Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think those last few words from the member for Indi said it all about her contribution—all bluster, filling us all with complete falsehoods. When you have no argument the typical approach is to start telling those fibs. It was a shocking speech.

I have just come from a meeting—it is a busy time of the afternoon for the Chief Government Whip, but I wanted to speak on this matter of public importance for some very good reasons. One of those reasons concerns the nature of my electorate, which is well known to have a substantial coal mining industry, a substantial power generation industry and a substantial aluminium industry. This gives me the opportunity to correct some of the falsehoods being promoted largely by the member for Indi, but no doubt as well by the member for Dunkley.

The amazing thing about this debate is the total absence of any capacity at all on the part of the opposition to deal with some of the realities. We heard lots about the carbon price mechanism. We heard lots about alleged impacts on businesses. But we heard nothing about climate change and the need for governments to act. It is worth reminding ourselves that both the government and the opposition in this place have the same climate change policy. We are both committed to acting on climate change. Indeed, the opposition's carbon reduction targets are the same as those of the government. Yet I did not hear the member for Dunkley—I will stand corrected if needed—mention the opposition's policy at all. I certainly did not hear the member for Indi mention the opposition's policy. She blustered about the alleged impact on business but did not say anything about her own policy to reduce carbon emissions and the impact that might have on businesses. Direct Action will of course have an impact, just as our policy has impacts. But there are big differences. Their policy is to tax Australian families—more money—and use that money to fund carbon reduction programs within business, which will transfer wealth from families to big business to let them off the hook in terms of the efforts they must make to address climate change.

I am challenging those on the other side who have not yet spoken but will make a contribution to this debate to start talking about their own policy, how it is gong to work and what impact it is going to have on Australian families. I will take it that, if none of them gets up and talks about their policy this evening, they no longer have one. We will be able to have a real debate in this place about climate change and carbon reduction and whether they are not opposed to doing anything at all. We welcome that debate, because we believe the scientific evidence is in and that it is overwhelming. We are concerned about a whole range of issues in environmental terms, including the Pacific islands that will no longer exist once sea levels rise to certain levels. Let us have that debate. If they are still committed to reducing carbon pollution let them get up in this place and explain how they intend to achieve it.

At least the member for Dunkley devoted some time to business, and small business in particular, and I welcome that because we have been combatants on these issues in the past. It surprised me, though, that he did not go to the core issue—that is, the environmental issues—because he has a history in this. I have a speech here from right back in 1999 in which he devoted quite a bit of time in this place to talking about the need to make small businesses more efficient and reduce their environmental impact. He also spoke about the initiatives his government was taking. He referred to dry cleaners in particular. I was reminded of his speech when he used it in his own address just this afternoon. I am disappointed that the member for Dunkley was previously so dedicated to helping businesses to reduce their pollution footprint, yet he has now thrown that out of the window. I think the dry cleaning industry would be very disappointed indeed.

But let us think about these alleged impacts on business. Take two of the government's biggest policies and achievements in this place—the mining tax and the carbon price. It delivers small business tax breaks—immediate write-offs of up to $5,000. They must be against this. It gives us infrastructure funding in the regions, where small businesses operate. You come to my region and you will know that one of the big issues for small business is basic community physical infrastructure, including road networks. It gives a company tax rate reduction. Is that not going to help big business? What about personal tax rates. What about the raising of the tax-free threshold. Is that not going to help people in unincorporated businesses, sole traders and partnerships? Are they not going to get a tax break? The estimated power price rise for a small business is about $5 a week. These same small businesses are getting multiple tax breaks. The member for Dunkley does not acknowledge any of this. They talk about the downside, as they see it, of this policy but they cannot be taken seriously if they are not prepared to talk about the upside, including the exemption of petrol from the scheme. We all know how important fuel costs are to both small and large businesses. You hear none of that from them.

The big challenge for business in my electorate is the skills shortage. That is why we are investing literally billions of dollars in addressing that issue, through productivity, placement programs, trades training centres, increased TAFE funding and the Education Investment Fund. These are all things they oppose over on that side of the chamber. When I was representing the small business constituency I used to have a little phrase that I would use on almost every occasion when addressing them. It was, 'The best three things a government can do for business, and small business in particular, is to grow the economy, keep interest rates low and get out of the way.' That is exactly what this government has been doing. We have been growing the economy in the face of a global recession. We are the envy of the world. What more would you want to do for business than that? Wouldn't they just love to have our economy in Europe? Interest rates are still at historical lows, and we are reducing red tape on small business in this country.

The member for Indi again repeated these claims that we are losing jobs in the coalmining industry. If you came to my electorate and said that—and I would love to see the member for Indi do it—they would laugh at her. They know it is simply not true. We do know that there was some coal industry modelling which suggested that under the carbon price the industry might not grow in job terms as fast over the next decade as it might have otherwise. The opposition have misused that data and turned it into a job losses proposition. But before they say, 'Jobs will not grow as fast,' that is a good thing in mining regions because the businesses that the member for Dunkley and the member for Indi were talking about cannot get people to work in their businesses. So this is a rebalancing of the model. They would be laughed at if they came to the Hunter electorate and made that statement.

I will quickly finish on something local and close to my heart, and that is the aluminium industry. The aluminium industry is in trouble globally. Smelters right around the world are closing or are planning to close. Why is this happening? It is happening because aluminium prices are at record lows, particularly here in Australia because the Australian dollar is so high and input costs are rising. They would have you believe on the other side that they have got a solution to those problems. Of course they have not. And they would have you believe that it has something to do with the carbon price. Well we would be having a conversation about Hydro Aluminium in my electorate with or without a carbon price. Those on the other side understand that but they want to perpetrate this lie on the Australian community, including my own community, because they think there are votes in it. They would be better placed talking to the New South Wales government—their mates; and the member for Dunkley talked about state elections—about finally giving Hydro a decent electricity supply contract and the certainty that goes with it. (Time expired)

See this speech in context