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

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

The imminent threat to Australian manufacturing posed by the Government's carbon tax.

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—

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

We heard the Prime Minister today talk about the challenges facing the manufacturing sector. You would think that, in acknowledging ever so briefly some of these challenges, she would not embark on a carbon tax that was going to send our manufacturing offshore and export our jobs. Alan Oster, the chief economist from the National Australia Bank, said that manufacturing is effectively in recession. Yet, with all this objective evidence the government is still indifferent to what a carbon tax will do to manufacturing.

In fact the Prime Minister was asked in this House earlier this month to nominate any representations she had received from a host of members on the other side relating the concerns and negative impacts that a carbon tax would have on local jobs and local manufacturing. What was really embarrassing was that she struggled and shuffled around, tellingly and frighteningly, and could not identify or point to a single discussion or a single piece of correspondence between any of them. In a desperation that continues the government's moral bankruptcy and disregard about Australian jobs and manufacturing, all they can resort to are cries of claiming that the coalition is running some sort of scare campaign. If you want to look at scare campaigns, all you have to look at are the apocalyptic warnings about global warming coming from the other side. We have the minister for climate change, after purchasing a million dollar coastal resort, recently feigning concern about rising sea levels, yet he has been buying a seaside mansion! You can just imagine him sucking in the seaside breeze, all of that fresh air, and telling all those poor little workers, those who put him there and gave him that profile, that they need to sacrifice their jobs so the Prime Minister can keep hers.

We had the scare campaign from the member for Corio during the last election saying that the coalition was going to take all this money away from Ford in Geelong and that jobs would be lost, knowing full well that was not the case. But where is the member for Corio when the workers in his electorate are demanding a voice in the Australian parliament? He is nowhere to be seen. All he does is go around the country slagging and bagging the opposition and refusing to stand up for the rights of and to note the anxiety of workers in his electorate. Where is the climate change minister, who has light and heavy industry and coal in his electorate? It was good enough for him to stand there shoulder to shoulder with the workers while trying to get a bit of publicity and increase his national profile when he wanted to get into parliament, but he has got to where he wanted to get—well, almost, as he wants to move further up those green benches. But all those workers are quite dispensable now because they got him into this parliament and he does not care, like so many other members on the other side. If they truly cared about manufacturing jobs and workers, they would have the courage to get out of that queue, the one that gives them a lobotomy, stop being zombies and actually stand up for the jobs of people in their electorates.

We have the member for Hunter, with all those coalmining jobs at risk, being silent. We have the member for Blaxland, who has manufacturing in his electorate, remaining absolutely silent. Surely he understands how important manufacturing is and not just to his portfolio of Defence. And the member for Melbourne Ports walks out because he knows he was next on the list. There is manufacturing in his electorate but what does he do? He remains silent. Where is the member for Chifley, the member for Kingsford Smith, the member for Throsby or the member for Cunningham? Where are they standing up for their local jobs?

All I can say is thank goodness there is some integrity left in the Labor Party albeit among recently departed members from this House. We had Jennie George, a former ACTU president and the member for Throsby, say: 'Local considerations rightly focus on the importance of the steel industry in underpinning our regional economy and providing jobs both direct and indirect. Constant references to the need to "tax the polluters" are superficial and facile by failing to acknowledge these benefits.' So when the government tries to run a scare campaign and when the government tries to diminish the opposition and belittle the arguments that we make we say: 'Fine, don't listen to what we say. Why don't you listen to what your own people say, what your own voters are saying, what your own union members are saying, what former members of the Labor Party are saying and what other trade unionists are saying?' We have had Paul Howes say that he will not support this carbon tax if a single job is lost in the steel industry—and we know that jobs will be lost in the steel industry. But where is he trying to force the Prime Minister to back down? He wanted to play the big man and be one of the faceless men to put the Prime Minister in, but I think he has been taking too many lessons from current members sitting in this House who occupied senior trade union positions but abandoned their basic responsibility to look after those people who thought that being a member of a union would give them some basic rights and would give them a voice in the political landscape in political debate in Australia. We have an almost empty House on that side and sitting in it a very morose current member for Throsby.

Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—

I would hang my head in shame if I were you. You strut around this place thinking you have made it and thinking you are some big shot but you are neglecting your basic responsibilities, you pathetic little man.

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

Order!

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

You abandoned all those workers.

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

The honourable member for Indi will resume her seat. I warn the honourable member for Indi. She has been making accusations in the direction of the chair, referring to 'you', 'you' and 'you'. In this place when you say 'you' you refer to me as the occupant of the chair. I now call the member for Indi. The microphone will be turned on because I have now given her the call once again.

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

My attentions were directed to the member for Throsby because he should hang his head in shame as a pathetic individual. He has turned his back on the workers in his electorate. He has turned his back on the unions that supported him. He should have the courage to walk down that corridor with the blue carpet up to the Prime Minister's office, knock on her door and say, 'Wake up to the concerns and anxieties of the people in my electorate.' But he will not do that because as we know, because Dougie Cameron told us, they have all gone down that path of having that special operation to become lobotomised zombies on the government benches. Why would the Prime Minister be going down this path? For one simple reason: she has sold her soul. She has fought all her political life to get to this point and she wants to hold on to it whatever the price. If the price is Australian manufacturing, so be it. If the price was getting rid of Kevin Rudd, the man she promised to support, last year, so be it. If she is prepared to sacrifice the base of Labor Party support, those trade union workers who are members of unions right across Australia and who form the backbone of our manufacturing sector, what moral bankruptcy reigns in the Labor Party of today. As Tony Sheldon from the Transport Workers Union said: '... it won't cost jobs. It will cost lives if there is not an appropriate approach by the government.' Somehow the government has tried to demonise those in the manufacturing sector, calling them polluters and the like. What they have not actually admitted is that we cannot have a modern economy without steel, without aluminium, without cement. Imposing a carbon tax will do only one thing: it will send those jobs offshore. It will send those businesses offshore to countries like China, which will create more emissions to make the things that we used to make. Those arguments seem to fall on deaf ears because political desperation has infected this government to such a point that nothing else matters. They are deaf to any reason, to any logic, to any compassion, to any vision for a country that makes things. Remember, there was a time when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister and he said he did not want to be Prime Minister of a nation that did not make things. The only thing that is being made by this government is an absolute mess, an absolute disaster without vision.

I for one, standing on this side of the House, do not want my country to be one that has relegated manufacturing to the dust bin. We have other former trade unionists on the other side who loved to get on TV every morning when a couple of unfortunate miners were stuck down a mine. They were salivating to get on TV. The member for Maribyrnong was thinking: 'This is great. I can get my face on TV. I hope those miners stay down that hole for a bit longer so I can get my bit of publicity.' In his maiden speech, which he quoted on his own website, he talked about lessons:

… the lessons of my family, the lessons of my education, the lessons of business, the lessons of my union days. All these lessons can be distilled into one phrase: never give up.

Well, this fraud has given up on those union members who put him there, as have so many of his colleagues sitting on the front bench. Why do they not have the courage of Labor members past to understand their basic responsibility to speak on behalf of those who do not have the political or economic power to get up and defend their jobs and defend manufacturing? It was that great Labor Party hero Kim Beazley Sr who said that when he was a member of the Labor Party it was 'full of the cream of the working class; now it contains the dregs of the middle class'. I am afraid to say that is too kind a description to explain the quality of the current members on the other side.

Worst of all, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is ignoring his constituents. One particular business, just a few doors down from his electorate office, was reported as saying: 'It's just the wrong way to go. It's unnecessary, it's unfair and it will hurt businesses like ours.' Did the minister care? Of course not, because he has his eye on the prize as well. The only question we need to ask is: how long will he keep the rest of the backbench suffering before he does the inevitable and taps the Prime Minister on the shoulder?

She is determined to proceed with a carbon tax in the mistaken belief that it will show her as a tough woman, a decisive woman, a woman who achieved something that Kevin Rudd did not achieve. She has certainly done that. She has had a record fall in the polls and, as long as she persists with this tax that destroys jobs and manufacturing, she will continue to break records in those polls. I am sure that will cause great concern to the members on the other side. Whether the fear of losing their seats will actually give them some encouragement to speak out remains to be seen, but I am afraid the quality on the other side does government in this country no justice.

When every single group involved in manufacturing, from one end of the country to the other, is telling the government, 'Do not kill our business; do not kill our industry; do not put food manufacturing at risk; do not risk our food security' what is the government saying? 'Oh, they are just scaremongering.' Ignoring the facts and ignoring rational debate, the government are bunkering down into a position where they have nowhere to go. The only place to go is to an election, but we know the government will not do that in the mistaken belief that if they can somehow tough it out and see it through they will survive.

I call on members of the other side: the member for Wakefield, the member for Port Adelaide, the member for Isaacs, who boasts that there is more manufacturing in his electorate than in the rest of Melbourne, the member for Bruce, the member for Gellibrand, the member for Bendigo, the members for Corangamite and Corio. Where are you when the people in your electorates are demanding a voice in this House? Their voice is loud. It is being heard by many on this side. It is being heard by industry. But you are neglecting them. That is the typical arrogance of the Labor Party aristocracy. They come here on the work and the sweat of workers to get their positions of power and then totally and utterly ignore them and the sectors in which they work. (Time expired)

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very grateful to have this opportunity to talk on this subject. I have just heard the member for Indi and if there is any person in this parliament who should be fighting hard for a price on carbon and who should be fighting for action on climate change, it is someone who represents a regional area. We have seen from those members who pretend to represent regional Australia total neglect of their interests. Where do you stand in relation to the carbon farming initiative? What about the fact that all of these renewable energy investments are going to land in regional Australia? What about those wind farms in Victoria—over 2,000 proposals for Victoria alone?

What really sticks in my craw is the bleating we hear from the other side about manufacturing and jobs. Where were they during the global financial crisis? They were asleep. That is where the Leader of the Opposition was. While we were busy saving 200,000 jobs, they were trying to deny the country that opportunity. They were not interested in manufacturing during the 12 years when they let infrastructure and skills slide in the country. They were nowhere to be seen. They were missing in action.

They claim they support manufacturing but their position on this issue shows they have abandoned the fundamental beliefs that they used to have in markets and rational economics. This embrace of irresponsible politics demonstrates what this is really all about. Why do they continually cry for an early election? Is that anything to do with this national interest that we are so vitally concerned about on this subject?

Are we getting a genuine debate on policy in this discussion? No, we are not. What we are getting is a short-term political objective on display for the nation to see. They want an early election because they know that in the long term, as these policy issues play out, the people of Australia will come to realise by 2013 that it is all nonsense, that the coalition's claims in relation to these issues are garbage and that the opposition leader is a fraud.

The government scheme intends not only to support manufacturers, because it will position them for the new economy that is coming down the pipe towards us, but also to provide generous household assistance and support for jobs as we shift to a low-pollution economy. It will also assist industry to tackle the climate change challenges that they face. As has been emphasised by other members of the government, if we do not have a price on carbon, if we do not position ourselves in this way, it is quite conceivable that we will face carbon price action against us by other countries that are doing their bit. They will not stand by and let Australia, which has such an emissions intensive economy, take no action and so we may start to see penalties imposed upon us that equate to border taxation adjustments on our exports. That would be catastrophic for manufacturing and industry in this country. That is what we are trying to avoid.

This policy will assist those companies that are emissions intensive and trade exposed. Through the CPRS network we did have a very substantial assistance package of up to 94.5 per cent for our most exposed industries. That assistance not only sends a price signal to those industries to reduce their carbon pollution but also, if it is in the form of free permits, provides actual assets. Businesses will have an opportunity to reduce their carbon emissions and to sell surplus permits. If they cannot reduce their emissions, there is a substantial level of shielding against carbon leakage.

We should remind ourselves of what substantial players in the investment market have to say about these critical issues. When we talk about the price of power going up, we are talking about the lack of investment in infrastructure in this country over a long period. There is no carbon price in place now—that is the only reason prices are going up. We know that, with the power challenges we will face in the future, we have to get busy on producing the new baseload generation that we need. There is no point going down the road of trying to build new coal-fired power stations—we know that is not the way forward. The only way to get the renewable energy investment that we need, and step-down technologies like gas, is to get a price in the market that enables those replacement technologies to happen.

I remind the chamber of what Mr Nathan Fabian, the chief executive of the Investor Group on Climate Change, had to say about the CPRS on Radio National in 2009. He spoke for some of Australia's major institutional investors, including super funds, insurance companies and private sector fund managers such as AMP Capital and Colonial First State, representing $500 billion in funds under management—the sort of money we need to drive investment in much-needed power infrastructure. In a Radio National interview on 28 May 2009 he said:

Our members are concerned about delays in the emissions trading scheme, they are concerned about the trajectory of the change in the economy between now and 2020 and beyond. And their view is that we should be smoothing the transition as much as possible, smoothing what is a significant adjustment in the economy, to spread the impact on their investments.

Our members would rather get going with the scheme.

Single digit earning impacts are expected for most of the emissions intensive trade exposed companies. And those figures reduce when the current compensation scheme—

the scheme that was associated with the CPRS—

is taken into account. So they are not overly concerned about short to medium term.

Our investors expect companies to plan, to spread risks and to manage a transition over the long term. Our investors can see that climate change is a long-term investment risk that they must manage. They feel that they’ve got no choice. Some of our investors are super funds that have a 20 to 40 year horizon for their members. Superannuants like you and I and they know that they must think about long term risks. Facing that reality, they want to start to manage the risks as soon as possible.

Fran Kelly asked:

So just finally then what’s your response to this delay we are seeing likely to occur now that the Coalition will delay the Bill?

He replied:

Yeah, well, that’s the concern, it’s curious to target for a high target in 2020—

a renewable energy target—

but a later start. Clearly that will lead to greater volatility in financial markets and we’ve just had a pretty serious experience of what that can be like to the economy.

That is a man and an industry that represents the sort of investment that this country needs, and a reference to the sort of support that manufacturing will need to generate the power that they will require in the new economy.

We also need innovation. New industries will be created by innovation when this new economy begins to arrive. Just recently in Israel I saw how innovation and skills in new technology serves an economy massively well. They were able to navigate the economic crisis very well and also were growing at five per cent a year prior to that crisis. Because of their investment in innovation and skills they have a diverse economy. We understand we have a patchwork economy that we are trying to deal with at the moment, and in support of our companies not only do we want to see this new economy driving new directions for industry but also we want to make sure that in dealing with their challenges they have the support they require—support through the funds raised through this scheme—to make the transitions they need to make. Also, with this investment, we will see the development of new industries that we can export and they can get involved in exporting and partnering with other companies in addressing those challenges. Probably the worst aspect of this whole debate has been the scare campaign that the coalition has been mounting. Mr Abbott is challenging Harold Egbert Camping—

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

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition—you are quite correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise. He has taken up the mantle of Harold Egbert Camping. He is not leading the coalition or the Liberal Party any more; he is leading the rapture party. Instead of 21 May, the end of the world is now going to land on 1 July 2012. There will be a great gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Blood will run in the streets. Cities will be not only damaged or destroyed but also wiped off the map entirely. So this catastrophe will descend upon us all. The rapture party behind him, claiming all these sorts of things, will be exposed for the fraud that it is once the carbon price is installed. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is scared about and he wants an early election because he knows the ground under his feet will completely disappear when the carbon price is introduced.

This carbon price was part of Labor policy before the last election. We have always said that we would begin an emissions trading scheme via the introduction of a carbon price. That has always been part of the government's policy and that is where we are heading now. We are heading towards the introduction of an emissions trading scheme by introducing the carbon price as a first step. That is absolutely essential to drive the deep economic reform that we require.

We all know that the member for Wentworth supports this. We certainly know that the member for Flinders supports this because we have seen some of his comments in his previous research papers claiming this was the way to go. We have also seen comments that eventually the inaction plan of the coalition will cost $30 billion. We have also heard the coalition's claims about the Carbon Farming Initiative. They are concerned about the impact of this policy on arable land when we know that their inaction policy will require 20 million hectares to be planted to achieve their objectives—that is 63 per cent of the available landmass of Australia. Their scheme would wipe out arable land if it is brought into effect. I know our farmers will be deeply concerned about that and it is why the National Farmers' Federation supports the government's Carbon Farming Initiative and does not support the coalition's inaction plan.

The coalition's inaction plan is a total fraud. They say that they support and believe the science but they do not. This is go-away money. They say that they are committed to a five per cent reduction in emissions, but they know that their policy will not achieve that. The thing we should be pointing out as well is that five per cent is where they intend to stop. The government's policy is to move to a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. We have to achieve those reductions in the longer term. The coalition would stop at five per cent and that would be the end of the story. They have no ambitions to go any further than that. We have to keep that economic dynamic moving beyond 2020 to achieve the reductions that the world needs. The fraud should be exposed: they have no intention of taking their action any further.

I could say no better words than what the journalist Ross Gittins had to say in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 May when he talked about the Leader of the Opposition's policy:

I don't like using the L-word, but Tony Abbott is setting new lows in the lightness with which he plays with the truth. He blatantly works both sides of the street, nodding happily in the company of climate-change deniers, but in more intellectually respectable company professing belief in human-caused global warming, his commitment to reducing carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and the efficacy of his no-offence policies.

He grossly exaggerates the costs involved in a carbon tax, telling business audiences they'll have to pay the lot and be destroyed by it, while telling the punters business will pass all the costs on to them. He forgets to mention that most of the proceeds from the tax will be returned as compensation to businesses and households.

He repeats the half-truth that nothing Australians could do by themselves would reduce global emissions, while failing to correct the punters' … belief that Australia is the only country contemplating action.

We know that is the truth, as we have seen the coalition's own colleagues in the UK and New Zealand moving forward with far more ambitious objectives. David Cameron said that the UK government's significant 50 per cent reduction target:

… will position the UK as a leading player in the global low-carbon economy, creating significant new industries and jobs.

Furthermore, the Confederation of British Industry has welcomed that government’s position by saying:

With the green economy potentially bringing in £200 billion—

approximately AU$305 billion—

of investment into the UK’s energy sector alone, we need policies that will foster growth by decarbonising our energy supply, increase energy efficiency and support the competitiveness of our manufacturing base.

So business and the Conservative government in the UK obviously have more sense of the realities of the new economies arriving in this world than the Leader of the Opposition. Professor Garnaut also said:

There was for a while in the twentieth century a great contest of ideas, about whether market-based or regulatory approaches to managing the economy were more conducive to economic welfare. The regulatory approach went under the name of 'central planning'.

… … …

Picking a few areas of action and seeking to reduce costs through encouraging competitive approaches in those narrow areas is a variation on a regulatory theme. For those of us who remember the Berlin wall and, heaven forbid, Tito's Yugoslavia, it is the Yugoslav variant of central planning.

Given that they are the rapture party I would like to remind them of the words of Jeremiah 5:21:

Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear—

The debate is over. The time to act is now. Do not leave a legacy of failure for future generations for which you will be eternally condemned. (Time expired)

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a sad day it is when the formerly formidable member for Eden-Monaro has had the surgery as well. They have hidden the scars, but he has become just another zombie as he walks out of this chamber now. He stood up for his clubs in the fight over poker machines, but they got to him in the last two weeks. It is a tragedy to see the formerly formidable member for Eden-Monaro come in here and just parrot the party lines. One of his last references was to the promise of new green jobs. I say to the member for Eden-Monaro as he leaves the chamber: try going to the bank manager tomorrow and getting a new home loan on the back of a job that the Labor Party and the Greens have promised you in the future. You will get laughed out of the bank.

It is with a great deal of sadness that I contribute to this matter of public importance debate to discuss the adverse impacts on the manufacturing sector of the Gillard Labor government's proposed carbon tax. It is sadness not only for the jobs of hardworking Australians, particularly in regional areas which are being put at risk by this government, but also for the slow and lingering death of the Australian Labor Party under the Julia Gillard prime ministership. We really need to ask how it all came to this. The Labor Party actually used to stand for something. It used to stand up for the workers, or so it claimed. Now they come in here like meek, little mice, who would not dare squeak their concerns on any issue. We need to ask: what happened to the light on the hill? The light is going out and it is probably because of the carbon tax. The only way to get ahead in the modern Labor Party is to come into this place, sit down, shut up and vote the way the party tells you to vote.

The member for Indi talked about the zombie-like presentations from members opposite, as they are forced not to think for themselves but to just parrot the party lines. When we walk through the doors of Parliament House of a morning, we see members from the Labor Party sticking to the script, using the lines from the focus groups. When it comes to the carbon tax, we can see the clear lines they have been told to use. 'You always have to talk about dangerous climate change—

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's true.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is true that you have to talk about dangerous climate change. It is in the key messages every day; I know that. 'Don't forget to mention the thousand biggest polluters. Get that in there if you can. You get the elephant stamp if you get this one right: if you can get the thousand biggest polluters, dangerous climate change and the dirty coal fired power stations in the one grab, you are ministerial material.' You are on the way to the top! People of regional Australia, people employed in the manufacturing sector, have had an absolute gutful of the way this government are vilifying hardworking Australians who just happen to work for those nasty thousand biggest polluters. Those thousand biggest polluters happen to be some of the biggest employers in this country. Every time they vilify those people, those opposite do themselves an enormous discredit amongst the Australian people.

It has not always been this way. The Labor Party used to stand up for workers. I give the example of the former member for Throsby, Jennie George. I did not always agree with everything Jennie had to say, but at least she had some personal integrity when she stood up to say something in this place. She tried to stand up for the workers who sent her here. Today in the Australian she called for the steel industry to be kept out of the carbon tax until similar regimes are operating in competitor countries. She said:

... I think Australians would agree we have to have a viable domestic steelmaking industry in Australia.

That is hardly a revolutionary thought from a former union boss but it has come as a bolt from the blue for many of those opposite. Ms George wants us to wait until competitor nations have an impost on steel before we introduce such a tax. Why will more members of the modern-day Labor Party not be honest with the Australian people? Why will they not acknowledge that any policy that puts Australian manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage will cost Australia jobs? It will add to the cost of living for households and it will undermine the national economy.

In the last 12 months, I had the bizarre experience on my local ABC radio station when they invited me on to have a chat and have a debate with a union boss. I will not name the union boss for the sake of his own credibility—what is left of it.

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

Go on.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. So John Parker from the union gets on the radio and talks about the need for a transitional package, a structural adjustment package, a household assistance program. He had all the Labor buzzwords—maybe they are sending them out to the Latrobe Valley power station unions as well—but he did not say anything about power station workers whose jobs he is meant to be fighting for in the first place.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It won't guarantee jobs.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will not guarantee their jobs. The Latrobe Valley power station workers who talk to me do not want a household assistance package. They want the decency of a job and that is the simple fact that this Labor Party fail to recognise. I have repeatedly challenged the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to be honest with the people of my electorate and undertake a cost-benefit analysis and report back to the community on what the impact of this carbon tax is going to be. Everyone recognises that the people of the Latrobe Valley will be in the firing line and likely to be the most adversely affected by this policy. The government cannot expect the families and the workers in the Latrobe Valley to support this tax if the government do not have the honesty to explain to them what the costs and the alleged benefits are going to be. That is a reasonable position I have put to the minister for climate change on many occasions and he is yet to provide any guarantee to power station workers in the Latrobe Valley.

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

Send us a copy of your direct action flyer.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton has woken up. If he cannot tell people how their jobs will be affected under this government's carbon tax, why would anyone vote for it. Labor's response is to say that members on this side are scaremongering, that we do not know what we are talking about. How do they respond to industry concerns? Industries like BlueScope Steel have concerns. In relation to a carbon tax, on 28 February this year, chief executive of BlueScope Steel, Paul O'Malley, said:

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

He further said:

... the policy framework at the moment is wrong. It seems to be captured by people who don't care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia, and you just wonder whether there is an anti-manufacturing focus in Australia and that people want jobs to go offshore.

Suddenly, the member for Moreton is silent. Manufacturing is important in Gippsland. We are renowned for the power stations in the Latrobe Valley, which will also be adversely affected by this government's plans. We also have a manufacturing sector which provides more than 5,000 jobs across 465 businesses. Businesses like Gippsland aviation, National Foods in Morwell and Patties Foods in Bairnsdale all have very high energy costs and will take a hit under the carbon tax. Another significant employer in my electorate is Murray Goulburn. The dairy industry does not get talked about much in this place, but it is one of the largest exporters in Victoria and it produces 65 per cent of Australia's milk across 4½ thousand dairy farms. It might be useful for members opposite to start listening to what some of Australia's major manufacturers are saying. During an interview on ABC Radio about the carbon tax, Murray Goulburn's Manager of Industry and Government Affairs, Robert Poole, said:

A carbon tax in Australia doesn't influence the world market price. As everyone should know milk prices in Australia are predominantly driven by that. The price in the international dairy market, including Australia, isn't going to change because of a carbon tax. Therefore any costs that it ... imposes we have to wear and that means our farmers have to wear them.

He further said:

We don't want our international competitiveness reduced through a tax at this stage ... We don't see that's going to help the environment and don't see how that will help us as a major contributor to the Australian economy.

The United Dairy Farmers of Victoria have expressed similar concerns and they have tried to bring them to the attention of government. The member for Eden-Monaro was in the House earlier talking about compensation for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. Individual dairy farmers will not benefit from any compensation package under this government. We know that, the government know that and dairy farmers know that as well. UDV president, Chris Griffin said:

Calculations by our organisation indicate that a $20 carbon price would cost the dairy industry over $45 million per annum. This would work out to a $5000 charge for each Australian dairy farm per year.

The biggest concern of all though remains with the fundamental breach of trust between this government and the Australian people. On this point, the Labor Party has simply nowhere to hide. On 20 August last year we had this news clipping from the Australian: 'PM's carbon price promise'—here it is in full colour—and the Prime Minister says, 'I rule out a carbon tax.'

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you read that again?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'I rule out a carbon tax.' That is what the Prime Minister had to say to the Australian people on the eve of the last election. Australians could not trust this Prime Minister before the election and they cannot trust her today when it comes to their jobs. Anything less than taking this back to the Australian people will perpetuate the fraud that this Labor Party has become. It is a government based on a lie and it is addicted to spin, which is completely out of touch with the hopes and the aspirations of regional communities.

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

In his reply to the budget speech we saw the Leader of the Opposition make an unusual declaration of love. It is a recent declaration of love, a recent affection for the manufacturing workers of this country. Since he made that very public and not entirely credible declaration of love for the manufacturing workers of this country, he has been running around the country like a speed dater attempting to secure some affection from those he professes to stand for. It has been a pretty crowded space, because we see that the member for Indi has jettisoned her previous position in relation to this particular sector and has also joined the Leader of the Opposition in declaring her love and affection for this particular group of workers in the manufacturing industry.

The reason it lacks credibility is that it does not sit very well—in fact, it sits uneasily—with their record on manufacturing jobs and rights for manufacturing workers when they were in government. That is right. It sits very unwell with their track record of looking after manufacturing workers and manufacturing jobs when they were in office. Under their watch and in the government of which the shadow spokesperson, the member for Indi, was a member, we saw the loss of 10,000 manufacturing jobs and the closure of literally thousands of plants, and there was not a squeak in their defence from those on the other side of the chamber. Where were they? What were they doing in defence of those manufacturing workers? I can tell you what they were doing. They were introducing the Work Choices legislation. I can guarantee you that, as the Leader of the Opposition continues on his speed-dating trip around the country, there are a few coalmines that he will not be visiting. They are the coalmines in the Hunter—and I see the member for Capricornia in the chamber—and some of the coalmines in the member for Capricornia's electorate, where workers were being stood down under the previous government's Work Choices legislation for taking action to defend their jobs and to defend job security. They were amongst the hundreds of thousands of workers in this country who lost rights to secure their jobs under the Work Choices legislation. So it is a pretty hard ask for the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Indi to walk out to some of those workplaces and say: 'Forget what we did. Forget the fact that when we were in government we did everything we possibly could to undermine your job security. We want you to forget all of that. Forget the sins of the past because we have a newfound affection for jobs in your industries.' It is not only the sins of the past, because if they are elected to the Treasury benches we can only assume that they will make good their promise to slash assistance to the manufacturing industry. They have a very confused position on this issue.

In debates earlier today in this chamber we saw the member for Fadden making the extraordinary claim that somehow those of us on this side of the chamber were kowtowing to the unions and were in the unions' pockets when we advanced legislation to secure the rights of workers and their retirement savings. Then, in debates later in the day, they say that we have ignored those of our constituency whom we seek to represent. Theirs is a confused position indeed.

What is more confused than that is the confusion that we see from the Leader of the Opposition. He has made this new declaration of love for the manufacturing workers of this country, but in the wake of that declaration there are a few jilted lovers out there.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of relevance—

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

There is no point of order, because this is a wide-ranging debate. The member for Indi will resume her seat. The member for Throsby has the call.

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

There are some jilted lovers out there. They include all those who took heart when the member for Warringah spoke on the PM radio program on 16 November 2007. This is the member who has been running around the country trying to whip up fear amongst manufacturing workers and other workers in this country. This is the bloke who proposes to have a newfound affection for workers in this country. He said, 'The best protection for the worker who feels that he or she may be under pressure at his job is the chance of getting another job'—that is, hump your bluey and move to another place down the road. This is the bloke who professes to have a deep concern about the job security concerns of workers in this country. Amongst the other jilted lovers will be those of the HR Nicholls Society. They took great heart, at their 2001 conference, when the now Leader of the Opposition said:

One of the most important Howard Government policies has been the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements …

This is the Howard government policy which saw the reduction in job protection rights contained within awards and agreements for literally thousands of manufacturing workers around the country and workers in the coalmining industry. These were the protections that their AWA policies wilfully did away with.

So there are a few jilted lovers, like those in the HR Nicholls Society, but there are also a few confused members on the opposition bench. They get confused when they listen to the Leader of the Opposition and think that his current professions of love and affection are inconsistent with— (Quorum formed). The calling of a quorum shows that they are trying to gag debate and that they have a glass jaw when it comes to criticism.

It is a ridiculous debate we are currently engaged in because, if you look at the supposed policies of the competing parties on this issue, we have the same targets. We have the same targets for renewable energy and we have the same targets for reducing our carbon emissions. The only thing that is different between our side of politics and theirs is how you reach those targets. There is a smart way and a dumb way and their way is the dumb way. (Time expired)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a manufacturing business called Vicpole in Bayswater on the edge of my electorate. It is a very successful business which has been manufacturing for over 20 years now. It manufactures street poles, street bollards and other street furniture. It employs about 40 people, many of whom have been working in the firm for 12 years or more. Alan Vickery, the Managing Director of Vicpole, says that after 20 years of operation, due to the impact of the carbon tax, he may have to cease manufacturing and start importing instead, the same as all his competitors do. He says:

The proposed carbon tax could be very damaging for Vicpole. What concerns me is that we've got 40 employees working for Vicpole who depend on the fact that we are competitive when we make our poles in Australia.

He goes on to say:

… I can't build in a measure to counter a 20% price increase when my competitors don't have that same cost.

He concludes by saying:

It would not be the end of Vicpole, but it would be the end of the 40 jobs. There would be no requirement to have 40 employees to unload containers.

In this instance, we have a small- to medium-sized manufacturer who will be put in great jeopardy due to the Prime Minister's carbon tax. Jobs will be lost, potentially 40 jobs—40 good workers who have been loyal to this firm for over 10 years. And emissions will probably go up as a result.

I raise this particular business to show that in order to determine the impacts of a carbon tax on business you would need to look at the individual enterprise level and the impacts that the tax will have on that individual enterprise. It is all very well to have grandiose models which suggest that X, Y or Z might be happening, but you have to look at the enterprise level to determine what the impact on that enterprise will be from the imposition of a carbon tax. In this instance, the impact will be 40 jobs on the line.

Vicpole is not the only manufacturing business like this in Australia or even in my own electorate. There are many small- and medium-sized manufacturers operating at global best practice level, both in their operations and in their emissions intensity, who will be hit by this carbon tax and who will be reduced in size and have to lay off workers as a result. None of these small and medium-sized enterprises will receive compensation. All will face increased costs. All will face competitive disadvantage against imports on which there is no carbon tax. Therefore all will face pressure on jobs—and for what impact? Will Australian emissions go down as a result of that? Yes, in part—if an enterprise goes out of business and stops manufacturing, that business will produce fewer emissions. It will produce fewer emissions if businesses close down. The government has got that right. But when you actually look at it at a global level, which is what is important, emissions will frequently go up globally because our manufacturers in Australia often have better emissions intensity than our competitors do, certainly in China. And of course you have to add to that the extra emissions resulting from transportation.

This is the ridiculousness of the carbon tax, as even some on the Labor side now acknowledge: if you put a tax on our manufacturing in a context where there is no tax on competitor imports, you will simply cost Australian jobs and have no impact on global emissions. Indeed, you may increase global emissions. This is the farce. I invite the member for La Trobe and the member for Deakin to come with me to the manufacturing belts in Bayswater—some of it overlaps into their electorates—and explain to the manufacturers the impact that the carbon tax will have on them and their employees.

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

I will come with you.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Indi has kindly agreed to join us as well, so potentially we can have a team of four going. I invite them to come with me, even to visit Vicpole, as soon as possible. The implementation of the carbon tax would be bad enough if the situation for Australian manufacturers were not so dire in the first place. Close to 90,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last three years alone. That is 550 jobs lost each and every week. One in 12 workers in the manufacturing sector in Australia has lost their job in the last three years. Despite manufacturing being under significant pressure—it is declining and jobs are being lost and it is suffering from the high Australian dollar and higher interest rates, compared to overseas countries—the government seeks to make things worse.

And of course they come into this place and have the temerity to say that the carbon tax is actually all about jobs. Almost day in and day out the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have had the temerity to come into this place and say that the carbon tax is actually all about creating jobs.

An opposition member: It is about imaginary jobs.

Exactly. They are imaginary jobs in their own imagination. In fact the only jobs they appear to be interested in are their own.

Are so many manufacturing businesses wrong when they say that the carbon tax is going to hurt them. Are they simply not listening to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer when they say that this tax is actually about job creation. I do not think so. I do not think that Kate Carnell from the Australian Food and Grocery Council is incorrect when she says:

For Julia Gillard to say that food companies who aren't in the top 1,000 emitters won't be affected by a carbon tax is simply wrong.

I do not think Kate Carnell is incorrect in saying that. And I do not think Manufacturing Australia is incorrect when it says:

… it tolls the death knell for manufacturing in Australia. It represents the introduction of a multi-billion dollar tax that will impact on every Australian financially, far in excess of the capacity of many businesses and everyday Australians to pay.

I do not think they are wrong in saying that. And I do not think that Paul Howes is wrong when he says:

Carbon pricing could be the straw that breaks the camel's back as far as (some) industries are concerned.

I do not think he is wrong in that regard. I could go on. The chairman of BlueScope Steel says:

Why is (the government) prepared to sacrifice a key sector of the Australian economy by introducing a carbon tax on Australian manufacturers, with little impact on world CO2 generation?

I invite the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the climate change minister, the industry minister and, indeed, all members on the other side of this House to listen to the words of those industry leaders and to the words of the union leaders, who have been supporting them to date. These industry leaders, and Paul Howes, are not wrong. They know of the impacts a carbon tax would have on their businesses. They know it will cost jobs. They know it will have very, very little impact, if any, on global emissions. They also know, like every Australian, that no matter what the carbon tax starts at—whether it is $15, $20 or $25 a tonne—that will just be the beginning. Over time it will continue to go up and go up and go up.

Let us not forget that this carbon tax has no mandate. None of us will ever forget that. It was introduced on the basis of a lie. The day before the election last year the Prime Minister went to the Australian public and said there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. Each of us in this House knows that, had she been honest on that day and said that there would be a carbon tax under a government that she leads, she would not be Prime Minister today. We all know that. The tax is being introduced on the basis of a lie. It has no mandate. It is going to affect our manufacturers right across Australia, including in my own electorate of Aston. We call on the Prime Minister to call an election to get a mandate if she honestly believes this is the answer for the manufacturing sector. (Time expired)

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Aston was not in this place during the Howard years, so he therefore might not be aware of the fact that, during those years, manufacturing business after manufacturing business shut their doors—certainly in my electorate they shut their doors—and turned to importing. But he should recall the fact that, during the global financial crisis, the opposition was utterly missing in action and refused to support Labor's stimulus package measures which were responsible for the ongoing employment of thousands of workers around Australia in areas like building and construction. I have been to school after school in my electorate and seen the way in which the Building the Education Revolution projects protected jobs, protected employment, during the time of the global financial crisis. If those opposite had had their way, manufacturing in this country would have declined dramatically and we would have seen unemployment levels of the same order that the United States and European countries are wrestling with, instead of the under five per cent unemployment which we have been able to deliver in Australia.

The member for Aston expresses concern on behalf of one of his local businesses that employs, I think he said, 40 people. I do note that there are many solar PV businesses in New South Wales which are now going out of business as a consequence of the New South Wales O'Farrell government's retrospective action concerning feed-in tariffs—action which was in breach of the New South Wales government's election commitments. The member for Aston might have some credibility if he were also to express some concern about the fate of those New South Wales solar PV businesses.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

The member for Riverina interjects.

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

The member for Wills will not respond to the interjection from the member from Riverina.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He also interjected on the member for Throsby, saying, 'It's not if we're elected but when we're elected.' I thought that interjection highly revealing. Those opposite should not take the Australian people for granted.

It is quite remarkable that the Leader of the Opposition now keeps popping up around Australia crying crocodile tears over the future of manufacturing and what he alleges will occur under a carbon price. So the Liberal Party has discovered manufacturing. The Leader of the Opposition stood by and watched thousands of manufacturing jobs go overseas when he was a minister in the Howard government. Furthermore, he supported laws to take away unfair dismissal protection from millions of workers. He attacks the mining tax. That will help manufacturing by lowering the company tax rate and taxes on small business. The Leader of the Opposition says he has a plan to tackle climate change. It turns out that that plan will cost taxpayers more than $30 billion, according to the department of climate change analysis. Furthermore, he has no plan to invest in the technology programs which are necessary to create new jobs and which are a feature of this government under the minister for industry, Senator Carr. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition has a policy to cut over $500 million from the car industry. It is a shame. It is a disgrace. It will be highly damaging to motor vehicle manufacturing in this country if he were given that opportunity or, according to the member for Riverina, when he is given that opportunity. By way of contrast, the Labor government has been supporting the car industry through important green initiatives.

In September last year, the government announced an investment of $63 million to bring production of Toyota's next generation four-cylinder engine for the Camry and Hybrid Camry to Australia. The grant will be used to install cutting-edge plant equipment. It will lead to a dramatic expansion and renewal of capacity at Toyota's engine plant in Altona, Victoria. This is a substantial investment in Australian manufacturing and a substantial step towards creating an economically and environmentally sustainable automotive industry. It will help anchor Toyota's operations in Australia for years to come. This decision shows tremendous confidence in Australia's innovative automotive sector and the capabilities of our suppliers and workers, including the 320 employees at Toyota's Altona engine plant.

The new petrol engines built on the line will consume 4½ per cent less fuel and produce five per cent fewer greenhouse emissions than today's equivalent engine. This will cut carbon pollution by up to 20,000 tonnes a year. This locally produced hybrid engine, an Australian first, will consume just six litres of petrol per 100 kilometres and emit 142 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre—a really big breakthrough indeed. The Perth company, Orbital Australia, was awarded a grant last year to develop greener engine technology for the Chinese auto maker Changan Automobile. Changan is China's fourth largest auto maker, and a partnership with them is an important development in deepening ties with what is now the world's largest auto-making company. It is a project which supports jobs and reduces harmful emissions on the world's roadways.

The Australian automotive industry has a vital role to play in developing innovative systems and components for green cars worldwide. I point out to the House that the carbon price, which the opposition are of course highly excited about, will apply only to the biggest polluters in our economy—fewer than 1,000. They will be required to pay for every tonne of pollution they emit. This is, as many studies have shown and many experts have pointed out, the most effective and cheapest way for us to build a clean energy economy. All of the revenue from a carbon price will be used to provide households with fair and generous assistance to support jobs in the most affected industries and to invest in clean energy. Bringing down carbon pollution levels is critically important to our children's future. It is about ensuring that they have a healthy environment to live in and new high-skilled jobs for their work. Taking action on climate change is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for our economy, the right thing for employment, the right thing for the environment. It is true that taking action is tough but we are not going to shirk this responsibility. In order to support jobs and compete in the next century—a century which will be increasingly characterised by a move towards clean energy and the technology of the future—we need to act now on climate change.

Frankly, all we get from those opposite is rank opportunism, denial of basic scientific facts and denial of basic economic facts. The government is very mindful of the position of the manufacturing industry, given the high Australian dollar and rising commodity prices. I want to point out to the House some of the initiatives of Senator Carr, who is extremely well regarded right around the manufacturing world. Senator Carr understands that innovation is the key for our manufacturers to remain sustainable and internationally competitive and to make the move to a low emissions economy. We have a 10-year innovation agenda called Powering Ideas and have established Commer­cialisation Australia to help commercialise new research and intellectual property. We formed eight industry innovation councils to champion innovation in industry and introduced the R&D tax credit to make it easier for manufacturers to invest in new competitive products. Initiatives like the New Car Plan for a Greener Future and the textile, clothing and footwear innovation package are encouraging investment and the introduction of new technologies. We are ensuring that Australian manufacturers have access to major investment projects, global supply chains and opportunities through the Australian Industry Participation National Framework and through the appointment of supplier advocates in key sectors. Australia suppliers will also have a better chance of benefiting from the nation's resources projects through a $34 million Buy Australian at Home and Abroad initiative.

Furthermore, the government is devel­oping long-term strategies through the book industry strategy group, the printing industry working group and the food-processing industry strategy group that will increase the productivity, sustainability and compet­itiveness of these industries. This is the hard work, this is the heavy lifting which sets up Australian manufacturing well for the forthcoming century, a century in which we will be challenged by the need to reduce our carbon emissions. This is doing the hard yards rather than the cheap opportunism of those opposite who have no solutions and no ideas about manufacturing. They did not have any ideas for manufacturing when they were in government. They do not have any ideas for manufacturing now that they are in opposition. All they are interested in is seeking to score political points at the expense of real necessary action.

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

Order! The discussion is now concluded.