David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak in favour of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The great thing about this legislation and the program is its practical environmental benefits. In a moment I will come to some of those practical environmental benefits within my electorate. But I think it is important to reflect on the context in which this takes place. Our approach on this side of the House is to pursue initiatives that have a practical benefit to the environment. You would think that would be self-evident, and something that would be shared on both sides of the House. But what we see on the other side of the House is an ideological approach that favours big government interventions in the economy and the resultant disastrous impacts on small businesses and families. Nowhere is that more clear than in the different approaches on emissions reduction.

There is a bipartisan goal of a five per cent reduction by 2020 in year-2000-level emissions. But where there is a very clear contrast is in the method of achieving that goal. Those opposite, of course, favour the carbon tax—the world's biggest carbon tax, a tax that is costing families $550 each year in my electorate and around the country. A total of 75,000 businesses are paying it and it is having a very practical impact. I was at a dry cleaning business in my electorate the other day where they no longer run their machines past two o'clock in the afternoon because of the impact of the carbon tax on their electricity bills. There is a similar situation down at a local swimming pool. Swimming pools are of course so important for young people. Many of our young kids train there each week. Again, his power bill has gone through the roof, so much so that he is having to consider cutting back on the hours of operation of the pool.

In contrast to that approach, our Direct Action plan, which provides clear incentives for businesses to reduce their carbon footprint, will achieve the same goal of a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 on 2000 levels. So the question is this: if you can achieve emission reductions with minimal impact on the economy, why would you actively choose a mechanism that results in a substantial negative impact on the economy? On one hand you can achieve a similar outcome with a low impact footprint on the economy and on the other hand a very substantial negative impact. The only reason you would do that is if you had an ideological desire to punish certain sections of the economy and to drive up the cost of living, and that is not the way we approach environmental issues on this side of the House.

See this speech in context