Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise here tonight to support the motion that has been moved which calls on the government to give the people a say. We have seen through the government's actions today that they do not want to give the Australian people a say. We have had a group of people come to Canberra from across Australia to voice their opinion, and what was the reaction they got from this government? From the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, we had, 'This has been nothing but a convoy of no consequence.' From the Leader of the Greens, we had, 'They are moaners and whingers.' What arrogance from this Labor-Greens government. It is interesting that it is the minister for transport and the Leader of the Greens who have done a double act in condemning people who came to Canberra to have a say, because this is a Labor-Greens government, and that is why we have a carbon tax.

Those opposite are saying that this motion is all about negativity. It is not about negativity; it is actually about saving the Prime Minister's credibility. It is giving her the option to say, 'I'm sorry; I got it wrong. I should not have deceived the Australian people before the last election. I shouldn't have misled them,' and to say to the Australian people, 'I shouldn't have spoken untruths, and I should have the courage to come before you and say, "I'm sorry that I deliberately deceived you and I want to make amends. I want to give you the chance to say whether or not you want this carbon tax."' The Prime Minister could restore some of her badly broken credibility by agreeing to this motion and allowing us to go to a referendum. The referendum would not be a political trick. It would simply ask, 'Do you support the government's plan to introduce a price on carbon to deal with climate change?' That is a fairly reasonable, sensible question. I do not think anyone could say that it is any way politically loaded. The Prime Minister could restore her credibility by putting that question to the Australian people and by saying: 'I know you're angry. I know that you will drive thousands and thousands of miles across the country to come here to Canberra to say "give us a say". We won't treat you with contempt. We won't call you a convoy of no consequence, a bunch of moaners and whingers. We'll give you more respect than that. We'll give you the respect that you deserve. We will give you a say. We'll admit that we misled you, that we deceived you, that we deliberately told you something before an election and then did the exact opposite after the election.'

It is a real shame that, once again, the government will not take up this very positive contribution to political debate in this country. This is a positive contribution because it is giving the Prime Minister a chance to say: 'I'm sorry; I shouldn't have deceived you. I am now going to do the right thing.' The people in my electorate of Wannon want her to do that, because everything they learn about this carbon tax worries them to the bone. The operators of our regional airline are saying that this is going to have real consequences for their business because they cannot pass the costs on to the people who fly on their airline. They are going to have to absorb the costs, and they are struggling as it is.

I can give you the example of two regional manufacturers in the town of Ararat who are actually doing things to reduce their carbon emissions, manufacturing equipment that leads to a reduction in emissions. Gason are producing seeders which seed directly into the earth so they require only minimum tillage. What is this government's response to manufacturers of technology that reduces emissions? They are going to be hit with more costs and they will not be able to compete with imports from Canada or China. AME Systems are doing the same for Kenworth trucks, providing technology that reduces emissions. What is the government's response to them? It is to hit them with more costs, which, once again, make it harder for them to compete with the manufacturing of this equipment that is occurring in China. What sort of government responds to manufacturing industries who are producing and providing low-emission technology by saying, 'We're going to put your costs up'?

Look at our farmers, who are competing with the high Australian dollar, who have to export. What is going to happen to them? A dairy farmer in my electorate will face a minimum cost of between $5,000 and $7,000. It is more likely to be in the $10,000 to $15,000 range, but at a minimum between $5,000 and $7,000 will be the annual costs put on their business—and they have to compete internationally. For grain growers on the average farm, there will be $36,000 of additional costs. What about our meat processors? It will be an extra 24c to 30c per carcass. These are the additional costs being put on our rural industries. They have nowhere to go; they have to absorb them.

These people want a voice. They want a say. When they voted in the last election, they did not think they were voting for a government that would put additional costs on them. They did not know that they were choosing a government that was going to put extra costs on their business, because the Prime Minister had said quite plainly, and it has never, ever been disputed:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead …

There have been all sorts of Houdini-like twists to try and get out of that, but that is the language that was used and those are the words that were spoken. There has been talk along the lines of 'It was a different parliament from the one beforehand' and 'We had to form government, so of course what I said before the election doesn't count; it's what I said after.' What a load of hogwash. It was very clear what the Prime Minister said before the last election, and it is very clear what she is doing now.

People want a say. They want to be able to say, 'We made the decision to introduce or not introduce this carbon tax.' That is what we are here discussing tonight—why they should be given that choice; why they should be able to vote in a plebiscite on a very simple question: 'Do you support the government's plan to introduce a price on carbon to deal with climate change?' It is not a trick question; it is a very simple one. I know the people of my electorate want the chance to vote—

See this speech in context