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

I have received a letter from the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the government to address cost-of-living pressures on Australians.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places

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

There is no doubt whatsoever that this government has in fact failed to address the cost-of-living pressures on Australians. And is it any wonder when this government has a Treasurer who cannot provide simple answers to simple questions, who cannot provide straight answers to straight questions and who responds with mindless aggression and vituperation every time he is caught out. This is a government which has comprehensively failed to address the cost-of-living pressures on Australian families. This is a government which has turned the working families of 2007 into the forgotten families of 2011.

This is a government that is going to make a bad situation oh so much worse with its carbon tax—that tax which dared not speak its name before the election, that tax which dare not be referred to in the budget and that tax which even the Northern Territory Labor controlled assembly wants the Australian government to ditch. For the benefit of the House and anyone who happens to be listening, let me read the resolution that was passed by the Northern Territory Assembly, an assembly with a Labor government. This resolution passed without dissent by the Northern Territory legislature calls 'on the Australian government to exempt the Northern Territory from the proposed carbon emissions taxes for at least 50 years or until such time as global consensus has been reached on a worldwide carbon emissions reduction plan'.

The families of this country are suffering because of the comprehensive inability of this government to address pressures. I know the statistics do not tell the full story but, nevertheless, the statistics tell a sad story for Australian families. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, since December 2007, the average price of power has gone up by 51 per cent; the average price of water has gone up by 46 per cent; the average price of gas, up by 30 per cent; the average cost of education by 24 per cent; the cost of health, up 20 per cent; the cost of groceries, up 14 per cent; rent, up 21 per cent; and, as every person paying off a house in this parliament and in this country knows only too well, since the middle of 2009, the average mortgage repayment in this country has gone up by no less than $500 a month, at a time when the pressures on families have never been greater and at a time when wages have gone up by a comparatively paltry seven per cent.

It is just getting worse, because in many parts of Australia the statistics are worse than those averages. I refer the House to a report that has just been released by the Queensland Council of Social Service. You would think that at least that might have struck some responsive chord in the Treasurer as someone who comes from the City of Brisbane. In the City of Brisbane over the past five years residents are paying 23 per cent more for food; 35 per cent more for rent; 48 per cent more for public transport; and a staggering 63 per cent more for electricity, gas and water. It is bad, and it is going to get much worse because this government wants to hit the struggling families of Australia with more taxes.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister said—and I remember this statement very well because it was a statement that the Prime Minister made at the famous Rooty Hill forum of the election campaign. She said:

What I would like to say is we are a government—

more a rabble than a government—

that's tried to understand and provide that little bit of help with cost-of-living pressures.

A little bit of help alright, and having made that statement just a fortnight before the election what does she do? She adds massively to cost-of-living pressures with the carbon tax. That statement that the Prime Minister made during the election—and I have had a quick look at the statements that the Prime Minister made during the election and on at least seven locations the Prime Minister put her hand, metaphorically at least, on her heart and said, 'I feel your pain; I understand; I am doing something about cost-of-living pressures.' All of those statements turn out to be about as truthful, about as honest and about as straight as the infamous statement that she made six days before polling day, 'there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.'

Let us look at the Queensland Council of Social Service study. That looked at the predicament of a working family. The Queensland Council of social service still talks about working families, unlike the Labor Party. According to QCOSS, a working family on average weekly earnings—a husband, a wife and two children—is just $3 a week ahead. Their expenses are just $3 a week less than their income. So what is this government going to do to that family? It is going to put in place a carbon tax, which according to the Treasury modelling will add $863 a year, or $16.50 a week, to a family that is already only $3 out of the red. This carbon tax is going to tip all those families that are only just staying afloat, this toxic tax based on a lie is going to tip all of those families into debt every single week.

Let us look at what this toxic tax will do to the cost of living of the families of Australia. Just for starters it will add 25 per cent to the power bills of people. That is $300 a year for the average family power bill just for starters. It will add 6½c a litre to the price of petrol, just for starters. The Food and Grocery Council, who very kindly facilitated a visit of mine today to the IGA Supermarket at Hawker, estimates that the average price of a trolley of groceries will increase by five per cent as a result of a $26 a tonne carbon tax.

But it is not just the cost of living impacts; it is the impact on the jobs, on the employment, on the weekly income of the families of Australia. There will be 26,000 fewer jobs in the mining industry and the closure of 16 major coal mines. There will be 45,000 fewer jobs in energy-intensive industries—that is, fewer jobs in steel, fewer jobs in aluminium, fewer jobs in cement, fewer jobs in plastics, fewer jobs in class, fewer jobs in the motor industry, and there will be 126,000 fewer jobs mostly in regional Australia. These are the dire consequences for families' cost of living of this tax based on a lie, the tax that the Prime Minister did not have the guts, the honesty and the decency to be upfront about with the Australian people before the election.

But this is not the only tax that this government wants to impose. Over the last 3½ years, we have seen a succession of tax grabs, when this government has reached its long hand into every single Australian's pocket to rip out of those pockets the hard-earned incomes of ordinary Australians. There is the alcopops tax, which is going to rip $3.1 billion out of the pockets of Australian families over four years. There is the cigarette tax, which is going to rip $5 billion out over four years—and I do not like smoking any more than the next person, but overwhelmingly those who will be affected by this tax are some of the least privileged, least well-off people in our community.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why are you taking donations from tobacco companies?

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

There is the mining tax, which is going to take $7½ billion out of the one sector which has boomed—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop taking their donations.

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

Oh, you'd stop emitting, would you? How much carbon have we had from this fraud, rightly dubbed 'the man in the moon' by his own colleagues?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't have any moral integrity at all.

Opposition members interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call. All honourable members will remain silent. Honourable members on my left are depriving the Leader of the Opposition of an opportunity to make his contribution. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

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

The Prime Minister has not had many opportunities to smile lately, but the one time she was smiling was when her office leaked to the press gallery the description of this minister as 'the man in the moon'. The only thing that could bring a smile to this Prime Minister's lips was her latest attack on the man who she assassinated.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One large leap for Julia!

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

That's worth putting on the Hansard! This carbon tax, based on a lie, is going to be another nail in the way of life of Australian families, the way of life of the working families that this government was pledged to protect.

This is a government which cannot be trusted with the wellbeing of the families of Australia because it cannot be trusted with the truth. Day after day, we have examples of this government's inability to tell the truth. It is worth, just for a moment, reminding the House of that which the government sought to hide yesterday. We have a Treasurer who was told about mining royalties in Western Australia in a personal briefing with the Premier. He had at least one letter from the Western Australian government referring to those royalties. He had a briefing from his own department referring to those royalties. He even had a phone call from the Premier's office the day before the Western Australian budget was brought down, and still he had the hide to tell the people of Australia, 'Well, first of all, Mr Barnett did not communicate to us that he was going to do this'—an absolute blatant untruth; a complete, utter and absolute untruth.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish!

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne Ports is not in his seat!

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

Is it any wonder that you cannot trust this government with the welfare of the families of Australia? When the Treasurer was nailed, he tried to weasel out of it by telling this parliament: 'Suddenly out of the blue it came.' Well, this suddenly came out of the blue on no fewer than eight separate occasions. This is a government which is utterly incompetent, utterly untrustworthy and is going to make the welfare and the wellbeing of the people of Australia worse and worse year by year if it gets its way, because of its toxic carbon tax.

We hear the Prime Minister saying, 'There will be compensation.' Let the people of Australia understand: the compensation will be temporary; the tax will be permanent. The compensation will be whittled away; the tax will be ratcheted up. We know that the Greens think that it will have to be at least $40 a tonne to drive a change from coal to gas. And what is the point of having it if it does not drive a change from coal to gas? But it is supposed to do more than that; it has got to drive a change from fossil fuels to renewables. To do that, it will have to be $100 a tonne. There is no carbon tax that is high enough to satisfy the Greens. There is nothing that this Prime Minister will not end up doing to satisfy the Greens, because the Greens are the people who keep her in power—or keep her in office. She might be in office; Bob Brown is in power, and that is why the future of the families of Australia is in peril from a bad government that just gets worse every single day.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I waited for 15 minutes for the Leader of the Opposition to truly address this matter of public importance about cost-of-living pressures in Australia, but I have to say I respond more in sorrow than in anger, because of the inability of the opposition to come to what really matters—how you deal with cost-of-living pressures in this country. The best way to address cost-of-living pressures in Australia is to have a good job and fair pay and conditions. That is why this government certainly passes the test, in terms of creating jobs. The budget we have just introduced into the parliament has a big focus on the creation of jobs.

Let me remind the House of some of the things we are doing to assist in the creation of jobs. If you have a job in this country you have a chance to pay the bills. If you do not have a job in this country life is that much harder. In fact, in this country we have seen over the last three years, at a time that Labor has been the steward of the national economy, the creation of 750,000 jobs and we are predicting half a million new jobs to be created over the next two years. When I was a student studying economics in the mid-1980s, it was said that full employment or achieving somewhere near full employment was a matter of history and could never be the case in the future. But, in fact, we have seen in recent years the unemployment rate in Australia fall to less than five per cent. This was unimaginable a decade and a half or two decades ago. We understand that if we are to maintain this record high employment government policy needs to be focused upon jobs. That is why we are putting an extra $200 million into helping train and create further apprenticeships. That is why we are liberalising the apprenticeship system so that people complete their apprenticeships more quickly if they satisfy the requirements.

Also, we have to understand that if we want to be able to cope with the cost of living we have to have fair wages and conditions. That is why we overturned the unfair Work Choice laws. The current opposition would like to pretend that they never happened. The laws that we have now put in place ensure that people can get a reasonable minimum wage and ensure that they are free to bargain if they choose to do so. But, of course, if we are going to deal with the cost of living the story cannot just be about jobs, although I think that is the central feature of dealing with costs, and it cannot just be about dealing with fair pay and conditions. I think it also goes to what sort of tax system we have in this country. How can we ensure that people are able to have greater economic control over their own lives?

One great myth of Australian politics is that the Liberal and National parties represent small tax and somehow Labor represents high-taxing governments. The numbers tell a different story. When you look at the proportion of taxation in this country you see that in the last five years of the Howard government, between 2002 and 2007, Commonwealth tax receipts as a proportion of GDP—or, put another way, Mr Howard's tax hand in your pocket—were above 25 per cent. Indeed, from every $100,000 that the Australian economy would create under the Howard government $25,000 was going in Commonwealth tax receipts. This is in stark contrast to the years of Labor administration since 2007. In fact, as a proportion of GDP, Commonwealth tax receipts are somewhere around 21 per cent. Put another way, in plain English, we see that under a Labor government from every $100,000 that the Australian economy creates Commonwealth tax receipts are in the order of $21,000. This means that our Labor administration is the government that is ensuring that Australians have more of their wealth, not less of their wealth. We are enabling the growth of the Australian economy.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While a couple of members of the opposition would like to decry these facts I am sure they have taken our tax cuts and spent them. We in a Labor government are not sectarian. We do not mind if those opposite get tax cuts too. We are just a little disappointed with the lack of a thankyou note—and I will not wait for a thankyou note from some of these people as they will never be grateful.

Let us look beyond the tax system and beyond the jobs narrative and, indeed, beyond fair pay and conditions. Let us look at the safety net. What is the government doing to assist families and to assist individuals when they are doing it tough, when their incomes do not lead them to a life whereby they are able to automatically deal with all of the issues on their own without the assistance of government? We on the government side of this parliament understand that one of the things you do to assist people over cost-of-living pressures is increase pensions. Again, this is a story of significant achievement. It might not always make the front page of the newspapers. Nonetheless, millions of aged-care pensioners, millions of disability pensioners and hundreds of thousands of people in receipt of veterans payments have seen the pensions fortnightly amount increase by something like $124 or $126. Indeed, you can look at this same issue and apply it across to the parents of teenage children who are eligible to receive family tax benefit payments. In this budget we have recognised that it is important that families are supported with the costs of educating their teenage children. As teenagers grow, from their early teens to their late teens, they do not get any cheaper to look after. Their appetites do not in any fashion diminish. So it is not possible to discount the cost of raising these children.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

The member for Bradmill may be interested to learn for once that, in fact what we are proposing with our budget—

Honourable members interjecting—

Bradfield and not Braddon—the member for Braddon is already in possession of a great deal of knowledge.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've wasted that comment.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, he's not here to hear the praise. But I am sure that will get back to him. But in terms of family tax benefit payments, we are providing to no less than 650,000 children and their families—650,000 Australian teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 who deserve a go in life and who deserve the best chances that this lucky and wealthy nation can provide—payments of up to $4,200.

Mr Tehan interjecting—

The member for Wannon interjects but what I understand is that I live in the real world and I judge budgets and political rhetoric by how they affect individuals and families. What we see here are higher pensions under Labor and what we see is an education tax refund being introduced. What we also see in this budget is the extension of education tax refunds to some of those incidental but fundamentally necessary costs of life such as payment for school uniforms. We are doing things from the teen dental plan and the low-income tax offset right through to what we are doing for small business. Small business and the private sector are the engine rooms of the Australian economy, and this government understands that very clearly.

Our Prime Minister and our Treasurer have both spoken in question time about the need to spread the prosperity of the minerals boom right across the Australian economy. Let us be clear: whilst the minerals boom mark 2 is an unvarnished benefit for certain regions and certain industries in Australia, the high dollar is making it harder in other areas. There is no question about that; these are matters of record. What we are seeking to do in our policies, in our budget and in our actions is to share the benefits of the mining boom throughout this great nation of ours. Upon the successful passage of the minerals resource rent tax we want to see the corporate tax rate in Australia reduced from 30 to 29 per cent. We want to extend this benefit very quickly to small business and then in subsequent years to larger business, but it does not stop there.

We also recognise that Australians need to save more for their retirement. That is why this government is taking up the mantle of the Keating government by increasing superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. We on this side of the House understand very clearly that people do not have enough money to retire on in many cases. That is why we need to increase the level of superannuation. One way we can afford this measure so that Australians can retire with more money than they might otherwise have is to offset the loss in Commonwealth revenue from the concessionally taxed amount of income being increased, through the ability of the minerals resource rent tax to help make up for lost Commonwealth revenue.

Superannuation is an issue which the opposition like to gloss over. We want to increase superannuation from nine to 12 per cent because we think that, for people as they approach retirement, having more in their savings account will assist them, when they cease working, to deal with cost-of-living pressures. So it is with some great frustration that I note the comments of the opposition that they are against increasing compulsory minimum superannuation. I do not accept their logic that somehow it is a tax on business. It is not; it is offset with real wages growth. I do not accept the logic that it is not in Australia's interest to increase our national savings pool. What frustrates me at a personal level is that they do not practise what they preach. They are happy to receive defined benefit payments, or 15 per cent tax on superannuation, yet they would not provide 12 per cent to their voters. They are prepared to have one lifestyle themselves and yet they would not support their electorate and their constituents receiving a minimum payment over seven years of 12 per cent.

This leads me to the bigger challenge of cost of living, and it leads me to a comparison between those opposite and the government. The Treasurer in his budget night address recognised that we are an economy in transition. Determined to get the budget into surplus, recognising that our historic terms of trade will not remain as high in future years and recognising the importance of getting our budget into surplus, he has overseen the fastest fiscal consolidation since we have been keeping the numbers—a remarkable accomplishment. But he also recognises that we are an economy in transition. The world does not owe this nation a future. Change is not something you should just let happen to you automatically; sometimes you have to be ahead of the change curve.

We recognise in this nation—despite the disparaging remarks and the bullying tone of the Leader of the Opposition talking about a surplus made in China—that this is indeed the Asian century. We recognise that seven of our top 10 trading partners are Asian economies. We recognise the rise of Asia. We recognise that, whilst the commodities boom is a great gift to Australia, it is not an indefinite gift. We therefore need to make sure that we have the most skilled workforce.

We recognise that our economy is in transition with the ageing of our population. We recognise that we need to take steps now to ensure that as our Australians grow older they do not retire poor. We on this side of the House recognise the power of information and the information pipeline. For Australian business, for Australian tourism and for Australian society and education, we need to be able to capture information, absorb it and disseminate and utilise it quickly. That is why we are pushing the National Broadband Network.

We recognise that, in this economy in transition dealing with the transformative forces which are occurring throughout the world, we are not immune. We recognise that we need to carbon-proof our economy. We need to create a more sustainable economy. We also recognise through our actions that, as much as we are proud of our manufacturing and as much as we are proud of our mining, we are also a services economy. That is why we put such emphasis on our education and of course our participation rates in our measures. However, when you look at the cost of living, you cannot just judge the government in isolation from what the opposition say. Those opposite are indeed a material threat to the economic wellbeing of this nation. They are a threat.

Opposition members interjecting—

No doubt the truth hurts, judging by the remarks of the opposition. Let us talk about some of their economic irresponsibility. First of all, during the election they had a black hole, unfunded promises, of somewhere near $11 billion. But it does not stop there. They proposed a paid parental leave scheme which would have been a tax on business which would have ultimately been passed through to consumers. What a silly idea.

Now they have this Direct Action policy. They know that they have to be seen to do something about climate change. They are caught between two stools. They do not really want to accept that climate change exists, but their annoying, irritating polling keeps telling them that a majority of Australians—and, indeed, the vast majority of scientists—say it is happening. They know that Australians do not like the idea of great pollution in their cities and they know that they have to do something, but they are just not quite sure what. So they have proposed a Direct Action policy where all they will do is pay high-polluting companies lots of money. That is their plan, and of course families will have to pick up the tab because of a reluctance of those opposite to accept that we are an economy in transition.

Let us not forget that, when the going gets tough, the opposition get going—somewhere else. When we proposed the flood levy for that catastrophic damage, of course on all sides we recognised the tragedy of the loss of life, but in terms of the economic damage done to infrastructure—to roads, to rail—on this side we understood that we had to reallocate priorities within government. We had to find cuts. We also supported a flood levy. Those opposite have the proverbial magic pudding. They were not prepared to support a flood levy but they were just going to say, 'We'll find the money elsewhere.' After one abortive attempt, tangling with foreign aid, they gave it up as a bad job. Anyway, in terms of cost of living, I am confident that the government are the best people to manage these issues. (Time expired)

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This carbon tax is an all-consuming black hole from which no Australian family will escape. Labor in question time today showed absolutely no sympathy for the people they intend to hurt. Labor, the Greens and the Independents are simply out of touch with the feelings and the impact of their policies on real people. It is not 1,000 big companies that have to bear the impact of this tax; it is ordinary Australians, real Australian families. Do they really believe that these 1,000 companies, which they are not prepared to name, will simply absorb the billions of dollars that Labor expects to raise from its new tax? Of course they will not. Every dollar of it will be either passed on to consumers or it will have to be spent on redundancy payments for workers who will lose their jobs. They are not going to continue operating in Australia and absorb these costs when they can work in other places around the world where they do not have a tax like this, where it is cheaper to produce goods and where there is not this government imposed artificial imposition placed upon their business. The real cost of this giant tax does not fall on the 1,000 big companies; it falls on all Australians. This tax will mean higher electricity, higher food prices, higher transport costs and sacked staff. Ordinary families are going to cop this carbon tax in the neck.

We saw today how little government members actually care about the impact of this tax on ordinary families. The Treasurer showed absolutely no sympathy for the families identified by the Queensland Council of Social Service in its Cost of living report 2011no sympathy whatsoever. He does not seem to care that the people in his very own electorate—Brisbane residents—are paying 23 per cent more for food, 35 per cent more for rent, 48 per cent more for public transport and 63 per cent more for electricity, gas and water since Labor came to office. Labor simply does not care.

Yet they are now proposing another new impost on all of these families. A $26-per-tonne carbon price will add another $300 to the price of electricity that Brisbane consumers will have to pay. Gas will be up 10 per cent; petrol will be up 6.5 cents a litre, plus GST; and of course water and groceries will all be slugged. We also heard today—and again the Treasurer just simply did not care—that rates are going to go up in Victoria by three per cent, and the Treasurer is not proposing any compensation and has no plan to deal with this extra cost to the people who live in Victoria.

Also, Rex will have to increase airfares. The city based backbenchers just scoffed. They do not care about country communities being denied air services. They have hourly flights to wherever they want to go—around the world if you happen to be the foreign minister—but those who have to depend upon a regional airline like Rex are going to have extra costs, and this government could not care less.

And what about Aarons Linen Service—$1 million in extra costs and 200 jobs at risk—and the Leader of the House and the 'minister for blocking roads in his own electorate' accuse Aarons of making it all up. They do not actually care about the jobs that will be lost and the impact on ordinary people.

All of that is at just a $26-a-tonne carbon price. That will be the highest carbon tax anywhere in the world. We are going to start off with the highest carbon tax anywhere in the world—higher than the European Union, who have been fiddling around and messing this up for years and higher than any of the countries that are held up to us as great examples. The Chinese, who we are supposed to be following in this, are actually going to increase their emissions by 500 per cent. Those are the sorts of people being used as examples. We will have the highest carbon tax in the world, and that is if it starts at only $26. We know the Greens want $40 to start with, rising very quickly to $100. They also want fuel to be included in the carbon tax regime and we all know that fuel prices are one of the many things that are guaranteed to feed into the cost of living again and again. It does not get refunded along the way; it gets added on again every time a new transaction occurs. And of course people in regional areas are the most affected because they have to travel greater distances as a matter of necessity. Regional families driving to work, getting the kids to and from school and going to the doctor will more often than not involve lengthy road trips.

The government is suggesting that people should change their behaviour. Are they suggesting that families should not take their children to the doctor? Are they suggesting that they should give up their job or live nearer to the factory or the school? It is not possible to change your behaviour in that way to deliver the carbon savings that the government is talking about. Families will just have to cop it in the neck. The basic household cost will go up and mums and dads will have to find ways to bear that cost.

This is not some kind of scare tactic on the part of the opposition. We did not make this up. This is a regressive tax and increasing people's costs is precisely what it is supposed to do. It is designed to make people think twice before switching on the heater in winter. You are supposed to freeze in the Canberra winter and not put on your heater, just so you can be more friendly to the environment. Frankly I am not quite sure that Canberra families are going to do that. I think they may still use their heaters, and they will pay the cost. So the tax will not work.

The tax will therefore have to go higher and higher, hurt more and more and cut deeper and deeper, so it will inevitably have a huge impact on the lifestyle of all Australian families.

Australian families feel deeply let down by this government, particularly since the Prime Minister's election promise was that there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. The Prime Minister and her carbon tax must surely lie uncomfortably together. She said there would not be one and now she is proposing to deliver it. But she made another promise and that was that she would build a community consensus before doing anything at all. In reality, we have got pretty much of a community consensus at the present time—over 60 per cent of Australians have said 'no'. They do not want the tax. So there is a consensus and the Prime Minister should honour her promise and withdraw this whole silly idea. The reality is she has a consensus and the consensus is 'no'. The Australian people do not want it.

This is the tax that of course is going to reduce the temperature, and that is supposed to make us all feel great. Frankly I thought we had enough taxes in Australia already to freeze the entire continent, if taxes actually worked to lower the temperature. Greenland is not frozen because it has more taxes than Saudi Arabia. It is frozen because it is where it is—because that is the way the climate is. This government believes it can change a country that is a desert into a frozen ice land simply by raising taxes. It simply will not work.

The Prime Minister is struggling to get the message across, so she got big business into Kirribilli House over the recent break to try to persuade them to support her carbon tax. Again, it was very, very interesting, I thought, that no representatives of small business were invited. It sounds a bit like the mining tax debacle. Families were not invited to her home. There was a big dinner that none of the families could afford and, over a glass of port that they could not afford, the Prime Minister tried to do a deal with big business to get them onside. Small business and families did not get a seat at her table, and they do not get a seat when it comes to considering the real impact of this tax on the men and women of Australia.

As we move towards the introduction of this tax, this horrendous burden on all Australians, the Prime Minister needs to acknowledge that she has no mandate. Even if she can keep her duct taped Labor-Greens-Independents alliance together, she has no mandate from the Australian people. At least 86 per cent of the voters voted for parties and candidates who were opposed to a carbon tax before the last election and for candidates who said that they would not do it. All Labor Party, all Liberal Party and all Nationals members said there would be no tax. So the Prime Minister has no mandate. If she wants one, she must call an election.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the people of Australia who are listening to the debate on this matter of public importance would appreciate the fantastic transformation that has happened inside the Liberal Party. Suddenly the Liberal Party has discovered cost-of-living pressures. They certainly did not when they were in government. The Leader of the Opposition quoted a couple of statistics, and I am happy to quote a few more. In the last term of the Howard government, the cost of the average family basket of groceries went up by 20 per cent, from $232 to $281. That is between 2004 and 2007.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

At the same time, interest rates went up 10 times in a row. In 2007, as a result of that, 10,000 Australian families had their homes repossessed.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Riverina will remain silent.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nowhere did this hurt more than in my electorate of Blaxland where, at the peak in 2007, we had 60 homes a month being repossessed. That is three homes a day for every working day being repossessed because Australian families could not cope with the cost-of-living pressures brought upon them by 10 interest rate rises in a row. On top of that, there was Work Choices whereby more than one million Australians had their wages or entitlements cut. And what was the response of the Liberal Party then? What was the response of the then Liberal Party Prime Minister? It was that Australians had never been better off. Give me a break. If gold medals were handed out for failing to help Australian families with the cost of living, then the Leader of the Opposition would look like Mr T. So I welcome a debate on cost of living, because it gives the government the opportunity to expose this hypocrisy for what it is and to expose the ludicrous scare campaign that is now being run by the Leader of the Opposition.

The government understands that Australians struggle with cost-of-living pressures. It always does. We would never be so stupid as to say Australians have never been better off. We understand that Australians always struggle with cost-of-living pressures. That is why we stimulated the economy—to protect Australian jobs and keep food on the table. That is why we increased the pension.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I warn the member for Riverina.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why we introduced three tax cuts in a row. That is why we introduced the 50 per cent child care rebate and added uniforms to the education tax rebate. That is why this year's budget provides extra support for parents of teenagers in high school. It is also why we are taking action to bring the budget back to surplus as quickly as we are. The fact is that there is only one party in this parliament that has a plan to deal with the economic challenges that confront us as a nation. The Liberal Party, it must be said, has not had an economic plan for this country since Peter Costello left the building about three years ago. The challenge of the last term was to stop the Australian economy going into recession when the rest of the world did. The challenge of this term is to manage the boom.

An economic boom driven by the mining sector will bring with it enormous wealth but, like the last one, it will also bring plenty of challenges. Unemployment is already low and, as the economy reaches capacity, skills shortages will grow. When demand for skilled labour outstrips supply it puts pressure on wages, on inflation and on interest rates. That is why the measures you see in the budget are so important to boost the number of skilled workers and to increase the number of people in the workforce. It is particularly important in an electorate like Blaxland where, despite the fact that the economy is so strong, unemployment is double the national average, teenage unemployment is still above 25 per cent and 16 per cent of the people who live in the electorate are on government income support.

There is the challenge. We have an economy that needs workers to manage cost-of-living pressures, and there are still parts of Australia where unemployment is high, where participation rates are low and where there are a lot of people on income support. Compare the two parties when it comes to tackling this economic challenge. In the budget you see a package to increase the number of skilled workers in the economy—something like a $3 billion package. This is not the first time there has been a skills package in the budget—it has come year after year after year—and you are already starting to see the impact of the investments we are making in skills and education. For example, there has been a 15 per cent increase in the last year in the number of Australians starting an apprenticeship or a traineeship. The number of people starting trade cadetships went up last year by almost 22 per cent. In 2009-10, university offers to people from low SES backgrounds increased by 8.8 per cent. Where is the opposition's plan? When the Leader of the Opposition gave his budget reply he barely mentioned jobs. He mentioned the word 'skills' once. He did not even release a skills policy at the last federal election. Their only policy was to cut $2 billion from apprenticeships and scrap the trade training centres being built around the country.

This is the challenge that confronts us: managing the boom. We have a policy to increase participation rates and to increase the number of skilled workers in the economy, and there is nothing on the other side. But that is not the only challenge that the economy faces. There are other big challenges on the horizon. The ageing of the population is just one of them. By the time that I am 65, the number of people that age or older will have doubled, and that means that healthcare costs will increase, the cost of funding the pension will increase and there will be fewer taxpayers to pay the bills. The government's job is to help meet these challenges. That is why health reform is important. That is why increasing the superannuation guarantee is important. That is why increasing workforce participation is so important.

Beyond that, there are the challenges that we confront with the changes to our region; the challenge of converting the mining boom into a services boom. We stand now on the edge of the biggest middle class that the world has ever seen. By the end of this decade, Asia will have more middle class consumers than the rest of the world combined. This provides an enormous opportunity for Australia, for the Australian economy and for all Australians. The challenge for us here as members of this parliament is to ensure that Australia makes the most of it. The competition for this market will be fierce. We need to prepare now. Doing well here is the key to increasing the standard of living of all Australians and their quality of life. Doing well here is the key to the future of Australia.

And what do we hear from the opposition on this? Absolutely nothing. What do we hear from them on the big challenges that confront the Australian economy? Absolutely nothing. The Leader of the Opposition takes his job description literally, I have to give him that. He opposes everything and he stands for nothing. The only thing that he stands for is election. He proved that in his budget reply. He talked a lot about vision but he did not offer any. The only vision that he has is of the Lodge, because all he talked about was an election. The Leader of the Opposition has all the vision of Mr Magoo. There was nothing in his budget reply about the challenges that this country faces or what we need to do to meet them. I tell you this: the people of Australia want a leader who understands the challenges ahead. They do not want Mr Magoo.

What we got from the Leader of the Opposition—what we get every day in this parliament—is Mr Magoo and a dodgy scare campaign. He runs around the country day after day scaring Australians. He went to Whyalla and said that the carbon tax would wipe them off the map. He went to Geelong and told them that it would be the final nail in the coffin of the manufacturing industry. He went to Weet-Bix and said that it would destroy breakfast. He went to the fish markets and said that it would kill all the fish in the sea. This reminds me a lot of that bloke who ran around America demanding to see the President's birth certificate. This is a hysterical and nonsensical scare campaign. What we have is a Leader of the Opposition who looks like Donald Trump without the hair—all Trump, no toupee. He did it again today when he said that groceries would go up by five per cent when in fact the CPRS modelling said that it would go up by 0.6 per cent to 0.8 per cent. He exaggerated things again by six to eight times. No wonder the people of Australia do not believe him.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under this government, we have seen prices skyrocket across the board. We have seen food, electricity, fuel, rent and mortgages all going up. Now we are about to see the introduction of the latest of the taxes by the government that delights in a succession of new taxes and levies designed to feed their tax and spend philosophy, the carbon tax. I accept the science; we accept the science. I avail myself of all the information. I listen to both sides, not just one side. I went to the talk given by the commission yesterday. I sat there and listened to it. I read the books. I get it—there is a carbon problem in the atmosphere. But this is not about carbon—this is about jobs; this is about industry. And this is not theory; this is what is actually happening.

The minister said that it was all about Tony Abbott running around the country saying that this, that and the other thing is going to happen. I will tell you what actually happened last week. Xstrata announced that it would close its Townsville copper refinery because it is cheaper to process it overseas. They have said that this was not due to the carbon tax, but no-one can say that the carbon tax is going to make it cheaper; no-one can say that the carbon tax is going to make it easier for business to comply. This is what the CEO of the Queensland Resources Council, Michael Roche, said:

What the Xstrata decision does demonstrate is that even very energy-efficient operations such as those operated by them—

Xstrata's copper refinery—

in Queensland cannot compete against cheaper alternatives. My fear is that these closures are a foretaste of what will follow if the federal parliament agrees to impose an uncompetitive carbon price regime on our trade-exposed resource sector industries. It is not too late for the federal government to embrace a better way–one that safeguards our global competitiveness.

This tax is attacking Townsville's copper refinery, where there are 170 direct jobs. There are 70 contractors. They sell $140 million worth of copper internationally and locally throughout the year. The ore will still be mined. It will still be made into concentrate. It will still be refined—just not in Australia. Who is going to go over to China or to Vietnam or wherever it is going to be processed and ask what the carbon processes are? Is it going to be the EPA? Are they going to go over there and say, 'I'd just like to check your carbon emissions?' Australia will not care once it is offshore. Once the jobs are gone, we will not care. Our emissions will be down and worldwide emissions will be up, with a net result of more pollution for the world. There are two other refineries in the city of Townsville—one in my electorate and one in the neighbouring electorate. One is Sun Metals: 300 direct jobs, 1,500 indirect jobs and $300 million in annual sales, of which 80 per cent is exported. They are a world's best practice zinc refinery: 80 per cent exported, jobs in Townsville, industry in Townsville, real estate—everything that relies on it it in Townsville.

Queensland Nickel is responsible for over 900 direct jobs and 2,300 indirect jobs—4.5 per cent of gross regional product in Townsville; $600 million per year into Townsville's economy. It was estimated, when it looked like BHP were going to shut it down before Clive Palmer came to the rescue and kept that place open, that the impact on our local economy, had that place closed and nothing happened there again, would have been $4.5 billion.

Queensland Nickel is the perfect example of why this carbon tax is so bad. Queensland Nickel is a 100 per cent import-export business. They buy the ore internationally, on the market from New Caledonia. It comes into Australia and they refine it, using world's best practice, including sun drying and gas drying of the ore before it is refined. It is then sold on the international market. So if the carbon price comes in, and it makes our costs here such that we cannot buy the ore, we cannot process it. If the carbon tax comes in and we do get the ore, but our costs are so high that we need to get $15 a pound for it, whereas currently the international market is paying $11 a pound, we will not be competitive and jobs will be lost.

What is the alternative? There are two other refineries that do it exactly the same way as Queensland Nickel: one in Cuba and one in Brazil. The one in Cuba you can look up on Google Maps, and you can see that no-one goes through that bay. The pollution has killed absolutely everything. It is a dirty, dirty process. The other one is in Brazil. People in the nickel industry will tell you that it is such a dirty plant, so badly polluted that you can almost walk across the smoke. The other alternative is to sell it to China. China will take that ore. They will not use the same process; they will put it in a big coking furnace and burn the living daylights out of it to refine the ore. All three processes result in a net increase in pollution. All three processes do not stop the ore being refined. All three processes do not stop nickel being needed on the international market. What this carbon tax will do is stop it being processed in Townsville, lose 900 direct jobs in Townsville and 2,300 indirect jobs—and take $600 million per annum from the Townsville economy. And the ore will still be processed. It will still be mined in Mount Isa, it will still be turned into concentrate and it will still go overseas.

I want to tell you about a local businessman in Townsville, Brad Webb, of BM Webb Group. He has 120 staff. He pays over $150,000 a week in wages. He has over $100 million in fixed assets, ranging from commercial buildings to quarries and fabrication. He reinvests every cent in Townsville. His words to me were, 'Mate, it just gets too hard.' With the flick of a switch, he could just turn it off, take all his business overseas and live off the passive income here and reinvest overseas. This tax will close local industry and export jobs overseas for no benefit at all.

The member for Melbourne said on Lateline:

Let's look at the Great Barrier Reef, where there's 63,000 people's livelihood dependent on that - more than the number of people employed in the coal mining industry …

So what does it look like? Well it looks like an economy with a healthy tourist sector, a healthy services sector and a renewable energy sector that's the envy of the world.

Can I tell you, mate: three industries provide employment for 4,000 people in Townsville at the moment. Our tourism industry is struggling and Cairns's unemployment is 12 per cent. Townsville's is 8½ per cent and the Gold Coast is at eight per cent. And you want, Mr Bandt, member for Melbourne, my little green mate—I would call him a leprechaun, but he doesn't have a pot of gold, because that would require mining!—these 4,000 people to jump into a boat and dive off boats off the Great Barrier Reef. He is a joke. He will not be happy until everyone is dressed in a black skivvy, riding a Vespa and drinking soy lattes in Lygon Street.

The Assistant Treasurer said he is focused on jobs. Of course he is focused on jobs: 20,000 extra public servants. The Prime Minister standing there telling everyone they have to take a haircut, that everyone needs to take a cut—150 extra staff in her office! By jingo, talk about skills training. We have a Treasurer who is fixated and will not take his eyes off a surplus from riding on the back of the mining industry. But he will support this tax. He should hang his head in shame. He stands there and says, 'I will not take my eyes of the surplus; nothing can make me lose my concentration on the surplus—wow, a blue car!' That was not as funny as I thought it was going to be!

We have a government whose only policy is to stay in power. They would have done Graham Richardson proud! Not only does this mob say, 'Whatever it takes'; they will add: 'to whomever they like, for whatever reason they feel, to stay in power. This government says that it is a tax on the 1,000 big polluters. Plainly, this tax is a tax on the way of life of everyone in Australia and their livelihoods.

I would like to finish as the Minister for Immigration, and say, 'This government has no mandate, Mr Speaker! This government has not been straight with the Australian people, Mr Speaker, on this issue. You should stop this now and call for an election!' That is what you should do: stop this now and call for an election. You should stand up and be straight with the Australian people. You have never been straight with the Australian people. You should start now, do the right thing: face up and say, 'Look, we got it wrong; we want to do the right thing and call an election now.'

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a performance from the member for Herbert! In bringing about this MPI, the Leader of the Opposition talked about honesty. Let us just take what the member for Herbert has just said in relation to jobs and mining and refineries in his electorate. Let us just assume he is genuine about what he has just said. If the Liberals actually accept the science in relation to climate change, if the member for Herbert actually believes that we need to be looking at jobs and the impact of any solutions to climate change on those industries and jobs, then the Liberals and the opposition need to be telling the Australian people why they are not sitting at the table on the multiparty climate change committee, if they are genuine about getting solutions. Why are they not sitting there? Because they are more interested in running scare campaigns than they are about genuinely dealing with climate change.

Let's talk about honesty. Despite this MPI, which is supposed to be about the cost of living, the Leader of the Opposition came in here ranting about the Premier for Western Australia, Mr Barnett. He spoke about something that the Premier had said 12 months ago in relation to royalties. If the Leader of the Opposition is going to be honest on this, then he should come into this chamber and talk about the eight occasions over the last eight months that the Premier for Western Australia has said that he will not be introducing increases in royalties in the immediate future. In September 2010 he said in the Fin Review: 'It's not something we are moving on now. It won't be in the next year's budget. We will not be moving on royalties in the immediate future.' In October 2010 on ABC radio he said: 'We have no plan to increase royalties.' In the West Australian the following day he said: 'The state has no intentions of increasing royalties.' Again, in December 2010 he told reporters in Perth: 'There is no proposal to increase royalties.' Then, in February 2011, a matter of less than eight weeks before the budget was handed down, he said in the Fin Review: 'We have no plans to increase the fines rate in the foreseeable future.' He repeated that on 6PR radio that same day. If we are going to talk about honesty, the Leader of the Opposition should be honest with the Australian people in what he is accusing the government of and what the Premier for Western Australia has actually done.

Let us get back to working families and cost of living. The Leader of the Opposition talked about working families. We all remember working families, don't we? In the previous Liberal government when the Leader of the Opposition was a senior cabinet member he said: 'Working families have never been better off.' This was a minister in the Howard government who oversaw 10 interest rate rises in a row and, at the same time said that Australian working families had never been better off. This is a person who was a senior minister in a government who brought in work choices, directly attacked job security and attacked the ability to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. This is a leader, who is part of an opposition, who opposed every element of the stimulus to support jobs during the global financial crisis.

In contrast it is this Labor government that supported jobs through the global financial crisis and who, once again, in their 2011-12 budget have announced initiatives to support apprentices, to support long-term unemployed, to support people with disabilities with the ability, as well as teenage mums and single parents to get back into the workforce. It is this Labor government that tore up work choices and introduced the Fair Work Act, which resulted in a decision on pay equity that could have never happened under a Liberal government.

It is this Labor government that introduced income tax cuts in 2008, 2009 and 2010 for working families. It is this Labor government that increased the childcare rebate from 30 to 50 per cent. Let us not forget that it is this Labor government that introduced the most historic reforms in pensions with a pension increase—a much needed increase to the base rate of the pension for pensioners, veterans and disability pensions across this country. Carers also saw improvements to their entitlements.

Since September 2009 payments to single pensioners are up $128 a fortnight and pensioner couples up $116 a fortnight. On 20 March 2011 pension payments rose again, $13.20 a fortnight for single rate pensioners and $19.80 a fortnight for couple rate pensioners on the maximum rate. Total pension payments for those on the maximum adult rate including the base rate and pension supplement are now $729.30 a fortnight or $18,961.80 a year for single pensioners and $1,099.40 a fortnight or $28,584.40 a year for pensioner couples combined. That is what this Labor government has delivered on.

It is this Labor government that introduced paid parental leave that came into operation on 1 January 2011—the first paid parental leave in the history of this nation. For 11 long years the Liberal Party were in government and never provided this support to families. Let us not forget this Labor government's paid parental leave scheme will also, from 1 July 2012, provide paid paternity leave for dads and will provide eligible working fathers and partners with two-weeks paid paternity leave at the national minimum wage, currently at $570 a week. Around 220,000 fathers and other partners, who are sharing the child's care and who meet the work and income tests, will be eligible to access paternity leave pay. That is what a Labor government does and that is what this Labor government has delivered.

What have we seen with the latest budget? There has been further assistance for families through increases in family tax benefit part A by up to $161 per fortnight for teenagers aged between 16 and 19 who are in full-time secondary study from 1 January 2012. This represents an extra $4,200 each year for the lowest income families. Families may also remain or become eligible for rent assistance and family tax benefit part B, worth up to $3,600 and $2,900 respectively each year. In total, the government is spending $771.9 million over five years through these measures to help families with the cost of raising older teenage children while these children complete their secondary schooling. This is real assistance in cost-of-living pressures.

In addition from this July families will also have access to more flexible advanced payments of family tax benefit part A. This will mean families facing unexpected costs such as the family car breaking down will have quick and easy access to advance payments and will not have to resort to high-interest loans or credit cards. Again, this is what a Labor government does. This is what this government has delivered in the 2011-12 budget. We are providing many methods of assistance and support to families and pensioners across this country. The alternative we have heard from the opposition once again today is a risk to the economy. They were about wrecking the surplus. We heard that again from the member for Herbert. The opposition side are just not interested in getting back to surplus. It is not important. What is important to them is going to an election. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition has his eyes set on the Lodge and that is all he is thinking about. The Leader of the Opposition is about fear and negativity. He is about opposition. We see it in relation to the appropriation bills that are being debated in this House currently. Any positive moves of this government that have been introduced into this chamber have been opposed. Everything that this government does—and that includes stimulating the economy, investing in schools, investing in health and investing in infrastructure—is not of interest to the Leader of the Opposition. He is just interested in the Lodge. That is what he wants. So he is going to keep up with the fear and the negativity. This government is about making sure that it gets on with providing for those most in need in our community. We are out there supporting jobs, supporting employment, providing opportunities, providing education, providing health, supporting our pensioners and supporting those most in need in our community.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion has concluded.