Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might say at the outset of resuming my remarks that, of course, even the title of the Clean Energy Bill 2011 is dishonest, talking about a clean energy bill when it is actually a tax bill. As I explained in my opening remarks last evening, this is a cascading and compounding tax which will get into the nooks and crannies of everybody's life. I made the point—or I began to make the point—that it impacts on seniors in particular, because these are the people who are most likely to be on fixed incomes either as self-funded retirees, as people who are on pensions or as people who are partly self-funded retirees and partly pensioners. In every way this tax will impact on their life, whether it is on the cost of switching on the light, attempting to turn on heating in the winter or air conditioning in the summer—which they very often cannot afford—catching a train, utilising the sewerage system, obeying traffic lights or street lighting to keep them safe at night. Every aspect of their lives and the lives of the rest of us is impacted by the cost of the electricity, which this government is deliberately forcing up. It has nothing to do with the environment; it has everything to do with raising a new tax. The reason for that, as I outlined last night, is that it is in the government's DNA to tax and spend. But this time they spent all the reserves that the previous government left, and now they are taxing to make up for the expenditure which they have already plunged us into debt with.

When we talk about the impact of increasing the cost of essentials of life for people on fixed incomes, that then compresses the amount of disposable income that they have. That disposable income is what keeps retail shops going. It is what keeps so much of the expected increase in growth in so many industries alive and well. But, when that disposable income is so constricted, it is not surprising that we see large firms coming in with poor results in the retail sector and that we see closing shops. A stroll through any shopping centre shows you closed stores and shoppers without bags in their hands from having made a purchase. This also restricts opportunity for seniors to find employment in the retail industry sector, as they frequently do in a post-retirement period. The question of job creation for people who have skills and wish to remain in the paid workforce is a very important issue.

The tax itself, of course, is being brought in by the Prime Minister, who, as we all know, said on 16 August, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Then, on 20 August, she repeated, 'I rule out a carbon tax.' Mr Swan came into the act and said on 15 August:

Well certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their advertising. We certainly reject that.

So at every point it was designed to mislead the Australian people—including the member for Deakin, who is sitting over there and is about to vote in favour of this; he sits in a marginal seat, so it could be the end of him. It means that the Labor Party, in every aspect, misled the Australian people. But despite that it still was not elected. I have said time and time again that this government is an illegitimate government. It is one that merely stitched up a deal in order to confirm with the Governor-General that it could have the appropriations bills passed and therefore have a commission to form a government. Well, it is not a government's bootlace. In every aspect this legislation is set out to punish the people.

We have said, and we mean it very certainly, that we will try to prevent this legislation passing through the parliament, which is difficult because it simply relies on Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor; they are the two people who were elected by conservative electorates and have chosen to be the pillars of this government, so if it passes then it will be on their heads. In the Senate, of course, now the Greens are in control and the Greens get their way. Whether it is the latest media inquiry or whatever it is they want, the government caves in to them, because they have the power over passing this legislation. But, to put this in its firmest context, we have said that, should this legislation pass and should we be elected to government, we will rescind this legislation, just as the Labor Party rescinded Work Choices. That was the commitment they made; this is the commitment we made. Just as the Labor Party did that, we will rescind this legislation. It is important that we let the people know that because we say we should have an election on this issue. Much comparison has been made with the GST, as I said last night, but we took the GST to the people. We sought a mandate and we got a mandate. Then we spent six months in this parliament debating it, inquiring into it and scrutinising it. This government has no mandate for this tax. This government is going against the word that it gave to the Australian people. We are not permitted under parliamentary language to describe that accurately, but I think people understand that at every turn when the Prime Minister looked down the barrel of a television camera and said, 'There will be no carbon tax,' they were entitled to believe that, and yet it was subterfuge.

We are in the position in discussing this legislation where the government has imposed a very strict and limited regime of time for analysis. This is, again, contrary to the spirit of the so-called 'new paradigm' where we were supposed to be transparent in investigating these things. At every turn the government is desperate to push through this legislation and not to have it scrutinised in a proper way. There are 19 bills—over a thousand pages of legislation, not to mention how many pages there are in the explanatory memorandum or the fact that the whole of the Australian populace does not want this tax. This illegitimate government is determined, to use the words of the Prime Minister, to see that it is inflicted on the Australian people. But we will rescind it, should we be elected.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the bills before the House today. I have watched some of the discussion and debate as it has progressed so far through the House, when I have been able to, and I just want to make the point that when the opposition outline their concerns about these bills—why they will oppose them and their worries about the impacts on prices for families, small businesses and so forth—I am yet to hear any analysis of their own policy and the impacts that that will have on prices and the cost of living for families, small businesses and all these people they claim to be so concerned about. There has been absolutely no reference to that that I have seen in any of the contributions from those opposite. It is as if their own policy does not exist, 'Let's not mention it—maybe nobody will notice that we actually have a policy that will have a far greater impact on the cost of living for families, pensioners and small businesses'.

Indeed, I would suggest to many of those listening to the debate that they have a look at the opposition leader's contribution, which I think had about one minute at the end of his entire contribution that addressed his own policy but which, of course, did not outline what the costs of that would be for all the people they purport to be so concerned about. I reject the basis of their argument to start with; it is quite clear that the impacts of our proposed scheme will actually be significantly smaller, for example, than the introduction of the GST was. We do not hear them talk about the GST impacts and the flow-through in the economy either—strangely enough in this debate.

Our scheme is designed so that the money from those who pay it—the big polluters—is then directed back to those who face those cost increases to enable them to manage that transition in our economy. So it is a scheme that actually addresses the very issues that they are claiming are the basis of their opposition to this bill, while their own scheme addresses none of those issues. I think there is an inherent and significant deception in the way that they present their arguments. In particular, if they want to turn up in workplaces and in communities like mine in the Illawarra then they had better come prepared to answer what their own scheme is and what it will cost. Indeed, when Senator Fierravanti-Wells and Senator Joyce attended a rally in Wollongong the community made it quite clear that they expected a better standard of debate than what they were willing to contribute with their scaremongering.

In my contribution I want to canvass briefly the issues in terms of what is contained in the bills, the context within which they sit in our plan and just reflect on some of the local implications. I have spoken about these on the many occasions in this House where we have debated the introduction of a price on carbon—indeed, in debates that we had when those on the other side were boasting that they were the first people to think of putting a carbon price in place. How long ago those days may seem to some except, perhaps, to the member for Wentworth.

The 19 bills that are in consideration jointly put in place the legislation required to give effect to the government's commitment to create a carbon-pricing mechanism in line with the plan announced on 11 July 2011, Securing a clean energy future: the Australian government's climate change plan. The Clean Energy Bill 2011 creates the carbon price mechanism and the Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011 sets up the regulator as a statutory authority to administer the mechanism and to enforce the law. The Climate Change Authority Bill 2011 sets up the authority as an independent body that will provide the government with expert advice on key aspects of the mechanism and the government's climate change mitigation initiatives. There is the Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 and a variety of separate bills related to those elements of the mechanism which oblige a person to pay money. Additionally, other bills are included which cover further elements of the plan—specifically the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011 and the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff) Amendment Bill 2011, which impose an effective carbon price on aviation and non-transport gaseous fuels through exercises and customs tariffs, and the Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011 and the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, which implement the household assistance measures which I will discuss a bit more in my contribution about the local implications of these.

The time to act is now. It is clear that scientists have advised that the world is warming and that the high levels of carbon pollution risk environmental and economic damage. No responsible government can ignore this advice, and when those opposite were in government they did not ignore it. The CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the academies of science from around the world have all advised that the world is warming, and high levels of carbon pollution risk environmental and economic damage. In Australia and across the globe 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record. Each decade in Australia since the 1940s has been warmer than the last. Australia as a nation faces significant environmental and economic costs in a warmer, more unstable climate. Climate scientists advise that extreme weather events such as droughts, heatwaves and bushfires are likely to become more frequent and severe. These threaten our homes, businesses, communities and industries. For example, the recent Climate Change Risks to Australia's Coast report found that as many as 247,000 existing residential buildings, with a value up to $63 billion, are potentially at risk from a 1.1-metre sea-level rise.

Countries around the world are already taking action on climate change—89 countries, representing 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the world's economy, have already pledged to take action on climate change. Globally, more money is now invested in new renewable power than in conventional high-pollution energy generation. China is now the world's largest manufacturer of both solar panels and wind turbines.

In this context, this government's plan for a clean energy future will, firstly, dramatically cut pollution. The government's clean energy plan will cut pollution by at least five per cent, compared with 2000 levels, by 2020, which will require cutting net expected pollution by at least 23 per cent in 2020. I should indicate that those opposite also have the same target. This is equivalent to taking over 45 million cars off the road. The government is committing to, by 2050, cut pollution to 80 per cent below 2000 levels.

Secondly, the plan will unleash innovation and investment in renewable energy worth billions of dollars. This is the opportunity in the plan. Large-scale renewable electricity generation, including hydro, is projected to be 18 times its current size by 2050. Total renewable generation, including hydro, will comprise around 40 per cent of electricity generation by 2050. Thirdly, the plan aims to transform our energy sector away from high-polluting sources like brown coal. The government will negotiate to close down 2,000 megawatts of high-polluting coal fired power generation, creating space for new clean energy supplies. Fourthly, it will store millions of tonnes of carbon in the land through better land and waste management.

Putting a price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and cheapest way to cut pollution. This is a fact that is well recognised by economists from around the world and by respected institutions such as the OECD and the Productivity Commission. Currently, releasing carbon pollution is free despite the fact that it is harming our environment. A carbon price changes this. It puts a price on the carbon pollution that Australia's largest polluters produce. This creates a powerful incentive for all businesses to cut their pollution by investing in clean technology or finding more efficient ways of operating. It encourages businesses across all industries to find the cheapest, most effective way of reducing carbon pollution rather than relying on more costly approaches such as government regulation. Under this scheme the big polluters, not ordinary Australians, pay.

I want to refer to my own electorate in terms of the household assistance package encompassed in the bills that I referred to at the beginning of my contribution. In Cunningham, more than 25,500 pensioners will receive extra in their pension payments—$338 per year for singles and up to $510 per year for couples combined. More than 9,900 families in Cunningham will receive household assistance for their family assistance payments. More than 1,900 self-funded retirees in Cunningham will also receive extra assistance—$338 per year for singles and up to $510 per year for couples combined.

More than 4,000 job seekers in Cunningham will get extra in their payments—$218 per year for singles and $390 for couples combined. More than 1,900 single parents in Cunningham will get an extra $289 per year. Importantly, more than 3,200 students in Cunningham will get an extra $177 per year—of course, the amount depends on their rate and type of payment. In total, more than 45,000 people in Cunningham will receive household assistance through the transfer system. On top of this, taxpayers in Cunningham with an annual income of under $80,000 will get a tax cut, with most receiving at least $300 per year.

This is a household assistance package which underpins the support for students, pensioners and families to transition through the move towards a lower carbon economy, and I would point out that none of that assistance is available under the opposition's plan, despite the fact that they will have an impost on carbon polluters and that that impost, as they claim in ours, will be passed through. They provide no assistance for families, pensioners, students, or single parents to manage that in their scheme. But you will not hear them talk about that.

I also want to refer to the claims, which the opposition leader repeated in his second reading speech on these bills, that I and the member for Throsby should stand up for local jobs. I can assure him that we do that each and every day, and I guarantee that we have been doing it for a lot longer than he has ever been aware of in the Illawarra.

I ask him, if he is so concerned, to immediately give a commitment to supporting the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 when it comes before this House. That would be a nice start if he really was worried about the future of people's jobs. Scaring people about their jobs and then refusing to take action to protect those very same jobs is about as low as you can get in political debate . I would hope that he will very quickly give a confirmation that he will be supporting that bill.

The opposition leader's argument also ignores the new and emerging job opportunities that arise from a lower carbon future. I only have a short amount of time left, but I would particularly point the opposition leader to extensive comments that have been made by the Manufacturing Workers Union, which has indicated and identified some real growth opportunities in the manufacturing sector through this new regime and the importance for us as a nation maximising our opportunity.

The Prime Minister visited the Illawarra only the other week with Minister Carr, and we turned the first sod for a new building that was a result of an investment by this government, a $25 million Sustainable Buildings Research Centre for the Illawarra. This is a new facility at the University of Wollongong that will help us move towards a low-carbon future. It will create jobs in the construction industry as well as the education sector. It is a laboratory set up for prototyping and testing new techniques for converting existing buildings to make them more energy efficient. It is being done in partnership with TAFE New South Wales Illawarra, the Yallah Campus, and with BlueScope Steel. So investment in research, development and innovation in the Illawarra is creating new forms of jobs, particularly in the construction sector, to enable us to move towards a more energy efficient, cleaner future. This is a direct specific example of opportunities that arise from taking action on climate change. These sorts of initiatives will create long-term, quality jobs in the future in our manufacturing sector.

The member for Throsby and I understand our regions and we understand their needs, but you do not have to take our word for it. A couple of days after we announced our energy package the Illawarra Mercuryeditorialised on it. Under the heading 'Gong is not ruled by its hip pocket' it states:

Just who is winning the carbon tax debate is anyone's guess.

At one end of the country, Prime Minister Julia Gillard is being screamed at by an irate opponent of the tax in a Brisbane shopping centre.

In Wollongong, it's the brawl in the mall as Liberal Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and the Federal Opposition spokesman for regional development, local government and water Barnaby Joyce are involved in an angry, heated lunchtime rally.

Meantime, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, hard hat and safety glasses at the ready, continues to leave his own sizeable carbon footprint as he sweeps around the country falsely declaring that the coal industry is dead and the sky will fall in if the tax is legislated later this year.

The shock jocks are going ballistic, whipping up a frenzy and demanding a fresh election, newspaper letters' editors are being run off their feet and the Economic Society of Australia says the move to put a price on carbon is sound economic policy.

It's all highly emotive, scary stuff.

But if you ask the people of Wollongong, the city dubbed carbon central … the scary stuff is not the carbon tax, it's climate change regardless of whether it is caused by humans or natural means.

(Time expired)

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a delight to speak in parliament today on the government's Clean Energy Bill 2011 and the associated 18 individual pieces of legislation. As we know, carbon and global warming are global issues. I want to start with commentary from the global news agency Reuters that was released the day after the announcement here in this place. It states:

Coal miners, steel firms and airlines were sold off on Monday a day after Australia's unpopular government introduced a carbon tax scheme …

Australian stocks were heading for their biggest fall in nearly a month … dropping 1.5 percent, with coal miners, steel and transport firms such as Macarthur Coal, BlueScope Steel sharply down as investors digested the impact of the tax.

Australian airline shares also tumbled. Qantas said the carbon tax will cost it an estimated A$110 million to A$115 million, while Virgin Australia said it was likely to face a cost impact of A$45 million in fiscal year 2013.

Both airlines said they would pass on the cost to passengers.

I wanted to start with that reaction to underline an important point both for the country and for my local rural electorate of Farrer. In the industries of mining, transport and aviation we are going to be severely hit by the Prime Minister's unpopular carbon tax. It is going to make a difference to the lives of the people I represent. I am not sure it is going to be in the national interest either.

I am tired of the government accusing those on this side of the House in this debate of being climate change sceptics. I am happy to go on the record yet again to say that I am not a climate change sceptic. I believe the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to that warming and that we as citizens of the planet should be taking action. That is a statement I freely make here and in my electorate. Some people who correspond with me on a regular basis are climate change sceptics and they very vigorously oppose Australia taking any action at all. I say we should be doing something, but not this and not now.

We should cast our minds back to 2009 when Kevin Rudd led I think 114 people to Copenhagen. Expectation was high around the world that there was going to be global agreement at that meeting, and there was not. From that point on UN sponsored climate change talks have largely stalled. When the government continually talk about why we should be supporting their bad legislation they do not mention what they are doing about a global agreement on climate change. I often ask people: when is the next meeting to follow from Copenhagen on this subject, where is it going to be held and what are we doing? Many people do not know that is going to be in Durban in South Africa I think at the end of November, because the government never talk about it. They have quietly said that I think they are sending 40 people, a much more modest representation of bureaucrats. There is very little expectation, I understand, that any agreement will be reached at that meeting.

There was a delightful cameo by our Minister for Foreign Affairs in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. Along the lines of Where's Wally?, there was a 'Where's Kevin?' He has been popping up in all corners of the globe, but I do not know he has popped up anywhere encouraging the rest of the world to reach a global agreement on climate change. There was a meeting in New Zealand recently, and New Zealand's top climate negotiator said that a global deal on a pact is still within reach but certainly will not be struck this year. Some progress has been made, but a gulf still remains between developed and developing countries about who should shoulder the burden of reducing emissions et cetera. So things are proceeding, but barely. What the government wants to do is bring in this deeply unpopular tax that is going to add an impost and a cost to every household budget of my constituents, that is going to drive manufacturing offshore, that is going to permanently skew our competitive advantage in many of the things that we do and that is going to be an absolute kick in the guts to mining, aviation and, I should also add because I represent farmers, agriculture. The Prime Minister often says, 'Oh, but agriculture is not included and farmers are therefore outside the scope of the tax.' Of course, that is not true, because if you consider the main inputs into every farming operation, they are fuel, fertiliser and electricity. The cost of all of those is certainly going to increase, and nobody is denying that fact.

We have to consider, as local members in this place, what our constituents want us to take to this parliament, what their feelings are and what their responses are in this matter. I have heard from many of my constituents on this, as we all have, and I want to mention a few of those individual people and their businesses here in the parliament today. Peter Baxter runs a refrigeration business in Broken Hill, and he cannot understand why he is being charged more for a refrigerant that charges up air conditioners or fridges with a gas that is not even discharged into the atmosphere. A carbon tax, even at just $23 a tonne, will double his costs for refrigerant. That will then be passed on to the customer, adding about 10 per cent to the purchase price of refrigerators and air conditioners due to a gas that is not even discharged into the atmosphere. He can already see the effect on his small business.

I visited Craig Waldron, who is at the IGA supermarket in Corowa. He employs 60 full- and part-time staff. We should not underestimate the effect this has on supermarkets, and they are major employers in regional Australia. He said that he is going to need to upgrade the storage freezers, which is a capital expense of nearly $500,000. How can a small business just conjure that sort of money up out of the air? How can you just go to the bank for another $500,000 when your margins are very tight as it is, with the rising costs of living and the fact that people are watching their pennies much more carefully when they come into your shop? Not only has he got to invest $500,000; his power bill is going to go up by $1,500 a month. He is saying to me, 'I have got to find that money from somewhere.' He is also saying that he hears the Prime Minister prattle on about compensation in household budgets and how everyone is going to be looked after but there is actually nothing for him at all. He is a small business, he has a family and he employs 60 people, and he has to find $500,000 and $1,500 a month for the increase in electricity costs. The irony is that this carbon tax is not going to sell any more groceries for him. In fact, as he said to me, 'I am already selling less'.

I visited Watson Drilling in Deniliquin. They sell drilling rigs to the mining industry. They could not believe that this tax was going ahead. It is a small business in a small town which is actually not agricultural. We need that business to survive. It is not based on farming; it is not based on water. It makes and delivers drilling rigs to the mining industry across Australia. I am really uncertain what he will be facing in this new era.

I can mention Colin Glassborow of Albury Building Supplies. He corresponds with me regularly, and he says that he has worked out that under the carbon tax the cost of his building materials, products and assemblies will increase progressively as they pass through the various production phases, some faster than others.

I also know that the brick manufacturing industry is going to be hit extremely hard. The cost of buying a new home, already getting out of reach for many, will only rise further. Do we really want Australian homes to be built out of prefabricated materials that are imported into Australia? Do we really want an Australian economy where we cannot afford to make bricks for our own houses?

I started by talking about aviation. It is a subject that is very dear to my heart. Regional Express, an airline that exclusively services regional Australia, is on the record as saying that this carbon tax will add $2 million initially in the first year to their bottom line. That is $2 million that has to be added to the price of tickets because these costs are going to be passed on. They are not going to be able to be absorbed. The perplexing thing to Regional Express is that if the ultimate desire of the carbon tax should be that they modify their behaviour—in other words, that they emit less greenhouse gases—the only way they can do that is to actually not fly as much.

The other problem that I have with the Prime Minister's carbon tax is the way that the compensation message is being delivered to people. It is: don't worry; you will be compensated. There is not really a message in this to change your behaviour. There is no message to the airlines to fly less; there is no message to householders to use less electricity. Householders are continually being reassured that their payments will increase and that there will be tax benefits as well. They are all sort of dressed up and are a bit of a trojan horse, in my view. There is no instruction and there is no encouragement.

I say that the Australian people would take on the challenge of using less fossil fuels. They would say, 'Look, everybody turn out the lights, not just because our electricity bills are going up but because we as a nation need to use less fossil fuel.' But there is no message to do that in this carbon tax. It is just such a distorted mess of movement of tax, of benefits to households, of charges on emitters, of people who are and are not affected and of costs that are going to be passed on that you cannot actually untangle the economic messages or the messages that households should be taking on.

Mining is very important to the electorate of Farrer and iron ore mining is certainly picking up in the far-west of New South Wales. Carpentaria Exploration are looking at mining leases along the New South Wales-South Australian border, and there is not a week that goes past that we do not see some new mining initiative talked about in the Barrier Daily Truth. This is certainly a great thing for the region. It is going to support its economic activity for years to come. But if we are mining iron ore, particularly magnetite, we should if possible be doing the downstream processing of that iron ore in Australia. We should not be exporting the raw material to Asia for further processing there. I challenge anyone in this parliament to say that that would be a good thing to do, but Australia's largest magnetite producer is expecting to be out of pocket by $11 million by this government's carbon tax and diesel fuel rebate. They are on the record as saying that as magnetite producers that process the mineral in Australia rather than offshore they will, of course, be unfairly penalised and they will get canned in Australia because we do the value-add here, whereas if they export it overseas the same value-add process is not subject to a carbon tax. So why would they not do that? We cannot overlook the effect that this tax will have on the mining industry and on the resources sector in Australia.

Airlines are critical to our way of life here. I refer to remarks by Alan Joyce from Qantas. He said, in October last year:

… that regions or individual countries introducing carbon tax or emissions trading scheme would distort the aviation industry.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation has set a goal of capping emissions from international aviation beginning in 2020 while gradually improving fuel efficiency. That is the way to go, not this way. Mr Joyce said:

Having regions or individual countries imposing an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax can cause distortions for the industry and will cause distortions to the industry and they have a negative impact.

It needs to be a global approach.

Of course it does. When asked if a carbon tax would have a negative effect, Mr Joyce said:

Of course it will—we’re one of the biggest users of fuel.

He also said:

Qantas alone spends $3 billion on aviation fuel, which could easily transfer over to sustainable fuels.

This is an area we need to encourage people to move on—not just putting in a tax, but helping people that have made a commitment to get there with the right investment. Australia has the land mass, technology and expertise to create an alternative to aviation fuel. Qantas has already positively tested algae based and ethanol based technology.

Why would we not apply our efforts to sustainable fuel and the direct action policy that we in the coalition are promoting? It is a policy we took to the last election and it is well known. It is straightforward, easy to understand and practical. It has created a lot of interest in my electorate, particularly around the area of soil carbon. The primary facet of our direct action policy is capturing carbon from the soil. The Garnaut review, the CSIRO and even my friends in the Wentworth group and various state governments have indicated the enormous CO2 emissions reduction benefits of soil carbon for Australia.

There is a way to go on this. Some of the work that is being done and I have been briefed on is very exciting. It will make a big difference. Submissions to the coalition from farm groups support the potential for a minimum of 150 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per annum to be captured in soil carbon by 2020 and beyond with a payment to farmers of approximately $10 a tonne. There are some good news stories about taking action on climate change. Unfortunately the government's carbon tax is going to distort, destroy and negatively affect the Australian economy. (Time expired)

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and the 18 bills being debated concurrently. The scientific evidence that climate change is occurring is compelling. The last decade was the world's warmest on record. Each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one. The sea level is rising. Human health impacts are already evident, and many plant and animal species are under threat. Scientific evidence of the link between human activity, particularly through the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, and these changes in our climate is also convincing.

In its report released earlier this year titled The Critical Decade, the Climate Commission concluded that it is now beyond reasonable doubt that human activities are triggering the changes we are witnessing in the global climate. The findings of this report have been accepted by all political parties represented in the parliament. These findings mirror the overwhelming weight of the world's scientific opinion. The world's top scientific agencies including NASA, the CSIRO and the UK's Royal Society all agree. Governments all around the world are receiving the same advice from expert scientific advisers. For all the discussion surrounding the failure of the Copenhagen summit, it should be remembered that the disagreement centred around the extent to which countries were prepared to sign up to binding targets, not whether climate change was real or caused by human activity.

For Australia, the impacts of climate change are real. We live on the hottest and driest continent. Climate change is a threat to our water security, our unique and natural ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef, and many of our major industries like agriculture. Even if you are not convinced by the weight of scientific opinion, there are sound economic arguments for supporting measures to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels. Australia has been blessed with a natural abundance of fossil fuels. As a result, 95 per cent of Australia's primary energy production is from non-renewable energy sources.

While our rich natural endowments of fossil fuels have given us access to cheap energy sources and have allowed us to generate considerable export income, this heavy reliance upon fossil fuels presents us with some significant challenges in the future. As fossil fuels are finite resources and will one day exhaust, we will not be able to rely upon them for our domestic energy production forever. Equally, as the world becomes more carbon constrained and countries begin to reduce their reliance upon fossil fuels, Australia will find that its export base will be affected. As a consequence, the transition to a low-carbon future presents enormous challenges to the Australian economy and our future living standards. This process of adjustment is best managed in a measured, balanced and gradual fashion. This is precisely why Australia should begin its journey on the path to a low-carbon future sooner rather than later. The sooner we commence this process, the more gradual and less painful the cost will be.

Australia faces these challenges against the backdrop of one of the biggest shifts in global economic power in centuries, which offers us a great opportunity. As the locus of global economic power shifts to the Asian region, Australia is located in the right place at the right time. With our populous Asian neighbours going through the process of industrialisation, we live in a world in which our fossil fuels are in high demand. While this demand is driving our record terms of trade and increased national income in the near future, this also presents Australia with the opportunity to begin transforming our economy so that we become less dependent upon fossil fuels for domestic energy production. As the rest of Asia industrialises, Australia must seize the opportunities this creates to begin building the post-industrial low-carbon economy of the future.

Climate change requires global action. No single country can reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere on its own, but it stands to reason that we must all do our fair share. Already 89 countries have pledged to take action on climate change. Many countries have already introduced a carbon price, including 32 countries and 10 US states, and California, the world's eighth largest economy, will introduce an emissions trading scheme in 2012. Countries like the United Kingdom, led by conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, are leading the way with its target of reducing emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050. China is now the world's largest manufacturer of both solar panels and wind turbines and has recently announced plans to trial an ETS in 2013. The climate change debate has been going on for the best part of the last two decades in this country. Indeed, in 2007 both major parties contested the federal election with a commitment to introduce a carbon price by establishing an ETS. It is ironic that had the former Prime Minister John Howard won the 2007 election we would already have a carbon price and ETS in this country. The consensus that had emerged by 2007 was based upon agreement that climate change is a product of market failure and can best be addressed with a market based solution by pricing carbon through an ETS. By pricing carbon we are able to bring a closer alignment of the commercial interests of companies seeking to maximise their profits with the environmental and community interests of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved environmental outcomes.

Market based solutions deliver abatement at the lowest cost by providing incentives for businesses to find the cheapest ways to reduce their emissions. A carbon price will provide an incentive for firms to innovate and find new ways of operating to reduce their costs by reducing their emissions.

Unfortunately, the national consensus around the need to introduce a carbon price broke down when the member for Warringah ousted the member for Wentworth as the Leader of the Opposition. Since this time our nation has been subjected to one of the most vapid, opportunistic, deceitful and low-rent public policy campaigns in the history of the Federation. The government's plan to price carbon provides certainty for investors and a fair go for Australian households. Every cent raised from the carbon price will be used to assist households, support jobs in carbon intensive industries and invest in clean energy technologies and the jobs of the future.

Until now big businesses have been able to pollute our atmosphere for free with no incentive to lower their carbon pollution levels. Under the government's plan big polluters will pay for the greenhouse gases they emit, not Australian households. Around 500 of Australia's biggest polluters will pay for every tonne of emissions. The less they pollute, the less they will pay. But we understand that businesses may pass some of these costs on to consumers and that this will impact on the prices households will have to pay for goods and services. That is why over half of the money raised from the carbon price will be used to provide financial assistance to nine out of 10 Australian households. This assistance will be permanent and will increase.

Treasury modelling indicates that the impact of the carbon price on price increases will be modest. On average, prices are expected to rise by less than one per cent, which is much less than the 2½ per cent increases in prices that resulted from the GST. The average cost of the carbon price to households will be $9.90 a week, while the average assistance will be $10.10 per week.

In the Labor tradition, the government will support jobs and maintain the competitiveness of industries that will be affected by a carbon price. Our generous industry assistance package will provide $300 million to support jobs in the steel industry, $1.2 billion to support the manufacturing industry and $1.3 billion to support the coalmining industry.

Across the economy, jobs are expected to continue to grow, with an extra 1.6 million jobs to be created by 2020. In driving Australia towards a clean energy future, we will create the jobs of the future for our children and their children. The government will invest more than $10 billion in clean energy technologies like solar, gas, geothermal and wind. A further $3.2 billion will be invested in start-up grants and assistance projects that strengthen renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. This means more Australians in jobs today and in the future, creating the new energy sources that the world will demand.

After three years of a fixed carbon price we will transition to a market based mechanism and cap Australia's carbon pollution levels. This will ensure Australia's emission reduction targets are met and we will reduce our carbon pollution by 159 million tonnes each year, which is the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road.

There is bipartisan support for a five per cent emissions reduction target—on 2000 levels—by 2020, with both the government and the coalition committing to this target. The coalition plan to use taxpayer funds to subsidise the big polluters, without providing any assistance to households and small businesses. Their plan has been estimated to cost every household $1,300 per year on average in extra costs.

The coalition's policy relies upon a centrally planned economic model—a model that is inconsistent with the Australian economic tradition, where the community has faith in markets operating within the parameters set by, and the supervision provided by, the state.

A report prepared for the Australian Industry Group by Ernst and Young assessing government and opposition climate policies, released on 1 July, says:

The general consensus among experts is that carbon pricing is likely to be the most cost-effective way of achieving low cost abatement, particularly in the long-term.

The credibility of the opposition's plan is also destroyed by the Leader of the Opposition's decision to deny Australian companies the flexibility to purchase international permits. Treasury modelling indicates that, if Australia is only allowed to achieve its reduction target with domestic-only reductions, the average cost per tonne will be $69 between now and 2020, compared with $29 a tonne under the government's plan. This means that the opposition's plan will cost at least twice as much as the government's plan to meet our five per cent emissions target by 2020.

When the Leader of the Opposition visits his next factory or workplace on his scare campaign he should look the workers and owners of these businesses in the eyes and explain that, under his plan, climate change action will cost at least twice as much as the government's plan, and this is without any compensation.

Throughout this debate, there has been much discussion about public support, opinion polls and the roles and responsibilities of members of parliament in a representative democracy. I understand that major and long-term reform is not easy. It never has been. I was inspired to enter public office by the reform achievements of the Hawke and Keating governments. They were Labor governments that made many of the big reforms that have secured much of the relative economic prosperity that our nation enjoys today.

I did not seek election to parliament simply to serve time. I entered public life to make a contribution, in the Labor tradition, tackle the big challenges and, where necessary, make the hard decisions that are needed to help build the great nation that we all know we can become. While I remain confident that a majority of my constituents believe that climate change is real and that action to reduce its causes and effects is necessary, I also acknowledge that many members of the community have been misled, deceived and scared by the campaign against this reform. The nature of this debate, inflamed by sometimes uninformed and often irresponsible interventions of many—not least of all the Leader of the Opposition—has made it difficult for a rational discussion of this significant but complex policy challenge.

In performing my role as an elected member in our representative democracy I am guided by the words of Edmund Burke, who in 1774 said of the relationship between a member and his or her constituents in a representative democracy:

Their [the constituents'] wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice … Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

I have made a point of informing myself of the published literature on the climate science and I have read widely and considered the views of key economic thinkers and advisers, including the advice of the Commonwealth Treasury, about the best and most effective ways to tackle climate change. I have met with, discussed and listened with respect to the views of literally thousands of my constituents on this matter over the last four years and I have been presented with a range of views.

As the member for Lindsay I have offered and will continue to offer my constituents my diligence and my industry, but in considering the package before the House I must rely upon my judgment. It is my firm conviction that the interests of my electorate and the nation and the interests of future generations demand that we must price carbon so that we may begin our nation's journey down the most effective, lowest cost path towards tackling climate change.

I will not accept that my role as a member of parliament should be akin to the electronic worm that has become synonymous with election debates—merely mirroring every impulse and opinion of individual electors. I believe that we are elected to this House to make informed and considered decisions in the national interest, as difficult as that may be. This belief means that I must accept that my actions will be judged by both my electorate in the short term and by history in the long term. As a proud member of this government, I reaffirm my commitment to the task of making our case to the Australian people on the merits of this package— (Time expired)

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

Elections are like contracts. When you sign a contract you keep your side of the deal or there will be repercussions—and where I come from, a handshake is as good as a contract, particularly among men and women of good honour. In an election when you make a promise you keep your side of the deal or there will be repercussions. All the Australian people want from this Prime Minister is for her to keep her side of the deal, to honour her solemn contract with the Australian people that there will be no carbon tax under the government she leads. That is not much to ask of any normal Prime Minister or any normal government. But there is nothing normal about this Labor government; there is nothing honourable about this government either. There is nothing normal or honourable about a Labor government which is turning its back on the Australian workers just to make sure the Greens will continue to support that dysfunctional government.

There is also a lot of talk around this place about mandates. Prime Minister Gillard has a very clear mandate. Like almost every other member in this place, Prime Minister Gillard campaigned to not introduce a carbon tax. Does anyone in this place, or out there listening around Australia, really believe that she would be the Prime Minister if she had promised to introduce such a tax just a week out from the election?

Unlike the Prime Minister, I believe in honouring my contracts—and I have a clear mandate from the people of Gippsland to vote against this tax, which even the Prime Minister acknowledged in her own speech will do absolutely nothing for the environment. I invite members to take a very close look at the speech the Prime Minister made in this place earlier this week. There is not a single mention in that speech of a measurable environmental outcome as a result of this carbon tax.

They used to come into this place and wax lyrical about saving Kakadu and saving the Great Barrier Reef. Those were myths, but at least they tried to pretend that their carbon tax would actually do something for the environment. In the Prime Minister's speech there is not one mention of a single environmental outcome that will be achieved from this carbon tax, and the people of Australia understand that. The people of Australia understand that Australia acting alone, with just 1.5 per cent of man-made global emissions, cannot do a single thing in terms of saving those Australian icons—if they even believe every single word of the doomsayers out there who are predicting such extraordinary environmental outcomes.

My contract, as I outlined in my first speech in this place, is that I will always ask myself: what is in the best interests of the people of Gippsland? What is in the best interests of the people who sent me here to represent them? The people in my community are at the absolute pointy end of this debate. For us, this is about our jobs; it is about our children's futures in our key industries like power generation, manufacturing, small business and all forms of agriculture. This is not some abstract debate about polar bears. It is about people in my community having a future in the Gippsland-Latrobe Valley region.

Unlike the government, I have given the people in my electorate a chance to have their say because I respect their opinions. Those opposite have been arrogant and dismissive. Anytime there has been a protest in this place, people have been harangued and bullied. We even had the undignified sight of the Leader of the House referring to protesters in this place as being of 'no consequence'. The arrogance in that statement will hang around this government's neck like a dead albatross until the next election. How dare a minister in this place describe people as being of no consequence.

The Prime Minister promised to wear out her shoe leather; she said she would go out there and consult on her carbon tax. Well, I have saved her a bit of time. I sent some postcards out to my electorate to give the people of the Latrobe Valley in particular the chance to have their say. I invited them to fill out a postcard and send Julia Gillard a message. I did not say what they had to put in their message; I just invited them to send Julia Gillard a message. It is interesting that I sent this postcard to the strongest Labor-voting parts of my electorate—Traralgon, Churchill and Morwell—and I have received, as you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, almost 900 responses. The pile here on my right is the pile against the carbon tax and the pile on my left is the pile in favour of the carbon tax. For the sake of the Hansard, we can measure the piles. The pile on the right, against the carbon tax, is about 20 centimetres high; and the pile on the left—well, we will be generous and say it is 1½ centimetres high. Thirty-two people were in favour of the carbon tax and about 870 were against the tax.

These are some of the messages from the people the government describes as being of no consequence. This is what these people are saying to me. Natasha from Traralgon said:

It means that my husband may lose his job at Hazelwood power station. We cannot provide to our children the simple things in life, like a good education, due to rising living expenses. Not good enough, Julia.

From Joanne in Tyers:

Small business is the backbone of this country and Julia Gillard will destroy this with a carbon tax, especially in the Latrobe Valley. The Latrobe Valley is a great place to live but without jobs people will go elsewhere. The Greens and Labor are only interested in city people.

From Malcolm in Morwell:

With the global financial crisis possibly getting worse now is not the time to introduce a carbon tax, which will create great unemployment. We must put the welfare of Australians first. This tax will not change the climate.

There are some very intelligent people in my electorate, I must say. Ian in Traralgon said:

Don't do it. People are struggling to pay their bills now. The cost of everything we do and buy will go up. This will make no difference to our pollution output. It's just a grab for cash to pay for your mistakes.

From Mal in Morwell:

As a self-funded retiree will you compensate me for the potential loss of value in my home? Come clean and put it to the vote.

Another, from Shaun in Traralgon, said:

Dear Julia, I am a CFMEU member. I feel I was misled at the last election—

Join the club, Shaun. Shaun felt he was misled. He goes on:

I work for Australian Paper and can only see the negatives for our industry and the local community.

From Nola in Churchill:

As a pensioner I don't want your carbon tax. Even though you say we will be compensated it will not be enough to give pensioners a reasonable lifestyle with all rising costs due to this unwanted or needed tax that was not voted for by the public.

And from Neville in Traralgon:

Julia, if you believe the population needs a carbon tax, call an election and see where you stand. It's a tax grab and will do nothing for the environment.

I could go on. There are many more. Geoff from Churchill says:

How can you sell coal to countries with no carbon emissions tax and shut down our power industry as we know it? It is a death warrant to Australian manufacturing and a leg-up to China.

Finally, from the Rayners at Hiamdale:

… very worried about the increasing cost to our dairy farm, which most likely would make it unviable. Australians, the ones I know, don't want a carbon tax. We already pay so many taxes we are concerned about putting off investors. I don't think it will make any difference to the environment.

If time allowed, I could go on for about two or three hours reading these messages to the chamber, and it would be a lot better than what the Prime Minister has managed so far. This Prime Minister has refused to listen to the people in my community. To give her some credit, the Prime Minister actually visited once. She went to a meeting behind closed doors but did not hold a forum and did not talk to a single person on the street about how they feel about this carbon tax.

I invite members opposite who would like to read some of the messages to come to my office at any time they like. I would like them to come along and I will make the messages available at the front desk.. They can read through the positive pile of messages and they can read through the negative pile, if they like. Quite frankly I do not expect to be knocked over in the rush, because members opposite have stopped listening. There seems to be a form of political deafness which has set in. They hear only what they want to hear and they bully, harangue and belittle any opposing views.

In her speech the Prime Minister tried to take some high moral ground, although how anyone can aspire to high moral ground after such a fundamental breach of trust is simply beyond me. The Prime Minister actually lectured this side of the House and told us that the reason we have a vote is so that every member in this place can be judged on where they stand on the issues of great national debate. I say to those opposite, and to the Prime Minister: there is also a reason why we have elections. We have elections so people can be judged. We have them so that people can be judged on their performance in the past, on whether they have kept their promises and on the policies they put forward in the future. I say to those opposite: judgment day is coming for you and this insidious carbon tax.

The Prime Minister also challenged those on this side of the House to be on the right side of history. I join with the Leader of the Opposition in calling on the Prime Minister to be on the right side of the truth. Prime Minister, you must deal with that fundamental breach of trust before you have any honour in the eyes of the Australian people. Unless you deal with that fundamental breach of trust, they will not believe a single word you tell them. The Australian people have simply stopped listening to a Prime Minister who refuses to apologise for such a fundamental breach of trust.

This carbon tax will go down in history with all those other great ideas that have come forward from this Prime Minister. We have had the home insulation debacle and the citizens assembly. What happened to the citizens assembly? Have I missed it? It must be coming soon. Then the Prime Minister promised no action on the carbon tax until she had built a lasting consensus. Well, I have a consensus; here is my consensus. These postcards show about 870 people against and 32 in favour. I have a consensus in Gippsland. Prime Minister, how is the consensus going? I ask you that very simple question.

What are some of the other great ideas from this Prime Minister? We have had the East Timor solution. Are there any progress reports on the East Timor solution? Hello, anyone on the other side; how is East Timor going? Then we have had the Malaysian people swap deal, which was thrown out by the High Court despite constant reassurances from the Prime Minister and her minister that their legal advice was sound. They were on very good legal grounds, they told us.

The Australian people are embarrassed that they have such an inept and incompetent Prime Minister who simply refuses to listen to their views. Instead of lecturing us, the Prime Minister should come into this place and apologise for the fundamental breach of trust and ask the Australian people for a mandate, before the next election, to introduce this tax. I have no problem with this government deciding to legislate this tax, but I have an enormous problem with this government deciding to do that without first seeking a mandate from the Australian people. That is the great folly of this tax and this government's approach to the Australian people. Time is very limited, but I would like to make a couple of other comments and briefly refer to this ridiculous proposition that somehow only 500 of these so-called biggest polluters will pay this tax. This tax will cascade through the Australian economy like a toxic waterfall and add costs to every Australian family. It will hurt small businesses, it will make Australian exporters less competitive and it will cost jobs. A classic example is the dairy farmers in my electorate. Dairy farmers are high energy users; they use a lot of power. It is estimated by the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria that it would be in the order of $5,000 extra per year for an average sized dairy farm. Dairy farmers are not going to get any compensation. Their competitors are not going to be hit with this tax. They sell into world export markets and they are going to have to wear that cost. And do you know how they will wear that cost, Mr Deputy Speaker? They will wear that cost by making sacrifices. Dairy farmers' families will find that the family holiday will not be on this year. That $5,000 will come straight off their household income. Then they will think, 'Perhaps we won't go shopping for runners at the local sports store, we might have to go to Kmart; we might be buying cheaper shoes.' This will have an impact on everyday Australians every day of their lives and this government is lying to the Australian people when it claims that only the 500 so-called biggest polluters will pay the tax. Everyone will pay the tax every day.

The people in my electorate do not want the government's household assistance package. They do not want transition plans. They want the decency of a job. The people in my community keep asking: 'Why is it okay for Australia to export coal to China, India, Korea and Japan to burn in their coal-fired power stations?' Why is it okay for a powerstation worker using Australian coal in those countries to have a job, but it is not okay for a Latrobe Valley powerstation worker to have his job using brown coal, that great natural resource of the Latrobe Valley. The day the government can explain that to me, just maybe I will start to listen to their reassurances in relation to this carbon tax.

I say to those opposite: take up the Prime Minister's challenge, because here is your opportunity to make history. Those opposite have a very clear choice. They can stand up for the workers that they used to represent—that the Labor Party used to take great pride in representing—by crossing this chamber and voting down this tax. If only one of them had the courage of their convictions—if only one of them had the courage to stand up for the workers—they could walk over to this side and vote down this tax. So, they can stand up for the workers, they can walk across this side of the House and vote down this tax, or they can blindly follow this Prime Minister to her own political grave.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a dreadful contribution from somebody who has no idea of what the government is trying to achieve with these bills—that is, to tackle a major issue for the planet. Here is a political party engaging in the cheap political exercise of sending out postcards when we are trying to deal with a major issue that confronts the world and finding innovation that will take our nation forward to be a leader in this process. But, of course, they are just interested in playing a political game. I listened to the honourable member for Gippsland's account. It was just attacking the Prime Minister and the Labor Party and claiming that everybody would be paying more and more taxes. He did not deal with the issue; he did not say what his side of politics would do; he does not seem to think there is a problem; he evidently does not believe in the climate change science; he rejects all that and just thinks the world will go on as it is.

The world will not go on as it is and we need to tackle these issues. If we tackle them properly we will set our nation up for the future. That is where I believe this government is going. I do not believe that these clean energy and related bills should be treated as a political football, as the other side is doing. These are landmark pieces of legislation that will define the government in years to come. The legislation will help investment, allow greater development of renewable energy, assist in the cleaning up of our local environments, as well as the planet. It will help drive the innovation that those dairy farmers the member for Gippsland was talking about need. It will help drive the new energy that this country needs into the future. It will help us to meet the challenges we face. The Clean Energy Bill 2011 creates the carbon price mechanisms; it sets out the structure and the process for its introduction. It sets out the entities and emissions that are covered by the mechanism and the entities' obligations to surrender eligible emissions units. It limits the number of eligible emissions units that will be issued and defines the nature of carbon units. It deals with many other related issues as well.

I want to deal with the issues raised by the member for Gippsland. I believe in farming and rural Australia. I believe Australia has always been an innovative nation and I believe these bills set us in that direction. For the rural sector the Carbon Farming Initiative will provide an opportunity to grow many more trees and to store carbon. It will help provide a store of timber into the future and put more wood into the market. Here I have a piece of horizontal scrub from the Tasmanian forest. It says on it 'Worth more than its weight in carbon'. It is a solid piece of wood that is full of carbon; it is storing carbon in its present state. Wood, of course, uses much less embedded energy than other substances and is made into objects which are useful for mankind. The opportunity to use trees to sequester carbon is a terrific approach and should be given full support.

The object of the mechanism that we have in these bills is to give effect to Australia's international obligations on addressing climate change under the climate change convention and the Kyoto protocol. They support the development of an effective global response to climate change consistent with Australia's national interest in ensuring that average global temperatures increase by no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. It is a sensible and proper way to go. These bills take action directed towards meeting Australia's long-term target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050 and take that action in a flexible and cost effective way.

We have always been good at coming to grips with challenges—maybe that is because of how this nation was first settled and how we came about. We had to be innovative; we had to meet the challenges. These are some of the new ways that we have. I was reading a publication called New technologies for your changing future. It is a government publication that talks about innovations in our future. There are a couple of very good quotes in it. One is:

'Tomorrow belongs to the people who are prepared for it today.' An African proverb.

It was a pretty good African who put that together. It also quotes the French philosopher Paul Valery, who said:

The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be.

The honourable members opposite have no idea about the future. They do not seem to think that it is significant or important to think hard about this problem and to deal with it. In this innovation publication it says:

But we will need a culture of continued innovation to be able to respond more rapidly to rapid and unexpected changes to be able to continue to strive for a fairer, richer and more sustainable society.

That is quite right and that is what this government is endeavouring to do to meet our future needs.

Listening to the previous speaker and listening to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, they did not deal with their policy position. The Leader of the Opposition, I think, spent a minute and a half on his policy—a very sad amount of time when it comes from a party that once would have said that it was at the leading edge in generating policies for the future.

These bills take action directed towards meeting Australia's long-term target and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as I said, to 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050 and take that action in a flexible and cost effective way. They put a price on greenhouse gas emissions in a way that encourages investment in clean energy, support jobs and competitiveness in the economy and support Australia's economic growth while reducing pollution.

The carbon cycle, of course, is important to life on earth and we have good and bad gases in that process. Carbon dioxide is a minor one in all those other gases, but it is important as it is one of the gases that helps to keep our planet and us warm and helps us not to freeze to death. We need to understand that and make it work for us. That is what it is all about. Of course, there is a bad side to it. Too much carbon dioxide will cause the earth to heat up. It is this that is causing us to query the growing carbon content within our atmosphere and in the air around us, as it is said that the world has been growing warmer since man has discovered how to use materials to manufacture such things as steel and to process things into fuels.

To have some sort of control over the release of carbon dioxide, pricing carbon emissions has been identified by the Stern review, amongst many others, as a critical policy tool for achieving carbon reductions. Therefore, how carbon pricing is implemented is critical and will have a crucial effect on whether Australia meets these new carbon targets.

One way of coping with an unduly high level of carbon emissions is to examine how one can reduce their impact. One of the answers that we have in Tasmania is our timber industry. As I said, timber absorbs carbon and when you have a solid piece of timber you have a solid piece of carbon. We need to continue to produce many more trees. As I said, there are great opportunities in the future to grow trees. I believe that the farming communities of Australia will have a great opportunity to grow more wood, therefore also tapping in to the opportunity of storing carbon but also producing wood and all the other products that come out of it for the market. In the future there will be a lot more from things like biodiesel and there are many other things which are on the edge of coming into play. It is important to continue to open up and drive opportunities for innovation. The nation was built on innovation. We have solved so many problems. So many people in the early days of this country had to deal with issues and overcome them by being innovative and making things happen. These bills will help us do that in our energy sector. They will drive us towards a more effective, efficient and sustainable nation. I believe these bills are of great importance.

I am very disappointed that the other side cannot even come up with a decent policy position. It is a sad reflection on them to come in here and abuse the other side without really putting in place anything which could give an opportunity. Because there is possibly going to be an increase in the cost of living, people are going to be compensated. A total of about 38,900 people in my electorate of Lyons will receive household assistance through the transfer system, whether they be pensioners, families, self-funded retirees, job seekers, single parents or students. On top of this, taxpayers in Lyons with an annual income under $80,000 will all get a tax cut, with most receiving at least $300 per year.

We have the opportunity to make ready the threshold changes to our economy while helping to maintain a sustainable environment. We will offset costs by ensuring that those who pollute the most have to pay for that privilege, and this is the correct and proper way for us to go about it. We have been discussing the content of what is in these bills for four or five years. I heard one of my colleagues say that, if John Howard had won the 2007 election, we would have a carbon price in place now and, of course, we would. It is a nonsense for the other side to argue otherwise. It is just a political process they have embarked upon, and I am sure people will see through that. History will judge them and judge them, I think, very badly. I support the bills.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been a long time since legislation before this House has aroused public passion as we are now seeing with the clean energy bills. I cannot recall scenes in the public areas of this House as we have seen this week. We should not be surprised because these bills, if passed, will affect every Australian family profoundly. So many of the assumptions underlying their provisions are dubious and the government's attempts to sell the measures are contentious, to say the least.

I believe the main reason behind this great swell of public opinion is that the bills that come before the House are the result of a broken promise, a broken promise by the Prime Minister of Australia. Her words on 16 August 2010 bear repeating: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Yet here we are today debating the Prime Minister's carbon tax. Whatever is said in this debate will not change one simple fact: this is a Prime Minister who has no mandate for this tax. Like her predecessor, who declared climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our time before deciding it was all too hard, she is flapping like a rag in the political winds of expediency. In her wake are a series of political disasters: the inefficient Building the Education Revolution scheme, the deadly Home Insulation Program and her shambolic immigration policy. She and her government clearly do not believe in what they are doing but see the carbon tax as the price for clinging to power with the help of the Greens. The Prime Minister is not competent to oversee such a policy. The Prime Minister has misled the people of Australia. These are sufficient reasons in themselves to dismiss the clean energy bills. But there are many more.

First, I turn to the way in which the debate has been conducted. One of the most insidious aspects of the carbon tax debate has been a deliberate branding as climate change deniers by the government and the Greens of anyone who opposes this carbon tax. The phrase 'climate change denier' carries a great moral load of baggage. It implies that you do not care about future generations. It implies you do not care about the environment. It implies you care more about your standard of living and personal convenience than you do for the future of the planet and the human race. Proponents of the carbon tax have made two false assumptions, quite deliberately, that opposition to carbon tax means you deny the existence of climate change and you therefore are some kind of moral monster. They make an immediate appeal to emotion, the last refuge of the logically bereft.

For the record, I accept that man-made climate change is occurring and, yes, I accept there is a need to act. But I do not accept the imposition of a carbon tax is the right course of action. That does not make me a climate change denier; it just makes me an opponent of the government and the Greens and a supporter of the coalition's simple direct and effective policy.

I turn now to some attempts to justify the carbon tax where again the debate has been fogged by phoney morality. Just why is it necessary for Australia to act in this way when no other country is doing so? One reason put forward is that Australia is the biggest per capita emitter of carbon pollution, emitting more than the United States, as the Prime Minister told this House on 1 March. This is the cornerstone of another insidious argument designed to make individuals feel guilty and to make Australia appear some kind of international criminal. It is designed to fuel a desire for action, a desire to remove this stigma. We are told that the only possible course of action, according to the government and the Greens, though the Prime Minister ruled it out a year ago, is to impose a carbon tax. Of course it is not true. According to the latest United Nations international greenhouse gas emissions index for 2007, the United States emits more per capita than we do, some 19.54 tonnes compared to our 19 tonnes. Furthermore, our per capita emissions are in line with those of other resource-rich countries such as Canada and below other developed countries such as Luxembourg, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait.

Secondly, there are good reason why our per capita emissions are relatively high and will be so as long as we choose to live here: the climate, the sparsity of population, the need to travel long distances and the abundance of relatively cheap sources of energy. Thirdly, in global terms, while our per capita emissions are admittedly high, our overall emissions are a drop in the ocean. Government figures for 2012 for Australia's overall emissions are some 578 million tonnes, compared to the following figures from the UN index previously mentioned from two years earlier: China, 6,538 million tonnes; United States, 6,094 million tonnes; Russia, 1,579 million tonnes; India, 1,610 million tonnes; and so it goes.

Another argument used by the proponents of the carbon tax is that other countries are doing far more then Australia to reduce emissions. The Prime Minister said on the ABC's Q&A program on 14 March:

The rest of the world is acting and we with our high emissions economy can't afford to be left behind, stranded with a high pollution economy when the rest of the world has gone forward.

Again, on 7.30on 8 March she said:

Already 32 countries have emissions trading schemes. 10 American states do as well. They haven't waited for action at the national level, they are acting themselves.

Again, this is just plain misleading, part of the Prime Minister's elaborate deception. No other country is planning to do, or has done, what the Gillard government is planning to do and introduce a punitive carbon tax. No other country has an economy-wide emissions trading scheme. China, the world's largest emitter, has been praised by the Prime Minister for closing down dirty coal-fired power stations at the rate of one every week or so. But they have been replaced, according to the China Daily of 20 October, 2010, with 24 large-scale coalmines and eight clusters of coal-fired power plants. China's emissions will grow by seven billion tonnes from 2005 to 2020. That is seven billion tonnes extra compared to our current annual output of 578 million tonnes. The Prime Minister has mentioned that India, another of the major emitters, is taking 'national action' on pricing carbon through a 'clean energy tax on coal.' But that tax is a princely $1 per tonne. The state royalty on Queensland coking coal alone is $20 per tonne, and the carbon tax will be $23 a tonne. In what sense is India leading the way? A carbon tax is not on the agenda in China or India, and the reality is that those two countries have a different priority: lifting millions of their citizens out of poverty. To do that, they need to increase industrial production. They may be more efficient in terms of energy use, but their emissions will continue to dwarf those of Australia.

As for Europe, the Minerals Council of Australia recently released research showing that over the first five years of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme it raised approximately $500 million per year. The Australian carbon tax, by comparison, will raise approximately $9 billion per year and will be 18 times larger in dollar terms than the European scheme. In terms of its economic effects, Australia has a super-sized carbon tax. And it seems that in the European scheme fraud is rampant. The Australian Crime Commission found that the European Emission Trading Scheme was recently rorted to the tune of $5 billion. Europol recently reported that it had raided several hundred offices throughout Europe and had arrested more than 100 people in relation to crimes involving emissions trading. This included one operation in Italy where the police conducted raids on 150 companies in eight regions as part of an investigation into huge volumes of suspected fraudulent transactions. It also included raids in Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Latvia, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic and Portugal—after which trading volumes in Europe dropped by 90 per cent. The entire European ETS was effectively shut down for over a week earlier this year following the theft of around €30 million worth of emissions allowances from the national registries of several European countries. A final word on the situation in Europe comes from President Sarkozy of France, who has shelved his country's carbon tax because it:

… threatens our jobs, [and] it would be absurd to tax French companies while giving a competitive advantage to those in polluting countries.

It certainly would be absurd for this Prime Minister to do exactly the same thing. If this incompetent government could be duped by hordes of shonky pink batt installers, it is surely defenceless against the cunning of international criminal syndicates, one would have to say.

So these are the arguments and the case studies that are being used by the government to support its case. Never, even with the current government, has the gap between rhetoric and reality been wider. Yet it persists with this futile scheme, which, by its own admission, will see emissions continue to rise between now and 2020, from 578 to 621 million tonnes. The government estimates it will be spending $3.5 billion on carbon credits from abroad in 2020, rising to $57 billion, or 1.5 per cent of GDP, in 2050. So the carbon tax will not reduce emissions; it will see us spending billions of billions of dollars on carbon credits in overseas market where fraud is rampant; it will cripple Australian companies in international competition; and it will destroy Australian jobs. What a triumph—destroying jobs and costing Australia billions of dollars!

And what about the impacts on my constituents? We have seen projected rises in electricity prices, rises in gas prices and rises in the cost of living. We have a nation under very great financial strain; we see those increases in the cost of living only adding to that strain; and we see, certainly, substantial job losses as a result of this carbon tax.

I suggest that the government talk to Mr Erhard Dehmelt of Toormina, in my electorate, who contacted the office of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency with some questions about his financial position under the carbon tax. This is what he said in an email to me:

I am writing to you to regarding the compensation package of the proposed carbon tax. The Prime Minister has made repeated claims that those in the community who can least afford the new tax will be compensated and will in fact be better off … I would like to alert you to the fact that this just isn't so, as you will see from my situation which I have detailed below:

I am a single self-funded retiree, 59 years old, therefore not eligible for the age pension. Therefore pension increases will not apply to me.

I am not employed, and pay no income tax. Therefore tax cuts and increased thresholds will not apply to me.

My only income is from an allocated pension, and I do not have a Commonwealth Health-Care Card. Therefore compensation paid to self-funded retirees with a Commonwealth Health-Care Card does not apply to me.

The only possible compensation I could receive is the Low-Income Supplement of $300 per annum, but my income from the allocated pension is $31,200 per year, and the income limit for a single person is $30,000 per annum. I should point out that my income from the allocated pension consists of a taxed element of $18,466 and a tax-free component of $12,769, but information I have received from Greg Combet's office is that the income test is on gross income.

On an income of $31,200 a year, he will get precisely nothing in compensation.

We have a tax that is a fraud on the Australian people. We have a tax for which this government has no mandate. We have a tax that is going to drive up the cost of living and is going to cost jobs. History will certainly judge this Prime Minister. She will be judged as a Prime Minister who introduced a tax without authority and for no other reason than to cling to power. The members opposite do not support this tax. You can see that in their body language as they walk around this place. They do not support this tax. They do not want to drive up the cost of living for their constituents, but they are being dragged along, kicking and screaming, by this Prime Minister who does not have a mandate to introduce this tax.

This government is beholden to the Greens. It is beholden to a band of Independents who are not voting to support their constituents. They are voting for their own self-interest and to prop up this government rather than voting in the interests of the constituents who sent them to Canberra. History will certainly judge this Prime Minister. History will judge the Independents, as they have acted against the best interests of this country and their constituents. They will be acting to reduce our international competitiveness at a time when competition in international markets has never been fiercer and when those markets are in turmoil. We should have a government that supports local industry, families and pensioners but instead we have a government that is acting with a compass, driven by one thing, and that is political self-interest. It is acting in political self-interest over the interests of this country, over the people of Australia and over what is needed to drive Australia forward in the 21st century. This government has flip-flopped on so many issues and it has proved itself to be incompetent in administering the simplest of programs. How can we trust this government to administer one of the biggest changes to the Australian economy in Australia's history? The carbon tax will be a disaster for Australia and the coalition will oppose it every inch of the way.

Debate adjourned.