Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (16:55): It gives me great pleasure to speak to the matter of public importance proposed by Senator Fifield for discussion by the Senate: The Gillard government's continued determination to impose a carbon tax and put Australians under further cost of living pressures. The government's push to put a price on carbon on the basis that it would help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is a very expensive hoax. This government has previously sought to mislead the Australian people and has previously sought to take advantage of the Australian people's goodwill towards the environment by trying to impose another cost, which will push up the cost of living. This is a government which, in the lead-up to the 2007 election, supposedly was committed to doing things to address cost-of-living pressures. Ever since, the cost of living has gone up, up and up. We had the GroceryWatch fiasco and the Fuelwatch fiasco from this government. None of that worked. None of that was thought through. Australian families are dealing with very significant cost-of-living pressures, in particular because of the financial mismanagement of this government. The truth of the matter is that a carbon tax in Australia, in the absence of an appropriately comprehensive global agreement on price emissions, including for trading competitors in other parts of the world, would push up the cost of everything. It would make us less competitive internationally—so it would cost jobs—and all of that without helping to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. In effect, the government is proposing to make overseas polluters more competitive than even the most environmentally efficient equivalent business in Australia. This is why it is a hoax. This is why the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation was defeated in the Senate. Not only did the coalition vote against it, the Greens also voted against it, Senator Xenophon voted against it and Senator Fielding, as he then was, voted against it. Only the Australian Labor Party voted to push up the cost of everything to make us less competitive internationally, to put jobs at risk, to put our energy security at risk—and all of that without helping to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong, today outrageously misled the Senate. I asked Senator Wong today why the government was proposing to exempt petrol but not electricity from the carbon tax. Electricity is a very important service for families and businesses across Australia and is responsible for significantly increasing cost-of-living pressures. The minister dishonestly read out a quote which she pretended was a quote from a speech that I had supposedly given to the Senate. The minister lied to this chamber. The minister misled the chamber. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann, you will have to withdraw that remark concerning the minister. Senator CORMANN: I withdraw the reference to lying but I do seek an apology from Minister Wong, who no doubt deliberately misled— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, you have to completely withdraw the reference. Senator CORMANN: I completely withdraw the reference. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cormann. Senator CORMANN: I just point out what Senator Wong said I allegedly said in a speech in September 2007. Allegedly I said, 'This will be the most comprehensive ETS in the world, broader in coverage than any scheme currently operating anywhere; a world-leading scheme to cover 70 to 75 per cent of total emissions. By including large emitters alone, the scheme would cover 55 per cent of total emissions; however'—and she said that this was the best bit out of my alleged speech—'by including transport and other fuels the coverage of the scheme is significantly increased.' Minister Wong told the Senate only two hours ago that allegedly these are comments that I made in this chamber. I absolutely deny that I have ever said any such thing, so the minister should correct the record at the earliest opportunity. Let me make the broader point: I actually happen to support effective action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. The coalition happens to support effective action to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions but the government's carbon tax, the government's proposed emissions trading scheme, the government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the last parliament, are not effective strategies to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. The reason that they are not effective in helping to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is that they move to reduce emissions in Australia in a way that will increase emissions in other parts of the world. This is where people across Australia are taken for fools. They are being asked to make a sacrifice. They are being asked to pay more for electricity, they are being asked to pay more for food—they are being asked to pay more for everything, even though this government knows that it will not lead to a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The reason it will not is the failure in Copenhagen to reach agreement between relevant countries around the world around schemes to price emissions. The government's economic modelling assumed that a whole series of countries would have emissions trading schemes in place in 2010. The government assumed that Canada, Japan, the US, the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Romania, Switzerland, the Ukraine, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Monaco —all of them—would have emissions trading schemes in place with similar policy settings as the emissions trading scheme then proposed here in Australia. Of course, none of them do. The government assumed that China would have an emissions trading scheme in place by 2015 and of course they will not. I do refer the minister to some comments that I did make in my first speech, and I urge her to be more accurate and more precise in reading the comments that I have made in this chamber on this issue. This is what I said in my first speech in this place: Climate change is a challenge we are facing as a global community. If we take a sensible and considered approach— I emphasise 'considered approach'— to meeting that challenge, Australia can play a pivotal role in facilitating the production of clean energy for the world. … … … we are blessed with immense reserves of clean energy in the form of gas and uranium. No other place in the developed world has such reserves. Moreover, the growing bulk of this energy is being exported directly or indirectly in the form of processed resources to China, the epicentre of the world’s growing energy challenge. Our greatest possible contribution to addressing climate change is to export more energy. Each unit of clean energy exported from Australia reduces the consumption of less clean energy in China and elsewhere and, therefore, reduces greenhouse gas emissions. That is actually something that would make a positive difference. It would help us to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions while also growing our economy in Australia. But it is actually something that would be harder under the government's scheme. If the government puts a price on carbon here in Australia when other comparable countries around the world do not, when our trading competitors do not, it will make it harder for us to attract investment to increase our energy production here in Australia. It will make it harder for us to maximise our opportunity from producing LNG, exporting it to China, Japan and other places, displacing coal in those markets and reducing emissions in the process. What the government proposed to do was counterproductive then and it is still counterproductive now. It will be very interesting to see, given that the Greens voted against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because they shared our judgment that it was inadequate, whether and why the Greens take the view that this tax that is going to be announced on Sunday is going to be more adequate. The government's modelling of all of this is also completely flawed. The government is not only inconsistent with all of this; the government is actually dishonest as well. In relation to the modelling of the impact of a price on carbon in Australia the Treasurer said that Treasury modelling showed that it would not have an impact on jobs. The Treasury modelling did not show anything of the sort. The Treasury modelling assumed it. The Treasury modelling included a technical assumption that over the long run a price on carbon in Australia would not have an impact on employment. If you include an assumption in a model you cannot then turn around and say the modelling shows that. If you tell a model that jobs are not going to decrease, that jobs are going to continue to increase, that unemployment is not going to be impacted then it is entirely dishonest to turn around and say the modelling shows this. The other thing the modelling shows is that the government expects lower real wages as a result of the carbon tax. Lower real wages together with the increases in the cost of living as a result of this toxic tax are a very toxic combination, which is why the Gillard government stands condemned for its broken promise not to introduce a carbon tax under a government that Prime Minister Gillard leads.