Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received letters from the honourable member for Flinders and the honourable member for Deakin proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Flinders, namely:

The urgent need for the Government to abandon the carbon tax.

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—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter is urgent because this week the very people who are proposing to implement in four months time the world's biggest carbon tax blew up the solar sector. The people who want to implement the world's biggest carbon tax could not even protect the solar sector; they blew it up. They also blew up their own house, but, more importantly, they blew up the solar sector. But don't take out word for this. Let's listen to what the Clean Energy Council said:

The clean energy industry says the unexpected cut of a key government solar hot water program late yesterday will put jobs under threat …

The CEO of the council said that the:

… decision will immediately affect sales and will put more than 1200 manufacturing jobs and 6000 installation, sales and back office jobs in jeopardy.

… … …

Cutting this program without warning in the middle of a financial year is yet another example of stop-start policy making that continues to plague the entire clean energy sector.

That is what they do to their friends. This is a government that seeks to implement in four months time the most complex, most far-reaching, heaviest and widest carbon tax in the world, and they cannot even run a solar hot water program. It is important to note this program was the successor to—wait for it—the Pink Batts program. So they replaced the Home Insulation Program on 19 February 2010 and they blew up its successor this week, on 28 February 2012. That is what they do to their friends.

Let's look at the carbon tax and how in their hands this measure is going to be destructive to the Australian economy and damaging to families and, above all else, it is going to fail to achieve its purpose. Very simply, we have had matters of great urgency this week, when the most senior people in the industry have made it clear that we are facing a real and significant threat to jobs, to competition, to viability and to electricity prices.

Let me start with what the CEO of Australia's largest power producer, Macquarie Generation, said. Sir Russell Skelton made it absolutely clear on the front of the Australian Financial Review yesterday. The article reads:

The head of Australia’s largest power generator has warned that electricity prices will rise more than the federal government predicts under an option to ration output in order to stay profitable under the carbon tax.

There are two fundamental things in what the head of Macquarie Generation has said. Firstly, power prices will rise more than the government has said. The government has already said it will be a 10 per cent price rise. That is what the government has said, and the Electricity Supply Association of Australia has said it will be 20 per cent. And here we have the head of the largest power generator in Australia belling the cat, calling the government to account and making it absolutely clear that power prices will rise by more than the already high 10 per cent—on top of the 50 per cent price rise across Australia over the last five years.

But there is something even more concerning than the price rises which will have a huge impact on industry, whether it is on aluminium, cement, steel, other forms of heavy industrial production, small businesses or families. The question is: what could have more of an impact? That is the issue of energy security. And it is not us that say that. It is the government itself and the key generators. In recent days we have seen that InterGen, one of Australia's most significant power providers has been reported as facing huge refinancing issues directly as a consequence of the carbon tax. We have seen that Loy Yang is having enormous trouble refinancing, directly as a consequence of the carbon tax. And Macquarie Generation has warned of rationing power.

Let's understand this. In the 21st century, in a developed economy, in a country with extraordinary resources, the consequence of the carbon tax on power supply is, according to the CEO of the largest generator, that we are looking at facing rationing of power supplies. That is the sign of a government that could not manage a home insulation program, could not manage a Green Loans Program, could not manage a solar hot water rebate program and certainly could not manage the world's largest and widest carbon tax. There is real and present danger to the supply of energy in Australia.

If the government doubts what we say, why did they have to create an Energy Supply Council? Why did they have to create a fund which will give a billion dollars directly to the largest Victorian brown coal power producers between 31 May and 30 June this year—cash, no strings attached? Because their balance sheets are at such a risk that this government is giving not $100 million, $200 million or $300 million of cash to the largest companies in the power generation sector just so as they can keep the lights on.

We have a situation where prices will go up, by more than the 10 per cent that the government has argued, and there is a reason for that. Because of the system that they have set in place, companies will have to make forward purchases because they have to make long-term contracts to deal with the carbon tax that is being imposed on them, and therefore there price rises will be higher than the government has said. Again, not us. That is what the Electricity Supply Association of Australia said. So power prices are going to skyrocket. If energy security is being put at risk, something is deeply, profoundly wrong. The history, the practice, the reality of the way this government has managed—green loans, pink batts, solar hot water, solar panels, cash for clunkers and citizens assembly—gives you a sense that all of these pale into insignificance when compared with what will be a $27 billion tax over three years with profound impacts on industry right across the country.

The next thing, though, is that it is not just this detail from the CEO of Macquarie Generation, but also something far more significant than that. We have Professor Warwick McKibbin, a former Reserve Bank board member, an ANU professor, and what did he say this week? He predicted the carbon tax would push up prices more than Treasury forecast. That is what a former Reserve Bank board member said. But he is not the only Reserve Bank board member: Graham Kraehe in the last week has given deep warnings about the impact of the carbon tax. Graham Kraehe and Warwick McKibbin together have made it absolutely clear that the design, the construction and the intent of this tax is deeply and profoundly flawed.

Don Argus, one of Australia's most senior business people, just today said this:

The carbon tax was the result of political expediency. I am concerned that we have a badly designed, hurriedly implemented tax that imposes significant costs on the economy but that may not achieve its core aim.

That is absolutely right. It will not achieve its core aim because what happens to Australian emissions between now and 2020? They go up from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes—a 43 million tonne increase in domestic emissions, almost two tonnes per person. How do we meet the government's objective? We have to go offshore and buy 94 million tonnes of foreign carbon credits by 2020 but at a carbon price which by their own reckoning will be $37 in actual dollars at that time. That makes $3½ billion of expenditure on top of the carbon tax.

Let us be clear here. The likely carbon tax liability to the Australian economy will be about $14½ billion by 2020 but on top of that they then have to go and purchase 94 million tonnes or $3½ billion worth of foreign carbon credits, which are paid for by Australian companies. So that money is in addition because the carbon tax does not achieve its purpose. Why does it not work? Because Australians have historically shown that if you increase electricity prices they do not change their consumption significantly; they substitute out of other things. The pensioner substitutes out of the once-a-month meal at a restaurant; the parent substitutes out of the swimming lessons; the self-funded retiree might not be able to give the present they want to their grandchildren at the end of the year. It is a reality that there is that substitution.

On every observation, electricity is an inelastic good in Australia. The fact that electricity prices have risen 50 per cent with barely any significant change in demand over the last five years ought to say to the government, 'This is not the right mechanism to reduce emissions.' All it does is increase the cost of living, destroys jobs in companies such as Alcoa, in places such as the Kurri Kurri smelter, in places such as Tomago, in places such as Gladstone where the QAL smelter is at risk in the alumina area precisely because of the carbon tax. That is what others have made absolutely clear.

Again, do not take our word or industry's word. Let us hear what the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, says. This is what he said this week, reported in the Age on 27 February:

I think there's a lot of concern in industry at the moment about the price we've locked in given where Europe is at the moment in terms of price of carbon—whether we've locked in a price that's to our disadvantage as a nation.

That was the Minister for Resources and Energy, the minister in charge of Australia's power sector, sending a message to the Prime Minister: 'This system is bunk; this system is broke; this system will not work; it won't achieve our emissions reduction outcome, but it will drive up our prices. It will not work in comparison with our competitors and therefore it is a dud, it's a fix, it's a fraud, it's a failure and it will not achieve the outcomes. But it will hurt Australian families and it will hurt Australian workers.'

That is the problem. It will send jobs to India, China and Indonesia but it will not reduce global emissions. Just today we have seen reports that council rates will also be forced up. Councils right across my home state of Victoria are talking about an increase in council rates of three per cent in the first year alone, because of the carbon tax. So every time you take out the rubbish bin, every time you seek additional work on a drain, you are going to pay more because council rates will be up. That will happen in the first year.

What we see is a tax that is profoundly flawed because it does not achieve its core outcome and is not in line with what the rest of the world is doing. Only this week, Japan has made it clear there will be no carbon tax under any government that the current Japanese Prime Minister leads. So Japan has walked away from a carbon tax. Canada held an election and ditched the carbon tax. The US President said while he was here in Australia that heading forwards there would be no carbon tax or equivalent scheme in the United States. So the rest of the world is running away from this proposal at 1,000 miles an hour. Even in Europe, you find that the European scheme averaged out at $1 per head across the continent while the Australian scheme will average out at $400 per head. We are almost 400 times heavier in our first five years than the experience under the European scheme in its first five years. There is no comparison.

I return to where I began—on the issue of competency. The structure, the nature, the purpose, the intent and the effect of the carbon tax are all deeply and profoundly flawed because of the impact on electricity prices and electricity security. The competency of those who seek to implement it is fundamentally broken. This week they could not even run a solar hot-water scheme. That scheme, which was the successor to something announced by the coalition, was announced on 19 February 2010 by, guess who, the former minister for the environment and current Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, as the successor to the Home Insulation Program. It was terminated 48 hours ago, without notice, without warning, by the man sitting next to the government dispatch box, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

The Clean Energy Council have denounced the termination. Numerous people within the industry have denounced it. The government has tried to make it clear that the money ran out. Two weeks ago, the portfolio budget statement showed there was $24½ million in the forward estimates for next year—so this program was extended a year ago with an additional $24½ million. That was done in the budget papers in 2011. It was reconfirmed by Treasury two weeks ago, and now that money has mysteriously gone. The government has ripped the solar sector off. It cannot manage the carbon tax, and this tax should be abolished immediately. (Time expired)

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

I want to put on the record that we will not abandon the pricing of carbon. That is the one thing that was raised here by the member for Flinders which he did not actually want to go to in his remarks. We will not abandon the pricing of carbon. This parliament, the parliament elected by the people of Australia, has legislated for the pricing of carbon, and we will not be abandoning the pricing of carbon. It is a mark of the extraordinary extreme economic irresponsibility of the opposition that they would propose even a delay or a modification of the pricing of carbon. But in fact they are proposing here its abandonment.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

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

The member for Flinders was heard in silence!

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

I need to make clear that we have joined the world effort to combat climate change, which the Howard government dragged its feet on until the last minute before the 2007 election. But even the Howard government finally got there, agreeing with Labor's policy of introducing a price on carbon, agreeing with Labor's policy of introducing an emissions trading scheme, agreeing with Labor's policy to take action to fight climate change. It was led in that agreement—dragging the rest of the government along with him kicking and screaming—by the member for Wentworth, as the last Liberal minister for the environment.

This gives me an opportunity to put the record straight in relation to some of the fictions that the member for Flinders has been advancing here in the House about the solar hot-water rebate scheme that was closed this week—or closed with effect from 30 June 2012, because rebates will continue to be paid in respect of applications made through to 30 June 2012 provided there was a contract entered into by 28 February 2012. That scheme, far from having being introduced just recently, far from being in some way—as I think the member for Flinders colourfully put it—a successor to the Home Insulation Program, was in fact a scheme commenced on 17 July 2007, when it was announced by the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the member for Wentworth. I had an occasion to look for the press release, because I wanted to check when it was announced and I wanted to check the way in which it was announced. The member for Wentworth said:

Funding of $252.2 million over five years will also be provided for up to 225,000 solar hot water rebates of $1,000 for households which install eligible solar and heat pump water heaters in their homes.

That is what the then Liberal minister for the environment, the member for Wentworth, said on 17 July 2007.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

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

The member for Flinders will be silent or he will leave the chamber!

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

We in 2009 extended the program to $320 million and have in fact delivered this program. It has now provided rebates in respect of some 250,000 installations and it has been in four budgets. This should be no surprise to any member of this House. It is certainly no surprise to the member for Flinders that this was a time-limited program that has been at all times described as a program for five years. It was described as a program for five years when introduced by the Liberal minister for the environment and it has been described by us as a program running for five years. It has been in four successive federal budgets, there for all to read. Because it was coming to an end in 2012, we have also provided, for run-off purposes, another $24.5 million in respect of rebates that are claimed right up to the last day, 30 June. We will need some funding to make sure that those rebate claims made by Australians are able to be paid. That is the reality of this program. It is a Liberal government initiative continued by us.

But I want to get to the context for this initiative rolled out by the member for Wentworth when he was the last Liberal minister for the environment. The 17 July 2007 media release was headed—and this shows how far the Liberal Party has fallen from economic responsibility and from any real attempt to take action on climate change—'Australia leading the world on climate change'. In it, the last Liberal minister for the environment—and I hope we do not have another one anytime soon—is quoted:

The Australian Government will commence work on a world-leading greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme with careful analysis on a long-term goal for emissions reduction, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull, said today.

'Australia's emissions trading scheme will be the most comprehensive in the world,' said Mr Turnbull.

How far has the Liberal Party fallen from economic responsibility since 2007? A very long way. This is now the party of the $70 billion black hole. It is the party that wants to put up taxes, as demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition's paid parental leave scheme, which he says he is welded to, that is going to be funded by a new tax on business.

The last Liberal government of this country was completely committed to the pricing of carbon. We remain completely committed to the pricing of carbon, and the parliament elected by the people of Australia has legislated for the pricing of carbon. The opposition needs to realise that abandoning the pricing of carbon—which the member for Flinders calls for in this matter of public importance—would condemn Australia to future economic disruption as we get closer to 2020, because the world is now on track to an agreement to reduce the world's emissions. This is a world problem. Once upon a time the Liberal Party actually understood that. We have it clear that abandonment of sound policy is now a hallmark of the opposition. We have it, for example, in seeing that the opposition would abandon the minerals resource rent tax as well because they do not want the people of Australia to have a boost to superannuation and they do not want the people of Australia to have a boost to infrastructure—they do not want the people of Australia, indeed, to share in the benefits of the mining boom.

I have to admit that, like most Australians, I am getting very, very sick of the opposition's endless negativity. We saw confected outrage this week in relation to the orderly closure of a five-year time-limited program for solar hot-water rebates. We saw it again today from the member for Flinders. We need to be clear about this: climate change is happening, climate change is real, and we have to act. The opposition say that they believe this. They say that they support our emission reduction targets. But instead of supporting policy that is in the national interest they engage in an utterly unprincipled scare campaign. What a joke.

Last time I spoke on this issue in this chamber, I noted just how astounding it was to see how those on the other side of this chamber have wilfully perpetuated their own ignorance. They have deliberately ignored the benefits of our clean energy future plan for reasons of political expediency. They try to maintain that we should not put a price on carbon. I remind the House that those opposite do not even believe what they are saying—and, in particular, the member for Flinders does not believe what he is saying. The member for Flinders is very familiar with the benefits of pricing carbon. After all, he did win a prize for his 1990 university thesis entitled 'A tax to make the polluter pay'.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

The member for Flinders is saying he did not win a prize for the essay, but in fact he did write his 1990 thesis on 'A tax to make the polluter pay'. The member for Flinders, back when he had intellectual integrity, even pointed out the benefits of pricing carbon, including that it produces a strong incentive for firms to engage in research and development. But now he goes on and talks about the opposition's so-called direct action plan, toeing the party line. Indeed, this so-called direct action plan is a policy that he is well aware would cost Australians dearly, because this is the substitute that the opposition puts forward for the economically responsible and environmentally responsible policy of pricing carbon.

To reach the five per cent reduction target using the coalition's so-called direct action plan would impose a cost on taxpayers of something in the order of $30 billion between now and 2020. The so-called direct action plan would lead to bigger costs for households than a broad carbon price, and that is something that the member for Flinders and most of those opposite who have any kind of economic understanding understand. That is well understood by all responsible commentators and all responsible economists. The member for Flinders has had a complete loss of credibility, and he has clearly taken lessons from the Leader of the Opposition, who is, as we all know, the master of negativity.

Because our government is focused on actually governing rather than just playing politics and taking positions, because our government is focused on actually governing as opposed to the bizarre and confected hysteria of those opposite, let me explain why our policy is the best way to address climate change. The clean energy future plan is in fact a huge opportunity for Australian workers and a huge opportunity for Australian business. It is a plan which will cut pollution. It is a plan which will drive investment and create jobs in clean energy technologies and infrastructure like solar, gas and wind. It will help build the clean energy future that future Australians deserve.

Action on climate change can help position Australia to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by a future carbon-constrained global economy. The world is taking action. The world is continuing to take action on climate change. Failing to act, which is what those opposite would have us do, will mean that Australia will not be able to fully participate in the new global economy. Failing to act now would mean missing out on access to new markets. It would mean missing out on the benefits that will flow from a more innovative Australia and it would risk the economic costs imposed by late action.

That is what those opposite seem to have failed to understand. If, as it is now agreed that we will work towards, the world reaches an agreement by 2020 that imposes a legally binding obligation on Australia to achieve very major cuts in our emissions and we have not, as we intend to do, embarked on the path of cutting Australia's emissions—and we are a very carbon-intensive economy—if we have not embarked now, in 2012, on the path of reducing Australia's emissions, then the cost to Australia, the cost to the whole of the economy, to Australian workers and to Australian businesses, will be immense. It will cause immense disruption to our economy. But that is the path that the opposition would have us now embark on. That is what they are calling for when they are saying that we should abandon the pricing of carbon.

The clean energy future plan is one of the most significant industry and innovation policies that this nation has seen. It is over $15 billion invested in creating the jobs of tomorrow, most notably in manufacturing. Those opposite would have our industries stand still as their overseas competitors reduce their pollution intensity and get a head start in competing with the low-carbon global economy, because that is where the world is headed.

Of course, because we are the Labor Party, we are a party that represents working people. We will be making sure that low- and middle-income earners receive assistance as we make these changes. In none of the speeches that one hears from those opposite do we ever hear about the assistance part of the clean energy future package. They never talk about assistance, only hysterically inflated estimates of the costs of imposing a price on carbon. It is important to keep the assistance in mind. We have tax cuts. We have increased payments which are targeted at those who need them most. Labor will make sure that pensioners, low- and middle-income earners and families doing it tough are looked after. The rest of the world is acting. Our economy and our environment will be badly damaged unless Australia acts too. It really must take a lot of collective effort to deny reality so comprehensively as the opposition seeks to do. We do know that many of those opposite like to pretend that climate change is not happening. Perhaps one of the people sitting opposite me at the ministerial table—the member for Flinders, I think—is prepared to accept that climate change is happening, but many of those opposite simply ignore the facts, the overwhelming weight of evidence from the scientific community, that climate change is happening, and they have cobbled together a policy which they have got no intention of pursuing if they ever hold office—their so-called direct action policy. Do not be fooled: this is a policy which is not designed to reduce emissions; it is simply a policy that is designed to give an appearance of action. It is a fig leaf to cover the fact that they do not actually want to take any action in respect of climate change. (Time expired)

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We need to start at the very beginning. Why do we have a carbon tax? Did the Prime Minister say before the election: 'We need this carbon tax so we can be competitive. We need this carbon tax so new industries can develop'? No. As we, infamously, are now all too often reminded by people in the street, the Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' So all the reasons that the member for Isaacs has given—this feigned moral high ground—are an absolute farce. It is just another excuse to hide—he mentioned a fig leaf, so I will perhaps borrow—behind the fig leaf of responsible government.

This Prime Minister has pursued a carbon tax not because our competitors are going down this path, because they are not, and we have just recently heard that Japan has categorically ruled it out, and not because our industries are demanding it. The only reason that this Prime Minister has pursued a carbon tax is that the Prime Minister, in her poor, pathetic judgment, thought that that is the price she had to give to the Greens in order to retain power. It is as simple as that. I ask members on the other side: for goodness sake, how could you keep the Prime Minister in her job when her judgment was so lacking? As if the Greens would ever have supported the coalition to form government! All the Prime Minister had to do was throw the Greens a few carrots and say, 'Either you support me or you will end up with the coalition, the mainstream political party, that you hate.' That is all she had to do. She did not have to sell Australian families, Australian power generators, Australian manufacturers and Australian industry down the drain. That poor political judgment is her crime. That poor political judgment will be the nail in her political coffin.

The member for Isaacs talked about the solar hot water rebate. His words yesterday, as they were reported in the media, were astounding. He said that it was actually good economic practice, good budget practice, not to tell anyone you were going to gut a program. So here are Australian retailers and Australian manufacturers saying, 'We believe you, Prime Minister, when you say you want to provide incentives for Australians to move to renewable energy, to alternative energies, so we will invest. We will mortgage our home. We will take out leases on vehicles and on warehouses. We will do all of that because we believe you,' and they did. So now there are small businesses across this country—and we have read about some of them in the media—who are saying: 'What a disgrace. The government has betrayed us. They have removed a scheme that we invested in and now we are going to have to sell up our home because we relied on the word of this government.' And that is an absolute disgrace.

For this government to totally mismanage the economy, to pour billions down the drain with a whole litany of programs and then try to scramble and find a few savings to fulfil the myth that they are going to deliver a surplus, begs the question: if they cannot manage a program like the solar hot water rebate, how on earth can they adequately manage an economy-wide carbon tax? How on earth can we believe them when they make predictions that electricity prices will only go up by 10 per cent, when we have had contrary evidence in the last couple of days with power firms facing a $4 billion carbon slug and predictions that electricity prices will blow out of the water? You cannot trust them. They cannot manage a program like pink batts. There are still warehouses full to the ceiling with pink batts, and the solar hot water rebate program is just pink batts mark II. These people could not organise a party in a tent let alone manage an economy-wide carbon tax.

Even some of the most respectable people on that side know that the carbon tax is a dud. It is no coincidence that we had several members in heavy manufacturing seats—like the member for Corangamite, the member for La Trobe, as well as the current manufacturing minister, Kim Carr—voted for the member for Griffith in the leadership ballot this week. Labor's position on the carbon tax further unravels with the member for Griffith calling for a review after six months, and Martin Ferguson saying in February, 'There is a lot of concern in industry about the price we have locked in and whether we have locked in a price that is to our disadvantage as a nation.' At least he is speaking some truth. At least the Australian people can say that there is at least one person in the Labor Party who is stating the bleeding obvious. Talking about the bleeding obvious, how can a political party that is engaged in an absolute blood feud with the faceless men who are still the puppeteers and holding back the Prime Minister from anointing the foreign minister of her choice—a party that cannot govern itself and cannot administer the solar hot water rebate program—be trusted to administer an economy-wide carbon tax?

The real myth with the carbon tax is that it will grow new jobs, that it will be great for our economy. Well, it is not going to be, because we are going it alone. With this carbon tax we are putting lead in the saddle bags of industries that are already doing it tough. There are challenges: a high dollar, high commodity prices—so why on earth, at this time, would you impose this additional tax?

We have heard from a multitude of industry leaders that the carbon tax will not make a difference to worldwide emissions. Why is that? It is because our industries are relatively efficient. Industries like cement, aluminium and steel have adopted world's best practice and have reduced their emissions. When they have to compete with imported products that do not have a carbon tax imposed upon them, investment is going to go offshore and jobs are going to go offshore. And that investment and those jobs will go to countries that will create more emissions making the things we used to make.

So, hey presto: here we have a carbon tax that has the very real potential of actually increasing worldwide emissions, and the government is still refusing to publicly acknowledge this. How many brownie points would the Prime Minister get by saying: 'You know what? I shouldn't have listened to the Greens. I should have listened to Australian workers. I should have listened to Australian businesses that have done the right thing and become more energy efficient. I should have listened to common sense and actually governed in the national interest.'

The reason they cannot admit they are wrong is that the Prime Minister used to work for the former Premier of Victoria, and his rule was, 'Never admit you're wrong'—never admit you are wrong; just plough through and get through it. That is why this Prime Minister is losing so much respect.

We have heard not just from the heavy industries. We have heard also from food and grocery manufacturing. Kate Carnell said:

For Julia Gillard to say that food companies who aren’t in the top 1000 emitters won’t be affected by carbon tax is simply wrong.

Manufacturers will be impacted right across the supply chain from higher costs in transport, power, refrigeration and food and grocery manufacturing.

That is the reality for so many industries across the board. This government talks about compensation, but you do not compensate people unless you injure them. As Graham Kraehe said, any compensation will be like a bandaid over a bullet wound. These people cannot add up basic figures on the back of an envelope. Does anyone really believe that their compensation to the industries it goes to will actually be adequate? Absolutely not. (Time expired)

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

The opposition wants us to say no to a price on carbon. But I believe we should say yes to a price on carbon, because human-caused climate change is confirmed by every academy of science in the world and 97 per cent—I repeat, 97 per cent—of practicing climate scientists. No study that contradicts the fundamentals of climate change has not been rebutted.

The opposition peddles climate change denial. The Leader of the Opposition last year described carbon as an 'invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless, substance'. Apparently carbon dioxide is some kind of damned elusive scarlet pimpernel, impossible to find or capture. Yet the government of which he was a member enacted legislation—the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act—requiring businesses to measure, monitor and report this allegedly weightless and elusive substance.

The fact is that average air temperature at the Earth's surface has continued on an upward trajectory at a rate of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade over the past three decades. The fact is that the extent of arctic sea ice cover continues on a long-term downward trend, and recent observations confirm net loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The fact is that the sea level has risen at a higher rate over the past two decades.

We should say yes to a price on carbon because climate change will have major impacts on Australia in the future, both on our environment and on our economy. We in Melbourne got a real taste of the future in February 2009 when the Black Saturday bushfires took advantage of Melbourne's 46.4 degrees—it was the hottest day we have ever had—and took advantage of the second driest January since records began. In pre-industrial times, CO2 concentrations were 280 parts per million. They are now 380 parts per million and rising. We are pumping into our atmosphere more carbon than it can deal with, leaving behind a debt for our children—for future generations.

The planet's weather system is a very complex thing, and the changes vary from place to place, from country to country. But the headline impacts are rising temperature, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, inundation of low-lying coastal regions, movement of tropical diseases and more frequent extreme weather events, such as droughts, bushfires, cyclones and floods. In Australia, coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef is of particular concern. The drought we saw in southern Australia during the first decade of this century and the floods we have seen in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria will be our future if we do not put a price on carbon. I am intrigued that the opposition completely ignores the insurance industry, which is very clear about the impact of climate change on so-called natural disasters and on insurance premiums.

We should say yes to a price on carbon because a price on carbon will cut carbon emissions and drive investment in clean energy technologies and infrastructure like solar, gas and wind. It will help build the clean energy future that Australia—and the planet—needs. It establishes a long-term economy-wide target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent from 2000 levels by 2050. That is a bold but science based target which Australia and Australians should be proud of.

We should say yes to a price on carbon because with it will come a $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation which will invest in the commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy and low-emissions technologies. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will play an important role in removing the barriers to investment and encouraging private investors. It is a shame that Australia's world quality renewable energy research has not led to more Australian manufacturing and Australian jobs. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be about changing that.

We should say yes to a price on carbon because it will be paid by around 500 of the biggest carbon polluters. It will not be paid by ordinary Australians. It is not a tax on ordinary Australians; indeed, millions of Australians will pay less tax as a consequence of the carbon price. We should say yes to a price on carbon because the government has gone out of its way to protect those industries and jobs that could potentially be adversely affected by the carbon price. There is a $1.3 billion coal sector jobs package to preserve local communities by providing transitional assistance to emissions-intensive coal mines; a $70 million Coal Mining Abatement Technology Support Package to support technologies to fight fugitive emissions from coal mines; a $300 million Steel Transformation Plan to help the steel industry transition to a clean energy future; a $200 million fund for regional workers in the event they are affected by the introduction of a carbon price; a $200 million Clean Technologies Food and Foundries Investment Program which will provide grants for manufacturers in the food processing and metal forging and foundry sectors; and $5.5 billion of transitional assistance for highly emissions-intensive coal fired electricity generators to promote a smooth transition and maintain energy security.

We should say yes to a price on carbon because all of the money raised from it will go to jobs, clean energy and households. The government will not make a cent from it. Nine in 10 households will receive assistance through tax cuts and/or payment increases. Almost six million households will get tax cuts or increases in payments that cover the entire average price impact. Over four million Australian households will get an extra buffer with assistance that covers 120 per cent of the average price impact of the carbon price.

Over one million Australians will no longer need to lodge a tax return. This is fantastic reform, with the tax-free threshold being trebled from $6,000 to $18,000 per year. While on average the carbon price will cost households $9.90 per week, they will get back even more—an average $10.10 per week—in government assistance. This assistance is permanent and will increase. It is not like the Howard government's one-off compensation to pensioners for the GST. The government will review the adequacy of assistance each year and increase it further if necessary. Pensioners will receive an extra $338 per year if they are single and up to $510 per year for couples combined. This increase will be delivered as a new, permanent and tax exempt Clean Energy Supplement.

We should say yes to a price on carbon because the price will help rural communities benefit from carbon farming, and our birds, plants and animals will benefit from measures to protect biodiverse landscapes. Under the Carbon Farming Futures program $276 million over the forward estimates will help farmers and other landholders to benefit from carbon farming. Through the Biodiversity Fund $572 million over the forward estimates will restore and protect Australia's biodiverse landscape. Under the Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund $10 million over the forward estimates will support Indigenous participation in carbon farming. There will be $40 million for the Regional Natural Resource Management Planning for Climate Change Fund, and there is a carbon farming skills package to support green jobs and ensure that landholders have access to credible high quality advice and carbon services. All up, there will be $1.7 billion over seven years for these really important land and biodiversity measures.

We should say yes to a price on carbon because this is what the world is moving to do. 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 this year. 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. Europe of course has an emissions trading scheme—that is, a price on carbon. I acknowledge that there are plenty of countries around the world that could be doing more, but the idea that we should stand back and wait until everyone else has moved is incredibly short-sighted and irresponsible. Finally, we should say yes to a price on carbon because, as a garden sign in a house in Brunswick in my electorate puts it, 'Say yes to a price on carbon, because my kids are worth it'.

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

The clock is ticking on the discussion of this matter of public importance, and it should be ticking on the carbon tax too. The carbon tax symbolises the stark difference between what people were told before the last election—that there would be no carbon tax under the government the Prime Minister led—and what people are now having shoved down their necks. It is a symbol of deception, but in reality it is also a hit for Australian working families. The Prime Minister claims that most families will have to pay $9.90 per week, but I can assure the Prime Minister and government members opposite that families in my electorate are going to be paying a lot more than that under the carbon tax.

Deloittes says that Mackay will be basically ground zero—the hardest-hit region in the hardest-hit state in Australia. As a result of the carbon tax, Mackay families will be paying, for their high use of electricity through air conditioners, somewhere around $10 a week, if you use the figure of a 20 per cent rise in energy costs that the energy providers are saying the carbon tax will cause. That is just the start. Families will also have to fork out for council rate rises. Rates are a huge impost on many families, and the Deputy Mayor of Mackay claims there will be a two per cent rate rise. That is why local people in the Dawson region do not want this carbon tax. They want it repealed. I have a petition here from 1,100 signatories calling for an election on the carbon tax. That is the least the government can do. I seek leave to table that petition.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that the petition has not been approved as a petition and so the honourable member is seeking leave to table the petition as a document. Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.