Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:31): Senator Stephens said that those on this side are hypocrites. Well, Senator Stephens—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Cameron—what do you call it when the Prime Minister says to the Australian people, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? What do you call that? Is that not hypocrisy? We have had all the leaks now from the old kitchen cabinet of four, where it was the now Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, who told the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, to drop the emissions trading scheme, to get rid of it, that it was a bad egg, it was toxic—throw it away. But now we have Prime Minister Gillard saying, 'Yes, we will bring in a carbon tax.' Of course, it has been driven by the Greens and by Independent member for New England Tony Windsor, who stated in a media release a few months ago that one of his conditions for putting Ms Gillard into the Lodge was that she form a multiparty climate change committee and proceed along this road. So is not only the Greens but the member for New England as well.

But do not be alarmed, everyone, about the pamphlet that is now circulating Parliament House, sent to my office today, entitled Hot earth: the case for planning and regulation to deal with climate crisis, because who is it from? The Communist Party of Australia, September 2011. We now have the Communist Party out there supporting the government and supporting the Greens. They propose a carbon tax which will go to an emissions trading scheme in a few years time, when the bankers and brokers will be just popping champagne corks over a way to make money.

This proposed tax is especially a tax on regional Australia. Electricity prices are already higher in regional Australia. If you add 10 per cent, of course the rise is also going to be higher. Look at what is proposed for fuel. It is simply amazing: if the government are concerned about carbon emissions from fuel, why didn't they include petrol? Of course they would not include petrol; there would be too much backlash at the polling booth. Instead it is, 'We'll hold off till 1 July 2014 and we'll add a tax of nearly 7c a litre to our truckies'—the very people who carry our nation.

When Tony Sheldon, their representative, was giving evidence at the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes, he described it as a 'death tax'. They are the words of the National Secretary of the Transport Workers Union: the carbon tax is a death tax for those truckies, who will have to work longer and harder, sweat themselves and sweat their rigs. That is what the Transport Workers Union think of this $510 million tax on our truckies—the very people who work long and hard, often for little in return, especially owner-drivers, who carry our nation. That is how they describe it.

Keri Brown of Inverell Freighters was another of our witnesses. He has 25 prime movers and employs 40 people at Inverell and Parkes. He said:

… we are very thankful that the tax on diesel has been deferred for three years.

But then he makes the point that they are already paying the tax. They have the Euro 5 motors in many of their trucks which produce far less polluting emissions. But, because the Euro 5 motors are a much cleaner motor, they use 10 per cent more fuel, so they are already paying 10 per cent more. They are already paying their way in direct action to reduce emissions. That is what is happening to the transport industry.

Bindaree Beef, a business in Inverell of which I am extremely proud, employ more than 600 people. They have a huge electricity bill. When it goes up another 10 per cent—it will probably cost them $300,000 or $400,000 a year—how can they pass that on to their customers? They cannot, of course. They cannot pass it on. They are exporting, so they are exposed to the world market, where their competitors in America will not have these costs. Whether it be transport, electricity or other costs, they will not have to compete against those. Bindaree Beef have said that it will cost them up to $2.74 million in the first year of the introduction of the carbon tax.

The government say the carbon tax is not on agriculture. How amazing, then, that Armidale business Superair, a crop-dusting business, with a 6c increase in tax on avgas for their aeroplanes, have an extra $30,000 to $40,000 a year to pay. Of course they will pass it on to the farmers. The farmers will then spread less fertiliser, have less stock in grates and have lower production of wool, mutton, beef, lamb—it is a tax on production in regional Australia, especially in the industries I just mentioned. The Regional Aviation Association of Australia have said:

… $11m/per annum will be added to the fuel bill of … regional operators.

The Australian Dairy Industry Council estimates dairy farmers will be up for as much as $10,000 more a year to run their dairy farms. This is at a time when we have this price war of $1 a litre between Coles and Woolworths, and when dairy farmers are already doing it so tough, especially those in Queensland and Western Australia, where the cost of production is much higher. They are going to face an extra $10,000.

There is one thing I have grave concerns about in this whole proposal of a carbon tax, and I have raised it before. It is about the Constitution. We know that, in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, the coal fired generators are owned by the states. However, the Constitution clearly states in section 114:

… nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

The generators are the property of the state, and the Constitution clearly says 'nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State'. I will seek professional advice in the near future on this very issue. The Senate must address whether this tax on generators is in breach of the Constitution. The environment is the most important thing for us to protect for future generations.

Senator Singh: You wouldn't think so.

Senator WILLIAMS: I will take that interjection. I have spent most of my life on the land and I know that the most valuable asset in this country is our soil. That is what grows our food; that is what feeds our nation and many people around the world as well. But the government wants to tax those people out of existence. Look after your land—if you have healthy soil you will grow healthy food and have healthy people. It is as simple as that. If there is a lack of nutrition in the soil, how do you expect to have nutrition in your food? That is why the land is the most important issue here. Those in government seem to have little or no concern for the land.

I suggest that Senator Singh go and have a look at a map of Australia. Probably 50 per cent of this nation is in the hands of farmers and graziers. How can they be green when so many of them are so far in the red? Have a look at what the government did to the beef industry in recent times—the way they devastated the top end of Australia with the outrageous full suspension of beef exports. How do those people look after their properties when they do not have income? That is what this government is about—the destruction of the people who feed our nation and their asset. That is why it is most important that we look after those on the land, because they are the caretakers of the greatest asset this nation has. We need to look after it for future generations. That is why so many on the land have endorsed programs such as Landcare and have looked after the environment through extremely tough times, especially with the drought from 2002 through to 2010.

This is a tax we were never going to have under a government led by Julia Gillard. The people of Australia were deceitfully cheated prior to the last election. Of the 150 members of parliament in the other house, at least 145 went to the election not supporting a carbon tax.