Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I apologise to you for moving while you were on your feet, but you will understand that we needed to get across to this side of the chamber after the division. On behalf of myself and my colleagues, my apologies.

Mr Deputy President, I am pleased to see you in the chair now. I will read the following, and then I will ask the question of who might have said it:

The Australian tourism industry is built on thousands of small and medium sized business who operate on tiny profit margins and they are already feeling the impacts of the high dollar and a dwindling domestic tourism market.

The impact of a price on carbon is yet another hit to these businesses – delivering a ‘triple whammy’ – and forcing them to question their ongoing viability.

If these businesses go down, they take with them the jobs and livelihoods of tens of thousands of individuals and communities, particularly in regional areas, who rely on the tourism economy.

Now, who said that? Was it the shadow minister for tourism? Was it the Leader of the Opposition? Was it the shadow Treasurer? Was it the shadow industry minister? No, it was not. It was the Australian Tourism Export Council, a representative group of tourism in this country. I repeat:

If these businesses go down, they take with them the jobs and livelihoods of tens of thousands of individuals and communities, particularly in regional areas, who rely on the tourism economy.

So we have a 'triple whammy' in relation to the tourism industry. If you look further at what has been said by other peak bodies, you will see again just how dramatic this is. I refer, of course, to the Tourism and Transport Forum, which has just done a survey to which 78 per cent of respondents believed that a carbon tax will have a medium to high impact on their business.

It was very interesting that during question time, in an answer to a question from a senator—although I cannot remember who it was—Senator Carr talked about the impact of the high dollar on the manufacturing sector. There was no word, of course, about the tourism industry. Indeed, there is no word at all from the government in relation to the effect of the carbon tax on the tourism sector. The tourism sector receives no compensation, yet it is a multibillion-dollar industry for this country. It is very much the domain of mum-and-dad tourism operators, spread throughout the nation, who are carrying the tourism industry.

Blind Freddy knows the enormous pressure the tourism industry is under, and Blind Freddy knows that the last thing that industry needs for its survival is a toxic carbon tax. The ridiculous formulation of this tax means that to fly from Melbourne to Cairns will cost an Australian family an extra $50. But if they go from Melbourne to Bali, there will be no carbon tax at all. So this is an anti-tourism tax—an anti-Australian-tourism tax. It is an anti-tourism-job tax. And for what reason?

It is clear that this government is simply not listening to the Australian people and not listening to people in the tourism sector. But it is very, very interesting that this was not always so. In 2007, the Minister for Tourism, Martin Ferguson, said that a $40 per tonne carbon tax would have us kill the aviation industry. Well, it is not going to be too long before it is at $40. We know the modelling has been done on $20 when it was actually $23. We know it will be at $50 within a decade. So the government itself, through its own tourism minister, has admitted that a carbon tax will kill the aviation industry. If you kill the aviation industry you kill the tourism industry; you kill it stone dead.

The Australian Tourism Export Council's press release of 25 July—the same one I referred to in relation to the 'triple whammy'—reported that they had BDO do an inquiry to look at this carbon tax. BDO's Head of Sustainability, Dylan Byrne, said:

There is an urban myth that the tourism industry will only feel a slight impact from the introduction of a carbon price, but the reality is some of the proposals will have major direct and indirect impacts on the costs incurred by tourism operators.

The same firm, in an analysis done by BDO, found that Australian tourism businesses face electricity increases of 30 per cent or more, with a significant impact on operators reliant on diesel or aviation fuel who face a reduction in their fuel tax credit of 18 per cent.

Everyone in this chamber knows that most tourism operators operate on high electricity usage—it is just a given. BDO has found those costs will go up by 30 per cent or more. Everyone in this chamber knows that the tourism market is absolutely price sensitive. I do not think there is another industry in this country that is as price sensitive as the tourism industry. All we are going to do with a carbon tax on the tourism industry is ensure that we dramatically increase the number of outgoing tourists and dramatically reduce the influx of inbound tourists. It will be outbound up and inbound down. The greatest impact of that will be on the internal tourism sector.

The figures of the impacts on and the nature and scope of the contribution of tourism to this country are quite remarkable. The inbound tourism industry produces $23 billion of export income for Australia, but it is the domestic tourism industry that creates the most economic activity, with domestic tourism consumption valued at $71 billion per annum. The Tourism and Transport Forum has warned Labor that 'outbound tourism is expected to grow significantly due to the carbon tax'.

The steel industry has received compensation from this government. Given the fact that this government knows about the impact of a toxic carbon tax on the tourism industry, why aren't they receiving compensation as well? Every single person in this chamber living outside the metropolitan areas of this country knows full well that the impact of this toxic carbon tax will fall most on regional and rural Australia. There is no doubt about it—that is where the most dramatic impacts will be. Looking around this chamber today, I see a lot of people who live outside metropolitan cities in this country and I have got a question for them: at what stage are you going to stand up for your own people and acknowledge that the impact of this tax will fall heaviest on those people that you represent?

It is all very well having a debate in caucus about Australia's migration policies, as you should, but where are the voices of the regional and rural ALP senators and members in the two chambers? Where are their voices? Why have they rolled over on this toxic carbon tax, which is going to cost their own people hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of jobs? Why do they not acknowledge the impact? Why don't they stand up for these people and why would they let a great tourism sector—a great industry for this country—die a very painful death?

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

I rise to contribute to this matter of public importance debate this afternoon. I find it humorous that those opposite go around like Chicken Little saying that the world is going to end if we take action on climate change. They say that our tourism industry is going to be affected, but the truth of the matter is that if we do not take action there will not be an industry in this area.

I represent the beautiful state of Queensland. When I left Brisbane on Sunday—in fact, I had an opportunity to spend a little bit of time down the Gold Coast before I left where it was a beautiful 32 degrees—people were heading to the beaches for what seemed like the start of summer, because that is what people do in the sunshine state. But the impact of climate change is causing sea levels to rise and inaction could mean our golden coastlines, which attract people from all around the world, will be eroded away.

It is stories like these which compel our government to take action. I have been on various committees investigating climate change legislation. We have heard from climate scientists who say that we need to do something. Who are we to argue with those who have the qualifications and who have dedicated their working lives to studying this issue?

In 2009, I was privileged to visit the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre in North Queensland. This centre delivers the Marine and Tropical Science Research Facility under the Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities program. One of the important tasks of this facility is to research the effect of climate change in North Queensland. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the seven natural wonders of the world, and it is the only living organism visible from space. It follows the Queensland coast from Bundaberg to Cape York and covers more than 350,000 square kilometres. It is home to more than 4,000 mollusc species, 1,500 fish species, dugongs, turtles and whales. It is worth more than $6 billion to our economy and supports more than 50,000 jobs. This is all at risk because those opposite are not prepared to come on board and take action on climate change.

While I was at the MTSRF I was told about a program they had initiated with researchers from the University of Queensland, James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science to study the genetic basis of common coral species to see how it would be impacted by temperature increases. I was informed that, if the Great Barrier Reef was to survive, temperature increases had to be contained to within two to three degrees. Scientists have predicted that the sea surface temperatures could rise by up to three degrees by 2100. This is why we need to take action. Those opposite say they support free enterprise and the individual. How are they going to support these people when they lose their livelihoods?

In the summers of 1997-98 and 2001-02 more than 50 per cent of the reef was affected by coral bleaching which caused lasting damage in five per cent of the reef. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency said an increase in sea surface temperature of two degrees could bleach 97 per cent of the reef. They also said:

This is likely to diminish the ability of corals to recover and adapt, seriously threatening the Great Barrier Reef ecosystems.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority also stated that:

… waters are predicted to become more acidic with even relatively small increases in ocean acidity decreasing the capacity of corals to build skeletons and therefore create habitat for reef biodiversity in general.

One species which would be severely affected by climate change is the green sea turtle. The MTSRF claimed that rising temperatures will affect the sex ratio of turtles. A study was conducted on the largest green sea turtle population, which is found in the Great Barrier Reef. A former James Cook University PhD student, Dr Mariana Fuentes, who has also written a children's book about sea turtles called Myrtle's Battle Against Climate Change, said:

Sea turtles are particularly vulnerable to climate change, because they have life history traits strongly tied to environmental variables and nest in coastal areas vulnerable to sea level rise and cyclonic activities.

Dr Fuentes has indicated that the temperature of sand affects the sex of baby turtles, and warmer temperatures mean more females. Her research said that the sex ratio of this population would skew towards females by 2070 and nesting areas may be inundated by rising sea levels. This information is alarming and concerning and is exactly why we need to do something about climate change.

But our tourism industry and our fauna are not alone when it comes to the impact of climate change. Humans are no exception. It has been predicted by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that we could see the number of days with temperatures of 35 degrees or higher in Brisbane increase from one day a year to 21 days a year by 2100.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ha! Thirty-five degrees!

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

We would see more heat related deaths and higher temperatures could lead to the spread of tropical diseases, including dengue fever. The potential loss of infrastructure is another reason why we need to take action. Many Queenslanders live along the beautiful coastlines, but they will be at risk from rising sea levels. The department states that a sea level rise of 1.1 metres would have an enormous impact on Queensland infrastructure, with 48,000 to 67,000 residential buildings, 4,700 kilometres of roads, 5,700 kilometres of railway lines and 1,440 commercial buildings at risk, at a cost of more than $30 billion.

All of these reasons are exactly why we need to implement our clean energy future package to ensure any future damage is prevented. Our package will ensure that those who emit a high level of carbon pollution will pay a price. By putting a price on carbon we provide an incentive for clean energy investments and we will see high-polluting industries move to cleaner practices which will therefore reduce our nation's carbon emissions. Many industries will be compensated through our package to ensure that our move to a cleaner economy is not a burden. This includes our Jobs and Competitiveness Program, our Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program and the Clean Technology Investment Program.

Mr Tony Abbott has been going around the country with his scare campaign, telling everyone the cost of living is going to increase significantly. He has gone into butcher shops to wrangle a sausage or whatever he does—where they will accept him. Some shops have declined to have him in the shop. He has gone into car yards. He has gone into wrecking yards. He has gone anywhere that will open the doors and listen to the absolute nonsense that he preaches to those poor individuals, who no doubt do not invite him back again once they hear his terrible rhetoric on climate change.

According to Treasury modelling on the cost of living, there will be a 0.7 per cent increase in the overall consumer price index. Let's not forget about the assistance the government will be providing to householders. Nine out of ten households will receive assistance either through tax cuts or payment increases. Nearly six million Australian households will receive assistance that is more than what the price impacts are, and four million households will receive 120 per cent of the price impact to make sure they have room to move. We will be increasing the tax-free threshold, which means more than a million people will not have to lodge a tax return at all.

Yesterday the coalition said that putting a price on carbon would affect community groups and not-for-profit organisations. Today they say it is the tourism industry. Under the coalition's direct action policy everyone would be affected. Householders would be worse off under Mr Tony Abbott's plan. They would have to fork out $1,300 per household each year to fund a policy which will not work. We know it will not work. We know that the problems with this direct action plan will mean that there will be a need to plant enough trees to cover the state of Tasmania five times—your state, Deputy President. That is the equivalent of planting enough trees to cover a land mass the size of Victoria and Tasmania together. It would be a mammoth task on its own to try and achieve that sort of outcome and it is a task that will not be achieved.

The independent Grattan Institute has estimated that there will be a $100 billion black hole in his costings as a result of this direct action policy. That is a third of the entire federal budget as a cost on its own. Treasury estimates that without international permits it will cost $30 billion in today's dollars in 2020. As I indicated earlier, taxpayers will have to pay $1,300 per household. So the coalition really needs to stop this negativity and scare campaign and work with the government to reach a solution to ensure that our children and their children are able to enjoy the future as we as parents enjoy this current climate and the situation at hand.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Furner from the Australian Labor Party accuses the coalition and our leader, Tony Abbott, of running scare campaigns, and yet listen to what Senator Furner has just said, the absolute rubbish that just came out of his mouth. He says that, unless we do something, the temperature in Brisbane is going to increase by 35 per cent. Did you say that, Senator Furner? I cannot believe you said it. I questioned you when you said it—35 per cent? He also said the tidal levels are going to rise. I remind Senator Furner that Professor Flannery, the Labor Party appointed guru on the Climate Commission, has been warning about tidal increases but has bought what is no doubt a cheap house on the banks of the Hawkesbury River. It shows how worried Professor Flannery is about tidal increases if he buys houses in areas he has been warning other people to get out of.

According to Senator Furner, if we do not do something, everyone who works on the Barrier Reef will lose their job. The tourism industry will dissipate if we do not impose a carbon tax on every Australian—talk about scare campaigns! In one short 10-minute speech, Senator Furner has taken the Labor Party's misrepresentations to the highest degree. Fortunately, everyone knows that Senator Furner is part of a party that is led by a Prime Minister who cannot tell the truth. I remind everyone who might be listing that it is only a year ago that Ms Gillard, the leader of the Australian Labor Party, then only recently the Prime Minister of Australia, promised every Australian: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Obviously, a year ago, Ms Gillard did not agree with Senator Furner. She did not think that Brisbane's climate would increase by 35 per cent, she did not agree with Professor Flannery that tidal increases would wipe out everyone on the banks of the Hawkesbury River, she did not believe that everyone working on the Barrier Reef would lose their job and she did not believe that the tourist industry would disappear, because she promised Australians she was not going to introduce a carbon tax. Ms Gillard herself, a year ago, did not believe anything Senator Furner just said. I have to say, with some regret, to all of my colleagues from the Australian Labor Party opposite that their leader has got them into the position where nothing they say these days can be believed. Everyone remembers when they believed Ms Gillard; she ditched her promise and now nobody will take any notice of them.

The matter of public importance before us is the impact of the carbon tax on the tourism industry. I am proud to come from and live in Northern Australia. As well as having great potential to produce food for a world seeking new sources of food, Northern Australia has some of the most magnificent natural resources. We have the Ningaloo Reef, we have Broome, we have the Kimberley coast, we have Darwin and Kakadu, we have Cape York and the Torres Strait islands, we have the Barrier Reef and we have the rainforests behind Cairns. It is a magnificent area, but it has always been hot. When tourists go up north and visit these magnificent natural attractions, what is the first thing they do when they go into their hotel? They turn on the air conditioner and then they turn on the telly—and the hotel where they are staying has to pay the electricity. It pays for the electricity by charging the customer an appropriate price. Under the carbon tax, electricity prices are going to increase across the board by somewhere between 15 and 20 per cent. I can assure you that up in those remote places, where very often electricity comes from diesel fuel, they will go up by more than that, because the carbon tax will put an increased tax on diesel. So the prices charged by the hoteliers will have to go up to pay for the extra cost of electricity. That of course means that people from the south of Australia will not be coming up to the north, because they will not be able to afford it. What they will do is go overseas to places that do not have an increase in their electricity price or in their hotel prices, because they do not have a carbon tax. The carbon tax is the biggest tax of its type anywhere in the world, and it is being imposed by the lady who promised a year ago: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.'

The other impact of this carbon tax is that, if you are Melburnian or a Sydneysider travelling up to Cairns, Darwin or Broome, you go by plane. Under the carbon tax you will have to pay an extra $50 on your ticket to get there. But if you go overseas, because there is no carbon tax on foreign airlines, no carbon tax if you fly to London, Hawaii, Japan or Africa, you do not have put up with it. So of course Australians are being encouraged to go overseas, because the carbon tax does not apply there. This tax will cause real difficulties for the tourism industry. Unfortunately, Cairns, midway between the Barrier Reef and the great rainforests, has been in diabolical trouble with unemployment since the Labor government came to power. That unemployment comes principally from the inflexibility that business operators have in arranging their businesses. The flexibility is gone under the Gillard government. This new tax on the Cairns district is going to increase unemployment in Cairns, which will, regrettably, confirm its unwanted reputation as the unemployment capital of the world.

I was distressed to read in the paper, just yesterday, that unemployment has increased in the city of Townsville, where I have my electorate office. It is quite a prosperous and broadly based city up in the tropics. Under the Gillard government, unemployment has skyrocketed there. I heard Senator Carr at question time rabbiting on about all of these new jobs that the Gillard government had created. I do not know where Senator Carr gets his statistics from, but I would ask him to check with the Australian Bureau of Statistics and then confirm to me that unemployment in Townsville, regrettably, is going up. But it will be worse in Townsville in the future, because the carbon tax will put an additional cost on all businesses up there, particularly tourism businesses.

Those who live in the leafy climes of Canberra, Melbourne or Sydney do not realise that air conditioning in the north is not a luxury; it is an essential. For all the tourists going up there, particularly the tourists from the south, air conditioning is essential. But the Gillard-Greens government's carbon tax will simply add to the cost of electricity and add to the cost of the tourism experience. That, I regret to say, will reduce the experience for many tourists and will discourage them from coming up that way.

I turn to Senator Furner's scare campaign about global warming. I should remind Senator Furner that his side does not talk about global warming anymore. It is climate change, remember, because the science these days is showing that any increase in temperature is minimal, if it is there. I understand the accepted science now is that the temperature over the last decade really has not increased at all. So forget the scare campaigns from the Labor Party. Forget the excuses for breaking promises. This carbon tax will be destructive to all Australians, but it will be particularly destructive to the tourism industry and particularly destructive to the industry in the north. For that, I condemn this government.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One industry in Australia which does stand to lose from inaction on climate change is our tourism industry. It is an industry which stands to lose income, investment and jobs from inaction on climate change. That is why the Labor Party is seeking to price carbon and reduce emissions—to protect industries which provide vital employment in regional and rural areas in a number of important pockets of our democracy. That is the basis on which we are acting on climate change.

The best way to highlight our action on climate change is to run through a number of facts and how they affect tourism in this country. It is a fact that each decade since the 1940s in Australia has been warmer than the last. The decade 2001 to 2010 was the warmest on record, both here and worldwide. It is a fact that sea surface temperatures across the Great Barrier Reef have increased by 0.4 of a per cent in the past 30 years, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and increasing ocean acidity. It is a fact that increasing sea temperatures have led to coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, and the most severe cases of coral bleaching have occurred recently, in 1997 to 1998 and 2001 to 2002. It is a fact that sea surface temperatures are projected to increase further in Australia, by a magnitude of two degrees by 2050, which will lead to further coral bleaching. It is a fact that extreme weather events are beginning to have an effect on beach erosion, with potential damage to property, in a number of coastal areas throughout Australia, most notably to the north of the state that I represent, New South Wales. It is a fact that an overwhelming majority of scientists and economists state that we need to take urgent action on climate change and that, the longer we wait, the greater the cost will be and the more drastic the action we will need to take will be.

It is a fact that Labor's plan to price carbon through a market based mechanism will reduce emissions over time and will be the cheapest policy option available to us as a nation to deal with this pressing environmental and economic issue. That is a fact that all economists agree with—except those opposite. It is also a fact that the Liberal Party's policy of direct action will not reduce emissions. There is no guarantee it will reduce emissions. It will be more costly to Australian taxpayers and it is based on very dubious assumptions, which, I am pleased to say, a number of business groups are beginning to understand and are beginning to highlight. Most notably, a number of business associations are saying that, without access to international permits, the costs on business in Australia of taking action on climate change would be unbearable. Even last week we saw the Farmers Federation come out and say that they do not believe the opposition when they say that they will achieve 85 million tonnes of abatement through soil carbon because their policy and their assumptions are dubious.

These simple facts that I have gone through highlight the hollowness of the opposition's arguments against the government's plan. The opposition ignore the facts. They ignore the advice of experts. They ignore the urgency of the situation and they have developed an irresponsible and belligerent approach to this issue. It is not characteristic of all of those opposite, I must say. They have had leaders in the past who have seen the light on this issue and who have understood the facts and the urgency of acting on this issue. Malcolm Turnbull certainly did not ignore the facts. Eventually, even John Howard came to the realisation that we needed to take action on climate change and that a market based mechanism was the best manner in which to do it.

Indeed, many of those opposite have stated in the past that they believe a market based mechanism is the best way to approach the issue of climate change. But now they choose to ignore the facts. Why is that? One simple reason: their leader has changed his mind. Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, has changed his mind on this issue. Why? Because he sees an opportunity to buy votes at the next election. He sees an opportunity to run an irresponsible and cynical scare campaign that he sees will buy them votes at the next election.

The opposition is running a scare campaign, but the facts about climate change are scary. They are particularly scary for the tourism industry. Last year it contributed $34 billion to Australia's national income. Nine per cent of Australia's total exports were from the tourism industry. It employs half a million Australians and it is Australia's largest service export provider, with $23 billion worth of service exports in the last financial year. If there is one industry which stands to lose from inaction on climate change it is Australia's tourism industry. That is why we are taking action to protect vulnerable industries such as this. We are taking action because we understand that the health of the tourism industry relies on the health of our natural resources. It relies on the health of fantastic natural resources in Australia, such as the Great Barrier Reef, Ningaloo Reef, Kakadu, the Whitsundays and our magnificent coastline around the Gold Coast. This point is well understood by the Australian tourism industry.

I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to the transcript of the hearing of the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes, held in Mackay on 5 August 2011, when Mr O'Reilly, the Chief Executive Officer of Tourism Whitsundays appeared before the committee. He was asked a number of questions about the urgency of the government acting on climate change. When he was asked whether he accepted the scientific evidence that global warming is damaging the Great Barrier Reef and that the government needed to do something about that and take urgent action on climate change, Mr O'Reilly's response was:

Yes, I think the modelling shows that the reef will undoubtedly be impacted by global warming.

He went on to say:

… I have also said previously that our communities up and down the reef are very concerned about protection of the reef. When we have run climate change adaptation workshops in the region, we have had very strong participation from industry and good engagement with the CSIRO and Tourism Queensland in doing that.

The tourism industry in the Whitsundays understands the urgency of taking action on climate change but, again, those opposite seek to ignore the facts.

I draw the Senate's attention to a quote from John Lee, Chief Executive of the Tourism and Transport Forum Australia. In a media release, dated 26 July 2011, he said:

It is vital that Australia’s natural assets are conserved to maintain our unique selling proposition and enhance our reputation as an environmentally aware destination.

He went on to talk about the Henbury Conservation Project. He said:

This is a great example of its commitment to Australia and to combatting climate change in cooperation with the federal government.

We hope that this is the first of many similar projects and that other tourism operators see the potential environmental and economic opportunities in this initiative.

I also draw the Senate's attention to the view of Alan Joyce, Chief Executive of Qantas—one of the biggest tourist operators in this country—who, on 14 March 2011, said:

We can understand the logic on the carbon tax and why the government regards it as a necessity we’re convinced that all organisations should do whatever they can to reduce emissions.

It is obvious that the tourism industry understands the urgency of acting quickly. As a father of two young children, I have enjoyed the beauty of our magnificent coastlines. I have dived on the Great Barrier Reef and I have seen the destruction that has occurred because of coral bleaching. I do not want to be seen as not having acted on climate change. (Time expired)

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on the impact of the Gillard government's proposed carbon tax on the Australian tourism industry. Coming from Western Australia I acknowledge that tourism is very important to us. An article by Felicia Mariani of the Australian Tourism Export Council states, 'We have a triple whammy for Aussie tourism.' She goes on:

THOUSANDS of small and medium businesses who make up the Australian tourism industry are facing three significant impacts on their bottom line—the high Australian dollar, declining domestic tourism and the carbon price impact.

That is her concern. She further talks about an industry being left high and dry. The bottom line is that the government has left the tourism industry high and dry, providing little or no direct support or capacity for businesses to transition to a low-carbon economy, providing no compensation for the tour operators who will be hit hard by increased fuel costs.

Once again, we in Western Australia are very reliant upon helicopters and aircraft for our tourism industry. Also, a number of four-wheel drives rely on diesel. If you are in the tourism business, with a helicopter or an aircraft, your fuel excise costs will increase more than 150 per cent. That will clearly force up the price for customers and will affect your ability to be competitive in the market. This is a huge problem in areas such as Western Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory and, I guess, South Australia. It will impact everywhere. As far as regional airlines are concerned—which, once again, we rely upon very heavily in Western Australia—the tourism operators with light aircraft will be facing a 157 per cent increase in fuel tax over the next three years. The current tax on aviation fuel is 3.55c per litre. This will increase to 10.16c per litre by 2014-15. These are the sorts of things that will happen. Getting the diesel rebate, there will be an 18 per cent reduction in fuel tax credits. So tourism is one of the forgotten industries that will bear the brunt of this carbon tax, with marine and remote tourism operators facing the full force of the increases.

Going on with the figures, the tourism industry contributes a lot to Australia: $34 billion or 2.6 per cent of Australia's GDP. It directly employs, as we have heard, more than half a million people nationwide. But it is not equally recognised alongside other export industries. We have had some comments about Queensland. I will quote an article about the Queensland Tourism Industry Council:

Queensland has become the first state to speak out against the Federal Government’s proposed carbon tax, with the state’s peak tourism body saying it fears the levy will hurt an already struggling industry. Queensland Tourism Industry Council (QTIC) chief executive Daniel Gschwind points out that Queensland is still trying to recover from a spate of natural disasters.

They want to attract tourists back to their beautiful area.

He says that while it’s not yet possible to put a bottom-line figure on the carbon tax, the effect will be negative as its impact on energy costs will force up the cost of doing business. This will hurt tourism businesses already struggling against the high Australian dollar.

I have a note here from a friend in Albany who has just returned from Hamilton Island saying that they could not believe that when they were staying there last week only half the accommodation was full and there were no overseas tourists. They felt that this was very bad.

Having just been up to Broome for a Senate inquiry on the live export industry, I spoke to a number of tourism operators and local taxi drivers. The difference in Broome now that the height of the season is over is that they have about a third of the people that they normally have booked in. That is going to be very difficult to cope with. My colleague Senator Macdonald spoke about the high cost of energy and the use of air conditioners in those northern areas. It is something that you have to use; you cannot go without it. Consequently, the hotels are struggling to get people to come and work for them and also struggling with the prices that they have to pay.

For Western Australia, which is so close to Bali, the low cost for travel to Bali without having any carbon tax apply to the airfares—unlike the cost to go to Melbourne, Sydney, the Northern Territory or Cairns, which were quite popular destinations for Western Australians—means that Bali is attracting three-quarters of the people heading to holiday destinations. It is so much cheaper to go there. The carbon tax is certainly going to have a huge impact on that particular industry.

My colleague Mrs Nola Marino, the member of parliament for the seat of Forrest down in the south-west of Western Australia, is very concerned about the Margaret River and the Busselton-Bunbury area, because they were attracting a number of people from the eastern states straight into their district but unfortunately they have had quite a large downturn as well. Those tourism operators in the south-west are battling to manage to keep their staff. Once this carbon tax comes in it is going to be even worse. We are very concerned in Western Australia about the tourism dollar. Albany is another tourist destination that is definitely seeing a downturn at the present time. People are choosing to go up to Bali rather than come down to an area in their own state. It is very disappointing that the tourism industry is being completely and utterly isolated on this particular issue.

I would like to say something about Victoria. Senator Kroger has just joined me, so I will mention the Victorian tourism industry. I have a comment here from Victorian Tourism Industry Council Chief Executive Todd Blake. He said that the federal government's planned carbon tax has the potential to devastate Victoria's tourism industry, a sector already struggling with recovery from natural disasters and a high Aussie dollar. He has also said that a price on carbon would not only significantly increase the cost of doing business for operators but also impact on visitor numbers. This weekend, with Western Australians travelling over to Melbourne, it will not be quite so bad. But later on it will not be good. He also said that while the federal government is telling taxpayers that they will be compensated, disappointingly most Victorian tourism operators, being smaller enterprises, will not be eligible for compensation under the proposed arrangements. This will have a huge effect on Victoria's tourism industry, which is worth $15.8 billion to the state's economy and employs around 184,800 Victorians. The planned carbon tax will potentially have a significant impact and the tourist industry organisation is calling on the federal government to outline how it intends to counteract that.

I want to finish with the comment that the government is saying that the tourism industry is making misleading and alarmist claims. A spokeswoman for the federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, denied that there would be significant job losses, saying that the impact on the industry will be manageable. I will certainly be watching very carefully to see just how manageable this is, how many tourist operators go under and how many people in the tourism industry lose their jobs. It is a case of 'watch this space'. I will certainly be watching what Minister Combet does to make the impact on the industry manageable.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again we have the opportunity—thanks to those opposite bringing this MPI topic on today, as they continue to do day after day—for the government to highlight yet again the positive aspects of the clean energy package that we bring to this parliament for the betterment of all people in Australia. Today, government senators are able to particularly highlight the positive aspects of our clean energy package for the tourism industry. I cannot think of another industry as poignantly positioned to benefit right now from having a clean energy future in this nation as tourism, because we know that those in the tourism sector—often small business; some larger businesses—highlight very much their brand, and their brand is all linked to the natural beauty of the environment, which they are trying to sell. In Tasmania I can name a number of operators that fit that very mould.

We have to go back for a second and recognise why we are doing this. We are doing this because the science is clear. We have been made very aware by scientists from the CSIRO and various other institutes of great reputation that we have to do something to act on climate change. We know the impacts that will occur in some of our iconic tourism locations in Australia such as the Great Barrier Reef, the Whitsundays and the Daintree, but I want to share with the senators in the chamber today the impact of the outcome of climate change on Tasmania.

Tasmania is an island state. It is surrounded by water, and those sea level rise issues will have an impact in our state. But of course we in Tasmania are not being idle but are acting on that already. A great example of local tourism operators in Tasmania being proactive is from the Green Tourism program, formerly known as the Green TEA program. It is a federally funded program that was announced in 2008 by the Minister for Tourism, Martin Ferguson, and local member Julie Collins. Forty tourism operators received support to evaluate and implement environmental best practice in Tasmania. That means things like recording and reducing energy use, water use and waste.

Many Tasmanian businesses—many tourism businesses especially but also agriculture and niche exports—rely very much on the beautiful and unique natural environment of Tasmania, something we have an abundance of and are very proud of as Tasmanians. But those Tasmanian businesses know very much that some of the biggest drawcards for modern tourism are to stay in accommodation and engage in activities that respect the environment. That is why we have a number of tourism operators in Tasmania that have moved into that ecotourism space. And that is why Green Tourism participants and the participation, accreditation and promotion process that participants went through were so successful. They understand that reducing their carbon footprint is not just good business sense in terms of attracting customers; it is also serious corporate social and environmental responsibility, something they take seriously as part of their brand. This clean energy package fits very tightly with that brand. In fact, in 2009, Green Tourism participants saved the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of taking 24 cars off the road for one year.

Even before a carbon price, energy efficiency, reducing the carbon footprint of businesses, has always been, for those businesses, about saving money and making businesses run better. Small businesses especially understand the benefits of reducing waste and increasing the return from enterprises that inevitably have some environmental impact. Some businesses have not had the training and skills to improve their environmental practice, and that is why the government's clean energy package is designed to give some incentive to the bigger polluters to do what small tourism operators know and do so well—in the south of Tasmania, at least—and that is cleaning up their operations in the way that I have just described through the Green Tourism program.

I want to name some of those Tasmanian tourism operators because they are exemplary in the way that they care for the natural beauty of our state. They care for our natural environment and they embrace a clean energy future. Two of those businesses are Tasman Island Cruises and Bruny Island Cruises. They are run by Rob Pennicott. Rob's businesses have consistently been ranked amongst the best and most successful of businesses in Tasmania. He has embraced environmental best practice. It is something he takes very seriously. We have tourists coming from not only all over Australia but all over the world to experience Rob's Bruny Island cruise experience. In fact, according to Green Tourism, performing above best practice by implementing a suite of sustainable actions is exactly what Rob Pennicott's business is all about.

There are accommodation providers like Church Studio Franklin, which recycles, has installed energy efficient globes and double glazing and is operating above its base environmental standard. There are restaurants like Brookfield Vineyard, which has managed to reduce its energy use by 33 per cent this year alone, saving money and supporting the environment.

Tourism in Tasmania will continue to be strong when we have tourism operators who think about their business models, think about their markets and have an innovative approach to running business. As long as we have those kinds of businesses, the small impact of carbon pricing on tourism will pale in comparison with the opportunities that a clean energy, clean tourism future offers them. Businesses understand the economics in this space when we talk about a clean energy future, but businesses also understand the science. That completely differs from those coalition senators in this place who do not understand the science. I ask those coalition senators, especially those Tasmanian coalition senators, to talk to Rob Pennicott, to talk to Brookfield Vineyard, to talk to some of those Tasmanian tourism operators who are already going beyond their environmental duty, so to speak, to lift their standards to protect their brand in Tasmania, because Tasmania is known—as those senators opposite are very aware—as a state of iconic beauty. That is why people come to Tasmania as tourists. They come to see that natural beauty. They want that natural beauty to always be there and they want to ensure that the experience that they go through when being part of that natural beauty is a quality experience, is an experience where we all respect our natural environment. Those tourism operators get it, they get the science, and senators in this place should have a conversation with someone like Rob Pennicott to actually try to understand where they are coming from, the values they believe in and why they continue to invest into Tasmania in the way that they do.

It is time for the opposition to accept the science. The world is warming. We do need to act now to protect Australia's iconic tourism drawcards, not just for ourselves, not even just for those tourists, but for all the workers that work in that industry. In Tasmania one of the biggest drawcards for young people into certain part-time work, casual work, work experience and the like is actually in the tourism industry. It employs a number of young people. It is our young people that this is all about, isn't it, Senator Bushby? It is about our children, isn't it? Clean energy future is about our children, about our young people. That is why government senators on this side of the House believe in a clean energy future and believe in acting on climate change—so that our young people and the generations to come will enjoy the beauty that Tasmania and the rest of Australia has to offer by having a pollution free environment and an environment that protects its natural resources.

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

The time for the discussion has expired.