Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, I will. The opposition leader is back as the reincarnation of Bob Santamaria.

We now have contributions to the debate by people such as the member for Mayo, who has basically had a gutful. After the appalling CEDA speech from the opposition leader, where he effectively declared himself to be Australia's first free-trading protectionist when he said that he is in favour of free trade but he is in favour of protection as well, this first free-trading protectionist got this from the member for Mayo in an opinion piece during the week:

The truth is that we can't save jobs by government protection, no matter what self-interested players promise.

Well there is a self-interested player: the opposition leader! The member for Mayo went on to say:

There is a role for government to assist industries to adapt to changing environments, but taxpayers funding a romantic attachment to a bygone era is not a position the Australian economy can afford or sustain.

…      …   …

We simply can no longer afford to be throwing good money after bad to satisfy the political posturing of a chosen few.

Who were the chosen few to whom he was referring? The Leader of the Opposition! He is self-chosen. He was chosen by Bob Santamaria and he is faithfully walking in his footsteps—but not on water!

The member for Mayo is joined in his frustration by the member for Higgins, the member for Moncrieff, the member for Kooyong, the member for Bradfield and the member for Casey, who have all had a gutful of this irresponsible economic policy-making from the Leader of the Opposition. We saw the apples legislation. We talk about impacts on jobs: the apples bill that was brought into this parliament was completely non-compliant with our obligations under the World Trade Organisation and would have led to retaliation against our exporters. Sixty per cent of the value of our agricultural produce is exported. It would have led to retaliation against them, but the opposition leader does not care. He has a palm oil bill that he is supporting which is the same thing—it would lead to retaliation and is completely non-compliant with our World Trade Organisation obligations. The opposition leader does not mind the idea of international trade just so long as it is not with foreigners.

This is where we are. This is where his thinking is. This is economic nationalism from the opposition leader. But it gets worse. We have revealed today, through documents that were obtained in New South Wales, the conspiracy involving the opposition leader's office in respect of this very issue that we are debating. The timing of the shadow Treasurer could not have been better. In fact, I wonder if the shadow Treasurer realised exactly what he was doing in putting this matter of public importance on today, because he did mention state modelling. I think he referred to Western Australian state modelling, Queensland state modelling and Victorian state modelling, but he did not refer to New South Wales state modelling. There is a reason that he did not refer to New South Wales state modelling, because these documents reveal a conspiracy. This is an email from Peter Grimshaw of the office of the Premier. He says, 'The "Tele" is very keen to do a story for tomorrow’s paper on the impact of the carbon tax in relation to public transport versus cars. If we have any figures/modelling he thinks he can get a big run on this tomorrow, with the theme being there will be an incentive for people to use cars under Gillard’s plan because rail uses electricity, buses use diesel,' et cetera. In other words, the Daily Telegraph gets in contact with the Premier's office and says, 'Look, if you can cook up some figures for us that will be great. We will put it on the front page'.

This is what happened. The Premier's office then commissioned figures, but they were warned in an email from Matthew Crocker, 'Juicy quote from the Department of Transport's brief (note there are some not so helpful quotes in the brief too, so do not ask me for a copy of the original)'. In other words, do not ask me for the original Department of Transport brief because I am going to have to tell the truth, and we really do not want to tell the truth when it comes to modelling the impact of carbon pricing on public transport.

So then in comes the Leader of the Opposition's office. The fact is that he has been running around trying to scare the daylights out of every family, every steelworker and everyone working in rural areas—everyone in Australia—saying, 'We are going to have this great big monster tax'. Of course, right on cue, in comes the opposition leader's office with talking points on carbon tax, and this is what they want the Daily Telegraph to print: the carbon tax is a catastrophe for New South Wales and will affect everyday prices and hurt jobs in New South Wales.

They tried to feed that in, but it is actually refreshing and encouraging that there are professional public servants in New South Wales who would not go along with this. We have from Roger Shu, financial analyst with Transport and Planning in the New South Wales Treasury an email where he says about the impact on transport prices in New South Wales that 'the real impact is miniscule'. There is an honest public servant, but he did not prevail. What actually happened is that on 15 July the Premier of New South Wales put out a press release asserting that it would put up fares by 3.6 per cent, and on song—because the Daily Telegraph wanted him to say this:

It’s crazy for the Federal Labor Government to impose a tax which is a disincentive for people to use public transport.

So they have bodgied up a figure of 3.6 per cent. You have Treasury saying that the real impact is miniscule and—this is also Treasury—saying, 'The model computed by the Department of Transport defies basic mathematics'. I know someone else who defies basic mathematics, and of course that is the Leader of the Opposition.

I think that what actually happened then is marvellous, because subsequently the New South Wales Treasury got so squeamish about this estimate of 3.6 per cent that they produced this document: New South Wales Government, the Treasury: Carbon price impact—transport, 1 September 2011. It actually quotes the Premier of New South Wales on 15 July, saying, 'The carbon tax due to take effect from 1 July 2012 will lift the cost of public transport fares by up to 3.6 per cent.' That is in that same press release.

Then they go through Treasury modelling and it says that as a result, 'This equates to an average fare price increase of 0.49 per cent'. So one-seventh of the dodgy figures that were produced by the Department of Transport were then headlined in the Daily Telegraph. Why would you believe anything that the Liberal Party ever said? They engaged in the conspiracy involving the opposition leader's office, the Premier's office in New South Wales and the Daily Telegraph to bodgie up figures so they get a front-page headline saying that fares would go up. I think the estimate was by something like $150 a year. That is 3.6 per cent, and everyone involved knew that that was untrue.

So you get the opposition leader running around here saying, 'I'm gospel truth Tony. When I write it down you can trust me, it is absolutely true.' His office knew that they were engaging in a conspiracy to deceive the people of New South Wales on the important issue of the impact of the carbon price on public transport fares. That conspiracy involved the Department of Transport, the Premier's office in New South Wales and the opposition leader's office here in Canberra.

Why would you believe the very figures that the shadow Treasurer produced? I would not believe a word that they ever said, with this exception: that they do have a $70 billion budget black hole. That is what they have said and I reckon that estimate is spot on. That is the problem: they have said that they are going to get rid of this carbon price. They are going to yank the whole thing out, they are going to increase taxes and to reduce the age pension if they get into office.

See this speech in context