House debates

Tuesday, 1 March 2011

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011; Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-2011

Second Reading

6:12 pm

Photo of Steve IronsSteve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is another broken promise by this government, and this is nothing more than a tax. It will hurt the Australian economy and achieve little in the way of reduction of carbon emissions. Since this government was elected in 2007 there have been 75 broken promises and, as the Leader of the Nationals said, they even broke the promise not to break their promises!

There is little detail in the carbon tax, which is not surprising from a government that cannot seem to get past the headline stage with anything it does. The Leader of the Opposition predicts a people’s revolt, and I think there will be one. People simply cannot bear any more taxes. The cost of living is high enough as it is.

The Prime Minister said in April 2005, prior to becoming the Prime Minister:

I think the public is often cynical about what politicians say and they expect them to use a bit of spin, to use weasel words to talk in shades of grey, but I think the public still gets shocked when they see someone like minister Abbott give a iron-clad, rock-solid guarantee and it is such a blatant lie. There are no shades of grey in that, no spin. I think that shocked the public and certainly justifies his resignation.

Does that mean the Prime Minister is prepared to resign? I do not think so, but I am sure some of her colleagues and the faceless men will make that decision for our Prime Minister.

There has been widespread condemnation of this tax. Not even Heather Ridout, who supports Labor’s announcements before they are even made, can back the government on this one. This is a direct attack on Australian manufacturers, and for a tax that will hardly make a difference on the carbon emissions of Australia. Can you imagine all the people who are being compensated sitting back at home saying, ‘Turn that light off; let’s reduce our power consumption’? Of course not, because this government is going to pay them not to do that. Paul O’Malley, from BlueScope Steel, had this to say in an interview:

Fundamentally, imports will get a free ride, and Australian manufacturing will be taxed, and there will absolutely be leakage because I don’t think we have a commitment to carbon neutrality.

When asked whether he meant carbon neutrality in Australia or the world, Paul O’Malley said:

Oh, in Australia. I think to really reduce greenhouse emissions we have to reduce global emissions. I think if you look at the experience in Europe, production emissions are flat since 1990, so Europeans are claiming victory, but carbon consumption has increased 47 per cent.

Mr O’Malley also said:

You also have to look at the intent of the policymakers to determine whether they want to support manufacturing in Australia. There is a huge question mark on that at the moment.

I’ve just spent the week talking to investors. They are aghast at the policy settings that we are being faced with and the additional costs, including the fact that we have to deal with a high Aussie dollar.

So the policy framework at the moment is wrong. It seems to be captured by people who don’t care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia, and you just wonder whether there is an anti-manufacturing focus in Australia and that people want jobs to go offshore.

Just to top it off, Mr O’Malley also goes on to say:

I think there is at the moment, absolutely. I think that there’s a lack of trust between government and business. I think there’s poor communication between government and business, and I think things that appear simple to investors and to ourselves are completely discounted from a government perspective. So you do question the sustainability of manufacturing in Australia.

Mr O’Malley has hit the nail on the head. This is a new tax delivered at a time when the government plans to end exit fees, which have been widely predicted to put upward pressure on interest rates. I must make it very clear that this is the only reason the coalition is not in favour of scrapping exit fees. Labor wants the Australian public to think that Labor is helping those who are paying off their mortgages because it is scrapping exit fees, yet the truth of the matter is that they will end up paying more in increased interest rates. This poor record of budget management has led to a flood tax being introduced. Labor’s first instinct is to tax first and ask questions later. I certainly support the urgent reconstruction of parts of Queensland, but these bills have certainly confirmed that there is fat in the budget that could be trimmed to avoid having to impose this levy and further squeeze what are already tight family budgets.

The Western Australian Liberal Premier, Colin Barnett, consistently and correctly attacks the distribution, insufficient by this government, of the GST revenue back to our state. If we received our fair share, the prudent financial operators and the WA Treasury would actually be able to get on with providing necessary upgrades to WA roads. However, due to the ever-increasing imbalance, WA will continue to suffer at the hands of the Grants Commission. The Grants Commission needs to be scrapped and a new, fairer method of distributing GST revenue needs to be implemented. There is nothing fair about propping up an inefficient state like Tasmania while hampering Western Australia.

Comments

No comments