Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I cannot agree with the previous speaker that the timing of this motion is good for the government. Quite frankly, it is as bad as the other motion moved by the member for Ryan this week, in which she commended the Red Cross as a great Australian association at the same time that this government is taking $5 million off the Red Cross. So both the motions are not exactly good timing this week. I say that because the manifestly false campaign that the Prime Minister waged in opposition around the dire consequences of the carbon tax is being exposed daily.

In today's Sydney morning Herald Peter Martin said that there are unlikely to be reductions anything like the $550 claimed by Prime Minister Tony Abbott on the weekend. Peter Martin said that electricity and gas accounted for only $250, making a one-off saving of just $250 per household more likely.

We have heard the exaggerations and the wild claims of those opposite about the impact of the carbon tax on every sector of the Australian economy. But now, when they are in government, when they have to take responsibility, we are daily seeing them excuse various sectors of the economy where there are not going to be reductions. John Connor from the Climate Institute did not even go along with Peter Martin's view in the Herald. He said he thinks it is an overestimate that there will be $250 in savings to the Australian people.

We can go through so many accounts of this falsehood. On 3 March, when Qantas wanted some assistance from the Australian people because of their plight, their spokesperson initially said, 'Qantas's current issues are not related to carbon pricing.' Yet the next day a person called Tony Abbott said:

The best thing we can do if we want Qantas to call Australia home now and forever is to remove the shackles that are holding Qantas back … by this very day repealing the carbon tax.

A day later, under government pressure, Qantas suddenly found that the carbon tax was part of their problem. Initially they said it was nothing to do with their problem. What do we see this week? Qantas is saying that, because of the carbon tax's lack of impact, there will essentially be no reductions.

We saw those opposite going around this country making exaggerated claims about refrigerator gases. A person called Tony Abbott said that these costs were going up by almost five times under the carbon tax and that every supermarket, every refrigerator manufacturer and processor was going to be hit that way. He went to Frozpak, located close to this building, and spoke about $60,000 a year in costs. He said it was living proof that small family businesses are going to pay the carbon tax. The impact of the carbon tax was supposedly affecting prices at supermarkets. What do we see in the real world today? Woolworths have said that they did not have any increases whatsoever, so there are not going to be any reductions. Coles have said that they will investigate whether there were any cost increases. Clearly there seems to be some doubt.

What else are those opposite doing? They are negotiating with Senator Day from South Australia. He has made a demand and they are going along with it. They have been telling people about the huge cost of the carbon tax and yet they are now prepared to negotiate with Senator Day that there be no penalties imposed on small businesses in this country if they fail to pass on savings, due to the alleged increases resulting from the carbon tax.

So the great cost to the Australian people is all unwinding. Whilst I am talking about electricity and energy, one of the few areas where there might be some credence to the carbon tax allegations, I will refer to an interesting article recently written by Matthew Warren of the Energy Supply Association of Australia. I think he might know a little bit more about this than the Prime Minister. He said:

The electricity market is incredibly complicated and there is thousands of electricity contracts with carbon in them and millions of dollars of them being traded.

Unwinding that process after days and weeks and months into the financial year gets extremely complicated.

This was a lead-up to saying that he thinks the reductions consequent upon abolition of the carbon tax in the electricity and gas sectors are going to be far smaller than have been estimated.

One member opposite has been running around Las Vegas this week, between poker machines and beers, decrying climate change. I am prepared to listen far more to people like Hillary Clinton, who recently said: 'I am deeply worried about the latest U.N. report. The impact will principally fall on food production and distribution. So although I’m still optimistic, I think if we look out 10-15 years, we’ll need to mitigate against or avoid the ongoing consequences of climate change.' Climate change is real. The government should act. (Time expired)

See this speech in context