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

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

The adverse impact of the carbon tax and its implementation on the Australian economy and households.

I call upon those honourable 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

Eight weeks ago, less than five days into the period of the carbon tax, as the government's floor price and the government's plans collapsed, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy told the Australian newspaper, when asked whether or not they were about to drop the floor price, that they were committed to the package as a whole. This was when the story of what he was about to do was leaked, and he said to the paper something that was transparently, clearly, untrue—they were committed to the package as a whole. In eight weeks we have seen eight major changes to this carbon tax. What was meant to be eternal, what was meant to last a thousand years, what was meant to be the system for the ages, has not even lasted eight weeks. What we have seen so far is chaos and costs and damage, and it is the Australian public that are paying the price of the carbon tax and the government's uncertainty through job losses, investment losses and electricity price rises.

Let me start with what this tax is all about, and that is electricity price rises. The government has been through this period of pretence that electricity prices are somehow not being affected, so let us go to the facts about electricity. In New South Wales we have seen an 18 per cent price rise, and the carbon tax alone has contributed 8.9 per cent. The government seems to dismiss this massive increase on top of what was already a high price as unimportant. It gets better. In Queensland, there have been power price rises of 11 per cent—with the carbon tax on average representing 13 per cent but in some cases representing 80 to 100 per cent of the power price rises. Why? Because the Newman government froze prices on many tariffs and in most cases the carbon tax makes up at least 80 per cent and in many 100 per cent of the power price rises. In Western Australia, 70 per cent of the power price rise comes from the carbon tax. In the Northern Territory it is 70 per cent; in the ACT, more than 75 per cent of the power price rise comes from the carbon tax. They are not our figures—that is the regulator, that is the independent modelling and that is the lived reality of every small business, every family and every pensioner who is paying the price of this carbon tax at this minute. In Victoria we have seen an average increase of about 11 per cent, which is sometimes 15 per cent and sometimes less in terms of electricity price rises.

So what is the message? It is that the carbon tax is in chaos and Australians are paying the price. What was meant to be a system to provide certainty has become the definition of uncertainty—eight major changes so far. We had the bailout on the eve of the carbon tax of Alcoa and of Energy Brix, following on from payments of $250 million in the weeks before the carbon tax to each of the Loy Yang, Hazelwood and Yallourn power stations. To put that in context, they had to give no-strings-attached cash payments—potentially some of the biggest cash payments ever in Australian history—of $250 million to each of three power stations in Victoria.

The second thing we have had is a decrease in the share of funding for small businesses under the government's Clean Technology Investment Program grants. That was announced just weeks into the carbon tax. The third thing is that more companies were added to the hit list for the carbon tax within weeks of the carbon tax being introduced. The 'certain' list changes almost by the week—names coming off, names going on; companies and councils unable to plan. That list is in permanent flux.

The fourth thing we have had is changes to regulations governing the scheme, including a sell-out of landfills which were promised that they would be included in the scheme, so much so that potentially 40 per cent of current landfills will not be covered, including the one where they announced the scheme. They went to Clayton, they announced the scheme and it turns out it was a clayton's promise—that scheme, that landfill, ain't in; it does not qualify. Talk about a hoax and a lack of transparency—going to a landfill, announcing it is in and it turns out it is not. Unsurprisingly, the owners are a little upset. This means that councils end up having to pay higher prices.

Then we get to the fact that they are abandoning the Contract for Closure program. That was a brilliant success—a triumph of administration! This was the minister's baby—he was going to deliver contracts for closures. It is not surprising that this did not work. The geniuses on the other side created two schemes—they created a $2 billion Contract for Closure scheme which was meant to close power stations, and they also created a $5½ billion Energy Security Fund which was meant to pay the same power stations, the same companies, to stay open. So what we are seeing is a fund to close power stations and a fund to keep open power stations. If you ever wanted the definition of a government which had no idea what they were doing, it is the fact that they have allocated $7½ billion, $2 billion to keep them open and $5½ billion for them to close. That is evidence of a bunch of people who make it up as they go along. They do not care how much public money they spend; they do not care how much public money they waste—but they do care whether or not there is a pretence of action. It is all about the pretence of action.

Then we go to the scrapping of the floor price. On 5 July the minister said that they were committed to the package as a whole. The story had been leaked from within his own department to the Australian that they were going to drop the floor price. He denied it—flatly, clearly, absolutely. But he denied it knowing that he was in negotiations to drop the price. A level of honesty is required to be a member of parliament but there does not seem to be a lot of that on the other side. This minister went to the newspaper and flatly denied something which was known to them, known to us, known to the parties and revealed publicly, and he could not face the fact that, five days in, the carbon tax was in chaos and one of the pillars of their own scheme was collapsing. The minister said:

Well we've put in a floor price at a price cap to provide some confidence over the first few years about the potential variability of the price.

He said the ceiling 'would avoid sharp price spikes or plunges'. There are numerous other quotes, from 11 occasions on the floor of the parliament or the public domain, from the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the minister and the Minister for Finance who have all said that this floor price was vital, that it was essential, that it was critical. The thing about this government is that every day is year zero; every day they draw a line under the page and what they said yesterday is a relevant—it means nothing. That is the fundamental problem. There is no commitment to consistency; there is no sense of sovereign risk; there is no sense of duty or of obligation. Everything has a shelf life of 24 hours. How could you make that statement, knowing that it was untrue? Both the minister and the parliamentary secretary know that what was said was untrue, that the minister deceived the Australian people—knowingly, openly, publicly—and he did it again on 21 August on national television. At the very time he was preparing to announce the dismantling of the floor price he was denying it on national television. There was no escape clause; there was no hedging; there was no recognition of a possible future change. It was an express, clear and absolute denial of a process which had begun months before. And they say this is all about certainty. Well, it is not.

That then leads me to the fact that they had linked the scheme to Europe—so they say. We could always buy European credits, but for those members who represent rural constituencies, your constituents will be surprised that we have done a deal to give Europe a virtual monopoly seller status to Australia. In return, what would you expect Australians would get? Virtual monopoly seller status to Europe perhaps? No. The ability to sell to Europe immediately? No. The ability to sell to Europe in 2015? No. Australia would get the ability to sell to Europe finally in 2018. In other words, their great deal locked out Australian farmers and Australian firms from having any engagement in Europe, while giving Europe that shining beacon of economic reform at this current moment—a virtual monopoly seller status to Australia. They have done something extraordinary. They have given effective control over Australian taxation and electricity rates to a sovereign state.

Mr Combet interjecting—

If you do not understand that the carbon tax sets electricity prices, then you should not be in the job because that is precisely what it does. The carbon tax sets electricity prices. It is an electricity tax. It is designed to be an electricity tax. It is intended to be an electricity tax and it is an electricity tax. And on every statement the minister has made in the past 24 hours we hear that they have transferred—by their own words— control over Australia's system to Europe. But you would wonder whether this is going to mean lower prices.

Let us unpack what they are doing. They have tried to imply that it might mean lower electricity prices in Australia. They have hinted, they have nudged, they have winked, but their own modelling, reaffirmed by the minister, says that the carbon tax price in 2016 will still be $29 a tonne. It will still be $37 a tonne in 2020.

So what does all this mean in real terms. It means that the price of electricity will still be high and all of this talk is a hoax. Their own modelling is still of $29 a tonne. If it is not then their budget will fall apart. Either electricity prices will continue to soar or their budget falls apart. They have given the nation a Hobson's choice because the system they have designed is not robust. It does not deal with any inconsistencies, any changes, and they know it. They know that electricity prices are going to continue to soar because they have told us. $29 a tonne is still the modelling and, if it is not the modelling, this is the opportunity for the minister to tell us. I would invite the minister, during his 15 minutes, to tell us if his modelling still stands because, if it does, electricity prices will continue to soar. If it does not, you have the slight matter of a massive budget crater.

This government have made massive changes with massive consequences on a carbon tax at a time when we see skyrocketing electricity prices. We also see a massive problem for industrial production and therefore jobs and therefore investment in Australia—Olympic Dam, changes to the outer harbour at Port Hedland, changes to Fortescue Investments, the Gregory mine in terms of coal and today the Red Hill coalmine. This is just weeks after Marius Kloppers specifically said that the carbon tax would have a huge impact on eastern seaboard coalmines. And what is this government's approach? It squanders the boom. It says, 'It's all a coincidence, everything's fine, no problem, nothing happening, it's all an accident, don't worry everybody.' It is not an accident; it is about making a bad situation worse.

With a high dollar, low metals prices and low coal prices, we are seeing an act of economic self-harm on a monumental scale. And it is an act of individual harm. Whether it is the motel, whether or it is the butcher who has to update his or her refrigeration, whether it is the pensioner, whether it is the family, these people are paying the price of the government's carbon tax uncertainty. The government will tell us, 'We've got a billion dollars in clean technology investment grants. We've got a billion dollars for small businesses.' The only problem is—and this brings me to the eighth change—they froze it. They told us what a great job they were going to do for all the small businesses, but they froze their own program, which was meant to save the people they were hurting. So their budget is in chaos, their carbon tax is in chaos and electricity prices are skyrocketing, and they do not think any of it is a problem—but it is.

At the end of the day, the grand irony is that emissions go up, not down. The Australian public is right onto this, by the way—emissions go up, not down. So over the period from 2010 to 2020 Australia's emissions go up by 43 million tonnes. That is not our work—yours. At the end of the day, it is hurting the economy, it is hurting families and it does not do the job. (Time expired)

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That really was like being whipped with a piece of wet lettuce. One is reminded of Tony Abbott's promise that there would be a people's revolt, and this is what it culminates in—a pathetic address from the shadow minister. They have nothing left. They have tried every piece of fearmongering they can find. They have misrepresented every fact they possibly can. This is nothing but a desperate, failing fear campaign.

I spent many, many years representing working people and I never, ever stood before them and deceived them or tried to create fear to garner their support in the way the coalition has. It is a disgrace what the coalition has done. The mendacity of the opposition leader is unparalleled in a campaign against a very important public policy initiative. It is pathetic and it has come to nothing. And people are finding you out. You are wondering what is going on in the community; you make assertions. They are finding out exactly how they are being misled by the coalition.

Let us just take a look at the electricity bill submitted by the member for Menzies during question time. Just a cursory glance indicates that, in the previous billing period, the total of the bill was approximately $9,500. In the billing period subsequent to the introduction of the carbon price, the bill has actually fallen by 36 per cent in quantum to $5,970. This is the level of complexity that they cannot come to grips with; the bill actually fell by 36 per cent. The member for Menzies claimed, I think, that it had gone up 45 per cent due to carbon pricing. The mendacity of these people to keep coming forth and making these claims!

The shadow minister and the opposition leader repeatedly try and attribute all electricity price increases to carbon pricing. Let us have a few facts. They said in their argument that a 10 per cent increase in electricity prices attributable to carbon pricing—across the country it is an average of $3.30 per household—is the end of the world, the end of the economy. They said regions and industry will be smashed and destroyed. The Latrobe Valley, which the member opposite represents, was going to be destroyed. It would be the end of it. They would all be gone. And, of course, it was all rubbish.

What did they say over the last three years as electricity prices across the country in fact went up by 50 per cent on average and it was nothing whatsoever to do with carbon pricing? There was not a word out of them. What did they do when Colin Barnett's government in Western Australia increased electricity prices by 57 per cent in the last two years? They said that is fine, no problem whatsoever. But when you add $2.50 to the average household bill in regional Australia they say it is the end of the world, it is the end of the mining industry, it is the end of the Western Australian economy! They are a farce. What they have been putting is a complete joke. And now they have come to this: the shadow minister waving around a piece of wet lettuce in an attempt to make an argument. I mean, how pathetic!

Let us just go back to some of the basics of what we are doing here. We are responding to scientific advice that the coalition say they respect too. Who knows? The opposition leader has called it absolute crap from time to time. This government respects the scientific advice, the overwhelming scientific consensus, that tells us increasing greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change. This government has responded in an economically efficient manner, in a manner that will be environmentally effective and, importantly, in a manner that is socially fair. On electricity bills, I mentioned that the average household impact across the country is $3.30 a week. That is what it is, that is what was modelled, that is what has been determined by regulators and that is the outcome. And we did not mislead anyone. What did we do? We provided an average of $10.10 per week per household to people across the country to assist them with that cost increase. Because we are a Labor government, we are using the majority of revenue from the carbon price to assist households. Nine out of 10 households will receive some assistance. Millions of households are better off as we have introduced a carbon price in a socially fair and equitable manner.

I mentioned the science and the fact that the carbon price mechanism is responsive to the advice of scientists, academies and science internationally. There was news just this week about the increasing melting of Arctic Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that governments have a public policy responsibility to deal with this issue. It is important to deal with it in the most economically efficient manner, the way that is the lowest cost to Australian businesses and lowest cost to Australian households. That is precisely what the government is doing. And we are not acting alone in that endeavour.

I have the privilege of representing this country in international climate change negotiations. It is a tremendous honour. I sit there with all the other members of the United Nations. Not one country rejects the science, and every country is working hard towards an international solution to deal with this issue. And, given that we are the 15th largest emitter of greenhouse gases internationally amongst all members of the United Nations and that we are the highest emitter of greenhouse gases among the advances economies on a per capita basis, our colleagues internationally expect this country to do our fair share of the work in tackling greenhouse gas emissions. And that is exactly what we are doing.

We are working with the international community to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We have implemented the policy of the Howard government in many respects. The Shergold report of 2006-07, which was a policy position adopted by the Howard government and taken to the 2007 election, is essentially what this government has worked from to implement the carbon pricing mechanism. It is in fact an emissions trading scheme that starts with a three-year fixed-price period and transitions to a fully flexible emissions trading scheme from 1 July 2015. From 1 July 2015 our carbon price mechanism will be linked with the European Union emissions trading scheme. That will mean we will have a carbon price that is effectively the same as 30 other countries covering 530 million people. We will have a carbon price that will be common to the efforts of 30 other economies—and, taken in aggregate, those economies represent our second largest trading partner after China. So much for the argument from the coalition that somehow Australia is going it alone—that somehow we are out of step with the rest of the world. All that we are doing is in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, negotiations with countries under that convention, and work on a bilateral basis, including with the European Union. We are working internationally to tackle this issue and to ensure that Australia does no more than its fair share in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Leader of the Opposition runs around all the time misleading people, deceiving people by saying nothing is going on internationally in relation to this issue. I indicated in question time how he had just remarked last month that there was nothing going on in the Asia-Pacific region. I had the opportunity of visiting China earlier this year to discuss with Chinese authorities the development of market mechanisms similar to our own. We have working groups working with China. Guangdong province, which is our sixth-largest trading partner, is developing an emissions trading scheme. Cross to the other side of the Asia-Pacific, to the United States: the US state of California, which is the eighth-largest economy in the world, has introduced an emissions trading scheme. It has carbon pricing. It is a larger economy than our own. The Korean government has legislated an emissions trading scheme to start in 2015. They are our fourth-largest trading partner. We are working with all of these countries, all of these provinces, all of these states, to develop a response that is effective and market based in dealing with climate change issues.

The mechanism that we have introduced is a market mechanism, and it is simple. It provides a price signal for the major greenhouse gas emitters in our economy, which number approximately 350 in this current compliance period. It is an incentive for them to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. They will make the decisions about how best to achieve that. They will be obliged, under the legislation, to purchase a permit for every tonne of greenhouse gas that they emit. It creates a powerful incentive to reduce emissions.

It was the policy, once, of the coalition. It was the policy of the Howard government. It was an agreement that was reached with the coalition in opposition under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull. It is a policy proposition that has been supported and is supported by every living Liberal leader, including the current opposition leader.

It is economic common sense that we apply an incentive in this way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it is exactly what is happening. The entire conversation with the business community has changed as a consequence of carbon pricing coming into place. Businesses are looking to see how they can improve their energy efficiency—produce the same output for fewer greenhouse gas emissions. They are looking to improve the efficiency of their operations, to reduce their emissions intensity. Landfills are applying mechanisms to cut their methane emissions and utilise them to generate electricity. I spoke at the meat industry conference just two weeks ago in Adelaide where it is feasible for abattoirs that have a carbon price liability to capture the methane emissions that are produced from the decomposition of the biomass that is produced in an abattoir, convert them into electricity, be self-reliant on their electricity generation, sell the electricity into the grid, create fertiliser and have new revenue streams, and remove themselves from carbon price liability. That is exactly what the carbon price mechanism is intended to achieve. We have done this in a careful consultation with the business community across many, many industries over a considerable period of time, and it will be effective in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

The entire case brought against it by the coalition is fallacious. The price impacts, that were said to be unimaginable by the opposition leader, are, of course, bang on what the Treasury estimates indicated they would be. In fact, the Reserve Bank had this to say about it in the minutes just recently:

There was no evidence that the carbon price had raised medium-term inflation expectations.

And they indicated that:

… the introduction of the carbon price had not yet had a significant effect on downstream price pressures, with only isolated examples of suppliers attributing price increases to the carbon price.

The Treasury modelling indicated price impacts would be just 0.7 per cent on the CPI in financial year 2012-13. They are coming in underneath that on all indicators. We are using the majority of the carbon price revenue to help households and particularly to help pensioners—to help the households that need help the most. The business community is adjusting. In fact, there was a survey of many of the liable entities under the carbon price mechanism, and there are not many of them that want it repealed, because the fact of the matter is: they know that a carbon price is the most effective way for us to create this incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the emissions intensity of our economy.

There is a simple fact that is becoming clear to the Australian community, and it is not only that there has been a mendacious and deceitful fear campaign conducted by the opposition against this policy initiative; it is also the knowledge and the realisation and the common sense of the Australian people that the carbon price cannot and will not be repealed. It cannot and it will not be repealed. It is a fact of the matter that it will not be repealed.

The Leader of the Opposition stood there this afternoon, full of hubris. They reckon they have got the next election in their pocket. Well, I tell them what: they are in for a fight. We are fighters on this side, and we are going to fight you, and we are going to win this issue. We will win it because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for the country. It is right for our economic future. It is right environmentally. It is socially fair. And we are going to argue it out and argue it out, right up to election day, and we will win it. You will not be the wreckers that you want to be. I do not know how you can sit there and retain any integrity, given your background, and adopt the policy position that has been taken by the coalition on this. David Marr nailed the character of the opposition leader in that essay, and he knows it. It is all politics and no policy, and you know it as well as I do. And we will win this argument.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( The minister clearly should have stuck to the script. He liked to claim that the shadow minister's address was pathetic. He liked to claim that there was a desperate, failing, fear campaign. All this week we have had members opposite saying that our carbon tax campaign has run into a brick wall. They claim the community has moved on and that nobody is worried about it anymore. I thought' 'Why not test the theory? How might we test the theory?' If the government is so confident, if the minister is so confident that no one cares about his carbon tax anymore, what not test the theory? Why don't we have an election? Minister, why do we not have an election and test the theory? Here is something novel: you say you want to fight; well, do not run from the Australian people. Let them have a chance to have their say. The carbon tax is a bad tax. It is not based on the truth and we will repeal it. We can repeal it, we will repeal it and we look forward to the day we get the opportunity to do so.

No one has forgotten about the fundamental breach of trust of this Prime Minister and it goes to the core of every little piece of anger in the community relating to the carbon tax. What was it that the Prime Minister told the Australian people before the last election? 'I rule out a carbon tax. There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' The Treasurer was also complicit in that deceit. He said that claims about the plans for a carbon tax were 'hysterical'. Well, they are not as hysterical as the claims from the Treasurer that they are going to have a budget surplus this year. They are not as hysterical as that because, quite frankly, that will never happen.

I am prepared to bet that the Treasurer will never deliver a surplus. In fact, I have invited the Treasurer to put his money where his mouth is. I have offered him a $1,000 bet. In October last year I offered the Treasurer a genuine wager. He will not bet with me. But if he so confident why would he not? I said, 'Here is a chance to win 1,000 bucks for your favourite charity, Treasurer.' I told him in this chamber if he delivers that budget surplus this financial year I would donate $1,000 to his favourite charity. But if he does not deliver the surplus he will donate $1,000 to my favourite charity, which happens to be my local surf lifesaving club. This is a Treasurer who has presided over four budget deficits in a row. Like the rest of Australia, I simply do not believe he will ever achieve a surplus. I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is. I am not sure while why the Treasurer will not do the same.

All Australians, just like me, want to know where the money is going to come from. This government has no credibility on economic issues. At a time when the economy is slowing, no one has faith in this Treasurer or this Prime Minister to get the big calls right, which goes to the very heart of this matter of public importance. I am disappointed the Prime Minister is not here. At a time when the manufacturing sector is struggling and the mining industry is giving indications that times are getting tough and when the agricultural sector is going through hard times to compete on world markets, why would any government elected to govern in the national interest make it harder? Why would you make it harder for the manufacturing sector, for the mining sector and for the agricultural sector? Why would you make it harder for any Australian industry to compete with the imposition of the world's biggest carbon tax?

What we are seeing, as this Treasurer tries to prop up this artificial surplus he keeps talking about, is a freeze on spending by the government on programs like the Regional Structural Adjustment Assistance Package, which was meant to assist regions adversely affected by the carbon tax. Members who are not from regional electorates may not have heard of this package before but it is a $200-million package and not a cent of that package has been delivered. In fact, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government admitted during the budget consideration in detail stage that the guidelines of the $200-million package had not even been prepared.

Regional communities were promised in the lead up to the introduction of the carbon tax that they would be helped through the adjustment phase, that there would be structural adjustment funding. I am sure the minister at the table knows that. This is what the minister for regional development, the Minister for Climate Change and the Prime Minister repeated during visits to my electorate in the Latrobe Valley. This is what the minister for regional development said during the budget consideration in detail:

The guidelines for the Structural Adjustment Fund for the regions most affected by the carbon pricing initiative are still being considered and, in any event, they were always going to be contingent upon impact, once we knew where the ‘contracts for closure’ were going to occur.

Those who were not listening at that time may not have picked up the get-out-of-jail card hidden in the minister's weasel words: '…they were always going to be contingent upon impact, once we knew where the contracts for closure were going to occur.' But the problem is the contracts-for-closure process has now been abandoned. Are we to assume that the $200 million is gone? The $200 million that was meant to be given to regional Australia is gone because, according to the minister, it was always going to be contingent upon contracts for closure. Those opposite might say that is fair enough. The contracts for closure is gone and the $200 million package is gone. Except that is not true. That is not what the government promised.

I have here a fact sheet that I printed out this morning on the Clean Energy Future website. Let me read the section on the Regional Structural Adjustment Assistance Package.

The $200 million Regional Structural Assistance Package will be set aside for structural adjustment assistance for regions and communities, and if required there will be other initiatives which assist strongly affected areas and sectors.

The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government will monitor the impacts of the carbon price on regions to determine areas where structural adjustment assistance may be required

… … …

Funding will support regional communities on a case-by-case basis. Examples of programs that may be supported include support for displaced workers and their families, support for affected small businesses, community development programs and economic diversification programs.

It is interesting the minister, who is due to speak next, has run from the House. I am assuming he is going to try and find this little fact sheet and try and find what the writing instructions are going to be about contracts for closure and the $200 million. The reason I wanted record that in Hansard is, I imagine, that website may be adjusted in the very near future. I imagine the fact sheet may be pulled from the website because in this fact sheet there is not one mention of contracts for closure. The package was put together because the government supposedly understood that some regions and communities will face more significant impacts than others from reforms like the carbon price.

On 11 July this year Minister Crean put out a press release with the heading: Clean Energy Opportunity for Regional Australia.Mr Crean said:

… the Government recognised the reality that some regions and communities would face more significant impacts than others.

Labor's major economic reforms of the past have been underpinned by structural adjustment assistance, to ease the transition for affected regions and communities.

We will build on our legacy with a $200 million Regional Structural Adjustment Assistance Package.

We will closely monitor the impact of the carbon price and ensure affected communities have access to the employment and training opportunities needed to underpin community development and economic diversification.

There was no mention again about the $200 million and the fund being contingent upon the contracts for closure program. Where is the $200 million?

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

It is in the dispatch box.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not going to search in the dispatch box. I fear the good people of the Latrobe Valley and regional Australia have been conned again by the Gillard government. We were promised 'no carbon tax under a government I lead' and now we have that tax—thanks to a grubby little deal with the Greens and the Independents. We were promised a Regional Structural Adjustment Assistance Package to help secure jobs and protect our future and we have received nothing, zero, nought, zilch, nada. It is a saving. I will be interested to see if the minister has been able to find the answer in the last couple of minutes. We have been conned. There is no structural adjustment package funding, and if the Prime Minister was honest with the Australian people she would walk in here and explain it herself. She would confirm that the package has been abandoned.

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

How mendacious!

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina says it is mendacious. I just said that so it would get on the record.

The Prime Minister would confirm that $200 million has been covered up by the Treasurer, who is desperately trying to cling to his claim of a surplus in this financial year. Make no mistake: the cuts are coming, and this program is on the chopping block because this government has given up on Australia's blue-collar workers.

The other great con about the carbon tax that this government likes to perpetrate in the community is that only the so-called biggest polluters will pay that carbon tax. That is as misleading as the Prime Minister's promise that there will be no carbon tax under a government she leads, because everyone pays the carbon tax through energy prices—through our local football and netball clubs, with their lights; our local aged care facilities; our hospitals and our surf clubs. The Lakes Entrance fishing industry wrote to me the other day. They have a $24,000 a year estimated increase in their power bills. And the carbon tax will affect local dairy farmers. The member for Forrest has dairy farmers in her electorate as well. They are going to be hit with a $5,000 extra cost to their energy bills on an annual basis. Everyone pays a carbon tax every day of the week.

But what does the Prime Minister say when asked about these increased costs? The Prime Minister repeatedly comes in here and says that businesses can pass those costs through. So the Prime Minister is quite happy for the cost of living to increase. In fact, she is suggesting that businesses pass the cost through and make life more difficult for their customers.

What concerns me most of all in relation to the carbon tax is the crisis of confidence it has caused in regional communities. It is directly linked to the uncertainty this government has created through its reckless decision to legislate the world's biggest carbon tax. As long as this carbon tax hangs over the heads of regional Australians and their businesses and families it is hard to see that confidence being restored.

If the members opposite really think the anti-carbon tax campaign has run out of steam—if they really think we have hit a brick wall with this campaign—then let's have an election. Let's let the people of Australia decide. (Time expired)

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

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this matter, because the state of the Australian economy, our prosperity, fairness and equity are of the greatest importance to the Gillard Labor government.

What we have heard today so far from the coalition—from the member for Flinders and the member for Gippsland—is yet more of the campaign of negativity that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition and more of the backward views that we have come to expect from the coalition, more of their shameless deceit and more of the false claims that they have repeatedly made since we announced the carbon price package in July last year. And it is a campaign which is running out of puff.

We have an opposition which continues to talk down our economy. We have an opposition which continues to misrepresent the state of our economy. We have a coalition that pretends that it cares about climate change while fighting against real action.

It is important that members opposite realise a few facts about the actual state of the Australian economy. Under our government the Australian economy continues to out-perform other advanced economies. As the Treasurer said in question time today, the economy has grown by 11 per cent since the start of 2008—that is, since Labor has been in government. And that is despite the global financial crisis that our country and the rest of the world has been enduring. The reason that the Australian economy continues to out-perform other advanced economies is Labor's investments in skills, infrastructure, education and research—all of which support economic growth in the long term. And the economy has continued to grow because we acted to stimulate the economy at the right time.

Of course too many Australians are finding it hard to make ends meet, but that is why we—Labor—continue to manage the economy in the interests of working people. That is why we cut taxes for low income earners by raising the tax-free threshold. That is why we invest in better health care. That is why we invest in dental reform. That is why we invest in education and training.

Let's remember: the opposition leader claimed that price rises would be unimaginable. Over and over again we were told, over the last year, that price rises would be unimaginable. We were told that the carbon price would be a wrecking ball through the Australian economy. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition, by the member for Flinders, by the member for Indy and so many of those opposite that it would destroy jobs. And none of those claims is true.

Those opposite like to say that we are acting ahead of the world. This is another thing that we need to be clear about. The world is acting. Ninety countries, representing 90 per cent of the global economy, have committed to reduce their carbon pollution and have policies in place already to achieve those reductions. And many of those countries are relying on a market based mechanism.

I know that those opposite do not like to hear this but those countries which are relying on a market based mechanism know, as our government knows, that a carbon price is the most effective way to reduce emissions—and more efficient than other, direct subsidy policies. That is why by next year 850 million people will be living in countries, states or cities with emissions trading systems. That includes countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland.

Carbon trading is already operating at a subnational level in the United States, at a subnational level in Canada and at a subnational level in Brazil. And there is growing momentum to introduce carbon trading around the world. California will commence emissions trading next year. China is developing pilot emissions trading schemes in seven cities and provinces, which will also commence next year. And Korea's emissions trading scheme—a legislated emissions trading scheme—will commence in 2015.

The delusional approach taken by those opposite—they have nailed their colours to the mast here—is that nothing is happening in the rest of the world. That means that every time a new country acts—or a place like California legislates to commence an emissions trading scheme on 1 January next year, or Korea legislates to commence its emissions trading scheme in 2015—we get denial from those opposite. They do not want to own up to what is happening in the world. They do not want to approach this.

Mr Tudge interjecting—

I would have expected better from the member for Aston because he has some economics training. I would have expected him to be able to read what the OECD and the IMF say about this, and what all countries that have already introduced the emissions trading scheme are saying—they know that it is the least cost, most efficient means of reducing carbon pollution. Countries like Turkey, South Africa, Thailand and Chile are also working to develop carbon pricing schemes, and in fact 94 per cent of OECD countries—

Mr Hunt interjecting—

Mr Tudge interjecting—

I know this is hard for those opposite to grapple with—94 per cent of OECD members have, or are implementing, emissions trading at the national or sub-national level.

It is not surprising that those opposite disregard these facts, as they so often do. The Leader of the Opposition who thinks that climate change is crap. He likes to pay lip-service—

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That was unparliamentary language that the minister just used, and I ask him to withdraw it.

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

I will not withdraw it because I was directly quoting from the Leader of the Opposition, who said—

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

I am going to call the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

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

Those opposite know what the Leader of the Opposition said. They are embarrassed by it. They should be embarrassed by it. It is still the case that, despite his attitudes, the Leader of the Opposition is paying lip-service to taking action on climate change. We have got him paying lip-service to quite a few things, but we know what he really thinks.

The other deceitful claims that they continue to make we heard again today from the member for Flinders and from the member for Gippsland. We only have to look at the most recent Reserve Bank of Australia minutes, released this week, to see that the Leader of the Opposition's campaign of negativity on prices is baseless. I am going to quote directly—just as I was quoting directly from the Leader of the Opposition—from the RBA minutes. They said:

… the introduction of the carbon price had not yet had a significant effect on downstream price pressures, with only isolated examples of suppliers attributing price increases to the carbon price. There was no evidence—

I will repeat that: 'there was no evidence'—

that the carbon price had raised medium-term inflation expectations.

That was the Reserve Bank of Australia on the price impacts.

On jobs, this is something that those opposite like to point to. What hypocrisy from this opposition, an opposition which has remained mute, struck dumb, by the massive cuts that have been occurring in the state of Queensland. It is good that there are members opposite from Queensland here to listen to this. Australians now know that the biggest risk to their jobs is the election of a Liberal government, as the Queensland state Liberals have shown. How those opposite can bring themselves to pretend that they care about jobs when they welcome the destructive cuts that we have seen in the state of Queensland, the destructive cuts they have seen from their Liberal colleagues, is beyond me.

The Leader of the Opposition's Mini-Me, Queensland Premier Campbell Newman, told Australians before his budget that he had discussed with the Leader of the Opposition the details of the cuts he was proposing to make and that the Leader of the Opposition enthusiastically supported him on those cuts. Of course, he has gone ahead and made those cuts, so we know, and all other Australians know, exactly what we are going to get if there is ever—perish the thought—a Liberal federal government. Just like the cuts that we have seen from Premier Newman in sacking nurses, sacking teachers and sacking police, a federal Liberal government would sack public servants in vast numbers, gutting services and communities. We know they would do it and they would relish it, because that is what Liberal governments do. They would like nothing more than to get back into government and get right into cutting the pay and conditions of Australian working people. (Time expired)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under section 92(a)(ii) of the standing orders, it says:

The Speaker can intervene:

… … …

  (ii) when a Member’s conduct is considered offensive …

Some of the remarks, that the parliamentary secretary thinks that we would take great joy and pride in sacking people, I do think are offensive.

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

Other Deputy Speakers in this place have made the point that when referring to groups there is a broader shoulder to rely on. I call the member for Wright.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How extraordinary that in the segue into my speech that we would talk about quotes, because there is no more telling quote when it comes to the carbon tax of this nation than that made by the Prime Minister four days before the last election: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That was a complete deception of the Australian public. So do not come into this House and put forward quotes. I could mention more quotes; there are more than just the 'no carbon tax under a government I lead'. That is your Achilles heel in this campaign.

Earlier the minister indicated that he wanted to bring on a fight. Let me advise you, when it comes to the next election: do not bring a knife to a gunfight. The next election will be a bloodbath. If you had any guts you would muscle up and bring on an election right now because the Australian people have had it up to here with the deception this government has practised on the impact of the carbon tax.

Just in case anybody was thinking that the Prime Minister might have been misquoted or that she might have been out there on her own, I draw the attention of the House to a quote from the Treasurer. He said it was absolutely:

… hysterical … that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.

What is hysterical is that we are standing here in the Australian parliament still debating the carbon tax. Since this carbon tax was introduced into the House it has had no less than eight changes to it. This is a moving feast. My colleague earlier today raised and highlighted those eight issues.

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

Quite eloquently.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eloquently, of course. But let me just bring some of them to your attention. One of the fundamentals of the introduction of the carbon price that Labor introduced was that it would be connected to a floor price. That was fundamental to the introduction. And we have had enough quotes for the day, but, to quote the Prime Minister, it was to 'give business stability', to give 'certainty' so that we could 'get used to the transition'. Well, that is gone. So, again, I just reiterate the point that this is a government that, on a daily basis, will say one thing and, in the blink of an eye, do another thing—continually. Nearly daily we are seeing this transition of paranoia on policy, jumping all over the place. There was also the halting of support for the industry via the clean technology investment grants. I can hardly keep up with the changes, given that there have been eight more recently. This carbon tax is nothing more than a tax on electricity. We are told continuously that mums and dads will not pay the carbon tax.

An opposition member: Rubbish.

Exactly. It is rubbish. It will go into the pockets of every mum and dad. This government will put its hands into the pockets of every business and everyone who relies on a fridge, on a toaster or on a kettle. You will not be able to escape the carbon tax. It is purely a tax on electricity.

The previous speaker spoke about our colleagues in Queensland, with reference to the cuts they are having to make to the budget up there. Of course Queensland will not be able to escape the tentacles of the carbon tax. But let me remind Australia, and let me remind this parliament, why, as a result of the Labor government's capacity to run an economy, these dreadful cuts up there are having to be undertaken at the moment. We had a government in Queensland—we just got rid of them—that was simply unable to take money out of one account and stick it into another account to pay our hardworking doctors and nurses in Queensland. For years and years, that task was beyond them. When it comes to introducing a system like the carbon tax, we do not need to go any further than the insulation program. I think 200 homes were burnt to the ground, with a horrible loss of life.

But don't just take my word on how much this carbon tax is affecting the economy. The growth in GDP of 0.06 per cent in the June quarter was less than half of the 1.4 per cent recorded in the March quarter. The surprise was that much of the growth in the June quarter was due to government spending. The government comes in here daily and tells you how strong the economy is. Yes, there are some strong indicators in our economy. But I can assure you that the strong indicators in our economy are not due to fiscal management; they are due to supply and demand, push-and-pull factors on the government. Basically, that just means we are very good at digging red and black rocks and selling them to our trading partners. When it comes to internal fiscal management, the government sector directly contributed 0.05 per cent growth in GDP through its consumption and investment. On top of this, the June quarter results included the effects of the government's sugar hit of the schoolkids bonus and carbon tax compensation package totalling $2.8 billion. This in turn boosted household disposable income and spending for that quarter.

When we look at the engine room of the economy—our small business sector and our corporate sector—company profitability continued to deteriorate, and the corporate gross operating surplus declined for the third consecutive quarter. Company profitability will be further impacted by rising input costs in coming quarters, such as rising electricity costs and transportation costs.

Further, I refer you to the Australian Industry Group/Commonwealth Bank performance indexes of August 2012. Now, these are not the coalition's words. So when you hear the government say that we come in here and scaremonger, note that I am quoting word for word from industry groups about their concerns about the carbon tax. The latest seasonally adjusted Australian Industry Group/Commonwealth Bank Australian Performance of Services Index, which is known as the Australian PSI, fell by 4.1 points in August to 42.4. This marks the seventh consecutive month that activity has contracted in those services sectors.

An opposition member: Shame!

It is a shame. In fact, no services subsector—not one—reported growth in sales or new orders this month. The only one that did was the finance and insurance subsector, which recorded a reading of above 50 points. The reasons business identified as contributing to the poor performance included weak consumer demand, which is built on the back of lack of business confidence. And why do people lack business confidence? It is because of increasing taxes. ANZ job advertisements declined by 0.08 per cent in July and by 2.3 per cent in August. And that is not coalition scaremongering; that is from the ANZ Job Advertisement Index.

The Deloitte CFO Survey for the second quarter of 2012 showed that business uncertainty had hit its highest level in over a year, with 87 per cent of company finance officers saying it was above normal; 84 per cent of CFOs said that uncertainty over Australian government policy negatively affected optimism, which was up from 79 per cent in the third quarter of 2011. Moreover, 36 per cent of CFOs said that political uncertainty significantly affected optimism, which was higher than the other factor.

They are domestic quotes, but let us go international—because all these other nations are supposed to be coming on board with an economy-wide carbon tax. Listen very carefully to members on the other side: when they talk about other nations' involvement in carbon tax, they will very carefully leave out the word 'economy-wide'. We have an economy-wide one; others have just bits and pieces. There is no other nation in the world that has an economy-wide carbon tax. In the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, in 2007-08 Australia was ranked 10th in terms of wastefulness of government spending. In 2012-2013 we had slumped to 48th. That is, Australia was ranked as far more wasteful under the Rudd-Gillard government than when Howard left office. In 2007-08 Australia was ranked 68th in terms of burden of government regulation. In 2012-2013 we are ranked 96th. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I leave you with one last comment before I go. It is in reference to a comment made by Mike Young, the Managing Director of BC Iron. Mike made the truthful comment: 'I know guys in New York who will not invest in Australia until this government is gone.' If you want to come into this place and talk quotes, that is a quote. Believe me, if this fight wants to have a fight on carbon tax—

Debate interrupted.

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

Order! It being 4.30pm I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two years on and the carbon tax is a major breach of faith, when we were promised we would never have to pay. We all remember five days before the last election when Prime Minister Julia Gillard said 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. Well, we all know that now, in 2012, we have a carbon tax, a tax that is hurting all Australians. It is no scare campaign; it is absolute fact. All Australians, and indeed Territorians, are experiencing higher electricity prices, higher freight costs and higher refrigerant costs. All these costs are being passed on to consumers or being absorbed by the business operators themselves.

Businesses have told me of their increased operating costs, which the Prime Minister said they should just pass onto their consumers. My local business operators tell me that they cannot pass on all the costs to the consumers. These small business operators are not the big polluters. The Darwin City Council is not a big polluter, but it has had to increase its rates as a direct result of the carbon tax—more costs passed onto my constituents. This is on top of increased electricity prices, which were also passed on because of the carbon tax.

Those on the other side say that this is a scare campaign. Well, quite frankly, that is insulting to the people of Darwin and Palmerston who are bearing the costs of this carbon tax. As I have said, the carbon tax is affecting all Territorians, especially small-business operators—the backbone of the Territory. It is also community groups, the tourism sector, mining and pastoral industries what are starting to feel the pain of this toxic carbon tax. No big polluters on that list!

At the beginning of the carbon tax debate my colleague Senator Scullion and I both raised the issue of remoteness in the Territory and how the carbon tax would significantly impact us all because of the increased freight costs. The carbon tax, we say, is a tax on remoteness. It is a tax on Territorians; It is a tax on those who rely on freight for delivery of items. Freight companies have started to pass on extra costs, which have to be passed onto consumers. That means, if the companies do not absorb the increased costs, like the Prime Minister said they should, it will mean increased costs for Territorian consumers, not just the Territory business operators. There just does not seem to be any logic here.

In the past I have raised in this place practical and real examples of impacts to businesses in Darwin of the carbon tax. Examples included the cost of refrigeration gas, automotive air-conditioning re-gassing; local frozen water or ice producers and increases in gas costs and electricity costs. Fish NT cited the potential for five price increases for produce from the point of catch to the point of sale; a local business with several separate entities, including a croc farm, and the increase of costs derived from hikes in electricity and freight across all areas.

Then there are local business operator Top North Auto Air-conditioning, a small local business in Winnellie that confirmed with me today that their purchase price for auto gas has gone up276 per cent since the start of the carbon tax. A 276 per cent increase in there operating costs which has to be absorbed, or passed onto Territorians as the Prime Minister said.

What does this mean for Territorians? It means the cost of re-gassing your car in the Territory has just gone through the roof as a result of the carbon tax. Everyone knows that you cannot drive around Darwin and Palmerston in a non-air-conditioned car—well, you can, but it would be very uncomfortable! So there are more increased costs.

Failed Labor government policies have also made it very expensive to live in Darwin, and the carbon tax is making it worse. But Territorians decided a few weeks ago that they did not trust Labor, so they voted them out. At least now Territorians know that they have a Country Liberal government and a coalition opposition here that are absolutely opposed to the carbon tax and we will do everything they can to repeal the carbon tax should we elected in the next federal election, whenever that will be. Thank you.