House debates
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Bills
Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge — General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011; Second Reading
11:21 am
Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
He was right in that era and in that period. What I see now are members on the other side who are not prepared to stand up for the families within their electorates and defend them against a tax that has a cascading flow-on effect. Maybe in the past they did, but the Gillard government does not, and it has demonstrated that in this debate.
The carbon tax will mean $9 billion in a new tax year and a 10 per cent hike in electricity bills in the first year alone. I have people in my electorate who will feel the impact of that measure whereby they will not use that electricity. There will be a nine per cent hike in gas bills in the first year alone, higher marginal tax rates for low- and middle-income earners and a $4.3 billion hit on the budget bottom line. Who pays for this? Not members of the government but individuals and families of Australia.
I also want to express my concern that the tax cuts and cash grants are inevitably subject to the vagaries of annual budgets and, therefore, are always at risk. Additionally, I am more a supporter of direct action to improve engineering and procedure practices of pollution sources as more reliable and permanent methods of producing solutions. Some of my constituents—I have had a lot—stop me in the street. I have never had this experience of people walking up in droves, saying, 'Get rid of this tax.' I want to cite three of my constituents.
I would love to know how I can help stop this Carbon Tax.
Another:
I wish to register my disagreement with the carbon tax, which I do not believe our current government has a mandate to introduce. I have emailed the Prime Minister my concern along the same lines … Please voice my concern against this tax.
Another:
I will be ineligible for any type of compensation under the proposed new carbon tax scheme. I am already struggling to pay ever-increasing electricity bills. I cannot afford solar panels or other expensive green gadgets to cut energy consumption. I have a heart condition that requires me to use air conditioning in summer, but I will no longer be able to afford it—
thanks to this government.
This is Business Voice now. I have been talking to small businesses.
The worst thing about it is that there are no proven facts that is going to change anything. I am keen to help the environment but not to be the only country in the world that is taking these steps. Costs are high enough running a business. We have a lot of staff here and we want to move on past the GFC, not go backwards.
That is from Michael Roberts, the Centre Manager of Pirtek Fluid Transfer Solutions in Midland. Another group says:
We are a group of hardworking people who believe the carbon tax is a tax on both businesses and the people in them. We do not want bigger Government to re-distribute wealth in the name of the environment. We feel this tax is a front to fund an ideology, with no material benefit to the environment. We run a flourishing recycling business which we formed and funded to assist the environment, and we did not ask others to pay for it, based on our ideologies. Care of the environment is a science not a religion.
That is from Damien Cole of the Damien Cole Group in South Guildford. Another says:
I do not like to be negative and I've always believed in attacking the job and not the person. I travel over sea's several times a year mostly to China and India. I tell myself these places are humanity out of control and the planet cannot sustain this grow, more and more people relying on less and less people to grow their food. I believe all of us need to be accountable for the life we live.
This applies to carbon emissions and the Gillard Government proposal is fundamentally flawed by just penalizing a few big companies and cooking the books to show how it will financially viable for everyone. I believe we all should be accountable for the carbon emissions not just a few big companies. If everyone is accountable for reducing carbon emissions then it is logical that one simple law effecting everyone will change everyone's outlook, which will automatically control the big polluters.
If we are not all held accountable there will always be an excuse why it's someone else's problem. If Australia set a simple effective template on carbon control for everyone to embrace, then the worlds big countries and polluters will hopefully follow.
That was John Power, the Managing Director of Equipment Search Proprietary Limited at Maddington. Another says:
The Carbon Tax will just be used by the Prime Minister to redistribute money to people three months before the election to buy votes. It will have no positive impact on the environment, but the companies affected will just pass on their costs and many smaller businesses will take advantage of this and increase their prices. All this for no real impact on the environment.
That is Ian Lavington, Managing Director at Hydraulic Resource at Bellevue. Jarrod Hewitt at Stihl Shop Midland also registers his opposition to the carbon tax this morning.
When I visit shopping centres and people in the streets, they all say there is a need for debate. They cannot comprehend how this government is so keen to ram this legislation through the House. What I see, fundamentally, is cascading taxes in the way in which we pour champagne into a stack of glasses and watch the flow-on effect of the champagne from that top glass down to the others. I have within my electorate families who will suffer under this taxing regime. They already struggle now.
I do not think there is any member in government who would go without food at any time on any day or have to relinquish the opportunity of buying medications and the necessities of life like I see families do in my electorate. I will continue to champion and advocate for families who will be affected by this tax. I will continue to debate it as long as I need to in order to protect their interests and give them the quality of life that they richly deserve. (Time expired)
No comments