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

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

The imminent threat posed by the government's carbon tax to key sectors of the Australian economy, particularly manufacturing.

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

It is very clear from the remarks we have just heard from, amongst other people, the Minister for Climate Change, that I am getting under their skin. I certainly am travelling this country. I am going to the workplaces of this country, particularly the blue-collar workplaces of this country, to alert the Australian people to the threat posed to jobs, in particular the threat posed to manufacturing jobs by this government's carbon tax. I will keep doing this. I will keep doing this, every day, while there is breath in my body, because the one thing that we need in this country is a viable manufacturing sector. If there is one sector of our country which is threatened by the government's carbon tax it is the manufacturing sector of this country.

Let us have no more talk in this parliament about big polluters, because all of those decent, honest Australian businesses, which are defamed day in, day out by senior members of this government, are not so much the big polluters but the big employers, the big exporters and the big providers of jobs in this country. That is what they are. Let there be no doubt about the intentions of the authors of this carbon tax legislation: they want to kill manufacturing industry in this country. They must kill manufacturing industry in this country, because manufacturing in this country cannot continue without power, and power in this country is absolutely dependent upon the burning of coal, the burning of gas and the use of oil. I say to members opposite: how many steel mills can you run on solar power? How many motor-manufacturing plants can you run on wind power? That is why I will travel right around this country, every day, while this parliament is not sitting, alerting the blue-collar workers of this country to the threat that this government poses to their jobs and their livelihood. These people who are so derided, so defamed, so blackguarded by members of this government are absolutely essential to a modern economy. They are absolutely essential if the standard of living of every single Australian is to be maintained. The whole point of a carbon tax is to shrink and ultimately to close industries that emit carbon dioxide. That is the whole point of a carbon tax. There is no point having a carbon tax if it does not mean that we burn less coal, use less gas, use less petrol and use less power. If we do not do that, there is no point whatsoever to this carbon tax.

Let me start to go through just what this carbon tax is going to do to the manu–facturing sector of this country. Let me appeal to members opposite who I suspect in their hearts do want to do the right thing by the workers of this country. I do not think all of them are as blind to reality as the Prime Minister and some of her colleagues. I think in their hearts they do want to stand up for the jobs of their constituents and for their union members. I want to lay down in this chamber some of the jobs that will be at risk if this carbon tax goes ahead. There are 1,300 jobs at Ford at Geelong. I know because I have been there. I am standing up for the jobs at Ford. What is the member for Corio doing for the workers at Geelong? What is the member for Corangamite doing for the workers at Geelong? I see the Special Minister of State at the table. In the electorate of Brand, there are 1,300 jobs at Alcoa at Kwinana. What is the minister doing for those jobs at Kwinana?

I see another minister at the table. What is he doing for the jobs at the steel mill in Western Sydney? Members opposite need to stand up for, in this case, the old Smorgon steel mill, now a OneSteel mill. Come on, mate, surely you are not so ignorant as to not know anything about the Smorgon steel mill in Western Sydney. You may not be interested in their jobs but you have not forgotten about the existence of the mill, surely.

Really and truly, right around Australia jobs are at risk in the electorates of members opposite and it is high time they stood up for them. There are 800 jobs at the Newlands coalmine in the electorate of Capricornia. There are 600 jobs at the Moranbah mine and 600 jobs at the German Creek mine. Also in the electorate of Corio, there are 3,300 jobs at Toyota at Altona. In the electorate of Calwell, there are around 1,900 jobs at Ford at Broadmeadow. All of these jobs are at risk under this government's carbon tax and it is high time that members opposite started standing up for the jobs of their constituents. It is high time that members opposite stopped making excuses for a floundering Prime Minister, stopped defending a policy that is obviously failing and started standing up for the jobs of their members.

We know that the Prime Minister is not interested in the 500 jobs at OneSteel Laverton. We know she is not interested because I went there and the workers said to me: 'Where is the Prime Minister? She doesn't want to protect our jobs. She wants to hit us with a carbon tax that will put all of those jobs at risk.'

I see the Chief Government Whip, the member for Hunter. What are you going to say, Joel, for the 600 jobs at the Wambo coalmine, the 600 jobs at the Mount Thorley coalmine and the 600 jobs at the Mt Owen coalmine? What are you going to say about that, Joel? Stand up for the workers of your electorate and say no to this carbon tax. Be less interested, Joel, in staying on as Chief Government Whip and more interested in protecting the jobs of the people that you are pledged to represent in this parliament.

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer to the Chief Government Whip by his title and not by his name.

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

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do apologise. I was trying to touch the member for Hunter's deeper and finer feelings. I know that, deep down, he wants to protect the jobs of his members and I am putting to him that the only way to protect the jobs of his members is to sacrifice the job of this Prime Minister.

But it does not stop there. I have already spoken about BlueScope Steel and the more than 5,000 jobs at Port Kembla. What has the member for Throsby done to stand up for the workers of BlueScope Steel? What has the member for Cunningham done to stand up for the workers of BlueScope Steel? What have those Illawarra members done to stand up for the 2,000 jobs at Illawarra Coal? One thing we know is that the carbon tax is a dagger aimed at the heart of the coal industry, even under the government's own modelling. By 2020, there will be a 35 per cent reduction in coal production and 13 per cent in coal investment, so what are all of those members opposite who represent coal seats going to do to stand up for that industry?

We have 2,700 jobs at Holden at Elizabeth in South Australia. What is the member for Wakefield doing to stand up for those jobs? We have 851 jobs at Alcoa in Gove, in the Northern Territory. What is the member for Lingiari doing to stand up for those jobs? We have 560 jobs at Alcan at Bell Bay. What is the member for Bass doing to stand up for those jobs?

There is one party in this House today that is determined to protect as far as it reasonably can the jobs of the manufacturing workers of this country, and it is the Liberal-National party. The people who are being completely betrayed by members opposite are the manufacturing workers of this country. I am happy to defend, day in, day out, the right of our power stations, our steel industry and our aluminium industry to continue to exist in this country, because, unlike members opposite, I understand that those industries are vital to a First World economy, and I want Australia to continue to be a First World economy. I want Australia to continue to be a country where people make things.

That is what it comes down to in the end: are we going to be a country which manufactures things or are we going to be a country which says goodbye to all of that in the name of misguided green zealotry? Does anyone think for a second—

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

Do you have anything of substance to say?

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

Isn't it typical of this government that this man up the back does not speak up for the jobs of his workers but all we get is more inane bluster from members opposite. That is all we ever get from those people.

If this carbon tax regime comes in and we lose our steel industry, aluminium industry, cement industry, glass and plastics, does anyone think that we are not going to continue to use all those substances? Of course we are going to use them. They will be imported. That is the whole point. Under this carbon tax, we will export jobs and we will import emissions. That is the truth. That is what this government is doing to the manufacturing heartland of our country.

We will stand up for the workers of this country. We will stand up for the 45,000 workers who, even on the government's own figures, will lose their jobs in energy-intensive manufacturing.

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

You're making it up as you go along. You're embarrassing yourself.

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

The Chief Government Whip will remain silent!

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

We will stand up for the 126,000 workers who will not be employed in regional Australia as a result of the government's carbon tax. We will stand up for the 24,000 mining workers—particularly the coal workers of the Hunter and the Illawarra—who will lose their jobs under the government's carbon tax. We will stand up for these workers. I say to the manufacturing workers of this country: you have a friend in the coalition.

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

This is a leadership speech. This is about Malcolm.

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

The Chief Government Whip will remain silent for the rest of the leader's contribution!

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

We will stand up for the workers of this country. I say to members opposite: if you have any residual concern for the ethos of the old Labor Party, if you have any instinctive sympathy for the Labor Party of John Curtin and Ben Chifley—

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

This is embarrassing, Tony. Where's your substance?

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

I warn the Chief Government Whip!

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

junk this toxic tax and do what is best, do what is right, do what is necessary for the workers of this country whose jobs are currently at risk.

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

That's a good one, Tony. That'll get the troops back!

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

The Chief Government Whip will remain silent!

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

This carbon tax is a watershed for our country because it poses the question, in the starkest possible terms: what do we want to be as an economy? Do we want to be an economy that manufactures things or do we want to be an economy which is in thrall to green zealotry? The Chief Executive of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, Andrew McKellar, speaking of the carbon tax, said:

… we won't have green jobs, we will have green unemployment.

The Chairman of BlueScope Steel, speaking of the so-called compensation for manufacturing industries that the government is talking about, said:

It's simply a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

Even Paul Howes, the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, has said:

Carbon pricing could be the straw that breaks the camel's back as far as some industries are concerned. … If one job is gone, our support is gone.

That is the test that members opposite should lay down for the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister cannot realistically guarantee manufacturing jobs, mining jobs, coal jobs, power jobs, they should withdraw their support for her; they should get rid of her. Most of all they should get rid of this toxic tax.

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

What a load of nonsense!

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the benefit of the minister, I seek leave to table a map of the Rooty Hill steel mill.

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

There is no point of order.

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

For the benefit of the shadow minister, I might table a map of my electorate to show that Rooty Hill is not in it.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's in Western Sydney!

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Honourable members on my left will contain themselves.

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

We heard 15 minutes of diatribe about jobs. It is worth asking yourself the question: if the Leader of the Opposition really cared about jobs, where was he when the stimulus package was voted on in this parliament, a stimulus package that stopped Australia going into recession and protected 200,000 jobs?

Mr Robb interjecting—

If you cared about this, you might hang around. It was a stimulus package that stopped Australia going into recession and protected 200,000 jobs. That is the equivalent of two Olympic stadiums worth of people who had their jobs saved because of a stimulus package here. Where was the Leader of the Opposition when that vote was occurring? Was he on this side of the chamber? Was he on that side of the chamber? No. He was asleep on his couch in his office. That is how much the Leader of the Opposition really cares about jobs. He is happy to come in here and talk about it, but when there is a vote to protect jobs he is nowhere to be seen—he is lying on his couch.

Since Adam was a boy, we have always had scare campaigns. One hundred and ten years ago, there were scare campaigns about giving women the vote. Sixty years ago, there were scare campaigns about the 40-hour week. Twenty years ago, there were scare campaigns about native title. We had people on the other side of the chamber saying that you were going to lose your backyard. All of it proved to be false. All of it eventually proved to be nonsense. When we cut tariffs and when we introduced compulsory superannuation, there were exactly the same arguments being made then that were just made by the Leader of the Opposition. Go back and have a look at the Hansard from 1992 and you see Liberal after Liberal after National after Liberal telling us that jobs are going to be lost. Senator Panizza said:

The worst case scenario—

this is on the introduction of compulsory superannuation—

is the loss of 100,000 jobs ... there are 100,000 jobs on the line ... and I can see those 100,000 jobs quite easily going out the door within a very few years.

Senator Watson said rising unemployment would occur and it would 'exacerbate poverty and hardship'. Senator Crichton-Browne said superannuation would reduce economic growth, add to unemployment, create inflationary pressures, reduce savings and reduce living standards. Allan Rocher, the then member for Curtin, said it would be 'a tax on jobs'. All of this was nonsense and was proved eventually to be false. So what occurred? The opposite. Instead of the loss of 100,000 jobs what we got was the creation of 60,000 jobs and a whole new industry with $1.4 trillion in savings, the fourth biggest managed fund in the world. You can see by the arguments that the Liberals made then and by the arguments that they make now that this is just a scare campaign.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about his travels around the country and it went from the sublime to the ridiculous. It probably went from the ridiculous to the ridiculous. He started in Whyalla in April and said that a carbon tax would wipe Whyalla off the map. Then he talked about his trip to Geelong. He went there and said that this will be the final nail in the motor industry's coffin in Australia. He went on to say this would spell disaster for Australia as a First World economy, so he was basically saying Australia was going to become a Second World or a Third World economy. Then he went off to Weet-Bix and said that a carbon price was going to effectively destroy breakfast. This is from Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, who only two years ago—and it puts things in perspective and tells you the type of man he is—said when talking about a carbon price on Sky on 29 July 2009:

I think if you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax.

Now apparently it is the greatest disaster to hit Australia in its history and apparently it will turn Australia into a Third World country. But it is not just the Leader of the Opposition who is making these ludicrous, ridiculous claims. When we were debating this issue in another MPI, in March this year, the member for Indi was speaking opposite and she said this:

The future under a carbon tax is the single greatest disruption to the Australian economy and the destruction of Australian jobs that we have ever seen.

What about the Great Depression with 29 per cent unemployment? But, no, introducing a carbon tax, according to the opposition, would lead to the 'greatest destruction of Australian jobs that we have ever seen'. Then you have the member for Murray. Remember that on Monday she said that Heinz was moving from Australia to New Zealand because Australia was introducing a carbon tax. The problem with that is that New Zealand already have a carbon price. They introduced an emissions trading scheme in 2008. But that did not stop the member for Murray, because she went out on the doors and said:

Well New Zealand is talking about climate change action, yes, but they're watching to see what happens in Australia. They have not moved yet, they're saying what Australia might do we might do but that is, I think, code for we'll make sure we remain more competitive than Australia when it comes to energy costs.

What a load of baloney! What a load of absolute nonsense! They moved three years ago. So that is where the scare campaign has ended, with an opposition that is just making things up. It is making up nonsense and complete fantasy—just like the bloke last week, Harold Camping, who promised the rapture was coming last month and just like Donald Trump who ran around America calling for the President of the United States to release his birth certificate. Well, now you have the Leader of the Opposition—all Trump, no toupee—running around, really great at making headlines but just speaking nonsense.

It is time that we talked about the two plans that are at stake here in this parliament, because there are two plans. Both parties have committed to doing something about climate change and both have committed to cutting carbon pollution by five per cent. Both have got a plan to do this and the focus of this debate should be on the relative merits of both plans as to which one is the best for Australia. With the government's plan, we have proposed to introduce a carbon price. It would be fixed for three to five years and after that period of time we would move to an emissions trading scheme. The advice from Treasury is that this is the cheapest way to cut carbon pollution. That is why John Howard adopted the same approach. To help families and pensioners deal with any changes, we will provide generous household assistance. One of the ways to do this, and the Prime Minister has said this, could be through tax cuts.

There is another plan, as the Leader of the Opposition also has a plan to cut carbon pollution. Under his plan, the government taxes all Australians and uses that money to give big polluters an incentive to cut their own emissions. According to the Leader of the Opposition, this will cost about $10 billion of taxpayers' money. Of course, there is no guarantee that it would work. According to Treasury, the opposition's scheme will increase emissions by 13 per cent, not reduce them. To actually cut emissions by five per cent, which is the opposition's target, would cost taxpayers about $30 billion. The member for Wentworth was on Lateline a few weeks ago and he explained why this is the case. He said:

... a direct action policy where the Government—where industry was able to freely pollute, if you like, and the Government was just spending more and more taxpayers' money to offset it, that would become a very expensive charge on the budget in the years ahead ...

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

I think Joe understands that.

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

I think he does. In effect, this explains why the member for Wentworth, in his contribution to the CPRS debate last year, said this would be fiscal recklessness on a grand scale. So companies keep polluting and taxpayers keep paying and potentially a whole lot of taxpayers' money is flushed down the toilet and the pollution goes up rather than down. It is the sort of plan that you have when you do not think that climate change is real. Well, it is real. Climate change is happening and human beings are contributing to it and it is a serious challenge. Cutting carbon pollution in our economy is not an easy task. It involves hard economic reform, effectively severing the link between economic growth and the growth in the amount of carbon dioxide that the economy produces. It is not easy but we have to do it. It is simply in our economic interests to do it. There will be a binding international agreement in the years ahead and Australia will have to comply. If we act now, Australian companies will have time to adjust. We can reduce the amount of carbon pollution we produce gradually, over time, and that will help to support Australian companies and support Australian jobs, but the longer we wait, the faster, eventually, we will have to cut our emissions, and that invariably will hurt Australian companies and hurt Australian jobs. That is why it makes economic sense to act now.

There has been some discussion here about what other countries are doing. India has a carbon tax on coal. China is launching a pilot emissions trading scheme in six provinces, including Beijing and Shanghai, in 2013. The US has committed to a 17 per cent reduction in emission levels by 2020. The United Kingdom produces about the same amount of emissions as Australia. Their Conservative government announced just last week that they will cut their emissions by 50 per cent by 2027. And here we are, producing roughly the same amount of emissions as the United Kingdom, and we are having a fight about cutting emissions by five per cent.

The British Prime Minister, of course, is not the only conservative leader to be doing something serious about climate change. As Paul Kelly pointed out in the Australian today, it is conservative governments around the world that have been leading the fight to tackle climate change. Whether it is Germany, Britain, France or South Korea, or the former Governor of California, it is conservatives who have led the way. Even in Australia, every single former leader of the Liberal Party supports taking action to cut climate change through putting a price on carbon—but not the current Leader of the Opposition. Andrew Peacock, John Hewson, Malcolm Fraser, Malcolm Turnbull and even John Howard all support putting a price on carbon. If Robert Menzies were alive today, I suspect he would back it as well.

But not this Leader of the Opposition, because he is in the embrace of the same people who thought that smoking did not cause cancer. Remember those debates in 1995 about whether smoking was addictive and whether smoking caused cancer? Senator Minchin, the man who put in a dissenting report to a Senate report in 1995, said he did not believe that smoking was addictive and did not believe that passive smoking caused cancer—the same person who helped the Leader of the Opposition get a job. There is another member of this parliament who in 1995 said: 'I say to those people who believe tobacco is a dreadful product: make your case. They have not done so.' These people in the House and in the Senate, the people who thought smoking did not cause cancer, are the same people who think that climate change is not real. And they are the same people who in the party room last week said to the Leader of the Opposition that even they thought he was being too negative, because now the Leader of the Opposition does not even support the Howard government's policies. Things he supported when he was a member of the Howard government he is now opposing—proof, if you ever needed any, that this is all just about politics.

The Leader of the Opposition is very different to John Howard. He opposes everything and stands for nothing. Remember what John Howard was like when he was the Leader of the Opposition? He supported reforms like floating the dollar. He supported reforms like cutting tariffs. But not this Leader of the Opposition. The answer to every single question we ask of this Leader of the Opposition is no. If we put a motion into this House supporting motherhood, the answer would be no. If we put a motion into this parliament supporting the Queen Mother, the answer would be no. If we put a motion into this parliament supporting the Queen and the Queen Mother, if we had a motion that entrenched the constitutional monarchy forever, he would oppose it. If we had a motion supporting budgie smugglers at the beach, he would oppose it. He opposes everything and stands for nothing. He is like that guy in drag in Little Britain: 'Computer says no'—except that in this case it is, 'Abbott says no.'

The people of Australia deserve better than that. They pay us money to come to Canberra to work together on the big reforms and the big issues to make this a better place. They expect us to work together. They expect something better than somebody who sleeps on a couch during important divisions and when he is awake just says no. (Time expired)

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

Economic growth slumped by 1.2 per cent in the March quarter. This was the first quarter of negative growth since the financial-crisis-induced fall in the December quarter of 2008 and was the biggest decline since the March quarter of 1991 during the Keating 'recession we had to have'. Annual growth fell to just one per cent. Growth was heavily impacted by the cyclone and floods earlier this year and by the earthquake and also the tsunami in Japan, as I said in my press conference. This reduced production and export of key commodities, particularly coal.

These factors are temporary and of course will unwind through the balance of this year as production and exports recover, but this episode highlights the increasing importance of the mining sector to the Australian economy. It only accounts for 10 per cent of production and two per cent of employment, but it contributes more than half of our exports. This more prominent role of mining is a strength while times are good, but it also increases Australia's exposure to disruptions to the industry and to volatility in offshore markets. The disruptions to production and exports of commodities, particularly coal, from the cyclone and floods led to a plunge in net exports which cut a massive 2.4 percentage points off economic growth in the quarter. This shows clearly that, when the mining industry coughs, Australia catches economic pneumonia.

Thankfully, the international environment generally remains positive for Australia. The terms of trade rose another six per cent and are now at the highest for a century and a half. Business investment is very strong, with investment in machinery and equipment up six per cent and investment in non-dwelling construction up 1.3 per cent. Separate data on business investment shows that much of this strength is actually coming from the mining industry, as I pointed out at the National Press Club. Nevertheless, households remain cautious. They are still spending but at a moderate pace. Spending on retail was relatively flat, but this was partly because households had to spend more on petrol, education and rent. It is no surprise that households have to reduce their spending on the things they want to buy when they have to find money for things they actually need.

Spending on interest payments on mortgages and other household debt rose further, an indication of the impact of the seven increases in interest rates since late 2009, and particularly what the last one did on Melbourne Cup Day, followed by a significant increase by the banks above and beyond the move in the reserve and the impact that had on household budgets. Households are now spending a massive $21 billion on interest every three months to service their debts. Effective interest rates paid on borrowings by households are now higher than they were over the average of the Howard years. The bad news is that interest rate pressures will intensify as this government continues to compete for scarce funds through its ongoing deficit-fuelled spending binge.

Savings by households continue to rise and are around the highest level for several decades. On the one hand that is good but on the other hand it indicates that there is caution in Australian households, and the caution is linked back to the fact that borrowing for housing is increasing at its slowest pace in a generation and prices of houses are softening.

Today's data also highlights the difficulties being faced by the non-mining sectors of the economy, particularly manufacturing, which contracted by 3.1 per cent over the year. This is a struggle under the impact of higher interest rates, but particularly the Australian dollar. The rise in the Australian dollar to the highest level since the currency was floated in December 1983 is hurting trade-exposed industries. It is squeezing those export industries that are not linked to mining. It is also creating issues for import-competing industries such as the motor vehicle industry and business input and consumer goods producers. Both of these factors are heavily influenced by the government's continued heavy borrowing program, with demands on the capital markets of $49 billion this year and a further $23 billion next year.

The data shows that the growth pattern across the country is patchy. The strongest performing state is the Australian Capital Territory, with growth in the quarter of 3.3 per cent. That is not really surprising given that the Labor government is employing more and more public servants here in Canberra. Output dropped in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning relevance. The word 'manufacturing' has been mentioned once in six minutes and the carbon tax has not been mentioned at all.

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

A matter of public importance debate is wide ranging. I call the honourable member for North Sydney.

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

Queensland, of course, has been the most heavily impacted as a result of the natural disasters. The latest snapshot of the economy shows the underlying resilience in the economy is entirely the result of good luck in recent times rather than good management. The economy is receiving the biggest boost from offshore in a very long time, certainly much bigger than anything the coalition had during its years in government. We might expect that this government would be acting to leverage this bountiful windfall with sound policies to lock in a sustainable future. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The government continues with its wasteful spending. Households are being careful with their money whilst the government just seems to be spending more. And the Treasurer had the audacity to stand in this place boasting about a surplus. What surplus was he referring to? Was it the surplus he might deliver in two years time. He said 'we are making the savings'—the savings that in the next fiscal year he is actually going to outspend by $2.5 billion, which illustrates the fraudulent words of the Treasurer in this place. But what is most concerning for households is that, while they are being asked to pull back and live within their means, the government is not doing so. The government is wasting money hand over fist, from set top boxes to an extra $110 million dealing with their pink batts issue.

From our perspective the greatest risk to the Australian economy is the impact of the carbon tax, the mining tax and the flood levy. At this particular point in time, after we have just had a full quarter of negative growth, albeit a headline negative growth, and after we have just had three months of the economy going backwards, what is the very worst thing the government could do? It would be to penalise households with a flood levy, to penalise the mining industry with a mining tax and to penalise every Australian with a carbon tax. Those initiatives alone are going to have a very real impact on the confidence levels of Australian households, but in particular they will have a devastating impact on Australian manufacturers, who are already struggling to compete with offshore players who have a massive currency advantage. The fact of the matter is that the Australian dollar is incredibly strong against the US dollar and many of the Asian countries that have strong manufacturing bases competing against Australian manufacturers have their currencies tied to the US dollar, and therefore their currencies have come down as well, which means that they have a competitive advantage against Australian manufacturers.

So, at a point in time when Australian manufacturers are being hit with the impact of a high Australian dollar, at a point where Australian manufacturers are struggling to deal with some of the capacity challenges that the government identified in last year's budget but did nothing about and at a time when Australian manufacturers are asking themselves whether it is time to move their operations offshore, what does this government do? It introduces a carbon tax that makes everything manufacturers produce here in Australia more expensive. That is the logic of the Labor Party's economic policy—to make life harder, not easier, for manufacturers, for Australian households and for so many of the people who are already being left behind by the mining boom. This economy is being left in the hands of incompetent amateurs. It is time to get the mature people back in charge. It is time to have an election on the carbon tax.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you are going to come into this place and raise a matter of public importance on the impact of government policy on the manufacturing sector; if you are going to come into this place and profess—

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

The member for Throsby ought not use the word 'you' because it refers to the occupant of the chair. I am in this place because I am in the chair.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. If somebody is going to come into this place and profess a love for workers in the manufacturing industry, they need to do it with some credibility. The fact is that those opposite—particularly the Leader of the Opposition—have absolutely no credibility on this issue.

Those opposite profess a love for the manufacturing industry and manufacturing workers. If they have a love, it is a very modern love affair. When you look at their record when it comes to the manufacturing industry and manufacturing workers in particular, it is a dismal record. Between the years 1996 and 2007, that mob over there, who profess to be in there in defence of manufacturing workers, oversaw the absolute obliteration of jobs in the manufacturing industry. Over 10,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing industry when that mob over there last had the opportunity to do something about the sector. That is about 1,000 jobs per annum, or 20 jobs a week. So when the Leader of the Opposition stands here and says to workers in the manufacturing industry, 'I am your friend; I have your interests at heart,' those workers need to look at his record—and his record is pretty damn ordinary. Over 1,000 jobs per annum were lost on the opposition's watch—20 jobs a week.

But it did not just come to job losses. When the Leader of the Opposition was last focusing on industry and workers it was because he was out there spruiking the Work Choices legislation. But as he makes his fear tour around the electorate in 2011 he will not be going around the manufacturing plants talking about his last love affair—the love that dare not speak its name, his love affair with Work Choices. He cannot tell the workers in those manufacturing plants that the two pillars of his last love affair were to make it easier for employers to sack their workers. This bloke who comes in here and says he has love and affection for manufacturing workers was, when he last had a chance, introducing laws and defending laws in this place to make it easier for bosses to sack their workers and to cut their wages and conditions.

I have had a look at the outcome of the opposition's Work Choices legislation when it came to workers, particularly manufacturing workers. Over 70 per cent of workers on Work Choices AWAs lost their shift loadings, 68 per cent lost their annual leave loadings, 65 per cent lost penalty rates, 49 per cent lost overtime loadings and 25 per cent no longer had public holidays. The man who comes into this chamber professing a love affair for manufacturing workers does that on the basis that he hopes workers in the manufacturing industry have a very short memory indeed. Those opposite have no credibility on this issue and they have no policy.

The policy of those opposite in this area is quite simple. It can be summarised as follows. Those opposite want ordinary workers, including workers in the manufacturing industry, through their taxes, to subsidise big polluters for the ability to continue to pollute and for the obligation to reduce their pollution. They want ordinary workers, ordinary taxpayers, to go out there and subsidise the polluting activities of big business. We on this side of the chamber say that that is bad public policy. We believe that the most effective way to get a change in our economy and to reduce carbon pollution is to put a price on carbon and ensure that it is the big polluters who pay, not ordinary workers.

It is not surprising that the member for Wentworth—in fact, the last two members for Wentworth—have found it very difficult to defend the direct action policy. We understand that it is going to cost ordinary workers—those whom in the chamber today he was proposing to protect—around $720 per annum and to cost the economy around $30 billion. It is not surprising that when those opposite went to their focus groups and said, 'We've got a policy and we're thinking of calling it the Taxpayer Funded Pollution Scheme' that their focus groups and their media spin advisers said: 'That just won't work. We'd better come up with a tag like "direct action".' But the people of Australia will not be fooled. They know this is a taxpayer funded pollution scheme. It is no surprise that the current member for Wentworth finds it very difficult to defend. The previous members for Wentworth find it even harder to defend, and I would not be surprised if those opposite are seeking to abolish the seat of Wentworth retrospectively to do away with their embarrassments.

There is a risk to manufacturing, and that is the risk of being left behind. There is no chance that Australia is going to be at the head of the pack, because the rest of the world is already acting—and they are already acting decisively. If we do not act it is going to become all the harder for us to retool in our manufacturing industry, for us to reinvest and for us to do the things we need to do to protect jobs and protect this vital part of our economy.

The other risk to manufacturing, of course, is the uncertainty created by those opposite. We know that investors are very nervous indeed at the moment about making any long-term investments in the manufacturing industry or in electricity generation because they are uncertain as to whether we are going to have a bipartisan policy on this issue. When they are making 20- and 30-year investments, they are concerned that those investments will be completely undermined by the policies of those opposite. It is this uncertainty and this lack of a bipartisan approach to dealing with climate change that are the real threats to investment in manufacturing at the moment. That is without mentioning the threats that we currently face, and the case of Qantas which, we learn this week, is going to have border adjustments imposed on it by the European Union. These are the threats facing us from not introducing a plan to deal with climate change, from not putting a price on carbon.

Those opposite came in here earlier today and proposed a love affair with the manufacturing industry. We know it is hypocrisy. We know it is hypocrisy because when they were last in government they oversaw the massive loss in manufacturing industry jobs. We also know that if they got into government again they would further take the axe to the manufacturing industry. In fact, the coalition's plan is to make massive cuts to industry programs. The Leader of the Opposition says that they want to protect jobs in the car industry, but the reality is that if the coalition had their way they would cut half a billion dollars from the Automotive Transformation Scheme.

The Automotive Transformation Scheme provides investment in research and devel–opment that increases the competitiveness and productivity of our automotive industry across the entire supply chain. So those who profess a love for manufacturing and manufacturing workers are at the same time planning to take the hatchet to the plans that are going to give workers in these industries a real future. They say that they are proposing to protect jobs in manufacturing industries but at the same time they are proposing to slash funds for Enterprise Connect, one of the main support programs for emerging manufacturing firms. They are proposing to cut over $100 million from Enterprise Connect, a program which has assisted over 7,500 firms.

On this point there is absolutely no credibility from those opposite, whereas we on this side of the chamber know that we have a challenge in the manufacturing sector and the challenge is one brought about by the fact that we have a very high Australian dollar. That is a sign of confidence in the Australian economy, a sign of international confidence in the Australian economy, and we know that we have to assist our vital manufacturing sector to make it through these difficult and challenging times.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The manufacturing sector is critical to Australia. One million Australians work in this sector. It may interest the member who has just spoken to know that during the time of this Labor government 550 jobs a week are lost in manufacturing. I will repeat that so that he adds it to his little notebook: 550 jobs a week are lost by this government. Who has cut $1.8 billion from industry assistance? That would be his minister, Minister Carr, who thankfully resides in the other place. So let us not get too hypocritical about this issue, because all you need to do is not listen to the coalition if you do not want to but listen to industry? Why don't you listen to industry when it says that a carbon tax is, as Paul O'Malley from BlueScope Steel said:

… clearly economic vandalism. It clearly says we don't want manufacturing in Australia.

We hear that carbon pricing could be the straw that breaks the camel's back as far as some industries are concerned. 'If one job is gone our support is gone.' That quote is not actually from industry; it is from Paul Howes. Of course he was pushed into a corner by the most powerful branch of his union and he was forced to stand up for them. He said that—one of the faceless men who put the Prime Minister in her job. But apparently he does not even get to have a say in this. Bob Brown is even more important than him.

We also hear what will happen if we act unilaterally—we will just export our industries and export our jobs. It was Graham Kraehe, Chairman of BlueScope Steel, who said:

… a tax on carbon produced in steelmaking is fine as long as the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, Russians, Americans, Brazilians and others have a similar tax.

If this is not the case Australia will simply transfer the carbon generation to countries without a carbon tax and accelerate the hollowing out of Australia's economy.

They are not alarmist words; they just state the fact. They state exactly the fact and what has happened in other nations. The business sector wants this Prime Minister to stop trying to club manufacturing out of existence. The workers who work in this sector want the Prime Minister to stop seeking to punish them, to stop trying to label the very successful and innovative businesses in which they work as environmental vandals. We do not want to see these industries legislated out of existence; nor do these businesses that are filled with decent, hardworking Australians, that have invested in this nation, that are fighting for their life at the moment, want to see jobs go in Australia. What a contrast that is to the vainglorious politicians and the celebrities who lecture everyone else about how they should lead their lives, who lecture everyone else about the sorts of things they can afford and what they should do to save the planet. It is because of this arrogance and this inability to listen to ordinary Australians that the Prime Minister has now allowed herself to be cornered by that fringe dweller Bob Brown, who is going to inherit even more extremists come 1 July. She has allowed this once great party representing the workers to now be the author of and the signatory to the bill that will destroy manufacturing and alter the face of this economy.

We heard from the other side, typically, all those arrogant statements: 'The coalition does not understand manufacturing' and the like. Actually, both my parents spent 20 years working in manufacturing in the industrial suburbs of Melbourne, so I fully do appreciate and understand the importance of manufacturing today in employing one million Australians and the important heritage that manufacturing has had in building innovation capability, in building up our manufacturing capability and in allowing particularly SMEs to grow and flourish. On this side of the House we understand that. We understand you cannot have a modern economy without steel, cement, plastics, aluminium and glass. We on this side of the House do not want to see the food-processing industry further contract, because we believe it is important for Australia as a nation not only to make things but to process our own food.

Manufacturing is doing it tough with the rising value of the Australian dollar and ever-increasing competition, but on the government benches they are gripped with this blind desire, this false bravado, and think that if they just crash through with Bob Brown's carbon tax they will somehow get over the line at the next election—and for what? To save one person's job: the Prime Minister's. The government have not actually done the hard work. There is no industry policy coming from them and the Prime Minister has barely been to a manufacturing business in months. Behind lecterns in Parliament House, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research is reduced to reciting gibberish about how manufacturing assistance is going to increase under a punitive carbon tax and, at the same time, firms will also be partly compensated for the damage they suffer. He let out of the bag the other night during estimates that industry was going to get 46 per cent of overall compensation. He did not have the guts to detail that. He did not have the guts to tell a lot of manufacturers that they were not going to get a cent, though I suppose he has been adequately chastised for that. He did not tell the Australian people that there will be no compensation for losing their jobs, but I suppose this attitude should not come as a surprise from a bloke who once admitted on live radio that 'no-one's job is safe under this government'. That is about the only thing I agree with him on.

Then we have the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, former union boss and prime ministerial wannabe, who was so chastened by being jeered about his carbon tax by Port Kembla workers that he is now trying to forget that he was even there, which, of course, is probably not a difficult thing to do when you reside in a multimillion dollar mansion by the sea—the same sea that, if you believe some of his spin, is supposed to be about to engulf people who allegedly are still silly enough to live in coastal areas.

Of course, the implementation of a carbon tax would be bad enough if the situation were not so dire in the first place. Under Labor we have seen 550 manufacturing jobs disappear every week. That is a figure that we should all remember: 550 manufacturing jobs disappear every week. Around one in every 12 manufacturing workers across Australia have lost their jobs since Labor came to power. But Labor are not happy with that figure; they want to accelerate it even further. So much for the former Prime Minister's 'working families' of the 2007 election. They now want to create 'unemployed families'.

Not only do they want to pummel manufacturing with a carbon tax; the Prime Minister in her arrogance is so out of touch that when she is asked, 'How will manufacturing survive?' she says, 'Oh well, they'll innovate; they'll keep up.' I suppose she just wants them, like lobotomised zombies, to say, 'Yes, we'll go along with this.' All she has to do is go out and speak to those union members who work in manufacturing. Why doesn't she have the guts to go from one end of the country to the other and speak to those businesses? Do not believe the coalition; believe those workers that you say you represent—while in your arrogance, in your ivory tower, you are so aligned to the Greens.

You have no idea, Prime Minister, what it is to have a modern economy. You have no idea how difficult it is for these families to survive. Not only do you want to increase their cost of living but you want to rip their jobs away from them. The Labor Party's idea is: if an industry is successful, punish it. If an industry does not toe the line, demonise and vilify it. If an industry would benefit from any serious policy reform, just shrug your shoulders and let it die.

The coalition will never shirk the serious responsibilities of reform and looking after important industries in this nation because we understand you cannot have a serious economy without a viable manufacturing sector. We will stand up and we will defend these manufacturing jobs against an ill-conceived carbon tax that will do nothing but increase emissions and export Australian jobs overseas. (Time expired)

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

On behalf of, I hope, all members of the House, I apologise to that rather large group of visitors in the Speaker's gallery, who could take no more during the contribution by the member for Indi and walked out en masse. I cannot blame them, because that really was what I would describe as a rather embarrassing contribution to this matter of public importance. It was full of bluster, it contained no facts and was, typically, an attempt to scaremonger.

But the member for Indi was not on her own. The shadow Treasurer was not much better. I do excuse him just a little. He used his contribution to say something about the national accounts, which, of course, were released today, and I would expect him as shadow Treasurer to take any opportunity he can to speak about them. So we will go easy on the shadow Treasurer. It was not a bad contribution; he tried to say a few positive things. The significant thing is that he totally ignored his own leader's MPI. We have seen from the shadow Treasurer this week, mainly via his rather interesting contribution by way of a letter to the Australian Financial Review, that at the moment he is a bit on the fence. He does not know which way to jump at this stage because there is some heavy competition going on between the current leader and the member for Wentworth, who is seated at the table. Joe just does not know which way to jump.

That brings me to what I thought was the most embarrassing contribution of all, and that was the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition. He raised an MPI in this place on a substantial issue—it is one worth debating: a carbon constraint is the most interesting and topical issue of debate in this country at the moment—but he did not say anything about it. He came in here without one fact, with no thoughtful ideas and with no real contribution to make to the debate. Instead, he made a leadership speech full of one-liners that he was hoping would rally those sitting behind him at a crucial time for him, when he is struggling to maintain their support. The really interesting thing about him introducing the MPI on this topic is that this debate is not about climate change. It is not about whether the globe is warming. It is not even about whether man makes a contribution to that heating. Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, accepts that. He accepts it so fulsomely that he has a policy to address it. We do not like the policy and the broader Australian community will not like the policy when they come to understand it because it is a policy to tax them more and take that money and use it to subsidise the big polluters. That is something that the latter will of course greet with open arms, but there will be nothing in it to ensure that they use that money for the purposes for which it is intended. The member for Wentworth on Lateline belled the cat and made the point that this is a road to everywhere or nowhere, I am not sure which. Certainly it is a policy for which the costs cannot be controlled. We appreciate the member for Wentworth's very, very honest contribution on that topic.

I am going to share the worst kept secret in this place and that is that the Chief Government Whip has some say in who contributes to the MPI debate. I know my colleagues will be shocked, but that is a fact. Today, anticipating the lowbrow contribution we would get from the Leader of the Opposition, I thought, 'Let's have a guy from the Hunter and let's have a guy from the Illawarra.' It is interesting because the Leader of the Opposition used up—I wish I had had the clock running—at least 33 per cent of his contribution going around the electorates. 'What about the member for Hunter; what is he going to do? What about the member for such and such; what is he going to do?' I have another confession, Mr Deputy Speaker: I used to occasionally do this in opposition too. With 30 minutes to speak on a tax bill you are struggling sometimes, so you fill it up by going around each electorate and introducing a bit of politics into the debate. I know that some people listening to the debate will be shocked, but I am happy in this place to solemnly declare and confess my sins of the past, and that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did today.

How sad is it when the Leader of the Opposition in this country cannot come in here for 15 minutes and make a constructive contribution to the biggest debate in this country at the moment without putting in a filler, without spending five minutes of his time running a scare campaign seat by seat? I listened to the member for Throsby and I congratulate him on his response to the scare campaign from the Leader of the Opposition—that he had nothing to say, no facts. The government has not even released the detail of its policy, but do not worry, it will soon. Therefore, by definition everything the Leader of the Opposition said today has to be confected, has to be made up. There can be no other explanation for the way in which he made his contribution today.

I want to say something very important about the Hunter because, like the member for Throsby and others, the Leader of the Opposition had a bit to say about impact in certain regions. Let me let him in on a surprise: the overwhelming majority of people in the Hunter want us to do something about global warming. They want us to take a responsible approach and that is what we will do. Here is the point the Leader of the Opposition misses: the mining union and unions generally in the Hunter Valley support action on climate change. They support a carbon constraint. They want their industries to be sustainable into the future. Sensibly they are coming with us on that front.

There was bluster from the Leader of the Opposition about whether the member for Hunter has told his workers. Well, my workers tell me. My workers come to me and say, 'We want you to ensure that our jobs in the Hunter are sustainable.' Indeed, that applies to manufacturing too. There are only two real threats to manufacturing at the moment. One, as has been mentioned, is the very high Australian dollar and the other is the abandonment on the part of the coalition of a commitment to the market and to market based policies. The best thing we can do for manufacturing in this country is to put them on a sustainable footing and to introduce new opportunities through a carbon constraint world, and that is what we will do.

The other point he misses is the projections on the consumption of energy in this country into the future. The Leader of the Opposition rhetorically said, 'How many factories can you power off solar?' What a ridiculous thing to say. The Hunter produces something like 80 per cent of New South Wales electricity consumption. In the future New South Wales will need all the coal fired and gas fired electricity we can produce in the Hunter, but it will need to keep up with the demand of significant renewable energy as well. The Hunter is very, very well placed. We already have a foot in the door on solar. We have had solar in the Upper Hunter for some time now. We have the expertise. The Prime Minister spoke during question time about the significant investment we are making in solar in the Hunter Valley. The experts who determine these things have come to the conclusion that the Upper Hunter is the second best geographical region in the country for geothermal energy. What a great opportunity for the Hunter. Wind-mapping done by New South Wales demonstrates that the Upper Hunter around Scone is, I think, the second best place in New South Wales for wind technology. These are big opportunities for the Hunter. Even if there are still some sceptics on the other side, they should ask themselves this: even if you do not believe in climate change, even if you do not believe in man's contribution, why is it that a number of big polluters continue to pump their pollution into the sky without charge but that when the member for Wentworth goes to the council tip with his box trailer, having done the clippings around his stately mansion, he has to pay the council for the right to dump that waste? Why is it that small business people in this country—and those who produce waste; maybe a plumber who ends up with significant waste at the end of a working day—have to pay the local council tip when they go to the dump yet the polluters continue to freely emit their pollution including carbon into the atmosphere? That is a distortion of the market and the government will remove that distortion and produce economic efficiencies in those markets. (Time expired)

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

Order! The discussion has concluded.