Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would concur with the comments that Senator Cameron made earlier this morning in his questions to the minister, which I think still remain unanswered at this point. As I heard those questions, they certainly seemed very genuine to me. They have not yet been answered. I think he asked three or four questions during the time he was speaking.

The key point in Senator Cameron's questions or in the lead-up to the questions is all the misinformation that is around. I have got some questions for Senator Cormann on the impact of Direct Action. Like the Greens, I am very concerned about the costs, how we determine where those costs are coming from and the fines regime. I also have some questions around Direct Action.

I would like to quote Prime Minister Tony Abbott, before he became Prime Minister, when, on 27 April 2011, he put on the Liberal Party website:

… Whyalla will be wiped off the map by Julia Gillard’s carbon tax. Whyalla risks becoming a ghost town, an economic wasteland, if this carbon tax goes ahead and that’s true not just of Whyalla, it’s also true of Port Pirie, it’s true of Gladstone, it’s true of communities in the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra in New South Wales, it’s true of Kwinana in Western Australia, it’s true of the La Trobe Valley, Portland, places like that in Victoria. There’s not a state and there’s hardly a region in this country that wouldn’t have major communities devastated by a carbon tax if this goes ahead …

If that is not a blatant untruth, I do not know what is. I heard Senator Back—also a Western Australian senator—in this chamber talking last week about Kwinana. I can assure our Prime Minister that Kwinana is alive and well and thriving and has not been devastated by the carbon tax. I can assure people listening to this broadcast—and indeed some of them live in those towns—that those towns are alive and well and not devastated by the carbon tax. When our Prime Minister comes out and makes those sorts of claims when he is in opposition, how can people have confidence in any of the information the government is now putting out about the carbon tax?

In relation to Labor's ETS amendment that was before the committee earlier this morning, the Australian public also knows very well that the Howard government was a supporter of an emissions trading scheme. Mr Howard, who the government likes to revere and often refers to, was a supporter of an emissions trading scheme. And, indeed, it would appear that in the past our Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, has also been a supporter of an emissions trading scheme. I heard Senator Cormann this morning state categorically that the government would not accept Labor's amendment for an emissions trading scheme.

I am failing to understand that. If the government are trying to put truth into this argument, an emissions trading scheme is something that the government have accepted in the past. Certainly Mr Howard accepted it. Indeed, our Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, is on the record as saying that an emissions trading scheme is a good scheme, a scheme that is used in other countries and a scheme that he thinks has some merit. All of us in the chamber are well aware of the views of the government's environment minister, Mr Hunt, on an ETS. When he was a student he wrote many, many papers commending an emissions trading scheme. So why the government is now just, point-blank, saying no to this is such a mystery.

Countries around the world that we often follow or look to for policies have emissions trading schemes in place, but I am yet to find a country that has a direct action policy. I like to refer to it more as a 'no direction' policy. It does not have any science supporting it, according to the research that I have done. There does not seem to be any credible science at all that suggests that direct action is the way to go. Not only that but it is a scattergun approach. You apply for some funds. If you are successful, you will be given those funds, so we could have little tiny schemes with tree planting in one area and nothing in another area.

At the core of direct action—and this makes it unacceptable if Australia is going to be a leader in clean energy, as we were under Labor, and if we are not going back to the dark ages, to be one of those outlier countries—is the fact that it completely lets off the big polluters. There will just be open slather. Once the government removes the legal cap on pollution, it is just open slather for those big polluters. And do you know what, Minister Cormann? Trees are just not going to cut it. Planting trees will just not cut it. There is no scientific basis to the direct action policy and I would be interested to know who thought it up, who supports it, what it is going to cost and what the impacts are. None of that has been put out there. The policy has been around for a very long time, yet it has no credible scientific base.

It is good to have three Western Australian senators in the chamber, including Senator Back in the chair and Senator Cormann opposite, but this morning the West Australian reports that, according to the explanatory memorandum concerning the PUP amendments, it will cost business $4,640 per year in compliance costs, and this from a government that goes on and on about red and green tape. The West Australiancertainly not a friend of the Labor Party or, indeed, Labor governments; it is more a friend of the coalition—is asking that question. That is a figure in the explanatory memorandum around the bill. This is $4,640 per annum as increased costs to business as a result of what the government has before the parliament today.

So it is not about a $100 leg of lamb, which was an extraordinary claim by Mr Joyce. It is along the lines of saying that towns across Australia, economic hubs like Kwinana, would just be shut down. Those are extraordinary claims and they are claims made by political parties that do not have the science to back up what they are doing. The legislation that Labor put in place was scientifically based and did have credibility. We never made claims about a $100 leg of lamb or that every state and territory in Australia would see towns completely wiped out. Those are ludicrous claims. If leading scientists in other countries heard those sorts of claims, they would be laughing—we would be a laughing-stock. The government is now putting Australia in the position of being a laughing-stock.

So I ask particularly, in relation to the explanatory memorandum, as reported in the West Australian this morning, about this increase to business of $4,640 in compliance costs. Again, where is the reduction in red tape? We hear every day in this chamber that the government is all about reducing red tape. I want to know if that figure cited by the West Australianand I assume the West Australian has it right—has come from the explanatory memorandum. How was that cost arrived at? Where does that cost come from? Why isn't the government being a little more up-front about that massive increased cost to business? Four thousand six hundred and forty dollars per annum is a massive impost on businesses. We know in the Australian community that our businesses are small businesses. What runs the Australian economy is small business. What an impost!

Businesses, and certainly businesses in Western Australia and on the thriving Kwinana strip, which has not been devastated by the carbon tax and is still operating, must be reeling this morning when they see that the government has imposed yet another cost on them, with no consultation at all. A deal was done in the corridors outside of the Senate, in the darkness of night. There was no consultation with the business community and no indication from the Abbott government that it was about to impose a big, fat, new tax—an imposition—on the business community. The government says it is about jobs and that it wants to build the economy but sees fit, because it is so intent on pushing through the repeal of Labor's clean energy bills, to have a complete disregard of the business community and a complete disregard of small businesses, particularly those in Western Australia, which I represent, and impose a new cost of $4,640.

Last night, representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which represents businesses in Western Australia, where here. I wonder if they asked the government ministers and members who were present at that function why the government sees fit to impose this massive, big, new, fat compliance cost of $4,640 on businesses.

I would be interested to know why the government sees fit to just vote this down—as I am presuming will happen. I do not want to put words into Senator Cormann's mouth, but I did hear him say that the government was not going to support Labor's amendment. I would really be interested to know why a scheme which has science behind it, which is well thought out, which is fair, which is not a scattergun, which looks at what big polluters are doing and says to polluters, 'Yes, we want you in our economy but there is a cost to doing in business in Australia, because we want a community and an environment that is fit to live in,' is not supported by the government.

The government seem to have lost sight that we live in a community. The government seem to think that we live in an economy and it is all about the big end of town and big business. I think that is demonstrated by this $4,640 per annum compliance cost burden that they have just imposed on small businesses across the country—with no consultation. It was a last minute deal done in the corridors out there to enable them to move their legislation forward. If that is not cheating the Australian voters, I do not know what is. That is not what the coalition said they would do when they were opposition. They never said, 'Guess what, small businesses in Australia, we are going to increase your costs by $4,640 per annum. We are going to put that cost on you.' They said quite the reverse—and they also made the ridiculous statements about the cost of a leg of lamb and that all of these towns across the country were seemingly going to be wiped off the map. But, no, now their deal has left Australian businesses worse off.