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

that he does not think it is a good thing to quote Lord Monckton, and I recognise his interjection. I am a great admirer of the parliamentary secretary—I think he has been given a really difficult job in having to sell this unsaleable tax, but if anyone can do it he certainly can. However, I suspect that, given the feedback from my community, even the parliamentary secretary's competence will be inadequate to turn people's opposition to the carbon tax—which will devastate our economy—into support. I am told that Lord Monckton suggests that, if the Labor government's plan is introduced and omissions are cut by five per cent by 2020 in line with the plan, carbon in the atmosphere will be reduced by just 0.013 parts per million: from 412 parts per million down to 411.987 parts per million. The government is focusing, quite appropriately, on the need for the world to do something about climate change; however, the plan the government has introduced will not achieve what the government wants it to achieve, and at the same time it will make the very existence of many Australian families so much more difficult than it already is.

I mentioned earlier that the Sunshine Coast is heavily dependent on tourism and construction. Tourism is among the industries that are most vulnerable to a carbon tax and the associated impact on prices. It is potentially a big victim of the carbon tax because it depends so much on the spending power of visitors. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you have been to the Sunshine Coast, so you would be aware that we boast wonderful beaches, a relaxed way of life and modern conveniences. I know that the area you represent also has wonderful beaches—though the surf there is nowhere near as good!

The Sunshine Coast has many unspoiled attractions for families. We have our coastline, national parks and walking tracks, camping grounds and caravan parks for reasonably priced family holidays. We have modern and luxury unit complexes. We have Australia Zoo—which is run so effectively by Terri Irwin, whom I greatly admire—Aussie World, the Ettamogah Pub, Underwater World and the Big Kart Track as well as the natural attributes of the coast and hinterland and much more. These attractions help to directly and indirectly provide employment for many people who in turn provide for many families. The survival of these attractions depends on the many visitors who come to our area, yet all these visitors will have their lives disrupted by the imposition of the carbon tax and the associated increases in costs.

Households, families, individuals and the elderly around Australia have been finding things extremely difficult, and it is wrong to impose on Australians an additional tax that would see costs rise further—and dramatically—without the tax having any impact on pollution. I have been advised that costs will rise considerably after three years, when the government's initial set price of $23 per tonne for carbon will no longer be fixed but instead become a floating figure out of control of government and at the mercy of market forces. Households will bear the cost and be forced to cut back in yet further areas. The government says that the carbon tax is estimated to rise to $29 per tonne in 2016, but the Centre for International Economics suggests that the figure will be closer to $49 per tonne. The government's figures suggest the price will rise to $37 per tonne in 2020 and to more than $350 per tonne in 2050. All of these prices are significant, and I just hate to think what the impact of this carbon tax is going to be like for families in the future if it is not rejected by the parliament or repealed by an incoming government. As I said, the Sunshine Coast has benefited from its construction industry—the building of homes, unit complexes and commercial premises. They have all catered for our growing population and brought visitors to our region.

It really is unfortunate that the government has decided to proceed with the carbon tax legislation. It is obvious that the community is not in support of this proposal. The government really ought to recognise that it has no mandate for this tax. After all, it was the Prime Minister who, prior to the last election, said that there would be no carbon tax under any government she led. I consider that, if the Prime Minister has changed her mind—and, if she has, I certainly respect that—she should do what Prime Minister Howard did in 1998 when he changed his mind on the introduction of a GST.

Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—

As the member for Maranoa points out, the Prime Minister of the day said: 'Circumstances are different. While I did say that I would never, ever introduce a GST, it is now necessary for the economy.' But he gave the people of Australia the opportunity to vote for that change of policy at an election. If the government feels strongly about its carbon tax legislation, and I suspect that it does, it should say, 'This is the legislation which we plan to bring in if we are returned by the Australian people at the next poll.' It is wrong, in my view, to say one thing before an election and then change one's mind and one's policy and bring in a contrary policy after the election.

This legislation cannot be described as good legislation. It will encourage businesses to manufacture offshore. It will encourage people to holiday offshore. It will make it more difficult for young Australians and older Australians to obtain work. I just think that it is a very heavy price for us as a community to pay—bringing in this tax so that we all feel good but ultimately destroying our economy, reducing our competitiveness and assisting countries which are worse emitters than us to profit in the international marketplace at our expense. It is not too late for the government to withdraw this legislation. It would be in the national interest for it to do so.

See this speech in context