Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Fifield:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The harmful and damaging effects of the Gillard Government's proposed carbon tax on regional Australia.

Is the proposal supported?

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

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

It is very timely that this matter be debated in the Senate. This is a disaster facing Australia—a carbon tax—and it will be a greater disaster for rural and regional Australia, where everything has to be carried in or taken out. It is going to be not only a carbon tax but a tax on transport that fits in with a carbon tax, and rural Australia is going to pay a very heavy price for this.

It does not really have to. The Labor vote in New England was eight per cent, and the Labor vote in Lyne was 13 per cent, yet those representatives are going to vote for a carbon tax that is going to hit rural and regional Australia desperately. When you think about this, you would have to think this is the greatest sell-out since Judas Iscariot took 30 pieces of silver. That is what it amounts to. These people have betrayed their electorates. The National Party whip took a survey the other day in New England and in Lyne, and that vote was 89 per cent against a carbon tax in New England and 87 per cent against a carbon tax in Lyne. Yet these two people are going to vote for a carbon tax that is going to hit their electorates harder than any other electorates. What a betrayal! What an absolute, total betrayal of the people that they represent! I expect both of them are looking for alternative areas to get an income from after the next election, and that next election is going to come around one way or another—maybe in three months time; maybe in six months time—and the people are going to seek their vengeance for this carbon tax. But none will be seeking it harder than the people in regional Australia.

But, before we get onto the effects of what is going to happen in regional Australia, this carbon tax really is unworkable. The Labor Party say that it is the greatest thing for Australia, but there is no modelling done. Senator Wong has said today that the modelling is available. ABARES modelling is not available. The ABARES modelling that this carbon tax is based on is not available. I have asked questions in the estimates committee. People have gone down and tried to buy it and have been refused. So how can anyone go to Australia and say, 'Here is a plan, and that plan is based on a model, but no-one has seen the model'? It is not just Senator Ron Boswell saying that; it is people like McKibbin and Ergas, who are some of the most prominent economists in Australia. They cannot get the model. They do not know what is in the modelling.

The modelling is based on assumptions, and the assumptions are that the rest of the world is going to do this by 2016. The rest of the world have shown no indication of doing it at all—none whatsoever—yet the Labor Party merrily goes along and says, 'The modelling is there.' The modelling is not there, and I will give a donation to the Labor Party if it produces this modelling. I will even give it to your union, Senator Cameron. That is how confident I am that the modelling is not available and never will be available, because if it were available then it would be out there in a package put in every letterbox if it proved that the Labor Party modelling was accurate and that there would be more jobs and more income coming in. The reason that modelling is not available and never will be available is that it would disprove what the Labor Party have said. The committee has written to the Treasurer, and the Treasurer has said the modelling is not available. People in various peak bodies have gone down and tried to find the modelling, yet we are told it is not available.

So the whole thing becomes a farce. The whole carbon tax is a farce because there is nothing it is based on—only the assumption that the rest of the world is going to get there by 2016. India is not going to get there. America is not going to be in it. Tokyo will not do it if America does not do it. India has said it is not going to do it. Jakarta cannot do it. The rest of the world will not get there. Yet we proceed down here, and the people that are going to get crunched the hardest are going to be the people from rural and regional Australia.

When you go through it and look at all industries out there—the dairy industry; the aviation industry; abattoirs; fruit; vegetables; fish processors—everything that moves in and out of Australia's regional areas is going to get hit. The greatest creator of jobs in Australia at the moment—it employs 200,000 people in rural and regional Australia—is the mining industry. It has 200,000 direct employees and 600,000 indirect employees, and it accounts for 55 per cent of the exports in Australia. One in four regional jobs depends on exports, and a carbon tax is going to hit that industry to the tune of $25 billion. That is what the carbon tax is going to cost. That is not what the mining tax is going to cost on top of that; that is what the carbon tax is going to cost. Then to come in here and say, 'Well, we're going to create jobs; everything's going to be all right in rural Australia,' is just an absolute nonsense, and the fact is that everyone knows it. That is why the vote of the Labor Party is so low. That is why the Labor Party is bottoming out at around 26 per cent. The sooner the election comes, the better it will be for all of us. I had a call the other day from a very irate person. He said I could use his name, so I will use his name. People in Brisbane will know the company I am talking about. It is Morgans Seafoods from Redcliffe. Morgans have a fishing company and they have a restaurant. In the restaurant, electricity charges are going to go up $7,856 in 2013 and by 2015 they will have gone up by $8,679. That is for the restaurant. For their wholesale fish coldroom, electricity charges will go up $16,982—effectively $17,000—in 2014 and by 2015 they will have gone up by $18,762.

Every farm that produces fruit or vegetables has a coldroom. The carbon tax will mean those coldrooms will cost an extra $15,000, $16,000 or $18,000 to run. Every farm that produces food puts it in a coldroom. It is transferred in a refrigerated truck into another coldroom. So there is going to be a carbon tax on every piece of food that goes into or out of a farm.

There is going to be a carbon tax on fuel. It starts off at 6c a litre and it works its way up. For vehicles that are under 4½ tonnes, it starts off at 5.52c in 2013 and in 2014 it goes to nearly 7c. That is going to add to the cost of every piece of food— (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always like following Senator Boswell in a debate on climate change because I always like to say that at least Senator Boswell is not like the majority of the coalition in the Senate—he does not hide the fact that he does not believe in climate change. Senator Boswell does not think that the sea level will rise; Senator Boswell does not think it is going to get warmer; Senator Boswell does not think that the Great Barrier Reef is under threat; and Senator Boswell thinks that we can keep ploughing CO2 into the atmosphere, polluting the atmosphere, with absolutely no consequences. At least Senator Boswell actually believes that.

The ones who are the problem are those in the coalition who actually know that CO2 is damaging to the future of this planet and who actually know that future generations will pay a huge price in their living standards and in terms of the environment. They are the ones who will pay the price—future generations. It is clear on any economic analysis that the best way to deal with carbon pollution is to put a price on that pollution. Senator Boswell says that no-one is doing anything. That is part of the misinformation; that is part of the fear campaign that is underpinning the coalition's approach to this very important issue. In fact, the opposite is the truth. China is the biggest producer and user of renewables—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And coal.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams says they are also the biggest producer of coal. That is correct—they are the biggest producer of coal, they are the biggest user of coal and they are at the forefront, along with the Australian government, in trying to produce carbon capture and storage processes to make sure that we can continue to use coal.

The scare campaign which has been run by the coalition is simply short-termism. It is about trying to get short-term political advantage. It is about saying, 'We do not really care about future generations.' You do not care about my grandkids. Some of you do not even care about your own family's future if there is some kind of short-term advantage politically. The scientific facts are clear—there is an imperative to deal with climate change. Some in the coalition understand this. The member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, knows that full well. He knows that you have to deal with climate change. Your former leader was knocked off because he actually spoke the truth in the coalition party room. He was knocked off because he said the best way to deal with climate change is to put a price on carbon.

The majority in the coalition actually reject the science. They are antiscientific. They are absolutely antiscientific.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Senator Williams interjecting—

You can hear the groans coming from the coalition—the groans and moans: 'They've got us again. Yes, we are antiscientific, but please don't tell us, because we don't like being told that we are antiscientific.' You are absolutely antiscientific, because the science says that you have to deal with climate change and what is your answer to that? Your answer is: direct action. What is direct action? Direct action is a fraud. Direct action is the biggest fraud anyone has ever attempted to perpetrate on the Australian community. It is such a fraud—the CSIRO has looked at the argument that you can have all of this climate abatement through soil carbon and has said that it is not achievable.

You will be consigning future generations to ever-increasing sea levels, ever-increasing carbon in the atmosphere and ever-increasing environmental problems, affecting their ability to have a decent life. There is a sound economic basis for what the government is doing; there is absolutely no economic basis for the coalition's policy. The argument that we are acting alone is wrong. The European Union has its carbon abatement scheme in place—a carbon trading scheme—and the rest of the world is moving to reduce carbon. The Commonwealth's modelling is the most effective modelling around to predict what will happen.

We heard a bit said earlier about Professor Henry Ergas. It always amuses me to hear the coalition use Professor Ergas as an expert on what should be done. This is a man who ran a company that was put into liquidation. He tells us at committee after committee: 'I can't run my own company. My company went into liquidation but listen to me and I will tell you how to run the country.' What an absolute joke! Up comes Professor Ergas time and time again, telling people what they should be doing when he could not even run his own company. Maybe it was because the coalition did not pay their bills. I am not sure because he was the chief economist for the coalition in opposition and he was the guy who ran all of the coalition's arguments on economic policy. All of them were wrong; all of them were bad; all of them were crook. So do not quote Professor Ergas as some authority on anything when he could not even run his own company.

We heard the argument that there was all doom and gloom out there in the regions. I just had the good fortune to hear Mackay Sugar—what could be more regional than Mackay Sugar, a 140-year-old canegrowing company?—say that, yes, you have to put a price on carbon and yes, it is going to mean great opportunities for us. What are their opportunities? They are going to diversify their operation and they are constructing a $120 million renewable co-generation plant which will supply about one-third of Mackay's electricity. How can they do that? They can only do it because there is a price on carbon and there is a renewable energy target. It is a federal government initiative. That is the only thing they can do.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's gone all quiet over there.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has gone all quiet over there. These are canegrowers, people who actually understand the economics of doing something. They said that they will contribute to Australia's renewable energy market. Their perspective is that it is not a job destroyer, that the $120 million co-generation plant was based on the 20 per cent renewable energy scheme. They say, 'The carbon tax should enhance our revenue from co-generation.' That is what is happening. 'And we are hoping it will allow us to go ahead with another co-gen plant within a couple of years. These projects typically employ about 250 people during the construction period and a dozen or so under operations.' So, hundreds of construction jobs and dozens of full-time jobs being created because we are taking an initiative to put a price on carbon. It is only those on the other side who would deny this. Not only do they deny the science, but also they deny the economics. If you accept the science then you have an obligation to put up a proposition that reduces our carbon pollution at the least cost price. That is what the government has done. We have taken advice and that advice is to put a price on carbon and let the market determine the price. You put your cap in place, you put your price in place and you allow the market to determine the process. That is what is important for this country because we are about the future, not the past. We are about science and not being unscientific. We are about ensuring that future generations have a way forward for a decent environment in this country.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must comment on the 'short political gain' to the coalition that Senator Cameron referred to on this issue. I wonder then how he regards Ms Gillard's promise four days before the election that 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' I wonder if that was 'short political gain'? I think it would have been. What if she had said, 'If we win this election, we are going to introduce the biggest and most expensive carbon tax in the world and after three years we will move to an emissions trading scheme and, by the way, after two years we will inflict what Mr Sheldon from the Transport Workers Union calls a 'death tax' on the transport industry'?

But back to the debate about regional Australia. Senator Cameron only ever mentioned Mackay—he did not mention any more of regional Australia, where we now pay the highest electricity bills. In regional New South Wales we spend 25 per cent more on electricity than those consumers in Sydney. People in regional Victoria spend 30 per cent more on electricity than those in Melbourne. In regional Queensland, they spend six per cent more on electricity than those in Brisbane. This is the point that Senator Boswell made today about the cost on regional Australia.

We cannot have a Senate inquiry into this legislation. The house of review in our federal parliament cannot have an inquiry into the carbon tax. The government just shuts down the Senate and does not let it do its job. But in the recent inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation—it was an inquiry of just a few-weeks; it had to be guillotined and then shut down—the Nationals member for Dawson, Mr Christensen, quoted the following statement from Mr Garnaut's report:

From the commencement of an emissions trading scheme costs of agriculture inputs—electricity, liquid fuel and fertiliser—will rise. This will particularly affect parts of the sector where energy costs and energy-dependent costs are a large proportion of total costs.

These are the words of Professor Garnaut. When questioned about that quote Professor Garnaut said:

Yes, that is quite true and not at all inconsistent with what I have said before.

Mr Christensen, the member for Dawson, again quoted from Mr Garnaut's report, which said:

... imposing a carbon price in Australia ahead of similar carbon constraints in our trade competitors ... could result in some movement of emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries from Australia to other countries that impose less of a carbon constraint.

That is what Professor Garnaut says. This is the point—what is going to happen to regional Australia?

We know about the deal done with the Greens. But the Independents—Tony Windsor, the member for New England, and Rob Oakeshott, the member for Lyne—said the deal for putting this government in place was all about protecting regional Australia. It is not uncommon for Mr Windsor to do surveys in his electorate. He did a recent survey on taxation reform, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. He got 1,600 responses to the survey from right throughout his electorate. Recently I sent out 57,000 survey forms on the carbon tax in the seat of New England, where there are about 93,000 voters. I did not get 1,600 back—more than 5,000 were returned. Nine per cent of the forms were returned to my office. Those 9 per cent indicated that 89 per cent of the people in New England opposed the proposed carbon tax put together by Mr Windsor. He was the one who said proudly that one of the aspects of the deal to put Ms Gillard into the Lodge and Labor and the Greens alliance into government was the formation of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, driven by Mr Windsor.

In the last parliament Mr Windsor put up a private members bill for a massive 30 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 based on 1990 levels, and by 2050 a massive 80 per cent. On ABC radio prior to the 21 August election last year, Kelly Fuller asked Mr Windsor why he put those bills in and he said they were not his bills; he was just putting them in on behalf of some of his constituents, representing his constituents. He ran adverts saying he was the people's representative, but he will not survey the people of New England on his proposed carbon tax that he has worked on putting together with the committee.

I sent 62,000 survey forms out into the seat of Lyne, held by Independent Rob Oakeshott, and 3,740 households want Rob Oakeshott to vote against the carbon tax and just 542 want him to vote for it. On that basis, 87 per cent of the people in Lyne do not want this carbon tax to proceed. These are the two Independents that keep the government in government. Are they the people's representatives? Not only were those forms returned, but there were many comments. There was a comment from Glen Innes saying:

... disgusting the way Labor twists their failures and blames others, Tony Windsor betrayed us. Labor do not care for the people—they are self driven.

One person in Inverell said they:

... will not vote for an Independent again State or Federal.

From Tamworth, where we had the biggest opposition to the carbon tax, 1,278 households opposed the carbon tax and just 217 supported it. Tamworth people said:

Windsor sold us out. We cannot get any poorer. What is next—will Gillard send us out in boats and get more in?

They are some of the many comments written on the survey forms. So what do we have? We have a carbon tax proposal for regional Australia. As I said, we already pay the extra electricity costs. We have the extra cost of many goods because of the freight component, and that is going to go up. There is even a tax on domestic airlines. What about crop dusters and other agricultural planes? They have been classified as domestic airlines. Crop dusters in Armadale will be paying an extra $40,000 a year on their fuel costs alone—to do what?

Last year China increased their consumption of coal by 434 million tonnes. Australia's total production of coal last year was 420 million tonnes. We are one of the few countries that actually burnt less than we did the year before—3.6 per cent less. China is now producing 51 per cent of the world's coal and they consumed, last year, 3,200 million tonnes of coal. As I said, their consumption increased by more in one year than the whole of Australia's output of coal—and we are going to save the planet! According to Treasury figures, this year China will produce 10.3 billion tonnes of CO2. That will go up to 17.9 billion tonnes by 2020—a 7,600 million tonne increase in CO2by 2020. Australia's production is going to go up 43 million tonnes—and we are going to change the planet. After this tax there will be no more droughts in regional Australia, no more floods, and cyclones will disappear.

This is outrageous. The cost is greatest on regional Australia. As I said, people in the Labor Party, supported by the Transport Workers Union, should hang their heads in shame—a $510 million tax a year on the truckies when they have already introduced their Euro 5 motors, which are far cleaner than the older style motors, with far less pollution, though they do use 10 per cent more fuel. Hence the truckies have already paid their tax by cleaning up their motors. Tony Sheldon from the Transport Workers Union told the Senate inquiry, chaired by my colleague Senator Cormann, that this is a death tax on truckies. I think the words he used were that we were sweating the drivers longer and sweating the trucks longer, putting drivers' lives at risk. That is what the Transport Workers Union says. I wonder whether those on the other side, who are supported by the Transport Workers Union, will heed the warning of Mr Sheldon. This is a cost on regional Australia when we need the truckies to take our exports to the waterfront, when we need so much brought into our regions where we do not have rail networks. If only we had spent what we spent on school buildings on the rail network, or if the pink batts money had been spent on our rail network or our ports, then we would really have been making progress.

Today at question time I asked about the effect of the carbon tax on abattoirs. There will be a $1.74 million cost to the Bindaree Beef abattoir, in Inverell, in the first year. That cost will not be inflicted on abattoirs in America or Brazil, who we compete against—especially America. We are battling to keep our markets in Japan and Korea et cetera, but the Americans will not face that cost. They will simply be emitting more. That is why this is so wrong. It is a cost to the very sector that provides our nation's wealth. We have heard from the Australian coal industry what effect it will have on them. As I said, last year China increased its consumption of coal in one year by more than the whole of Australia's production of coal—but somehow we are going to change the planet, change the atmosphere, lower the temperatures and the lower the sea levels. It is a farce.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance on carbon pricing before the Senate this afternoon is a clear demonstration of just how out of touch those opposite are when it comes to protecting the environment and the welfare and living standards of Australians living in rural and regional communities. If there is one group within those communities which stands to lose the most from inaction on climate change it is people in rural and regional economies. That is why this government is taking action on climate change. That is why we are acting to protect the long-term sustainability of our climate, regions and communities.

We believe that climate change is real. We believe that human induced activities are causing the warming of our planet. We heed the expert advice of scientists who, throughout the world and in Australia, have overwhelmingly said that the warming of the planet will see a greater incidence of floods, of extreme drought conditions, of coastal erosion and of extreme weather events. The nature of our climate and habitat and of our country and its position in the world mean that these risks associated with climate change will have a proportionately larger effect on many rural and regional communities and industries, in particular Australia's agriculture and aquaculture industries.

This is a point that was very well made by a farmer who attended a forum put on by the member for Calare, John Cobb, in Bathurst on 29 August. I attended that forum as the duty senator for the seat of Calare. Unfortunately, the organisers of that forum did not allow me to speak. They did not want to hear what the government was doing to take action on climate change. But I was surprised when a farmer—quite a brave farmer—stood up in that forum and said that he believed that climate change was real. This person was a farmer who grew grapes for the wine industry in the local community, and he believed in climate change because he was beginning to see the effects on his crop. He was seeing changes in weather patterns. He was seeing a greater incidence of extreme weather events, including hail, and the potential damage that these would have on his crop. He was seeing pests appearing at times of the year that they were not supposed to appear. Most importantly, he said that he was investing in China. He had been to China and visited a number of regions there because of investment opportunities, and he was blown away by the fact that the Chinese government was taking action on climate change, that the Chinese economy is the biggest producer of wind turbines and of solar energy in the world and that the Chinese government has a five-year plan to transition to an emissions trading scheme. His message to those people at the forum was: we need to get on board. We, as a community, a government and a nation, need to take action on climate change, and the longer we wait the greater the cost will be for our communities—particularly for those who live in rural and regional areas.

The Garnaut climate change review highlighted some of the potential effects of climate change on rural and regional communities. It highlighted that changes in climate will produce extreme changes in temperature, rainfall and extreme weather events that will affect water availability and change water and soil quality. It will pose increasing fire risks for rural and regional communities. It will see an increasing incidence of pests affecting crops and an increasing incidence of noxious weeds and disease. Those who work and live in our regions and those who work the land understand the effects of climate change and the potential risks that it poses for their livelihoods and for their communities. Most importantly, they also understand the potential damage that is done by us not acting and the potential increase in costs that they will bear if we delay in taking action. They are the most vulnerable. They are the people at the front line, who will potentially be affected the most by climate change if we do not act.

The Garnaut climate change review found that irrigated agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin could decline by 92 per cent by 2100 if we do not take action to reduce carbon emissions. It also highlighted increases in sea temperatures and the effects that this will have on aquaculture. Again, those who are working on the front line understand the importance of taking action.

I want to draw the Senate's attention to a report by Surf Life Saving Australia. The erosion of our coastline is a potentially damaging effect of rising sea levels, and Surf Life Saving Australia has commissioned a study to develop a climate change adaptation road map that will assist in the management of projected climate change impacts. These are the people on the front line, protecting our communities in surf life saving week in and week out. This study has shown that of the 128 surf clubs in New South Wales 47 per cent are located in coastal zones classified as zones of potential instability. Many of these are in rural and regional communities. Here we have a well-respected community organisation understanding that we need to take action on climate change and supporting what the government is doing.

The government also understands that there will be impacts associated with the transition to a clean energy future, and that is why we are working with rural and regional communities to make sure that transition is a smooth one and that we protect the livelihoods and incomes of people who work our land. That is why the government has excluded agricultural land sectors from the carbon price. However, there will be opportunities for those in these land sectors to secure economic rewards under the Carbon Farming Initiative. If farmers do take voluntary action under the Carbon Farming Initiative then there will be opportunities in terms of the way that scheme works. I attended a carbon farmers conference in Dubbo on 29 September. I was pleasantly surprised by the submissions that were made to that conference. That conference drew together carbon farmers not only from throughout Australia but from throughout the world. Many of them understand the opportunities that the Carbon Farming Initiative and the government's Clean Energy Future package will pose for those who work, day in, day out, on our land. I was really heartened by the fact that many at that conference expressed the view to me and to those present that Australia leads the world when it comes to carbon farming initiatives and new carbon farming techniques. Many of those farmers presented to the conference on some of the initiatives that they were taking on their land, particularly their non-arable land, their hilly country, and the plantings that they were using as carbon sinks and the opportunities that will come from the Carbon Farming Initiative once it is up and running. So there is widespread support for the scheme amongst the farming community. I was pleasantly surprised and heartened by the representations from those carbon farmers at that conference in Dubbo in late September.

Senator Boswell has raised the issue of modelling. I find this surprising, given the Liberal Party's performance when it comes to modelling on the carbon tax. I draw the Senate's attention to the modelling that was undertaken by the New South Wales government on the potential effects of carbon pricing on regions. They found through their modelling that there would be effects on employment in the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra. That is disputed and I will not go into that. But what they did not disclose to people was the fact that the modelling also showed that in other regions, including northern New South Wales, the mid-north coast and the south-east coast, there would be more job opportunities associated with the carbon pricing legislation—a clear demonstration of this misleading campaign that those opposite are running to try to hoodwink the public when it comes to this very important environmental issue.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to table the results of the carbon tax survey I carried out in the seats of Lyne and New England and have them incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

SURVEY OF THE NEW ENGLAND AND LYNE ELECTORATES

Subject — Carbon Tax

New England electorate — 57,700 forms distributed

Lyne electorate — 62,200 forms distributed.

Forms distributed by Australia Post w/c 19th September, 2011

RESULTS BY POSTCODE — NEW ENGLAND HOUSEHOLDS

RESULTS BY POSTCODE - LYNE

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are seeing this afternoon from the Labor Party—and it was quite a tragic performance from the last speaker, I have to say—is regional Australia being represented by speakers from the Labor heartland on this matter of public importance debate on the impact on regional Australia of Labor's carbon tax. They have sent in speakers in from Labor's heartland, senators who have their offices in Sydney, in Springwood, in the CBD of Sydney and in North Melbourne—the heartland of regional Australia! The old adage comes straight to the fore: do not listen to what the government say; look at what they do. The description of the Carbon Farming Initiative that was given by Senator Thistlethwaite a moment ago just staggers me. He was obviously sent in here to do a job. I understand that. That is the role that the government senators have been given—they are sent in to defend the government's position. But at least have some understanding of what you are talking about.

I spent two days at the Burnie Show just a week ago talking to farmers. They were lining up to talk to me as we were setting our stand up, telling us what the impact was going to be on them and their farms, particularly the dairy farms. They know that the government's carbon tax is going to cost them on average $10,000 per dairy farm in direct costs and another $10,000 in costs back from the processor. The processing sector for food in this country—Australia's largest manufacturing sector—is severely hit by the carbon tax, and they know that the costs will be passed back to them, because that is what happens. So they are not fooled by all this rhetoric that is run out by the Labor Party in relation to the carbon tax.

Senator Williams talked about polling that he conducted in a couple of seats in New South Wales. There was some polling released in Tasmania on the Friday before last—in Burnie, just outside the show. That showed that 62 per cent of Tasmanians polled were either opposed to or unsure about the carbon tax—51 per cent of them directly opposed it and 11 per cent were unsure about it. The best that the government could do was 17 per cent—

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

Whose survey was that?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was done by EMRS actually, an independent poll. Only 17 per cent strongly supported the carbon tax. They cannot even do half the percentage of those that oppose it in Tasmania. That is also showing through in the more general polling about the government. In fact, there are predictions in Tasmania that the Labor Party will be third in the next poll, behind the Greens. You might be interested in that, Mr Acting Deputy President Ludlam. I know you cannot comment from the chair, but it might bring a smile to your face that the Labor Party could even be the third party in Tasmania at the next poll that comes along.

Senator Marshall interjecting—

Another one of the city-centric senators has come in to talk about regional Australia. Welcome, Senator Marshall. It is good to see you here. It really is delightful to see you here to talk about regional Australia.

I was at a growers meeting on Wednesday night last week. They actually understand the climate. They understand seasonal variability. What they are concerned about is their R&D dollar—how it is apportioned, how it is spent, how the extension from that works. They are not running out telling me that they want a carbon tax. In fact, the attitude to it in the room was quite contrary to what we are being told about, particularly by Senator Thistlethwaite, who obviously has ventured outside the city on the odd occasion to talk to some constituents—which is encouraging, I have to say.

But then you look at the direct impacts. I have already mentioned the impact on the dairy industry, which is significantly impacted. The dairy industry and the beef industry, which Senator Williams has already mentioned, are the two agricultural sectors that are most severely impacted. Prime Minister Gillard—the name that the Labor Party dare not utter in the current debate—dropped into King Island a few weeks ago on the way to Tasmania to have a chat to the locals about the carbon tax and a number of other things. She tried to convince constituents that the impact would be less than one per cent. Unsurprisingly, they did not believe the Prime Minister, because they know that the cost of shipping will increase because there is no exemption for shipping fuel and that the cost of aviation will increase because there is no exemption for aviation fuel. Everything that comes in and goes out of King Island is either shipped or flown. People know that they will disproportionately be impacted in their regional community because of the impact of the carbon tax.

It would be nice if members of the government were prepared to actually address the impact on regional Australia in their contributions to this debate. But they are not. They trot out the government's 'modelling' because that is all they have. Of course, regional Australia is expected to believe that the modelling which is done on a broad base can be extrapolated back to regional Australia. Regional Australians know it cannot be. The compensation, which is based on this broad based modelling, also does not fit regional Australia.

When the Prime Minister told constituents on King Island that they would be compensated for this less-than-one-per-cent cost to their economy (a) they did not believe that the cost would be limited to less than one per cent and (b) they obviously did not believe that the compensation would be adequate, either, because it will not. They know that the cost of their goods that come in by either ship or air will go up by more than that number. They know that, and that is borne out by the polling that has been done in Tasmania, which has the most regionally dispersed population of any state in the country. They know that and they understand that.

ABARES held their outlook conference in Launceston last week. The farmers actually do understand the real deficiencies in things like the Carbon Farming Initiative, where you cannot even plant a windbreak, because the government says it is common practice. We are not doing the things that we ought to be encouraging.

Then you come to what is as regional as anything that you will get, and that is my portfolio area, which is forestry. The government are not doing anything in that area that might be supportive of one industry that has a really strong capacity to benefit the globe. If that is what they say they want to do in respect of carbon storage, then they are driven by green prejudice and dogma. They exclude biomass from the carbon tax. Why? I have no answer to that, except for green dogma and prejudice. If you look at biomass—and the Greens have mentioned in this place our life-cycle costings of energy generation—you will see that it has four per cent of the emissions that coal has. So reduce your emissions by 96 per cent by using biomass. What do the Labor Party do? Obviously, at the insistence of the Greens—the Green masters say 'exclude biomass'—it is out of the carbon tax. Here we have a method where you could generate 8,000 megawatts of energy without touching another twig or tree. Yet the Greens and the Labor Party rule this out. The Labor Party say that they are looking to reduce Australia's carbon emissions but what they really do in their legislation does not actually achieve that.

The Carbon Farming Initiative does not achieve that and the farmers know it. The carbon tax is a disaster for regional Australia and the farmers know it and they tell us. The Labor Party are right: the farmers are prepared to work with seasonal variation, they are prepared to manage their country sustainably, but the Labor Party's policy platform does not allow them to do that and does not provide incentives. Why rule out the opportunity to put in a windbreak? If a farmer is not doing that and you can put those trees, that biomass, which will store carbon as it grows, back into the landscape, why deny the capacity to do that? It is just absurd.

We hear rhetoric from the Labor Party, the dogma about the science and all that sort of stuff. I am not sure they actually believe it, because their policy at the end of the day does not achieve it. It certainly disadvantages regional Australia. Their modelling does not look at regional Australia; it just lumps them in with the rest of Australia and we are expected to accept this 0.7 of a per cent. Less than one per cent is what we are told time and time again, and it just will not work for regional Australia. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The difficulty in engaging in this matter of public importance debate with the opposition is that they do not actually believe in climate change at all. They do not believe that the climate is changing and they certainly do not believe that the climate is changing due to human activity. The problem they have when coming into this place is that they do not want to engage in the science and they do not want to engage in a rational debate. All their utterances are about generating fear and trying to scare the public for their own short-term political opportunity. We see this because, while those over there say they do not believe in it and they do not believe that pollution is a bad thing for the environment, they still have their own policy, which seeks to reduce carbon emissions to the same level that we seek to reduce them to.

But the fundamental difference between the way the government goes about it and the way the opposition propose to go about it is that they say: 'You're still free to pollute. Pollute as much as you like. The biggest polluters in this country are free to continue to pollute our environment as much as they like.' The opposition will take taxpayers' dollars and give those taxpayers' dollars as a gift to those companies in the hope that they may introduce some carbon abatement and may reduce their emissions. They say, 'Pollute as much as you like,' and they expect us and the taxpayers to actually give those companies who are the biggest polluters taxpayers' money to help them through the process. Our approach is the one that is supported by the market. It is the approach that John Howard supported in the previous Liberal government. It is the approach that they came to after a long, detailed and lengthy study by Peter Shergold, on behalf of John Howard, for the previous coalition government. They came to the conclusion that the way to reduce our pollution of the environment was to put a price on it. There are a number of ways in which to put a price on it and, clearly, with our legislation we are now proceeding down a path of putting a price on pollution.

What is the importance of putting a price on pollution? We know the market reacts to price signals. Every time you put a price into the market, the market that has to pay that price will seek to avoid it. How will it avoid it? It will be avoided by doing things in a more efficient manner, by investing in clean technology and in materials that cost less to heat and less to cool and by having buildings that cost less to heat and less to cool. New products will be developed in order to avoid paying that price signal, which will affect the way business conducts itself.

It is very important to keep focused in this debate. We know that the tax that will apply to pollution will apply to the 500 biggest polluters, not to anyone else. But we know that many of those companies, certainly in the first instance, will simply seek to pass on some of those costs, and it will work its way through the economy. But all the money raised through that tax still sends that price signal. It still puts a price on pollution so that people will try to avoid that process all the way through the economy, all the way through the market. Every cent raised will go into supporting households, jobs and new technologies that will help industries and our society adapt to the very important challenge ahead of us—that is, reducing pollution and the impact of human induced climate change.

I do believe in the science, and right across the world everyone else does. Australia is a little odd in the sense that we are having this debate when, really, the science has been settled for a long time. As a developed country we are in the position of knowing the effect of human induced climate change. We know what we have to do about it. We know that we can do something about it, yet those in the opposition simply seek to avoid the whole issue and use it as a political opportunity. Instead of taking the responsible path of acknowledging that the science is there, that overwhelming science is there, that we need to act and that we need to change the way in which we act in our society to reduce pollution, instead of acknowledging that we need to do something about it, they simply say: 'It's not real. It doesn't exist. Pollution is safe.' In fact, I think they have started up Friends of CO2. I think that former senator Nick Minchin and several other senators that I see on the other side—well, there are only three of them—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The three likely culprits.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But three of the best ones, and they have probably joined the club too. Really, it is such an irrational process they have engaged in; they seek to engage in an irrational debate. But on this side of the chamber we know what we have to do and we know why we have to do it. I for one am not going to be condemned by my children and my grandchildren, and everyone else's children and grandchildren, for being part of the generation that probably consumed more of the Earth's resources than any other and that knew about the impact of climate change but refused to stand up and take responsibility for doing something about it when we could do something about it. We know, and every economist will tell you, that the earlier we act to reduce human emissions the cheaper it will be. John Howard knew it because that was the result of Peter Shergold's study. That is why the coalition had a plan which was effectively a carbon tax plan, and that is why we have one too. We know that the sooner we act the cheaper it will be for our economy.

We are not doing it for me; we are doing it for the next generation and the generations after that. We are taking responsibility for what has happened before us, but previous generations did know the impact of what we now know—that is, human induced climate change is actually happening. So we have an absolute obligation to act. We have a responsibility to future generations to act. We have an absolute responsibility to the environment to ensure that the market can help solve this problem for us. We as legislators need to do that. We need to put in place those market based signals and put a price on pollution.

That will drive many new industries. It will certainly change in many respects the way in which we work in our economy. But we will make sure that nine out of 10 households are not worse off. In fact they will be better off because we will put in place a compensation package to ensure that, whatever the impact of climate change is on them—and extensive economic modelling has been done on that—they will be compensated by the very tax that is raised from the biggest polluters. So we put the price signal on through the 500 biggest polluters, raise the money and compensate people with that money.

I have heard people say that that is just the money churn, but what they forget is how the market operates and how businesses will seek to become more cost-effective and more efficient. It will drive new technologies. It will drive R&D. People will seek to reduce their electricity bills. People will seek to reduce a whole range of polluting activities because that will now add a cost and, if they can avoid that cost, they will. If they do not try to avoid it, someone else will come along with a different style, a different technique or a different process, and they will avoid the cost and they will be cheaper. That is the way the market works. That competition will be there and it will drive innovation; it will drive a change in the way that we act in our environment. It is essential to this country that we do that not only in the cities but also in the country.

We are not the only country that is acting. Right around the world people are well ahead of us in what they are doing to fight human induced climate change and its impacts. It is happening all around the world. We really need to get over this scare campaign, this irrational position that is constantly put by the opposition. Accept the science and let us get on with our responsibility as legislators and as Australians to do this thing.

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

Order! The time for the debate has expired.