Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We are talking about the carbon tax, not Work Choices. Work Choices is dead and buried. But prior to the 2010 federal election the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, stated the following, clearly and concisely, as an election promise to Australians: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Prior to the 2010 federal election Treasurer Wayne Swan stated the following as an election promise, again clearly and concisely:

No, it's not possible that we're bringing in the carbon tax. That is an hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the coalition.

Isn't it interesting to hear members of the government now using that as the antithesis for our debating the points of concern around this legislation? The Labor Party under Julia Gillard's leadership was elected in August 2010 on the basis of the promise not to introduce a carbon tax, but in February 2011 Prime Minister Gillard announced that a carbon tax would be introduced in Australia by June 2012, despite her very plain pre-election promise not to do so.

In a speech at an AiG luncheon on 6 February 2008, former Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, stated:

The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.

Time and time again we have heard references to the government's own documents that showed we will not get the emission reductions that they purport to be able to achieve. Senator Wong admitted that imposing a carbon tax would encourage or force industries to go offshore, losing Australia's valuable resources and creating unemployment. The government's former climate change minister also admitted to the Australian newspaper on 23 February 2009 that a carbon tax:

… is a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes, as the government would need to adjust the tax frequently to try to meet the emissions reduction target, each time subjecting these adjustments to the inherent uncertainties embedded in the political process.

She went on to say:

A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.

Her admissions prove that the government has known for some time that a carbon tax is not really the way to guarantee the reduction of emissions. Therefore, in my mind it has only one other purpose, and that is to raise revenue for the government. It is more than obvious that the carbon tax is really a scam to fleece the Australian public of billions of dollars, with no guarantee that the emissions will be reduced because of it.

When I read through the Clean Energy Bill—and I read it from cover to cover and found it fascinating—I found some areas I would like to debate in the future. The objects of the act are to give effect to Australia's obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a document which sets out the premise for carbon emission reductions in UN member nations, and the Kyoto protocol. When you read through it, it is a very interesting document. Having it enshrined in domestic legislation means it now applies within Australia. The bill puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions in a way that encourages investment in clean energy and supports jobs, competitiveness in the economy and Australia's economic growth, while reducing pollution.

The United Nations framework is fascinating, because it talks about the parties to this convention. It says:

Noting that there are many uncertainties in predictions of climate change, particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns thereof …

…   …   …

The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.

That mitigation would apply equally to a number of other factors. Instead of ramming through legislation without proper debate that would allow its examination to occur—

See this speech in context