Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the carbon tax.

We just saw the most lamentable circumstance in this chamber this afternoon when the leader of the Labor Party in this place, Senator Evans, in response to a question from Senator Abetz, made the statement that the coalition has no interest in the big policies of the day. Is it the case then that when there are lies from a Prime Minister they are of no interest to the community—that being, 'there will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead'? And when is it that a policy as profound as a carbon dioxide tax is of no interest to the Australian community?

Is this government so far removed from the mood of the Australian people that in fact when their own members and their own candidates started doorknocking, even in their own areas of interest, they found they had to stop doorknocking simply because so many in the electorate are so angry with them about what Senator Evans dismisses as being events of no policy interest? Is it little wonder that none of the members are using either the Labor brand or the Labor colours? I refer to the advertisement recently by Ms Melissa Parke in Fremantle, one seat which once would have been seen as a safe seat in Western Australia, when she did not even mention the word 'Labor' or the Labor brand in her electioneering campaigning.

It is interesting, isn't it, that Mr Paul Henderson, in the Northern Territory, and Mr Mark McGowan, in Western Australia, have no interest in this Prime Minister coming to either the Territory or to WA to support them in their forthcoming election campaigns. It is absolutely amazing, the fact that the polls show what the Labor Party know—and maybe they should start doorknocking again so that they can get some genuine feedback from the electorate. What they will learn is that the community is very, very interested in the big policies of the day, including the carbon dioxide tax. And they will also be interested in knowing that Australians are embarrassed by a Prime Minister who cannot tell the truth.

For example, we have heard from the government time and again about compensation for many in this community for the $23 per tonne carbon tax and its effect on energy. We heard from Senator Humphries here today what that impact is going to be on the community in the ACT, and clearly many of them have not been compensated. But what the Prime Minister did not say to the Australian community is what happens in the second and in subsequent years. If they got compensated this year, when the carbon tax is $23 a tonne, what is going to happen next year when it jumps to $25, and then $27 and even $40 a tonne—if, indeed, this government remained in power before a coalition government came in and disbanded this carbon tax? How many people have been told what the compensation will be next year? Already we know from our electorates around Australia that those people who were compensated have spent those funds and have not yet faced the payment of those increased power bills.

We heard from Senator McKenzie in her question to Senator Wong, who was very, very scant in her efforts to answer it, about what is happening to those involved in the storage of any refrigerated goods—be that fruit storage, meat storage or whatever. We have heard the horrific prices now being charged to abattoir owners and meat processors as a result of the increased power charges. What about the businesses who are already being affected by this carbon dioxide tax? I note even the term 'carbon tax'. Senator Sterle would be wise to stop and listen, because he too is well aware of the cost impost on the trucking industry—one which he used to proudly represent in this chamber. But, of course, he wants to leave so that he does not have to answer his own colleagues from the trucking industry on what the costs are.

Exporters are now facing competition overseas from suppliers who are not subject to this carbon tax. Our own import-competing businesses all of a sudden have a chain around their necks because cheap imports are not subject to this carbon dioxide tax. The vehicle-manufacturing industry, which received such generous subsidies from this government, is having an impost of some $400 per vehicle placed on it. Already 800,000 of the million cars that are bought each year are imported. Where is the logic in turning around and imposing that tax? In my final few seconds, I refer to the magnetite iron ore industry in Western Australia, decimated by this tax. (Time expired)

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is no surprise that the scare campaign from those opposite is still alive and well. That is consistently what they have been doing all along on this issue concerning the carbon price. There were quite a number of relevant responses presented to the opposition today from Minister Wong in regard to a lot of the furphies, myths and untruths that those opposite are peddling to substantiate their scare campaign in order to make sure that they will try and sneak out there in the dark wherever they can touch on people, whether it be in their backyards, in wrecking yards, in bakeries or, lately, in tuckshops. Imagine going into tuckshops. How low can you go—going into tuckshops and scaring schoolchildren? Let us not forget that those opposite voted against the schoolkids bonus.

I had no problem the other weekend at an agriculture show in my electorate, at Pine Rivers, where people were coming up to me and not one of them, surprisingly enough, mentioned the carbon price. But they were very enthusiastic to sign a petition that we had on our table about why the Queensland government is not committed to an NDIS program. Those that are Queenslanders—and there are none of them there. Oh, there is Senator Boyce opposite. I am sure she is out there telling Campbell Newman: 'Let's do something about this NDIS. Let's get on board. Let's go to the COAG meeting and put some sort of commitment forward to COAG to support it, as those other coalition states like Victoria and New South Wales have done.'

But Campbell Newman came to the table with nothing—with zero. Those pages of the petition that I had filled at the show were overwhelming. But, rather than commit money to an NDIS program, Campbell Newman is prepared to spend $80 million on the racing industry, and some of that $80 million is going to a new goat track out at Barcaldine. I do not mind Barcaldine, because that is the birthplace of the Australian Labor Party. It is a place that should be recognised and honoured. But imagine spending $80 million on the racing program or the racing industry and not being willing to commit one cent to an NDIS program. You should be ashamed of yourselves, you Queensland senators.

Going back to the other issues that were raised today in the questions surrounding the issues and questions about the carbon price, Senator Wong quite pointedly made out the relevance of what has been created since we have been in government. As a Labor government we have created 810,000 jobs. It is something that you opposite are very concerned about, because we are actually contributing to the economy and doing something about the situation in the world. I find that every ambassador that appears before the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade comes and commends us as a government on the manner in which we handled the global financial crisis. Yet once again, going back to my home state, we have a Premier that talks down the economy and wants to try to label it by comparing the economy of Queensland with that of Spain. How atrocious! What unemployment rate does Spain have? A 25 per cent unemployment rate. What do we have in Queensland? We have about 5.8 per cent, and it is getting worse, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, because—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President. The Premier in Queensland, Campbell Newman, is sacking the workforce in the public service. He has a target of 20,000 jobs to go, and you can really appreciate what that is going to do to the services that people rely upon. That is why, if those opposite ever get into government, we know what they will be doing. Senator Kim Carr pointed out today that the objective of Mr Abbott would be to sack 12,000 public servants, and I am sure that it is only the start to it—12,000 and more to come. The example that has been provided in Queensland is of 20,000 jobs that are going to be terminated and taken off what they call non-front-line employment. Jobs will disappear out of this capital and this country as a result of funding the coalition's $70 billion black hole. That is what they have to do. They will be taking money away from pensioners. They will be sacking public servants right across the countryside should we ever be in the unfortunate situation of getting a coalition government in this house. Once again, all the untruths that have been told by those opposite have been— (Time expired)

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

Mr Deputy President, I will take that slip of the tongue by Senator Furner, referring to you as 'Mr Deputy Prime Minister'. I could see that—Nationals leader in the lower house in a coalition government. I think that would be a pretty good line.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You reckon he's better than Barnaby?

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

No, we are talking about a coalition. He would be a fine Deputy Prime Minister, as he is a fine Deputy President.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this another three-cornered contest?

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

I will continue on when the interjections from the young ladies on the other side stop.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Flattery, flattery, flattery—water off a duck's back!

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

You give a compliment and you get ridiculed for it—a strange place, this! Referring to the questions today in relation to the carbon tax, Senator Furner made some points about Premier Campbell Newman not contributing any money to the NDIS. There is a serious problem in Queensland: they have a serious government debt—currently, I think, around $70 billion. This is for just 4½ million people. It is expected to go to some $80 billion by 2015 and some $100 billion by 2017-18. Is it any wonder Queensland is tightening the belt?

But the point I make is about the carbon tax. What a time to put extra costs on their economy—a time when they are struggling and have huge government debt. We know they have the huge government debt; there was a Labor government prior to this new Liberal National Party government in Queensland. We know throughout the history of my life that every time the Labor Party has been thrown out of government, whether it be state or federal, the chequebook is empty and usually the overdraft is maxed out. Sadly, Queensland, which was debt-free for decades under coalition government, is now wallowing in serious debt. This is not a laughing matter; this is a serious problem they have in Queensland; and, unless hard decisions are made, they will not correct themselves. They will go down the gurgler.

That is why we talk about the carbon tax at this time. My colleague Senator McKenzie highlighted AUSVEG and the fruit and vegetable industries. It is quite clear that rural and regional Australia is going to be hit the hardest. We already have the highest electricity prices. We already have the highest freight charges. We already have the highest cost of doing business because of a lot of those freight components. And yet this is going to add more. They talk about 10 per cent. There is an 18 per cent increase in electricity charges as of 1 July in New South Wales. IPART, the independent body, has put the price up 18 per cent. Fifty per cent of that rise is due to the carbon tax—to achieve what? That is the point.

I want to follow on from Senator Back's comments about the transport industry. There are many crazy parts of this carbon tax, but this is the craziest. Many of them over there are colleagues of the Transport Workers Union: Senator Sterle is a truckie, and I spent a lot of times in trucks myself; Senator Conroy is a big supporter of the Transport Workers Union. And they are going to add another $515 million in fuel tax to our transport industry, to the $8 billion litres of diesel the truckies use around Australia. And this is going to change the planet. The transport industry has done such a great job with their new, modern Euro 4 motors, where the pollution is basically zero compared to the older motors, yet they are going to hit the transport industry—which, of course, will have the most devastating effect on, once again, rural Australia, where in a town like where I live we have no rail and everything comes into the town by road. Everything goes out by road—for example, the thousand head of beef that are sorted each day at Bindaree Beef abattoir, a business I am so proud is based in my home country town. They will pay the extra freight charges—that is, unless there is a change of government come the next election.

Speaking of that, there will be an additional $1.7 million in the first year to the cost of running the abattoir at Inverell. The figures came forward at a Senate inquiry. But their competitors in America and overseas, against which we compete in the markets in Korea and Japan—the beef markets—do not have those costs. We are removing the competitive edge of our economy, especially those rural economies which rely so much on the export of our agricultural produce and products and our minerals. It has been two years since Prime Minister Gillard made that now-broken promise, and it will haunt her to her political grave.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is Groundhog Day on carbon price yet again in this place. Over and over again—every question time—we seem to go through this topic. But it is wearing very thin. Pleasingly, the opposition cannot score a point, because their scare campaign is now very tired. It is very convenient for those opposite simply to make the facts of this debate up. You do not rely on the facts; you are simply misleading the Australian public with your scare campaign, as Senator McKenzie's discredited question showed when clearly exposed by Senator Wong's answer. The political tactic that the opposition has displayed is taking a multitude of price rises across the Australian economy that are due to any number of different factors and blaming them all on the price on carbon. It happens day in and day out.

You even put it in your pamphlets to the Australian public. Here I have a letter from Mr Michael Keenan, the member for Stirling. He talks about electricity prices going up by 66 per cent. And then he goes 'plus carbon tax'. What does 'plus carbon tax' actually mean? That 66 per cent is Colin Barnett, who has driven up Western Australia's electricity prices. That is the penalty that Western Australians are paying.

Do you really want to know what price rises under the carbon price look like? You can talk about what genuine price increases actually mean. Let's talk about genuine price increases. I was very pleased last week to be talking to Mr Adam McHugh, who is a Murdoch University researcher and economist, and he has been looking at the mathematical modelling that looks at price rises. We were talking about pies before, were we? Let's take pies and, perhaps, birthday cakes. Let's take birthday cakes, which clearly are something we like to use as a political example. Our national accounts data show the prices in 1,200 commodities, so you can drill right down to the ingredients of a birthday cake, just as Mr McHugh has done, to legitimately look at what price rises actually can be attributed to the carbon price. To be honest, it is very similar to what the ACCC has to do when it looks at whether companies are legitimately passing on price increases that are related to a carbon price or they are price increases that should be attributed to other increases in costs.

What did Mr McHugh find? He looked into the inputs of a birthday cake. He did a complete life cycle assessment of a birthday cake. He went right through the supply chain of a birthday cake. What did it add up to? For a $25 birthday cake, what was the prince increase? It was a massive 10c.

Senator Ludlam interjecting—

Yes, Senator Ludlam, you were there at that very briefing and know that it was just 10c. I suggest that senators in this place get a grip on what the real cost increases of carbon pricing are. When I say this is wearing thin, it is indeed wearing thin. Do you know why? Because the Australian public—after a very sustained scare campaign, which many people have been susceptible to—is actually starting to wise up. As of 1 July, you can see the reality of what price increases relating to the carbon price are starting to look like.

When it comes to the issue of carbon, I am very proud of the leadership that our Prime Minister has shown on this question. I am very proud of the policy focus that we have taken because it shows that the leadership that we have taken on carbon is indeed in the national interest. The questioning by those opposite of the Prime Minister and her leadership has been absurd. As Minister Evans highlighted, we are about being focused on our government's agenda. (Time expired)

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

There is certainly something wearing very thin around the nation, and it is the patience of the Australian people with this inept government. It is wearing thinner and thinner as time goes on. When I speak to my constituents, to manufacturers and to other people who create jobs, they actually talk about something else before they mention the carbon tax, and that is the desperate need for an election in this country. That is the first thing they want to talk about. Their patience is wearing very, very thin.

But let us talk about the fact that we are today—'celebrating' is certainly the wrong word—looking at the second anniversary of the current Prime Minister's broken promise on carbon tax: the fact that a government that she led would never, ever introduce a carbon tax. Yet, here we are with problems developing from it. I must admit that I cannot help but be completely bemused by the comments made by Senator Wong in answer to the questions put to her or by the comments made just then by Senator Pratt, which is that a birthday cake goes up by 10c so the carbon tax is all right. Refrigerant gas will lead to a 0.4 per cent cost increase for a household over a year, and that is all right. Electricity prices have gone up by 50 per cent and will rise further, and that is all right. So what we have is increment after increment, and that is desperately affecting everyone in this country.

If Senator Furner managed to get out of town a bit, he would know that it is not just fruit and vegetable growers who are very concerned about the rise in refrigerant costs. Graziers in western and northern Queensland and the fishing and prawning fleets of far northern Queensland are also terrified about what is happening with refrigerant gas price increases and all the other imposts that are building up one after the other, after the other because of this government's carbon tax. Senator Pratt appears to want to claim that every price increase is the problem of a Liberal premier and that all the good events are to be sheeted home to the Labor Prime Minister. Unfortunately, you cannot have it that way. You have to take some responsibility for the results of your actions, or lack of them in the case of this government.

Let us look at the CEO forum that has been happening in Parliament House over the last few days. The Australian heads of over 100 international companies are talking about how they feel about this government. Of the 150 chief executives who have been in Parliament House this week, 60 per cent of them say that they are dismayed by Canberra's increased policy uncertainty; 45 per cent of them say that they are less likely to invest in Australia in the future. They claim that their biggest problem of all is this policy uncertainty and what the heck is going on with this carbon tax. The biggest issue of the lot for 36 per cent of those executives is the carbon scheme. They make the point that, until they have some certainty from this government, they cannot proceed.

How can you have certainty with a government that has been cobbled together with the Greens, who want the carbon tax to be put at such unrealistic levels that it would destroy manufacturing and business in Australia? This government is led by a woman who, two years ago, promised that no government that she was involved in would ever have a carbon tax. We cannot have any faith whatsoever that this situation is not going to get worse and worse. One of the other big concerns of foreign executives is that, if this government is to proceed with the carbon tax, why on earth won't they look at some sort of equivalent market price? (Time expired)

Question agreed to.