Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have gone back to where we started from, Deputy Speaker. Sorry for confusing you. You are about as confused as the previous speaker was, it seems. We have just had a discussion on all things other than what the MPI was. I think it was actually more an address designed for his own backbench colleagues to show that he has some credentials in the area of economics, which clearly those who sit on the front bench who purport to be the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister clearly do not at this stage. So we thank the shadow Assistant Treasurer for his insights. He was roundly applauded by the Prime Minister today for the common sense that he has previously articulated in the terms that he has written regarding higher education fees.

But perhaps I should turn my attention, as the members on this side have, to the question of the day: the matter of public importance which was so important that the second speaker on the opposition side did not address it, not one word! Yesterday was a monumental day because it was yet another part of the puzzle which was the election commitments being delivered on by the coalition. In doing so I want to bring this back to what actually happens on the ground.

During the campaign, like many people on this side, we engaged with the members of our business community that were hurting very badly as a direct result of government policy in the form of a carbon tax—very real life experiences, where people's jobs were in jeopardy, where their mortgages were in jeopardy, where their businesses were in jeopardy. Some of those were trawler operators in my electorate who had to put up with costs not in the tens of dollars or hundreds but in the thousands of dollars for single operations. They would lose their gas out of their refrigerators and find that instead of having to pay a few hundred dollars or $1,000 to have them replaced, they were paying multiples of thousands—tens of thousands of dollars in some cases. As were the IGA operators, as were the butchers. I just want to remind the House of a couple of things that people said at one of those forums that I held. Here is one from Steve Carmichael from Upper Cut Meats up in Palmview. He said:

Most small businesses are struggling to keep afloat due to the high utility costs and the impacts of the carbon tax.

This has always been denied by those opposite. He said he felt as though politicians were not listening. I assured him that Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister today, was listening, and that we would deliver on that commitment—and we have done so. Now we see the biggest reductions in electricity costs since the measures were taken. But he wanted more. He wanted to have a chance to do something to reduce his own carbon footprint and to be rewarded for it. Direct Action will actually deliver that.

Let us just have a quick reflection upon what the Labor Party promised and what the Labor Party did—the actions that resulted in so much money going out of one taxpayer's hand into another and what we got for it was absolutely zero. We heard in question time today from the Minister for the Environment of $250 million cash grants, cash in hand, handed out to specific businesses who had to do absolutely zero for it—zero for the environment, zero measurable. That is so typical of those opposite. Can I bring you back to Pink Batts; can I bring you back to school halls and all of the other debacles which got us into the position that we are in.

Let us put that into absolute contrast—and I would ask the members of the opposition to address this when they get to their feet. You see, if you want to participate in Direct Action, you do not get a dollar until you actually reduce your carbon footprint. Let me say that again—it will be music to the ears of taxpayers and it will not be any surprise to those who have some economic sense: you do not actually get paid until you deliver. There is a notion that the opposition do not get.

So, what occurs? Take the Sunshine Coast regional council, who wants to build a solar farm—admirable. What they are aiming to do is to replace their own electricity needs with solar power. In doing so, if they can prove the case, they can put the money in then they can actually be reimbursed on delivery. There is a difference: get an outcome, get paid. When you start throwing money around like confetti you end up costing every Australian taxpayer more than $20,000 in debt. It is why we are having to borrow so much money today, not because our economy is wonderful, not because we are growing the economic pie, but because those opposite stuffed up. Call it as it is. They got it wrong, they are still in denial. I saw this in 1996 when we came into government and I am seeing it again. It is time for a rational debate, a debate where you participate instead of trying to live the lie that was the last six years.

Just now the shadow Assistant Treasurer talked about trying to get the tax take from multinationals. You did not do it in year one, two, three, five or six and it is highly unlikely that you would if given another chance. (Time expired)

See this speech in context