Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor-Green government has no mandate to introduce the carbon tax legislation—I make that point very clearly. A number of days before the last election the Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' She made a statement that was unequivocal, definite and deliberate. She should be held to account and held to that statement.

The coalition's position on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and associated bills is abundantly clear: we will vote against it. The next election will be a referendum on the carbon tax legislation. It will be a referendum for people to decide whether they want a carbon tax or not. If elected, we will rescind the legislation and scrap the carbon tax.

The carbon tax needs to be seen in context. We are talking about a $9 billion a year new tax that, prior to the last election, the Prime Minister said she would not have. We are talking about a 10 per cent increase in electricity prices alone, a nine per cent increase in gas prices in the first year, higher marginal tax rates for middle-income earners and, ironically, a hit to the budget bottom line of over $4 billion.

All this is on top of the current track record of the Labor government. As a statement of fact, since 2007, when Prime Minister Rudd's government, and subsequently the Gillard-Greens government, came to power, electricity prices have increased by 51 per cent, gas prices have increased by 30 per cent, water and sewerage prices have increased by an average of 46 per cent, health costs have increased by 20 per cent, education costs have increased by 24 per cent and rent has increased by 20 per cent. These are simple statements of fact about increased costs under this government.

What is even more disturbing is the fact that the Productivity Commission has clearly stated that no other country on the face of the globe is bringing in either an economy-wide carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. The United States has completely and utterly abandoned the idea of a carbon tax. The European ETS is raising something like $500 million over about nine years; yet this carbon tax is looking to raise $9 billion in the first year alone. China's emissions growth of seven billion tonnes from 2005 to 2020 will be 100 times Australia's decrease of 70 million tonnes as predicated on the government's own numbers.

If indeed climate change is a global phenomenon and a global problem, it will need a global solution to deal with the 1.3 per cent of emissions which are apparently causing the change in climate. Unless there is a global agreement, our reducing emissions by 70 million tonnes while at the same time China increases its emissions by 100 times that amount will not make the slightest difference—no difference at all.

The EU have a population of over 500 million. Their scheme is raising about $1 per person per year. Australia's population is a little over 22 million, and the government's proposed scheme will raise $400 per person per year. In short, Australia's carbon tax is 400 times more imposing, more onerous and more taxing on a per capita basis than the European scheme.

India now accounts for 4.9 per cent of global emissions, and this figure is rising commensurate with their phenomenal economic growth. Projecting forward, the ANU has stated that Indian emissions from fuel combustion alone will rise between 75 per cent to 94 per cent from 2005 to 2020. The Prime Minister continued her campaign of distortion when she said that in India they are taking national action on pricing carbon through a clean energy tax on coal. Their coal tax is $1 a tonne, while, in my home state of Queensland, the state royalty on coal is $20 per tonne.

The bottom line is that the world is not acting. Yet Australia is now looking to act unilaterally—alone—apparently holding itself up as an example but in reality looking to destroy its own economy one step at a time. Be in no doubt: the government's scheme is all pain and there will be no gain. If climate change is a global problem, it requires global action. Our acting unilaterally will not achieve anything. The government's own modelling shows that emissions will not decrease in Australia. Indeed, from 2012 to 2020, emissions will increase from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes. Our economy will go through massive pain for no environmental gain while by 2020 China increases its output by 100 times what it was in 2005. This begs the question: why is this government so fanatically walking down the path of wealth redistribution? It is interesting that $3.5 billion in carbon tax revenue will be spent on buying carbon credits from overseas. It is almost as if it is a get-rich-quick scheme for overseas carbon traders.

The coalition believes there is a better way. We believe that our direct action plan will protect the environment now and into the future and have direct, tangible, measurable environmental benefits. We are committed to addressing the risk of climate change and we are committed to reducing emissions by five per cent by 2020. The difference between us and the government is that the government believes that a massive tax and a massive spate of wealth distribution will achieve this objective while we believe that simple, tangible, direct environmental actions—incentives, rather than hurting families and the economy—is the answer.

We believe we can clean up a range of power stations that are considered some of the dirtiest in the world. We believe that we can replenish soil carbon as well as increase the yield of crops. We believe that we can establish a green army to make tangible differences to our environment and land. We believe in simple things: we can plant 20 million more trees and invest in technology that leads to the greatest abatement at the lowest cost. Most importantly, we will fully fund all this out of savings—which, considering this government's waste and reckless spending, will frankly not be all that difficult. This will provide a great opportunity for our nation. Under Labor's scheme, $9 billion will be taxed and there is nothing companies can do in many areas to escape from it. A company in my own electorate, Digga, the largest exporter of commercial gearboxes in Australia and one of the largest producers in the world of drill bits, especially high-torque drill bits, a company which has done everything to reduce emissions and runs state-of-the-art manufacturing plants, uses a lot of power for heat treatment and uses heat treatment firms to provide support—there is nothing more this company can do to drive efficiencies and productivity. It has some of the finest electronic, digital and robotic cutting, welding and connecting gear of any manufacturing plant in the country. This company, Digga, will be hit by greater costs of electricity to the tens of thousands of dollars and there is nothing it can do because it has already invested substantial amounts of money in becoming the most efficient manufacturing company it can be. In this global export market, the high Australian dollar is hurting it. It is driven towards efficiency and productivity by virtue of competing in that space and by virtue of being a great Australian manufacturing firm.

All this carbon tax will do is to hurt manufacturing companies like Digga which are already doing it tough in a competitive market place where wages are exponentially higher, where the Australian dollar makes exporting exponentially more difficult and this carbon tax will make business exponentially harder. Companies like Digga may, perhaps, be faced with the only other way of dealing with productivity, which is laying off staff to deal with the extra cost impositions from this government.

Be under no doubt: this tax is designed to change the way our economy works and to make life difficult for families. The average starting cost per household under Labor's carbon tax is $515 in the first year alone, rapidly increasing over time to $37 a tonne in 2020—that will be a 60 per cent increase in the taxation rate. No wonder the Treasurer was forced to admit that they cannot guarantee that no-one will be worse off.

Beyond the cost to families, and using Digga as a further example, this tax will cost jobs, businesses and the economy. You cannot raise $27 million over three years without the economy taking a substantial hit. An Access Economics report highlighted the potential loss of 126,000 regional jobs under an earlier version of Labor's scheme. Australia's 750,000 small businesses will receive no direct compensation for the massive jump in electricity prices from the carbon tax. What do I say to my local drycleaner at Helensvale when their power bill goes up by $1,500? How does a local drycleaner use less electricity? How does a local drycleaner become more efficient under this punitive tax? Can someone please explain that to me? And how do they explain to their staff the changes they are required to make because of what the government is bringing in?

What is particularly vexing about this tax is not just that it is punitive and based on an egregious lie made before the last election, with categorical statements such as, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—as if they were not vexing enough; what is particularly galling is that it will not make a difference to the climate. Our emissions will continue to rise. Tim Flannery, the Australian government's Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission, on MTR Radio on 25 March said it all:

I just need to clarify in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

All the pain today—and Professor Tim Flannery, who this government holds up as its guru on climate change, says it will not make a difference for a thousand years.

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

But it will send emissions overseas, Member for Sydney. It will export emissions from industries like the cement industry, which cannot cut emissions and cannot become more efficient. As the steel industry closes down in Australia, companies will start up overseas to meet demand. Do you think they will have the same degree of environmental regulation overseas as companies do here? The perversity is that it will export emissions and actually make the situation worse.

Look at Labor's great mantra in terms of compensation. Labor claims families will be compensated for the price impact of a carbon tax. They said initially that the entire proceeds of the carbon tax would be returned to individuals and households. This of course was changed by the government to 50 per cent of carbon tax revenues would go to households as compensation for families. If you have a family, you are a manufacturing worker in one of our factories and married to someone who works for the local drycleaner, you will be worse off. The Leader of the Opposition has used the example of a policeman married to a part-time nurse—they will be worse off. Those working in the small-business sector of the Gold Coast—the small-business heart of Australia with more small businesses per capita than any other commensurate city—will all be worse off.

Small business accounts for 47 per cent of our economy and they will be worse off. Fifty per cent of businesses employ no-one—they are aspirational mums and dads, having a go, and they will be worse off. Before the last election our erstwhile Treasurer, the member for Lilley said:

… certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax … We certainly reject that.

Let me say to the Treasurer that the only thing hysterical currently within the parliament is a series of 18 to 19 bills that will seek to impose upon the economy, upon families, massive hikes and massive increases that will destroy jobs and will have no impact on the climate nor change temperatures for 1,000 years. That, Treasurer, is the only thing hysterical today.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of these bills, which give effect to important parts of the government's Clean Energy Future plan. I would like to make four points about this plan. The first concerns the carbon price itself—who pays it, how it works and how the government will use every cent of the revenue raised to help households, support jobs and invest in clean energy programs.

The second is that we will be providing $13.2 billion for clean energy projects, including investing in renewable technologies, such as solar, wind, wave and geothermal. The third is about the energy efficiency measures for small business, councils and community groups that will help them to become more sustainable and reduce the costs of essential services like power and water. The fourth is the agriculture and land sector package, which will bring economic benefits to farmers and other land users who reduce pollution or can store carbon on their properties.

But before I go any further on this it is worth remembering why we need to put a price on carbon in the first place. We know that most Australians accept that climate change is real, and that human beings are contributing. In May this year the Climate Commission released a report called The critical decade, which provided the strongest evidence yet of these facts. It showed these things. Global temperatures are rising faster than ever before, with the last decade being the hottest on record. In the last 50 years, the number of hot days in Australia has more than doubled. Sea levels have risen by 20 centimetres globally since the 1800s, affecting many coastal communities. Another 20-centimetre rise by 2050, which the scientists warn is likely, would more than double the risk of coastal flooding. The Great Barrier Reef has suffered from nine major bleaching events in the past 31 years, where previously it had experienced none. And it is now beyond reasonable doubt that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—caused mainly through the burning of fossil fuels—is triggering the changes we are seeing in the climate. Scientists also warn that a rise of more than two degrees Celsius in global temperatures will result in dangerous climate change and more intense weather events like droughts, floods and cyclones.

Of course, there is a strong economic argument too. Professor Ross Garnaut, who was commissioned by Commonwealth, state and territory governments, has advised that pricing carbon through a market based mechanism is the cheapest way to cut carbon pollution. It also is the most effective way to turbocharge Australia's renewable energy sector, creating new jobs and new business opportunities.

We have enormous potential to grow our solar, wind, wave and geothermal technologies because only about eight per cent of Australia's electricity is generated from renewable sources. This compares poorly to a country like Spain, which has similar amounts of wind and sunshine, where the figure is closer to 35 per cent. And just recently, China has announced a new feed-in tariff scheme designed to increase its solar generated energy ten-fold in the next five years. But, above all, a clean energy future is about protecting future generations of Australians—by ensuring we have a strong and competitive economy and a healthy environment in which our children and their children can live.

Currently, Australia produces more carbon pollution per person than any other country in the developed world. And while we are responsible for just 1.5 per cent of the global emissions in absolute terms, that still puts us in the top 20 highest carbon polluters in the world—with countries like the United Kingdom, Italy, France and New Zealand. We are also one of 89 countries, including China and the United States, that account for 80 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and which have pledged to cut emissions under the United Nations.

No country can do this alone; we all need to do our fair share. This is why British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron recently congratulated our Prime Minister on the 'strong and clear signal' that our Clean Energy Future plan sends, saying it 'will add momentum to those, in both the developed and developing world, who are serious about dealing with this urgent threat'.

These are some of the reasons Australia needs to act now on climate change by putting a price on carbon. This is the most effective and cheapest way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. From 1 July next year about 500 of Australia's largest polluters will be have to pay for every tonne of carbon pollution they emit into the atmosphere. It is important to emphasise that this is a direct charge on polluters, not on individual households, small businesses or farmers. Therefore it is not a tax in the true sense of the word. Members opposite have been peddling this myth for months and months, but this is not a tax; it is a charge on the biggest polluters in the nation, who will be the only ones to pay.

The starting price will be $23.00 a tonne. This will rise by 2.5 per cent in real terms over the first three years before we move to an emissions trading scheme under which the market will set the price. Putting a price on carbon pollution sends a signal to these big polluters that they will no longer be able to pollute the atmosphere for free. And because these companies will want to find ways to reduce this new cost many will choose to invest in cleaner technologies, creating new jobs and business opportunities. So we will get less carbon pollution, a healthier environment and new jobs and investment in renewable and other clean energy industries.

The government has released Treasury modelling showing the average impact of a carbon price on everyday goods and services will be about $9.90 a week—a modest 0.7 per cent of CPI. By way of comparison, when the Howard government introduced the goods and services tax, CPI shot up by 2.5 per cent. A 0.7 per cent rise works out to be about 80 cents extra a week on the average grocery basket, and about $3.30 a week on the average electricity bill. And it is important to note that petrol for passenger and light commercial vehicles will not be subject to a carbon price.

Because we do not want low- and middle-income earners to bear the burden of these price impacts, we will be using more than half of the carbon price revenue to provide assistance to nine out of 10 Australian households—that is, to the people who need it most. This assistance works out on average to be about $10.10 a week, meaning almost six million Australian households will get help to meet any costs passed on by industry. This includes more than 50,200 people in my electorate of Bendigo who will receive assistance through income support payments, such as pensions, and family assistance payments, such as family tax benefit.

Almost 30,000 pensioners in Bendigo will receive an extra $338 in their pension payments per year if they are single, and up to $510 per year for couples combined. More than 1,700 self-funded retirees holding a Commonwealth seniors health card will receive the same as pensioners, and may also be eligible for tax cuts or the low-income supplement. More than 5,000 Bendigo jobseekers will get up to $218 extra a year and $390 a year for couples combined. More than 3,400 students will receive up to an extra $177 a year. More than 2,800 single parents will receive an extra $289 a year. And everyone earning up to $80,000 a year will receive a tax cut, including 47,000 people in Bendigo. Of these, 39,000 will receive a cut of at least $300 a year. We are also lifting the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,200, meaning an additional one million people will not have to fill in a tax return after this financial year. When this is combined with the low-income tax offset, people will not have to pay any net tax until their income exceeds $20,542.

The rest of the revenue coming from the carbon price will be used to support jobs in high-polluting industries that are exposed to international competition and also to support clean energy programs. Many businesses and unions, including those in steel and aluminium manufacturing, have welcomed the $9.2 billion of help we are providing to trade exposed industries. We have reassured coalminers that their industry will continue to grow under a carbon price and we are supporting those gassy coalmines that emit much more carbon pollution than other operations with a $1.3 billion support package. This will provide the financial assistance necessary to help these industries transition to cleaner energy production.

The second element of the government's plan is a significant investment in cleaner energy projects. We support a price on carbon because it is a market based mechanism that will change the behaviour of companies that currently rely on high-polluting energy production. When making investment decisions, companies will look to cleaner energy technologies to pollute less and get their operating costs down.

The government will also establish a new $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation to drive private investment in clean energy technologies. This will operate in a similar way to the UK's Green Investment Bank by providing loans, guarantees and equity to help commercialise renewable and clean energy technologies. The corporation will be independent from government and be run on a commercial basis, with each project going through a rigorous assessment process.

An Australian Renewable Energy Agency will also manage another $3.2 billion in research and development of clean energy technologies such as solar and wind. This new agency will bring together programs and funding from several government departments and will help in making early-stage projects more commercially viable.

The government will also be calling for tenders to close 2,000 megawatts of high-polluting electricity generation, but, importantly, no generator will be turned off until alternatives are in place to ensure the continuation of power supply and the right support is in place for affected workers and regions.

The third element of our Clean Energy Future plan is about helping local communities cut their own pollution levels and reduce energy costs. Many households, businesses, local governments and community organisations in central Victoria are already doing great things to reduce their energy use. Under our plan, there will be $330 million for competitive grants for local councils and communities under the Low Carbon Communities program. It includes a Low Income Energy Efficiency program that will offer up to $100 million in grants to consortiums of local and state governments, community organisations, energy retailers and energy service companies to help low-income households reduce their energy costs, and a $30 million Household Energy and Financial Sustainability Scheme that will help about 100,000 low-income households better manage their energy consumption. Small businesses with turnovers of less than $2 million will also be able to get immediate tax deductions for new assets costing up to $6,500—up from the current amount of $5,000.

There will also be an additional $40 million of funding under the Remote Indigenous Energy Program. This will build on the successful Renewable Remote Power Generation Program by giving Indigenous communities access to cleaner, more affordable and reliable energy sources such as solar, rather than the heavily polluting diesel operations on which they have been relying.

By adopting more energy efficiency measures, households will be able to cut their energy bills, which will also help reduce the impact of any price flow-on from energy retailers.

The fourth element of the Clean Energy Future plan is the agriculture and land sector package, which will bring significant benefits and opportunities to people living in rural and regional Australia. First, carbon emissions from farming have been excluded entirely from the carbon pricing scheme. This means farmers, forestry operators and other land managers will not pay a direct price for the carbon pollution their activities generate. Second, farmers and other landowners will be able to access commercial opportunities through the Carbon Farming Initiative—a new scheme that will provide economic rewards for those who cut pollution or can store carbon on their land.

This initiative will allow land managers to earn credits, from which they can generate income, for taking action such as reforestation and revegetation, reducing methane emissions from livestock, reducing fertiliser pollution, and native forest protection. A new biodiversity scheme worth almost $1 billion over the first six years will also be established for projects that protect the outcomes of carbon farming.

These, then, are the four primary elements of the government's plans to move Australia from an economy reliant on high-polluting energy production to one ready to embrace a clean energy future. And these plans are in stark contrast to those proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. Under the government's plans, big polluters will pay and individual householders will receive assistance. Under the opposition's plan, ordinary taxpayers will be asked to subsidise big polluters so they can buy credits to offset their pollution levels. This means the big polluters can keep on polluting.

Under the government's plan, around 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution be cut from the atmosphere by 2020—the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road. This means we will reach our five per cent reduction target. Under the opposition's plan, emission levels will be higher in 2020, meaning they will have no chance of meeting their reduction commitment.

If we are to see real action on climate change, if we are to be competitive in a low-carbon global economy, if we are to provide a future for our children and grandchildren that will enable them to prosper in a healthy environment and with a strong economy, then we need to pass this legislation. I strongly support this bill and urge every other member of the parliament to support it.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many members of this place would follow international affairs and they would have heard when they woke up this morning that overnight there has been an emergency teleconference between the Greek Prime Minister, the German Chancellor and the French President to talk about Greece defaulting on its debt obligations. At the same time there are banks in France exposed to Greek government debt that have had their credit ratings downgraded, and the President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, has expressed grave concerns for the health of the global economy. The reaction to this of most governments around the world is to look at what they can do domestically to try and limit the impact of what could be a very severe second phase of a global economic downturn. European countries in particular are looking to slash government spending and looking at ways they can put their rather bloated budgets back in balance. Other countries around the world are looking at how they might take defensive measures to protect their populations from what could be a very torrid global economic environment. At the same time as this massive global uncertainty, at a time in Australia when business confidence has hit all-time lows, it is astonishing that we in this parliament are discussing a series of bills that are going to impose a great big new tax on everything and also impose a very substantial regulatory burden on business. These bills will touch every aspect of everybody's lives in Australia, yet the absurdity of us discussing this at a time of great global uncertainty does not seem to have occurred to members of what is a rapidly disintegrating Labor government.

I can understand that there is some reluctance for Labor members at the moment to leave their electorate offices and go out to talk to people within their communities, because, if they are getting the same sort of feedback as I have been getting as I move around my electorate of Stirling, then clearly it would be a deeply unpleasant experience for them. But they really need to do that to understand the enormous disconnection between what people are actually feeling in their communities and what we are discussing as a parliament here today. If they were to talk to any businesses in their electorates, whether they be small, medium or large, they would tell them, in most cases—not in all cases—that this is the worst business and trading environment that people have ever faced. Even in my home state of Western Australia, which people would rightly assume is doing better than many other parts of Australia, there is an enormous lack of confidence within the business community and, if you are dealing with sectors outside the mining industry, people will tell you that it is just the worst environment that they have ever seen. Yet the response of their federal government is to impose an economy wide tax that is going to touch every single aspect of our lives. This will be the world's biggest carbon tax, apparently because Australians are the world's largest polluters, something that I think is factually incorrect.

Many of the macro arguments against this tax have already been placed very firmly on the record by many of the previous speakers on this side of the House, so I want to talk directly about what this tax will mean for my constituents in Stirling and what it will mean to my home state of Western Australia. Every time I meet with constituents I am told more often than not that everyone is tightening their belts, that they are suffering under the increased cost of living pressures. The cost of living is something that can be very hard for federal governments to do something about, but surely a good rule for this parliament would be to do no harm—whereas this package of bills will deliberately and directly increase the costs of family budgets.

I want to give the parliament some examples of the businesses that I have been talking to in my electorate and some of the feedback that I have from small businesses, in particular, who are greatly concerned about what the carbon tax is going to mean for them. I recently did a small business survey and I want to give the House some of the feedback that I have. We contacted all these small businesses directly to confirm with them that they are happy to have their comments recorded in Hansard and to be part of this speech.

One of my officers spoke yesterday to Mr Rex Sajich from West-Side Automatics, who lives in Stirling. He has been working in the automotive industry for over 30 years. Mr Sajich's business is experiencing a very tough year because his operating costs continue to rise. He faces losing an employee whom he might not be able to afford to replace. We rely on small businesses like Mr Sajich's to keep the economy afloat, yet he has asked why he should be on the receiving end of a bad tax that will kill small business. He has also asked why Australia's small businesses—some 750,000 of them—will receive no direct compensation for the massive jump in electricity prices that will be imposed by this carbon tax.

Mrs Francine Kapoulitsas from Amelia Heights fish and chip shop works and raises her family in Stirling. Mrs Kapoulitsas is already paying over $600 a month in electricity bills for a business that trades only 30 hours a week. After the introduction of the carbon tax, Mrs Kapoulitsas does not know whether she will be able to keep the doors open. She asks why a family-run business such as hers should be forced to close up shop because of a bad tax that offers no compensation to the backbone of the Australian economy. Mr Derek Downie from Steenes Automotive in Balcatta cannot understand why the federal government is willing to compensate individual households for the increase in electricity costs but refuses to help small business cope with the significant increases in these costs.

Mr Martin Steere from Karinga Electrical Systems in Osborne Park is concerned about how the carbon tax is diminishing confidence levels in the business community. He believes that nobody within the business community understands the real costs of the new tax. He asked why the Labor government is not addressing the real concerns facing the Australian economy at present but, instead, introducing another tax that small business cannot afford to pay. In the same vein, Mr Tony Allender from Specialised Mechanical Services in Osborne Park simply said that this carbon tax will be the final straw that puts him out of business. He asked when the government will acknowledge the fact that small businesses are the ones that are failing as a result of Labor's new tax. Mr Allender pointed out that there is no point giving him a rebate on his household electricity bill when he cannot afford to pay that bill if his business goes bust.

Another Stirling business owner who will be affected by the carbon tax is Mr Brett Rice from Green Energy systems in Balcatta, who has rightfully pointed out that it is the job of the government to provide neutral trading conditions for business so that consumers should not be fearful to spend their money, but this Labor government cannot even do that. Mr Rice's biggest concern is what the real costs will be for his business once the Gillard government introduces its toxic carbon tax. Mike Maumill is concerned at what the carbon tax might mean for his business, Capri Technologies, and Mr King from the Dianella Poultry Shop noted, 'It's the big guys that may be able to absorb some of the passed down costs,' but he cannot afford to pass on costs of his small business to his customers.

All in one day my office spoke to these eight businesses, but there are many businesses in a very similar situation in Stirling. They have every right to be concerned about this carbon tax and what it might mean for them and their employees. If you ask the Prime Minister, she will say that they have no reason to express concern. This is of course absolute nonsense, because these people know they are going to be worse off if this bill passes this parliament. Of course, no-one sitting on the Labor side of the House has any understanding of how these small businesses might feel, because to them small business is a completely foreign land. They have never lived it and they do not understand the unique pressures associated with it. They have never started, owned or run their own small businesses. I do not think there would be any demographic—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ran one for more than 20 years before I came to this place.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy for the parliamentary secretary to get up and correct the record about all his colleagues who have been involved in small business. If he had any understanding of small business, there is no way he would be supporting these bills. It is making their job so much harder.

Besides the effects on the people of Stirling, I want to talk quickly about the effect this tax is going to have on my home state of Western Australia. The Western Australian Treasury have done a preliminary assessment of the impact of the proposed carbon tax and it makes for pretty grim reading for all West Australian MPs. I certainly hope those West Australian MPs on the Labor side of the House avail themselves of this analysis and then think twice before they impose this enormous burden on their home state. I do not have time to go through all of the analysis, but I will highlight what I believe are the important points. Firstly, the West Australian Treasury say in no uncertain terms that they believe the modelling that has been provided to date by the Commonwealth is nothing short of heroic. They say specifically that virtually all the modelling talks about purchasing permits from overseas, and that is a heroic assumption that there will be a fully functioning international emissions permit market from 2015-16. They say that appears very optimistic given that there is no global market for such permits and there is no prospect of one being created in the near term. They also directly address what the cost impacts are going to be in the first year alone for West Australian households.

I will go through some of those costs, because they have been detailed by the Treasurer, Christian Porter. He says in the first year alone West Australian households will pay at least $144 extra in household bills. To break that down, it will be an extra $111 per year in electricity charges, specifically because of the carbon tax; $19.50 extra in public transport fares, specifically because of the carbon tax; and $13.25 extra in water charges in the first year of the tax alone. The Treasury analysis also states that all Western Australian families should expect to pay higher electricity, water and public transport fees for every single year under this tax. The analysis also says that the $144 average increase in household bills next year would be the tip of the iceberg and that the Prime Minister's promise that two out of three households will be compensated is just not true in the case of Western Australia, where a full 52 per cent of households will be worse off under the carbon tax.

According to the Commonwealth's own analysis, the carbon tax is going to apply to 500 of what are called Australia's largest polluters—on this side of the House we call them Australia's most successful companies. At least 75 of these 500 companies operate solely in Western Australia and the analysis produced by the Western Australian Treasury firmly states that the carbon tax is going to impact Western Australia even more than other parts of the country.

The Western Australian Treasury modelling refers to the $70 billion that is going to be directly shifted offshore by 2050 under the government's plans. That is, $57 billion is going to be directly transferred from Australian taxpayers to people overseas. That amounts to over $1,600 for every person in Australia. We are debating bills here today astonishingly that are going to transfer from every single Australian in today's dollars over $1,600 overseas. All of this is for an environmental result that means that Australia's domestic emissions will increase by 2020, and by 2050, by which time this $1,600 per person will have been transferred overseas, our domestic emissions will have fallen fully by two per cent. So we have all of this incredible pain for absolutely no environmental gain.

As time is running out—I might seek to table this analysis at the end of this speech—I just make a couple of other points made by the West Australian Treasury, because it is a very important analysis about the real world impact of this carbon tax. The Treasury have said that this significant outflow of income being transferred overseas will have implications for Australia's exchange rate and terms of trade. They go on to specifically list the impact on West Australian pensioners and single-income households. Their conclusion is that people will be significantly worse off at every level of society, which the government refuses to acknowledge and continues to ignore.

I just end on this note. We have a commitment from the opposition side of the House that if we get into government we will repeal this tax. As has been rightly pointed out, that is going to be significantly disruptive for business and consumers in our economy. It is not our position on the carbon tax that has ever changed. We have been 100 per cent clear from day one that we do not want a carbon tax. We promised not to do it at the last election and, of course, we have stuck to that commitment. It is the Labor side of the House that has changed its mind. The Prime Minister promised there would not be a carbon tax, yet she has reneged on that promise. If she believes that the Australian people will benefit from this tax, she must take it to the Australian people and get them to pass judgment on it, and I urge her to do so.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a privilege and pleasure it is to be able to stand up to support action on climate change, as I have twice before. I believe in climate change; I believe it is real. This parliament has been debating this issue for the whole time I have been a member of parliament. The opposition, as we have heard, have had many positions on climate change and we know why they have had so many positions. We know it is because some of them still do not believe climate change is real. We know a large group of them—in fact, at least half—support a market based mechanism to price carbon, because they had their leadership challenge on it. But, as we know and as we have seen, some of them are much more interested in short-term political gain and point-scoring rather than what is in this nation's best long-term interest. In fact, I have worked in and been around politics and campaigns for a very long time and this most recent debate has got to be one of the most deceitful, deceptive debates I have ever seen. It has not been about the facts or the science; it has been about politics and personal attacks and, in my view, it has been disgraceful.

The confusion generated by the scare campaign mounted by those opposite is so great that many people in my electorate and, I am sure, many Australians do not even realise that the opposition are supporting action on climate change and they actually have a policy. Why? It is because they never talk about it because they are so divided on the right course of action over there and they are blindly following their leader at the moment, when many of them actually believe in a market based mechanism to put a price on carbon. They are only doing that because of party politics, not because they have the best interests of the nation at heart.

What have we actually agreed on? We have agreed that climate change is real and happening—most of us have agreed, anyway; I know some of them over there look a bit doubtful. We have agreed on a five per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020. Of course, there is a disagreement on how we get there. We know what our policy is. It is here, it is clear and it is in the pages of the bills that we are debating, but the opposition never mention their plan, as I say. We have all seen their document with the carbon tax legislation talking points—34 pages of them—that they have been mounting their scare campaign on. On how many pages do you think they talk about their own policy? The answer is three. The policy gets three pages because they are so committed to it. Their leader even barely mentioned it when he spoke on these bills. Their speakers barely mention it. That is because all they want to do is say no to everything rather than put Australia's best interests first.

Let us lay some facts on the table and look at what these two policies do. We have the government policy over here, supported by the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee and supported by the majority of people in this House. It is a policy that will actually get the big polluters to pay. We are going to send a signal out there to the marketplace that pollution has a price on it. We are doing that. We are giving big polluters an incentive to reduce their carbon emissions. We know, given that they are businesses, that they will take that opportunity and they will indeed find ways to lower their costs by lowering their emissions.

In comparison, what do we have on the opposition side? We have the coalition using taxpayers' money to subsidise big polluters to continue to pollute. What a great policy. If it were that simple, why hadn't somebody thought of it before? Why have we been debating action on climate change for so long? Why are we in this chamber yet again talking about carbon pricing? It is because those on the opposition side do not care about the facts around what is actually happening. There is a plan that the economists have predicted will cost each Australian family $1,300. That is $1,300 that those opposite will have to raise in extra tax or cut current spending. We have all heard how much that might be—they might need to cut two years of the age pension. Where are they going to find money for this plan? It is on top of the $70 billion black hole that they have. It is not just me who is saying that there are problems with their policy. We have Matt Grudnoff, the senior economist at the Australia Institute, who, when he explained the coalition's direct action plan, said:

If we use the average cost of abatement for competitive grant schemes previously conducted in Australia then by 2020 the Fund would have to allocate around $100 billion. That is, on average, $11.1 billion every year to 2020, or … $1,300 per household per year. This is far in excess of what the Coalition has budgeted for.

It is time that the coalition were held to account for their policy. It is time that they stopped this reckless scare campaigning and actually listened to the scientists, listened to the economists and debated this seriously. We are acting because we believe the scientists; we are acting because we believe the economists; we are acting because we know it is the right thing to do. From CSIRO to NASA, all the world's leading scientists agree that climate change is real and it is caused by human activity.

This is what the government is going to do. We are going to talk about the future. We are going to act now in the best interests of our children and our grandchildren. If our best scientists are telling us that we have a problem, we are going to act because, as I said, it is the right thing to do. So what are we going to do? We are going to put a price on carbon and we are going to return the income generated by this price to support jobs, assist households and transform our economy into a cleaner one. We are going to start with a fixed price for carbon and we are going to move to an emissions trading scheme, a market based mechanism that we know at least half of the opposition support.

We know that jobs will grow in the renewable energy sector. We have a very comprehensive set of bills. We have the Jobs and Competitiveness Program to protect those emissions-intensive trade-exposed large companies. We have support for manufacturing jobs, including the $1.2 billion Clean Technology Program. We also have the Low Carbon Communities program to assist low-income households to make energy efficient changes to their homes so that they can reduce their power bills. Grants will be available to local councils, community groups and small businesses to improve their own energy efficiency. I have seen firsthand the start of that in my own electorate, where one of my councils has been one of the first in the country to change its light bulbs over with a loan from Low Carbon Australia to save money for its ratepayers and also to reduce its emissions. It is happening as we speak.

We are also going to provide the assistance for households which is so important. Nine in 10 households will receive assistance through tax cuts or increased payments. Almost 6,000,000 households will get tax cuts or increases in payments that will cover the entire average price impact of a carbon price. Over four million Australian households will get an extra buffer with assistance that covers 120 per cent of the average price impact of the carbon price. Over one million Australians will no longer need to lodge a tax return because of an increase in the tax-free threshold. In my own electorate of Franklin 36,000 taxpayers will receive a tax cut and 31,400 people will receive household assistance either through income support payments or family assistance payments. A large proportion of my electorate will receive assistance. I have been going around my electorate talking to people specifically about the assistance package and what it will mean to them. There is quite a clear understanding from many people in my electorate that they will be better off under the carbon price because of the assistance they will receive. One of the only few concerns that comes up is that tenants of public housing do not want their assistance to be clawed back by state governments in increased public housing rents. I take this opportunity to call on the Tasmanian state government to quarantine the carbon price assistance that we will be providing households in Tasmania from public housing rent increases.

My home state of Tasmania really has been at the forefront of renewable energy. We know at the moment only around eight per cent of Australia's electricity is generated from renewable sources. Around 86 per cent of Tasmania's energy is from renewable sources. The next best state is Queensland with only eight per cent. This shows that Tasmania really is in a unique position to take advantage of some of these changes. Tasmania opened its first hydro-electric power station in 1916 at Waddamana in Mr Deputy Speaker Adams's electorate of Lyons in central Tasmania. We currently have 27 hydro-electric power stations and a very significant wind farm. We have had jobs in the renewable energy sector in Tasmania for decades. The majority of our power stations and dams were built in the fifties, sixties and seventies. Thousands of Tasmanians have been employed in the renewable energy sector for more than half a century. These are real jobs putting roofs over the heads of families and putting food on their tables.

We also know Tasmania will benefit from this price on carbon because our generator Hydro Tasmania, which is publicly owned, will not pay a price for carbon as it does not pollute. It will be able to return some of the benefit from not having to pay that price to the Tasmanian people. It will be able to reinvest in renewable energy and will also be able to give some of it directly back to Tasmanians, and that is certainly my wish. I again call on the Tasmanian state government to look at the dividend that will be returned to Hydro Tasmania to see how it can be best returned to the people of Tasmania who have invested in renewable energy over almost a century. I want to see Tasmania continue to be at the forefront of renewable energy research, development and generation for years to come. This policy will only assist in that.

In summary, it is really important for Australia's future that these bills are passed. It is important for my electorate of Franklin and it is important for Tasmania. There are two policies being debated out there in the public that deal with climate change. It is time for honesty in this debate and for the facts to be on the table. I think it is about time those on the other side are guided by their conscience about what is in the best interests of Australia and they make a decision to vote for what they know is right and what they know is in Australia's best interests. I call on them to come over here and vote with us for a market based mechanism, which so many of them believe in, to put a price on carbon. I commend these bills to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on these bills today, one of which has the Orwellian title of the Clean Energy Bill 2011. It really should be relabelled 'Destroying Australian Industry, Jobs and Income Bill 2011'. Why are we here today? We are here today because we were misled by the Prime Minister before the last election. On the front page of the Australian newspaper of 20 August 2010 is the Prime Minister glorifying herself at her desk saying, 'I rule out a carbon tax.' She goes on and says that, should she actually get involved in a tax, a 'carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election'. Was that to seek a mandate or was that because she realised what a toxic tax this is?

The problem with this is that the Prime Minister got elected on a misleading statement to the Australian people, and that is why she has no authority on this issue. She certainly does not have a mandate. We are here because the Brown-Gillard government, which we know is led by Senator Brown of the Greens, has now forced this government into a position where, when you look across at the backbench members, they all mouth these platitudes on this issue—but they know they are wrong.

I have 15 minutes to speak on the 19 bills before us. I will not go over the issues I would like to on each bill, but what I will do is generally speak about how they are going to affect my electorate. Being a member from Western Australia, I certainly have some issues with these bills. For example, the Western Australian Treasury analysis shows that more than half of Western Australian households will be worse off under these bills. My constituents are not happy about that. In Western Australia we have mining and manufacturing jobs that will be lost. In fact, my electorate has the third-highest number of fly-in fly-out workers in Australia and they are not happy with this legislation. Their incomes will be lowered. Their standard of living will be lowered as things become more expensive. This is a tax on everything. Global emissions will increase because we will export our pollution. I will refer to that later in my summation of these bills.

I want to give an example of a major business in my electorate and in the world. The company Alcoa receives 60 per cent of its global income from my electorate. Its two mines and two refineries, Pinjarra and Wagerup, produce almost 60 per cent of Alcoa's global income. Their smelter is in Portland, Victoria. Interestingly, Australia has five smelters, including one at Bell Bay in the seat of Bass. It would be interesting for that member to hear what the people of his electorate think about how this tax is going to impact on their jobs. We also have Boyne Island, Kurri Kurri in the Hunter, Point Henry in Corio—another Labor seat—and Tomago in the seat of Newcastle. It would be interesting to know what the workers there are thinking. What is very interesting about Alcoa's operations is that Alcoa makes an incredible contribution to Australia's mining industry, obviously, but particularly to the alumina industry—bauxite mining, alumina refining and its smelting and rolling operations. It brings a lot of jobs, as I said, and adds value to Australian products—at both a state and local level—and to the national economy at every stage. The Gillard government thinks this tax will force people to change the way they are currently doing their business, but Alcoa is already doing that. It has, in fact, been involved in positive actions on the environment and its carbon footprint for a long time. Alcoa has already been reducing its footprint, as I said, and it does not need a tax to do so. Alcoa has already significantly reduced its emissions without a carbon tax. In fact, globally it has reduced its total direct emissions by more than 40 per cent from 1990 levels without a carbon tax. I repeat that: they have reduced emissions by 40 per cent on an international level. But let us get to Western Australia. In WA alone, Alcoa has reduced its emissions per tonne of product by more than 20 per cent from 1990 levels—again, without a carbon tax. Alcoa's WA refineries have less than half the greenhouse footprint that its key competitors in Asia do—less than half of the emissions of its Asian competitors. Indonesia has a refinery at Kuala Tanjung, so in other words they are producing twice as many emissions as Alcoa does in my state of Western Australia—the electorate of Canning. This is quite incredible, because those figures on what Alcoa has done voluntarily, without a tax, show not only that we will export our pollution overseas to countries that do not have to comply and do not intend to comply but that we will export our jobs and our income nationally. Alcoa pays company tax, and there is the spin-off throughout the community of jobs in this industry.

It is very interesting to look at where these jobs could go overseas. As I said, Azerbaijan has a refinery, as do Egypt and Ghana. Will the jobs go there? Interestingly, India has seven smelters. Nigeria and Kazakhstan also have smelters. Interestingly, I turn three pages—as you might be noticing, Mr Deputy Speaker—because China has exactly 100 aluminium smelters. So that is where we are going to export our jobs, our pollution and our income, because of course that is where they are going to go if the government make us uncompetitive. This is a trade-exposed industry from both an energy point of view and an environmental point of view if this tax is to come on. So I am going to make sure all the Alcoa people in my electorate understand this. The unions will be trying to tell the workers, 'Don't worry about it; we'll look after you.' That'd be right! If you do not have a job, they will not look after you. The workers might want to know the real facts about Alcoa's record, which I have outlined today. I might conclude on the fact that Venezuela has two smelters. I can imagine Hugo Chavez paying a carbon tax and making his country uncompetitive so he cannot get a handle on it! So that is just how ridiculous it is. I am sure that the people whose electorates the mines, refineries and smelters are in know what this government is doing to them and their jobs.

This government has already said that it plans that this policy and this legislation will eventually see $3½ billion a year go straight out of Australian families' pockets and into those of foreign carbon traders—or should I call them foreign carpetbaggers? We know how fraud has been outlined in these trading schemes in Europe—for example, in Finland and Norway, where there are inquiries into these trading schemes. But no: as part of this, we are going to be paying offshore countries billions of dollars. In fact, I see here that it will be $57 billion by 2050. We are going to spend $57 billion overseas.

The amazing thing is: why would we pay somebody in, say, the Ivory Coast or Equatorial Guinea billions of dollars in carbon credits? The fact is that we know that in these sorts of countries they are not meant to cut down trees, but just look at what has happened in the Amazon Basin. Of course they will take the money and put the money in their pocket, but after they have put the money in their pocket they will still probably cut down the trees in any case, because we cannot trust them not to do it. We have seen it happen in the Amazon and elsewhere in the world. In fact, I saw it in Vanuatu when I was there. We are out there trying to help them protect their forests, and they are cutting them down as quick as they can. So this is just a farce, and people are going to see it for what it is worth.

Homebuyers in Western Australia will be affected. Ross North, one of the larger home builders, for example, has estimated that this carbon tax will increase the cost of a new home by $16,000. That is one of the most credible home builders in Western Australia, and those are the figures it has done internally. The mortgage delinquency rate in Western Australia is probably the same as in the rest of Australia, but the delinquency rate in my suburb of Armadale is 2.9 per cent, the sixth highest of any suburb in the country. In Mandurah, another locality, it is 2.7 per cent. The fact that rents will rise and people will be unable to afford to build a house because of the increased costs is something that is going to impact on families and first home buyers.

A survey from the Australian Retailers Association revealed that a massive 83 per cent of retailers expect consumers to spend less as a result of this carbon tax. Eighty-five per cent of those surveyed believe the carbon tax will have a negative impact on their profitability. The survey also found that one-third of retailers will pass the increases on and that jobs will be lost due to the carbon tax. Of course, the independent store owners in my electorate are also very, very concerned about the jobs and the discretionary spending in their supermarket. We know that it is already having an effect on businesses because there is a crisis of confidence in the retail industry, because they are worried about the fact that this government is heading towards a tax that they do not want. The amazing thing is: how many polls do you need to have to convince the other side that people do not want this tax? But it has been rammed down the throats of all Australians, because this government has decided that it is going to just give it to them because Bob Brown has made it do it. Under this toxic tax ratepayers will be paying more as well. When the member for Hotham, Minister Simon Crean, was in my in my electorate recently he tried to come to an RDA forum to tell people in my electorate how good this tax was going to be for them. Can I say on behalf of the member for Hotham and Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government that it was a dismal failure? The headlines in the paper afterwards said that the minister could not answer the questions. When he stood up at these forums—and Alcoa was there—and was asked by local councils and local businesses he struggled with the answers. It was seen for what it was: he did not know the details.

For example, increased electricity charges are going to impact on local governments. Most of my local governments were at this forum and they understood—and this is a very good example of how it is going to impact—that they are going to be hit by something like an extra $200 million a year for tipping fees alone. The Western Australian Local Government Association president, Mayor Troy Pickard, has already indicated that increased costs of electricity cannot be absorbed by their councils. It is already out there, and this was brought up at the RDA forum where the minister was: who is going to pay for the lights to be left on at night when electricity costs go up? The councils say they cannot afford the extra electricity price and the state government says that they are not going to pay for the extra price, so will the lights go off late at night to save electricity? You can imagine the crime that will be pervasive through the community once the street lights go off. It is a crime, in fact, that this is going to be a flow-on effect of this carbon tax into the community. The impact of this on electricity prices will hit ratepayers because they are going to have to pay for the lights to be left on in their streets at night for security reasons. This is just disgraceful.

We are looking at the highest carbon tax of anywhere in the world at $23 a tonne. We know that Europe has 17 per cent and that so many exemptions exist that the whole trading scheme is not working. In fact, as I started by saying, we are here today because the Prime Minister misled us before the election and got herself elected illegitimately at the last election. In this article she said that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. This is what she said on the front page of this newspaper, that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. Now she has one, and at the end of the day everybody is going to pay for her misleading statements.

She was one of the gang of four that I understand convinced Kevin Rudd, the then Prime Minister, to walk away from his carbon trading scheme. She was one of the ones, along with the Treasurer, who convinced him that he should abandon his scheme. Then, going into an election she told us that she would not do that. Straight after the election not only has she dudded the Australian community she has dudded the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. He should feel somewhat aggrieved, as I am sure he does, that he had been misled by his faithful deputy on this issue and that as a result his political assassination was complete.

This is a tax that is not needed, this is a tax that will hurt families, this is a tax that will hurt jobs and it will hurt all Australians because everyone will pay for this toxic tax.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I come to this debate on the premise of just three things: that climate change is real, that there is something we can do about it and that that is affordable.

It is happening now and it is also having a real impact right across the globe. There is something we can do and there is something that others can do; there are things that we are already doing now in this country, that we have been doing for a number of years, and there are things that are being done in other countries. The strange part about this debate is that while we are in here debating the issue of whether we should do anything about climate change both sides of politics—the government and the opposition—actually believe the same thing. There is no question that everyone actually believes that climate change is real. Every opposition member who stands in here repeats it ad nauseam, that they believe in climate change.

In fact, it is so real that we both have the same targets. That is right; the government has a target of five per cent reduction by 2020 and so does the opposition. The only real point of contention and argument is our method—our system—versus yours. It is not a question really about climate change and all the arguments that you hear in this place from the other side. They rarely talk about anything else, but that is what we hear in here. We are really just debating what type of system it is going to be.

I think that a longstanding credible position that governments have taken in this country when they introduce policy or change is that you do things that are market based. You do things that are in the national interest, economically sound and which work on a range of fronts. You know that it is always difficult because in politics it is about compromise, it is about getting the balance right and it is about trying to do more than one thing at one time. It is the old saying: you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

But it appears that on the other side they are struggling with that basic premise: walk and chew gum. How are they possibly going to achieve this? On this side, in government, we believe that you can not only walk and chew gum but that you can breathe at the same time—that you can actually do something about climate change. It is real, yes, and we can do something about it, and that is affordable. We actually have bills in front of this House right now which address all of those three premises—the affordability issue about who should pay and who should be compensated.

We say that the 500 biggest polluters in this country should have a disincentive to pollute the environment and the air that we breathe for the first time. For the first time the big polluters should have to stump up and pay something. It reminds me of a debate that took place more than 100 years ago—an analogy of what is taking place today about cleaning up the environment and the air—with exactly the same thing about rivers.

You could cast your mind back to what people used to do with rivers. Rivers were seen as sewers. Every business and industry would set up on a river for one reason: the river was the sewer system. But we woke up to it one day that water was precious and so were our river systems, and we had to do something about it. What did we do? We started cleaning up our river systems so we could protect the environment and water quality, and that cost money. We forced industry to clean up. We still do today; industry is no longer allowed to pollute our river systems.

Guess what? The next cab off the rank is the air environment—pollution into the environment through the air. This carbon tax system, this price we are putting on pollution, actually puts in place for the first time a measure, a mark—a level somewhere where you can say, 'There is now a disincentive'. And who will pay that directly? It is clear: it will be the big polluters.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Taxpayers! They won't be able to afford it!

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the arguments about lights going out and that councils will not be able to afford electricity and power and all the rest of it. That is just a garbage argument that we hear from the other side. The reality is that electricity prices have gone up 40 per cent in the last three years, but we have not had a carbon tax—so who has been paying the 40 per cent increase? When you actually look at the economics of this, we hear a lot of wind and a lot of hot air on the other side but not at lot of facts.

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

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.