Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010 and related bills yet again in the parliament. As the member for Ryan, I have had the great privilege of being a member of this wonderful chamber of democracy, representing the people of Brisbane’s western suburbs, since 2001, and I continue to treasure that honour and that trust. Today in the parliament I again want to express my thoughts and my views and touch a little bit on my philosophy which has brought me to the conclusion that the government legislation is not the right thing for the community I represent, and is not in the best interests of our country.

At the outset, I want to take the opportunity of congratulating and commending the new leader of the federal opposition. I want to compliment Tony Abbott for the courage that he showed last November that saw him become a candidate for the leadership of the federal Liberal Party. I am sure that everyone would agree with me that holding the office of leader of a national political party is indeed a distinct privilege—and I pay tribute to him. Equally, in good grace, I want to pay tribute to his predecessors, Dr Nelson and Mr Turnbull, for their efforts in trying to deliver government for the opposition. Of course, they had great challenges in their own way. Dr Nelson would have been deeply disappointed at his replacement by Mr Turnbull and it is only in the nature of humanity and emotions that Mr Turnbull would have been equally distraught by his loss to Mr Abbott. But I think it is important for all of us to extend goodwill and grace in such circumstances. These things are never easy, but they are also not personal. They are the life of politics, in a sense. For my part, and on behalf of those people I represent who do have high regard for both Dr Nelson and Mr Turnbull, I think it is important that I put on the record my own thoughts in that respect.

Last December, following the change of leadership, I received an email from one of my constituents—Stewart from Brookfield—who said:

I have never before been motivated to contact my local member in 30 years of voting. I note that you have not supported Malcolm Turnbull and Ian MacFarlane in their recommendations on the ETS. Despite the spin that you have placed on your website, you are clearly a climate sceptic. For the sake of our children, you have lost my vote.

I want to first of all thank Stewart very kindly. Obviously I am not going to mention his last name, because I have not had the opportunity of calling him and asking for his consent.

As I said in my maiden speech in 2002, I am a representative and a member of the parliament not just for those who voted for me and not just for those of a coalition political inclination or those who are of a conservative political bent; I am a representative and a member of parliament for all people—for those who voted Labor; for those who voted Democrat; for those who voted Greens; and for those who voted for Independents. I am a representative of everyone. Therefore, I say to Stewart: thank you for expressing your view to me. I also want to respond to Stewart, because that is my duty as his local member of parliament.

There are three points in relation to this. The reason that I do not support the government’s ETS legislation is that it is a great big tax. It is a great big, fat, juicy tax. It is going to be a tax on business; it is going to be a tax on families; it is going to be a tax on every sector of our economy. The second reason is that it is a great big lie. It will not deliver the cuts to emissions that will make an ultimate impact on reducing global emissions that will, supposedly—according to the Prime Minister—save our world and save our civilisation. Emissions will still exist; they will just exist in other places, in other economies. What happens under the government’s ETS is that they are traded—and I will speak more on those two points later.

The third point is that the consequence of this ETS, in my humble judgment, is that it will cost jobs. It will involve the export of Australian jobs to developing economies in Asia in particular, to places like China and India, and that really cannot be in our national interest. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are going to be lost because they are either directly or indirectly connected to energy—to electricity, to power. Our modern way of life means that energy—power supply and electricity—is at the heart of our lifestyle. Energy is at the heart of the very way we conduct our business.

The fourth point is that with the ETS there would be a total transformation of the economic architecture of our country. More to the point this would happen in a very short space of time, literally a handful of years. Surely, with the great impact of a change to the economic architecture, one needs to be prudent, one needs to be careful and one needs to be cautious.

They are the four points that I want to elaborate on in this presentation. In relation to the first point about a great big, fat tax I want to thank a Sydney resident, Dr Michael Cejnar, who contacted me during the leadership ballot and encouraged me to support Mr Abbott. He reminded me of the consequences of adopting this awful policy of the Rudd Labor government. He reminded me to communicate that with my constituents, to sell the message and to elaborate on exactly how it is a carbon tax. I want to thank him because he has very kindly sent me a whole bunch of shirts to hand out to constituents in the Ryan electorate and I intend to do that. The shirts bear the logo, ‘No carbon tax’ and they bear the internet address, www.nocarbontax.com.au. I want to thank him for doing that. I have one here that is XL size and I want to thank him for that.

See this speech in context