Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (16:45): While I am always pleased to follow Senator Ryan, and I am always pleased to deal with the arguments that Senator Ryan puts up, I give more respect to Senator Boswell, Senator Joyce and Senator Williams who do not believe in climate change and make no bones about it. There is a basis for their opposition to the government doing the right thing because they do not believe there is anything happening in climate change. They are climate change deniers. But that is not the case with Senator Ryan and it is not the case with Senator Birmingham and Senator Colbeck, and that makes it even worse. The hypocrisy to actually come here and argue against something that you know needs to be resolved is the worst kind of hypocrisy, and that is the problem with the argument that Senator Ryan has put up. I just happened to stumble across some remarks of a would-be senator, Scott Ryan, at the Victorian Senate candidates climate change debate back at the Elgin Inn in Hawthorn on 7 November 2007. You do not want to be reminded? Senator Ryan has bolted! Senator Ryan has gone; he does not want to be reminded of what he said. Well, I will put it on the record because I am sure he will not put it on the record. This is him trying to become a senator, trying to argue, 'Vote for me because I am such a great person on the environment'. He said he agreed 'there is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and it is human induced'. You would not think so from that lot that we just heard from him. He said: The Liberals' policy is based on four main planks. The first one is: Recognising that we have a responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations. What he has just come out with will not do anything for that. He went on to say: Understanding that climate change poses unique risks to our economy and environment. He should tell Senators Boswell, Joyce and Williams. It is great that we have actually got a scientist in the National Party now. It is a real plus—a scientist in the National Party, Senator McKenzie—and I have asked her to give some basic scientific lessons to the leadership of the National Party in relation to climate change. It really is a big job for her and I hope she takes it up. I do not like her chances with Senator Boswell, Senator Joyce and Senator Williams but she should at least give it a go. She said she is a scientist and deals in scientific fact. Let's come back to Senator Ryan. He said the third point was that the Liberal Party had: Responsibility to provide technological and policy leadership as one of the world's larger economies and a leading nation in the region. How often have we heard those on the other side argue that we are only a small player? We should not be doing anything on climate change; we should just bail out to pollute all we like because we are a small country. Senator Ryan seems to have forgotten what he said back at the Elgin Inn in Hawthorn on 7 November 2007. He went on to say: It is our responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost. Then he has the hypocrisy to come here and support a direct action approach, the so-called 'direct action', which we know is the most expensive approach to deal with climate change. Every economist worth their salt says this is a nonsense. We know that the former Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, now says it is nothing more than a fig leaf. It is a fig leaf from the opposition so they can ditch any approach to climate change as soon as they have the opportunity. Senator Ryan went on to say on 7 November 2007: The Liberals' policy on climate change is based on: grants to assist the development of low emissions technology; expanding the mandatory renewable energy target to 30,000 gigawatt hours by 2020, equivalent to 15 per cent of Australia's electricity production. He goes on: We will introduce a comprehensive and world's best practice emissions trading system. Senator McLucas: Did he? Senator CAMERON: He did say that. He said that on 7 November 2007 and the hypocrisy of Senator Ryan beggars belief. When he was trying to win the support of environmentalists in Victoria to become a senator, he said, 'We will introduce a low-cost best-practice emissions trading system'. I do not hear him saying that now that he is in here. He has his backside on the red leather and he is running a mile from his promises and running a mile from his position. I say it again: he said that the Liberals would introduce 'a comprehensive world best practice emissions trading system'. They have gone a long way from that. So I do not really place much weight on the arguments from Senator Ryan. As I said, at least with Senator Boswell you know that he is a climate change denier, you know that he does not believe in the science and you know why he has taken the position he has taken. But from the hypocrisy of those who would go out in 2007, like Senator Ryan when he was trying to get the Victorian public to elect him to public office, and say all these things and then run away from those principled positions when they are in the Senate trying to claw their way up to the front bench of the Liberal Party, we know there is a problem. We know there is no credibility in terms of his position and we know that the scientific position is just ignored. I turn quickly to what Senator Colbeck said. He said that capital is mobile and there is a sovereign risk because we are putting a price on carbon. I am on the Senate Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes—for my ills, but I am there. We have a submission from the Investor Group on Climate Change. Who is on that group? AMP Capital Investors—and I would listen to them before I would listen to Senator Ryan—Australian Super, BT Investment Management—and I would listen to them before I would listen to Tony Abbott and the coalition—Cbus, Colonial First State Global Asset Management, Deutsche Bank Equity Research, Institute of Financial Services, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Perpetual and UBS Investment Bank. What do they say? They say that we have to deal with climate change because to not deal with climate change is a problem and that that creates the sovereign risk. The biggest sovereign risk is not dealing with this, and the longer we delay dealing with it the more expensive it will be to deal with. They go on to say, 'The Leader of the Opposition's position on direct action is not a policy that is reasonable or will deliver.' They say that investors represented by the IGCC consider the coalition's policy: ... to be ... costly and ... unviable for capping national emissions. So not only is it the complete opposite of what Senator Ryan said when he was trying to win public office and what he is now denying; the people who actually advise where you should invest say it is costly and not viable in capping emissions. They say, 'It will be a direct cost to the taxpayer.' And we know that that cost will be $1,300 for every taxpayer. The polluters will be told, 'You just pollute; we'll just tax.' That is their line: 'You just pollute and we'll just tax.' It will cost every taxpayer $1,300 to fund a policy that the market says is unviable and the market says is costly. Instead of doing what we are doing, looking after the Australian public, these people are taxing them and pushing a policy that is unviable. Finally, the hypocrisy from Senator Ryan knows no bounds. He was out there telling the Victorian community that he believed in climate change, that he will do something about it, that he will put in an emissions trading scheme and then as he climbs up the greasy pole he runs away from that.