Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (16:29): I always have a bit of a wry smile when I hear a coalition member talking about delivering on commitments. I think anyone who has seen this budget knows that this is not a government that delivers on its commitments. This is not a government that can be trusted. This is not a government that you can listen to and take anything away from what they say. When you hear Senator Birmingham talking about delivering on commitments, the first thing you have to ask yourself is: what is this government's form, what is this government's history on delivering on commitments? We all know what it is. It is a government which made commitments prior to the election and did not deliver, which engaged in all of the fear campaigns that they could muster on a range of policy issues and have not delivered on one of the biggest economic issues facing this country—that is, the economic issue about ensuring that children in the future will be brought up and live on a planet which is not choking on carbon emissions. That is the bottom line here. Yet we have a federal government which went to the last election with a policy called the Direct Action Plan. Senator Birmingham waxed lyrical about it. Senator Birmingham knows fine well that direct action was put in there to give the then Abbott opposition a fig leaf to say that they were doing something about climate change. Do not take my word for it; take the word of the now Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, who said that this policy was a fig leaf and who also said that the best thing about the policy was that you could get rid of it quickly. So this direct action policy, which the coalition say is going to help reduce emissions, has been roundly criticised by scientists, criticised by environmentalists, it has been under critique by the CSIRO and it has been under critique by the Bureau of Meteorology. They all know that it will not work. No wonder the Prime Minister does not to go to the UN Climate Summit—because he would have to be facing reality, he would be mugged by reality. And for our Prime Minister, who said that climate change was crap, it would have to be in a forum looking at the science on climate change, at what climate change is actually doing to the planet. That is why Labor, when we were in government, said that we had to do something about this. We took advice, which was to put a price on carbon as being the cheapest, most effective way of dealing with carbon pollution. What does direct action do? Direct action actually pays the polluters. Instead of the polluters having to pay for polluting, we, the public, the taxpayers of this country, under the coalition policy, will be paying the biggest pollutes to try to stop polluting. We will be paying. It is an absolute nonsense. Everywhere else around the world people are coming to grips with dealing with carbon pollution. People are accepting the views of scientists around the world. They are saying that there is a huge problem. You can come here and argue about how great economic managers you are. I do not believe for a minute that the coalition are good economic managers. They are not good economic managers. They never have been, even under Howard and Costello. They left us with a structural deficit. Government senators interjecting— Senator CAMERON: I will tell you what we have now. We have the biggest, most important issue facing the world—that is, to make the world a place where in future kids can grow up enjoying the same climate that we have, where they can enjoy the capacity to work, to live and to play on a planet that is not polluted by carbon. No wonder the two carbon deniers across there are going on like chooks with their heads cut off. They do not understand the science. They do not want to understand the science. They do not care about the science. They would back the National Party in when they run an argument that you would end up with a $100 lamb roast. You put a price on carbon and they say your lamb roast would cost $100. We know that is nonsense, but that is the misinformation and the lies that this government is so good at, out there trying to run their arguments about why you should not have a price on carbon. I want a price on carbon because that is what the UN is saying we need. It is not just the UN. Business around the world is saying, 'We need a price on carbon. My first introduction to needing a price on carbon was— Senator O'Sullivan: Jobs! Senator CAMERON: Senator O'Sullivan, when you get a price on carbon you can create the jobs of the future. That is the issue. I first came across this it might have been 15 years ago with the president of Ford Europe. When I went to Europe Ford was saying, 'We need to deal with this; this is a real issue, a live issue. Carbon pollution is causing problems and we as a company will have to deal with it.' They were talking about magnesium bodies on cars, aluminium bodies on cars, reducing the weight of cars and different engine blocks. They were talking about diesel instead of fuel. They were looking at electric cars. What could they do? These are the people who are actually out there creating jobs and employing people around the world. They said, 'We need to do something about it.' Big business was saying we need to do something about it. The reason we are not doing something about it here is that the coalition are beholden to the mining industry. Senator O'Sullivan: Nonsense! Senator CAMERON: Senator O'Sullivan says nonsense. You have only got to look at what the mining industry say they want and then you will see the coalition deliver. The mining industry says, 'Jump'; the coalition asks, 'How high?' In New South Wales, they get brown paper bags in the front seat of a Bentley to do the bidding of big business. In the federal sphere, it is about big business and the mining industry handing huge donations to the coalition to oppose a proper tax so Australians can get their fair share of our mining resources and also to oppose putting a price an carbon because it is not in the short-term interest of the mining industry. I worked—and I am one of the few senators here who have actually worked as a blue-collar worker. I spent a lot of time as a blue-collar in the Hunter Valley working at Liddell Power Station as a maintenance fitter, so I know a little bit about jobs for workers in rural and regional areas. I know a little bit about ensuring that we look after people in this country as a union official. I have done it all my life—not like that lot over there. I know that I need to do something. What we need to do is to make sure that we engage in the industries of the future, that we invest in the industries of the future, and that we look at how we can capture carbon in our coal industry and in our power industry. The International Energy Agency is saying we need to minimise carbon pollution where we are and we need to maximise renewables. That would be a culture shock for the Prime Minister who does not believe in global warming, who does not believe in the science, and who does not believe in anything other than lies and misrepresentation when it comes to this country. They are a bad government. They do not understand it and the Prime Minister should be there getting some education on this issue. (Time expired)