David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Small Business (Senator Sherry) and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) and Senators McGauran and Humphries today relating to the coal industry and a proposed carbon tax.

This debate about the government's proposed carbon tax is not about the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. All major parties in this place agree, at least on the basis of risk management and minimisation, that action should be taken to reduce global emissions. The principle that is often termed the 'precautionary principle' is applied.

No, this debate is about whether the method proposed by the government, its carbon tax, which it went to the election promising it would not introduce, will actually achieve this reduction and at what cost to Australians. The fact is that even on the little that we currently know about what the Labor-Green government proposes for this carbon tax, it is not likely to reduce global emissions; in fact it may even increase global emissions. And it will come at great cost to Australians and Australians' jobs.

It is often said that Australia has the highest per capita emissions, and maybe that is the case. I think there is conflicting evidence out there as to who actually does have the highest emissions, but certainly we are amongst the highest emitters in the world on a per capita basis. That is primarily because we do not use nuclear power and because we have access to a huge, cheap and efficient coal resource, which we make good use of.

But what of this? How does this work into the global task of reducing emissions? If we start on the basis that we and others in the world should be able to maintain and even grow our standard of living, then we need to assume that we will on a global basis still need to produce and manufacture an equivalent amount of goods and services to that we manufacture now. So surely in doing that, in manufacturing that equivalent amount of goods and services, we should be doing it in the most efficient manner at a global level and in a way that will reduce global emissions, not increase them. As such, if we can produce a tonne of aluminium or concrete or steel in Australia with the lowest or near-lowest emissions in the world, then surely this is a good place to produce that even if it increases the emissions per Australian as it will decrease the emissions per person on the planet.

This is why we are arguing for a global solution to a global problem and not one where Australia solely takes the lead in a way that costs Australians and delivers nothing for the environment. Notions of leading may sound nice. They may even make some people sleep better at night and feel a little bit warm and fuzzy. But what must be the key in addressing the issue of global warming is that we impose a global solution. Imposing additional costs that make it uneconomic to produce goods and services in Australia, leading to carbon leakage, just makes no sense whatsoever. It does not fix the problem yet it will cost jobs in Australia and increase the cost of living. Even Senator Wong agrees with this. In a speech at an AiG luncheon on 6 February 2008, the then Australian climate change minister stated:

The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.

Over the past few years, we have seen a lot of independent modelling on the impacts of an ETS, and now a carbon tax, on specific industries. Almost all of these have highlighted that there would be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of jobs lost in those industries. Just in the last couple of days we have seen independent modelling released by the Australian Coal Association, to which Senator Sherry referred, looking at the impacts on their industry. It was conducted, I would note, independently by the ACIL Tasman modelling group. They found that carbon pricing could greatly reduce the expected boost to the economy from the resources boom as potential mines do not go ahead. That in itself is interesting because we have heard a lot about how this government will return the budget to surplus in 2013-14 based on conservatively high terms of trade. If the ACIL Tasman modelling is correct, the carbon tax will have a serious impact on any future boost to the economy from the resources boom from coal mines alone, which will upset the assumptions on terms of trade and will upset the likelihood of a surplus in a few years time. If that is correct just for the coal industry, imagine the impact it will have on industries economy wide.

The report estimates that between 22,700 and 31,020 man years of jobs will be forgone as a result of new projects not proceeding and that between $23 billion and $45 billion in export earnings will be forgone in the decade to 2021-22. They say:

Conservative estimates of employment losses from applying emissions pricing to potential new coal mining developments would be elimination of 25-37 per cent of potential new jobs.

Those are jobs that could have been created in this industry over that period of time. (Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in response to opposition's motion to take note this afternoon in relation to the issue of carbon pricing and our position on climate change. I welcome some major and very distinguished people in Australia taking out full-page ads in papers around the country today calling on those opposite, the climate sceptics, to acknowledge that taking action on climate change is an imperative.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

We continue to have the battles with the deniers and the sceptics, Senator Bernardi, sitting opposite us, who pretend that they do not need to do anything and that nothing has happened.

This government is committed to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions as part of global action. There have been comments made about that over a number of weeks and months. Yesterday, the Prime Minister released some fact sheets to show that Australia is not alone here, that plenty of countries have policies and initiatives to take action on climate change. We have determined that the best way to achieve this is through putting a price on carbon, a price that will allow businesses to make decisions on how to best manage their emissions, including through investments in low-emission technologies, while meeting Australia's energy security needs.

The equation is very simple. A price on carbon will encourage large polluters and business to change the way they operate and to reduce their high-emission technologies. I note that the business sector more broadly remains supportive of a carbon price to reduce long-term investment uncertainty. So we do have businesses that are starting to get on board and want to be part of this debate, this discussion, this negotiation.

We recognise that the coal industry is a vital part of our economy. The vast majority of Australia's coal-mining industry is not emissions intensive and will not face materially increased costs under a carbon price. However, there are a small number of gassy underground mines that have high fugitive methane emissions, and they will face increased costs. They know that and we know that. That is why we are consulting closely with the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee on assistance measures for these coal-mining operations, including nego­tiating with them to come up with a way to deal with this. We remain committed to assuring the competitiveness of our mining sector through all of these negotiations.

I turn to the issues that Senator Bushby raised in terms of the ACIL Tasman report on coal-mining jobs. Certainly under a carbon price we expect to see strong growth in the economy, in jobs and in average incomes. We expect that that growth will be particularly strong in the resources sector. The latest capex numbers show that busin­esses are confidently investing in growing their operations. Based on ABARE's estimates, the total investment pipeline for coal alone was over $72 billion as at April 2011. The pipeline of investment for the broader resources sector reached a remarkable $430 billion in April. So many of our largest resources companies have made it clear that they support a price on carbon. Companies like Santos, Shell, BP, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton support a price on carbon. They are on board. It is a shame the people opposite are not. Those companies know that we need to reduce contribute pollution and want to be part of that solution and part of that dialogue. Putting a price on carbon is the cheapest and most effective way to do this, so many of these big investors have already built a carbon price into their investment plans. So what do we have before us? A bright future for sectors like coal and LNG. It is true that the carbon price will affect some operators, but we are working with industry on an assistance package that will manage that.

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

In hearing Senator Crossin's speech, and Senator Wong's statements earlier during question time, I am reminded of the great showman PT Barnum who said something like, 'You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.' Senator Crossin and Senator Wong are clearly part of that group that can be fooled all of the time. They are defending what this government cannot defend with any strength or temerity. The reason is this government was elected with a promise not to introduce a price on carbon and, more specifically, not to introduce a price on carbon dioxide—that odourless gas which we all expire when we talk and exhale. Senator Crossin will repeat the myths and the suggestions that carbon is pollution when actually we are talking about carbon dioxide. She will repeat the assurance that business wants certainty. Well, they had certainty at the last election when her Prime Minister promised not to introduce a price on carbon dioxide.

But that is conveniently forgotten in their self-perpetuating infliction of misery on the Australian people. Make no mistake, Mr Deputy President, the Australian people are struggling with cost-of-living pressures right now. They are worried about hanging onto their jobs and they are worried about how they are going to pay their electricity bills and their gas bills. They are worried about the cost of fruit and vegetables. They are worried about the cost of transport. And this government is only worried about taking more money out of Australian families' pockets. That is an absolute disgrace. The reason they are doing it is because they are sending this country broke, unfortunately quite rapidly with $50,000 million worth of additional debt to be incurred in the next 12 months alone. Many people will say that is the government living for today by mortgaging the future. This government does not care about that. I glance around this chamber now, look up in the gallery and see the future of Australia having a look at what is happening. The children up there do not realise that the myths being pedalled by this government are going to result in all of them paying much more tax for the next several decades. This is an appalling indictment on the management of Australia.

It is also dressed up in that cloak of environmentalism in which it says, 'We're going to save the planet from climate change or global warming.' And yet when pushed, when this government is asked how much this massive new tax, which is going to start at around $12 billion next year and grow every year after that in perpetuity, is going to change the temperature, it will not answer. It cannot answer. Even its self-appointed climate change spokesman, the man who has a reputation for creating more myths than anyone else in the country, is getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to peddle nonsense—even though it has been proved incorrect time and time again. So when it cannot answer the questions, when it will not provide the detail, when it is putting enor­mous pressure on Australian families simply through a self-indulgent reluctance to reduce its expenditure and to live within its means and to cut its cloth, like every family in this country does, we should be appalled. The Australian people should be appalled. Indeed they are, because most Australians today do not buy what this government is peddling. They do not buy it because there is no credibility attached to it.

The minister, Senator Wong, today in answering the questions is on the record as saying a carbon tax is less efficient, that it is not a silver bullet. She tried to put forward all of the same sort of rhetoric and nonsense once before in getting up her emissions trading scheme, which would have destroyed the economy and the country. Then she went off to Copenhagen, proclaimed it a great success, came back and ditched her policy. Why should we believe her now? It is the same Penny Wong who is lecturing us on fiscal conservatism and being responsible economic managers as she spends $50,000 million more of taxpayers' money than they are going to take. That is what this is all about: a government that cannot control its spending; it cannot control its tortured distortion of the truth in order to peddle its ideological and obsessive regime to indoctrinate and get itself involved in everyone's lives.

They want both of their hands in our pockets, and the Australian people cannot afford it. They cannot afford it and they cannot afford to put up with more of the myths and lies masquerading as policy that this government continues to generate. They should stand condemned, and the Australian people will render their verdict at the next election.

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

Western Australia Sometimes in a debate you really do have to have someone who tries to avoid the hyperbole and the exaggeration and the political pointscoring and the Chicken Little statements that we have had from the two opposition speakers to date—someone who is prepared to address the issue at hand, the facts in a debate. Fortunately for the chamber, I am the person who is more than comfortable to address just the facts concerning the climate change issue and the carbon tax debate.

Let us go right back to the beginning, to basics. Some six or nine months ago, the Prime Minister made it quite clear that we were going to introduce a carbon tax. She made it quite clear at the time as to why we were seeking to introduce a carbon tax: to cut pollution and to drive investment in clean energy. She also made the point at the time, and has repeated it regularly since, as has the relevant minister, that there would be some modest cost impact through the imposition of the carbon tax. Of course, that modest cost impact will be paid by fewer than 1,000 of the companies that are the largest emitters in industry around the Commonwealth of Australia. So, yes, there was going to be a carbon tax. It was there to cut pollution and to drive investment in clean energy. It would have modest cost impacts, and those modest cost impacts would be paid by fewer than 1,000 of the largest emitters, the largest polluters, in this country.

We acknowledged at the outset that some industries would pass on all or part of that cost to consumers, and we also said at the outset that it would be terribly unfair that those who are least fortunate in our community, those who are least able to bear the cost, should wear that cost from that modest cost impact. That is why we said up-front that the cost impact would be modest and that there would be fair and generous assistance to households. The government made its position quite clear at the outset and time and time again the relevant minister has repeated that. We said that we would help pensioners and we would help low-income earners. But, more than that, it is not a revenue grab, a revenue take, a revenue steal, as Senator Bernardi constantly recited; 100 per cent of the revenue raised from this carbon tax will be returned to industry, to consumers or to those low-income house­holds around Australia—pensioners and low-income persons generally—who are least able to bear that price. Almost 3½ million maximum-rate and part-rate pensioners will receive assistance—assistance in addition to the normal indexation of their pension and their welfare entitlements—to compensate them for the burden that they will wear.

We say that the approach of the government will have the outcome that the carbon price, which is a price on emissions and pollution, will make dirty energy more expensive and clean energy, like the alternatives we have been talking about for some time—solar, wind and gas—cheaper. In that context, as I said, the tax is only going to fall on the largest 1,000 emitters in this country. Some of those emitters will have the ability to pass on the price increase—some in whole, some in part. But we are very concerned about where it is passed on. We have been concerned from the outset that it does not fall unfairly on those parts of the community least able to bear it. That is why we said up-front that there is going to be significant compensation to low-income families, there is going to be significant compensation to low-income households and there is going to be significant compensation to those who are on the pension—whether on a part pension or on a full pension. That is going to be done in addition, as I said before, to the normal indexation requirements that pensioners enjoy when their pension goes up on a regular basis.

We are about having a sustainable economy, efficient industries, growth in the economy, additional jobs, less pollution and less pollutants, and we are about having altered energy supplies and alternate energy firms— (Time expired)

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to address the answers that were given on the carbon tax by those on the government benches. It would be remiss of me not to note Senator Crossin's remarks in relation to the advertisements that carbon tax supporters are placing in papers around the country. She suggested that this was indica­tive of the tremendous support that the carbon tax has. To Senator Crossin, who I wish was in this chamber to hear this directly and had not left, I can only say: those who are advertising in those media outlets today must be some of the one-third left of Gillard supporters. We have seen Prime Minister Gillard's personal support plummet; it has crashed. They must be the last remaining few who still believe her and support her. There aren't many of them left.

I have to go back to Minister Wong's remarks during question time when she suggested that those on this side of the chamber were playing politics with this. What sort of hypocrisy is that? What gobsmacking hypocrisy! It is those in government, those on the government benches, who have been playing politics with this issue, because we did not have a carbon tax on the table until Prime Minister Gillard did a deal with the Leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, to form government.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You must refer to a senator by his proper title, Senator Kroger.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. I was getting very emotional with the magnitude of my concerns on this issue. It is because of the formal alliance that was declared. It was because of this coalition of Labor and the Greens that have formed government that we now are dealing with a carbon tax. So it is no wonder that the Australian public do not believe a word of what those on the government benches say. It is no wonder that they do not believe what the Prime Minister says. If I can quote the Prime Minister in a speech she made in the other place on 10 May 2005:

... the Labor Party is the party of truth telling. When we go out into the electorate and make promises, do you know what we would do in government: we would keep them.

I remind her of her election promises last year. The Prime Minister went on to say:

When we say them, we mean them. That is the difference between you and us. If I were minister for health in an elected government, it would be my duty to implement lock, stock and barrel—word for word—exactly what we had promised in the election campaign. That is your obligation.

So said Julia Gillard, the then minister. I say to her: what happened to her election promise that there would be no carbon tax under any government that she led? That promise went up in smoke when she formed an alliance with the Greens. That is what happened to that promise. So the suggestion that the opposition are playing politics with this is total hypocrisy. It is the government that have been playing politics with it. We would not be considering a carbon tax today if they had not formed an alliance with the Greens.

This is something that goes to the very heart of the problems that the government are facing and that they are facing in the Labor Party as a party. We have had the senior elder statesman, Senator John Faulkner, as recently as today discussing the fact that the government are poll driven—their whole direction is based on pollster results. They have lost sight of what their membership want. They have lost sight of what their caucus want. We have the Socialist Left leader, Senator Doug Cameron, breaking out and wanting to exercise a public voice because he feels he has no voice in the caucus. It is those problems which are driving the fact that we have a government that is not only not listening to its own members, backbenchers or caucus: this government is not listening to the Australian public. The government only has to pick up a newspaper to see that.

This is an incredibly serious issue. It is one that is going to cost this country for a very long time, and we will do everything we can to ensure that that does not happen.

Question agreed to.