Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Fifield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Gillard Government’s inability and unwillingness to explain the effect on cost of living pressures of the Labor-Green carbon tax.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

The Acting Deputy President:

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In any normal environment it would be unbelievable to hear a government propose a massive new tax, a change in the fundamental way in which Australian businesses operate that is going to have a profound impact on Australian families, without any detail. In the normal range of circumstances, that would be simply impossible for the Australian people to swallow. But it is the track record of this government that they throw policy options out there and they say, ‘This is what we’re going to do, but don’t worry about the detail—we’ll fix that up later on.’ They are softening the Australian people up again and again and again, and they are conning the Australian people. That is precisely what is happening here, but the Australian people will not swallow it. They will not accept it anymore, because the track record and the legacy of this government is one of failure, incompetence and waste. There is no reason any Australian should have any confidence in this government’s ability to introduce a carbon tax in this economy in an efficient, practical manner whilst not putting forward all the detail.

There is no doubt that those on the other side of the chamber will say, ‘We will provide the detail at a later stage; we are just agreeing on the framework right now.’ But Ms Gillard is damned by her own statements. On the one hand, she and her acolytes and advocates are out there saying that we have to put a price on carbon so it will be more expensive and so we can change people’s behaviour. On the other hand, she says that we are going to compensate families for the cost-of-living pressures and the increases in their electricity bills—in fact everything they use. We are going to compensate them and sometimes maybe overly compensate them, which will not make them change their behaviour one little bit. But what we can be very sure of is that Ms Gillard cannot be trusted. We know she said she would not implement a carbon tax, and yet she is introducing one now. We know she said she would not knife Kevin Rudd, but she did anyway. This government cannot be trusted on the big policy issues or the detail.

What I would say to Ms Gillard and those opposite, who conveniently forget about the families of Australia, except at election time, is that the families of Australia are already struggling. They are already struggling with cost-of-living pressures which are a direct result of the government’s poor policies. Electricity prices have risen, and the government’s justification for future electricity price rises is that they are not responsible for the previous ones. What utter nonsense. They have implemented all these green programs, which have squandered billions of dollars, and they are already adding a billion-plus dollars a year to the price of electricity for consumers.

Cost-of-living pressures with regard to housing and interest rates are increasing. The government will say, ‘That is not us—our hands are not on the levers.’ But when you inject a hundred billion dollars or more of borrowed money into any economy, you see interest rates rise; that is just common sense. If it were not for this government’s wasteful spending and extravagant borrowing, we would not have interest rates anywhere near the mark they are at now. But of course the government does not want to know about that.

Food costs for Australian people are rising exponentially and the government do not seem to care. Already, we have predictions that fruit and vegetable prices are going to rise by up to 15 or 16 per cent in the months ahead. That is one estimate by a bunch of leading economists. But the government do not seem to care about that. They keep talking about how inflation is running at 2.5 per cent and saying that that should be okay because it is under the RBA’s threshold band. Let me tell you that the reality out there in punterville is that the cost of living is rising by 4½ or five per cent every year, because the official inflation rate is mitigated by things that are unnecessary, that are discretionary items for the Australian people. Unfortunately for the Australian people, housing and transport and food are not discretionary items and the cost of those things is devastating Australian families at the moment. Those are the things that the government are in absolute denial about, because they do not seem to care. They have never seen a problem that could not benefit from another tax. They have never seen a problem that could not be fixed by more government intervention and taking control of the lives of so many Australians. This is the great tragedy of it. The government are squandering a wonderful legacy—a legacy of prudent financial management, preparing for the future. Another generation—possibly two generations—of Australians have been sentenced to debt and serfdom at the feet of an extravagant, wasteful and hopeless government.

We know that there are those among us in society who are really struggling more than others. Welfare recipients, for example, have seen their cost of living increase by in excess of four per cent. We know that pensioners had their cost of living rise by 3.1 per cent over the year. Yet this government is now proposing to add a tax that will increase the cost of living for everyone. It will not go away, because we know that the whole point is to ratchet it up again and again and again, every year, so that there is increasing pressure on people for the things that they need every single day of their lives. We are not talking about international air travel or anything like that—although that will be much more expensive. We are talking about when you start your car to drive down to the shops: it is going to cost more. When you turn on your lights or cook some toast or use electricity for anything in your house it is going to cost more. We know that when you go to the shop it is going to cost more, not only because of the increased costs for business but because the food is going to be higher priced.

I saw an interesting table today outlining the costs for the top companies in Australia of a carbon tax of $26 a tonne. For one energy generation company a carbon tax of $26 per tonne will lead to an estimated cost of $623-plus million. Do you think this company are going to absorb that? Of course they are not going to. They are going to pass it on to every single consumer. And so it will go down the line when Woodside Petroleum are responsible for another couple of hundred million dollars in additional imposts by this government. The simple fact is this: this government has run out of money and it has run out of ideas and it knows that what it does with regard to a carbon tax is not going to make one jot or tittle of difference to the environment or the climate. It is not going to make a difference to the temperatures around the globe. Yet it is pursuing this ideological agenda because it has run out of cash and it needs a justification for it.

Let me tell you that the Australian people are rapidly running out of cash too. They cannot continue to prop up a defunct, dud, deadbeat government. We have seen the results of what happens when that takes place overseas. We have seen comparable partners and comparable democracies struggle under the yoke of debt that has devastated their economies. We cannot afford to let that happen. But equally, we cannot afford to cripple Australian business, enterprise or industry under the weight of attacks that are unnecessary, unwise and self-indulgent. This measure is not going to make a difference to the environment; we know that. But we also know that it is going to make a huge difference to Australia’s competitiveness internationally. It is going to swallow up the profits of many companies unless they can pass the costs on—and they will have to do that in order to remain competitive for the cost of funds. We know that the government do not seem to care about the health and wellbeing of industry, which not only provides jobs for tens or millions of Australians but also provides our future base for prosperity. They do not care about that. They only care about the immediate needs that they have. That is a very selfish attitude for a government.

One thing that struck me when Ms Gillard announced this—I should say Senator Brown announced it; Ms Gillard played sidekick to him—was that she said, ‘Bill Gates was at the forefront of the digital revolution and look how wealthy he has become.’ Anyone who thinks that indulging in a new tax that is going to put Australian industry at a competitive disadvantage is somehow riding a great wave of future prosperity is fooling themselves; they are living in a fool’s paradise. You actually create wealth by creating something that people want. I have not met anyone who wants a new tax except those on the other side of the chamber and, unfortunately, the Greens. They are the people that want a new tax, because they are desperate for it. If you really want to have a competitive workplace and to promote industry in this country you do not slug those who are trying to build wealth, but the government does not seem to understand that.

And then we hear about the other aspect of it, which is the green jobs it is going to create. We can only look at the examples of those countries which have pursued such an ideological agenda. Germany has dumped it because they have realised that any jobs that have been created have been offset by two or three times as many losses and that there are billions and tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that are necessary every single year.

Have a look at Spain. Spain is as close to bankrupt as any economy in Europe, basically because they pursued this ideological green agenda. There is so much to learn from right around the world about the policies that this government is advocating, which are failing internationally. They are going to fail the Australian people, and the fact is that this government will not explain them because they are tenderising the Australian people before they slug them onto the hot frying pan and try to cook them.

But the goose of this government is what should be cooked. This government should be plucked, it should be tarred and feathered and it should be splayed flat out and destroyed by the Australian people because they have failed miserably.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance motion and to counter some of the claims made by those opposite. Firstly, let us be very clear right from the start: when the Prime Minister outlined the proposed carbon price mechanism last week she made it clear that this is an essential economic reform, and that it is the right thing to do. If we delay now we risk being left behind as the global economy transitions towards a low-pollution economy. It is a public policy responsibility to respond to the findings of the overwhelming majority of scientists on climate change. The scientific evidence is clear and we will act on it.

Placing a carbon price on pollution is the cheapest and fairest way to cut emissions. A price on carbon is essentially a price on pollution, and this is the most effective way to transition to a clean energy economy. The Australian economy is an emissions-intensive economy. The method of pricing carbon is the best way to encourage businesses to stop polluting and to get them to invest in clean energy.

As part of the renewed focus on clean energy, the Labor government have proposed a two-stage process for a carbon price mechanism. Firstly, we will start with a fixed price period of between three and five years. After this time we will transition to an emissions trading scheme. If the government are able to negotiate an agreement with the majority of both houses of parliament and to pass legislation on putting a price on carbon it is our intention to start the scheme on 1 July 2012.

I will point out to those opposite, and this goes right to the crux of today’s MPI motion, that every cent raised by placing a price on carbon will go to households, to businesses and to tackling climate change. We have been very clear right from the start: a carbon price will impact prices on certain goods and services. This is the whole point of a market mechanism; it sends a signal and markets respond. The carbon price will be paid by businesses that emit large amounts of pollution.

But what is disappointing is the disingenuous scare campaign coming from those opposite relating to the impacts for consumers. Over the past few days we have heard political scaremongering and mistruths from those opposite. They have been employing fear tactics of the highest order. This is exactly what we have come to expect from those opposite, because after all they are a party with a leader who is now a renowned climate change sceptic. For those opposite, it is worth remembering that under the leadership of the Hon. John Howard, who many would deem to be a fairly conservative member of the Liberal Party—indeed, I believe he is a fairly conservative member of the Liberal Party—those opposite actually had a climate change policy in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election. It placed a price on carbon through an emissions trading scheme.

Those opposite also had an agreement with the government to place a price on carbon before the sceptics, led by the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, and Senator Abetz, took over the leadership of the party and reneged on the deal. With the climate change sceptics reigning supreme in the Liberal Party we are faced with this political point-scoring and fearmongering. It is not helpful in the debate and it does nothing but alarm people unnecessarily. But it is hardly surprising those opposite have opted to take this low road.

We will ensure households receive assistance to cope with the changes that a carbon price brings. For those opposite to lecture this government on cost of living is beyond belief. In our time in government we have done more to ease the cost-of-living pressures faced by households than those opposite ever contemplated in their decade of government.

We have reduced the tax burden on families—not once, not twice but three times. We have abolished Work Choices, increased the pension, increased the childcare rebate and introduced the education tax refund. All of these initiatives were delivered within our responsible fiscal rules. We are also pressing ahead with new initiatives to combat the cost-of-living pressures; that is why we are delivering an increase of $4,000 in family tax benefit part A, extending the education tax refund to uniforms, giving the option for families to receive childcare rebate payments fortnightly and introducing paid parental leave for mums and dads.

We also understand that central to dealing with the cost-of-living pressures on working Australians is the government’s plan for a stronger economy, because a stronger economy means more jobs and better wages. Nothing could be more apparent than this government’s commitment to tackling cost-of-living pressures, and for those opposite to suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.

Let us be clear why we have announced our intention to place a price on carbon, as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency highlighted in the other place yesterday:

Climate scientists are telling governments all over the world that carbon pollution is contributing to climate change. The scientific consensus is overwhelming and the government respects the climate science. A government in that circumstance has a public policy responsibility to act upon that advice in everyone’s interests and we simply need to make a start in reducing carbon pollution in our economy.

It is the responsible action for our government to place a price on carbon; we have delayed for too long. We must act now. If we do not act, Australia risks being left behind. This will hurt the Australian economy and cost Australian jobs. There has been too much uncertainty for too long. Businesses need certainty so they can plan for the future and maximise the opportunities that will rise from this reform. And this is what we are doing; we are stating our intention to price carbon, to give businesses some certainty.

And what are the opposition doing? I will tell you. Those opposite, led by Mr Abbott, have taken a reckless position and are threatening to wind back our price on carbon. As the Prime Minister has said:

… the Leader of the Opposition has confirmed that he now holds the most reckless political position taken by a national leader in the last 15 years. After we have priced carbon, given businesses certainty and households assistance, he is committed to ripping all of that up—the most reckless political position taken by a national leader in 15 years.

At a time when we are providing businesses with certainty and taking action on climate change, Mr Abbott and those opposite want to tear it all down. If we delay any longer we will miss the boat. The global economy is already shifting to a clean economy. Thirty-two countries and 10 US states are already moving towards an emissions trading scheme.

Australia has the highest emissions per capita in the developed world—even higher than the United States. It is our responsibility to take action now. If we do not act we risk Australian businesses and households being left behind. The global economy is already moving to cut pollution, and if we are left behind it will hurt our economy and cost jobs. We have already had positive research released by the Climate Institute about the job creation prospects of pricing carbon. The facts and the science are clear: the benefits of taking action on climate change in the immediate future far outweigh continual delay. The Labor government has always been committed to taking action on climate change.

On the other hand, Mr Abbott is taking a reckless and irresponsible position. As the Prime Minister highlighted on radio and in parliament, Mr Abbott is sending a terrible signal to international markets that Australia is a risky place to invest. By saying he will repeal a carbon tax, Mr Abbott is damaging our international reputation. This is a dreadful position to be taking. It is particularly concerning for businesses that have made decisions to invest in Australia based on a carbon price, especially in the energy sector where we want to see clean energy investment.

Whilst Mr Abbott maintains that position now, who knows what his position will be in the coming months? In the short time of just 2½ years Mr Abbott has had at least eight different positions on climate change. Mr Abbott has flipped-flopped all over the place between support for an emissions trading scheme and his statement of absolute climate change denial. Only the Labor government has a plan to cut pollution and to begin to tackle climate change. Even the former Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Wentworth, Mr Turnbull said:

… politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is ‘crap’ and you don’t need to do anything about it.

This highlights that Mr Abbott is a climate change denier; he does not believe in the science and has no plan to tackle climate change. The government do have a plan for the future, and we want to give businesses and households certainty. All Mr Abbott wants to do is partake in a scare campaign to score political points. (Time expired)

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The proposed carbon tax will come into effect on 1 July 2012. Coincidentally, that is the beginning of the 2012-13 financial year—the very year the government expects to bring the budget back into surplus. I would imagine that the ordinary Australian would rather pay less tax and see more government spending restraint, especially given the waste found in stimulus spending on projects like the Building the Education Revolution and pink batts, in order to achieve any future budget surpluses.

A carbon tax will add to the already overstretched home budget of many Australian families. They will have increased cost-of-living pressures imposed on them every time they go grocery shopping, every time they turn on the lights at night and every time they fill up the car with petrol when taking children to school. The proposed carbon tax comes on the back of a mining tax which will also slug families with higher prices at the counter and for lighting, warming or cooling the home. The cumulative effect of the two taxes will put more pressure on household budgets that are already struggling with mortgages, the costs of education and transportation, and food prices.

The Reserve Bank forecasts that the impact of floods and Cyclone Yasi over summer will be a three per cent rise in the CPI inflation rate on items like fruit and vegetables—the effect of which is already compounded by the introduction of a flood levy. In the year to February the TD Securities and Melbourne Institute inflation gauge rose by 3.6 per cent—well outside the RBA’s two to three percent band. TD Securities reported that prices have risen over 16 consecutive months and should be above three per cent since September last year.

There is little wonder then that retail spending is not as robust as one would hope and that the saving rate has increased from negative two per cent to positive 10 per cent since the global financial crisis. This is a very responsible attitude on behalf of citizens, but for the economy to go around Australian families need to do more than just spend on essentials and save for rainy days. All of these cost-of-living pressures arrived in concert with the announcement of a carbon tax to begin just next year.

How are hardworking Australians expected to shoulder the burden of inflation and the Gillard government’s increasing dependency on, and proclivity to, tax, tax, tax? In my home state of Victoria, households are facing increases in the cost of water and electricity as a result of past failed state Labor policies, yet the federal government turns it head the other way on the pressures already faced by Victorians. The fact of the matter is that the real architect behind this policy is the Greens, not Labor.

Given Prime Minister Gillard’s ‘there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’ election promise, it is clear that the government has been dragged kicking and screaming to this position, behind closed doors, to remain in favour with a minor party like the Greens. We know that Prime Minister Gillard was the one that advised former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to drop his commitment to an ETS. Let the public record show that the Greens have taken full credit for the recent announcement on a carbon tax.

I take note of Senator Milne’s push for a ‘high enough carbon price’ which is to be linked by achieving the Greens aspirational carbon dioxide reduction target of 25 per cent of 2000 emission levels by 2020. No price has yet been set but we can imagine that behind closed doors the carbon tax architects will be pushing for the highest possible price. Concern for the environment is one thing but to foist a tax on struggling families is economic vandalism. The Greens also propose to put petrol in the equation. There are already substantial price fluctuations on the world market for oil given the current political and civil instability in oil producing nations. Economics 101 teaches us that with higher oil prices consumption at the bowser is lessened. Australian families are already dealing with this simple economic principle. So, should we reasonably expect Australian businesses and households to absorb more and more of the spiralling cost of petrol and ask them to limit their movements? If you were going to use public transport, the public transport in Victoria has been a very unreliable alternative given past state Labor policy failures.

We are not to expect a static price lift annually with the carbon price but a dynamic price surge in the cost of living over the three- to five-year period. How much will the tax increase annually? I am afraid this proposal raises more questions than it seeks to answer.

The cost to industry should not be left unreported. BlueScope’s Paul O’Malley has already signalled that a carbon tax poses a threat to manufacturing in Australia. Mr O’Malley claims that with a carbon tax:

… imports will get a free ride, and Australian manufacturing will be taxed, and there will absolutely be leakage …

Economists like Alan Kohler and Terry McCrann have backed these concerns. Will the Greens stand up to scrutiny when cost-of-living pressures begin to weigh down on the backs of hardworking Australians?

Prime Minister Gillard and the Labor Party sought to make comparisons with Prime Minister John Howard’s introduction of the GST, but it is educational to note that the purpose of the GST was to broaden the base of the tax regime and ultimately lower the rate of taxes. This carbon price is designed to do nothing of the sort.

It is well known that I support action on climate change, but the ETS of some 14 months ago, with the Malcolm Turnbull amendments that I supported, is a very far cry from this heavy-handed slug on consumers and industry alike. Australian families, taxpayers and business will live to regret the day that this tax is introduced.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bluster and hot air coming from the other side of the Senate chamber on this issue and the contrived outrage we have heard during the week demonstrates one thing, that no matter what response the government comes up with to tackle the monumental challenge of climate change those opposite will oppose it. They will oppose it because they want to delay, because they want to frustrate and because they want to obfuscate. Why do they want to stop action on climate change? Because the ranks of the coalition are dominated by climate change sceptics and climate change deniers.

If there is any better demonstration that the coalition are opposed to action on climate change it is that they previously rolled their own leader over this very issue. You might remember we previously had an agreement with the opposition, which was when Mr Turnbull was leader, to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and to get on with the business of tackling the greatest economic and environmental challenge to face our nation, and what did they do? They rolled their leader. Let us not forget that the current leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, came to the leadership on a platform of opposing action on climate change. In fact he described the science of climate change as ‘absolute crap’. That explains a lot about where he is coming from and it explains a lot about where the opposition is coming from.

As a further demonstration of the opposition’s determination not to act on climate change, they refused to join the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. We extended an invitation to them to work together with us, the minor parties and independents, to come up with a solution that was in the national interest, and they declined. This government is getting on with the job. We are working with the Greens and the Independents through the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to come up with a solution that is in the national interest.

If you want to have a debate about election commitments then remember this: we went to the election promising action on climate change and we went to the election saying that the cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution while transitioning to a clean energy economy is to put a price on carbon. It is an interim price as a first step towards an emissions trading scheme. It is the right thing to do for the Australian economy and it is the right thing to do if you are a government that, unlike those opposite, is committed to action on climate change.

A fixed carbon price for the first three to five years of the scheme will help to provide certainty to business. The opposition would have you believe that they know exactly what the price impacts of this policy will be. They know already before we have announced the policy settings, before we have announced which sectors are to be included and excluded and before we have announced what assistance will go to households. They have got out their ouija boards and their crystal balls and they have worked it out. Let me just say, Nostradamus has nothing on them. What the opposition are trying to do with their outlandish claims is run a big, fat scare campaign. Anyone who tries to claim at this stage of the debate that they know the impact a carbon price will have on prices and households either has an exaggerated sense of their predictive powers or is just being downright dishonest.

When the party of the GST and the party of Work Choices suddenly discover cost-of-living pressures, you cannot help but be just a tad suspicious about their motives. But there are a few salient facts that they fail to point out when it comes to their scare campaign. For example, unlike so-called direct action, a carbon price raises revenue that can be used to assist households. When we put in place a carbon price, the money raised will not be used to prop up the budget. Every cent raised from the introduction of a carbon price will go to three things: assistance to families to help with their household bills; initiatives to help business to transition to a clean energy economy; and measures to tackle climate change and invest in a clean energy future.

The opposition also fails to realise that a carbon price is a more cost-efficient mechanism for tackling climate change. On the question of a carbon price and its effect on electricity prices, let us hear the words of Mr Rod Sims, an adviser to the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. In November 2010 he wrote about the emissions reduction target of five per cent of 2000 levels by 2020:

If Australia wishes to meet this target it can choose between at least two approaches: continue using the current high cost and non market mechanisms … or introduce a carbon price. Electricity prices will in future be lower if we take the latter path of meeting a given greenhouse gas reduction target through the introduction of a carbon price.

The biggest driver of electricity prices in Australia is the need for significant network investment over the next five years, and the uncertainty caused by having no carbon price is also helping to drive up electricity prices. Of course a carbon price will change prices. That is the whole point of a market mechanism—it sends a signal and the market responds. The way that we begin to shift to an economy which produces less pollution is to make the goods that create less carbon pollution cost less than the goods that create a lot of carbon pollution.

The opposition would have you believe that, in introducing a carbon price, Australia would be moving ahead of other developed countries. Let us examine that claim. The European Union has had an emissions trading scheme in place since 2005. The New Zealand emissions trading scheme commenced for forestry in January 2008 and for other sectors on 1 July 2010. The South Korean Ministry of Environment initiated a trial ETS in January 2010 to operate until 2012. Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have carbon taxes of various forms currently in place. Several of these schemes have been operating since the early 1990s. To date, 139 countries have expressed their intention to be listed as agreeing to the Copenhagen Accord, and 85 countries, representing 80 percent of global emissions, have pledged emissions reduction targets or actions under the accord. Thirty-two countries and 10 US states are moving to emissions trading schemes. While the rest of the world economy moves to cut pollution, Australia risks being left behind.

We are the world’s highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, higher even than the United States. If we are left behind, it will hurt our economy and cost Australian jobs. If we take the alternative path, however, and introduce a carbon price, this will drive innovation and build a stronger economy. Research from the Climate Institute estimates that 34,000 jobs would result from the clean energy boom if a price were put on carbon. I know those opposite are sceptical, but let us just look at what happened in my home state of Tasmania when the Tasmanian government made huge investments in wind energy. Now the Tasmanian company Roaring 40s, which is part owned by Hydro Tasmania, is exporting its knowledge of wind farm development, which is resulting in returns to the Tasmanian economy.

Of course, the federal opposition do not want to talk about the potential for investment in renewable energy that could flow from a price on carbon. After all, we are talking about a major structural reform to Australia’s economy, and every structural reform is inevitably followed by a scare campaign from those who oppose it. It is easy to put off reform, to ignore the challenges of climate change. However, such is the opposition’s stubbornness, such is their head-in-the-sand approach that they are not only saying they will oppose a carbon price but they say they will roll it back. This just demonstrates how reckless and irresponsible the coalition are with our economic and environmental future. You know what Mr Abbott’s policy of a rollback of a carbon price would do to Australia? It would create uncertainty for business and uncertainty about our energy security, and in an uncertain environment business investment dries up. It would remove household and industry assistance. It would open up Australia’s environmental standing to ridicule. This ridiculous policy is just another demonstration of why Tony Abbott cannot be trusted with Australia’s economic management.

In contrast to the opposition, who continue to deny and delay and frustrate action on climate change, this government is getting on with the job. We are committed to an emissions trading scheme, and in the lead-up to that scheme we will introduce a fixed price on carbon. We will use all of the money raised for household and business assistance and to tackle climate change. We are working through the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to determine the policy settings. In the meantime, any claims made about the cost of a litre of petrol or a kilowatt of electricity are just idle speculation from an opposition that wants to run a scare campaign because they do not believe in action of any sort on climate change.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I cannot remember a greater betrayal of the Australian people. The Prime Minister stood up a week before the election and said, ‘Under my government, there will definitely be no emissions trading or carbon tax.’ Then three or four months later, in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, we are faced with a carbon tax, which is supposed to give us certainty. What is the certainty? I was speaking about this to one of the players yesterday. What is the certainty? We do not know what it is. We do not know how much the carbon tax will be. We do not know when the ETS is going to come in. We do not have the figure for how much it will be escalated. The government have provided the greatest uncertainty for Australia’s industry ever. There is no certainty. No-one knows what is going on out there. You admit it yourselves. You will not tell the people what the price of electricity will be. How can you get certainty with that?

Last week the Prime Minister bravely stood outside her office, surrounded by the Greens. She was going to put her stamp of approval on the party. This would be unequivocal. She was going to stand her ground and she was going to tell them. She was going to stand there and put a stamp of authority on this government—no shilly-shallying like Kevin Rudd; she was a woman of authority, and she was going to stand there and tell the Australian people: ‘I know what I’m doing. I’m a person who will take a position.’ The position she took was surrounded by the Greens. It looked as though she had subcontracted the government out to the Greens, and that is what the people are saying.

On Friday I happened to go down to a radio station. That is just a matter of fact. When I was down there I was talking about fishing, but the ETS came up. I put my head in the door and asked if I could say a few words, and I was given three or four minutes. I walked into the next cabinet and talked about fishing and walked out. It probably took half an hour. In that time the switchboard had lit up like a pinball machine. There were calls coming in everywhere. One hundred and sixty calls came in, not from well-heeled people and not from the business community but from the people, the battlers, who had placed their trust in the Labor government. These were not businesspeople; these were people who had to find the money—find the money for increased interest rates, find the money for increased food prices—and they could not see their way clear.

This government has put the price up. I asked the question in estimates the other day: how much is the price going up at $25 a tonne? The answer was that the price will go up 19 per cent, and then when you throw in the green power and renewable energy it goes up another five per cent, so the prices will increase by 24 per cent right across the board. Working families are going to have to find an additional 24 per cent to meet their commitments on electricity. Many people cannot even pay the bills now. Ergon Energy and the other authorities in Queensland are putting out lists of people who cannot meet their electricity costs and are getting their power cut off. So what does the government do? It whacks another 24 per cent increase on it.

It is bad enough for the workers, and it is going to be horrific for them. Many of them are struggling. But they are going to be cheered on by the Volvo socialists. The Volvo socialists are out there being represented by the Greens, and the Greens are taking the Labor Party to the cleaners. It is going to be a holocaust at the next election, because you—the Labor Party—are going to be vying for that 14 per cent vote and you are going to be fighting it out with the Greens. The blue-collar workers have abandoned you, and rightly so, because you have abandoned them. You have abandoned them on fishing. You have abandoned them on electricity. You have abandoned the Aboriginals on Wild Rivers. You have walked away from your base. And you are trying to fight for that 14 per cent that is occupied by the Greens. You will battle it out, and you will probably split the vote fifty-fifty, but you have lost your credibility.

If you do not think this is serious, I refer you to BlueScope Steel. BlueScope was part of BHP. BHP built this nation. It was one of the great companies that built this nation. It employed thousands and thousands and thousands of people. What has happened to BlueScope? Last year BlueScope turned in a minus profit of $50 million.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien interjecting—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien, if you listen to this, you might even learn something. BlueScope suffered a $50 million loss because of a high dollar, increased imports and global financial problems. What is this government going to do about a company who employ 10,000 people? On their estimation, at $25 a tonne, it is going to cost BlueScope $315 million. So they will not lose $50 million; they will lose $365 million. How does that work? How does that work by giving people certainty? Their expected losses will be $365 million, but it is not only BlueScope; it is OneSteel and it is many, many businesses. Take the case of Qantas. They are going to cop emissions trading. Well, that is all right; they will add it onto the ticket. Everyone will fly United or Singapore Airlines or something like that, disadvantaging our own Australian icon.

I do not think anyone over on that side has ever run a business. They have not run a business. They come in here with prepared speeches—Senator O’Brien probably will not—and get up and rattle off a prepared speech, probably written by the minister’s department. Have you ever, ever gone out there and experienced what it is to run a business, to meet the payroll, to pay the bills? You obviously have not done it.

We are told that the rest of the world are doing it. Well, the rest of the world are not doing it. I would not mind if the rest of the world were doing it. The United States has said, ‘We can’t afford this.’ India cannot afford it—and would you blame them, with people begging on the street for something to eat? Do you think their government are going to put an ETS over their industry? Don’t be stupid; they can’t. Even if they wanted to they could not. What about China? Are they going to do it? No. What about Brazil? No. What about Japan? No. What about Russia? No. We are doing this unilaterally. The EU have an ETS, in a certain way, but even they exclude agriculture, they exclude mining and they exclude 164 industries. They just about have an ETS where you don’t have an ETS. But come in, spinner! Come in, you bunch of mugs! We will fix Australian industry up. We will handicap it with so much tax, and then try and make a virtue out of it by saying we are going to create 34,000 green jobs by putting a tax on people like BlueScope, OneSteel, Qantas and meat processing companies like Teys and Nippon, and saying, ‘We’re being terrific!’ If putting a tax on was so easy, why not double the tax? We could double the number of jobs! It is absolute stupidity.

But even you cannot convince Heather Ridout. She is distancing herself from you today. Heather Ridout, who has been your No. 1 supporter, your fallback position, will not have a bar of it—nor, of course, will the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They have walked away from it too. You have not got a friend out there; you have not got a feather to fly with. You have lost your blue-collar vote and you are trying to fight for that 14 per cent narrow vote, which we call the doctors’ wives or the Volvo socialists. That is the vote you are going to get. You cannot expect the blue-collar workers of Australia ever to support you again, because you have let them down so badly.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a shambles of an argument this opposition has put up to this peculiarly worded motion that is before the Senate today—in fact, I do not even think it has been addressed by the speakers who spoke on behalf of it. One could have taken points of order continuously throughout the debate on relevance to the actual question before the chair. Rather than do that, I thought I would wait to see whether there was anything of substance which the speakers on the other side could put. Frankly, I was not disappointed: there was no substance in what they were saying.

Many of the coalition speakers’ arguments today, and indeed their spokesmen and women’s arguments in the community, remind me of a Peanuts cartoon which was published many years ago. Charlie Brown and Lucy were standing in a playground, and Charlie Brown had just been telling some people some stories, which he described as ‘little-known facts’. When Lucy asked, ‘Charlie, how do you know all these little-known facts?’ Charlie Brown put his hand up to his mouth and said, ‘I make them up’. That is what we just heard, and that is what we have been hearing from the coalition in this debate all along.

When we go to some of their spokespeople, they have been making up prices for the cost of a price on carbon for some time—making up prices. For example, Mr Hunt, on 6 January last year, said the effect of a carbon price on a family would be $1,100 a year. On Lateline on 25 February this year he said it would be $300. Mr Robb, on 27 February in the Sunday Age, was reported as saying it would be close to $1,000. Mr O’Farrell says it would be $500 for electricity. I do not know where the rest is coming from. We are hearing all sorts of stories about a price on carbon, and an effect on the community, when you cannot possibly make a calculation until you know what the actual price is—you cannot do it. They are making it up. They keep making stories up, which is part of what we know, and what the Prime Minister warned of on 24 February, when she said, ‘Get ready for it: the mother of all scare campaigns’. And that is what we are seeing from the coalition now: a plain, simple, politics 101 scare campaign, because they have nothing else to say on this issue.

We had the debate in here started by one of the greatest climate change deniers on that side of the chamber, Senator Bernardi. He has some pretty extreme views on other matters, I might say, but on the question of climate change he has the most extreme view I have heard from that side of the chamber. He actually encourages people to avoid reducing energy usage and says that energy usage is part of civilisation and we should use more! So he completely rejects the substantial consensus of the scientific community on climate change and suggests we should flout that, that we should actually make sure we emit more carbon and that it is a good thing. That is essentially what he has been saying.

Senator Troeth, to her credit, supported the ETS proposal that came through this chamber twice. She now says she does not support this, and that is her right. But at least she would look at a cogent argument and understands and accepts that we have a problem that we need to deal with. Senator Troeth, I believe, could be convinced to proceed down a path of seeking a solution, and Australia’s contribution towards a solution, to climate change; but I could not say that of Senator Bernardi, and I certainly could not say that of Senator Boswell.

Senator Boswell comes in here and talks about how we are allegedly betraying the working class. Senator Boswell voted for Work Choices. If there was a betrayal of the working class par excellence, that was it—so it is rich for him to come in here and bemoan the fate of the working class. He ought to front up to the workers in some of those mines and say, ‘Yes, I voted to remove your conditions, to cut your pay, to make your job less secure, but I really like you and I want to protect you.’ They will not believe him. I do not believe him. I do not think this chamber should believe him either.

We have a problem. The world has a problem, and Australia is a part of this globe. We have to find a solution for it. But, at the same time, we have a responsibility to try to equip our industry to deal with the emerging realities of a global approach to climate change. I recall when in this chamber a couple of years ago this government talked about assisting Toyota to manufacture a hybrid vehicle. It was roundly condemned on that side of the chamber. And all of the other measures to encourage production of more-fuel-efficient cars were roundly condemned on that side of the chamber. We now have the Camry hybrid being manufactured here. We have a new Holden vehicle manufactured here. Ford is going to manufacture a four-cylinder vehicle, although it will bring in the engines. These things were not happening before. They mean keeping jobs here in Australia. That is what this government is doing.

In the same way, dealing with the question of a carbon price is to deal with the problems that will threaten the jobs of Australian workers and our entire community, and the viability of our communities. The only thing that a responsible government can do in these circumstances is to try to find a solution. The Prime Minister came before the Australian people and said, ‘We are going to go down this path. We are going to work with the majority of the parliament—we did invite the coalition but they refused to be part of it—to try to find a solution so that we can put a price on carbon and start to address the problems that this nation will have to be part of, because it is a world problem.’ We will have to come up with something that we can implement as soon as possible and get business and industry to establish their processes to deal with this problem. Then, the better will be the chance that Australian industry will survive the problems of the next two, three, four or five decades, when the world has to address the problem of climate change by pricing carbon. One would have thought that the party of the market economy on that side of the chamber would have supported a market driven approach to problem solving in the business community. But, no, they wanted the taxpayer to pay for any solutions. Ultimately, of course, it is the community that pays the tax. So, unless they were going to vastly reduce services, we were going to see the burden—I think it was $20 billion in the next ten years—fall upon the community, as well as the establishment costs. So we have an opposition that has decided for very opportunistic reasons to oppose a proposal that is in the best interests of this nation to deal with the issue of pricing carbon.

You could not really take seriously what the Leader of the Opposition says on this issue. He has had more positions—I was going to say more positions than the Kama Sutra on this, but it is probably the wrong approach to take because it is not quite that many. But he has had a great many positions on the question—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister lied, otherwise she would not have won that election.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have actually read it. I will take that interjection because I bow to the greater knowledge of Senator Nash on the Kama Sutra.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brandis, I believe you made a remark that was unparliamentary. Would you care to withdraw it, please. You referred—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw whatever I said that was unparliamentary.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought you said you had read it, Senator Nash. It is an interesting commentary up here, Mr Acting Deputy President. Sometimes, when you sit up this end of the chamber you cannot hear what is going on down at that end, so perhaps I am enjoying an advantage over you at this time.

The Leader of the Opposition has had so many positions on this question that you just could not believe that he was ever genuine on it. He has talked about supporting former Prime Minister Howard’s position, which was to propose that if the coalition had won government at the 2007 election they were going to introduce an emissions trading scheme. Mr Abbott said he supported that. Then, in mid-2009, he suggested that the coalition would support Mr Rudd’s scheme. Shortly after that, I think it was just a couple of days later, he said, ‘No, we should oppose it.’ Then of course he came out with that infamous comment that described climate change as ‘crap’—I think that was the word he used. Then, on 4 October—(Time expired)

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for consideration of the matter of public importance has expired.