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 failure of the government to properly consider the impact of a carbon tax on jobs and cost of living in this time of economic uncertainty.

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

This Treasurer and this government have put great emphasis on the creation of jobs as a core priority. That is as it should be. The coalition fully supports this objective. When all the issues are boiled down, however, the best way to ensure prosperity for Australia is to ensure that everyone who wants a job has a job. At the press conference following the budget lock-up in May this year, the Treasurer said: 'I was asked downstairs before, what do you think is the centrepiece of the budget? Well, it's jobs, jobs, jobs.' In the last sitting week, the Treasurer repeated this theme:

We on this side of the House understand the importance of jobs and the dignity of work. The dignity of work is so important not just to individual families but to an economy. That is why we put such a high priority on jobs.

Unfortunately the Treasurer is not backing his rhetoric with results. The labour market is deteriorating. Jobs are being lost. The number of unemployed is rising.

The August Labour Force report showed that 23,200 jobs have been lost since March. More serious for families is that 68,000 full-time jobs have disappeared—that is, 68,000 former breadwinners who can no longer put food on the table. The number of full-time jobs is now around the same as it was back in November 2010. There has been no full-time jobs growth in Australia for nine months. The unemployment rate has increased from a recent low of 4.9 per cent to 5.3 per cent in August. The figures for September will come out later this week. The fall in the number of job advertisements tracked by the ANZ survey is a portent of what that may mean.

Out of all of that, the number of people looking for work has jumped by 52,600 since April. The August figure for unemployment was the highest rate since October last year. These figures would not yet include the full impact of coming job losses: at BlueScope Steel, 1,400 jobs; at OneSteel, 400 jobs; and at Qantas, 1,000 jobs—and Westpac, one of Australia's largest employers, has flagged significant job losses. In the May budget, the government forecast the unemployment rate to fall to 4.75 per cent by June next year. This forecast is now clearly at risk.

It is not just one sector doing it tough; the job losses have been widely spread across industries. Over the six months to August there were nearly 50,000 jobs lost in manufacturing in Australia; 21,000 job losses from wholesale trades; 5,000 from retail; 18,000 from accommodation and food services, which is effectively the tourism industry, particularly in regional and remote areas; 13,000 job losses in transport; 7,000 job losses in media and communications; 8,000 job losses in the property industry; and 9,000 jobs lost from scientific and professional services.

There has been some job growth. Mining jobs are up 21,000, as you would expect, and associated construction is up 30,000. But the job gains in these high-growth sectors were not enough to make up for the losses in those sectors of the economy outside of the mining sector. The mining sector represents about nine per cent of our economy—just two per cent of direct jobs in Australia. The challenge is for the rest of the economy that is being left behind. There is clear evidence that the non-mining sectors are being squeezed very hard by higher interest rates and a high Australian dollar. It might also be that capricious decisions by this government, for example, live cattle exports which was one of the worst decisions I have seen in 15 years in this place—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a big call for this government.

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

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, it is a big call for this government. But let me make it perfectly clear that the live cattle export ban, which prevented 180,000 Australian head going to Indonesia, is a catastrophe for the northern parts of Australia in primary production. I wonder why the Prime Minister has not picked up the phone to the President of Indonesia recently. I wonder whether the President of Indonesia would not return her calls after what she did to Indonesia when it came to live cattle exports. But that is the way that this government operates.

There can be no excuses for rising unemployment at a time when the country is experiencing unprecedented demand for our resources and 140-year highs in our terms of trade. So what has the government done? They had a jobs forum. That is typical of Labor's approach to problems—do not fix it, let's talk about it, let's get everyone together, hold hands, sing Kumbaya and maybe we will come up with a solution to the challenges of the nation. The talkfest in this case broke all records. It went for just 24 hours—one day. Usually the Labor Party have two- or three-day talkfests but, no, when it comes to jobs it was just one day. That would not have been any comfort to the 68,000 full-time breadwinners who have lost their jobs since April. Not surprisingly, out of a jobs forum, the outcomes were limited but there were two fundamental undertakings given by the Prime Minister: first, make major federal grants of $20 million or more, including grants to the states and territories, contingent on maximising opportunities for Australian businesses; and, second, require future project developers to publish more extensive details on opportunities available to Australian businesses if they want to receive a five per cent tariff exemption on imports for major projects through the EPBS.

As the Leader of the Opposition has stated, both were credible initiatives but they are not going to lead to the reappearance of jobs. For example, it is the case that the mining industry in Western Australia already has to provide the government of Western Australia with regular details on the amount of Australian product involved in their mines. A keynote speaker at the forum, Andrew Liveris, President, Chairman and CEO of Dow Chemical, has previously called the decision to proceed with a carbon tax unwise and ill timed. Bear in mind the government asked this fellow to come along to the jobs forum and here he was quite appropriately criticising the carbon tax. So the government could not even pick a keynote speaker who would support their job-killing carbon tax.

The government wants us to believe that introducing a carbon tax will have no impact on jobs. I observed earlier today there is a statement in the updated Treasury modelling of the carbon tax that says:

Employment continues to grow strongly, with national employment increasing by 1.6 million jobs by 2020, with or without carbon pricing.

The Treasury assumes that all workers in trade-exposed and carbon-intensive industries will immediately find new green jobs. The Treasury modelling says there is no impact whatsoever of the carbon tax on jobs and, in fact, it does not make any difference to jobs. That means effectively you can penalise Australian export industries, you can make the costs of production far more expensive for Australian manufacturers and, according to the inputs from Treasury, there will be no impact on jobs.

My colleagues and I have been travelling the country from Karratha to Perth to Cairns and down to Tasmania and I can say to you emphatically that is not what the employers think. That is not what small business thinks. That is not what the tourism industry thinks. That is not what the manufacturing industry thinks. That is not what the steelworkers think. That is not what the professional service providers think. They all know, because they employ people, that the carbon tax will cost jobs and the Treasury advice in this case is dead wrong. I am concerned that the recent deterioration in the labour market may not yet be over. I do not want to alarm the workers of Australia but I think there is quite a clear case to be made that this government is totally inconsiderate about their jobs.

The latest IMF report card which the Treasurer keeps misrepresenting, as he does everything else as well so it is no surprise here, was released five days ago and it says:

Key downside risks are that the global recovery stalls or Asian growth falters, impacting demand for commodities.

The funding markets could also be disrupted by concerns about sovereign debt in advanced economies and the outlook is fragile. The Treasurer knows the outlook is fragile because he is coming to us asking us to expedite our policy to allow for covered bonds to be issued by Australian banks. He says it is urgent because of the fragility of the funding of Australian banks. Yes, that is why we raised it more than a year ago. We identified this issue, we saw the challenge coming and it is now that the Treasurer suddenly wakes up and says: 'This is urgent. The funding needs of the Australian banks must be delivered urgently.' That is why he is pressing us to get our agreement to expedite the covered bonds bill, a bill that we suggested in a policy form over a year ago.

Let me be very clear about this. I am not as concerned about funding requirements as the government is. While some European banks are experiencing difficulty in accessing finance, Australia's banks remain highly rated, well capitalised and with little exposure to European debt. However, the coalition will support the initiative because we are the ones that suggested the policy. If it needs to be done quickly we will help to expedite that. But if it is the case that it is so urgent why doesn't the government delay the carbon tax bills to bring on the covered bond bill? It is because the government wants to destroy the jobs to make business and commerce in Australia more expensive before it actually gets anything in place that is going to make it more affordable.

I have been warning about the global risk to Australia for some time. The May budget forecast solid economic growth prospects and a return to surplus in 2012-13 on the back of the strongest terms of trade in 140 years. Not a finger has been lifted by the government, they are sitting back and waiting for China to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to the budget. But it is foolish to base our economic plan for the future on the assumption that these unprecedented good times will continue. In my post-budget National Press Club address I noted that the May budget showed a relatively small fall in the terms of trade of only four per cent would plunge the 2012-13 budget back into deficit. At that time, after the Treasurer claimed that the carbon tax package would be roughly budget neutral, little did I know that it in fact takes away over $4 billion dollars from the budget. So this is a Treasurer who thinks budget neutrality is when you actually have a deficit of $4½ billion dollars on a single policy initiative.

The IMF is now flagging a very near and present danger, so it is no surprise that the Treasurer is backing away from his promise to deliver a budget surplus in 2012-13. In recent weeks the promise has morphed from an objective to an expectation, .a determination, a plan—'a guiding principle', he said—and, more recently, he said he would give it his best shot. If the Treasurer cannot commit to a surplus then it will prove that the so-called strategy to repay the mountain of debt that Labor has created has failed and is in tatters.

Given the increasingly uncertain outlook for the global economy and the risk to Australia, now is not the time to be saddling our economy and Australian workers with a carbon tax. The recently released report by the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes, which was chaired by Senator Matthias Cormann, assessed whether Australia should implement such a tax followed by an emissions trading scheme at a time of great uncertainty both about the economic outlook and even more so about the nature and the extent of the international abatement effort. The committee found that the carbon tax will have a substantial impact all over Australia. Many Australian jobs are in industries that are carbon intensive. The committee also found that under the government's own modelling the carbon tax is likely to impose a trillion-dollar cost on the Australian economy. This trillion dollars, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier in this place, is roughly the equivalent of the total output of our nation in one year today.

Obviously, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. The Senate committee did a great job in making a number of recommendations. Ultimately, however, the best way to create jobs, the best way to stimulate the Australian economy, the best way to inoculate us against global volatility and the best way to handle the immediate future is not to have a carbon tax. The best way to promote job growth in Australia, the best way to give security to Australian families and the best way to stabilise the cost of living for Australian families is not to have a carbon tax. When it comes down to it, the Labor Party talks up jobs but delivers little. When it comes down to it, the Labor Party talks up reform but all it delivers is pain. The carbon tax is pain, and it is going to cost Australians jobs. (Time expired)

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

I listened very carefully to the shadow Treasurer's address but, as ever, I was disappointed. We have heard the proposition put forward by the opposition about the carbon tax, and they say it is the wrong time. In my submission today I am going to put forward five arguments to rebut what the shadow Treasurer was saying. In essence, I will say that, yes, this government has properly considered the changes; that, yes, this government is about protecting and creating jobs; that, yes, this government is about supporting pensioners; that, yes, in a time of economic uncertainty we are not acting alone but in fact consistent with where the world is heading; and, finally, if those first four arguments have failed to persuade you, I will just look at the record of the opposition—and when it comes to getting the big calls right the opposition have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

I will now turn to my first submission about why we do not accept the hypothesis of the opposition. We have properly considered this argument put forward in the shadow Treasurer's debate. He says that we have not had time to consider this debate. Where has he been for the last five years? Where has he been hiding? We have had more discussion on climate change than on many other issues that were ever discussed. I certainly do not recollect the opposition, when they were in government, discussing their hardline Work Choices reforms for five years before they introduced them. On the contrary, we have seen climate change and carbon pricing being debated for years. In fact, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, raised the issue of climate change as far back as the late 1980s. Former Prime Minister John Howard, if he had been re-elected in 2007, was going to introduce an emissions trading scheme.

On this side of the fence, both former Prime Minister Rudd and now Prime Minister Gillard have been debating the need to act on climate change for many years. When former leader of the Liberal Party, Brendan Nelson, was opposition leader he was certainly committed to acting on climate change. Indeed, another former leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Wentworth, was an active proponent about climate change until, of course, today when the proverbial cat—or, dare I say it, the Liberal whips—got his tongue.

Indeed, when we look at debate on this, it should be noted that we have also had a cross-party committee negotiation process, which was very thorough and very detailed. There was lots of effort, led by the Minister for Climate Change and supported by the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change. There has been a very thorough process to discuss climate change. But, yet again, whenever you hold a party the coalition just will not turn up to participate.

Of course the late change in the game is not the government introducing a price on pollution; it is saying that the coalition do not even believe in a carbon price any more, as they did when they were last in office. So let us be clear: the first submission I am putting to dispute the opposition's contention is that there has been a great deal of debate on climate change and a great deal of argument, research and science has gone into the proposition.

The second submission I put forward to show that the opposition's attack on our efforts to tackle climate change are misplaced is to have a look at the jobs' record of this Labor government. Even though those ungracious people sitting opposite us in the parliament never say anything good about the government, let us not forget that during the global financial crisis, due to the excellent stimulus programs the Building the Education Revolution, we saw 750,000 jobs created in Australia. Indeed, between June 2009 and June 2010, in the teeth of the global financial crisis, we saw 190,000 jobs created in small business—the fastest sector to recover. This was in part due to the excellent policies of the Labor government.

Mr Christensen interjecting—

We also understand, unlike the member for Dawson, that the world does not stand still. We understand that we cannot rely on the sleepy hollow of National Party economics to try and move this country forward. We understand that there is an international race on for clean technology jobs. We understand, unlike the Leader of the National Party, that in fact the world does not owe Australia a living and we cannot take our place in the world for granted. There is a race on for clean-tech, new manufacturing, low-pollution, economic service, green-collar jobs of the future. Unlike the opposition, we do not want to give up competing with the rest of the world. We do not believe that Australia is doomed to a second-class existence. We do not believe that Australian industry cannot compete with the rest of the world. The sooner we have a market mechanism to turbocharge our innovative efforts, the better off we are going to be in global race. These people want to tie our two legs together in the economic race to the future.

Let us also have a look at the facts. Since we announced in February—and I just warn the opposition: low incoming fact; do duck—that we would be introducing a price on carbon, employment in the coal mining industry has grown by 10 per cent. How can this be if the threats of the opposition have any truth? Whilst Mr Abbott and the Coal Association, the employers' union for the coal industry, have been busy trying to scare the pants of hardworking miners, 21,000 new mining jobs have come on stream across Australia. Furthermore, we are very lucky that the capitalists of the world do not take their economic and investment strategies from those opposite, because in 2011-12 mining capital expenditure is expected to be around $82 billion. We would have to call that an inconvenient truth. Whilst those opposite would say that this price on carbon is the end of mining and we might as well fill in all the holes in the ground, that in fact is not the case. It has almost been doubled—

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

That's what the Greens say. Ask the Greens!

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

Again, I am happy for the Leader of the National Party to take some notes here, if he does not read it in Hansard: $82 billion is almost double what it was last year, which was $47 billion. There is a lot going on in Australia. It is just that no-one has bothered to tell the opposition. Indeed—and here is a contemporaneous fact as opposed to the economics textbook written in 1920 read by the Nationals—in the last month alone—

Mr Christensen interjecting—

I did not mean to imply that the member for Dawson reads books! In the last month alone, Chevron, BHP and Rio—they are a bunch of milk bars; no they are not; they are some of the biggest mining companies in the world—have announced new projects or expansions in the resource sector worth more than $30 billion in total. Hold the presses! Hasn't anyone told them that the carbon pollution tax, according to the opposition, is going to ruin their industry? Clearly not, because, of course, those opposite know so much more than the boards of these big companies that they will ignore the $30 billion of these projects, they will ignore the $82 billion in mining capital expenditure and they will ignore the 21,000 new jobs created. I know it is a bit like arm wrestling with a child here—I do not mean to intellectually arm-wrestle those opposite—but I would say that since we have announced the price on carbon 14 companies have announced new projects or expansions in the resource sectors. How can this be? How can those opposite say that setting a price on carbon pollution is such a bad idea? There is $82 billion of investment, 21,000 new jobs, $30 billion with Rio, BHP and Chevron, and we are seeing that 14 companies have announced new projects or expansions in the resources sector. That was just my second submission.

So the jobs are being created, we want to win the competition of the future and the mining industry is moving forward. But let us have a look at this debate where the opposition say that pensioners and people are going to be worse off under these schemes. If I have not convinced the intellectual amazons opposite of the first two points, let me then put to them this proposition about the pension income rise. What was written in the Financial Standard—the Financial Standard is a financial journal—was:

Superannuation investors aged between 55 and 59—

that would be the average age of those opposite—

are set to receive a tax-free income boost if Carbon Tax relief measures are implemented, according to MLC Technical Services.

You're right—MLC Technical Services: what would they know! The article goes on to say:

Pension investors of that age would be able to receive an extra $1500 in taxable pension income, without paying any tax.

Nice one, I would say: $1,500 is good money. The article continues:

From July 1 2015, they are likely to be entitled to an extra $2000 in tax-free income, compared to now.

Taking into the account the 15% pension tax offset, this would result in tax savings of around $280 and $360 respectively.

A lady called Gemma Dale, who is the head of MLC Technical Services—you will probably be doing a Google search to check that she is not a secret member of the Labor Party, which she is not—was quoted in the article as saying:

This means they can draw more income, if required, from their pension investment without paying any tax

The article continues:

Currently those in the 55-59 age bracket can receive taxable pension income of up to $48,158 before being taxed.

If and when we get the Clean Energy Bill through this parliament, it is implemented and the income tax rates are amended, that figure is going to rise to $49,753 and $50,189 in 2015. This is good news. So when we have a look at the debate, unlike former Prime Minister Howard, who once famously said, 'Working Australians have never been better off'—that was just before he introduced Work Choices—the Gillard government understands that we have a multispeed economy and many are doing it tough. That is why we have the good fortune of high employment, low inflation, good terms of trade and low Commonwealth public sector debt.

As my fourth submission, I and other Australians understand that, of course, in these tough times globally it is very volatile. But there is no doubt in the mind of the government and indeed no doubt in the minds of the serious journalists and the people who are aware of what is going on in the world that the rest of the world is acting on climate change. This is a very important point. The opposition has been at great pains to say, ' Australia is going out on its own; we are so far ahead of the pack that we are just crazy.' In fact, over 30 countries have carbon pricing in place and have already started the transformation to a low-pollution economy.

Mr Christensen interjecting—

Could the member for Dawson cease interjecting. He has one mouth and two ears and I suggest he should argue with two ears.

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

The honourable member for Dawson will cease interjecting. He has had a pretty good go. The Assistant Treasurer has the call.

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

A pretty good go? He is applying for a job on The Comedy Channel—there is no question about that—but I do not know how he will go getting the job. Countries comprising over 80 per cent of global emissions have pledged to take action on climate change. Europe has had a price on carbon since 2005. New Zealand has an emissions trading scheme. The President of the United States, President Obama—he is coming here next month; you will no doubt be queuing up to shake his hand—has a clean energy target of 80 per cent by 2035. Whilst those opposite probably think California is just the set for Baywatch, the reality is it is also the world's sixth-largest economy, with twice the population of Australia. They have legislated to introduce an ETS.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a state.

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

The member for Dawson is warned!

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

In less than 25 years, 80 per cent of US clean energy needs will be supplied by clean energy. The UK has updated its emission targets. India has a tax on coal and it is using the revenue from this tax to invest in clean energy.

Mr O'Dowd interjecting—

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

The honourable member for Flynn will now remain silent.

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

China has pledged to lower carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 per cent by 2020. The Productivity Commission—no doubt those opposite will rubbish them too, as they rubbish anyone who disagrees with them—have identified over 1,000 carbon reduction policies across seven of our major trading partners, nearly one-third of which are in the US.

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

Having established that plenty of parts of the rest of the world are acting, having established that this government has a good jobs record—and we are always focused on the new jobs and will not accept the lazy tyranny of low expectations with an opposition that does not believe that Australia can ever compete on climate change with the rest of the world—and having also demonstrated that pensioners are getting supported and nine in 10 households will receive some form of support, if all of those four submissions have somehow failed to climb the Mount Everest of scepticism of those opposite, here is the big one.

I said at the start of my proposition that the opposition never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. When we look at some of the big calls, let us have a look at some of the big calls they have got wrong. I think that this could only assist you in believing that the coalition are making another big call which is wrong. On Work Choices we said you were going too far, and you know what? You did. In terms of Indigenous Australians we said you should say sorry to the Stolen Generations, and it took a Labor government to do it, although I recognise it was eventually with the support of all those opposite bar one or two. On the global financial crisis, you would not support the stimulus. You did not intellectually turn up to work that day, and we stimulated the economy and avoided recession. On the National Broadband Network: in 10 years time watch the revisionism from those revisionists over there, who will say it was all their idea. And look at the floods in Queensland. You did not support the levy in a time of trouble for the nation; yet we are seeing the impact of the levy building badly needed infrastructure in flood affected Australia. And you are doing it again on climate change. We were onto this when we were still in opposition, and we are implementing a clean energy future. The big one is the mining tax. All you want to do is give money back to the richest companies in Australia. (Time expired)

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

Today all Australians, whether they are businesses or families, stand at the edge. Families are very worried about their future. Business confidence has fallen to the sort of level you see in a depression. Closed shops and silent factories are a monument to Labor's economic failure. There have been 68,000 jobs lost since April and unemployment is rising across the nation. In my own electorate of Wide Bay the unemployment rate has increased from 3.4 per cent when the coalition left office to over 12.5 per cent under Labor. What a shameful record for a government to treble the unemployment rate in a fast-growing area of regional Australia.

This government seems not to care about the economic pain and hardship that it is are imposing on Australian families. But before them now is the prospect of an Australian government offering them up as sacrificial lambs on the altar of the carbon tax. The government concedes that this carbon tax will do nothing to change the climate. The government acknowledges that it will not work as an initiative to lower the temperatures. Of course, it never could. At around 1.4 per cent of global emissions, even if we sacrificed all of Australian industry, if we produced zero emissions, if we stopped breathing, if we lived in the trees, it would make absolutely no difference to the global climate. You only have to listen to the recent words of the UK chancellor, who said that the UK's two per cent of emissions are irrelevant when it comes to the world's climate. Why do members opposite think that Australia's 1.4 per cent can single-handedly change the world's climate, save the polar bears and save the Great Barrier Reef? This is simply nonsense. For the member who has just spoken to suggest that the rest of the world is rushing headlong into introducing taxes of this nature is simply misreading or dishonestly reporting the true situation.

The reality is that when President Obama comes to Australia he will not have a story to tell of an economy-wide carbon tax in the US. Indeed, it will only take one month of Australia's carbon tax to collect more money than the Americans have collected from their carbon taxation since it began several years ago—only one month under our scheme to collect more than the Americans have ever collected! We are not catching up with the rest of the world; we are implementing the world's harshest carbon tax. The Europeans are currently collecting, from their 30-country scheme referred to by the Assistant Treasurer, about $1 per person per year from the people of Europe. Our tax collects $400 per person per year right at the outset. This is a haunting prospect for Australian families. Their costs are going up enough as it is under this incompetent government, but now to add the impact of the world's biggest carbon tax is something that surely can only be seen as shameful. The Gillard government intends to consign future generations of Australians to massive cost hikes in perpetuity. This tax starts at $400 per person per year and goes up every year from then on. The carbon price will inevitably increase the cost-of-living pressures. Competitiveness with our trading partners will plummet and Australian jobs will be fewer and harder to come by.

I know that there are those in the government ranks who do not really in their heart of hearts support this legislation but they are tied to the carbon tax for two reasons. Firstly, it may even be that the Prime Minister believed what she said before the election—that is, there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. Maybe she was trying to tell the truth, but the Green zealots have more say over government policy than Labor's backbench—more say it seems than even the Prime Minister. When Bob Brown is grinning like a Cheshire cat at Labor rubber-stamping his legislative agenda and proclaiming it is a great day, you know there is something very, very wrong.

Secondly, the powers that be within Labor have punted the ALP's political future on a carbon tax, bloody-mindedly pushing this legislation through regardless of its impact on the nation—regardless that all other countries in the world are moving in a different direction—all in the hope that people will perhaps get used to it before the next election. The faceless men have determined the direction and the Australian people will have to bear the consequences. They surged forward regardless of the prevailing economic uncertainty engulfing the globe and have failed to heed the world financial storm clouds that are approaching. Instead they are putting political self-interest ahead of the national interest yet again. To those Labor members of parliament whose constituents are screaming out for their members to stand up for them, I urge them to listen and obey the will of their own people. They know that their constituents do not support this great big new tax. They know it is bad for the country; they know it is bad for their jobs. Their constituents are telling them, but they put their hands over their ears like the honourable member opposite, the member for Isaacs, pretending not to hear.

What about the members for New England and for Lyne, who are being very active in supporting the carbon tax. They did not even bother to ask the people of their electorates for their opinions. They have conducted surveys on various issues, but never once chose to ask their own electors what they thought about the carbon tax. Fortunately, Senator Williams has taken on that task for himself. He sent a questionnaire to all the people in Lyne and New England and he got a significant number of answers back. Thousands of people have responded to his survey and on the latest count I saw 83 per cent of the people of Lyne and New England are saying they do not want a carbon tax. These Independent members like to say they are the voice of the people. Well, the people have spoken: the people in Lyne and the people in New England do not want the carbon tax. If they really believe they are representing their own people, they have no option tonight other than to vote against this evil tax.

It is bad enough that the Prime Minister has misled Australians in the name of political expediency and bowed to the will of the Greens and Independents to remain in the Lodge, but what of those in the party behind her who just blindly follow? It is a bound and gagged caucus that fails to stand up in the wake of those backroom deals. They should not be passive passengers going along for the ride, but their inaction makes every one of them complicit in this base betrayal of the Australian people. The only community consensus that the Prime Minister has rallied around her in relation to the carbon tax is one of comprehensive rejection. Labor members who do not have the fortitude to cross the floor and be heroes for the working men and women across their electorates are letting down their voters, because in the end it is going to be ordinary families that will cop this carbon tax. They are the ones who are going to pay and keep on paying and pay more every year. It is their jobs that will be lost; it is their future that is being compromised. Electricity bills will blow out; gas, groceries, everything they need. In fact from 1 July 2012, if Labor, the Greens and the Independents get their way, Australians will start paying $105 billion in tax between then and 2020. And it gets worse and worse: around $1 trillion will be ripped from our economy at a time when our economy is already in such great difficulties. One trillion dollars is not much less than the Australian economy turns over in a year these days, and the government is going to throw all that away.

This tax will cost jobs, destroy manufacturing and certainly result in a deteriorating standard of living for all Australians. This is a tax that will deliver nothing of good for this country. It will do nothing to boost employment. There will be no new green jobs; whatever there are are being created in China. Australia's last solar panels manufacturer is closing along with so many other manufacturing industries in this country. This is a tax that will hurt this country and this day will be a day of infamy in the minds of future generations of Australians. Worst of all, it will do nothing for the global environment. It will do nothing to improve the climate; it will do nothing for this country and nothing for our planet. (Time expired)

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

What the member for North Sydney, the member for Wide Bay and all those opposite seem to fail completely and utterly to realise is that the reform of the government's carbon price package is about creating new jobs for Australians and attracting investment in the clean technology industries of the future. Led by the weathervane Leader of the Opposition, whose idea of long term appears to be 12 hours after the 24-hour news cycle, those opposite cannot recognise anything long term and they cannot recognise—and we have just heard this again in the speech from the Leader of the National Party—that this is a global problem. They cannot recognise that this is a problem that Australia needs to make a contribution to solving.

Previous speakers from the opposition also seem to have forgotten that the coalition says—and I say that advisedly—that it shares the government's target of a five per cent reduction in Australia's carbon emissions by 2020. The reason I have to say 'says' is that nothing about the coalition's conduct and nothing about the way the coalition has approached the carbon price suggests that in any way the opposition takes this seriously. Instead what we have had, today and yesterday and for many months now, is mindless negativity. Those opposite have effectively been talking down our economy, talking down our businesses, talking down our workers, because that is the approach that they have taken.

The best thing that we can do for Australian businesses and for Australian families is to put in place a carbon price that will be part of the fundamentals, going forward into the 21st century, of a modern and competitive economy powered by clean energy. That is a realisation that countries around the world, particularly those in western Europe and, more close at hand, New Zealand, have already come to. The reality is that if we wish Australia to prosper in the 21st century, if we wish Australians to prosper in the first-rate economy that Australia is entitled to be into the future, then it cannot be with anything other than a clean energy economy. All of the credible analysis, including the report by Sir Nicholas Stern in the United Kingdom and the reports that have been done for us by Ross Garnaut here in our country, shows that we can make big cuts in carbon pollution in our country while the economy continues to grow strongly. That, of course, is the path that those in western Europe have already embarked on. It is the path that across the Tasman the government of New Zealand, with bipartisan agreement, has already embarked on. And it is the path that we will start on when the government's clean energy package passes through the House of Representatives tomorrow.

We had Treasury modelling that shows that under a carbon price starting at $20 the economy grows strongly, with average growth in gross national income per capita of 1.1 per cent a year, down from 1.2 per cent a year. The Treasury modelling shows that average incomes continue to grow strongly, rising by about $9,000 per person by 2020 in real terms. The Treasury modelling shows that jobs will continue to grow strongly, with 1.6 million additional jobs by 2020. And the Treasury modelling shows that, while this growth is occurring, carbon pollution will fall by 160 million tonnes per year in 2020. We also know that the longer we wait, the greater the costs will be. The costs will increase the longer we delay and a failure to act now will only undermine our future competitiveness—and that will be so, of course, if we delay as is proposed by those opposite with their amendment to the legislation to put off the start of the carbon price scheme.

There is a clear economic consensus that we need a carbon price for future jobs and we need a carbon price for future growth, although you would not have known it from the way the member for North Sydney spoke earlier and the references he made to the recent work of the International Monetary Fund with its report on Australia. Last week in that report the International Monetary Fund endorsed our carbon price policy, saying that they:

… support the proposed introduction of a carbon price as … a transition to a permit is trading system to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

In the same report the IMF congratulated the Australian government on the firm action that we took during the global financial crisis and on the policies that we have put in place since that time.

We know from the work of the Productivity Commission, reported to this parliament in May this year, that the costs to the economy will be much higher under the policies of those opposite. Of course, the time is coming when the spotlight will now turn to the policies of the coalition, the so-called direct action policy, which will lead directly to higher prices and higher taxes over time. That is a policy of paying polluters, which is in fact what is proposed by those opposite.

The reason I say that the spotlight will turn to those opposite is that once this legislation passes through the House of Representatives and then, within weeks, passes through the Senate and becomes law we will have increasing hysteria, as the Prime Minister said earlier today, from those opposite as they continue to assert that they are going to repeal our carbon price mechanism. If that is to be believed—and I do not think for a moment that it is, but if that is to be believed—the opposition will need to demonstrate what they will replace the carbon price mechanism with. At the moment it is the pathetic fig leaf of a policy that was produced in February 2010 by the opposition, which has not been updated or altered in any way. It is a plan under which polluters will be paid by the government to reduce pollution. The opposition's policy is, in effect, to tax the people to give money to polluters. Under our plan, polluters will pay for their pollution by paying the carbon price on every tonne of pollution that they produce.

I will mention a few more differences. Under the government's plan, markets pick the most effective ways to reduce pollution; under the opposition's approach, the government would pick winners. Under the government's plan, business will have long-term investment certainty; under the opposition's approach, there would be no investment certainty. Under the government's plan, we will continue with Labor's great tradition of long-term reform of the economy; under the opposition's approach, there would be no more than a stopgap political solution. In fact, as was revealed very clearly in a debate that the member for Flinders conducted with me last week in Melbourne, the opposition has no plan after 2020. That was the answer of the member for Flinders when asked what the opposition was going to do if it were to be in government after 2020. His answer, and he is the opposition's spokesman on climate change matters, was to say, 'We'll be reviewing things in 2015.' If you examine the pathetic fig leaf of a policy that the opposition has put forward, the so-called direct action plan, that is the answer that one reads because there is nothing after 2020—there is no plan; there is no trajectory of falling emissions, as there is under the government's plan; there is no certainty; there is no long-term predictability. Under the government's carbon price plan, nine in 10 Australian households will receive assistance; under the opposition's approach, there would be no assistance for households. Under the government's plan Australia will meet the emissions targets. We are told by those opposite that they are bipartisan targets, that those opposite agree with them, but on no view could those targets be met under the opposition's approach. Those opposite know this. That is why they do not want to talk about their own plan. They do not want to talk about what they would replace the government's carbon price mechanism with. Those opposite know that the government's plan is the most effective, fairest and most affordable way of transforming our economy, but they cannot admit it because to do so would require the coalition to reflect on the complete ineffectiveness of their own policy. Instead, we have those opposite scratching around for any excuse to delay the action that needs to be started now in order to begin Australia on the task of reducing our national emissions. They make any excuse to delay anything and avoid taking action. (Time expired)

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister for finance, deregulation and debt reduction and member for Goldstein asked in this place: 'If the carbon tax were levied only in Victoria, is it not conceivable that business would look at shifting to a neighbouring state?' One of the major problems with this tax is that it does not reward growth. It does not provide a stimulus to get bigger, better and more profitable, make more stuff and employ more people, because under this tax, if you get bigger in manufacturing or in industry, you will use more energy and the tax will grow. You are much better off shifting the process offshore and escaping the tax. That is where we are with this tax.

I want to keep this as local as I possibly can by referring to my city of Townsville. Take Queensland Nickel. It employs 900 people directly and 1,200 indirectly. Just two short years ago it almost closed. It was poorly run under BHP's business model and was not doing what it should have been doing: processing and refining ore into nickel. Had it closed, it was estimated to have a $4.5 billion negative impact on the economy of Townsville. Clive Palmer gave the plant over to the management and staff and they concentrated on what they did best. They turned it around and made a profit. The current price for nickel is hovering around the low- to mid-$8 dollar mark, which is lineball commercially. They have used the heat in their plant to generate electricity and have made great strides in making this plant the best of its kind in the world.

Processing nickel is highly energy intensive. Queensland Nickel's major competitors are in Brazil and Cuba. In fact, they are the only two other places in the world that use the Caron refining method. It is said that the areas around the Cuban refineries are toxic. You neither fish nor swim anywhere near them. The men and women from Queensland Nickel that I know say you can almost walk on the smoke billowing out of the furnaces in Brazil. Those two countries will not be paying a carbon tax.

We have seen six different classifications for paper production in this tax but only one for nickel. Queensland Nickel is exposed to around $20 million from the start of this tax, and it will only become more and more expensive year after year. The ore is sourced on international markets. Ore is sold on international commodity markets. There is nowhere for Queensland Nickel to pass this cost on. It will have to absorb it internally. What happens when it becomes too much? Will the world be a better place? No. The ore will still be refined. In fact, it will produce a worse result for the world if Brazil and Cuba get more ore and more market share.

I will share something in relation to Townsville City Council. Townsville City Council have conducted research on the figures provided by the government. They have found that they will be short between $3 million and $5 million per year from year one, and that is after the government's taxpayer funded compensation. That will mean a rate rise for the property owners of Townsville of between two per cent and three per cent in year one so that they can have their rubbish collected and have their street and traffic lights on. There will be no benefit to the ratepayers of Townsville. That would just be the start. That will be repeated across the country in every city and town where electricity is used and garbage is collected.

I will talk about the residents of Palm Island and Magnetic Island. The people of Palm Island are some of the most disadvantaged and socially dislocated people on earth, let alone Australia. The only way to Townsville is by ferry. The ferry runs on diesel. There is no compensation for diesel used on public transport, so the residents of Palm Island and Magnetic Island, who have no alternative method of transport, will have to wear the cost, and to what end? What will they get for their money? What extra services and facilities will they receive? None, nada, nothing.

I will talk about the Xstrata copper refinery in Townsville. They have 90 direct employees and there are 260 indirect jobs. Xstrata will close their refinery citing processing costs. They will still mine the ore and it will still be converted into concentrate at Mount Isa. That will be done in Australia where it is mined, but the concentrate will be refined overseas. That is $300 million worth of export dollars lost to this country, and to what end? What will the net result to world pollution be? Certainly neither Xstrata nor the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency have addressed this issue publicly. What will the tradesmen and tradeswomen do there? As the member for Melbourne suggests, do the boilermakers and electricians get a job on the Great Barrier Reef in tourism or do they just have to shift away from Townsville and chase the work? They will have to take their children out of the schools and take their wives and husbands in other jobs out of the town.

I will talk about the CopperString project, with over 5,000 jobs over the next 30 years. This visionary project was to bring Mount Isa onto the national grid, open the north-west minerals province and allow the greatest collection of renewable energy projects access to the grid. Both sides of this House support this project, but only one side could do the negotiation with the major players, which includes Xstrata Mount Isa Mines, and that was the Labor government. Xstrata has signed a commercial deal with AGL to build a new gas fired power station at Mount Isa, and that brings into question both the negotiation skills of the government and their commitment to renewable energy. One of the reasons for this decision is the statement by Xstrata that they would save one million tonnes of carbon per year. That is one million tonnes of carbon from the AC line linking them to Townsville and the national grid. That link is the key ingredient in the CopperString vision. That link provides access for all renewable energy projects to feed into that grid. That this government can cause the largest collection of renewable energy projects to stall, in part due to the carbon tax, is surely the supreme irony.

How is it that they can nut out a deal with the big miners on the MRRT in the blink of an eye and yet fail to convince them of the benefits of this most worthy project? How is it that the government talk about their commitment to renewable energy and yet, with the stroke of Xstrata's pen, the national Treasurer is unable to speak about it at all? This project would have seen real economic growth across every sector in the north of Australia for the next 40 years. It would have seen employment not only for skilled workers but also for local workers in western communities and for our first Australians as they battle to stay on their lands and provide for their families. Instead, we see a weak and vacillating government talking the talk but unable to get out of their chairs to walk the walk.

Projects such as Solar Dawn, the Kennedy Wind Farm with over 800 turbines, along with other solar, ethanol and geothermal investment must now be under severe doubt. People in my electorate, like Robin Richardson from Alliance Airlines and Peter Collings from West Wing Aviation, who provide the service of fly in, fly out to the mining sector and have plans for expansion, now look at their businesses and wonder where they go next. Do they go to Papua New Guinea, because they do not have a carbon tax?

This carbon tax is not reform; this is penalty. This carbon tax is not a tax on the big polluters; it is a tax on mums and dads and children. This carbon tax does not offer adequate compensation; it will only bring with it higher prices and losses of opportunities. This tax will cascade and compound until the final purchase is made by the person least able to ward off its hurt. This carbon tax will hurt my city, my region, my state and my country. There is a better way.

The real action program proposed by the federal opposition—by Tony Abbott, by Greg Hunt, by Warren Entsch, by Warren Truss and by everyone on this side of the House—is capped and affordable and it taxes the actual pollution being done. It works with business, not against business. We have a Prime Minister who says that she is the education Prime Minister and yet she believes in the stick and not the carrot. She believes that students and people work better with penalty than they do with encouragement. She believes in treating business exactly the same way.

We have a Labor government that said before the election that they did not believe in this, and yet afterwards they accuse us on this side of being negative. I watched the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency at the weekend on Insiders. He spoke in an interview with Barrie Cassidy for nearly 12 minutes and in that time he had seven chops at the Leader of the Opposition. You wonder why we are negative. You guys are worse than we are. You guys are the negative ones because you do not have a positive agenda. (Time expired)

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the carbon price would lead to a trillion dollars being lost. I have to refer the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite to the comments of Sir Nicholas Stern, who has said:

… the economic cost of inaction … would far exceed the economic cost of action—

so it is absolutely pointless to talk about whether we will lose this amount or that amount if you do not take into account the alternative.

If we are considering how well qualified the Leader of the Opposition is to make such an observation, we need to ask ourselves: how much does he actually understand about carbon dioxide and the climate change debate more broadly? In July he described carbon dioxide as an 'invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance'. Apparently, carbon dioxide is some kind of 'damned elusive Scarlet Pimpernel', impossible to find or capture, and the clean energy regulator is engaged in an exercise in futility. Yet, just 11 days earlier the Leader of the Opposition had said that both the government and the opposition accept that Australia should reduce its emissions by five per cent by 2020. How are we going to reduce emissions of something that is, according to the Leader of the Opposition, weightless—

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

And that was an exercise in futility! Indeed, he was a minister when the Howard government passed legislation requiring businesses to report their CO2 emissions. If carbon dioxide is weightless and as elusive as he claims and if chasing it is an exercise in futility, why on earth did a government of which he was a member require businesses to measure, monitor and report it? The Howard government's National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 established a national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions by corporations. The reporting framework required, by 2010-11, approximately 700 companies that emit more than 50 kilotonnes of greenhouse gases to be involved. If carbon is weightless, as the Leader of the Opposition claims, what on earth was the Leader of the Opposition doing requiring businesses to monitor and report their emissions?

The Leader of the Opposition is also of the view that tackling greenhouse gases is an exercise in futility because other countries, according to him, are not doing likewise. For example, he said:

There is no way that America is going to put a price on carbon anytime soon. There is no way that the Chinese and the Indians are going to put a price on carbon until their peoples have a comparable standard of living to those of the advanced Western world.

The reality is very different. Ten American states including New York have already put a price on carbon pollution from their electricity generators. California, the world's eighth largest economy, will start a carbon trading scheme in 2012. China has announced that it will introduce emissions trading commencing in key cities and provinces including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong, and India has introduced a clean energy tax on coal. These are just a couple of examples of the Leader of the Opposition's total lack of interest in climate change detail. He also said:

Under the Clean Energy legislation, the Climate Change Authority will not set emissions limits or caps. It will make recommendations to the Government. The Government will set the caps through regulations. These will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance.

The Leader of the Opposition was wrong again. He cannot maintain a position on climate change for more than five minutes. In July he said, 'I've never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.' In fact, he was a senior minister in the Howard government that went to the 2007 election with a policy of introducing an emissions trading scheme. He also said previously, in July 2009, 'I think that if you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?' Furthermore, he said, 'Climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we've got to take effective action against it. I mean, that's my position and that's always been my position.' Not true! It has not always been his position. The member for Wentworth said he is a self-described weathervane on this issue.

More seriously, the Leader of the Opposition has tried to scare pensioners. He said, 'The compensation to pensioners is temporary. The tax is permanent.' Wrong again. The fact is that the Gillard government will provide permanent increases in pensions and benefits. There will be lump sum payments from May-June 2012 followed by increases in fortnightly payments from March 2013. Pensions, allowances and family benefits will then keep pace with the cost of living as they are indexed in line with the consumer price index.

He has misled the House over electricity prices, saying:

… the Western Australian Treasury modelling predicts that Western Australian households within three years will be paying more than $2,120 a year for power compared with $1,515 a year now.

In fact, the Western Australian modelling that he referred to actually estimates the average increase in household electricity bills due to the carbon price to be $111 a year—just over $2 a week. The impact on electricity prices is taken into account in the government's household assistance package. So he is wrong again. He has been misleading about other prices as well. He said:

… according to the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Association the price of a new house will go up by at least $5,000 under a carbon tax.

In fact, this estimate was produced before carbon price policy was announced. It assumes no industry assistance, which means that it significantly exaggerates the impact of a carbon price on housing construction. In fact, the government is providing $9.2 billion of assistance to manufacturers of building materials, shielding these products from 94.5 per cent of the carbon price. He has been misleading about jobs. He said:

There will be 45,000 jobs lost in energy-intensive industries. There will be 126,000 jobs lost mainly in regional Australia.

In fact, the modelling by Treasury and other sources has consistently shown that the economy will continue to grow strongly under a carbon price, with 1.6 million extra jobs being created by 2020.

He has been misleading about industry impacts generally. He said that 'the carbon tax ultimately spells death for the coal industry'. In fact, Treasury modelling of the former CPRS showed that with a carbon price in place coal industry output would grow by 66 per cent by 2050—hardly the death of the industry. As well as misleading the public about the industry impacts, he has misled the Australian public over the budgetary impacts. He said, 'When people buy their carbon permits abroad, what will happen to the Australian government is that they won't be able to afford the carbon compensation after 2015.' In fact, the government will sell a fixed number of carbon permits each year to big polluters. This is where the revenue will come from. There will be no reduction in revenue due to the international linking. So he is wrong again.

Moving to a clean energy future will provide new economic opportunities for Australian workers. Jobs will continue to grow under carbon pricing; they will be created in new and fast-growing clean industries such as renewable energy, carbon farming and sustainable design. These new industries will help to improve Australia's international competitiveness. I believe Australians are hungry for action to tackle carbon emissions. This is certainly true of my electorate, where thousands of citizens belong to GetUp! and other local groups. I am certain that the climate change challenge is not going to go away. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and wish it away. We must press on with this work. I believe that future generations are going to judge us on our performance over this issue.

One side of politics is prepared to face up to its responsibilities. The other side opportunistically wants to kick the problem down the road and leave it to someone else to fix. It is a shocking abdication of responsibility, and the opposition stands condemned for it.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.