Labor claim to have consulted when many of the detailed operational elements and details of this entire policy are contained in legislative instruments which do not yet exist?

Minister, I'd like to discuss briefly the pedigree of this bill because of the needless complexity that I've discussed, because of this hiding way of details and because it gives the minister huge powers. I'd like to know what safeguards the people of Australia have in your safeguard bill.