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

I just make this observation that, whilst not a senior member of the House of Representatives, I am in my third term and, with due respect to the parliamentary secretary, who has been here for only two years, the observations I make are relevant to previous members in this parliament who have made statements and carried themselves in a certain way to which I was a witness.

In relation to this bill, which I am speaking on again, I know that the people of Ryan and all Australians will be interested to know that when the bill was rejected in the Senate last year it was rejected by a vote of 41 to 33. That was not close. Our constitutional structure is that the Australian parliament is made up of two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Of course the Senate is just as significant as the House of Representatives, so, as a margin of 41 to 33 is so significant, the audacity of the government in bringing this bill back can only say one or two things. It can say that it is hubris and arrogance. To quote a former Prime Minister, it is something that—but perhaps I should not go there. I just want to make the point again that 41 to 33 was a major vote of no confidence by the Senate on this bill. I think, therefore, that this arrogance that the Rudd Labor government is starting to embrace must cease immediately.

I am disappointed that my time is fast running out but I think I have made my point in relation to orange juice and apples and the simple hair dryers that are probably in the drawers of every household in the country, and how these items will be affected by an ETS tax. The point I want to make is that the government has not been able to tell Mr and Mrs Smith who live in Keperra, or Mr and Mrs Jones who live in Enoggera, or Mr and Mrs Brown who live in Ferny Grove exactly how much extra tax they will pay in year 1, year 2, year 3, year 4, year 5, year 6, year 7, year 8, year 9 or year 10 after the introduction of this bill. They do not know what the tax is going to be. It is going to be significant, but they are not being told the implications for their household budgets. That is why it is important.

Respecting the invitation of the Deputy Speaker, I will not pull out of my little goodies bag other items that I have—I only had a couple of others. In addition to my hair dryer, my apple and my bottle of orange juice, I had a simple roll of toilet paper. Every business and household in Australia and many restaurants and cafes have bathroom facilities, and of course they all have toilet paper in them—or I hope they do—because that is part of their requirements. I do not know what the cost of a toilet roll is going to be in seven or eight years time as a consequence of this ETS tax, but I know that there will be an increase. Why? Because in the production of paper there is going to be energy and electricity involved. Do all those people listening out there in this great land of ours really think that the compensation that is offered now by this government either will not be reduced or taken away or will actually improve their household budget at the end of the day? I am sure that Australians are smart enough to realise that, from buying toilet paper rolls to buying an apple or an orange juice, or from using their hair dryer to putting on the TV, all those items will go up in cost.

In relation to this ETS, we heard recently that President Obama, who is going to grace us with his presence in a few weeks time, is now backflipping fast on the idea of a US emissions trading scheme. So we alone of major nations will have an ETS if the bill is successful. Of course, I count on my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that it does not succeed. I refer to an article by Christian Kerr in the Weekend Australian of 6 February 2010:

Australia is looking increasingly isolated in the global community as Kevin Rudd presses on with his government’s emissions trading scheme.

US President Barack Obama admitted just two days ago he might have to abandon his proposal for emissions trading in favour of direct action in order to steer his carbon-cutting plans through the US Senate.

None of the world’s top five polluters—the US, China, Russia, India and Japan—has an ETS.

So what do we do? Good on us! We go out and say: ‘We’ve got to have an emissions trading scheme. Don’t worry about the US; they’re not important. Don’t worry about China. Don’t worry about India. They’re the great polluters. But we’ll save the world. We’ll save civilisation’—as the Prime Minister says. My time is fast running out, so I want to end on a quote from the Prime Minister when he was opposition leader. He made this point:

… 20 million people facing one of the great challenges of our civilisation and certainly of this country’s settled history.

That is what he said. (Time expired)

See this speech in context