Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

A couple of weeks ago, Labor members and Greens senators were dancing in the aisles. There was kissing and hugging. They were patting each other on the back. Why? Because this Labor-Greens government had managed to force a toxic carbon tax through the parliament, a tax which Labor knows will push up the cost of everything, will hurt our economy, will make Australia less competitive internationally, will cost jobs and will result in lower real wages—and all of that without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. That was what Labor members and Greens senators were patting each other on the back for a couple of weeks ago.

Of course, we know that the government has based its legislation, its compensation package and its transitional assistance on some modelling conducted by Treasury that was based on false assumptions imposed on Treasury by this bad and incompetent Labor government. Labor had one single objective with its Treasury modelling of the carbon tax: it wanted to make it look as if there was going to be hardly any impact at all on household budgets, on the economy or on jobs. It wanted to downplay the economic harm from the carbon tax and it wanted to make it look as if there was going to be massive environmental gain for hardly any economic pain.

What we know is that the carbon tax will be all economic pain for no environmental gain. What we know is that the government has based its modelling on false assumptions, including the assumption that countries like the US, Canada, China and a whole heap of others will be part of a global carbon-pricing scheme from 2016 onwards. It will not happen; it was never going to happen. The impact of Labor's carbon tax on household budgets, on the economy, on jobs and on real wages will be even worse than what the government has conceded in its own figures.

It is not enough that this carbon tax is bad for household budgets; we also know that it is bad for the federal budget. Of course, this is a government which knows how to raise a multibillion-dollar tax, but it is even better at knowing how to spend that money faster than it brings it in. Here we have a government that is coming up with two multibillion-dollar new taxes—the carbon tax and the mining tax—and each one of these taxes leaves the budget worse off. Why? Because, before the government has even collected them, it is spending more than it is expecting to raise. The carbon tax, according to the concessions that the government has made so far, is going to cost the budget about $5 billion more than it is going to raise. The government is going to raise $25 billion and spend about $30 billion. With the mining tax, over the next decade Treasury projections suggest that the government is going to raise about $38½ billion, but we know that the cost of all the promises it has attached to the mining tax is actually approaching $60 billion. There is one fiscal train wreck after another—multibillion-dollar new taxes that leave Australian people worse off, that leave the economy worse off and that leave the federal budget worse off.

That is why this Labor government is not able to deliver a surplus budget. This is a government that is addicted to spending and addicted to new taxes. Even when it comes in with one new, ad hoc, lazy tax grab after another it still cannot balance the books. In the process, real Australians are being asked to make the sacrifice, to pay the price, for Labor's reckless spending and waste in so many areas.

In relation to the carbon tax, the government have been saying for some time: 'Look at Europe. Europe has an emissions trading scheme.' Never mind that the price on carbon over there is about $9 a tonne whereas the Labor Party here, with the Greens, want to slug Australian businesses and the Australian economy $23 a tonne and rising. Never mind that in Europe they are offering 100 per cent protection to all of the emissions-intensive, export-oriented, trade-exposed industries. If Europe is doing something like this, surely we would not want to take the lead from them. Look at the economy of Europe. Does this Labor-Greens government want to take Australia where governments in Europe have taken Europe over the last 20 or 30 years? We should not be taking our economic prosperity in Australia for granted. Bad governments and bad economic management can take Australia down the same bad path. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers as referred to by the previous speaker. It is terrific to see Senator Cormann back on his feet and again unleashed into the economic debate. We were all very fearful in recent days when he was for superannuation, then against superannuation, then for superannuation and then against superannuation—we were all very fearful that the opposition leadership had plucked him out of the fray of the financial debate. It is good to see him back.

This is a nice timely moment for us, as the parliamentary year draws to a conclusion, to consider the questions that were debated today and perhaps have a fresh look at how the edifice of Liberal Party policymaking is going. I am afraid the scorecard is very bleak. As we see the Liberal Party moving around Australia in these final months of the year, we see on the one hand that they are advocating austerity and fiscal restraint. We saw that when the coalition opposed the measures the government took to save our economy from the global financial crisis—this continuing, harping view that austerity and fiscal restraint are the appropriate way forward. But then—completely contradictory—we also find the opposition moving through the community talking about and committing themselves to unfunded spending in a whole series of areas. I am very keen to put the spotlight on some of these areas.

Climate change is a wonderful place to start. The great truth of the climate change debate in this country is that, while Labor has a policy of abating carbon to the tune of 160 million tonnes by 2020, the remarkable and little-known fact is: so do they. So do the coalition—the same target. You would not know it if you were listening to the debates in which they denounce the science of climate change, but the fact of the matter is that the coalition have the same target. The secret difference is that where we have a fixed price permit system, moving to an emissions trading scheme, they have looked to the successful models of Romania, North Korea and various other command economies around the world and they have struck upon the solution of coming up with a giant government program, a giant taxpayer funded program, to abate carbon. More on that later.

In other events of recent days, we have seen the Work Choices debate unleash itself—one of Senator Abetz's favourite old debates—and we have seen the Liberal Party rushing to the defence of the wildcat lockouts launched by extremist and militant employers in our economy. Even in an area such as coal seam gas, we have in recent days seen the Liberal Party marching in one direction and the National Party marching in another, as the National Party seeks to write policy from meeting to meeting.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like you and Gavin.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz is describing a cerebral and publicly conducted debate. I am describing a scenario where National Party spokespeople roam the country unsupervised and are brought back to heel in the coalition party room here. I am describing a situation where Senator Eggleston and even Senator Macdonald rose in the coalition party room to try to bring to heel these errant National Party spokespeople roaming the suburbs and towns unsupervised.

At the heart of this Leaning Tower of Pisa that is the Liberal Party's policy position, we have a $70 billion black hole. We have $70 billion that has to be funded over four years.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nonsense! You know that is untrue.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Complain all you will, Senator Abetz, but Andrew Robb is clear that it is $70 billion, we are clear that it is $70 billion and the commentariat is clear that it is $70 billion. Given your longstanding record in ignoring science, I do not doubt that you will give it a go here too. But $70 billion over four years is your challenge and, when we look behind the veil at that $70 billion, what do we find? We find that it is going to cost you over $27 billion to meet your commitment to scrap our carbon price. We find that $3.2 billion will have to be found to fund your direct action plan. Your direct action plan, borrowed from the ideologues of North Korea, East Germany, Romania and the Soviet Union at its finest, actually aspires to meet the same target as ours. But you have done away with old-fashioned notions such as market forces and demand and supply. You have moved forward into a magnificent five-year plan from Chairman Abbott. Above and beyond that, you have to come up with $24 billion to refund big polluters for carbon permits. Refund polluters for carbon permits—one might think that was— (Time expired)

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

Before I call the next speaker, I remind senators to address members of the other place by their correct title and to direct their remarks to the chair and not across the chamber.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, as did my colleague Senator Cormann, rise to take note of answers given by all government ministers today, focusing particularly on those given by Senator Wong, who answers questions on the carbon tax, climate change and matters like that. Senator Wong was speaking about the need to compensate householders, Australian taxpayers—the people who are going to be disadvantaged by the carbon tax when they have to pay higher electricity prices, which will lead to higher prices for consumer goods across the board and to higher costs for households in general. She was saying the government would be providing compensation for these people.

That of course assumes that it is worthwhile having this carbon tax and that the carbon tax itself will achieve something. But there is a report in the Australian today about the Swiss bank, UBS, who said that the sale of carbon permits in Europe had cost $210 billion over the years the European emissions trading scheme had been in place but that it had had very little effect at all on European emissions. In fact they said that it had had zero impact, which is very little effect indeed. Given that the European emissions trading scheme is held up by the Labor Party as an icon and that they say they are following it, one must really wonder, if this great European scheme has had zero impact, whether the Australian carbon tax is going to have any impact at all. One also has to wonder whether the compensation Senator Wong was saying would be offered to Australian taxpayers for price increases—which, by implication, she acknowledges will occur—is really worthwhile. If the carbon schemes in operation in New Zealand and the European Union are ineffective, surely it is just nonsense for us to be walking down that pathway, as we now are under the Gillard government, having put in place a carbon tax. We are told that in 2015 this carbon tax will transmute into an emissions trading scheme. That is very interesting because that will, of course, cost billions and billions of dollars. A lot of money will be spent on carbon credits and, as I have said in this place many times before, none of our major trading partners—China, Korea, Japan, India or the United States—are going to have emissions trading schemes. So the question arises as to whether or not there will be anyone for us to trade with and the answer is really no, there will not be.

The poor old Australian taxpayer will see the price of almost everything go up, from electricity to food and consumer goods. We will find that our industries will be adversely impacted. These great companies—in the mining industry in particular—are international and do not have to put up with a situation where they face a double whammy of the carbon tax and the increased costs that will impose on them, plus the costs imposed on them by this mining tax, which went through the House of Representatives early this morning. That double negative for Australian industry, which is going to adversely affect our economy and impact adversely on the lives of Australians, shows a great deal of naivete on the part of this government in blindly walking down the pathway which the Europeans have followed in setting up an emissions trading scheme and have found to be totally unsuccessful. If that money had been put into reducing emissions from power plants, according to the article in the Australian Europe would have a very low carbon profile at the moment. When it comes to the mining tax, the threshold $75 million profit sounds like a lot of money, but when you are talking billions, as they do in the mining industry, it is very little. This tax, too, will have a very adverse impact on the Australian economy.

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

Unlike some of my colleagues, I do from time to time pay attention to some of the commentary offered by those of us opposite. Sometimes, in my more charitable moments, I think to myself that they might communicate a worthwhile idea to members of the government, we could give it proper consideration and perhaps, in some areas of endeavour, we could go forward together. So today I listened closely to the contributions of Senator Cormann and Senator Eggleston. It must be said right at the outset that their contributions were characterised by the three Rs, not the traditional three Rs but the three Rs of recidivism, revisionism and resistance. Not one new idea was put forward by either speaker, not one different contribution was put forward. Senator Cormann started off by manifestly telling an untruth. He said that when the carbon tax legislation was passed in this chamber, members of the government and members of the Greens engaged in an embrace of hubris, of showing off, of kissing and hugging and congratulating each other on the—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on the point of order. Senator Bishop is deliberately misleading the Senate. Had he had listened carefully to what I said, he would have heard I referred to Labor members and Greens senators, which is of course very—

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

Senator Cormann, there is no point of order. That is debating the matter.

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

Senator Cormann was addressing members of the Senate and meant members of the Senate. My recollection is different from that of Senator Cormann. My recollection is that there was a modest exchange of congratulations by Senator Bob Brown and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans. There might have been a slight shake of the hand between Senator Bob Brown and Minister Wong, who is responsible for passage of the great package.

Senator Evans and Senator Wong were proud—and they should be—of what they had achieved. They were proud of the legislation. They were proud of the result. They were proud of the inbuilt equity bias in the package of legislation presented and passed and they were proud of the assistance package that we have been discussing over the last 12 months. There was no yelling, no screaming, no kissing and no hubris; just modesty and pride in a package promised, a package delivered and a package well done. That was the entire contribution, and when it was done members of the government left the chamber and went about their work.

We had the same thing today. I was struck by the description in the opening question to Senator Wong where the government's position was described as one of 'stubborn persistence'. I watch all of the speakers here and it must be said that Senator Wong gets more than her fair share of questions. Her response is always, without exception, gracious, charitable and not prone to an excess of language and not always but mostly answers the point. So when the question came from Senator Edwards, 'What was the increase in the price of electricity anticipated by the government?' Senator Wong's first words were, '$3.30 per week.' Question asked; question answered.

Then Senator Wong went on to explain some of the detail of the package passed by the Senate and how proud the government was, in particular proud of the inbuilt equity bias in the package and assisting low-income families and those in need. Senator Wong proceeded, in a modest way, to detail and outline the package—how it provided real increases in the age pension, how it provided a real increase in the disability support pension, how it assisted families through significant changes to the family tax benefit, how it provided for an increase in the carer payment and how, at the end, it provided for a major restructure of the taxation system through the tax package for families on an income below $80,000. That is the entirety of the carbon tax package of bills that went through the Senate a fortnight ago. That is the entirety of the benefit. This government is proud of having brought it forward, proud of having achieved it— (Time expired)

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. In so doing I will address some of Senator Bishop's words. He pays attention to our commentary over here, and I am glad he gives it due consideration. He mentioned the three Rs, and when I look across to the other side I can only point to these three Rs: repudiate, retreat and resile. Before I move on I must address Senator Feeney's words. He calls the coalition an edifice of policy formation. He is a credibility vacuum.

Senator Wong continues to evade answering the questions put to her, and Senator McEwen would take great interest because, as a great South Australian also representing that state, she would be very interested in the exorbitant cost of living that this carbon tax is likely to impose not only on South Australians but on all Australians. I am concerned, though, about commentary made in public or otherwise. The Chief Executive Officer of Essential Services Commission of South Australia, ESCOSA, Paul Kerin, includes in the four reasons for hikes in electricity prices in South Australia the introduction of a price on carbon dioxide emissions by the federal government. As Minister Wong said in her answer, there is this subsidy or this payback, but why is there no talk in here? Because people do not expect to ever receive the subsidy. Why is that? I go back to that credibility vacuum that Senator Feeney led me to: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That is the credibility vacuum and that is why people like Paul Kerin, the Chief Executive Officer of the Essential Services Commission of South Australia, do not mention any subsidy or any kind of offset payment back to families in any of his public comments.

The carbon tax is also leading to the Uniting Care Wesley spokesman Mr Mark Henley coming out to join consumer representatives across the nation in their call for how they are going to control these ascending essential services costs emanating from the imposition of a carbon tax. Senator Eggleston quite rightly referred to the Swiss banking giant UBS, which an article in the Australian reported:

… says the European Union's emissions trading scheme has cost the continent's consumers $287 billion—

which is the equivalent of €210 billion—

for 'almost zero impact' on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU's carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year.

The article went on to say:

Describing the EU's ETS as having 'limited benefits and embarrassing consequences', the report said there was fading political support for the scheme

I go back to another comment that Senator Feeney brought up. He talks about the cost of the coalition's direct action plan but he conveniently—and quite misleadingly, I suspect, although that is the impression he wants to get out there—quotes us out to 2020 when we cannot get hold of any modelling from the government beyond the current estimates period. Why is that? Because there is one rule for us and one rule for the Gillard government, which says it will not hand out its modelling beyond 2014-15. When Senator Feeney talks about the direct action plan of the coalition he talks about it going out to the year 2020: 'Here we go again, Senator Cormann. They are just trying to play that old trick again, and you know they are out there every day trying to put this. The coalition are out to 2020. We will only give you out to 2015.' It is a complete credibility void. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.