Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

I wonder where that figure came from, Senator Macdonald—a $380 saving per year. The then Treasurer, Chris Bowen—a short-term Treasurer for a little period in the interregnum between then Prime Minister Gillard and the change of government at the election—put out a press release. He said that Labor's changes would result in:

… a reduction in the cost of living worth around $380 to an average household next financial year …

So it was just for one year. Even though Kevin Rudd at various press conferences suggested that it would be every year, year on year, that was, of course, not true. In his press release, then Treasurer Bowen said that the move to make the changes that Labor was suggesting was:

… expected to save the average household around $3 a week, or over $150 in the year, on its electricity bills and around $1.10 per week, or $57 over the year, on its gas bills, providing much needed cost of living relief to many households.

In this press release, to give due credit to then Treasurer Bowen, the fine print is there, but it was not in the propaganda that was sent by the Labor Party—by George Wright out of the national secretariat of the Labor Party—to the Australian people. In the press release that not many people would have read, the fine print is there, and they say they would have saved Australians $380 in year one through the changes they were proposing. But, of course, all Labor were proposing was to re-badge and modify the carbon tax. Those modifications, they said, would save $380 a year for an average household.

We have used the exact same modelling and the exact same methodology but on the basis of scrapping the carbon tax altogether rather than just re-badging it. We stand by the estimates in the Treasury modelling that the average Australian household will be $550 a year better off. So I give that response directly to the questions that were put to me, before he bolted out of the chamber, by Senator Cameron as part of his 15-minute filibuster.

He also asserted that there would be more jobs under the carbon tax. Again, he is not telling the whole truth. The Labor government's own modelling showed that jobs growth would be lower—that there would be fewer jobs as a result of the carbon tax. Labor's own Treasury modelling in government of the impact of their carbon tax showed that the economy was expected to grow by $1 trillion less to 2050 in 2011 dollars. That is nearly a whole year's GDP for the whole of Australia. Really, the practical effect of Labor's carbon tax was that, in the 38 years to 2050, the whole of Australia would be expected to work for nothing, effectively, for a whole year in order to pay the price of Labor's carbon tax. How ridiculous is that! Senator Cameron also suggested that real wages would continue to grow under Labor's carbon tax—not true. Labor's own Treasury modelling actually showed real cuts in wages as a result of Labor's carbon tax.

Senator Macdonald asked me about Queensland Nickel. I am somewhat familiar with Queensland Nickel and they are, of course, a significant employer in Senator Macdonald's community, around Townsville. I believe that they employ about 1,000 Australians in North Queensland. Of course, whether it is Queensland Nickel or any other business across Australia that is involved in manufacturing processes or the like, if you impose a cost on them that is not imposed on the businesses that we compete with in China and other parts of the world, you make it easier for those businesses overseas to take market share away from us. We want Australian businesses to be successful. We want every Australian business to be as successful as it possibly can be so that it can employ more Australians, provide more opportunities to Australians and provide them with real increases in wages on the back of strong performance. That is what we want to see.

Whether it is Queensland Nickel or the zinc refinery or the copper refinery—or any other such processing facilities all around Australia, including aluminium production and the like—whenever you impose a self-inflicted cost here in Australia that is not faced by our competitors, you are making it harder for Australian business to succeed. You are making it harder for Australian business to employ more Australians. That is one of the key reasons why we want to scrap this bad tax. It is one of the key reasons why the Australian people overwhelmingly voted to get rid of this tax.

Senator Macdonald asked me what unions might be active in these areas. I do not know this for certain, but I am led to believe that the Australian Workers Union might be present on that site. I remember that the long-time national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, went out into the public domain saying that if only one job was lost as a result of the carbon tax, he would campaign against it. He went very quiet very quickly after that because, at the end of the day, when it comes to the political interests of the Labor Party there is a symbiotic relationship between them and the union movement. The unions are not all that focused on the interests of workers when it comes to ill-thought-out, misguided ideology like imposing a destructive tax which does not make a difference to the environment but which hurts real Australians—whether it is through increases in the costs of living or putting their jobs a risk.

I will go back, at a very high level, to some of the other issues raised. We have gone through this debate for a very long time now. This has gone around and around in circles. All these issues were widely canvassed for a number of years in the lead-up to the last election. They have been widely canvassed in two extensive debates in the Senate so far. We are now having a third debate in relation to this, after an election where the Australian people passed a very clear judgement. If the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens political party want to continue to act in defiance of the will of the Australian people that is a matter for them, but as far as the government is concerned, we will not be complicit in facilitating a continuing and ongoing filibuster. That is why I will only rise to answer questions that have not previously been canvassed and that are actually relevant to the question before the chair, which is the Labor Party proposal not to scrap the carbon tax but to rebadge it.