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 adverse effect of the carbon tax on confidence in the Australian economy.

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

What an extraordinary sequence of events today. If you wanted any evidence of why consumer confidence is down, business confidence is down and building investment is down, and if you wanted know why there is a general despondency across the nation, look no further than the fact that 24 hours ago the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer of Australia declared in this place that '1,000 big polluters' would be paying a carbon tax and yet 24 hours later he refused to reveal when he found out that 500 had gone missing. Five hundred companies have gone missing. How do you lose 500 companies? They are like aircraft carriers but much bigger! Are they in the dispatch box? Are they under the table? Where have they gone? Are they hiding in the meditation room upstairs? Where are they? I can only think that the Treasurer must be an acrobat and that he would be well served if he was in Circus Oz, because he has done what no magician has done since we had old Alan Bond around—he has managed to destroy big companies. He has taken them out of the equation. Five hundred companies have disappeared out of Australia in the last 24 hours.

The Prime Minister on Monday night in a joint statement—roping old Swannie in and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—said, 'The principles are settled; the 1,000 biggest polluters.' They confirmed on Monday night that it was all done and dusted, that 1,000 big polluters would pay. Come Thursday, three days before Sunday, it is down to 500.

I walked outside for a brief moment and there was a gentle hum in the background. I wondered, 'What is that hum out there?' Do you know what it was? It was the sound of the pulping of all those documents that have been printed—all those glossy brochures. They are re-cutting the ads tonight. They have probably flown to the other side of the world to get some daylight so that they can redo the ads and redo the brochures because they suddenly have to take out 500 companies. Imagine, this is the only time in Canberra's history that the whirr of the pulping machines has been louder than the printing machines. Where are things at? What is frightening is that their mob, their backbench—the caucus—must be wondering what the hell is going on. If the people on the frontbench who are going to make the announcement do not know how many companies are going to be affected by a carbon tax, how can their backbench have any confidence in them? This is not the way to run a country. Was it a surprise to the member for New England that it had gone from 1,000 to 500?

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll find out, Joe.

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

Oh, we will find out! Was it a surprise to the member for Lyne?

Mr Oakeshott interjecting—

It was! Ring up Bob Brown. 'Hey Bob, it's Rob here. No, Bob, it's Rob. I have to say to you, Bob, we've heard that it is down to 500. Good news.' Imagine how pleased No. 501 is! 'Today is a glory day. I'm excluded. I'm No. 501 on the list.' What about poor, old No. 500? What a bum steer for No. 500! Poor, old No. 500. It is probably a little family company that thought they were getting the guernsey.

Mr Windsor interjecting—

You are No. 1, old soul. Old china, you are No. 1.

Mr Windsor interjecting—

You've got a No. 10! You cannot count either. Lord knows, he is now the man running the Treasury! On their side, it is a complete comedy act. And no wonder it is having an impact on the Australian people. No wonder retail is down. No wonder manufacturing is frightened. Why? Because the people running the show are treating it like a circus. That is what it comes down to. They only decided on Monday night to make the announcement because Christine Milne went on Sky News on Monday and said, 'We'll be making an announcement at the end of the week.' Less than 24 hours earlier, the Prime Minister said, 'It could be some weeks.' But now we know: Christine Milne called the timetable for the announcement of carbon tax.

An opposition member: Who is she?

She is a Greens senator in the other place who was not elected by the majority of the Australian people to run the shop. Nor was the member for New England, nor was the member for Lyne, nor was Senator Bob Brown, nor any of them. They were not elected to run the shop. They were elected not to deliver a carbon tax. That is what they promised.

It comes down to three core principles. No. 1 is the cost of the tax. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that when it comes down to it, it does not matter what the government says about compensation. Compensation is only delivered when injury has happened. And the government is determined to injure the Australian people. You do not have to compensate people if you do not cause injury. The second key fact associated with that—bear this in mind—is that the government will collect more money than it gives back to the Australian people. It is boasting that it is going to deliver so-called tax cuts and increased pensions, but the fundamental point here is that for almost every dollar it gives Australians it is collecting two dollars out of every Australian's pocket. The government can talk about tax cuts and compensation, but it is meaningless for Australians because ultimately Australians will pay the price. Whether it is 500 or a thousand, as Ross Garnaut said: every Australian will pay the price. That is the fundamental point. The cost is real; the impact is real.

The second key point is trust. We cannot trust what the Prime Minister or the Treasurer say. The Prime Minister said before the election 'no carbon tax'; now we are facing a carbon tax. The Prime Minister said that there will be no carbon tax under a government she leads. Well, she leads this incompetent government but now we have a carbon tax. And the Prime Minister said, as recently as in the last 48 hours, that a thousand big polluters would pay. Now we discover it is 500. Yet I would expect the revenue raised to be just the same. And as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out—through the government's own publication—even if they exclude petrol at the pump for households the costs for households will increase. That is the word of the government; it is not confected, it is not designed by us. It is reality that every Australian will pay because somehow, in some way, whether it is $10 billion a year or $11 billion a year, the fundamental truth endures that it comes out of the pockets of Australians. That is what will be the real impact of this tax. It is so fundamental.

The third key factor is this: everything comes down to the confusion that will be generated. This is not just about the tax, it is not just about a lack of trust in the government; it is about the confusion that will be wreaked. These are the three key components of why the carbon tax is a flawed tax: it is costly, it is confused, and whatever this government says cannot be trusted. What we know is that as soon as the government introduces a second component, going from a carbon tax to an ETS, it will add confusion. And when the government says it is going to exclude some people and not others it adds confusion. No wonder the Treasurer could not answer the question in this place about whether a landscaper would have to pay tax on the fuel that goes into a mower or into a chainsaw—yet those are the key components of a landscaper's business. The government could not even answer that simple question.

I give the government a very clear warning: some of us were around for the GST debate and we had to answer, day in and day out, at public forums and everywhere else, questions about how the tax would be applied, who would be affected, how they would be affected and whether there would be enough compensation for everyday Australians. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker: we will pursue this issue until the election. We will pursue this issue until the government explains to the Australian people—individually if necess­ary—the exact details of how Australians are affected, because the Prime Minister lied to those Australians. She specifically told an untruth.

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

Order! The honourable member will withdraw the word 'lie'.

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

I will withdraw the term 'lie' and say that the Prime Minister deliberately misled the Australian people.

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

The honourable member will withdraw that term. He is not able to reflect upon the Prime Minister other than by way of substantive motion.

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

Yes, I will withdraw that as well, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have reduced my argument to nothing, because I am only telling the truth.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that the withdrawal be made unreservedly. I believe it is not unreasonable to regard that as a qualified withdrawal.

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

My understanding is that the member for North Sydney did withdraw unreservedly. Is that correct?

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

I withdraw unreservedly. It is as simple as this: the Treasurer said less than 30 days ago that the budget would be neutral in terms of the effect of the carbon tax; today we discover it is going to cost $4 billion. We thought it was a thousand companies; today it is 500. We were of the understanding that the government was going to take weeks and months to sort this out; now it appears that it is all happening on Sunday. This is not the way to run a country. It is like a bad episode of Bewitched. The problem is that the Treasurer is old Darrin, the one who does not know what is going on. And he has a hostile mother-in-law, old Agnes. Do you remember Agnes? She makes something appear then disappear. The budget is going to be neutral then all of a sudden it is going to cost $4 billion. There are 1000 companies and then all of a sudden there are 500 companies. Old Darrin does not know what is going on. I loved that show. We all loved Darrin's confusion. The only problem is that Darrin is the Treasurer of Australia. The only problem is that old 'Durwood', as Agnes used to call him, is the Deputy Prime Minister.

An opposition member: Endora.

Endora, that's right! Agnes Moorehead—we miss her. I would say this: when you look at the details and lack of confidence in the Australian community, you say to yourself, 'How has it happened so quickly?' With the best terms of trade in 140 years, you would think that Australia is doing well. With an unemploy­ment rate of 4.9 per cent and more full-time jobs created, you would think every Australian would think they are doing well. But the fact is that this tax will affect the things that Australians need, not what they want. It may have little impact on computers, it may have little impact on the cost of purchasing a TV, but it will have a direct, immediate impact on the cost of electricity, something every Australian family has to buy. It will have an immediate impact on the cost of housing, something Australians need. It will have an impact on the cost of water because pumping water to people's homes costs money. It will have an impact on the plumber and the electrician. It will have an impact on the builder's labourer and it will have an impact on the brickie. It will have an impact right cross the economy, on the things that people need on a daily basis.

As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, if this tax is meant to have any impact on the environment, it has to hurt people. The government would have you believe that this is not going to hurt, but the truth is that it is going to hurt the Australian economy at a time when Australia cannot afford it. It will be the biggest economy-wide tax on carbon in the world. If it is not the biggest today, it will be in three, four or five years.

Now the true agenda has been revealed. If the Prime Minister does not know what is happening in her government, if the Treasu­rer does not know what is happening in his government, if the member for New England or the member for Lyne do not know what is going on, it proves that what we have said is true—that the Greens are in power and the Greens are running the country. Sadly, that is a poor reflection on this mob.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The biggest threat to confidence in the Australian econo­my is a federal opposition who have no confidence in the Australian people and are always trash-talking the future and the capacity of Australians to change. The gov­ernment understands that what generates confidence are decisions and positive plans. The government understands that the constant talking-down of the ability of Australians to cope with change undermines confidence. The government understands that to keep writing some sort of Stephen King horror novel, trying to scare the Australian population, will damage confid­ence.

I would submit to this House that this nation and this economy, and indeed the government, pass what I would call 'the airport test'. There are not a lot of Australians who, when they come back to Australia from overseas, get off at an airport and say, 'Oh, my goodness! I want to go back overseas.' This is a good country. This is a great country. This country has never shirked change. We have never hidden from change.

This government has a plan—it will provide details on Sunday. The Gillard government also understands what business knows and what the Australian people know—that you cannot put up a proposition that Australia can just be frozen in the moment. The opposition would have you believe that now is not a good time to change, tomorrow will not be a good time to change and that it will never be a good time to change.

This nation cannot progress on a policy prescription that we do not ever have to change. This nation needs leadership. This nation needs to confront issues. Change is never easy. The government understands that. Also, this government understands what business knows. Business knows that the Australian economy is in transition and that we cannot stand still. This government knows that business appreciates the value of certainty. This government understands that Australian business knows that the world is moving to improved energy efficiency and to lower carbon pollution.

This government understands that we need to lower carbon pollution in this country and that big polluters should pay. You would not be allowed to tip your garbage in the street and expect someone else to clean up your mess. This government understands intuitively that we need to act to do something to lower carbon pollution. The government also gets that families and consumers should get a fair go and that climate change is real. Depending on who is in power in the opposition, they believe it is happening—like Malcolm Turnbull. If they do not believe it is happening, like Tony Abbott—

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

The member for Wentworth!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon—the Leader of the Opposition.

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

No, the member for Wentworth!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wentworth—former Leader of the Opposition, until torn down. The member for North Sydney said that a vote on climate change is just a 'matter of conscience'. This government knows that, whoever is in charge, they will have to put a price on carbon. The opposition would have you believe that, if they were to come to power, nothing will change, that we can be frozen in the moment, like true conservatives. The government understands that whoever is in charge of this nation they have an obligation not to betray the leadership entrusted in them by the people. Real leadership does not always involve telling people what they want to hear. Real leadership means dealing with issues.

Business know and the Australian people know that, if you tell people you can pretend but you never have to change, that is a deception which betrays the trust Australians have in their political leaders. Let us be clear. The Economic Intelligence Unit, a private organisation, has done a survey of Australian business and found that 50 per cent of Australian businesses have already anticipated moving to a low-carbon future and that 70 per cent of Australian businesses are already putting in place measures to reduce their carbon footprint.

The good news is that Australian business and the government are not waiting for the opposition to get on board and join the 21st century. The Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia support a price on carbon. I suppose those opposite would rubbish the CEO of the National Australia Bank as some sort of mad, left-winger. He is not. He said that the Labor plan 'will drive certainty and investment'. 'What would the CEO of one of Australia's largest banks know about investment?' those opposite would cry. My money is on backing their judgment about what drives investment rather than that of those economic witchdoctors of the opposition economics team. Then you have to look at other companies.

Opposition members interjecting—

As much as the opposition wish to interject and wish it were not so, the truth of the matter is that Shell, BP, AGL, Alstom, Rio Tinto, Origin, Grocon—all massive Australian companies involved in heavy industry—say—

Mr McCormack interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Riverina has been given a fairly good go. He will restrain himself.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina is always welcome to stand up and speak rather than relying on sitting down and interjecting. What would all those companies—Shell, BP, AGL, Alstom, Rio Tinto, Origin and Grocon—know about the economy? What would they know about energy? What would that they know about mining? Anyway, let us not just rely on a whole lot of heavy hitters of Australian industry, people who are part of the carbon pollution business, who accept the need to put on a price.

Let us be clear. There was an important story on the front page of today's Australian Financial Review. It was reporting what the compliance people at the Australian Stock Exchange have said. They put forward some important facts contained on the front page of the Australian Financial Review. They reminded people of listing rule 3.1. For those opposite, who probably are not aware of what listing rule 3.1 is, it is the requirement that company directors must disclose to the market matters which are material to operations; they must report them.

This is a timely intervention by the ASX, so let me be clear. The ASX are agnostic about government policy or opposition policy but they are absolutely determined to enforce the listing rules of the Australian Stock Exchange. They have put an emphasis—and again this is timely—on the need to be responsible. They are saying that there should be facts, not exaggeration. They are reminding Australian companies that they must inform the market of material developments, which are very likely, and that they would also have to take account of the assistance provided by the government.

I regret to report to the parliament that it is a shame there is no listing rule 3.1 for the opposition. Instead of economic hard work, those opposite are relying on a strategy to shout their way into government. Let us go through some of their fear and negativity. They have predicted the death of the coal industry, yet economic modelling for the CPRS has shown that it would increase by 66 per cent by 2050. They have predicted the death of the steel and aluminium industries.

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

So you know more than the steel industry!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I organised those in the steel industry and I won them wage rises when you had Work Choices.

Mr Billson interjecting—

I have met more steelworkers than you have had hot meals, my friend. Given what we know about the steel and aluminium industries and heavy industry, let those opposite not feign crocodile tears on behalf of the workers of those industries.

Mr Billson interjecting—

You think manual labour is a Mexican tennis star.

Mr Billson interjecting—

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

The member for Dunkley will withdraw that.

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

What? The charlatan, the spiv or the climbing on the back of workers bit?

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

The member for Dunkley will withdraw unreservedly. I call the member for Dunkley to withdraw unreservedly otherwise I will deal with him.

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

Unreservedly, Sir.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have said that all these industries are doomed and ruined. What they do not say when they are scaring people is that, under the recently modelled CPRS, these industries are going to be shielded from 95 per cent of the carbon price. Anyway all the myths and the negat­ivity are the Stephen King-like bogeymen with which they would scare the Australian people. They have said it is a lie that the rest of the world is acting. For goodness sake, let's not tell the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands or Sweden, which are all acting. Let us look at the Europeans and let us look at the ETSs that are going on elsewhere. But then those opposite would also say, 'If we have a carbon price, that's the end of jobs in regional Australia. That's the end of jobs in the energy intensive industries.'

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

With all our economic modelling we rely on facts.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

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

The member for Bradfield will remain silent.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not rely on scaring people into power. The economic modelling showed that we will grow. We will talk about pensioners. Those opposite have been saying that pensioners are vulnerable.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

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

I have just asked the member for Bradfield to assist me by remaining silent.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I predict there will be generous permanent assistance for those. They even tried to scare us about housing prices going up $6,000. What a gross exagg­eration! But we come to the biggies. Talking about big numbers, let us talk about the $10 billion that those opposite would give the large polluting companies as their fig leaf to acting on climate change. What a clever plan: take money from the taxpayer and give it to the big polluters. Why didn't we think of that? Because it is a bad idea. But what the opposition would do goes further, so they can undermine the Australian economy. Those opposite are Inquisition monks and burners of books.

Opposition members interjecting—

Well, your leader has rubbished the economists and the scientists. Those opposite have rubbished Australian economists. Indeed, if you look at their $10 billion plan to spend taxes rewarding big polluters—why didn't we think of that idea?—no serious business leader or economist has come out and backed it. When the Leader of the Opposition jumped up over the trench with that ill-thought-out fig leaf of an economic idea, he looked around and saw no-one was behind him. But I think the fundamental issue, going back to the shadow Treasurer's proposition about economic confidence, is that those opposite would rely on threat to give them purpose.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

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

I warn the honourable member for Bradfield!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me repeat that: they rely on threat to give them political purpose whereas we rely on hope to give political purpose. They rely on conservatism to give them purpose whereas we rely on innovation. We do not accept the proposition that industries in Australian agriculture, mining and manufacturing, the service industries and this nation lack innovation and lack the capacity to change. You opposite rely on fear; we rely on optimism. You opposite rely on hostility; we rely on hope. We understand that the future is not something to be frightened of. Those opposite think that the future is something to be frightened of. Instead of talking down the Australian economy, instead of talking down small business, instead of talking down the capacity of Australian business, perhaps you should engage in a process of change.

We on this side of the House understand that the world will not stand still for Australia. We understand that Asia has re-emerged as an economic powerhouse. We understand that we are living longer than ever before. We understand the importance of digital information. We understand the need to have a sustainable climate and a sustainable economy for not just our gener­ation but our children and our grandchildren. We also understand that we need to develop new jobs in Australia and not just rely upon existing jobs. We understand that the world will change. Whoever is in power, the forces I have just enumerated will apply even if those opposite were members of the government, which will be a long time coming, thank goodness.

We understand these forces are at work and we are not going to shirk the task of change. How easy would it be to hop into the hammock of economic and political conservatism and say, 'No change'. How easy would it be to turn back the clock and say that Australia does not need to change. What a lazy economic prescription that provides no hope for the future.

To return to where I started, if we are going to have a debate on confidence, let us look at what is really happening in the Australian economy; let us look at what is happening in the world. Our prescription for the future we have already seen working out. Since Labor was elected in 2007, 740,000 new jobs have been created. In the last 12 months Labor has been in government and we have seen the enablement of 258,000 new jobs. At the end of the day, it is the scoreboard that counts.

We are the party of hope. We accept that the future is happening. There is just one choice: do you let the future run over the top of you, or do you say that the future is not something to be frightened of, that we are a country and a nation capable enough to move and anticipate change? Those who would say to you, 'Stay as we are,' are dangerous because they have no capacity to anticipate and manage the future. It is happening, whether or not they like it. (Time expired)

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is fascinating to sit in the chamber and listen to the Assistant Treasurer talk about how the Labor Party is the party of hope. It is fascinating to stay in the chamber and hear about how the Labor Party espouses a policy that looks to the future with confidence, that recognises that our best days lay ahead of us. If you actually took on board what the Assistant Treasurer had to say, you would think that maybe the Labor Party offered the people of Australia some real alternatives. But the reality is that, consistent with Labor Party policy, every step of every day when it comes to swapping their positions on policy, what we heard from the Assistant Treasurer today was yet another example of saying one thing but doing something completely opposite.

I turn my mind to an article that was published in the Australian on 26 March 2011 which contained the most recent speaking points from the Labor Party organisation and which went to every backbencher and every frontbencher on the Labor Party side. These were some of their talking points—let us call them the talking points of hope; let us call them the talking points of not making sure the Australian people are fearful but, rather, that the Australian people are inspired. Let us look at some of the gems they had that inspired the Australian people. There were talking points like:

Without action on climate change average temperatures across Australia could increase by between 2.2C and 5C by 2080. People in northern NSW will feel like they live in Cairns.

Without action on climate change the average snow season in Australia is expected to contract by between 85 and 96 per cent by 2050, and disappear by the end of the century.

No more snow in Australia. But these are not the politics of fear; these are the politics of hope and inspiration!

Without action, climate change is expected to reduce the value of irrigated agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin by 12 per cent in 2030 and 49 per cent by 2050.

And:

Temperature rises and population growth mean the number of heat-related deaths in our capital cities is expected to more than triple to between 4300 and 6300 a year by 2050.

What a great message of hope! What a great message of inspiration for the Australian people! The Assistant Treasurer is right: the Labor Party are not in a scare campaign; they are about a vision for the future. What absolute rubbish. That is the reason why the Australian people look upon the Labor Party and the Assistant Treasurer as complete and utter frauds. They are frauds in the same way that the Assistant Treasurer comes into this chamber and dares to lecture the coalition about engaging in the politics of hope but then voices and condones talking points like those I have mentioned. That is the reason why we will stand up to the Labor Party. That is the reason why we will reject every step of the way their ridiculous policy to make this country less competitive—a policy that, importantly, will do nothing to change the global environment and the global temperature.

But, importantly as well, this is a government that, entirely consistently, every day since it was first elected in 2007, has chopped and changed when it comes to policy. Let us cast our minds back to the 2007 election. Does everyone remember the hype about the Kevin 07 campaign? There were videos and YouTube advertisements, and there were television advertisements in which we saw a very earnest looking member for Griffith put his hands together and say: 'Are you concerned about the cost of living? So am I.' As part of that campaign what we saw from the member for Griffith on behalf of everyone in the Labor Party was a resolute promise to do something about the cost of living. The tag line that the Labor Party used—it is on YouTube; I would encourage people to have a look at it if you want to kill a minute of your life—was, 'If the economy is doing so well, why aren't we?'

That was four years ago that the Labor Party campaigned on doing something about the cost of living. Who can remember the centrepiece of their policies? Fuelwatch—to bring down the price of fuel. GroceryWatch—to bring down the price of groceries. What have we found over the last four years? We have seen that the Labor Party have forgotten all about the cost of living. They have completely forgotten about it in the same way that they have forgotten about the member for Griffith. They turned their back on GroceryWatch and they turned their back on Fuelwatch. Instead, we had a Deputy Prime Minister who, after promising that it was more likely that she would be a full forward for the Western Bulldogs, rose up only a matter of hours later and actually slit the throat of the member for Griffith and took over the leadership of the Australian Labor Party.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no stunning beforehand. It was a very savage killing, perhaps even worse than some of the worst examples that we have seen over the past couple of months. But, that notwithstanding, once again we saw the resolute earnestness of this new Prime Minister as she stood there and wrung her hands and said: 'I've got a great idea for the future. We'll have a people's congress on climate change. We'll get the best and the brightest in the country'—with visions of 2020 haunting us still. 'We'll get the best people in the country together and we'll develop a people's congress on how to deal with climate change.' But, oops, we have heard nothing about it since the election. This Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead' six days out from the federal election. Oops! The Labor Party have turned their backs on that as well. The Prime Minister also said, 'I can stop the boats, and I'll do it by getting a regional solution in East Timor.' That then became a regional solution in Papua New Guinea, which has now become the regional solution in Malaysia.

The Labor Party have turned their backs every step of the way, every single day, on the policies that they put forward. That is the reason the Australian people look at the Prime Minister and the Australian Labor Party and say: 'We have no confidence in your ability to lead. We have no confidence in what you say. We have no confidence in the direction in which you are going because, frankly, you are going around in circles. And we have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to take Australia forward with confid­ence into the future.' That is the reason there is crisis of confidence in this country when it comes to the direction and the policies of the Australian Labor Party.

This is the worst Labor government that this country has seen since before Whitlam. This is the worst Labor Party, in conjunction with the Greens, that has been inflicted on the Australian people, because this is a government that stands for nothing and believes in nothing. This is a government whose policies on the one hand claim to be full of promise but on the other—when we see leaked copies of their talking points—are actually all about neglect, fear, scare mongering and doing what they can to make sure that they berate the Australian people into backing their policies.

But the reality is that the Australian people know all about this government. They have got their measure; they have got their mark. They know that this Prime Minister is a complete fraud when it comes to policies and the words that she utters. That is the reason why, when it comes to this policy, the Australian people also know that Labor's great big new carbon tax will do nothing to make our environment better. When questions have been put to the Labor Party such as, 'If the parliament were to roll over and accept every single policy proposal that the Labor Party put forward, what impact would that have on Australia's environment and how quickly would that make a difference to saving the reef or the rainforests?' of course we get no answers. We get no answers because we only contribute 1.5 per cent of global emissions. So, even if we were to jeopardise our economic future by adopting this ridiculous new carbon tax that the Labor Party is implementing, it will do nothing to change the global climate and that in turn will do nothing to make sure that, like Labor's talking points, there are fewer bushfires, fewer droughts, fewer floods and better and more fertile land. That is precisely the reason that people laugh now when the Australian Labor Party claim to be sincere.

Less than 24 hours ago we saw the Treasurer of this country claim that, through the carbon tax, Australia would be taxing 'up to 1,000 companies' and then try to justify the inclusion of those words 'up to' as though that somehow demonstrated that it was okay that that figure had now been halved. In the same way, we could say that Australia's debt level under the Labor Party is now up to $200 billion. Sure, it might actually be $107 billion but $200 billion is near enough! The reality is that this Treasurer has no idea in which policy direction this country is going, and the reason for that is that the Prime Minister herself has no idea about the policy direction of this government.

Although there might be a little bit of money splashing around, it has very little to do with the economic management of this government—rather, it is because of China. Although there might be a little bit of money splashing around in the Australian economy than there is elsewhere, there is no confid­ence in this government, no confidence in the policies of this government, no confid­ence in the direction of this Prime Minister and fundamentally no confidence in the Australian Labor Party to do anything to help lead this country into a better future. (Time expired)

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor's policy on climate change is grounded on three simple facts: (1) Australia is the largest per capita polluter of carbon in the developed world; (2) climate change is real; and (3) the market mechanism is the most efficient way of dealing with dangerous climate change. What is striking about what the member for Moncrieff likes to say about this is that Australia's emissions should not be taken into account; Australia cannot do anything about dangerous climate change. He neglects the fact that Australia's per capita emissions are the highest in the developed world. And what is particularly striking about the comments of the member for Moncrieff is that the coalition themselves are committed to a five per cent reduction by 2020. It is odd, isn't it? You would think if the member for Moncrieff really believed what he was saying, he would be arguing that Australia should not do anything and that the Liberal Party should walk away from the bipartisan emissions target. But he is not saying that. He just thinks that we should get to that target in a very inefficient way. That is the coalition's policy. By contrast, Labor recog­nises that we want to reduce pollution using market mechanisms. Business needs certain­ty, big polluters should be taxed and families deserve appropriate assistance. So our pack­age targets the big polluters. It provides assistance to nine out of 10 households and it will cut 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution by 2020.

The Leader of the Opposition has gone into interesting territory in recent weeks. He has been repeatedly asked to name a single economist who will back him up, and he cannot name one. He cannot name a single economist who will back him. I have put that question to the member for Moncrieff from time to time and he will sort of shrug his shoulders and wriggle a little. But the Leader of the Opposition has decided he is going to come out punching on this. He said last week: 'maybe that is a comment on the quality of our economists'. Professor Joshua Gans, my good friend and co-author, who won the Economics Society of Australia award for the best Australian economist under the age of 40, put it best on his blog when he said: 'maybe that's a comment on the quality of our opposition leaders'.

You might well think, if you were to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, that he is talking about just Australian economists. There is something specific about the Australian economics profession. But as Professor John Quiggin pointed out in the Australian Financial Review today, overseas economists are just as hostile to the sort of voodoo economics that the coalition would have you believe in. John Quiggin reminds us that Greg Mankiw, George Bush's chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, estab­lished the Pigou Club dedicated to the notion that appropriate corrective taxes are the best way of dealing with environmental chall­enges. Who are the radical, low-quality economists that have signed up to the Pigou Club? There is Gary Becker, Paul Krugman, William Nordhaus, Kenneth Rogoff, Larry Summers. You would expect maybe there is a 'No Pigou Club' to go up against it. Well, actually there is not. Someone tried to form one and it turned out that they could not find any members for it.

Then you might think—and we have been making this claim a little—that the opposit­ion's policy would have some supporters among command and control economies. We have been suggesting that their climate change is effectively Moscow on the Molonglo. The sad thing is I think we now have to withdraw that claim. Even in China, as John Quiggin points out, where central planning is still very much in vogue, the Chinese Communist Party's 12th five-year plan, the one that will run from 2011 to 2015, includes market mechanisms to deal with dangerous climate change. The Chinese, with all their central planning, are far more pro-market than is the current opposition.

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has been hitting up businesses left, right and centre with his mobile scare campaign. This is a man who is pulling more stunts than Jim Rose. The great stuntman of Australian politics has been inflicting much of this misinformation upon my own constituents. That is the great cost of things. He has been taking his mobile scare campaign to some of the local businesses near this House. He went to David Smash Repairs in Queanbeyan and said that they would face substantial costs and substantial job losses. It is a little hard to see exactly how this is going to eventuate. They are a smash repairer. They fix people's cars. Are we going to be sending cars overseas to get fixed under an emissions trading scheme? I do not think so.

Of course, there is generous household assistance. This is exactly the sort of thing that the household assistance is for. More than half the carbon price revenue raised from big polluters will go to households to cover the very small price impacts.

The Leader of the Opposition then went to Ziggy's Garden Fresh in the Belconnen Markets. He walked around there telling any shopper who would listen to him that food and grocery prices were going up under a carbon pricing regime. We can go to CPRS modelling. What does it say about the impact of the former Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on fresh food prices? It suggests the impact would have been 0.6 per cent. Let us take a kilogram of apples or oranges. That means that the price impact would have been less than 2c. A kilo of broccoli would have been 3.5c. Once we take into account household assistance, many households will be well ahead under the carbon pricing package. They will not, however, be well ahead under the Leader of the Opposition's 'subsidies for polluters' policy. As the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition's subsidies for polluters policy would cost an average family $720 a year which is, if you want to talk Ziggy's Garden Fresh numbers, 241 kilos of apples.

The Leader of the Opposition then took his mobile scare campaign to Capital Doorworks, a business owned by a former Liberal Party political candidate in the ACT. The Leader of the Opposition then began his scare campaign suggesting the price of doors would go up as a result of carbon pricing. Capital Doorworks is, I can assure the House, not one of the businesses to which carbon pricing will apply. Treasury modell­ing suggests that the prices of products such as those sold by Capital Doorworks would rise by 0.7 per cent under the former Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the government will provide generous assistance to deal with price impacts.

The Leader of the Opposition has been taking his mobile stunt campaign, his Jim Rose campaign, to Visy. He has visited a number of Visy plants, claiming that there will be massive impacts on Visy's business. Of course, he always neglects to mention the industry assistance that will be provided. Under the former CPRS, 94.5 per cent shielding from the carbon price would mean an impact of just $1 per tonne of product. Put another way, if you had enough boxes to hold 3,000 pizzas, the cost impact under the former CPRS would be $1. I think the household assistance will well and truly cover that.

It is very difficult to know the position of the Leader of the Opposition on this because he did write in Battlelines:

The Howard government had a preference for market mechanisms because these are generally most conducive to maximising choice.

A government member: He was right.

He was right, as my colleague points out. The Leader of the Opposition also wrote:

The Howard Government ... proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost.

That leaves me with a dilemma. This was written down by the Leader of the Opposition in Battlelines and the most recent claims were things that he said. So, given the guidance that the Leader of the Opposition gave us in the last election campaign, I suppose we should probably favour the things that are written down. But then he sends out press releases as well. I am a bit confused by that because it is something he said but it is written down. Do I believe this or do I believe the book because it has a nice solid binding around the outside?

Frankly, the Leader of the Opposition is all scare and no facts in this debate. The carbon pricing scheme is the right scheme to deal with dangerous climate change. We will provide appropriate household assistance and Australia has a bright future ahead of us under a carbon pricing regime. (Time expired)

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance in the House today because we have a crisis of confidence in our local economy. We have a crisis in business confidence and we have a crisis in consumer confidence. In the small business sector we are seeing sales collapse, we are seeing businesses closing, we are seeing people walking out on their life's work, we are seeing buildings left vacant and we have got the carbon tax driving this uncertainty. We have got business people saying that these are the worst business conditions in living memory.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House the words of Howard Morrison, a very competent business man who runs a shop called Morrisons Electrical Mega Store in Coffs Harbour in my electorate. The Morrisons have been in retailing for three generations and operate a very good outlet. Howard and his son Garth run a very good operation. Howard said: 'On the home front, interest rates, fuel, food and electricity are all up about 30 per cent. If you are still on your feet, the knockout blow in the form of the carbon tax is on the way.' I think that is what a lot of small business people are thinking: the knockout blow is on the way. They are hanging on by their fingernails. They are facing rising costs of business operation at the same time their sales are falling and this government, because it does not understand business, particularly small business, is ignorant of that fact and is introducing a carbon tax at a time when the small business sector can least afford it.

I was interested to see the member for Lyne out in the media on 1 July after we saw an 18 per cent increase in electricity prices being levied by the local electricity distrib­uter on the North Coast. It is not a small price rise by any stretch of the imagination and the pizza shop to which the previous member referred would certainly be reeling from an 18 per cent increase in their electricity bill. The member for Lyne was letting the electorate know how outrageous this 18 per cent increase in electricity is—quite rightly so, it is an outrageous increase. But I ask the member for Lyne: if you have just highlighted to your electorate the difficulties they face as a result of an 18 per cent increase in electricity prices, why would you make the situation worse? Why would you add to that difficulty?

We have a situation in his electorate on the North Coast where we have seen tourism slow because of the high Aussie dollar, we have seen rapid increases in the cost of living eroding the spending power of local families, and we see the property sector is very slow at this time. The member for Lyne is going to be effectively legislating to put greater cost imposts on the small businesses he is representing. Businesses in his electorate are suffering and households are suffering, yet he is prepared to come into this House and advocate against the interests of those households and against the interests of those businesses.

When I speak to national chains they actually tell me that business conditions are difficult out there, but they are particularly difficult on the North Coast. Their North Coast outlets are underperforming some of their other national outlets. We do not have a mining industry driving our economy. We depend on small business. We depend on the property sector. We depend on the health and education sectors. We have an economy that is very much locally focussed without many large employers and we need to support our small business sector. This carbon tax is going to hit our small business sector very hard indeed.

I think the very simple action that the people of Lyne are asking for, as they are in the electorate of Cowper and as they are in the electorate of Page, is to oppose this tax. They are saying: 'We are struggling. As business people we are barely hanging on. Don't give us another impost at this time.' You can have all the arguments you like about the environmental benefits of one approach or another to the issue of carbon pollution, or the increase in carbon dioxide levels, but the bottom line is that small business cannot take any more pain.

I do not know what the member for Lyne is going to say to the people who have been forced to walk out of their business as a result of the new carbon tax coming in. I do not know what he is going to say to the people who cannot afford to turn their lights on at night because of the carbon tax. I do not know what he is going to say to the young job seeker for whom employment opportunities are extremely limited and who walks around the streets of Port Macquarie or Taree handing resumes over the counter to local businesses only to hear that they are actually putting off staff and cannot afford to hire any more staff. What is the member for Lyne going to say to those people? They need his help to stand up for them in this place and ensure that small businesses, a major generator of employment in his electorate, is not further burdened by price rises. They are looking to their local member to protect them from this tax. They are looking to their local member to support them. Local businessmen are looking for help from their local member and they have enunciated to me that they are not getting that help. As a result of that, the state member for Port Macquarie has actually invited the Nationals to Port Macquarie to talk with local businesses who feel let down by their federal member.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's a very good member.

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

Leslie Williams, the member for Port Macquarie, is a very good member. It is interesting to note that the New South Wales Business Chamber put out a press release on 5 July entitled 'NSW Business Chamber launches carbon tax campaign in Oakeshott and Windsor electorates.' This is not a personal campaign. It goes on to say:

This is a campaign about an issue that will impact the competitive position of most small business.

It goes on further to say:

Australia’s capacity to compete internationally is currently impacted by a very high Australian dollar, relatively high interest rates, relatively high fixed wages, relatively high taxes and by our geographic isolation leading to relatively higher transport costs.

… the NSW Business Chamber would continue to consult its members in New England and the Mid North Coast to see what form the campaign will take in the coming weeks and months.

They are very concerned. They do not undertake a campaign like this lightly. They undertake this campaign because they feel that their voice is not being heard and that their members' voices have not been heard by the local federal representative. So I hope the member for Lyne will heed the words of the New South Wales Business Chamber. I hope he will heed the words of small business, who are saying: 'I've got a life's work here swinging in the balance. I've mortgaged my house to capitalise my business, and I can't pay the rent at the moment. My costs are going up, and I don't want to see my electricity prices go up at a time when my turnover is falling, at a time when my motel units are empty,' or 'when there is no-one coming into my shop.' It is a real problem, and it is not one that is going to go away any time soon. For all of us in the House, it is a problem about which our constituents are looking to us for support.

There are two options here. We can continue with this misguided strategy of driving up business costs, driving down confidence and driving away opportunities for young people, or we can do the right thing—and that is to abandon this tax, abandon a tax that has destroyed confidence, abandon a tax that is going to make our businesses less competitive internationally, abandon a tax that is going to make it more difficult for small business to survive. It is a very stark choice.

I hope that the member for Lyne will see the light. I hope that he will listen to his small businesses. I ask him to walk down the main street of Port Macquarie, go into businesses and ask them how they are travelling, ask them how they are dealing with increases in costs, ask them what their strategy is for the future, ask them what they are going to do when they lose their house as a result of the business failing and ask them what it is like to be operating a business surrounded by vacant shops. It is an incred­ible problem that small business is facing at the moment. It is a problem that is getting worse and worse. People out there in our electorates are looking to us in this place to do the best we can to support them and to make business conditions just as strong as they can be from a federal perspective, but unfortunately it is a call for help that is falling on deaf ears amongst the members opposite and amongst the Independents. So I call on the member for Lyne and the member for New England to do the right thing and support their electorates, support small business and abandon this carbon tax. (Time expired)

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

Order! The discussion is now concluded.