David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

What a weak contribution that was from the member for Gippsland. Of all of the contributions we have seen made over the last couple of weeks in this debate, very few would be able to compete with that contribution when it comes to how puerile it was. I do not wish to waste any more of my time other than to make that observation in relation to those remarks, but frankly I think the country deserves a much higher standard of debate than what we have just been treated to from the member for Gippsland.

We heard from the member for Dunkley a little bit earlier in this debate, and the member for Dunkley, as the Minister for Trade alluded to, is someone who has an interesting track record when it comes to the question of pricing carbon. Apart from being someone who just happens to support the pricing of carbon—or has done so in the past; he has perhaps changed his position now that it does not suit his short-term political interests—not only has the member for Dunkley sought to espouse support for the pricing of carbon but also he has sought to claim credit for being amongst the first to subscribe to that view. In fact, less than two years ago, the Hansard shows the member for Dunkley saying:

It was actually the coalition that instigated work on the emissions trading scheme. … in … a report that I helped author back in 1998 which talks about regulatory arrangements for trading in greenhouse gas emissions—1998!

…      …   …

The coalition’s commitment to an ETS is demonstrable.

Less than two years ago, the member for Dunkley, in this very place, said 'The coalition’s commitment to an ETS is demonstrable.' Today, they have failed to demonstrate that support.

It is not just the member for Dunkley who has in the past expressed his support for pricing carbon. We know that those opposite even went to an election back in 2007 with the then Prime Minister, John Howard, making it absolutely clear that he supported pricing carbon—although, as the Minister for Trade has indicated, he did not quite get around to doing it while he was in office. He made the point, on 3AW, on 27 May 2007 that 'you can't reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless you have a price on carbon'.

What we have from the opposition is one of the most fraudulent policy positions that I have seen in the time I have been following public policy in this country. On the one hand they purport to subscribe to the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020, yet they do not have a plan or a policy that can feasibly do that. They say that they are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet in recent times we have them holding on to this failed view of direct action as being able to get them there. We all know, on direct action, that even Prime Minister Howard, as he then was, said, 'You can't reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a meaningful way without pricing carbon.' Even under their earlier position, where they were prepared to go ahead with direct action but leave open the option of trading permits internationally, they at least would have been able to deliver their program, at considerable cost, at about $700 per family, per household, per year. Now, as a result of their failure to embrace the notion of being able to trade in credits internationally when it comes to carbon emission reductions, they are prepared to increase the cost to the Australian household by more than twice. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported on a group called the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network. This group is not some sort of Labor think tank or some sort of group of apologists for the Labor Party. This is a group which represents mining and manufacturing industries. This group is reported as saying that it agreed with the Treasury modelling showing that Mr Abbott's plan to achieve the five per cent emission reductions domestically would at least double the cost.

The thing to remember is that under the Abbott plan, at more than twice the cost, there is no household assistance. The member for Dunkley has said, 'That does not help small business because the household assistance only goes to households.' The idea is to provide assistance to households as modest increases in prices are passed on to consumers by businesses—such as small businesses. And they are modest price increases. Treasury modelling indicates that, across the board, those increases would be around 0.7 per cent. That 0.7 per cent compares with the 2.5 per cent increase in the cost of living that was experienced when the GST was introduced.

For all of the concern that we now hear from those opposite about the impact of carbon pricing on small business, I must say that there was not a lot of concern shown for the impact on small business of their policies when they introduced the GST. Let us not forget that the introduction of the GST, unlike the pricing of carbon, required every single small business in the country to become a tax collector for government—to put in paperwork every month or every quarter through the BAS. They became de facto tax collectors for the government. I do not recall there being significant household assistance or industry assistance to small business throughout that period. In fact, all I recall was the old MYOB allowance, which did not even pay for the cost of installing MYOB software. So when it comes to loading up small business with all this extra cost and extra regulatory compliance, those opposite have form. But when it comes to delivering real measures—

Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting—

I hear the member for Groom interjecting. I always welcome an interjection from the member for Groom, particularly when it comes to this topic, because he of course was that very brave soul on the other side who said back on 29 September 2009:

…. we did take that policy to the last election and it was clearly enunciated as an emissions trading scheme that would be introduced perhaps in 2011 but most likely 2012.

The member for Groom better get a wriggle on because, apart from supporting the implementation of an emissions trading scheme in this country, he, along with his colleagues, is standing in the way of the attainment of that aim.

I make the point that, when it comes to small business, this government has delivered many important and significant initiatives for small business, most of which have been blocked by those on the other side. The Minister for Trade spoke about the mining tax and how those on the other side must be the only people in this country, except for a handful of the biggest miners, who are still opposed to the introduction of a mining tax. We had a tax forum last week and, even though it was not on the agenda, I can tell you that there was not a person in the place who said that we should not introduce a mining tax.

The patchwork economy and the multispeed nature of what is occurring throughout the our economy mean that, if you are serious about delivering assistance to small business, you will get on board and support our cut to the company tax rate—cutting the company tax rate by one per cent down to 29 per cent. Those on the other side say, 'Not all small businesses are incorporated, so they don't get the benefit of it.' What about the $6½ thousand instant asset write-off? Member for Brisbane, you want to sit there and deny the small businesses in your electorate and in all electorates across this country the opportunity to write off assets up to a value of $6½ thousand instantly. You should put that in your next newsletter so that all of the small businesses in your electorate know how anti small business you are.

See this speech in context