Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (16:24): I always like following Senator Boswell in a debate on climate change because I always like to say that at least Senator Boswell is not like the majority of the coalition in the Senate—he does not hide the fact that he does not believe in climate change. Senator Boswell does not think that the sea level will rise; Senator Boswell does not think it is going to get warmer; Senator Boswell does not think that the Great Barrier Reef is under threat; and Senator Boswell thinks that we can keep ploughing CO2 into the atmosphere, polluting the atmosphere, with absolutely no consequences. At least Senator Boswell actually believes that. The ones who are the problem are those in the coalition who actually know that CO2 is damaging to the future of this planet and who actually know that future generations will pay a huge price in their living standards and in terms of the environment. They are the ones who will pay the price—future generations. It is clear on any economic analysis that the best way to deal with carbon pollution is to put a price on that pollution. Senator Boswell says that no-one is doing anything. That is part of the misinformation; that is part of the fear campaign that is underpinning the coalition's approach to this very important issue. In fact, the opposite is the truth. China is the biggest producer and user of renewables— Senator Williams: And coal. Senator CAMERON: Senator Williams says they are also the biggest producer of coal. That is correct—they are the biggest producer of coal, they are the biggest user of coal and they are at the forefront, along with the Australian government, in trying to produce carbon capture and storage processes to make sure that we can continue to use coal. The scare campaign which has been run by the coalition is simply short-termism. It is about trying to get short-term political advantage. It is about saying, 'We do not really care about future generations.' You do not care about my grandkids. Some of you do not even care about your own family's future if there is some kind of short-term advantage politically. The scientific facts are clear—there is an imperative to deal with climate change. Some in the coalition understand this. The member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, knows that full well. He knows that you have to deal with climate change. Your former leader was knocked off because he actually spoke the truth in the coalition party room. He was knocked off because he said the best way to deal with climate change is to put a price on carbon. The majority in the coalition actually reject the science. They are antiscientific. They are absolutely antiscientific. Senator Bernardi interjecting— Senator Williams interjecting— Senator CAMERON: You can hear the groans coming from the coalition—the groans and moans: 'They've got us again. Yes, we are antiscientific, but please don't tell us, because we don't like being told that we are antiscientific.' You are absolutely antiscientific, because the science says that you have to deal with climate change and what is your answer to that? Your answer is: direct action. What is direct action? Direct action is a fraud. Direct action is the biggest fraud anyone has ever attempted to perpetrate on the Australian community. It is such a fraud—the CSIRO has looked at the argument that you can have all of this climate abatement through soil carbon and has said that it is not achievable. You will be consigning future generations to ever-increasing sea levels, ever-increasing carbon in the atmosphere and ever-increasing environmental problems, affecting their ability to have a decent life. There is a sound economic basis for what the government is doing; there is absolutely no economic basis for the coalition's policy. The argument that we are acting alone is wrong. The European Union has its carbon abatement scheme in place—a carbon trading scheme—and the rest of the world is moving to reduce carbon. The Commonwealth's modelling is the most effective modelling around to predict what will happen. We heard a bit said earlier about Professor Henry Ergas. It always amuses me to hear the coalition use Professor Ergas as an expert on what should be done. This is a man who ran a company that was put into liquidation. He tells us at committee after committee: 'I can't run my own company. My company went into liquidation but listen to me and I will tell you how to run the country.' What an absolute joke! Up comes Professor Ergas time and time again, telling people what they should be doing when he could not even run his own company. Maybe it was because the coalition did not pay their bills. I am not sure because he was the chief economist for the coalition in opposition and he was the guy who ran all of the coalition's arguments on economic policy. All of them were wrong; all of them were bad; all of them were crook. So do not quote Professor Ergas as some authority on anything when he could not even run his own company. We heard the argument that there was all doom and gloom out there in the regions. I just had the good fortune to hear Mackay Sugar—what could be more regional than Mackay Sugar, a 140-year-old canegrowing company?—say that, yes, you have to put a price on carbon and yes, it is going to mean great opportunities for us. What are their opportunities? They are going to diversify their operation and they are constructing a $120 million renewable co-generation plant which will supply about one-third of Mackay's electricity. How can they do that? They can only do it because there is a price on carbon and there is a renewable energy target. It is a federal government initiative. That is the only thing they can do. Senator Sterle: It's gone all quiet over there. Senator CAMERON: It has gone all quiet over there. These are canegrowers, people who actually understand the economics of doing something. They said that they will contribute to Australia's renewable energy market. Their perspective is that it is not a job destroyer, that the $120 million co-generation plant was based on the 20 per cent renewable energy scheme. They say, 'The carbon tax should enhance our revenue from co-generation.' That is what is happening. 'And we are hoping it will allow us to go ahead with another co-gen plant within a couple of years. These projects typically employ about 250 people during the construction period and a dozen or so under operations.' So, hundreds of construction jobs and dozens of full-time jobs being created because we are taking an initiative to put a price on carbon. It is only those on the other side who would deny this. Not only do they deny the science, but also they deny the economics. If you accept the science then you have an obligation to put up a proposition that reduces our carbon pollution at the least cost price. That is what the government has done. We have taken advice and that advice is to put a price on carbon and let the market determine the price. You put your cap in place, you put your price in place and you allow the market to determine the process. That is what is important for this country because we are about the future, not the past. We are about science and not being unscientific. We are about ensuring that future generations have a way forward for a decent environment in this country.