Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I appreciate you staying for my speech! The Westpac-Melbourne Institute Index of Consumer Sentiment came out today and indicated an unexpected rebound in consumer confidence in the month of September. I see that as good news, but it was unexpected because business confidence is down and consumer confidence generally remains extremely flat. When you look at the actual data, it reported the major news items recalled by consumers in September as it does every three months—this is a report by an investment bank. It said that the most recalled items were economic conditions, probably owing to the solid second-quarter result; taxation, reflective of ongoing concerns about the carbon tax; international conditions, given recent financial market activity and concerns about global growth outlook; and interest rates. Of those four issues only sentiment towards interest rates was less negative than in June. Of course, consumer confidence and business confidence are fingers on the same hand; one travels with the other in many ways. If consumers are confident, they engage in retail spending, they engage in commerce. So many small businesses which are unincorporated, often family businesses, take the risks of everyday life. That in turn stimulates business investment; it stimulates business confidence. But one of the fundamental principles that cut to the core of consumer and business confidence is stability and consistency from government. If we had believed everything that has been said by this Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency over the last few days, we would have thought that there really was no need for a parliamentary debate on the carbon tax because it has been going on for years, the dust has settled and all the concerns of everyday Australians have been totally allayed.

I thought I might have misheard it—but I doubt I did—when the Treasurer yesterday said something along the lines of: 'On the big reforms you have to take the Australian people with you.' We love Swannie! Why doesn't he come into this place and engage in debate? He even boasted today about the Parliamentary Budget Office—how successful that was. It was so caught up in committee in this place last night with the member for Lyne casting doubt on the bill. The Treasurer was so proud of his achievement that he boasted about it today in question time. This is a man who does not create confidence in the Australian people. I do not rush out to the shop with my credit card when I see the Treasurer on TV saying everything is all right, and I do not think I am alone; I do not think that is a lonely path. I do not think Australians are imbued with confidence when they look at this government, which has had five different policies on a carbon tax and an ETS, four different versions of a mining tax, three different policies on live exports to Indonesia, two Prime Ministers in four years and one lame duck Treasurer—no confidence.

I would have thought that the dust has settled, that we are all wasting our time engaging in the debate. I would have thought everything was before the parliament, everything was before us, and the Australian people could be confident that the full carbon tax package is here. But then I came across this comment today from the Leader of the House, who said:

Further bills to establish the Australian Renewable Energy Agency—

which is a core part of the carbon tax package—

will be introduced in the coming months …

I thought 19 bills at over 1,000 pages did the job, but, no, there is more—'Wait, we're tossing in some steak knives'! He goes on:

… and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be introduced in early 2012—

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is being funded to the tune of $10 billion—more than a third of the total of the carbon tax—and it is not part of the carbon tax package, it is off budget. These guys have made an art form of taking things off budget. Most spectacularly, the $4 billion for the National Broadband Network—well in excess of $38 billion now—is not accounted for on the budget because, if it was, it would make the deficit look far worse.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is now off budget. I looked at the terms of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I thought to myself, 'Gee, this looks familiar,' and I consulted my colleague the member for Groom. I said, 'Doesn't this look like the Commercial Ready program that used to be a part of the budget and was abolished by the government in May 2008?' It was a program of $700 million over four years that the government had, with very similar terms of reference to those of the $10 billion Gillard bank that is now going to be off budget. Why is it off budget? Because it would be a $10 billion hole in the budget.

Now the government has nearly $50 billion of expenditure off budget. And the $10 billion associated with the buyout of Senator Bob Brown to get his agreement. The $10 billion Commercial Ready clean energy program—the former Minister for Finance and Deregulation said about it that there were too many programs, too many initiatives, that were already funded by the private sector: 'Why would we fund them from government money?' No wonder old Lindsay is turning and spinning in his political grave. We miss him. He was a spine stiffener over there when it came to budget activity. The spine stiffener has gone, and, most spectacularly, the program that he thought in May 2008 was a waste of taxpayers' money is now nine times bigger and is off budget.

This government does not have direct ministerial control of the money. I can understand that—gosh, with the $350 billion they have direct ministerial control over at the moment they are doing tremendous damage. Why would you give them any more money? I can understand them taking it off budget for that reason. But you know what? The lack of accountability and the lack of consistency mean the Australian people remain confused—confused about this government, its policies and its true intentions.

Why wouldn't they be confused? We recall the Treasurer saying on numerous occasions that the carbon tax package would be 'roughly budget neutral'. It is $4.134 billion short. You could almost fit that into a brown paper bag—that $4.134 billion shortfall. And this Treasurer has the audacity to come to this place on a regular basis and give us a lecture about integrity. The Treasurer—the high priest of integrity—says a rounding error, or close to budget neutrality, is $4.134 billion. The government was so concerned about a $1.8 billion hole associated with the Queensland floods that they imposed a new levy. Now they have a $4.134 billion hole and are not explaining to the Australian people how they are going to pay for it. They are not telling anyone how they are going to make up that shortfall, nor are they telling the Australian people where the $10 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is going to come from: 'Oh, that can wait till next year. That's not part of the equation now. We'll find $10 billion next year.' What is this? Is this like a scene out of a bad British comedy? It is like On the Buses over there and the guy with the moustache is the Treasurer. Was that Arthur? I miss Arthur. But he is reborn and comes from Lilley—a Queenslander!

Yesterday in this place the Prime Minister stood up and said the modelling on the carbon tax is settled. The Prime Minister had said before the debate that we would have the carbon tax modelling. The only problem was that the macro modelling was on $20 a tonne and the household impact was on $23 a tonne; so, in fact, it is impossible to properly analyse the impact on Australian business when the modelling is done at $20 a tonne. But thank goodness the states have done a bit of work. They have done proper assumptions about the economic modelling, and they have identified that with the government's flawed modelling there is a presumption that capital will be available to restructure Australia's energy sector and that workers will reduce wage demands and move locations in response to unemployment in ways that are not easy to achieve in reality—a rather heroic assumption from the government.

The government in its modelling also ignores the implications of current economic conditions. For example, they ignore the uncertainties posed by the risks of further global downturn from a European sovereign debt crisis. The Commonwealth's modelling presumes Australia's actions against a backdrop of significant global abatement efforts and that will allow Australia to import permits at a lower cost than domestic alternatives. It presumes leakage will not occur. The government's modelling assumes the existence of a credible international permit market.

The government says we should have a properly informed debate. The Prime Minister often reminds us that we have to refer to expert opinion. The Prime Minister said yesterday that updated modelling will be available next week, well before the parliament votes on the legislation. Well, I was ready to go today. They want us to have our one speech before they have actually delivered the economic modelling of at least $23 a tonne, which will significantly influence the debate. You would like to think so. But of course this government is not very good at delivering anything.

Modelling by the New South Wales Treasury states that in New South Wales there will be an absolute reduction of 18½ thousand jobs in the Hunter region by 2020, 7,000 fewer jobs in the Illawarra region by 2020, 1,000 fewer jobs in the Central West of New South Wales by 2020—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

and, of course, one less job in Moreton!

The Victorian government recently commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to undertake the modelling. The modelling showed that the carbon tax will reduce jobs growth by more than 24,000 and reduce the state's output by more than $2.8 billion in 2015. The modelling commissioned by the Victorian government reveals that in the electorate of Melbourne Ports the Port Philip local government area will have over 1,000 fewer jobs and $113 million less output in 2013. In the electorate of Bruce the Monash local government area will have more than 1,000 fewer jobs and $122 million less economic output.

But the Western Australians have also done their modelling, and what they reveal is that the carbon tax will increase the cost of essential services. For a typical Western Australian household there will be an increase in state government tariffs, fees and charges of at least $144 in 2012, and that will cover electricity, public transport, water and so on. But modelling performed by Western Australia's Treasury reveals that over 400,000—half—of Western Australia's households will not be sufficiently compensated by the federal government.

Queensland—one of your own—estimated the impact on the government of $250 million, rising to $360 million. These are the facts. These are the real impacts. It is this government, through its own incompetence and inconsistency, that has shown it is not fit to run the country. (Time expired)

See this speech in context