House debates

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Matters of Public Importance

Carbon Pricing

3:51 pm

Photo of Sophie MirabellaSophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, and fully respect the standing orders that prevent me as a member in this House from repeating the comments made out there in the community from one end of the country to the other, particularly from many former Labor voters. But when a Prime Minister goes to an election making such an explicit comment, then reneges on it and decides to sell out to Bob Brown and decides to speak to Bob Brown before her own backbenchers, is it any surprise that people do not believe the scant explanation and promises given on the carbon tax and the so-called compensation package? People do not believe that the CPI will increase by only 0.7 per cent—and why should they? None of the government's budget estimates or mid-year updates have been accurate in any way whatsoever. Why would the situation change now?

We have seen costs go up and up and up. The carbon tax will go up but compensation will not go up. The minister talks about modest price increases, but people are already hurting. They know that they cannot trust the government's modelling; it has not been fully explained and there are many factors that have not been included. For example, where is the modelling to show the number of SMEs that will close? We know that the SME sector is very important in Australia. We know that it has the least capacity to absorb increased costs of production. We all know that, when small businesses close and larger businesses increase their market power, prices also go up. That has not been factored into the government's projections either.

The government says there will be all this compensation, but what is the reality? Everyone knows that a carbon tax is intended to hurt every time you use electricity and every time you use energy. Even on the government's own figures, even if we were trusting and naive enough to believe the figures that it has provided, we see that a couple earning $60,000 each with two children would be worse off. A couple earning $60,000 with no children would be worse off. A single person earning $60,000 would be worse off. This is intended to punish consumers because that is what the Greens want. The Greens want to punish consumers. They think we probably live too affluent a lifestyle, we use too much and we consume too much; so let us just punish people—punish people into submission! If you look at average wages in professions such as teachers, ambulance drivers, accountants, crane operators, manufacturers, park rangers and physiotherapists, all of these people will be worse off.

We hear about compensation to industry, but if you do not damage industry you do not need to pretend to compensate it. As Graham Kraehe from BlueScope said, any compensation would be like a bandaid over a bullet wound.

Comments

No comments