Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Fifield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Gillard Government’s lack of appreciation and understanding of cost of living pressures facing Australian families and intention to add to these by the introduction of a carbon tax and other new taxes.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been said before, but I think it bears repeating, that this government formed office on the back of a lie. Julia Gillard put her hand on her heart and declared—and I quote, again: ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ That was on Channel 10 on 16 August 2010. I repeat this again: ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ That was Prime Minister Julia Gillard. We have heard this falsehood repeated time and again. On this side of the chamber we have spoken of it often. It has been canvassed in the media over and over again. In fact, it has been heard so often that the sheer audacity of the statement is almost starting to lose its impact. That is why I think it is well worth spending a moment on that absolute, complete and utter falsehood again. This government slid into office on the back of a lie.

But this is not the first time. Cast your mind back to the 2007 election. You might remember that Labor was going to ‘ease the squeeze’, that Labor’s greatest concern in that election campaign was for working families and the cost-of-living pressures that they faced. Oh how the Australian Labor Party felt and shared the pain of Australian households, how they felt the pain of working families! Labor was so keen to demonstrate that care, that concern, that it came up with a couple of policies. One was GroceryWatch, which has now gone into infamy. The other was Fuelwatch, which has also faded into political history. The theory was that by watching something—by watching the price of groceries—those prices would magically fall. By setting up a website, grocery prices would tumble. There was the parallel policy that by watching petrol prices they would fall and that by setting up a website and a petrol commissioner, again, they would magically fall.

Labor are not completely without some capacity. They knew that these measures would never work. As we know, GroceryWatch was abandoned. The website was a debacle. It was originally outsourced to Choice, I think, and then the whole thing fell over. Fuelwatch, too, was abolished. There may well still be a petrol commissioner. I do not know; I lost track. He may still be there, but who cares? It does not really matter. It was never going to achieve anything. It was all a con and a sham. The truth is that in 2007 Labor did not care about cost-of-living pressures. Labor never intended to do anything about cost-of-living pressures. They merely adopted a posture of care. They had a furrowed brow and a tilted head, but it meant nothing.

The reason I am harking back to 2007 is to make evident that Labor has form when it comes to cost-of-living issues. They fib, they pose and they posture. They talk a good game; you have to give them that. They talk a very good game, but it does not result in anything. In 2007, Labor’s sins were sins of omission. Labor broke a promise—the promise to do something to help. They failed to do what they said it would do.

In 2010 Labor’s sins are ones of commission, the promise broken not to do something. They promised that they would not introduce a carbon tax. Their broken promise is that they did something which they said they would not do. And not only did Prime Minister Gillard commit on 16 August 2010 not to introduce a carbon tax, she did so again on 20 August 2010, on the front page of the Australian newspaper. But this was not just any edition of the Australian newspaper, this was not just any day; this was the day before the election, the day when Australians really focus on the policies of each party. It was the front page, stop the presses: ‘I rule out a carbon tax.’ No qualification, no equivocation, no hesitation, no subclauses; it was a pure, straight, simple statement ‘I rule out a carbon tax’.

So the party that was elected in 2007 promising to fix grocery prices and petrol prices, the party that formed government in 2010 on a promise to not introduce a carbon tax, has a policy that will increase the cost of living for Australian families, that will put pressure on Australian families, that will push up electricity bills by an extra $300 per year in the first year of operation of a carbon tax. And that is on top of what prices will already naturally increase by. Petrol is to rise by 6.5c a litre, again in just the first year of operation of the carbon tax. That is on top of whatever petrol may already be going to rise by. Gas prices will rise by 10 per cent in the first year as well, and groceries will rise. Groceries—that great concern of 2007, that great concern that prompted GROCERYwatch: the carbon tax is going to increase grocery prices. Petrol, that great concern that prompted Fuelwatch in 2007: the government’s policy is going to see petrol prices increase. Manufactured goods will rise. It is all bad news for Australian families.

The response of the government, the Australian Labor Party, will be as always that this side of the chamber are climate change deniers, that this side of the chamber are rednecks. The truth is that on this side of the chamber we do acknowledge that man does make a contribution to global warming. This opposition does have a policy to address that; a very practical policy. We are going to set up a $10.5 billion fund to cover the period between now and 2020 and we are going to use the money to buy back greenhouse emissions to meet the target that both sides of the chamber share of reducing emissions by five per cent by 2020. It bears repeating, because I think this is important to know, that these incentives will cut emissions through things such as capturing carbon in soil, planting trees, cleaning up coal-fired power stations, cleaning up gases from coalmines and making buildings more energy-efficient. We have a plan.

The debate here is about good policy, what constitutes good policy, what constitutes an appropriate response, what constitutes an effective response, what constitutes a response that will not increase the cost of living for Australian families. That is the debate here; it is one of policy. It does not matter how much those on the other side seek to shift the debate about who might be out the front of Parliament House today, whether they are the sorts of people that the Australian Labor Party might keep company with on a Sunday morning over breakfast. That is not actually the issue. The people out there in front of Parliament House are entitled to their views. They are Australian citizens, they are entitled the put their view—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pauline Hanson and Tony Abbott.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cameron, those sorts of interventions are unhelpful. I see your name on the list. You can make your contribution later on.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A couple of weekends back I was in Werribee in front of Prime Minister Gillard’s electorate office with about 400 Australians who were rightly angry at the breach of promise by this Prime Minister, who were rightly concerned about the increasing cost of living pressures—400 real, regular, everyday Australians who turned up to Werribee in front of Julia Gillard’s electorate office on a long weekend in Melbourne on a sunny day, and they deserve to have their view heard. Their anger is justified. Their anger is righteous. This government stands condemned for its policy to hit Australian families.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really proud to be in a position today to make a contribution on this motion on carbon pricing. The opposition needs to focus on the track record of the Labor government in terms of economic responsibility. We have a proven track record on this. You only need to go back two years ago—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know those opposite are suffering from acute amnesia because you forgot we had a global financial crisis. Go and sort out your acute amnesia, because you forgot all about that. You forgot how this Labor government handled economic responsibility on that matter.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We haven’t forgotten.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You haven’t forgotten. That is why you keep denying and opposing this government’s logical and reasonable policies to help out working families—working families that need assistance. You sit over there and you oppose the stimulus packages and you oppose the flood levy and the cyclone package on the basis that you do not want to care about or help out Queenslanders. You want to sit back and not let them get to work even though the railway bridges have been washed away and the roads are in disrepair. You are prepared to sit back and do nothing the way you usually do. That is your position.

I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and numerous ambassadors appear before us. One thing they have told us over the last couple of years since 2009, when the global financial crisis hit us, is that they acknowledge how well the federal government of Australia has handled this global financial crisis. We are the envy of the world. These ambassadors cannot believe the way we have handled the economy. For the first time, and I stand to be corrected, we have got the mantle of economic responsibility as a government—something that the opposition certainly used to crow about and claim that they held. But now the public respect the way we manage the economy. They trust us on the way we manage the economy and, once again, we have a proven track record on that.

I will use as an example one of the stimulus package mechanisms we put in place—the Building the Education Revolution. I know it is another part of the stimulus package that those opposite opposed. I know that some of them do not turn up to the openings of those marvellous establishments—the halls, libraries and refurbished schools—but there is a handful of them in Queensland who come along with big grins on their faces for the photographs. They love standing in front of the new hall or library for which anything up to $3.2 million was received and which has stimulated the economy and provided jobs during a time when the global financial crisis was starting to bite. What did the opposition do? They opposed the program because they were not prepared to stand up and protect workers and jobs at a time of global financial crisis. They did nothing. They opposed it in the same way they opposed the Queensland flood and cyclone levy. They are not prepared to assist workers when the time and need arise.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just say no!

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take that interjection, Senator Cameron. No is an easy position to take when you have nothing to provide, nothing to put forward. The Australian Labor Party stands for working-class people, and that is our background. We stand for working families: we care for them and we are prepared to assist them in times of need. I accept the fact that those opposite built up a surplus, but they squandered the benefits of that surplus by not spending at times when it was needed. We had to stimulate the economy and that is why we injected billions into school buildings and halls. I have seen schools that were desperately lacking in resources and it was only a Labor federal government that was prepared to put money into a system so depleted by a coalition government.

Let us go back to that period of time when the opposition did not want road and rail infrastructure—as happened with the Queensland flood levy. Once again they wanted to sit on their hands and do nothing. The stimulus package amounted to $42 billion in infrastructure, and along with that we provided stimulus into the economy through a $900 bonus, which stimulated the retail sector. We looked at all facets and all areas where people were in need, and in some circumstances, like the retail sector, they survived as a result of those injections of money into the economy. People went out and spent that money and stimulated the economy.

The Building the Education Revolution injected $16.2 billion into school halls, libraries and science centres. On just about every occasion those buildings are opened—in some cases there are three in a day—the principals, P&C presidents and mums and dads say, ‘Go back to the Prime Minister, go back to Senator Evans, and tell them how grateful we are that a Labor government stimulated the economy and provided these halls, science centres and libraries for us! They are something we would never have had, had it not been for a Labor government.’ That is gospel—they are so grateful to have received those buildings. I will rattle off a few of those: Dayboro State School received $2.65 million, Lawnton State School received $2.12 million, Chevallum State School, on the Sunshine Coast, received $2.65 million and so on.

It is amazing to see a matter of public importance like this which claims that we have no appreciation or understanding of the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian families. We do know what affects working families. We do know how to treat them and how to inject money in areas where it is appropriate. We will continue to prosecute that understanding in our carbon price. Conversely, the opposition claims they want to handle the carbon price by rolling it back. How irresponsible is that measure? Let us consider that. Mr Hockey said:

We will repeal the carbon tax and there will be no need for compensation, so we will unwind the compensation because you don’t need to have compensation if you have no carbon tax.

That demonstrates their incompetence and their irresponsibility. Should they ever, let us hope they do not, end up in government and be in a position to turn back—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Fifield, that is disorderly, as you know. Calm yourself.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy is not being entirely orderly either.

The Acting Deputy President:

Perhaps both of you could restrain yourselves.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Minister, you are interfering with your own speaker’s contribution to this debate.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us not forget this point. The opposition will roll this back. They will reach into the pockets of working families and take out what we have provided. We will be providing incentives like we did through the global financial crisis. We know how to handle the economy. We know how to deliver for working families, unlike that lot opposite. The only way they know how to look after working families is by introducing legislation like Work Choices. That is all they stand for.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Fifield, please restrain yourself. Please proceed, Senator Furner.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. We recognise that a carbon price is the cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution and drive investment in a clean energy future. The detailed features of the carbon price mechanisms, including the starting price, the length of the fixed price period and the assistance arrangement for households and industry, are yet to be decided, and therefore their impact cannot be determined at this particular time.

There are people out there providing reasonable alternatives and proposals. One I will turn to is Professor Garnaut. He supports the framework announced by the government to drive investment in a clean energy future. Today I was fortunate enough to hear from the UK ambassador on this subject. Over in the UK, they are doing reasonable things on carbon pricing. They are doing that in concert with the economy. They are developing new and exciting initiatives and emissions trading scheme programs. That is another prime example of what is happening in other countries, including the EU. The opposition claims that this is not happening anywhere else in the world and that we are leading the way. We are not. We are here, in train, working with the rest of the world to produce initiatives that will save our climate. When it comes to climate change, the Labor government is at the forefront and we will make sure working families are protected.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is my responsibility to pull this debate back to its origins and what this matter of public importance is all about. It was clear Senator Furner—he has walked out of the chamber—never believed a word he said. He could not get out quickly enough. It was obviously dumped on him just minutes before the debate. It was the most hollow of hollow rhetoric I have yet heard in this chamber. I nearly jumped out of my seat when he said that we had squandered the surplus. It is exactly what the previous government left this government—a surplus. We did not squander it. We left $20 billion and the $60 billion Future Fund.

But I will not be seduced by the lightweight argument of the previous speaker. Rather, I will pull this debate back to the matter of public importance that it is. It ought to be said, for those listening to the broadcast, that matters of public importance get preference in the Senate over any other business. It is a time that the opposition and the government can debate matters of, as the title says, public importance—matters that the public is concerned about, that the chamber is concerned about. Yet I am stretched to recall even one occasion when a minister has come in and spoken on a matter of public importance to defend their government. I cannot think of any such occasion. I can only put it down to an arrogance that they get when they get onto the front bench; an arrogance in government and certainly an absolute contempt of their own backbench.

Today, on this of all issues, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation—who is also a former minister for climate change—has not come in to speak. Where is Senator Penny Wong on this issue? Why would she not come in and support and give some morale to the backbenchers? Instead you get the likes of Senator Furner coming in to put up the case and the arguments. That is contemptuous.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My morale is okay.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you are next, Senator Cameron. I have done a great deal of research on this cost-of-living matter. I also have Bureau of Statistics figures which I wish to address, but I always like to open up my addresses with some handy hints and advice for the Labor Party. I say to those across the other side: these ministers who will not come in and debate the issue outside question time—they are nothing very special.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are the clown prince.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are nothing very special.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You on the backbench ought to get the likes of Senator Penny Wong in here to debate this issue. They dropped you into it. They have dropped you into this carbon tax issue. They told you nothing about it at all. The first you heard about it was on the news. Yet you let them get away with the arrogance of their office—and here is Mr Arrogance himself.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Deputy President: I would like you to invite the speaker to address the chair.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran, please continue your remarks. There is no point of order.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was talking about Senator Wong. From time to time, a minister ought to come in and speak on this issue—and there is no issue more important than this issue today. I am very much reminded of the great political dictum, still so true today, put down by the former Premier of Queensland, Wayne Goss. He was talking about Paul Keating and the arrogance of office. He said: ‘The Australian people do not forget. They sit on their verandas with their baseball bats just waiting for the next election to come along.’ That dictum applies to those on the other side—because you have allowed your ministers, you have allowed your leaders and you have allowed your cabinet to ride roughshod over you.

Senator Cameron is following me. He is someone who does speak up. I am always looking for Senator Cameron’s comments and clippings. I cut them out and I carry them with me. I loved his zombie comments.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You stalker.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I stalk Senator Cameron because the man, love him or leave him—mostly leave him—speaks his mind and truth. He does stand up. He called all of you on that side zombies. He told it as it was and I was given the opportunity to read it out. He is still talking. He is still talking big, although hardly ever delivering. But I have another clipping of Senator Cameron giving advice to the Prime Minister on the carbon tax. Give him credit; he will stand up to the Prime Minister. The article says:

Labor Senator Doug Cameron urged the Prime Minister to move quickly on revealing the detail of the planned carbon tax—

which we know nothing about; we do not even know the parameters that are being set—

saying that the debate would be “quite easy” to win when the public was better informed.

He might think that, but I cannot agree with him. The Prime Minister is not listening to him anyway, but I cannot agree with him that it will be quite easy to convince the public. At least he is speaking out. But he will not win the debate. You can give us all the detail you like. Whether it is with detail or without detail, the fact of the matter is that we have been to this debate before—it was called the emissions trading scheme—and you lost it. You lost it badly, terribly.

The Prime Minister has also been here before. This Prime Minister has been engulfed in this debate. This is the Prime Minister who previously adopted and urged the party to take on the emissions trading scheme. Then she talked Kevin Rudd into abandoning the emissions trading scheme. Then she dumped him for abandoning the emissions trading scheme. Then she promised, before the election, that there would be no emissions trading scheme—and then she goes and introduces an emissions trading scheme. Who is the real Julia? It was in the Australian today. Even Paul Kelly, a leading writer—20, 30, maybe even 40 years in the business—has to ask that question about the Prime Minister. Who is the real Julia? Who is the fake Julia? I am not sure Julia knows herself. For me, she is one and the same—she is a real fake and she is playing with you all over the shop.

This issue is about the living standards of the Australian people. No public representative can escape the concern of the Australian people, of the new-found dread of the Australian people in regard to living costs. It is nothing new to talk about living costs in this parliament but there is a new atmosphere about the increasing living costs—in utilities, in power, in water, in transport, in health and in education. There is a new-found dread among working families, pensioners and individuals that maybe this time they just will not make it, that maybe this time they cannot meet their power bills or their education bills. The introduction of the carbon tax is going to multiply their problems. In fact, they will lose their jobs. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister made a speech in South Australia to tell us that the coalminers and the steelworkers may lose their jobs, given the Greens want to shut the coalmines down tomorrow, but we can retrain them and put them into green jobs—waiters at rainforest resorts. That is what the coalminers will be reduced to.

I would like to go on but time does not permit—it never does in this place. We need a good 20 minutes on an MPI. Eight minutes is never enough to go into detail, but you know the detail. I have the detail here. Costs of living are skyrocketing and you know it. That is what the next election will be about and the carbon tax will be at the centre of that debate.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always like to hear Senator McGauran in full flight. I am so pleased he is stalking me—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was his valedictory.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

His valedictory—that is right. I am so pleased he is interested in what I say because what I say is important in terms of the issues that face ordinary Australians. What the Labor Party says is absolutely fundamental to the living standards of all Australians. The problem for Senator McGauran, the problem for Senator Williams and the problem for Senator Fifield, who spoke previously, is that they do not go back to the origins of this debate. I am glad to go back to the origins of the debate, which are simply this: should governments around the world and should the Australian government take action to deal with carbon pollution? That is the fundamental issue. The reason the opposition go on is that they do not believe carbon pollution is real. They do not believe in climate change. Their leader absolutely believes that carbon pollution is crap, that climate change is crap—that is the Leader of the Opposition’s position. We must put everything we hear from the opposition in that perspective.

It is hypocritical of the opposition to pretend—that is what they are doing—that they care about the living standards of working people in this country. That is the greatest lot of codswallop I have ever heard. Watch them react in a minute when I press the Work Choices button. They are reacting already. A smile is on their face; a smile which says, ‘Please don’t mention Work Choices because you’ve got us pinged. You’ve exposed the hypocrisy of the coalition.’ Don’t talk to me about looking after working families. Don’t talk to me about rising costs of living when you can set out to take away the right of workers to negotiate with their employer to get a decent standard of living in this country.

What about the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott? He still believes that Work Choices should be there. Back on 1 December 2009 he was asked:

Is that that still part of your manifesto now?

He said:

Well, the phrase WorkChoices is dead. No-one will ever mention it again, but look, we have to have a free and flexible economy.

So you are never going to mention Work Choices, but in reality you want Work Choices back in. That will do more damage to workers’ standard of living in this country than any carbon price would ever do. Tony Abbott also said back in 2008:

The Howard government’s industrial legislation, it was good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was good for workers. And let’s never forget that.

I will tell you what we will never forget. We will never forget the impact of Work Choices on the standard of living of Australian families. We will never forget that because we know that you do not care. You come here arguing about the standard of living for ordinary working people and you really do not care. It is all a mass of hypocrisy. It oozes out of every pore of your body. What was the impact of Work Choices? Work Choices was devastating on Australian families’ standard of living—absolutely devastating. More than a million Australians on awards suffered a real pay cut of up to $97.75 a week, almost $100 a week, and you have the hide to come here and talk about the standard of living of workers. You have absolutely no idea about the needs of ordinary working people.

Hundreds of thousands of workers were pushed onto individual contracts. Seventy per cent of workers lost their shift loadings. You have got a responsibility to stand up and tell us how that squares off with protecting the standard of living of ordinary workers. Sixty-eight per cent lost their annual leave loading. Annual leave loadings went down the tube with the coalition. Sixty-five per cent lost their penalty rates. That is the history of the coalition and their so-called concern for workers’ standard of living. Forty-nine per cent lost their overtime loadings. That was your contribution to ordinary workers’ standard of living. Do not come here and lecture us about standards of living for working people. Do not come here with your hypocrisy oozing out every pore.

Twenty-five per cent lost their public holidays. That was your contribution to the standard of living of workers in this country. More than 3½ million Australians lost protection from unfair dismissal. That was how you cared for workers in this country. An unknown number of workers—they just could not be counted—were sacked or treated unfairly and had no recourse during the coalition push on Work Choices and the implementation of that legislation. So do not come here lecturing us about standards of living when you were the destroyers of workers’ standards of living under Work Choices.

Not only were you the destroyers of workers’ standards of living under Work Choices, you were absolute economic incompetents when you were in government. It is interesting to note that Senator Fifield, who has left the chamber, was an advisor to one of the worst treasurers this country has seen, Peter Costello. Peter Costello has built a myth around himself, yet what was Peter Costello? He was one of the weakest treasurers we have ever seen. When John Howard went to him and said, ‘We are going to squander the surplus; we are going to dole it all out in the budget,’ Peter Costello did not have the fortitude, the backbone or the guts to stand up to John Howard. Not only did he not have the guts to stand up to him in relation to economic policy, he did not have the guts to stand up to him when he was demanding the leadership of the Liberal Party. He just did not have it. So I am not one who comes in here and swoons about Peter Costello. I do not buy the rhetoric about Peter Costello. He had people like Senator Fifield advising him when they were lying back there watching the money roll in from the mining boom and doling it all out on tax cuts that were doing nothing to build this country for the future. You may understand that I am not a Peter Costello fan. I am not a fan of somebody who is weak. I am not a fan of somebody who does not look after the country well. I am not a fan of someone who delivered this.

This is what Peter Costello delivered: a failure of investment in this country under the coalition. Less than two-thirds of profits were ever reinvested in this country. So investment did not come in. There was a failure of innovation. We were amongst the lowest in research and development and innovation in the world. There was a failure of productivity. Our productivity growth was at the bottom of the OECD. There was a failure of development. Our transport manufacturers share fell from 23½ per cent to 17½ per cent. The things that you make, the things that are the knowledge industry, fell under the Howard government. There was a failure of competitiveness. There was a failure of balance because you ripped $30 billion out of the wage share in this country and you put it into the profits of big business through Work Choices. That is what you lot did, so do not come here with your hypocrisy and lecture us about cost-of-living issues.

The biggest problem that you had was a failure of sustainability. You know John Howard wanted to bring in a price on carbon. You know he wanted a trading scheme but he could never get it up because the extremists were there. Why did he want to get it up? At least Howard did recognise what the scientists were saying because he was getting the advice from the scientists. What were the scientists saying? They were saying: that there were surging greenhouse gas emissions around the world; that recent global temperatures demonstrate human induced warming; that there is an acceleration of the melting of the ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps; that there is rapid Arctic sea ice decline; that the current sea level rises are underestimated; that the sea levels predicted by 2010 are likely to rise twice as much as the projections; that if we delay action it will result in irreversible damage; and that the turning point must come soon.

Yet what do we see the coalition do about this? We see the Leader of the Opposition out there playing footsy with Pauline Hanson in front of the parliament today. That is the level of leadership you get from the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott—an absolute disgrace. He was out there misrepresenting the facts and misrepresenting the science on global warming. This guy is not fit to be the Leader of the Opposition and will never be fit to be the leader of this country. Yet what do we get from the coalition? They say, ‘We will put a plan in that is cheaper. We have got a direct action plan.’ I have to say to you that no-one accepts the direct action plan will work. There is no-one around, other than the shadow minister, Greg Hunt, who thinks that will work. He sat down one night and said, ‘We have got to get something to try to give us a buffer against the science and the reality of how the market works,’ and he came up with direct action.

As I said in a speech earlier today, the Liberal Party have basically rejected Menzies. Menzies was there arguing about dealing with facts and dealing with the market. What do the Liberals do now? They reject the market. The people who have been arguing about market forces for as long as I can remember have now walked away from the market. As I said today, the barbarians are at the gate of the Liberal Party; the barbarians are taking over the Liberals. They are out there holding hands with Pauline Hanson, out there with Chris Smith—the shock-jocks that are out there—pouring bile and animosity on migrants and on asylum seekers in this country. They are out there playing footsy with them.

The reality is, if you want an economy that does look after ordinary Australians, you must deal with the issue of climate change. The real issue that will make the difference between increases in the cost of living of a huge amount and reasonable increases in the cost of living is getting a carbon price in and making sure that our industry is at the forefront of innovation, making sure that our industry is creating the jobs of the future, building the wind turbines, building the tidal turbines and building the technology that is required to turn this economy around. If we fail to do that then costs will increase. Electricity prices will continue to spiral because there is no certainty in the electricity industry.

The problem for you in the coalition is that it is not an argument about economics from you; it is an argument about belief. You do not believe that the world is warming. You do not believe in carbon pollution. You do not believe in the market. You have lost your beliefs. You are an absolute rabble. Do not come here lecturing us about the cost of living when you are such a bunch of economic incompetents.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was Senator Cameron talking about the cost of living and the working families. I have reminded Senator Cameron before about the 25.25 per cent interest rate I was paying under the so-called world’s greatest treasurer, Mr Keating. Senator Cameron, do not forget the figure—25.25 per cent. Put it in your mind and remember that cost of living.

It is amazing that they talk about working families and the working class. I have said it before, and Senator Conroy might listen to this: it was the shearers in western Queensland at Barcaldine under the Tree of Knowledge that started the Labor Party. You know, Senator McGauran, not one of those Labor senators would know how to load a handpiece let alone knock the wool off a sheep. I had the privilege of being at the Braidwood show two weeks ago and they said, ‘Can you shear a sheep?’ and I said that I would love to. It was two minutes and 29 seconds of my life that I really enjoyed, but I am glad that I do not do it all day these days.

But back to the cost of living. The taxes that this government have to pursue are amazing. They started off with the alcopops tax. That was going to fix all the problems of the young ones binge-drinking. Now they buy a full bottle of rum instead of a can of rum and coke, for example, and the trouble is worse. Then along came the next tax, the luxury car tax. ‘How dare you work successfully and hard in your life and get enough money to afford a luxury car. We’ll make sure we bring that to a finish.’ Then, of course, there was the mining tax. It was amazing how they said, ‘When we get this money on the resource super profits tax we’re going to spend it on superannuation for the Australian workers.’ Who owns the mining companies? Superannuation companies have a huge share in the mining companies. When those mining companies make a profit they actually give it to the super funds for the retirement of our workers. So the government thought, ‘We’ll take it off them. We can’t have them retiring on good money.’ This is what we call ‘the way to get level with the mining industry that is being successful in Australia’. What was next? The flood tax. There is the old saying of save some money for a rainy day. How true it is. What happened when too many rainy days came over the last few months and we had the devastation of the floods in Queensland, Victoria and northern New South Wales where I live on the border regions on the Dumaresq River? The government then looked into the tin to see how much money was left. There was not a cent there. In fact there was only a piece of paper and in red print it said ‘$184.6 billion’. That is what was in the tin. There was no money saved for the rainy day. So what did they do? Another tax.

Then, of course, the tax of all taxes, the carbon tax—the tax we were never going to have—was among the broken promises from our national leaders, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I am sure that Senator Conroy is a man of figures and I am sure he will listen to these figures I am about to put to you, Madam Acting Deputy President Pratt. Each year the world expels around 40 billion tonnes of CO2, a figure similar to the amount of money that Minister Conroy is going to borrow to roll out his NBN scheme. I am sure he is familiar with the figure. Australia produces 550 million tonnes of that 40 billion. So, what are we going to do?

Let us bring it down to scale so those on the other side can understand it. Let us go down to 40,000 compared to 550. That will be 40,000 from the world and 550 from Australia. We are going to reduce that by five or 10 per cent. What is that going to do? If the rest of the world keeps emissions exactly the same—and they will not because we know China’s and India’s will go up five billion tonnes per year by the year 2020—we are going to reduce ours from around 550 million tonnes back to 500 million tonnes.

Senator McGauran would be interested in this—I did the figures this morning. The concern is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. The government’s plan will reduce the current levels of 380 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. How far will it reduce, given that the rest of the world will remain the same—and they will not. It will reduce CO2 levels from 380 parts per million all the way down to 379.5 parts per million. Have you got the figures, Minister Conroy? It is 0.5 of one part of a million; a half of a part of one million.

It is the same as having a great big tin with forty thousand $1 coins in it. Imagine that, Madam Acting Deputy President: between us is a big tub with forty thousand $1 coins in it and Australia put in 550 of those coins—just 550 of the 40,000 CO2 emissions each year. So we are going to take fifty $1 coins out of the tub of forty thousand $1 coins, and guess what? That is going to save the world. We are going to take it out at a cost of about $14 billion a year to each and every Australian. That is what the cost will be. Out of the tin of forty thousand $1 coins we are going to take out 50, and that is going to save the world!

That is outrageous. It will shift our industries overseas. We know what is going to happen: pressure the steel industry and the aluminium industry—I am sure Minister Conroy is well aware of the aluminium industry and how much electricity it uses, along with the cement industry; transfer the jobs overseas; expel more CO2; and bill the Australian people $14 billion. We do not know the details. They have talked about certainty and that the whole issue of a carbon tax is to bring certainty. We do not know how many dollars a tonne it will be. We do not know if it will be on fuel. We do not know when it is going to go to an ETS, and when it does convert to an ETS the price of carbon will then depend on the traders on the world market. We will not have a clue what it is going to be trading at. This is what is called certainty! It is outrageous and the people of Australia will not be fooled. We had enough out there today, and that was only a start. They will not let you put our nation down the tube, and there will be more to say on this at a later date.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting sitting here, watching those opposite wave their arms around and speak in the way they do, thinking that they have an answer when in fact they had 11 years to provide an answer and failed to do so. I rise to speak on the Gillard government’s appreciation and understanding of the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian families and also its commitment to action on climate change.

The government is taking action on climate change because it is the right thing to do. The government does not shirk its responsibilities to the Australian people because the issue is difficult. Hundreds of thousands of Australians are also determined to act on climate change in their own homes, and they want a strong federal government to do the same. It is tragic, then, that while we are getting on with the job, Tony Abbott is still deciding on the accuracy of the climate change science. As one ABC commentator said, Mr Abbott is continuing his ‘ritual carbon tax throttling’. Every day, Mr Abbott dreams up a new horror and in shrill tones conjures up another warning, a new warning, a fresh drama.

It is really difficult to take Mr Abbott and his party seriously on all things climate related. Mr Abbott’s climate policy is nonsense and, despite efforts to convince people that, this week, maybe he really does accept the climate science, his own words that climate change science is ‘absolute crap’ keep coming back to haunt him. The government accepts the science and will implement a carbon price to cut pollution and drive investment in a clean energy future. It is the right thing to do for Australia and the right thing for the economy and Australian jobs.

Carbon pollution is damaging our environment and we want industries that are causing pollution to clean up their act. Polluters will pay every time they emit carbon pollution. We need to get this fact clear: a carbon price is not aimed at households but at some of our largest industries. The carbon price will make these companies pay a price for each tonne of pollution they produce. This will encourage them to produce less pollution and encourage investment in cleaner energy sources and it will lead to new jobs being created while ensuring a cleaner Australia.

The sooner we put a price on that pollution the sooner we will start to transform our economy. A carbon price will create incentive for business to cut pollution. These industries really do have a choice: if they do not want to pay for carbon emissions, they cut their pollution. We understand that many people are concerned about price impacts and we are determined to provide assistance. We will look at the possibilities, we will look at options that are available and we have promised that the assistance we provide to households will be generous.

Of course, the welfare of pensioners and low-income households will come first. You cannot automatically assume that all of the household assistance will be provided to taxpayers, because there are many people who do not earn enough to pay tax, including age pensioners, who will require support after the introduction of a carbon price. So, in designing a system, we need to recognise that the funds are limited and that they need to be shared by number of different groups in our community, not just taxpayers.

Labor will continue to look after Australians who need help, and that means assistance with tight family budgets and it means protecting jobs, just as we did so successfully during the GFC. This government’s proposed carbon price is the cheapest, fairest and most efficient way to cut pollution. Climate expert Professor Ross Garnaut has highlighted the need to provide industry with assistance throughout the transition to a clean energy future. The Prime Minister accepts this and has stated that the government will help emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries as they move to a clean energy future. The assistance will be designed to support existing jobs while creating new ones. Most importantly, Professor Garnaut has said that market based mechanisms to price carbon are superior to direct measures. Mr Abbott’s proposed direct action policy will fail to achieve any significant environmental outcomes and it will cost working families because taxes will increase under the Liberal plan. (Time expired)

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to this government’s lack of understanding of cost-of-living pressures, particularly on Australian families, as a result of the government’s proposed carbon tax. After all, how can you understand the impact of cost-of-living pressures when you do not even understand the details of your own policy, when you have not set a price on carbon, when you have not said who is going to have to pay the carbon tax, when you have not said who is not going to have to pay the carbon tax, when you have not said who you are going to compensate, when you have not said who you are not going to compensate? How can you possibly understand the impact of cost-of-living pressures from a tax of that nature? For example, how can you possibly understand when carbon priced at $26 per tonne is estimated to increase electricity prices by some $300 a week—due to the carbon tax alone—and is estimated to put petrol up by some 6½ cents a litre and to increase gas prices by some 10 per cent? How can you possibly understand if you have not done your figuring, if you have not done the details of your plan?

How can you possibly understand the impact of a carbon tax on the farming community? How can you possibly understand even if you have said that for now agriculture will be exempt from a carbon tax—which, of course, begs the question: for how long? But just assume that agriculture is exempt from the carbon tax: how can you possibly understand the impact of a carbon tax on that sector when you do not understand that farmers will pay indirectly the costs of a carbon tax through their inputs? Doesn’t the government realise how dependent the farming community is on energy? Some 45 per cent of their inputs are dependent upon energy related things. What about petrol to transport goods from farm, to drive machinery such as headers and seeders? What about electricity to light packing sheds and to drive machines like rotary milkers? What about the cost of fertiliser, which is 30 to 40 per cent responsive to the cost of energy that goes into it? How can the government possibly understand the impact of those costs on farmers when they have not even bothered to start to understand the detail of their policy?

Professor Garnaut talks about how agriculture is more trade exposed than other sectors from the threats that would result from the imposition of a carbon tax. All of that is totally okay because Minister Combet says it is. On 9 March, Minister Combet told Lateline’s Tony Jones: ‘Yes, it is okay to float a policy intention because we will consult. It is responsible.’ Tony Jones is probably here in the building today for the ABC presentation; maybe he can remind Minister Combet of what he said about reassuring Australians that it was responsible to announce a carbon tax framework with no details, before consulting with industry. That of course begs the question that you will consult with industry. Tony Jones said: ‘Is it a good idea to announce a carbon tax with no details?’ Minister Combet replied: ‘It is a perfectly valid way to develop an important policy like this to allow stakeholders to have solid input as to the detailed design of the policy.’ When I say ‘stakeholders’, I mean important members of the business community who have an interest in this tax. Those important members of the business community, at least three of whom are members of the government’s business roundtable, told the media today that they have not heard a thing from the government. Mr Kraehe from BlueScope Steel said:

... the business roundtable has been a sham ... There’s no real consultation.

               …            …            …

The consultation between government and business is appalling.

Jock Laurie, another member of the business roundtable and boss of the NFF, said:

There were ... discussions at the business roundtable about how there was going to be consultation—full consultation—and everybody would be included. ... A lot of people have been taken by surprise.

Peter Anderson, the boss of ACCI and also a member of the roundtable, said:

... the Government has ... established a business advisory group for ... meaningful input—

but instead the government has used—

the multi-party parliamentary committee.

Politicians like me may be well intentioned but we do not know the impact of the carbon tax on business. This government should do as it has promised and consult with the members—(Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance has concluded.