House debates

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

Bills

Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge — General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011; Second Reading

12:18 pm

Photo of Peter SlipperPeter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on this group of bills in relation to the carbon tax. It will not be a matter or surprise for other honourable members to know that my constituents on the Sunshine Coast do not want me to support these bills. In this parliament I will be voting against these bills for the reason that I do not believe that they are good for our economy or our nation.

There is no doubt that there is respectable public opinion and respectable scientific opinion both in favour of and against the various positions on man's involvement in climate change. What is not disputed is that climate has always been changing. The reality is that climate will continue to change and that many people believe that the impact of man has accelerated that climate change in a way that is adverse.

While I accept that there are contradictory scientific points of view points of view out there, I am quite happy personally to give the environment the benefit of the doubt and, if there is something that we collectively as a world can do to repair what we have collectively created, then that is a step very much in the right direction. I believe there should be a world solution to a world problem. The difficulty I have with this legislation is that the rest of the world is not following suit. We will suffer economically to a very great extent as a nation if this package of bills becomes law and these bills are not repealed after the next election. Sure, it will make us as a country feel good. We will have this nice, warm inner glow believing that we are doing something to repair the world environment, but the reality is that we will suffer and inflict on ourselves the most incredible amount of pain while we will not be providing the world environment any particular benefit. So it is a question of all pain and no gain.

I am advised that, were this legislation to be implemented, the impact on the world environment would be minimal. We are committing a form of national economic suicide; essentially, in a political and economic sense, we are slashing our national wrists. We are exporting jobs. We are making it less viable for us to export items, and the result is that we will damage our economy and yet we will not improve the world environment.

I think all of us need to make sure we do whatever we can in a personal sense to improve our environment and to help the planet so that the future of the planet is brighter than it would otherwise be. At home, my wife, Ingrid, and I do the best that we can with respect to the little things that all households can do to help our environment. For instance: we have a solar system on the roof, we recycle as best we can, we mulch our garden, we have planted extra trees—we have an acreage block so there is plenty of room for trees—and we mulch around them. These are all small efforts that collectively, if everyone did similarly, would have an impact. I know that many people take the same approach.

As I said, Australia is clearly part of the problem and we should be part of the solution. The difficulty with the carbon tax proposed by the government is that it is not a solution. It will result in significant cost increases for individuals, couples, families and seniors across Australia, yet these cost increases will not be accompanied by any substantial reduction in emissions and they will not have any noticeable impact on the environment. While the government is correct to say that many people will be compensated for the impact of the carbon tax, there is a very significant minority of the community which will not be compensated, and those people will certainly be worse off.

It is interesting that in a radio interview earlier this year the government's own climate commissioner noted:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years perhaps as much as a thousand years …

Figures suggest that Australia contributes only about 1.2 per cent to 1.5 per cent of global emissions. That is a fairly insignificant figure—though it is not a figure that we should be proud of—and it is important, given the fact that we are a relatively low emitter, that we do not introduce measures that will create a cost burden for Australians and the economy but not have any impact on the area it is supposedly designed to improve. The very real threat is that the carbon tax, which is a $9 billion new tax, will lead to an increase of 10 per cent in electricity prices in the first year alone and that household budgets will also be adversely affected by such things as a nine per cent increase in gas prices for—I repeat—no substantial positive benefit for the environment.

While the government tells us that only big polluters will pay, the tax will have a flow-on impact on all areas of household spending, including on groceries. It will impact on the spending habits of Australians in general. Their life will become more difficult, and it will be harder for young and not-so-young people to get a job. Areas such as the Sunshine Coast, which I am privileged to represent in this place and which is heavily dependent on tourism and construction, will be amongst the areas most badly affected.

There have been suggestions that the carbon tax will have an impact of at least $515 a year on the cost of living of households. It is worth remembering that the price increases brought about by the carbon tax will follow closely on the coat-tails of massive rises in household costs in recent years. Like the rest of us, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, you run a household, so you would be aware that in the past four years electricity prices have risen on average by 51 per cent, gas prices have risen on average by 30 per cent, water and sewerage costs have increased by around 46 per cent, health costs have increased by an average of 20 per cent, school fees and other education costs have increased by around 24 per cent, and rent has increased by about 20 per cent.

I know that it is not popular to quote Lord Monckton—I can see the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Dreyfus, who is at the table, indicating by his smile—

Comments

No comments