Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to questions without notice asked by Senators Birmingham and Sterle today relating to the carbon tax and to the wheat industry.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'And others'—does that include us?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that's exactly right! It is amazing how one day those opposite cast aspersions that apparently the whole National Party is a doormat and then we get accused of running the show. I wish they would make up their mind. I do not know if it is a compliment or an insult, but what is always very interesting is the Labor Party's position on endeavouring to cool the planet, cooling the planet single-handedly from a room in Canberra. This is done by the same people who apparently believe that the way to negotiate on the NBN is to put red underpants on your head, a la Senator Conroy. We always know that if you are starting negotiations it is the first thing that comes into a Labor Party member's mind—where are my grundies, how do I get them on my head, what colour are they?—because unless you do that it just makes no sense at all. We also know that if you treat people vaguely like potato serfs from tsarist Russia you get a lot further! These are the people who are apparently going to cool the planet, so that is what we have had lately, apart from the dismal polls this morning and I wonder, pray tell, how that could have happened and what could be happening now that no-one realises.

Could it possibly be that people's power bills are turning up and they are starting to see them go up not in increments of $10 or $20 but of hundreds of dollars? I say 'hundreds of dollars' because these lunatics think that they can single-handedly cool the planet by making people poorer. This is their mechanism to bring about the refreezing of the northern polar ice caps. They are going to refreeze the northern polar ice caps through moving street by street through the suburbs of Ipswich, Blacktown and Penrith. This is how they are going to do it: make everybody poorer, put it on their bill and somehow the world will get colder.

We all recognise that this works so well! A broad based consumption tax has an immense climatic effect! We can all remember at the time that the GST came in that it got immensely colder overnight. I remember it! You couldn't help yourself noticing that the GST came in and the place got colder—and of course this is what is going to happen with the broad-based consumption tax, which is the carbon tax, that we will note a difference in the climate. And maybe it is working because it is a bit chilly today! It got remarkably chilly once the Newspoll came out. But what is the purpose of making people poorer? Why is that the fundamental core belief now of the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens and the Independents? Why is it that the core policy that they will take to the Australian people at the next election is that they were successful in making you poorer, they were successful in bringing home a tax that is actually going to do nothing to the climate but is going to do everything to that spare cash that is so fundamentally important? And these are the same people with the economic management who are apparently going to cool the planet and one of them is the same one who is currently in excess of a quarter of a trillion dollars in gross debt and has forced debt through the previous debt ceiling—and they are on their way to the $300 billion debt ceiling. So the prognostications that I made a couple of years ago about us getting ourselves into a world of trouble are now being echoed by people such as David Murray, the head of the Future Fund, who has been kept there by the Australian Labor Party so they must believe in his economic credentials.

Why would David Murray mention Australia and Greece in the same interview on The 7.30 Report? That is a peculiar outcome. Could it possibly be that he thinks that your debt is out of control? Could it possibly be that the debt is out of control? How, we wonder, are you going to finance this debt? Where will the money come from? Could it possibly be that a broad based consumption tax, under the guise of a carbon tax for the purpose of cooling of the planet, might be one of the mechanisms which they are desperately looking at now to try to prop up the parlous state of our nation's finances?

I will tell you one thing: making people poorer is not the way to get votes. Making people poorer by connecting them to the Australian Taxation Office through the power points in their houses with a broad based consumption tax that will be delivered through everything they do in their lives—from boiling the billy to making a cup of tea, to putting on the electric blanket, to putting on the welder, to putting on the television—is not going to win you votes. All that is going to do is annoy people, and you are annoying them intensely. You are annoying them intensely with your choice of Speaker in the lower house, you are annoying them intensely with the carbon tax, and you are annoying them intensely with the debt—and it is reflected in your polls.

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

I also rise to make my contribution. Before I go any further, Mr Deputy President, I have absolutely no idea what Senator Joyce spent the first three minutes babbling on about in relation to putting underpants on heads. I have to be really honest with you, Mr Deputy President: it is quite embarrassing.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I see there is a bunch of schoolchildren up there. God bless you, but this really is appalling. This is the chamber of legislation but, sadly, over the last few years, Mr Deputy President, the way that the conversations have been conducted in this chamber is becoming very, very embarrassing. I am not the first one to have a good stoush across the chamber, and I welcome the opportunity to have a blue across the chamber. I should not use the word 'blue', sorry, because one of the MPs on the other side might run off to the papers and say that I am threatening someone. From a knockabout point of view, when I talk about a blue I mean an argument.

As to Senator Joyce's contribution on the questions that were asked of Minister Ludwig about effects on farmers and agriculture of the carbon tax, God help me. You might be able to direct me outside, Senator Joyce, as to what the heck you were talking about. Let us have a fair dinkum conversation. It would be nice to have a political conversation about the future of this great country, where the next generation of kids are going to wallow in the wealth that is being created and not about the nonsense—the one-liners, the ridiculous, childish carry-on that we have seen from leaders in the parliament. I go back to the last election, in 2010, and I think that if you were a visitor to this great country and you clicked on the radio or turned on the TV and heard or saw Mr Abbott and his cohorts from the other side running around, spending six months of an election campaign talking about what they were not going to do—they were not going to have a mining tax, they were not going to let asylum seekers, they were going to turn boats back even if it meant sinking them—it was just a disgraceful conversation.

On a brighter note, let us talk about the Nationals. If they really want to have some conversation about what is best for Australian farmers, why is that we have found ourselves in this situation in 2012 after having bipartisan agreement in 2008—well, not quite bipartisan; we had half of the opposition—where the Liberals were supporting the government's move to deregulate the export wheat market? We had the Greens, who at that time supported the deregulation of the wheat export market. We had the Nationals, and they have never hidden their hatred for Western Australian farmers being able to—

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

Oh! Oh!

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Mr Deputy President, I hear the collective sighs of, 'Oh!'—

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the senator to withdraw that remark. He is misleading the Senate.

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

I didn't even get it out!

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

He did indeed! We have very, very close relationships with Western Australian farmers.

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

Senator Nash, that is a debating point. There is no point of order. Senator Sterle, you have the call.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. That gives me great heart, because I can now quote Senator Nash saying she has great respect for Western Australian farmers. I take it that the Nationals have now agreed to support the Labor government's motion to deregulate the wheat export market. I am sure the PGA in Western Australia, the Western Australian—

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

Senator Sterle, I draw your attention to the question before the chair.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. As I go back, I would say quite clearly that this is a bad message being sent to Western Australian farmers. Let's get this out on the record; let's make this very clear: it is Western Australian farmers who export their wheat. I believe it is costing $6 million a year around the country to continue with the wheat export levy, knowing that about $3 million of that is paid by Western Australian farmers. I would really be lifted if I could, in this chamber, hear those on the other side actually support Western Australian rural communities, Western Australian farmers and Western Australian agricultural businesses, rather than have Mr Abbott, four years after Mr Nelson allowed the Liberals to vote with their hearts to deregulate the wheat market, being tweaked and pulled around the country by the nose by, what, six or seven Nationals, if there are that many. It has nothing to do with what is best for Western Australian farmers. It is all about saying—and they are my words, not Ms Bishop's: 'Shut your mouth. Just be quiet to the Western Australian senators over there. Be quiet to the Western Australian people. Shut up and do what the Nats tell you.' (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, following Senator Sterle, I am very pleased that you brought him back into line, because what he was talking about had very little resemblance to the response from the minister, which was about the carbon tax. The closest that Senator Sterle got to talking about the carbon tax and the relevance to the people of Australia was harking back to the last election in 2010, when he was condemning us for being opposed to new taxes. Yet his own Prime Minister, the leader of his government, said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' It is known as the monumental lie of modern politics in this country.

It is extraordinary that there are defenders of this deception of the Australian people by this Prime Minister, whose credibility is absolutely at rock bottom. We know that over the course of time the government have tried to mask their deception of the Australian people and the hideous consequences which are impacting every family, such as the rising cost of living and increasing electricity prices. We have pensioners who are no longer turning on their heaters or their air conditioners because they cannot afford it. We have heard these stories, and anyone who goes out and talks to people in the community knows it. If they deliver Meals on Wheels they will see firsthand the impact that this government are having on the cost of living for people. It is a shame and it is an indictment of those on the other side that they are in denial about it. Whilst they do not want to talk about the hardship that Australian families are undergoing, they are coming up with diversion after diversion after diversion. They are trying to talk about Peter Slipper; they stand by Peter Slipper despite his misogynistic comments and his text messages that are absolutely appalling. They reel out the handbag hit squad, as it has been described in the press, to beat up on Mr Abbott—simply to mask the failures of this government. And the failures of this government are extensive.

Senator Sterle, in his contribution, went back to the last election. I think we should start there. We should talk about the people's assembly that was going to reach a consensus on climate change. There is no consensus on climate change, except from this government. And their only consensus is: they will not rein in their spending so they have got to find new taxes with which to burden the Australian people. Mark my words: there are more big taxes on the way. We have had the carbon tax, we have the mining tax, and the super tax is being mooted. The ACTU—the puppet masters of the modern Labor movement—are now saying that we need more super taxes on other profitable industries. Let me tell you, the most profitable industry in this country is being a union boss, because there is no tax payable by the unions. You can get your credit card and swipe it to your heart's content wherever you like. It is an absolute disgrace. The fact is that this government refuses to confront the demons that reside within their own DNA. It is an appalling indictment of their approach to the business of governing this country.

It has been 101 days since the carbon tax was inflicted upon the people of Australia. Right from the word go, we have said that this tax is going to impact our country for the negative. We are seeing it with job losses, we are seeing it with industries closing, we are seeing it with a mooted higher carbon tax price. If you want to identify the hypocrisy and the duplicity of this government, this week they are introducing a bill to link our carbon tax to the European carbon tax scheme. The European carbon tax scheme has not even been finalised and will not be finalised until 2013, and yet we are assured that it is going to result in a lower carbon tax price in this country. If it is going to be lower than what the Treasury has forecast, why is it that the carbon tax is expected to go up and up and up in the forward estimates? Why are the Greens saying it should be $50 by 2016? Why should it be up to $100, $200 or $300 by 2050? The lie is in the detail. The devil is always in the detail, and this is an ad hoc policy. It is a policy that was cobbled together in response to a need for money and some grand diversion. The government have cobbled it together, and they have made eight amendments to it already, which indicates that it simply could not pass muster and that it did not have the appropriate scrutiny that it needed.

The fact that there are defenders on the other side speaks volumes about how purchasable their support is for anything. They will buy and sell anything to the Australian people if they think they can get away with it and if they think it will help them cling to power. The Australian people deserve a better government. They deserve a more responsible government. They deserve a government that will act in their interests and in the national interest.

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

I rise in today's taking note of answers to refute the many wild claims those opposite continue to make about the government's carbon price. After listening to the last contribution, I must say: the more things change the more they seem to stay the same. Senator Bernardi continued with the massive scare campaign that the coalition have been waging across this country since the carbon price began—and indeed 18 months before that.

What have we seen in the 101 days since the carbon tax was introduced? The sky has not fallen in, Senator Bernardi.

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

What a great benchmark for success! The sky hasn't fallen in!

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

Senator Cormann, it was the coalition's campaign—

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

Order! Senator Brown, ignore the interjections and address your remarks to the chair.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Order on my left! Senator Brown, you have the call.

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

I am quite interested in Senator Cormann's interjection, because of course it was the coalition who were running around the countryside indicating that the sky was going to fall in, that there were going to be towns closing down and jobs lost—and it has not happened. The scare campaign has not worked. We are 101 days in and all we have is Senator Cormann interjecting with a lot of rot.

On 1 July the Labor government's Clean Energy Future package came into effect and I am proud of our achievements in taking action on climate change and introducing the carbon price through our Clean Energy Future package. A carbon price is the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A carbon price will also drive investment in clean technologies. Under our carbon pricing plan, Australia's biggest polluters will pay the carbon price. That is right: our plan has the big polluters paying the carbon price—not Australian households, as the coalition's plan would.

Whilst those opposite have been conducting the mother of all fear campaigns against the carbon price, it is worth remembering that many of those opposite have indeed stated their belief in climate change and in the need for a carbon price.

And, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, stated on Lateline on 2 October 2009:

We don't want to play games with the planet. So we are taking this issue seriously and we would like to see an ETS …

I would like to see Mr Abbott take this very serious issues seriously, because at the moment all Mr Abbott and the coalition have been doing is conducting a fear campaign designed to be of a political advantage to them.

Then there is Mr Turnbull, who on Q&A in July 2010 said:

You will not find an economist anywhere who will tell you anything other than the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon.

There are many more Liberal senators in this place who believe in placing a price on carbon and believe an ETS is the most effective way to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Whilst those opposite will continue to wage their scare campaign against the carbon price, the fact remains that Australia has joined more than three-quarters of the world's advanced economies in tackling climate change with emissions trading schemes. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has conducted an analysis showing that from 2013 there will be more than 50 national or subnational emissions trading schemes in place around the world. These schemes will cover a combined population of more than 850 million people and account for around 30 per cent of the global economy—or around 27 times the size of the Australian economy—in 2012. So we see that almost every advanced economy already has a carbon price or is putting one in place. From next year 850 million people will live in cities where polluters have to pay for their pollution.

While I am here I would like to touch on— (Time expired)

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

What a sad day we have come to when the Labor government tries to suggest that plan No. 8—I think that is what we are currently on—which deals with how they are going to go about establishing a carbon price, is a structured and measured way of going about things. It is not. And of course we still have the new legislation to come that will tie us to the European economy.

It is something of a sleight of hand to talk about the fact that 30 other countries have emissions trading schemes, or, to use the figures that Senator Carol Brown just used, to suggest that a third of the world's economy is covered by emissions trading schemes of some kind. The clincher phrase there, of course, is 'of some kind'. No-one else has an economy-wide carbon taxing scheme. No-one else has looked at their strengths, which are their resources and manufacturing and export sectors, and said: 'How can we wreck those? All right, we will come up with a carbon price.'

Even the Reserve Bank has pointed out to the government that there will be more price rises coming through in the next few months. We have manufacturers telling us now that the increase in their energy costs is going to be the straw that broke the camels back. It is all very well for Glenn Stevens, the chairman of the Reserve Bank, to talk about a glass half full and suggest that we should not be worrying at all about the manufacturing sector of the economy because mining and manufacturing now have the same percentages of our GDP as they had in 1901. That is wonderful—it makes me feel so much better to know that manufacturing is in the same position in respect of mining, a highly undeveloped industry, in 1901! It is ridiculous for this government to be suggesting that there is anything like a glass half full. The glass is more than half empty for manufacturing in Australia, and for families that rely it, because of the incremental creep of this government's impost after impost in every sector, not just in terms of the price rises that have come through on power but in terms of the incremental increases in the areas of workplace health and safety, development of red tape, extra taxes and extra administrative burdens for companies to run the parental leave scheme for the government, in return for nothing. The list goes on and on.

Yet one of the most analysed statements in all of Australian history, and I am pleased to say that it has been very much analysed by the coalition, is that of the now Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, who well over 101 days ago told us that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. Well, we have legislation for a carbon tax—or at least version No. 8 of a carbon tax—before us now. She has happily and treacherously introduced this onto the Australian economy and imposed it on manufacturing in Australia without any sense of how she might go about compensating organisations. Compensating just individuals was apparently going to be the answer. Well, the compensation is not enough and it does not apply across the industries that are hurting most from the imposition of this carbon tax.

I ask listeners and members of this House to consider: if this woman, the current Prime Minister, could say that she would not have a carbon tax under the government she led, what other taxes are we going to be looking at as we go towards the next election?

There are already very strong rumours—they would be more than rumours; they are suggestions—that the government will be looking at the superannuation bounty as a way of getting itself out of debt.

Question agreed to.