Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to make my first contribution to debate on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, a bill that the Prime Minister promised would be this government's first order of business, and he has delivered on that promise. Every bill that is passed by this House and by the Senate and signed into law has an effect on people. Some legislation has more effect than others, like Labor's carbon tax. On this side of the House, we understand that. We understand that the ready answer to problems facing our wonderful nation is not simply to draft up new laws or impose more rules and regulations, or to have another press conference. It is about reducing the tangle of red and green tape, providing incentives for individuals to invest and innovate—in effect, to strip away the obstacles and create the conditions for long-term sustainable jobs.

Supporting jobs and endeavour is surely something that not one person in this House would oppose. Yet the carbon tax did so much to undermine that goal. Given the position taken by those opposite on this legislation, it is little wonder that Australians have become jaded about the conduct of their representatives. The people of Bass elected me and the people of Australia elected this government with a clear mandate to scrap the carbon tax. Yet those opposite still act as if they are in the 43rd Parliament, clinging to a toxic tax that their leader promised she would never implement, clinging still to paragraph 6.1(a) of the Labor-Greens deal that the Australian people so comprehensively rejected and which did nothing to enhance the reputation of politics.

I do not ascribe to all members opposite the views of the Greens, but it is fact that on 1 September 2010 the former Prime Minister signed her name to a coalition agreement with the Leader of the Greens in order to secure power. I respectfully say to this House that when the history is written from a longer perspective that decision by Julia Gillard will be seen as one of the monumental political misjudgements in our nation's political story.

Labor's national interest assessment on climate policy has been way off the mark since 2008. They have no excuses for the flawed legislation we seek to repeal or for their failure to properly articulate what domestic benefits accrue by leading a global response, particularly when the biggest global polluters are not following our example.

Labor's approach gave disproportionate policy authority to the Greens party, which as many members opposite know is founded on a fanciful ideology that is antibusiness and antidevelopment, and therefore anti-jobs. I genuinely hope that the views of members opposite who understand this will prevail in the councils of their party. Those opposite said repeatedly that the lived experience of the carbon tax would reinforce its moderate impact. Well, let's consider the lived experience. Quarterly CPI figures released on 24 October 2012—the first since the carbon tax was introduced—saw a 15.3 per cent rise in electricity, with household gas and miscellaneous fuels rising by 14.2 per cent. This is the largest quarterly increase ever, two-thirds of which on average came from the carbon tax.

Labor knows that the lived experience of the carbon tax imposed economic pain on families and businesses. Far from wearing out their shoe leather to promote it, most of those opposite went into hiding. That is why many of them have argued since that Labor should not oppose the bill that we are now debating. We know that because some of them were brave enough to put that view publicly, both during the campaign and after the 7 September election.

It was the first test for Leader of the Opposition and his leadership group as to how to approach this vital policy decision in the caucus, and it is a matter of deep disappointment that the Labor leadership group failed that first test. Even fierce political opponents of the coalition acknowledge that the campaign successfully conducted by Prime Minister Tony Abbott was centred—I say it again, 'centred'—on repeal of Labor's carbon tax legislation. He presented the compelling reality that the carbon tax is a $9 billion hit on our economy and that removing it will reduce cost-of-living pressure for families and help thousands of businesses that are doing it tough.

In response to our competing visions at the last election, Labor experienced their lowest primary vote in 100 years. In my seat of Bass there was an almost 11 per cent swing to the Liberal Party, and the Greens party vote was cut in half. Do those opposite really think that the people's verdict can be seen as anything other than a strong endorsement for repealing this toxic tax? Apparently some do.

In the early days of the 44th parliament the message from Labor is a confused one. They created high debt, bad taxes, and a boat problem, yet complained that after only weeks in government we need to hurry up and fix the high debt, the bad taxes and the boat problem, all the while acting in this parliament to stop us fixing the high debt, the bad taxes and the boat problem—little wonder the Australian people are confused and disappointed.

And what a contrast we see from the Leader of the Opposition to his predecessor Kim Beazley. Faced with a similar example of how to respond to the coalition's clear mandate on the GST after the 1998 election, Mr Beazley said that he would listen to the clearly expressed view of the voting public. The Leader of the Opposition has, if I may use a sporting metaphor, squibbed it. He has bowed to those in his party who welcomed the alliance with the Greens and who have retreated from the once proud notion of the Labor Party as a pro-jobs party.

And that is also the case in our—with the member for Braddon here—home state of Tasmania, which has experienced a Labor-Green alliance even longer than the national version led by Julia Gillard. In a fragile economic environment like Tasmania, the Labor-Green effect has seen us fall behind in almost every objective economic measure.

Australians expect their parliamentarians to have some appreciation of the national economy, of the role of business and labour, of management and employees and of the various economic levers available to regulators and that naturally occur in the market. They do not want their national government to undertake policies which are isolated from the economy and diminish our place among competitive international trading nations. And yet, astoundingly, it was this damaging, anti-jobs and isolated policy position that the Gillard government took, hand-in-glove with its Green party supporters. Their decision to put a tax on carbon was a breathtakingly foolish move, totally divorced from the environmental policies being pursued by our major trading partners and neighbours.

Compounding this lack of any economic sense were two other decisions the former government took which totally undermined their credibility in bringing in this new tax. The first was the former Prime Minister's explicit denial to the Australian people that she would introduce a carbon tax, and then suggesting to the Australian people that it was not a tax at all.

The second major policy flaw, and this is the one which many otherwise thoughtful environmentalists overlook, is that the ALP's carbon tax did nothing—absolutely nothing—to affect climate change and reduce carbon emissions in Australia. In fact, domestic emissions in Australia under the carbon tax go up from around 560 million tonnes in 2010 to 637 million tonnes in 2020.

The bill before the House today not only repeals a tax that did nothing to help our environment but which concurrently damages Australia's international competitiveness. And, importantly, the House must remember that the bill we are debating, while doing nothing for the environment, did impose a significant unsolicited burden on Australian families and businesses. As the Prime Minister said when giving the second reading speech, this bill will have a direct and positive impact on the cost of living, the price of electricity and the price of gas. And when this bill is coupled together with the suite of other Direct Action policy initiatives that were a fundamental part of the coalition's election platform, the result will be twofold: our competitiveness will be rebalanced and positive action will commence to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As a representative in this chamber from Tasmania, one of the 'three amigos', with the member for Lyons and the member for Braddon, can I say it is particularly galling to us that people from our state have to pay inflated power prices because of a carbon tax when the previous Labor government took no account—I repeat: no account whatsoever—of the fact that the vast bulk of power produced in Tasmania is, and has been for around a century, both renewable and environmentally friendly. That was, of course, one of the direct failures of Labor's carbon tax policy. It was a blanket approach to a problem which did not take account of the different methods of power production in Australia. It was a blanket approach that, as I have said, was totally isolated from the policies being pursued by our trading partners.

It is as if the former Australian government had gone to some retreat run by business-ignorant Greens politicians, with a giant whiteboard, and decided: 'Let's adopt a policy that takes no account of what happened at the Copenhagen summit. Let's adopt a policy that puts a big weight around the neck of Australia's competitiveness and business growth for at least the next generation. And, at the same time, let's adopt this policy knowing it will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions at all.' So captured was the Gillard government with this anti-jobs policy, borne out of the reports of certain economists with no environmental credentials, seduced by the political courtship she freely entered into with the Greens, that she ignored the perils of Australia alone imposing an economy-wide carbon tax.

What Australia needs is an adult government that undertakes evidence based policy making and, importantly, makes decisions in the context of today's global economic market. After all, if Australia's economy is seriously wounded, there will be a direct effect on our sustainability and biodiversity, precisely because the resources we need to carry out positive environmental policies will be diminished and businesses simply will not find it in their commercial interest to fill that space.

We have seen much commentary about Labor's game of policy snakes and ladders on the carbon tax. It would be wryly amusing if it was not such a serious topic. Just weeks before the 7 September election, former Prime Minister Rudd said in Townsville, on 16 July 2013:

The government has decided to terminate the carbon tax, to help cost of living pressures for families and to reduce costs for small business.

After the election the member for Grayndler said he'd put a zero price on the carbon tax. The member for Wakefield said on 11 September that Labor should 'let bills like this one through'. The member for Port Adelaide, who is sitting at the table here, said on ABC's AM that 'Labor supports terminating the carbon tax'. We know that the member for Corio, who had just completed his stint as minister for trade and who one would accept had an inkling of the fundamental economic impact of Australia going it alone with the carbon tax, said that the question of mandate must be taken seriously. Well, three cheers for these members, for their honesty and practical acceptance of the message that the Australian people so resoundingly delivered on 7 September. Three muted cheers, however, because they were clearly unable to carry the argument with their colleagues in caucus. It is unfortunate that the frankness of these members of the opposition, and perhaps others, did not carry the day when this important matter was discussed in the Labor caucus room. There is no shame in actually taking heed of the electorate's message, but there will be significant political pain to the Australian Labor Party if it continues to have, in the words of its former parliamentary leader, a policy tin ear on this subject.

Members on this side of the House take their election commitments seriously. We will follow through with what we promised. We welcome the fact that removal of the carbon tax in 2014-15 will reduce the consumer price index by around 0.7 percentage points from what it would otherwise be, according to Treasury modelling. We welcome the expected fall in big business compliance costs. Those who understand the time value of money will appreciate the long-term benefits of that outcome. The coalition have a plan for a cleaner environment, but we will do it without a pointless carbon tax which will see emissions go up, not down. We believe the five per cent target can be achieved by positive direct action and providing incentives, rather than by hurting Australian families and our economy with a damaging carbon tax.

I strongly urge those opposite to reconsider their approach to this bill. I commend the Prime Minister for following through with his promise to make it the first item of government business and I particularly commend the Minister for the Environment and member for Flinders for his outstanding stewardship of this important policy area. As we have seen, the road from Kyoto to Copenhagen to Durban to Rio is littered with big promises but no binding international action. We will act, but in a way that is economically responsible and is consistent with our promise to the Australian people. I commend the bill and I urge its support in this House.

See this speech in context