Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s intention to introduce a new tax when families are under significant cost of living pressures

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am having to follow the Leader of the Opposition—what very large shoes to fill when it come to these issues. I seek very humbly to step into those very large shoes and identify some of the issues that the Prime Minister chose to deliberately omit, ignore or mislead us on, or engage in slippery conduct about, during the course of question time. Firstly, I remind the Australian people of the Prime Minister’s words in 2008 when he said he would ‘assist working families in dealing with housing affordability and other matters which helped the family budget’.

Yesterday in this place we had the unseemly sight of a rather slippery Treasurer claiming that I had misled the Australian people about the Australian Bureau of Statistics data in relation to the prices of everyday goods. I challenge the Treasurer to come into this place and, for once, have the courage to debate me. We had a debate on Q&A just a few days after my appointment and since that time the Treasurer has refused to debate me. It will come as a surprise to my colleagues that the Treasurer, Mr Wayne Swan, runs away from an economic debate, runs away from confrontation that may at the end of the day illustrate that he is an empty vessel! We know that Dr Henry is the Treasurer. I can see all the Treasurer’s colleagues across this table leaping to his defence right now. They are all screaming and interjecting, defending the Treasurer’s honour as I slur him in this MPI.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for North Sydney just conceded that he is slurring the Treasurer. He should withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliament secretary has a point. I was actually going to observe that. The parliamentary secretary and Minister Emerson are observing the standing orders by not interjecting during the member’s speech. I ask the member to withdraw.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Belatedly but honourably, I withdraw. We will give you a promo should we ever get the opportunity to do so, Bill—do not worry. For everyday Australians, the latest ABS data is extremely revealing. It reveals that electricity prices were up 15.7 per cent on average last year, December on December. This was without an emissions trading scheme. It was the result of state organised price increases—overwhelmingly state Labor price increases. Water and sewerage rose 14.1 per cent on average last year. These are not discretionary items. Electricity is not a discretionary item for an everyday household. It is not a discretionary item for a small business—a coffee shop or a restaurant. It is not a discretionary item for the building industry. They need these inputs.

Last year electricity went up 15.7 per cent, water and sewerage went up 14.1 per cent, gas went up nine per cent and, for families, there were parts of education that were up 7½ per cent, particularly preschool and primary education. The fundamental point here is that it was discretionary items, such as audiovisual components—plasma TVs and so on—which fell. They fell 12.4 per cent. Because of the very strong Australian dollar, overseas holidays also fell 4.4 per cent.

What we found was that, whilst the headline inflation rate, which the Treasurer chose to focus on, was a little over two per cent, the real impact on Australian households was far, far greater. This is because the things that go into the everyday mix of the household budget rose enormously—none greater than the nearly 16 per cent rise in electricity last year. These are essential items for Australian families.

In question time, the Prime Minister was confused and befuddled about what the real impact on electricity prices of his own ETS would be. For reasons that everyone is very familiar with, the Prime Minister has not been under pressure for the last 12 months on the detailed items in his emissions trading scheme.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the parliamentary secretary and the minister here that times have changed. Times have changed so much that now the Treasurer and the Prime Minister need to be honest with the Australian people about the everyday costs of the emissions trading scheme. More than that, they cannot simply refer to an 820-page document, claiming that is the authoritative text that everyday Australians should access to find out about the impact of the emissions trading scheme, and think they can get away with it—an 820-page document which, even under the parliamentary computer network with all of its failings, takes a hell of a long time to print. Most Australian families would not even have 820 pages in their printer, but this is a user-friendly document from your friendly Rudd government. You will find out, via this 820-page document, exactly what the impact of Kevin Rudd’s ETS is.

The sad thing is that the document refers to an 18 per cent increase in electricity prices. Oops—the Prime Minister talked about a Treasury document citing a seven per cent increase in electricity prices. I say to the Prime Minister that that document might be floating around somewhere in that ocean of paper that comes out of the public service on a daily basis. Somewhere there might be that document. Somewhere it might actually say that electricity prices are going up seven per cent, but where?

We challenged the Prime Minister to release the document and he refused. He said it was secret and confidential. If it is so freely available to the Australian people, why is it confidential here in the people’s house? If it is so freely available and Australians are so aware of the impact of the Labor Party’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on electricity prices, why don’t Australians have ready access to that information? This smacks of obfuscation; it smacks of cover-up; it smacks of attempts to not tell the truth about the real impact on people’s lives of the emissions trading scheme.

I will go one step further. The Reserve Bank in a statement yesterday clearly outlined that one of the main reasons it did not increase interest rates yesterday was that the banks themselves had increased interest rates by more than the cash rate increase of the Reserve Bank. You know what? Somehow the Treasurer came in here—the Treasurer who refused to debate me—and gloated about the fact that the RBA did not jack up the cash rate but clearly omitted to mention that the banks had defied his own words and the words of the Prime Minister and had increased interest rates by a greater margin than the cash rate.

What does this big-talking, highfalutin government do when their words of warning to the banks are not only ignored but are treated with total contempt? Nothing. I will tell you what happens to the Australian consumer, to those people with mortgages and credit cards: their costs go up. And now that the markets are clearly factoring in two to three increases in interest rates before November this year, you will hear more of the chortling delight from the Treasurer and Prime Minister that somehow that is a lesser burden than what they inherited when the Rudd government was elected in 2007.

But you know what? We did not have 16 per cent increases in electricity prices in just one year and we did not have 14 per cent increases in water and sewerage in just one year with, in each case, overlayed on top of it, a new cost burden on Australian families. By the way, under the coalition real wages increased by more than 20 per cent and unemployment hit record lows and the economy doubled in size and we had record levels of spending on infrastructure. Not only did we double the GDP of the nation and therefore double the infrastructure spend but also, as a percentage of GDP, there was actually an increase in infrastructure spending.

All of this and the government spends more money. The government is spending more money. How absurd is it? It is as if I have been in a parallel universe for the last few months, listening to the comments of the Prime Minister today and hearing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Mr Tanner, saying, ‘Well you can’t spend money if you haven’t got the income.’ How bizarre! What planet is that man on? I say this because here is a finance minister that has made an art form of spending money that he does not have in the bank. The government is borrowing record levels of money, as my shadow finance minister has outlined on numerous occasions including, very eloquently, at the National Press Club today.

I remind Australians of these words from Kevin Rudd:

There is a case, a strong economic case for budget belt-tightening by the national Government if we want to do our bit in budget policy to make the job of the Reserve Bank easier … to keep interest rates as low as possible.

Here we have a government that is spending record levels of money, putting huge upward pressure on interest rates and putting pressure on the Reserve Bank and the banks themselves. This mob is competing for the same money that is meant to be driving up to $160 billion of potential new investments over the next 12 months.

Even then, as our small business constituency would say: ‘Why is the government borrowing money in competition with us? Why is the government competing with us? How can I as a small business person afford to borrow money when the 800-pound gorilla with the AAA rating is in the same market, borrowing the money that I used to be able to borrow at an affordable rate?’ The net result of this is that small business has been done over by the Rudd government on a scale that Australians have not seen before. Big business has been able to raise money on the capital markets—even using the government guarantee that the banks have been provided to do so—but small business cannot raise money on the stock market. Small business cannot do that. A small business person has to take it out of their family home. A small business person, if they are going to pay down the debt that the bank demands, has to try to find the money somewhere. Yet they have got a government increasing their electricity prices by 16 per cent, increasing water prices by 14 per cent and increasing gas prices by nine per cent. They have got interest rates going up, they are about to have a new tax courtesy of the Rudd government, and somehow, gloatingly, Kevin Rudd comes into this place and pretends that Australians have never had it so good. It is absolutely shameful. Now we know that, thanks to Ken Henry, Australians are going to have to pay more taxes over the next few years to pay for the spending program of the government.

I was very interested in the Intergenerational report, and I will have more to say about this in the future. Kevin Rudd, on a seven-day escapade around the nation, thought that he could do what God could not do in seven days—and that is to create a new earth. On Rudd Earth, essentially there is a world that is dominated by productivity improvements. The problem was that the Prime Minister did not explain it. The three key principles of an intergenerational report are participation, population and productivity, but yesterday, miraculously, the Prime Minister dropped population, after he discovered that it was unpopular to have a much larger Australia with a lesser quality of life. More will be said about this over time, but I do provide this warning to the government: if your hubris has taken over after only 2½ years, the Australian people will punish you. You need to be open and honest with the Australian people about your policies and their impacts on their daily lives. No longer can Kevin Rudd run away from the argument. (Time expired)

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In an otherwise unenlightening speech, the shadow Treasurer did make one enlightening statement, and it was along these lines: in the last 12 months, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been under no pressure. What that means is that the shadow Treasurer is dumping on his former leader, the member for Wentworth, alleging that he put no pressure on the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, but I ask rhetorically: who was the shadow Treasurer over the last 12 months? By my count, it was the member for North Sydney, the speaker at the dispatch box, who came into this parliament and confessed that he put no pressure on the Prime Minister or the Treasurer in the last 12 months. That is a pretty stark and honest confession that he has been completely ineffectual in discharging the responsibilities of a shadow Treasurer and an opposition in this parliament. It also reveals that the leadership splits that have riven the coalition in the last two years have only been papered over. I think it is in poor taste to come in here and dump on the former Leader of the Opposition in the way that he did.

This matter of public importance is ostensibly about climate change policy and any impacts that it might have on living costs. But I do not recall the shadow Treasurer mentioning the words ‘climate change’. He might have squeaked them in once, maybe twice, but certainly there was no sustained reference to the issue of climate change, and we need to ask why. They released a policy yesterday, and already it is passe, it is in the past, because it is such an embarrassing con job. The reason that the shadow Treasurer did not mention climate change is because his new leader regards climate change as ‘absolute crap’. Indeed, we had Senator Minchin, the numbers man in the coalition, saying that a majority of the coalition party room believe that climate change is not real—that it is crap. They have described it as a communist conspiracy.

Some of the observations of coalition members about climate change have to be seen to be believed. The member for Hughes described carbon in these terms: ‘Carbon is not a pollutant. It is a potent fertiliser and up until now a free fertiliser at that.’ So the member for Hughes would like lots more carbon in the atmosphere, because it is a free fertiliser. Then we have Senator Eric Abetz, one of the coalition heavyweights in the Senate, who has said that there is no doubt that weeds pose a challenge that is much greater, more present and possibly more serious than climate change. So what we really need is a global agreement on weed control. That is what Senator Abetz is going on about. We have the space cadet of the House of Representatives, and that is the member for Tangney, who says this about global warming in a dissenting parliamentary report:

Another problem with the view that it is anthropogenic greenhouse gases that have caused warming is that warming has also been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto, Neptune and others.

In other words, he was saying, ‘Why would you worry about climate change on planet Earth when we know that there is climate change on Mars and there is some climate change going on on Jupiter and on Triton, Pluto and Neptune?’ It is hard to believe. And, you know, he was in there in that very leadership tussle undermining the member for Wentworth in support of the now Leader of the Opposition, who was also undermining the member for Wentworth, and then he got all sooky because he did not get a frontbench position. This guy is a space cadet. He says: ‘Where is my frontbench position? I made the very clever observation that climate change is occurring on Triton, Pluto and Neptune and therefore we do not need to worry about it on Earth.’

Then we have the member for McEwen, who has a wonderful solution to the problem of climate change and its impact on the Great Barrier Reef—that is, to support shadecloth over the Great Barrier Reef. That is the debate we are experiencing here in this country with an opposition who, one day after releasing its con job, which ostensibly is supposed to do with climate change, has abandoned it. Why? Because they believe climate change is crap and can be dealt with by putting shadecloth on the Great Barrier Reef.

This policy that was released yesterday is a climate con job. There is no cap on emissions and it slugs taxpayers rather than the big polluters. I think most Australians understand the notion of the polluter pays principle—the polluter should pay. But, no, not according to the opposition. It is ordinary taxpayers who should pay for their policy—their $10 billion policy. And how is that going to be funded? We found out last night. We found out last night because Senator Barnaby Joyce, in yet another moment of candour, on Lateline, was asked this very question. He referred to the Henry tax review and said, ‘That is the whole mechanism of where we get the money from.’ That is, he is saying the Henry tax review is where they are getting the money from. By definition, the Henry tax review is about tax. Senator Joyce, the shadow finance minister, has said, ‘We are going for $10 billion to fund our climate change con, from taxpayers.’

On the weekend, the opposition leader was asked about this when there was speculation that the opposition might fund its $10 billion policy out of increased cigarette taxes and he said, ‘No, that is not going to happen; there will be no new tax increases, no new taxes to fund this policy.’ But the shadow finance minister in his moment of honesty on Lateline last night said that was the whole mechanism of where they would get the money from—that is, taxing ordinary Australians. So when the opposition feigns concern about the living standards of ordinary Australians out of one side of their mouth, out of the other side of their mouth they are saying they will fund their great climate change con job by increasing taxes on ordinary Australians. Indeed, no doubt they would have rung him last night and said, ‘Barnaby, Barnaby, you have done it again, mate—we have to clean up the mess.’ But, no, Barnaby stood his ground. On the AM program he was asked to rule out tax increases to fund the climate change con job. They asked whether there would be any tax increase, and he said:

It’s a very hard question to … answer …

In other words, he is saying, ‘I am not going to do what the opposition leader’s office wants me to do and clean up my mess; I am going to be honest and I will not rule out increases in taxes or new taxes to fund this $10 million climate con job.’

We heard before the beginning of this MPI debate the Leader of the Opposition pouring scorn and derision on the economic stimulus plan, 70 percent of which is investment in the infrastructure of this country. You would think in a debate about living standards there would be some consideration for the two million small businesses and tradies who are benefiting from the economic stimulus package, which, in respect of the Building the Education Revolution, has been described by the Leader of the Opposition as ‘a very low-grade spend.’ So we know now exactly what they would do if they were to win the election this year—that is, they would abandon the economic stimulus spending upon which they poured scorn and derision today. That would be the end of the school modernisation program. They feign concern for small business but they would ensure that small businesses and tradies would lose their jobs—those tradies who are engaged in the greatest school modernisation program in Australia’s history. How can you say that you are concerned with the living standards of average Australians when you are prepared to cut the throats of up to two million small business men and women in this country by abandoning the economic stimulus, by scrapping the school modernisation program that is employing productively so many of our tradespeople and small businesses in this country? Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition absolutely confirmed in his contribution today that that is what he would do. He said, ‘It is not the stimulus that has saved us.’ They have done nothing but criticise it, they have voted against it and it is absolutely as plain as day that if they were to win the election out would go the entire school modernisation program and they would betray those small business owners and those independent contractors that they arrogantly claim as their own, as a part of their natural constituency. Small businessmen and independent contractors understand that it is a Labor government that is supporting them and that the opposition would just throw them out of work like the 200,000 jobs that would have been lost if not for the stimulus package. That is the estimate of the Treasury, and the opposition leader says, no, it is not the stimulus package. He said:

The crisis is over but the spending is continuing.

That is another clear signal that if they were elected the spending would stop, there would be no further investment in nation-building infrastructure, in our schools, in our local council works. The fact of the matter is this: there is an agenda on the part of the coalition. There is a new opposition leader and he holds extreme views. His first extreme view is the one that I have repeated here today—that is, he says climate change is absolute crap. His second extreme view is in relation to Work Choices. Make no mistake: if the coalition were elected, they would bring back Work Choices. They are rebuilding Work Choices brick by brick. In the first interview of the opposition leader after he was elected as opposition leader he was asked, ‘But is Work Choices dead?’ He said:

The phrase ‘Work Choices’ is dead. No-one will ever mention it again.

What he is saying is that they are going to bring back Work Choices; it is only the phrase that has gone. They will have another name for it. And we have got the architects in the parliament. We have got the member for Mayo. He has been promoted and they love him over there because he is an architect of Work Choices. We have got the member for Menzies back on the front bench, an architect of Work Choices. Of course he would be on the front bench; of course he would be elevated under the Leader of the Opposition. I will tell you why. It is because the now opposition leader said in parliament on 13 August last year:

Let me begin my contribution to this debate by reminding members that workplace reform was one of the greatest achievements of the Howard government.

In the contribution that he made today in responding to the Prime Minister’s first anniversary remarks on the stimulus plan, he said, ‘And the government is winding back the reforms of the Howard government.’ What he means is that the government is winding back Work Choices. In fact, we have killed it. If this government is re-elected, Work Choices remains dead and buried. But I can tell you that if the opposition leader were to be elected Prime Minister of this country, Work Choices would be revived, and right now they are rebuilding it brick by brick.

The fact is that this opposition leader holds extreme views and he is a very big risk. He is a very big risk because he has already been shown up in an area of great importance to Australians, to living standards of Australians, and I refer to health care. What did he do? As the health minister he ripped $1 billion out of public hospitals. So when he is looking around for money to fund his great carbon con job, watch out if you have got any interest in public hospitals. They are going to increase taxes. He has already ripped $1 billion out of public hospitals because he does not believe in the public hospital system. He opposes the stimulus; he would bring back Work Choices. The fact of the matter is that if you want a political party in government that supports average Australians, the jobs of Australians, supports the living standards of Australians and the small businesspeople and the tradies of this country, you can go no further than the Australian Labor Party, because we will stand behind them every step of the way. (Time expired)

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Deregulation, Competition Policy and Sustainable Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is interesting today and what every small business owner and operator will pick up from the member for Rankin’s contribution as the minister for small business is how little he actually has to say about small businesses. Today we are supposed to be discussing the government’s intention to introduce the Rudd great big tax on everything, its failed, friendless and flawed ETS, when families are under significant cost-of-living pressures. That was the topic for today, but instead the small business minister went and had a talk about the solar system. Well, the solar system he should be interested in is to talk about the constellation of small business operators and employees right around the country that are very concerned about the Rudd government’s ETS, great big tax on everything. Why are they concerned? In the Hansard of the Australian parliament you will not find the small business minister, as he scurries out of this place, speak one word in defence of this flawed and friendless ETS system. You will not find him speak one word about the nonexistent compensation for the small businesses affected by this great big tax on everything. It is appropriate that the small business minister leaves the chamber, again turning his back on the concerns of the small business community, who have time and time again asked Dr Emerson to give a hoot about the small business community and the punishing impact on energy prices and on input costs that will land on every small business around this country.

There is a memo for the Labor government here: small businesses are operated by families. They are getting cost pressures everywhere they turn from the Rudd Labor government. Small businesses operated by families, employing people with families, are worried about their economic future, about their personal financial security, about the viability of the small business enterprise that they are a part of and about their prospects to provide jobs—more than four million jobs in the 2½ million small businesses. That is what the small business community is worried about, but the small business minister has nothing to say about that. He talks about the solar system but there is a constellation of very concerned small businesses right around Australia just concerned that the ETS—the great big tax on everything—that the Rudd Labor government is intent on forcing through is going to undermine their business viability and their prospects for profitability into the future. Let us remember, though this might be news to the Labor Party, that a profitable small business is one that can employ people, that can engage in continuing to be a small business. There is a story in the small business community about what Labor’s approach to small businesses is. They have a plan: you take a big business and you wait for it to be crushed to be a small business. That is Labor’s support for small business. That is how they support small businesses.

So here today when we had an opportunity for Dr Emerson, the small business minister, to for once turn his mind to the concerns that are being raised over and over again by the small business community about the lack of compensation for the increase in energy costs and the compounding input cost increases that they going to be faced with, we hear nothing, absolutely nothing. The small business community has been pleading with the minister to stand up for them. Is it because he is out of cabinet that he has no influence, or is he indifferent or incapable of making the argument for the small business community?

I can assure the small business community that the opposition has made the argument for them. Our alternative direct action plan has been designed with small business interests front and centre so that they are relieved of the punishing increase in energy costs and input costs for every small business in Australia from Kevin Rudd’s great big tax on everything but that there are opportunities for them to benefit from the strategies and the plan that the coalition has put in place.

Why would Dr Emerson, the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, not want to talk about the impact of the CPRS on small business? Is it because he does not know because no analytical work has been undertaken on this? It could be. He has not spoken about any or provided any evidence of the impact, yet we have seen business group after business group and electricity industry experts provide an analysis, and it is grim. Is it because he has not even lifted a finger to make a case for the small business community? Quite possibly—at least he is consistent. Even in the most recent days, when he was trying to compare and contrast, he could not bring himself to talk about the absence of compensation for the small businesses that are going to be punished by Rudd’s ETS tax on everything that will push up energy prices and input costs.

For that very limited number of smaller businesses that may be entitled to get some temporary transitional assistance, do you know that they need to consume 300 megawatt hours of electricity to qualify and then they need to be in very narrowly defined sectors? Also, it is only for a couple of years at best if the budget provides for it, when a typical small business consumes about half that energy. It is designed to damage small business. I do not know how those geniuses in the Rudd Labor government could have done a better job of nobbling small businesses through some kind of action on climate change than by coming up with its flawed and friendless ETS, a tax on everything.

We can look at some of the examples, even of households. We have Peter Garrett, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, saying that 90 per cent of low-income households will receive certain amounts of compensation. They quote a number of 2.9 million households. According to the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, there are 9.4 million electricity resident account holders—householders that receive electricity. How do you get these numbers? How do you get these warm words of comfort about the number of people who will receive compensation and the specific number of households when 2.9 million leaves a whole lot of households out of the 9.4 million that actually have residential connections? Do the rest of them, 6½ million people, cop it in the neck? Is that what the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, and Minister Garrett are saying? It may well be, but they cannot explain that.

They also cannot explain why, despite concerns identified in the recent COSBOA and Telstra small business survey, 71 per cent of respondents said they were either very concerned or somewhat concerned about the Rudd government’s great big tax on everything. You can see why they are pleading for action by the Rudd government to address small business concerns. I have touched on how elusive compensation for these price inflationary impacts on energy costs and input costs can be, how you need to be in a very exclusive group to get anywhere near it if you happen to be a small business. Even in that measure they do not mention small business—it is about narrow sectors of the economy with certain amounts of electricity consumption. They have not turned their minds to the experience of the small business community. Today my friend and colleague Mr Hartsuyker asked the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy about a very specific case in his electorate, a meat operation which is already experiencing considerable price pressures from electricity and about how further electricity price increases, as a result of Kevin Rudd’s great big tax, will cause this proprietor, Russell’s Prime Quality Meats of Coffs Harbour, to ‘cause me to shed staff and drive up the cost of meat’. He was making the point that he is already copping price increases for his electricity and that is causing great problems for his business. He then made the case that if it goes up any further there will be job implications, viability implications for his business, and there will be impacts on the cost of consumer goods for everybody else.

What response did we get from that? The derisory response from the small business minister was to tell my friend and colleague Mr Hartsuyker that he was asking ‘a stupid question’. It is not stupid to the people who strive to try and make a go of these businesses, something that the Rudd government seems not to understand. You could look at industry associations like the Australian Retailers Association pleading with the government to calculate what the genuine impact of its great big tax on everything will be on a basket of groceries. Here is an example where a meat producer is drawing a very direct connection, yet the government cannot explain the impact of its great big tax on everything, on a basic basket of goods and services. The ARA makes the case that claims that it is only going to be a 1.1 per cent increase are ‘misleading and ignore the increased costs of groceries’. It makes the point that this is a cascading tax on everything. It is not like the GST where if you pay tax on something you take it off and then it is applied to the final sale price. No, it is not like that—it just keeps building; it is a tax that just keeps giving to the government so they can churn money around and dole it out to their favoured sons and daughters in the Australian public for electoral purposes and purely motivated by electoral interests of the Labor government.

Who have they missed out? They have missed out the small business community. The small business community rightly condemns the Rudd Labor government. They want a small business minister that stands up for their interests, as occurred today in the Senate. I am pleased to advise this House that the Senate has agreed to the coalition’s proposal for an inquiry into small business—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Dunkley has been constantly impugning the minister for small business and neglecting the fact that his shadow minister did not ask a question for 500 days.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, and the honourable member’s time has expired by six seconds.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition thinks that climate change is crap and he confirmed that again yesterday. I suggest today the Leader of the Opposition’s climate change policy is nothing more than a climate con job. I acknowledge every debate has its pros and cons, but the Leader of the Opposition’s scheme, I am sad to say, is just one big con. It costs more, it does less and it will mean higher taxes. There are three problems with the opposition leader’s climate con job: it does not work because it does not require anything of polluters, there is no cap on pollution, it slugs taxpayers instead of the big polluters and, unfunded, it will mean higher taxes. I think the challenge for today, which has not been established in the matter of public importance, is for the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Joyce to explain how they are actually going to fund their scheme.

On this issue, I would suggest to you that the Leader of the Opposition is not a man with a plan but he is a ham with a scam. Opposition policy is half baked, solving a problem he does not believe is a problem. It is all motivated, by his own admission, by politics. Australians expect their leaders to say what they mean and to mean what they say. Yet this alternative Prime Minister will not do this. This alternative Prime Minister will not come clean with the truth of his policies. I draw the House’s attention to what the Leader of the Opposition said on ABC radio today. Lyndal Curtis asked the question:

It is an old question, but a good one, where’s the money coming from … for your scheme?

The Leader of the Opposition:

It’ll come from the budget and people will know in good time before the election exactly how we are going to fund all our promises.

Wrong answer. There is no government program yet invented that does not cost taxpayers money, either directly or through a mandate. ‘It’ll come from the budget’ is the kind of answer you would expect to hear from someone who has been in Canberra too long. ‘It’ll come from the budget’ is the answer you would expect to hear from someone who has spent just one year too many listening to bureaucrats and other spenders of taxpayers’ money. The Leader of the Opposition continued: ‘Look, I’m just not going to speculate on where we’re going to find the money.’ What a low-rent answer. Every taxpayer knows the real answer that the opposition leader is avoiding: we will all pay.

The Leader of the Opposition arrived here as a staffer in 1990 and was in parliament a few years later. When you think money for government programs comes from an anonymous budget and not from the hardworking men and women who keep this country prospering, then you have been here 20 years too long. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition has been taken hostage by conservative Canberranomics—too frequently shirtless and completely hostage, I would suggest. He has been taken hostage and takes us all as naive. He must have been a dream when he was a minister. ‘Where’s the money coming from?’ he would ask. ‘Oh, Minister, it’s coming from the budget.’ ‘That’s all right then. Give me another cup of tea.’ Give us a break!

Taxpayers will pay for the opposition’s uncosted, dubious policies in the event the opposition is elected. The nation will pay if we have an opposition unwilling to do the hard work required to provide a credible alternative. The environment will pay if we do not address humanity’s impact on the natural world in every way we can. There are alternative beliefs about climate change, and let’s have an honest debate about that. But, if you are not true to your own views, how can you honestly add anything of value to public debate and political life in this country? The opposition’s stance on climate change is as fake as a Godwin Grech email. For those with attention to history, it is painfully reminiscent of the stumbling on issues that we saw from the coalition when they were in opposition in the 1980s. They were too busy fighting amongst themselves to get their act together. I would suggest that the Abbott coalition is like the 1980s coalition: they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Talking about masters of missed opportunities, one cannot travel past the contribution of the shadow Treasurer, the real nowhere man of Australian politics. He has no idea if he wants the leadership or indeed a quiet life. He hasn’t a clue where his next idea is coming from, his next policy or indeed his next belief system. He is both Tweedledum and Tweedledee in the same jacket, auditioning for Hamlet in that crumbling vaudeville theatre called the Liberal Party, howling, ‘To be or not to be, to lead or not to lead, to tax carbon pollution or not to tax carbon pollution, to leave it to the market or not to leave it to the market, to leave it to a conscience vote of my colleagues or not to leave it to a conscience vote of my colleagues?’ No wonder people doubt his ticker. Unfortunately, the shadow Treasurer in his contribution today was a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody, doesn’t have a point of view, doesn’t know where he’s going to. This is familiar stuff. Nowhere man, don’t worry. Take your time. Don’t hurry. Leave it till someone else lends you a hand.

Despite the scare campaigns of the opposition about the $100 legs of lamb or sky-rocketing milk prices, Treasury estimates that the price rises arising from the CPRS will be 1.1 per cent in 2013. From day one the CPRS has contained measures to compensate people. At the heart of the Rudd government’s actions is the principle that the money raised from selling permits to pollute goes straight into the pockets of families. Treasury’s figures estimate that for 2.9 million low-income households there will be an average price impact of $420 but average annual assistance of $610. For middle-income earners, numbering 3.7 million households, there will be an annual average price impact of $650 and average annual assistance of $700, with a net outcome of $50. The figures estimate that 8.1 million households out of 8.8 million households in Australia will receive assistance. This is one difference between us and the opposition. We start our policies by thinking about the effect on ordinary families.

What I find most surprising about the opposition’s mock concern for families under cost-of-living pressures is that this is the same opposition that continually blocked and denigrated our efforts to support those families through the global financial crisis. Is this the same opposition that condemned the stimulus package which preserved hundreds of thousands of jobs? Please remember that by 2008 virtually every advanced economy was either in or about to enter recession. In the week leading up to the decisions that we took, we had seen the Australian share market in its biggest weekly fall since the 1987 stock market crash. We acted promptly to guarantee the banks and stabilise our financial system.

Firstly, there was direct support to households, supporting consumption and housing investment. Secondly, we had investment in shovel-ready infrastructure, providing critical and timely support to construction sensitive industries. Thirdly, we had investment in critical long-term economic infrastructure. We set clear criteria that the stimulus be timely, temporary and targeted, and we met them. Treasury estimates that 200,000 people are working today due to the package that we put in place. Unemployment in Australia has stabilised at six per cent, whilst that in America has risen to above 10 per cent. I believe that the actions of the Rudd government were one of the key factors in making sure that the Australian economy came through the worst set of economic circumstances we have seen since the Great Depression.

But, after all, the opposition, when they were in rational mode last year, said they actually believed in the market. We negotiated with them in good faith. We came up with an approach that protected agriculture, that offered permits for those industries that were exposed to overseas competition so that we did not simply export our emissions overseas. However, I am sad to report that since then the once great Liberal Party has been captured by the extremists, who will not listen to the science on climate change. They are now opposing for the sake of it. The Leader of the Opposition, torn between the factions of his own party, has come up with a policy that promises a five per cent cut in emissions by 2020 but with no penalties for polluters. There are no targets. There is just a vague hope that somehow the five per cent reduction will be achieved. There are no incentives for the new coal fired power stations to invest in alternative technologies. It is just business as usual.

The only proposal to cut carbon pollution is a vague $2.5 billion slush fund to reward businesses who the opposition deem to be doing their bit to cut emissions—a slush fund which will no doubt be similar to the notorious Howard government’s regional rorts program and which will have to be paid for by ordinary families. In the Leader of the Opposition’s own candid words, he is a ‘weather vane’ on this issue. He takes the easiest course and hopes that the problem will go away. In fact after his athletic contortions on climate change it is clear to me that the honourable Leader of the Opposition’s role model is King Kong. I can imagine him now, hairy and roaring at the top of the Empire State Building, holding perhaps the member for Curtin in one claw—or is it the member for Mackellar in that claw?—and fighting off and swatting away the tiger moths of Liberal Party progressivism. But, like his role model, he will find that he cannot fend off the future for very long. And what a fall it will be—the growling dissent of the extremist political primate views and the smash of the muscular policies on the sidewalk of Australian politics.

The problem with the current opposition junta is that they do not look at the problem, just the politics of the problem. How can they keep the Nationals on the reservation—indeed a problem—even if its costs the planet? How can they keep Senator Joyce smiling and nodding and not throwing toys out of the cot? The opposition leader does not know the science and he is not interested in learning it. Last year he could live with it. This year he cannot. Bizarrely the opposition have lost their faith in the free market and their faith in the ability of Australian business to make changes to cut greenhouse emissions and reduce their own costs. They have lost faith in the ingenuity of Australian business. We have a policy that rewards innovation and that rewards businesses that save energy, that pollute less and that work out cleaner ways to operate. It rewards businesses for doing the right thing for the future of Australia. We do not mandate how the cuts will be made and we do not try and pick the winners; we leave it up to the mighty engine room of Australian business.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today in question time I raised the concerns of Russell Greenwood of Russell’s Prime Quality Meats from Coffs Harbour. Russell is a small business man who works hard in his business. He works seven days a week. He and his wife Debbie make sure that they provide great products for their customers and they always go the extra mile. Russell is the sort of person who keeps this country going. Yet in this House today the minister for small business could not be bothered to give him an answer to a question. He did not even bother to try to answer the question, probably because he could not. He did not bother to listen and he just does not care.

There will be thousands of businesspeople around this country just like Russell who will see the lack of concern by this government for the small business sector. It takes the small business sector to keep employing people. It takes the small business sector to provide many of the services out there in the economy. And yet this government could not care less. What does this government do to support small business? It imposes a great big new tax—a massive tax that is going to drive up their costs, that is going to put people out of work and that is going to drive up prices for the customers who they serve in our community.

What does it mean for people like the Greenwoods when their electricity bill is going to go up by 60 per cent as a result of the tag team of state Labor and federal Labor. State Labor and federal Labor are combining to bring you a 60 per cent increase in electricity costs. These are costs that small businesses cannot afford to bear. These are costs that are going to take this country backwards. These are costs that are not going to provide a better environmental outcome. This ETS is nothing but a great big new tax and the people out there—the average Australians—are rapidly coming to know this as a fact.

The thing that Kevin Rudd does not want you to know about his big new tax is the fact that it will cost jobs. He does not want you to know that it is going to drive up the prices of everything you buy. We have had endless promises from this Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who has a reputation for being all talk and no action. This is the Prime Minister who promised that low-income earners will be fully compensated. But I would say to those people who are relying on this promise by the Prime Minister: best of luck. Because here we have a Prime Minister who promised to take over our hospitals if they were not up to scratch by 30 June 2009. He promised to put downward pressure on fuel and grocery prices. He promised to save the whales. And now this Prime Minister is promising to impose a great big new tax but to hand it all back. It is absolutely nonsensical and the Australian people just are not going to buy it; just as the small business community are not going to buy it. They are going to be taxed out of existence with little or no compensation. It is not good enough that we have a small business minister in this House who will not provide answers to questions when they are asked in this chamber.

When we look at the impact of this tax on families, we see nothing but government spin. We see the Prime Minister unable to articulate what these costs are going to mean for families. We see a Prime Minister who cannot work out what the increase in the price of bread will be, what the increase in the price of milk will be or what the increase in the price of a whole manner of staples will be. He simply goes to the easy-reference Treasury document that he can keep secret so that he does not have to put on the public record the true workings of this massive new tax. He is certainly not being upfront with the Australian people. He is trying to conceal the facts from the Australian people.

The Australian people have some very clear choices in this debate. They have a choice between the opposition’s plan for direct action on climate change, which is going to deliver real environmental benefits and real outcomes on the ground, and they have the government’s alternative—a massive new tax that is going to do nothing for the environment, a massive new tax that is going to drive up the cost of everything that Australians buy, a massive new tax that most Australians do not want or need. As the days go by, the people of Australia are rapidly coming to realise that Mr Rudd is all talk and no action and nothing more than a con artist.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on this matter of public importance. We do know why this MPI has been proposed today: it is because it is all part of the opposition’s con job when it comes to climate change. What we have seen in the last two days since the opposition released its policy on climate change is the Leader of the Opposition and the frontbench really ducking and weaving on the truth about their climate change policy. What we have seen when it gets down to it is that there is a stark contrast between the government’s CPRS and the opposition’s con job when it comes to climate change policy.

17:37:00 That contrast is simple. The government’s CPRS is all about charging the big polluters and encouraging them to reduce their pollution. The opposition’s scheme is putting the burden on taxpayers. That has become quite evident despite the opposition trying to avoid this point. We have already heard on the radio today that Barnaby Joyce has not ruled out tax increases when it comes to funding their $10 billion con job.

The opposition really has to face up to how they are going to fund their climate change policy. As I said, Senator Joyce indicated that they may increase taxes. I think the member for North Sydney was probably misplaced when he brought the matter of public importance to the House today about the intention to increase taxes. He probably should have taken this MPI to the joint party room of the Liberal and National Party on Tuesday because he has not been clear. He, like the rest of Australia, would want to know how the opposition is going to fund this $10 billion proposal.

This proposal is three times more expensive than the government’s proposal. It has not even been shown that it will reduce carbon emissions. This is a particular problem that the opposition really has to come clean with. The government has been very clear that it will not only charge the big polluters; it will also compensate families. In fact, 90 per cent of families will be fully compensated for the modest increases in the cost of living. The opposition has not done this. Rather, they have refused to say where the money is going to come from. They might increase taxes or, logically, they might reduce services.

We do know that the Leader of the Opposition has a history of cutting services. In fact, he cut $1 billion out of our hospitals. We do know that he does have a track record on this. While Senator Joyce might be advocating an increase in taxes to pay for the opposition’s plan, the Leader of the Opposition is likely to cut services. I know that my electors in the seat of Kingston do not want another billion dollars cut out of hospitals. This is especially because they have approved what our government has been doing in increasing funding to hospitals. My electors should be very concerned that Tony Abbott may cut $1 billion from hospitals to spend on his climate change plan.

One thing about this con job that did catch my ear was the idea that there will be a fund set up for the government to divvy out money to reward people and reward businesses. My mind did turn to the proposal by the member for Wentworth, who was very keen to get $10 million for cloud-seeding operations. He was not able to get that money because of the changes. If the Leader of the Opposition’s program does come into effect then maybe the member for Wentworth can talk to the right people and get his cloud-seeding program funded through this big fund.

It is a very concerning climate change policy because it directly takes aim at the taxpayers of Australia but not at the big polluters.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.