Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 before the House is an important issue for every Australian. The legislation we have before us will result in a quantum shift in the ways in which financial markets operate, resources are allocated and wealth is distributed within our economy. The issue of climate change demands a coordinated, global response. It is an issue on which no country can go it alone, particularly a country whose population is as small as Australia’s. It is vital that Australia’s response to climate change be consistent with other major economies, that it be the subject of rigorous assessment using the very latest available data and that the decisions be made from an informed viewpoint.

I believe that the average Australian would consider it prudent to reserve a decision on an ETS until we know the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, the direction that the world community will take and the final direction of US legislation. It is clear to all except the Labor Party and this Prime Minister that the scheme adopted by the world’s largest economy will be pivotal to the global response on climate change. I also believe that the average Australian would consider it prudent that any consideration of an ETS should take into account the impact of the current financial downturn, but Labor chooses to ignore these factors and to make an unsubstantiated value judgment that the fate of the planet rests with the immediate passage of this flawed legislation.

The simple fact is that Labor’s political interests are best served by the passage of this legislation. The interests of the Australian people and the planet are being left a distant second. Why would the opposition support Labor’s flawed scheme when we are provided with no analysis of the impact of a delayed start by our competitors? Why would the opposition support Labor’s flawed scheme when the current economic conditions have not been taken into account by the government? Why would the opposition support Labor’s flawed scheme when there has been no empirical analysis of alternatives? We certainly will not do so simply because the Prime Minister says there is no other way. The opposition is fully aware that there are other ways and better outcomes.

The Nationals are particularly concerned about the impact of Labor’s flawed scheme on regional Australia. Research by the New South Wales government, which is no friend of the coalition, found that regional centres across Australia would shrink by 20 per cent. Would that worry this Prime Minister? Clearly not. His primary concern is the 10-second sound bite and the 24-hour news cycle. I am greatly concerned at its impact on low-income earners in my electorate. The Prime Minister puts forward this scheme as some form of magic pudding where everyone benefits and no-one pays. Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of an emissions trading scheme is to change behaviour, and it achieves that through price signals. The cost of carbon will, over time, be factored into everything we buy and every service we use.

The Prime Minister and the Labor Party are perpetuating an illusion that low-income earners will be compensated for the cost of an ETS. The reality is that we will all pay and low-income earners will be hardest hit. Low-income earners are asking me how adequate that compensation will be and how long it will last. The answer is that it is reviewable after five years, and we know how much this Prime Minister loves reviews. The very real risk is that the compensation will be phased out and legislation could be introduced to remove that compensation even sooner than five years from now. The reality is that the purpose of an ETS is to inflict economic pain. That is how the change in behaviour is achieved and low-income earners will feel the pain the most.

Employment in any area is of concern, and on the North Coast of New South Wales it is of particular concern. The opposition is gravely concerned that the ETS will destroy jobs and reduce economic growth. Unemployment is far too high in coastal areas and with the added burden of an ETS—a very badly designed ETS, as this one is—unemployment will be driven higher. The Labor Party drones on about the need for certainty. The people I represent do not need the certainty of increased unemployment, the certainty of reduced living standards by virtue of this flawed scheme or the certainty of knowing that they will pay more for everything they buy.  This is a poorly considered, rushed piece of legislation that is designed purely to serve Labor’s political interests. It will not benefit the environment. It will export jobs and it will export CO2 emissions.

See this speech in context