Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (11:44): I rise to speak on this motion to vary the sitting hours of the Senate. What is this about? This is about the Greens wishing to go to Durban in South Africa in early December so that they can say to the rest of the world, 'Look at what we have achieved in Australia, our minority government'—a total of 10 members of parliament and senators out of a total of 226 in this place—'and how we dominate the government.' This is about time; it is about wishing to change the hours of the Senate to accommodate the Greens—nothing more, nothing less. Yet in the three years I have been here I have noticed who the biggest time wasters have been: the Greens. How many divisions did they call when they had five, until 1 July this year, Greens senators in numerous divisions against at least 69, 70 or 71 other senators? And they say they have the numbers! They must be terrible at mathematics to think that five is greater than 70. Yet they are now saying, 'Let's extend time so that we can pass this legislation on the carbon tax and so we'—that is, the Greens—'can be complicit in the broken promise of our Prime Minister to the Australian people prior to the last election.' That is what this is about: satisfying the Greens to get the carbon tax/emissions trading scheme through this parliament. Forget about proper committee hearings and proper inquiries and the Senate doing its job properly; it is about passing legislation to satisfy Bob Brown and the Greens so that they can gloat when they get to Durban. This carbon tax will be a long argument and a long debate, unless of course the Greens and the government pull the guillotine down on it, and a huge tax and cost impost on Australia. Why the rush? Why does it have to be rushed through this parliament? That is a question that everyone should be asking. Those out there in radio land listening to this broadcast and those who are watching it on the internet or in their offices should be asking: why the rush? Why are you going to impose a tax of somewhere between $72 billion and $100 billion on Australian industries by 2020 and have to rush it through? That is what this debate here and now is about. Why the rush? That is a question that everyone should be asking. I find it amazing that the Greens are not rushing over to China to say to them, 'You put legislation through your parliament'—hang on, they do not have a parliament. I am sorry, I have overlooked an issue there. Senator Mason: It's a people's assembly. Senator WILLIAMS: Thank you, Senator Mason. It is the people's assembly. I find it quite concerning that last year China actually burnt 3.2 billion tonnes of coal—that is, 3,200 million tonnes of coal. They increased their consumption of coal last year by 434 million tonnes. Last year, Australia produced a total of 420 million tonnes of coal, yet China's consumption went up by more than that in just one year. The Greens are saying: 'Give us extended hours. Let's rush this through before the end of November.' Yet they are not saying, 'Hang on, China's CO2 emissions a year are currently 10.3 billion tonnes'—yes, that is 10,300 million tonnes—'and by 2020 will go to 17.9 billion tonnes.' I must acknowledge here my colleague Senator Cormann, who gave me those figures, which were put out by Treasury. China's CO2 is going to go up by 7,600 million tonnes a year by 2020, but we stand here in this chamber debating time extensions to rush this legislation through Australia's parliament. The 578 million tonnes of CO2 that Australia is producing, excluding bushfires, which will be another big threat this summer after the last couple of wet seasons, will go up by 43 million tonnes a year by 2020. Then we will go into buying those credits from overseas. That will be the joke of jokes: fraudulent carbon credits exposed at billions of dollars. By 2020 we will be buying $3.5 billion in credits from overseas. We will be spending that much money but who will be checking that they are genuine? You know what I think about this carbon tax, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Ludwig: Do you like it? Senator WILLIAMS: No, I do not like it. I think it is a fraudulent statement to the Australian people prior to the 21 August election. I am a firm believer in climate change. I totally believe in climate change. In fact, I believe the climate has been changing for millions of years. Just recently I was fortunate to spend three days at Airlie Beach, in the Whitsunday Islands, only to discover that 18,000 years ago the Whitsunday Islands were actually part of the Australian mainland because the sea levels were so low and that, 10,000 years ago, the globe warmed, the ice melted on the mainland and the seas rose and, hence, we now call them the Whitsunday Islands. The climate changed. What caused that climate change? What caused the globe to warm back then, Mr Acting Deputy President? Was it hoons in V8 Mustangs, putting out carbon dioxide and chucking wheelies? No, they did not exist then. Perhaps it was coal fired generators. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Senator Williams, I know you are responding to an interjection but I do draw your attention to the question that is before the chair. Senator WILLIAMS: Mr Acting Deputy President, perhaps you might draw the attention of the person who interjected and ask him to refrain from doing so in future. Would that be appropriate? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but you were very eager to accept his interjection. Senator WILLIAMS: As I always am, because his interjections are so ridiculous. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I ask that all senators refrain from interjecting. Senator WILLIAMS: I take your point, Mr Acting Deputy President, with total respect. Moving on from Senator Ludwig's interjection, I would like to ask: why the rush on this policy? Why does it have to be through before the end of November? We do not see it rushed into other parliaments around the world. We see an emissions trading scheme of some 30 countries in Europe, where they produce 14 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. About a dollar a head is their cost. But ours is going to come in at about $400 a head—$400 for every man, woman and child in Australia. And that is going to change the planet? No, it is not. The point I make is that we should not agree to the extension of hours in this chamber, for two reasons. One is the enormous amount of time that the Greens have wasted in this parliament, not only in this current parliament, the 43rd Parliament, but the 42nd Parliament prior to that, through calling ridiculous divisions where, frankly, they should all carry a calculator and do some figures and they might know the real numbers that stay around the chamber when those divisions are called. Secondly, this is a most important piece of policy with huge ramifications for our nation. Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, as a member of the Labor Party you would share my concern on manufacturing jobs in Australia. We have seen from BlueScope Steel the announcement of 1,000 jobs to go there plus some 400 contractors. What we are facing now is 105,000 manufacturing jobs lost over the past three years. So why should we rush through another piece of legislation? Why should we extend the hours of this parliament on a policy that is going to cost more jobs in manufacturing? I thought the Labor Party actually cared about jobs, but that has obviously disappeared years ago. Why should we rush through a policy that the Transport Workers Union has referred to as a death tax? That was Tony Sheldon's evidence at our Senate select committee inquiry chaired by the very capable Senator Cormann. That is how the Transport Workers Union described the proposed 6.85c a litre increase in the excise on diesel for truckies. Senator Cormann: He is going to be president of the ALP now. Senator WILLIAMS: He may well be the president as others are dropping off the perch. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Order! I would ask senators not to interject. Senator Williams, please address your remarks through the chair. Senator WILLIAMS: I certainly will, Mr Acting Deputy President. I normally do. I apologise for sliding off course there for a brief second. So we have a tax that needs to be rushed through this parliament that the Transport Workers Union described as a death tax. Mr Sheldon described it as a death tax because he said, 'Put those extra cost on our truckies it will sweat the drivers and sweat the trucks.' He is saying they will have to work longer hours to make a living, especially owner-drivers, and that will mean more neglect of the truck, of the rig. It could be, 'Hang on, the tyre is almost bald. It's all right, times are tough, I will get another trip out of this tyre.' Brake linings might be worn. 'No, it's all right, I can squeeze another trip out of them before I replace the brake linings.' That is what Mr Sheldon meant when he described this tax as a death tax. But back to the argument we are debating. Why should we extend the hours, why should we rush when these are the concerns the Australian people have about what is being proposed? The situation is that we are going to impose this amount of money on the 500 biggest emitters of carbon dioxide in Australia, and we really do not know who they are. We have not seen the list. We hear figures that if they happen to be responsible for more than 25,000 cubic tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year then they are in, but if it is 24,999 you are out. We know the cement industry is a big emitter, and they cannot afford any of this tax, especially the way the current Australian dollar is, allowing imports to be so cheap because of our high exchange rate, which is obviously brought about by high interest rates in this country, which is obviously brought about by government policy. But that is an argument for another day. So we should not support the extension of hours here. We should not just kowtow to the Greens, who want this crazy legislation that was guaranteed to the Australian people by the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, prior to the election would not be introduced. In fact, it should be delayed until after the next election. That would be true democracy, to allow the Australian people to have a say on it. We have the member for New England, Mr Windsor, who proudly says, 'I will survey my electorate. I am the people's representative.' Mr Windsor did that recently on whether we should have changes to our tax system—not the carbon tax—and whether we should support same-sex marriage. But he did not survey his electorate on the carbon tax. If he will not do his job, I am glad to say that I am doing it for him. Last Monday I sent out 57,000 survey forms into the electorate of New England and also to the electorate of Lyne, where Mr Oakeshott MP is the sitting member. He will not do a survey in his electorate as well. Mr Windsor said at the last election in TV adverts, and I saw them in my own lounge room, 'Vote 1 Tony Windsor, the people's representative.' If he is the people's representative, why doesn't he survey his electorate before there is any proceeding of this legislation in the House of Representatives or here? That is another reason why this should not be rushed through the parliament. That is another reason why we should not extend working hours here to have more sitting hours to rush through a policy simply because the Greens are running this government. I will wind up by saying I do not support the motion being put forward. There is no cause for extension of working hours. We have seen the amount of legislation that has gone through this parliament this week. In fact, on Monday we almost ran out of legislation as bills were passing through so quickly. Now it is drop everything, extend hours, let us do the legislation for the Greens, the ones who are complicit in the Prime Minister breaking her guarantee to the Australian people prior to the election. The Australian people will not forget this. They will not forget many things this Prime Minister has done and this government has done to our nation. They will not forget the debt, the waste, the interest-rate rises and the commitment by the Prime Minister on Perth radio in July last year that she would never consider sending asylum seekers to countries which are not signatories to the refugee convention. But what is the argument in the House of Representatives today? It is over an issue where the government wishes to send asylum seekers to a country which is not a signatory to the refugee convention. Hence, the government has put up a bad argument for extending the hours for this particular reason. I urge my colleagues all around the chamber, perhaps some on the other side, to oppose this. But, no, if they were to do that they would be kicked out of their party and their future would be guillotined. There is no argument for this. This is an important piece of legislation and it should run its normal course. It should be allowed to go up to Senate committees, as well as to the joint committee that has been established, so that the Senate can do its job properly and scrutinise the legislation that has come into this parliament and not simply have it rushed through to appease the Greens so that they can beat their chests and say, 'Look at me. Look at me,' when they get to Durban, South Africa, this December. Senator LUDWIG: I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The Senate divided. [12:04] (The President—Senator Hogg) Senator Bob Brown did not vote , to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, Senator Brown is not here, and he is always keen to do this, so I ask that the record particularly show that Senator Brown was not here for this vote. Senator Siewert: Mr President, I would like to put on the record that Senator Brown was paired, thank you. The PRESIDENT: It is not an issue. The motion has been passed.