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

I have received a letter from the Leader of the Nationals proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The adverse effect of the carbon tax on Australia's economic prospects.

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—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Prime Minister announced Labor's big carbon tax, she said she was going to wear out the shoe leather crossing the country to explain it to the Australian people. Well, it only took a few days and she has given it away. She did not have to dig too deep into Imelda Marcos's collection of shoes; I suspect the only pair she wore is still good to go to the ball. She is running away. She could not explain the carbon tax to the ordinary Australian people, and she has been unable to explain it to the Australian people in the parliament today. She could not explain how an $83 compensation payment would keep the Central Queensland helicopter service in the air when their extra bills were $20,000. She could not explain yesterday why someone with a factory had to pay a half a million dollars to buy permits for just one tonne of extra CO2 emissions. She could not explain why she has a tax that is going to raise $30 billion over three years and yet end up with a $7 billion deficit arising from it, including $2.9 billion this year before the tax has even started. This is the calibre of this tax. This is the calibre of this government and the way in which it has endeavoured to sell this policy.

Labor's proposed carbon tax is a veritable birthday cake full of anomalies and contradictions. It is a carbon tax that looks like the camel designed by the committee that it is. There is a piece in it for everybody but it in fact delivers nothing for the Australian people. Labor says that the tax is designed to increase the cost of the things that we do so we will do them less and therefore we will save carbon dioxide emissions. Yet it then turns around and says, 'We'll pay compensation to people so that they won't be hurt by the changes.' So why, therefore, should they change their behaviour? The basic philosophy of this tax is flawed. It cannot possibly work to reduce CO2 emissions, because it seeks to compensate for the penalties that might be incurred by ordinary householders. But it certainly does not compensate Australians who are going to lose their jobs.

Indeed, the document the government sent out to everybody explaining the carbon price—because the Prime Minister had not been able to do it one-to-one, she spent taxpayers' money to send out this document—makes it absolutely clear that jobs will be lost. It makes it absolutely clear that there will be damage to the Australian people. Indeed, in this 20-page document, only three pages are actually spent explaining the carbon tax. The whole of the rest of the document talks about compensation and what people are going to be paid. At the end of the line, it says 'On average, basically people will be 20c a week better off'—20c a week better off. A government that cannot get its billions right is suggesting that people should trust them when they say that they will be 20c a week better off.

Of course, the modelling was done on the wrong numbers. The modelling was done on $20 a tonne when the tax starts at $23 and goes up to $29, and then to $130 by 2050. The Australian people have been defrauded by this document because it simply does not tell the truth. Indeed, I am not sure that the government have all that much confidence in it either, because on page 3, right at the beginning and under the table of contents, it says:

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the content of this publication.

So they have spent $4 million sending it out to the Australian people, but the government do not necessarily endorse the contents. How much confidence do they have in the scheme that they and their committee have designed?

This is a tax that is full of anomalies, and we are hearing about them day by day. A more efficient road network helps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from trucks and motor vehicles, but the carbon tax will increase road construction costs by at least five per cent. That is going to add millions of dollars to the cost of completing the Pacific Highway and hundreds of millions of dollars to undertake the infrastructure projects that could actually achieve reductions in CO2 emissions That means many of these projects simply will not be built at all. Council rates will have to rise because the cost of building their roads, disposing of their garbage and doing all the sorts of things that councils are expected to do in their local communities will go up.

If Queensland sugar is shipped from Mackay to Melbourne, it will incur a carbon tax. But, if the sugar is imported from Thailand or Brazil, it will not, even though the carbon footprint for the Thai or Brazilian sugar and its transport costs will be very much higher. What kind of an incentive is that for Australian industry?

If you fly to Tasmania, Cairns or the Sunshine Coast for your holiday, you will pay a carbon tax. But if you go to Vanuatu, the USA or Fiji you will not. What kind of message does that send to Australia's struggling tourism industry? An airline in Asia will not pay the carbon tax, but an airline in Australia will. Is it any wonder that Qantas is looking to expand into Asia? No Asian country is proposing a carbon tax like this, but their operations in Australia will be taxed. Indeed, airline operators, particularly in regional communities, are very concerned about their capacity to continue those services. Rex have already identified eight routes that they believe they will not be able to continue once this tax is in place. The knock-on effect of the carbon tax will penalise everybody who wants to holiday in Australia. There will be higher taxes on top of a higher dollar. Now is most certainly not the time to impose this extra burden on tourism in Australia.

Let us turn to another area: motor vehicles. If you buy an imported car under Labor's tax you will not be paying the carbon tax, either on its manufacture or for the transport to Australia. But if you buy an Australian made Holden, Falcon or even a hybrid Toyota you will pay the tax. The car manufacturers have said the cost of building a car in Australia will go up on average by $400, a further disadvantage and a further difficulty in trying to keep the Australian car industry strong and viable.

The government says that it wants to reduce carbon emissions from motor vehicles. Indeed, in this booklet they say that the carbon tax will have the benefit of removing the equivalent of 45 million motor vehicles from the roads. Australia does not have 45 million motor vehicles; we only have 16 million. Where are the rest coming from? What roads are we taking them off? The government claim in the booklet that they sent to the Australian people that they are going to take 45 million vehicles off the roads—not Australian roads, because we only have 16 million vehicles. That is typical of the nonsense that this government is going on with. As we heard in question time today, if you take a bus, train or ferry to work you will pay a carbon tax on the fuel, but if you drive your own car to work you will not—except, of course, if it is an electric car. Then you will pay the tax. What is the sense in that? Are we really trying to reduce emissions or are we not? The New South Wales government has estimated that it will add $150 to the cost of public transport fares in that state.

If you buy New Zealand butter, canned Thai pineapples or Brazilian juice concentrate you will not pay a carbon tax, but if you buy a product of Australia you will. How much do we care about our own industry? The Australian Food and Grocery Council tells us to expect grocery bills to go up on average by five per cent.

One of the government's other great anomalies—a nonsense in their carbon tax, and very much the centrepiece—is their determination to close down Australia's coal fired power stations. Coal fired power stations have given this country a strategic advantage. Our low-cost electricity has enabled us to attract industry from around the world. But the government say 90 per cent of these stations have to close by 2050. The Greens will not let us use gas either, so somehow or another we have to find some other way to produce our electricity. Yet the government insist that coal exports are going to double between now and 2050. Those coal exports will go to other countries so that they can build more coal fired power stations. For some reason or other Australian coal fired power stations, some of the most efficient in the world, have to close because they are environmentally evil, but it is quite okay for China and India to build hundreds more coal fired power stations and use our very own coal. We are exporting our strategic advantage, hurting Australia and doing absolutely nothing for the environment. This policy makes absolutely no sense.

During the break, I visited the Sunstate Cement facility at the Port of Brisbane. Australia's cement production is a world leader in low greenhouse gas emissions. When you factor in transport, it delivers the lowest possible CO2 emissions for cement used in this country. It is a clean industry, but it is going to cop—as a result of this tax—direct emissions costs, higher electricity costs, higher fuel costs for shipping, higher fuel costs for heavy vehicle use. Its inputs are going to be more expensive. The lime industry faces a crisis. The Thais are already setting up facilities to export lime to Australia because high energy costs are involved in cement manufacture. None of our competitors will face these costs. Cement manufacture in Australia will eventually close, and we will then have to import our cement from countries like China where the emissions are at least 25 per cent higher than they are in this country. We will be destroying Australian jobs, but nothing will be delivered for the environment. Indeed, emissions will actually go up—there will be higher emissions—as a result of Labor's tax. None of this makes any sense whatsoever.

Tomorrow the state premiers are coming to Canberra to talk about the carbon tax. The New South Wales Premier, the Victorian Premier and the Western Australian Premier have made it absolutely clear that they are coming here to tell the Prime Minister that they do not want a carbon tax. They know it is going to cost jobs in their states and it is going to increase living costs for the people who live in their states. They know that state services are going to cost a lot more: $100 million extra to run the hospitals, $57 extra in electricity costs for every student in their schools, a five per cent increase in road building costs, $150 extra for transport costs. They know the carbon tax is bad for this country.

It will be very interesting to hear what the Labor premiers say when they come to Canberra tomorrow. The Tasmanian Labor Premier, Lara Giddings, said on 7 March:

You'd have your head in the sand to say there aren't going to be cost-of-living increases … That's not fair.'

Now is the chance for the Tasmanian Premier to stand up for Tasmanians. She knows this tax is unfair. She must say it tomorrow and join the premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia in opposing this tax. The Northern Territory Labor government passed a resolution through the parliament on 4 May calling on:

… the Australian government to exempt the Northern Territory from the proposed carbon emissions taxes for at least 50 years …

When the Northern Territory Chief Minister comes to Canberra he must tell the Prime Minister that this tax is no good for Territorians. They want to be exempt for 50 years.

What is the Queensland Premier going to say? She made it clear on 22 May that she was going to look at the detail and make a decision about what is best for Queensland. What is best for Queensland? This tax hurts Queenslanders, pro rata, more than any other state. They will lose $250 billion worth of income. It is Queensland where the coalmines will be most affected. It is Queensland that has a large part of the manufacturing and minerals processing sector. Queensland will be badly hurt as a result of this tax. The Queensland Treasurer is demanding $1.7 billion worth of compensation for their power stations alone. This is the opportunity for the Queensland Premier to stand up for Queensland—not just to mouth the Labor rhetoric and run the Prime Minister's empty lines, not to get into her unworn-out shoes but to actually do something constructive for Queensland.

But there is another premier that I would like to quote—a former premier. The former New South Wales Labor Premier Morris Iemma, when he commented on this carbon tax, said:

... it won't change the world, but it could change the government.

Let's hope it changes the government, and changes it quickly, to save our country from this insidious tax which will cost jobs and do nothing for the environment.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This must be a very exciting day for the member for Wide Bay. It is a chance for him to relive his moment in the sun while the Leader of the Opposition was away on holiday last week, when we had commentary from the member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the National Party, on Australia's economic prospects. We had a little bit more today from the member for Wide Bay on his ideas about Australia's economic prospects.

We have just heard from the Leader of the National Party exactly the same lines as he was using when he was the acting Leader of the Opposition last week, when he and the shadow Treasurer tag-teamed in their hyperbolic rhetoric to try and convince the Australian public that Australia's economy is like that of Greece. That is right; that is what the Leader of the National Party would have had us believe last week. We are like Greece, where the economic situation is so dire that it has shocked the world. Greece is a country that was so deeply in debt that it was at risk of immediate default—a country that the International Monetary Fund and the European Union had to step in to bail out. It is a country that has had widespread rioting in the streets as a result of budget cuts their government put in place to scale back the debt.

That was what we heard from the Leader of the National Party last week. He compared our country to Greece, showing that he is only too happy to talk down the Australian economy and only too happy to talk down our prospects into the future. He is only too happy to falsely raise alarm and concern, and undermine the confidence in the Australian economy. Today we have again witnessed the spectacle of the no, no, no campaign, which is what we hear constantly from the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party, as they use the Australian parliament to again talk the Australian economy down. I am more than happy, however, to talk about the impact that the government's carbon price package will have on the Australian economy. It is a major reform that will prepare our economy for a clean energy future.

First, however, I wish to correct the Leader of the National Party on one small point: his suggestion that the Prime Minister has done anything other than criss-cross the country to go to every state and territory to explain the carbon price. He seems to have forgotten that the Prime Minister, just to name a few places, was in Townsville talking about our carbon price package, in the Latrobe Valley talking to workers—indeed the Prime Minister mentioned this in question time, earlier, when she spoke about the contract for closure, which is part of the carbon price package—and just last week in Esperance, Perth and other locations in Western Australia before returning from the winter recess, which she, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, has spent talking to the Australian people about the carbon price package.

It is also a bit ironic that we have had, just a couple of days after the Leader of the Opposition reportedly and somewhat laughably said that we needed to keep the political debate civil—you would have to laugh at this Leader of the Opposition saying that the political debate needs to be kept civil—the member for Indi, a frontbencher for the opposition, going to tell a group of protesters to maintain the rage. Far from keeping the debate calm, what we have seen today from the Leader of the National Party is anything but calm. We have heard from him nothing that in any way touched on the reason for a carbon price policy—nothing that touched on the reason for taking action on climate change at all. Instead we have had more misrepresentation, more whipping up of fear and more of the same no, no, no type of campaign—and not a word about the need for effective policy.

We say that climate change is a global problem. It is a problem of the most severe kind—an environmental problem confronting not only Australia but the planet. It is one that needs to be grappled with by cutting carbon emissions. Although one would not know it from listening to the Leader of the National Party here today or listening to the member for Flinders, the shadow spokesman on climate change, the Liberal Party and the National Party in this parliament have a bipartisan agreement with the government, which is to cut Australia's carbon emissions by five per cent from 2000 levels by 2020.

I see some of the climate change deniers sitting on the other side of the chamber, including the member for Dawson, who actually does not want to take any action on climate change. That is part of the problem that the Liberal and National parties have—they have among their number those who do not even agree with the pathetic inaction policy that the Liberal and National parties are presently supporting. Nothing at all is ever said by those opposite about why we are dealing with this problem and why they, at least on paper, agree that there is a need for action. I will repeat it: the policy of the Liberal Party and the policy of the National Party is to cut Australia's emissions by five per cent of 2000 levels by 2020. In doing so Australia will be at least going some way down the track towards doing our fair share to deal with this global problem.

The Liberal and National parties are turning their backs on the future. They are turning their backs on the opportunities that are presented to Australia, opportunities that have been grasped by other countries around the world, opportunities to participate in the economy of the 21st century—not the economy of the mid-20th century or of the 19th century but the economy of the 21st century, which will be a low-carbon economy. It will be one in which countries that favour and promote low-carbon, low-emitting industries will prosper. Those who wish to see us stuck in the industries of the 20th century, let alone those of the 19th century, will see our country flounder. The Liberal and National parties have adopted a position which would be the equivalent of saying to tradespeople in the 1920s that they should not learn new skills as car mechanics but, rather, stay as blacksmiths and carriage makers.

We wish our country to compete in the 21st century, not have our ecenomy frozen in the mid-20th century. That is why the Prime Minister said earlier today in question time that our economic future will be strengthened by the Clean Energy Future plan. Our economic future will be strengthened by guiding Australia to the economy of the 21st century, which is a low-carbon economy. Countries which are developing low-carbon, low-emissions industries and services are the countries which will be leading the world in coming decades. The United Kingdom has recognised this. Germany has recognised this. Other countries around the world have recognised this. We say it is simply wrong to think of the carbon price package and our Clean Energy Future plan, as it appears those on the other side do, as a trade-off between the environment and the economy. A carbon price will help us take advantage of the great opportunities that lie ahead as the world moves to cut its carbon pollution.

Just to give an idea of the extent of these opportunities, the low-carbon goods and services sector is estimated to be worth about $4.8 trillion globally and to employ 28 million people. It is a sector that is growing at four per cent a year and is expected to continue to accelerate. I will just quote someone who, on any view, comes from the inner ranks of business, Richard Lambert, who was recently in this country and also in New Zealand and is the former Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry. I heard him speak, and this is one of the things he said while he was here in July:

Taking carbon out of the atmosphere will require a whole bunch of new products and services to be developed, which will drive innovation and create new jobs and investment.

That's why companies like GE, Siemens, Jaguar Land Rover, Unilever and Marks and Spencer are not pushing back against carbon pricing policies. On the contrary, they understand that in the future they will need to be green to grow.

And that is, of course, why the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, wrote to our Prime Minister to congratulate Australia on the announcement of the Clean Energy Future plan on 10 July—because the British understand clearly that the future lies in adopting low-carbon processes; the future lies in putting a price on carbon.

But what do we have from those opposite? We have scare upon scare, misinformation upon misinformation. We have had more of the same from the Leader of the Nationals today. Extraordinarily, we had today in question time a question from the member for Flinders, who one would think from some of his past statements would know better, pushing what the Prime Minister rightly described as populist nonsense about the supposed problem of purchasing international carbon credits. This is the same member for Flinders who had supported, very directly, the purchasing of international carbon credits. As he said, a tonne of carbon is a tonne of carbon.

We are looking for the lowest abatement cost for Australia. We have had confirmed by economist after economist, by the International Monetary Fund, by the World Bank and by other countries that the cheapest and most effective means of lowering carbon pollution in this country is through an emissions trading scheme. That is why our policy has at its heart an emissions trading scheme. By contrast, the Liberal and National parties, having now said with their populist nonsense that they would not be purchasing international permits or carbon credits, have turned their backs on lowest cost abatement for Australia.

The planet is not concerned with where a tonne of emissions is reduced. The planet is concerned with an overall reduction of the amount of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The sooner those opposite begin to understand that that is the purpose of this policy, and that they need to have a policy that is capable of producing their supposed stated target, the quicker we will get to some level of rational debate in this country. The Liberal Party and the National Party, having ruled out the purchase of international carbon credits, are committing Australia to an on-budget cost that is vast—in the tens of billions of dollars. It would mean a cost of some $1,300 per household. It is a ridiculous way to proceed.

It is hard to believe that a party which supposedly prides itself on economic rationalism, which supposedly prides itself on a market approach to economic policy and which supposedly says that it does not like government picking winners and does not wish to have government throwing taxpayers' money at polluters has adopted a policy which does nothing other than that. Indeed, all economists have confirmed that the present inaction plan that the Liberal and National parties have is simply not capable of producing the emissions reductions that those parties have said they are signing up to.

We have had instead month after month of a scare campaign, month after month of nonsense from the Leader of the Opposition and nonsense from the Leader of the Nationals. We had the Leader of the Opposition out at a coalmine, which happened to be a Peabody mine, the day after the announcement of our carbon price plan and, embarrassingly, he said:

… the carbon tax is going to damage the coal industry … badly damage the coal industry … prejudice further investment in the coal industry …

And so on. I say 'embarrassingly' because the same afternoon Peabody, an American coal producer, announced a $4.7 billion bid for Macarthur Coal, and some three weeks after that we had Rio Tinto launching a $10.6 billion bid for Coal and Allied—hardly the sign of an industry that is under threat. It is hardly the sign of an industry that is supposedly so prejudiced by this modest carbon price that is going to be imposed from 1 July 2012—that is, next year.

In question time today we also heard questions from the member for Gippsland referring to events in the Latrobe Valley and seeking to suggest that foreshadowed lay-offs in the Latrobe Valley, foreshadowed as of now, are something to do with the carbon price that is yet to be introduced. We hear from those opposite—the dishonest members of the opposition—that, in the coming months, they will seek to attribute every single dismissal, every single lay-off, in whatever industry to the carbon price even before it is introduced. That is an indication of the approach that they have taken throughout this debate.

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

What an embarrassment that was. The member for Isaacs talked about confrontations. Perhaps his confrontation with the member for Indi was why he was so chastened and so unable to address the purpose of this MPI—and that was the adverse impact of the carbon tax on Australia's economic prospects. He sat there and obfuscated about different data and about his interpretation, but the common theme that runs through everything this Labor Party say is that they are right and everybody else is wrong. Apparently the Treasury in New South Wales, which the former Labor government was happy to rely upon, now cannot be relied upon when they do their analysis of the impact of the carbon tax on the New South Wales economy.

Some time ago the Victorian Treasury, happily reporting to Premier Brumby, a Labor Premier, were the oracle of all thoughts, all accuracy or any analysis you could possibly have on the impact of a government policy on Victoria. But now when material is released from the government of Victoria you cannot trust it. What is really interesting is that you could even go to the Treasurer's own words. There were a lot of people at the Council of Small Business of Australia summit recently who just about choked on their little cakes over morning tea when they reflected on what the Treasurer had to say. The Treasurer said:

... some of the best, most grounded information I get about conditions in our economy comes from our small businesses.

This is what the Treasurer was saying. He was playing to his audience. He was there knowing that, for years now, this Labor government has failed to take into account any serious consideration that small business has had, and this has again played out when it has come to this carbon tax. Small business is at the pointy end of the impact of this tax. But, with all the compensation and the carve-outs that the member for Isaacs is happy to talk about, what does small business get? What direct assistance do they get? Absolutely nothing. What they are told by this government is that they have got to either suck up the extra costs that come from this carbon tax or pass them on to their consumers.

What small businesses are telling me is that consumers are very worried about their household budgets. Businesses that rely on other businesses are very concerned about the cost of their inputs. They are in no mood to take on additional costs at a time when, through the actions of this appalling Labor government, consumer confidence is at a very low level. Survey after survey points to a lack of confidence in the business community, and forward indicators about investment intentions and growth and plan acquisitions and future employment levels are all looking very grim outside the mining sector. But do you think the Treasurer wants to hear any of that? If he is listening to small business—and I hope that he is—I have something that small business would like to pass on to him. Small businesses in the retail sector are doing it very tough at the moment. So anxious are they about government policy that we are seeing Australian households doing what the government should be doing—that is, being very frugal in their expenditure and saving around 11 per cent of their income because they are anxious and uncertain about what this incompetent government is going to do to them next. All they can be certain about is that it will not be doing anything that is helpful.

If you go to the small businesses in the retail sector, as the Australian Retailers Association said, they can give you an analysis of what the impact will be of this carbon tax. And what was their analysis? Be mindful that the Treasurer says that he listens, as the most grounded and useful information comes from small business. Well, I hope he listens to this: 85 per cent of the respondents in the retail sector believe the carbon tax will have a negative impact on their business, and 83 per cent believe that consumers will spend less. One-third of those in the retail sector anticipate that they will be forced to shed staff. They are the impacts in the retail sector of this carbon tax. What was most ironic is that the Treasurer started off by saying how he listens to small business and how sincerely he felt that. He was very sincere about getting such good advice from the small business community. If only he would listen to what small business has to say.

It is not just in the retail sector. Leading accountancy and business advisory firms like the Institute of Public Accountants have done their own work. Two-thirds of their clients said that there has not been enough consideration about the impact of the carbon tax on small business. Sixty-seven per cent think there is not enough information for small business to work out what the impact will actually be. One-third of them said that prospects for small business over the next 12 months are poor. They go on to say that the major sectors being affected—energy, manufacturing and construction and mining—are very anxious about the impact of this tax.

But what is interesting is when you then go to what the Treasurer has had to say: at that same COSBOA conference he actually said that retailers will be better off under the carbon tax. You should have heard the audience at that COSBOA summit. To quote John McEnroe after a bad line call, 'You can't be serious!' But the Treasurer was saying that this would be good for retail—let us put aside all the analysis and all the insights from the Australian Retailers Association, let us put aside the field of evidence as we walk down the main streets of our communities in this country and see shops close, and let us put aside the consistent survey results of any credible surveying firm from any source you care to point to that says retail is doing it hard and this is going to make it worse. This carbon tax is going to make retail, already in a difficult situation, even worse—but not according to Wayne Swan, not according to our Treasurer. In a bizarre twist, our Treasurer said that the government is doing such a good job in overcompensating people that people will race down to the shops and spend the extra windfall. That is what the Treasurer said. You could hear the jaws dropping at Homebush. People were sitting there thinking about what John McEnroe would say to the Treasurer: 'You can't be serious!'

It was the most extraordinary thing you have ever heard. And he went on to make the assertion that there would be such a minuscule impact on prices that consumers should not have to worry about it. But it gets worse: to try and keep up this fiction that the government run they have rolled out the ACCC. The Prime Minister has told the ACCC that if anyone puts their prices up by more than 0.7 per cent they will be charged with price gouging. What is this? Are we now stalking small businesses which—having been told nonsense by the government—actually speak frankly and honestly to their consumers that the price rises are more than 0.7 per cent as a result of a carbon tax, and so they risk a $1.1 million fine from the ACCC? What is going on with these guys?

This government is out of control. It cannot bring forward any meaningful analysis about the impact of its carbon tax on particular sectors, it cannot do it on any particular businesses and it cannot do it on any part of the economy, but it can do work to help Labor MPs sell it to the households in their electorates. The only analysis that has been released is stuff to enable Labor MPs—many of whom are in this place under false pretences after they gained votes in their electorates from a deceit by the Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—to run around telling households how good it is going to be for them.

Have they done any work on the impact on workplaces? No. Can they tell you which businesses will be passing on these costs and which ones will not? No. Can they tell you what the impact will be on particular sectors and industries, where those industries are going out and doing their own work, only to be abused by this Labor government for actually doing the analysis that the government should have been doing? No.

So what happens? Look at some of that analysis. In the great state of Victoria, in the two municipal areas of Frankston City and Mornington Peninsula Shire in my own electorate, figures were released by the Victorian government that show we will lose 1,000-plus jobs. Understanding the local economy, they are actually doing work on a geographical basis to see what the impact is. What happens then? The Victorian government then gets abused for doing that work. What is this government up to?

You cannot talk about the facts that others produce and argue that they are not right but not produce any information of your own. Everyone who is out there sees the field evidence of a carbon tax that builds and builds and builds at every stage of the production process and at every step of the supply chain, and for small businesses those supply chains are longer. They are going to have it building and building. Then the Prime Minister goes out there saying, 'Well, don't you put up your prices by more than 0.7 per cent. The ACCC will be after you with the threat of a $1.1 million fine.' The way that the government is going around verballing the business community, ignoring the small business community and talking absolute fiction about the impact of one of the largest carbon taxes on the planet, where most of the effort will be made by sending $3 billion offshore to buy the reductions from somewhere else, is outrageous. What a remarkable proposition.

This is worse than a placebo. A placebo actually has people thinking that something is going to happen, even though there is no active ingredient to bring about that change. This is worse because there is no active ingredient in the government's policy to bring about change, but the impact is disastrous. It is damaging, it is detrimental to the interests of this nation and our citizens, and the government and the Labor Party members do not seem to care a jot about it.

And now we have this ginger group, which says, 'We're really worried about the impact on our economy. We will go and have a gingerbread chat together and tell the minister we are really worried but do nothing to actually bring about change.' If the ginger group want to do something, come over here and vote with the coalition and axe this tax. (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that in all the hype and the confected outrage that goes on in this debate it is important for us to be able to go back clearly to why we are having to do the work we are in addressing climate change. Frankly, it is clear and without doubt that the activities of people over hundreds of years are contributing to the effect on and the change we are seeing in our environment.

It has been demonstrated quite clearly in the Climate Commission's work that was released earlier this year, The critical decade: a report from the commission. It is evident that the atmosphere itself is warming, the oceans are warming, ice is being lost, the icecaps are disappearing, sea levels are rising and the biological world is changing in response to a warming world. And here in Australia, with less than one degree of warming globally, the impacts are being felt.

In the last 50 years the number of record hot days in this country has more than doubled. In this year alone in Sydney, for instance, we saw something that we had not seen—certainly not in my living memory and not in that of many others—a week of above 40-degree temperatures. I emphasise that this spanned an entire week. These types of events are more likely to be repeated than ever before. For example, the flooding we have seen will occur on a more regular basis. Sea levels are rising and have risen 20 centimetres globally since the late 1800s, impacting many coastal communities, and there will be another 20-centimetre increase by 2050. At the current projections it is feasible that this would more than double the risk of coastal flooding. The Great Barrier Reef, which we hold up as a world environmental icon, has suffered from nine bleaching events in the past 31 years.

These things do not happen miraculously or overnight. They are the result of hundreds of years of environmental impact brought about by our own actions, and we are unable to turn this around quickly. But, certainly, failing to do anything is not a recipe to see a better life for the people who follow us. This is why both the government and the opposition recognise that we are required to cut the levels of pollution by five per cent by 2020. This is ironclad on both sides of politics: a requirement that we must cut pollution by five per cent by 2020.

Through the actions that we seek to take we will see 160 million tonnes of pollution cut out of our atmosphere as a result of our actions. I note that the honourable member for Wide Bay did pick up on the point that that is the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road but said, 'We don't have 45 million cars on the road in Australia.' He is right; we do not. We have 12 million cars on the road in Australia and we will through our actions have, in effect, the ability to take out the pollution of 45 million cars. We are doing it in a way that is bringing in major economic reform and we will see environmental benefits flow out of it.

But we have heard many say—and we have had again the honourable member for Wide Bay claim—that this would have major impacts. The member for Wide Bay quoted people from the transport sector or said that transport would be affected as well as other sectors. He mentioned airlines as well. Let us look at some quotes from people from within the industry. For instance, Linfox Logistics in a joint statement said:

Pricing carbon is critical to provide business certainty and unlocking the jobs and investment that will accompany the transition to a prosperous, cleaner and internationally-competitive economy.

As the costs of action are outweighed by the costs of delay the carbon price should be implemented as soon as possible.

That is straight from them. We heard about impacts on the airline industry and on Qantas in particular. Let me quote from someone else who is very active in our domestic airline sector, namely Sir Richard Branson, who said:

Too often I hear commentators describe the battle against climate change as though it's a choice between growth and reducing our carbon output. This is wrong. Many of the fast-growing businesses of the next decade will be in providing the fuels of the future and technologies to clean up and power our economies.

Indeed more than 50 per cent of today's carbon emissions can be profitably offset by technology that currently exists. The problem has been attracting and directing enough capital and talent to establish these technologies on a truly commercial basis.

That is exactly what we are trying to do by putting a price on pollution and creating a commercial incentive for those people who want to be able to bring in technology that is cleaner and has less impact on the environment.

The Australian Automobile Association in its media statement, I might point out, indicated that the carbon pricing package got it right in placing no extra financial burdens on Australian motorists. They said:

… it has been clarified that all fuels for light passenger vehicles will be exempt, and this is a good result for motorists.

The AAA congratulated the government on its efforts in terms of reducing carbon emissions.

That is what we want to do, but what do the opposition want? What they want is to effectively throw billions of dollars at polluters. Instead of taxing the highest polluters they want to throw money at them. As a result, we would have to see, as part of their direct action policy, trees planted over a surface area equivalent to five Tasmanias. They are going to find room to plant those trees. They have already, as has been indicated, said that there are all these areas that cannot be touched because of farming and ruled them out of the ridiculous debate that they have been engaged in between mining and farmers. They say one thing to one audience and another thing to someone else, but they are claiming that with their direct action policy, which will run out of puff 25 per cent of the way to trying to reach the five per cent target, they will be able to plant trees to get their way out of this, which is simply a farce.

There is this reliance on New South Wales as some sort of indicator of the impacts. The New South Wales government got a Frontier Economics study, dusted it off, handed it to Treasury and asked them to validate the figures. That is all that Treasury did. This was from a New South Wales government that said that a carbon price would cause a 20 per cent lift in electricity prices but then had to correct it under this very modelling to 15 per cent, when the reality is that it will be 10 per cent and it will be offset through the assistance that we provide. Who actually put this together? Frontier Economics founder Danny Price, who I remember at some point would actually back the coalition in providing some of its policies but, when asked whether or not he could with a straight face back the direct action plan, took a step backwards.

There is no economist in Australia, no plausible scientist, who would back the direct action plan. Name one. There is a simple challenge: name one economist who would say that what they are proposing is economically feasible. Yet the opposition come in here claiming that this carbon tax will have an economic impact. The minute an economist says, 'In fact, your plans aren't going to do much,' they go out and rustle up a posse, hunting down all economists and slagging them off in public, claiming that those economists have no idea what they are talking about and then come in here claiming that there will be some economic impact as a result of the response that is required in environmental change.

The thing that gets me the most is that, if it were that side of politics on this side of the chamber, they would be saying that this is a national challenge we have to respond to and going all out for it. It is more likely than not, as opposed to what they are doing now, that we would work with them just as we did in 2009. But, frankly, that side of politics has an elitist view that they are the only people who undertake national economic or environmental reform and that if anyone else dares to—if anyone else contemplates doing something of this scale—we are irresponsible in following that through. Frankly, on their side of politics, if they are not on this side of the chamber, the only aim they have is to wreck, to stop, to frustrate and to refuse reforms that are required for the benefit of this generation and those beyond.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been interesting to hear the chatterings of members opposite. I noticed the member for Chifley was talking about our policy. Our policy will reduce emissions without destroying the economy, without destroying jobs and without pushing emissions offshore. I can say confidently about Labor's policy, the policy that members opposite support, that it will destroy jobs, it will push emissions offshore and it will do nothing to save or help our environment. People who have known me for many years know that I have fought hard for the environment of my electorate. I have worked hard to secure and save Cumberland Plain Woodlands. I have fought hard to deliver a Western Sydney conservation corridor, which members opposite did not vote for or support. I stand here committed to the environment—with many of my coalition colleagues.

Today's matter of public importance debate is about the adverse effects that a carbon tax will have on Australia's economic prospects. In particular, I want to focus on New South Wales, my home state. In March this year the people of New South Wales voted out the worst state government in history. Even though Labor is out of power in New South Wales, federal Labor are still damaging our state's economic prospects with the decision to implement a carbon tax. A New South Wales Treasury review has found that the federal Labor government's carbon tax will cost the state at least 31,000 net jobs and deliver a $3.7 billion annual hit to the state's economy.

Despite the Prime Minister's desperate attempts to mislead this parliament today, I can confirm that the New South Wales modelling has been done on a carbon price of $23 per tonne and that the job losses are net amounts. The same review has found that electricity prices will be forced up by as much as $498 a year for households. Businesses will bear further increases of between $927 and $4,191 a year depending on their usage. Many of the local manufacturers in my electorate are telling me that these are low estimates and that they are anticipating much higher increases and hikes in their power bills. What they are saying to me is they will have to consider either cutting jobs or increasing prices. Either they raise the prices of whatever they are producing or somebody loses a job.

These figures demonstrate without a doubt that Labor does not need to hold power in Macquarie Street to cripple the New South Wales economy. The damaging decisions being made in Canberra are reaching into every home and business across this nation. According to the state's Premier, Barry O'Farrell, and Treasurer, Mike Baird, New South Wales will be hit harder than any other mainland state. Mr O'Farrell has also said that a full review of the impact of the carbon tax by New South Wales Treasury has found that it would push up prices, cut jobs and slash growth in many industries.

State Labor pushed New South Wales to the brink of economic disaster. Now their friends in Canberra are trying to push us over the edge. The effect on New South Wales will be felt right across the state, not just in my electorate of Macquarie, where I have met with many concerned manufacturers and small businesses, but also in places like the Hunter, the Illawarra and the central west, which will all be hit by a carbon tax.

Let me paint a bit more of a picture for you. As has been mentioned by the member for Paterson today, the Premier said that the carbon tax will result in the loss of more than 18,500 jobs in the Hunter region alone. These are people. These are individuals. These are people with families—husbands and wives. So 18,500 people will need to find another source of income to enable them to look after their families, to pay their mortgages and to deal with the rising cost of living for essential items like food, fuel and electricity.

The New South Wales Treasury estimates also show that 7,000 fewer jobs will be created in the Illawarra region and a further 1,000 jobs will be lost in the central west. The effect that these job losses will have on local economies will resonate not just in the local economy but throughout the state. The carbon tax will have a major impact on electricity prices. Mr Baird said that power prices in New South Wales are expected to rise by at least 15 per cent under a carbon tax. It is estimated that New South Wales government agencies will face combined power price hikes of up to $71 million. That does not account for other price hikes that they will experience.

New South Wales cannot afford the loss of revenue caused by job losses combined with this power price hike. This will affect the economic prospects of not only my home state but indeed the whole of Australia. It is not just the current New South Wales coalition government that can see how damaging the carbon tax will be. In fact, it is hard to hear the coalition government's concern over all the noise that ex-New South Wales Labor MPs are making about this diabolical tax. Former Premier Morris Iemma has come out and said of this tax:

One thing is sure—it won't change the world, but it could change the government.

John Della Bosca has also weighed in on the debate:

Action on climate change is one thing.

Mr Della Bosca went on to say:

But I think the carbon tax is a mistake.

Mr Della Bosca then went on to label the carbon tax as the craziest thing the Prime Minister could have done. The Prime Minister is not listening to the people. When I am out and about in my electorate listening to pensioners, listening to families, going out and talking to small business and manufacturers, they say they do not want this tax.

The list of Labor MPs opposing this great big new tax grows daily. Current New South Wales Labor leader John Robertson has said that he will never publicly support a carbon tax. That is what he said one day. Of course, he did a complete backflip and the next day came out and backed a carbon tax. You could just imagine that phone call from the Prime Minister's office that night which led him to make a miraculous backflip. In fact, he learnt from the master of backflips, a Prime Minister who told us before the last election, and I repeat, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Labor are the same; it does not matter where they come from.

Earlier today the member for Greenway mentioned in a speech Tony Sheldon from the TWU. I wonder whether the member for Greenway would agree with his claim that, under the carbon tax, drivers will be forced to do long hours, sweat their trucks further, have less maintenance and that that means more deaths? Mr Sheldon said, 'How are we going to meet the extra $100 to $200 a week when this tax starts smacking truck drivers right in the teeth?' I would encourage the member for Greenway to go and knock on the doors of some of the truck drivers in her electorate, many of whom I know. I would like her to ask them what they think about the carbon tax.

The list of people opposing the tax goes on. I want to talk about another group of people: small business owners, manufacturers, families and seniors that have raised concerns with me directly.

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

Order! The discussion is now concluded.