Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—“That this House suspend proceedings so that the Prime Minister can honestly address the concerns of everyday Australians about the impact of the carbon tax on jobs, grocery prices, the cost of fuel and our nation’s standard of living.In particular,

1.

That the Prime Minister explain how introducing another tax that rips at the heart of job security and our manufacturing sector by sending jobs and emissions overseas is good for Australia;

2.

That the Prime Minister explain how hitting ‘working families’ with another tax when rising costs of living have them struggling to make ends meet is good for Australia;

3.

That the Prime Minister explain how belting small business with another Labor tax, the 13th new or increased tax in three years is good for Australia when many of them can barely stay afloat; and

4.

That the Prime Minister explain how inflicting pensioners with another new tax when they have no savings they could make, unlike this profligate Government, is good for Australia;

“Finally, that the Prime Minister, fully explain how the carbon tax will affect everyday Australians, jobs and our economy because what can be more uncertain than a tax the Government can’t explain?

There is a surreal quality to the debate in question time today because the Prime Minister repeatedly talks about the need for a carbon price but the one thing she cannot say is what that carbon price will be. We have the minister for the environment standing up talking about a plan. The plan is a blank piece of paper except for the fact that every household in this country will be hit with a great big new carbon tax. How can this Prime Minister claim to be a real leader of our country when she cannot say what she is leading us to, when she cannot say what the content will be of her plan to price carbon? She cannot tell us the rate of the carbon tax. She cannot tell us how long the carbon tax will last. She cannot say who will pay the carbon tax. She cannot say what the compensation will be for the carbon tax. She cannot say what will replace the carbon tax. She cannot tell us anything at all about this tax. She cannot tell us a single thing about the tax. The only hard fact that can be adduced so far today in the parliament is a list of dodgy jobs that was read out by the Treasurer based on a—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now having read the suspension, we are happy to support the suspension and the Prime Minister will address those questions.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the moment I do not have a motion, because it has not been completed and seconded. At the moment the Leader of the Opposition is moving a suspension of standing or sessional orders to allow something to happen and at the end of that speech I will ask for a seconder and then there will be a proposal before the House. At the moment I do not have a proposal before the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am indicating to the House that—if he is serious about this; he has moved a motion—we will support it. Get on with it.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a Prime Minister desperate to tell us that she is a strong leader but she cannot tell us what she is strong for. Strong for what? Is it a $26 a tonne carbon price; is it a $45 a tonne carbon price? If this Prime Minister is to have any leadership credentials whatsoever, she needs to tell us exactly what she wants. She needs to tell us exactly what she proposes. She needs to explain clearly and succinctly what she actually has in mind to the Australian people. Otherwise, if she cannot do it, last week’s horrifically confused and muddled press conference—when the Greens and others hijacked the Prime Ministerial courtyard, hijacked the leadership of the nation—will be the start of a long period of uncertainty for the businesses, workers and households of Australia.

Let us be absolutely crystal clear about what the Prime Minister is promising. It did not go to cabinet or caucus, because if it had gone to cabinet or to caucus her colleagues would have said, ‘Don’t make an announcement until you have something to announce,’ because all she has to announce at the moment is a great big new tax and she cannot tell us anything about that tax. Why did this happen? This happened because this Prime Minister is not in charge of her own government. Remember her words, ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.’ Well there is a carbon tax—there certainly is a carbon tax coming. We know there is a carbon tax coming, because we know that this government is really led by the leader of the Greens, Senator Brown. The real leader of this government is Senator Brown. Labor is in office, but the Greens are in power.

We know that the jobs that the Treasurer read out are based on a $45 a tonne carbon price. We know that the modelling that the Treasury used for the emissions trading scheme was based on a $26 a tonne carbon price. The Greens did not like that. They rejected that scheme because the $26 a tonne carbon price was too low. They said the price had to be higher. But even at $26 a tonne that is a $300 a year hit to families’ electricity bills if the Australian Industry Group is right. It is a $500 a year hit on families’ electricity bills, if the New South Wales government Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal is right; and it is a 6.5 per cent a litre hit on petrol bills, if the Australian Institute of Petroleum is right. A carbon price of $26 a tonne will cost 126,000 jobs in regional Australia, if access Economics is right; it will close down 16 coal mines and cost 10,000 jobs in coal, if ACIL is right; it will cost 24,000 jobs in mining generally, if Concept Economics is right; and it will cost 45,000 jobs in the energy intensive sector, if Frontier Economics is right—and that is on $26 a tonne, not the $45 a tonne that the Treasurer let out of the bag today with his claims about extra jobs in renewable energy that would be created under this tax.

If $26 a tonne is not right, if $45 a tonne is not right, well, Prime Minister, tell us what it is. The nation is pregnant with anticipation. The nation wants to know exactly what this threat to our prosperity really is. And if the Prime Minister cannot tell us what it is, take it off the table. Do not threaten us with something until you know exactly what you want to threaten us with. What is crystal clear is that this carbon tax is designed to put up prices—it is designed to make it too expensive for people to turn on their air-conditioners and too expensive for people to drive their cars. It is designed to change our economy. It is designed to put the coal industry out of business. That is precisely what it is meant to do. And if it is not, Prime Minister, tell us what it is meant to do, because if you cannot explain it, obviously it is there to stop people turning on their air-conditioners, to stop people driving their cars and to put the great Australian coal industry out of business. It is economic vandalism. It is designed to destroy the manufacturing sector of this country. You tell us, Prime Minister, about your plan. Stop hallucinating and fantasising about the perfectly good plan that the coalition took to the last election, which will boost jobs and which will cut carbon emissions.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded? The member for North Sydney.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought to myself as the Treasurer was speaking—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Leader of the House on a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We would be happy to facilitate the carriage—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Vote for the suspension then!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House has the call on a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

of this motion, and then for the Prime Minister to respond. If we do not facilitate the carriage of this motion, then Prime Minister’s response will be to the suspension resolution. That is the way that it works.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney has the call.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s right. The Leader of the House is playing a tricky tactic, Mr Speaker. Vote for the motion. We call on you to vote for the suspension and then we will have a full debate.

Mr Speaker, I would have thought, as the Treasurer was trying to answer questions today, that he would have had a little experience in dealing with taxes. After all, since 2007 Labor has announced and introduced new and increased taxes on 13 different occasions. But on the 13th occasion the Treasurer broke new ground: he would not tell the Australian people how much the tax was going to raise. He would not tell the Australian people—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Chief Government Whip on a point of order.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the shadow Treasurer has made it clear it is his wish to have a debate on the suspension motion. That being the case, he should stick to the suspension motion.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Chief Government Whip has a point, but over the past few days we seem to have had wider debates than the reasons for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. The member for North Sydney has the call.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And because the Treasurer has failed to answer questions in this House about the most basic issues relating to the tax, that is why we are seeking to suspend standing orders. We asked the Treasurer a simple question: how does he back up his rhetoric about the creation of new jobs? That was a simple question, and the Treasurer grabbed the nearest report he could and he claimed that the Climate Institute report proved his case that it would create more jobs. The only thing is the Climate Institute report is modelled on $45 a tonne. What we know, according to previous Treasury modelling, is at $26 a tonne electricity prices will go up $300 a year and petrol will go up 6½c a litre. So there was the Treasurer today, in order to justify his inflated rhetoric on job creation, against the view of Verso Economics. There was the Treasurer today saying that he was relying on a report at $45 dollars a tonne.

If that is the basis for the Treasurer’s calculation for jobs, the Prime Minister can now come clean. The Prime Minister can come clean to the Australian people about just how much petrol prices will go up, how much electricity will go up, how much food will go up, how much the cost of living will go up. The Prime Minister said this is part and parcel of their program. Prices will go up; be honest with the Australian people, Prime Minister. I know we are breaking new ground, but I want you to be honest with the Australian people. Your Treasurer said $45 a tonne. Now is the chance, before the Australian people in this House today, to explain the details of your new tax.

The Treasurer said a little bit before, ‘This is an emissions trading scheme.’ I thought he tapped Kevin Rudd on the shoulder to get rid of an emissions trading scheme. Hang on! Now he is redefining it as an emissions trading scheme. What happened to the carbon tax that was announced? Oh, yes, you were cowering under the desk. I know that is right.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will address his remarks through the chair.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It just so happens that he is the deputy chairman of the committee that recommended a carbon tax, yet he did not want to be there. But do not be too hard on the committee. The committee was made up of seven people, four of whom were either chairs or deputy chairs. Everyone got a job except the Treasurer. The job that he had was to explain a tax to the Australian people, and the Treasurer went missing.

Well now we have a suspension of standing orders that allows the Prime Minister not to talk about what happened yesterday, not to talk about what happened previously, but to back up her announcement from last week that she is introducing a carbon tax that will harm every Australian family.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me this opportunity to speak to the House on a day of amazing inconsistency by the opposition. We have offered to vote for their suspension and to give me the opportunity to address the parliament, and they have said no. What curious people they are. They come into the parliament and move a motion they do not want carried. But that curiosity is nothing compared with the curiosity of their approach today. For days and days and days the Leader of the Opposition has been at a petrol pump saying to Australians that the government’s carbon price will cost them 6½c a litre. He has been in shops sympathising with small business people saying that he knows the government’s carbon price is going to increase their electricity bills by $1,500. He and his spokespeople have said variously that they know for sure that this is going to cost Australian families $1,100, $300 or $400. They were out there actually saying to the Australian people that they knew what it was going to cost the Australian people and they were campaigning against it.

Indeed, so certain was the Leader of the Opposition about this campaign he curiously and inappropriately called for a people’s revolt on it. And then today he comes into the parliament as if all of that has not happened, as if every representation he has made to the Australian people has not occurred. Today he goes on a completely different tack and says, ‘Actually the flaw in the government’s scheme is there is not enough details yet to know what it’s going to cost.’ That is the Leader of the Opposition, out of his own mouth, acknowledging to the Australian people that every representation he has made about the price of petrol, every representation he has made about electricity prices, every representation he has made about cost to families has been made up. His criticism of me today is that there is not enough information in the public domain to know what this is going to cost. Well to the Leader of the Opposition I say: ‘How do you explain the conversation at the petrol pump? How do you explain the conversation in the fruit shop? How do you explain every representation you’ve made on television about the costs to Australian families, except to acknowledge that you made that those figures up?’

The best thing that is going to come out of today is that, whenever someone in the opposition uses a figure again about carbon pricing we will point to this day and we will point to this debate and we will say that that figure is made up because the Leader of the Opposition himself came into the Australian parliament and said there was not enough detail to know what the price was. His fear campaign on dollars and cents ends today because he himself has acknowledged there is not enough information to know what the price is.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: others might be amused or even concerned about his inconsistency—I am not. The only thing consistent about the Leader of the Opposition is his inconsistency. Today, they have gone down this track of pretending that they are genuinely interested in information for the first time. The Leader of the Opposition, having sent out his backbenchers and frontbenchers to say the most inappropriate things today, realised during the morning that he had gone too far. Because he knew he had gone too far—he sent out his frontbenchers to say the most inappropriate things—today, for the first time, he is pretending he is genuinely interested in information. A very interesting thing has happened today. We finally found the Leader of the Opposition’s shame threshold. We have had to dig pretty deep to find it—it was not easy. He could shamelessly go out and give misinformation to the Australian people. He could shamelessly run around name-calling. We finally hit his shame level today when he realised that, by sending out people like the member for Indi to say highly inappropriate things, it was a moment for shame.

That is the reason the Leader of the Opposition today has moved to saying there is not enough information about carbon pricing. Let me explain it all to the Leader of the Opposition. I know that he has had so many positions about carbon pricing it must be quite hard for him to keep it straight in his head. When you wake up one day and say, ‘The science is real,’ when you wake up another day and say, ‘The science is nonsense,’ when you wake up one day and say you want to vote for a carbon pollution reduction scheme, when you wake up another day and say you want to vote against it, when you wake up one day saying that you believe in a carbon tax and it is the simplest way, and when you start running a fear campaign against a carbon tax, it probably is quite complicated when you are engaged in that inconsistency day after day, weather vane act by weather vane act to keep the simple principles in your mind.

But let me remind the Leader of the Opposition about these simple principles and they are really very clear. Climate change is happening. It is caused by human activity. It is caused by carbon pollution. I believe that. I know the Leader of the Opposition generally struggles to believe it, but I believe it. Consequently, if we want the next generation of Australians to be in an economy with clean energy jobs, to be in an economy—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: surely it is disrespectful for the backbenchers to be waving at the galleries during the Prime Minister’s—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Simpkins interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Cowan is warned. The Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me keep explaining it to the Leader of the Opposition. If we want the next generation of Australians to have a clean energy economy and the jobs that come with it, if we want the next generation of Australians to have an environment that can sustain them, then we need to cut carbon pollution. How do you do that? By putting a price on it. What does putting a price on it do? It means that businesses that have to pay that price—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Herbert is warned.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

will need to innovate and change the way that they do business. It has happened before with pollution. It happened before with sulphur pollution, causing acid rain. It will happen again. Businesses will innovate. Yes, there will be price impacts—there is no doubt about that. I have been upfront about that. As a result of there being price impacts, and because we are a Labor government, we will provide fair and generous household assistance. I know the Leader of the Opposition struggles to understand what that would mean. He said, ‘Oh, it is just a big merry-go-round.’

The Leader of the Opposition needs to understand this: by providing fair and generous household assistance we will have people with dollars in their pocket, but when they go to the shops there will be price signals about goods that have more carbon pollution imbedded in them than goods with less carbon pollution. People with a dollar in their pocket from household assistance could still choose to buy the high pollution commodities, but of course people rationally respond to the price signals and they will buy the lower pollution commodities. Anybody who has ever seen the mechanics of a sale understands that. If you reduce a price comparatively, more people will buy it. That is what will happen as a result of the price signals from carbon pollution.

What is the alternative to this? What is the alternative to accepting the science? It is climate change denial and taking the risk that the overwhelming majority of scientists are wrong. We should not take that risk. What is the alternative to pricing carbon through a market mechanism? It is the inefficiency and fiscal recklessness that the member for Wentworth pointed to about the Leader of the Opposition’s plan. What is the alternative to providing household assistance? It is providing no assistance, and that is what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do. What is the alternative? It is ripping money out of the purses and wallets of Australians, which is what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do—$720 a year in order to pay for his inefficient direct action measures. The Leader of the Opposition might opportunistically change his attack on the government. He knows the figures—oh, no, actually he does not know the figures. We do not mind facing a new attack every day because we will patiently, calmly and methodically argue for this. It is in the national interest. We are going to act in the national interest. We will leave the Leader of the Opposition to stew in his politics. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Abbott’s) be agreed to.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.