Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What a sad day we have come to when the Labor government tries to suggest that plan No. 8—I think that is what we are currently on—which deals with how they are going to go about establishing a carbon price, is a structured and measured way of going about things. It is not. And of course we still have the new legislation to come that will tie us to the European economy.

It is something of a sleight of hand to talk about the fact that 30 other countries have emissions trading schemes, or, to use the figures that Senator Carol Brown just used, to suggest that a third of the world's economy is covered by emissions trading schemes of some kind. The clincher phrase there, of course, is 'of some kind'. No-one else has an economy-wide carbon taxing scheme. No-one else has looked at their strengths, which are their resources and manufacturing and export sectors, and said: 'How can we wreck those? All right, we will come up with a carbon price.'

Even the Reserve Bank has pointed out to the government that there will be more price rises coming through in the next few months. We have manufacturers telling us now that the increase in their energy costs is going to be the straw that broke the camels back. It is all very well for Glenn Stevens, the chairman of the Reserve Bank, to talk about a glass half full and suggest that we should not be worrying at all about the manufacturing sector of the economy because mining and manufacturing now have the same percentages of our GDP as they had in 1901. That is wonderful—it makes me feel so much better to know that manufacturing is in the same position in respect of mining, a highly undeveloped industry, in 1901! It is ridiculous for this government to be suggesting that there is anything like a glass half full. The glass is more than half empty for manufacturing in Australia, and for families that rely it, because of the incremental creep of this government's impost after impost in every sector, not just in terms of the price rises that have come through on power but in terms of the incremental increases in the areas of workplace health and safety, development of red tape, extra taxes and extra administrative burdens for companies to run the parental leave scheme for the government, in return for nothing. The list goes on and on.

Yet one of the most analysed statements in all of Australian history, and I am pleased to say that it has been very much analysed by the coalition, is that of the now Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, who well over 101 days ago told us that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. Well, we have legislation for a carbon tax—or at least version No. 8 of a carbon tax—before us now. She has happily and treacherously introduced this onto the Australian economy and imposed it on manufacturing in Australia without any sense of how she might go about compensating organisations. Compensating just individuals was apparently going to be the answer. Well, the compensation is not enough and it does not apply across the industries that are hurting most from the imposition of this carbon tax.

I ask listeners and members of this House to consider: if this woman, the current Prime Minister, could say that she would not have a carbon tax under the government she led, what other taxes are we going to be looking at as we go towards the next election?

There are already very strong rumours—they would be more than rumours; they are suggestions—that the government will be looking at the superannuation bounty as a way of getting itself out of debt.

Question agreed to.