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

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

The adverse impact of the carbon tax on Australian industry.

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

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

There are adverse impacts on Australian industry by the government's proposed carbon tax because the carbon tax was devised deliberately to cause harm and add additional cost burdens to Australian industry. That is an objective of the carbon tax.

We should not be surprised at that because this came out of a desperate political fix that was necessary to keep the Prime Minister in power. What happened? Bob Brown demanded this carbon tax. He demanded this carbon tax because, as we all know, the Greens are not particularly interested in economic growth, industrial development, and greater economic progress and prosperity for our nation. They would rather see us living back in caves, abandoning all our vehicles and abandoning the consumer society. They want to impose their particular standards of an appropriate way of life on us. They have done that by conning the Prime Minister into introducing a carbon tax. Little is said about how the introduction of a carbon tax for industry will impact on jobs, because when you hurt the competitiveness of Australian industry you hurt Australian jobs. So with this carbon tax we will see something that no other country on earth has introduced or even canvassed—that is, an economy wide tax that will continue to increase. It will go up and up and up.

Why will this damage Australian industry? It will damage Australian industry because it hits at the heart of our competitiveness. It will impose additional cost burdens on industries right across our economy and effectively give a leg-up to those products and services that are imported in their competition with Australian made products and services. What will happen to Australian exports? They will be more costly to make and we will be further disadvantaged against our export competition.

Even if the government talk about compensation they fail to admit that there is no rescue for industry once this so-called compensation runs out. That is assuming that the compensation will be adequate in the first place and that it has been calculating accurately—an enormously optimistic assumption to make, considering the government's other economic predictions, which have so-far failed to hit the mark.

What happens when the compensation runs out in four years time? The issue of the relative uncompetitiveness of Australian industry will still remain. It will still be there. Does anyone imagine for one minute that significant industries that require regular, quite important capital investments will think, 'We'll go and invest two or three million dollars in new machinery because we are getting compensated over the next four years'? Of course they are not. They are going to say, 'In five years time, when we're really hit hard by the carbon tax we will not be in a competitive position, so our investment decisions today will be affected when the compensation runs out.'

What about all those businesses and all those industries that will not receive any compensation at all? There has been scant regard for the increase in the costs of many businesses right across the economy. Industry is vital for the Australian economy—not just because we want industry but because it is vital for our prosperity and for employment.

When we see the projected loss of jobs because of this carbon tax then it raises even greater concerns. New South Wales Treasury modelling is predicting 31,000 jobs will be lost in New South Wales by 2030, with 18,500 jobs lost in the Hunter alone. Deloitte predicts a loss of 21,000 jobs in Queensland, and at least 23,000 jobs will disappear across Victoria. The Prime Minister talks about this myth of green jobs, this hoax she is trying to perpetrate, this falsehood she is trying to convince everyone about—and no-one is being convinced. What has happened overseas? In the UK, every so-called 'green' job has cost 3.7 jobs elsewhere in the economy.

When we look across industries, what is one of the most important sectors in our economy? What is the backbone of so many communities, not just in the cities but in rural and regional areas? It is small business. And what exists in this package for small business? Absolutely nothing—there is no direct support for small business. There is no recognition of the increased transportation costs or the increased electricity costs because this government has not looked at those very important parts of our economy: those people who do not have a voice to force the government to the table to negotiate. We have heard the government say, 'Oh, well, you're not going to be materially affected.' The government sanctioned small business fact sheet says that there may be some indirect cost on small business, such as higher electricity bills, as a result of bigger companies passing on the costs of the carbon price. Yet the clean energy plan says that, when it comes to indirect price impacts, most small businesses will not be materially affected. This is absolute rubbish; an absolute untruth.

All the government needed to do was speak to some of the players in the retail sector. I spoke to one of my local supermarkets in Wangaratta and they calculated the increased electricity costs to their business. Being unable to pass on those costs because their competitive advantage is to be 1c cheaper than the major players, they said that they would have to absorb those costs by reducing their workforce. That is not good for industry, for local economies or for regions, but the government refuse to acknowledge this. It is as if the government have convinced themselves that if they crash through with the carbon tax then people will forget the pain.

People are not going to forget the pain of being put out of work, of losing the competitiveness of their business or of having their investment jeopardised because the government did not engage in reform. Change is not reform. To save their political neck, the government gave in to the Greens. That is the only reason these industries will suffer, will become less competitive and will pay higher electricity and transport costs: because this government were too gutless—pure and simple—to stare down the Greens.

When we look at how the government have engaged with various industry organisations across our diversified economy we can see that they have not really engaged with them at all. When Graham Kraehe of BlueScope said any compensation would be 'like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound', what did we hear from the government? Nothing. They have scant regard for the concern of those people who are at the coalface of their particular business or industry. What VECCI said was:

We are disappointed that there is a lot of stick and little carrot for small business.

They also said:

This … will mean small businesses will need to take further energy efficiency measures in their day-to-day business operations to keep costs down.

And the national organisation, ACCI, said:

Economically, the tax is a harsh blow to import and export competing businesses, especially small and medium businesses. Our international competitors get a free kick, of our own making.

Isn't it extraordinary that we have some ministers on the government front bench bleating about government intervention and protectionism when they are engaging in a deliberate act of self-harm to Australian industry? They are adding to the costs of production in Australia and deliberately giving a competitive leg-up to import competition and to those who compete with us in exports.

Another important industry in Australia is transport. It is trite to say we are a large nation with significant transport routes crossing from one end to the other. But, when we look at what a carbon tax will do to transport, it will hit it very hard. We know that a carbon tax will be applied to trucks from 1 July 2014. The Australian Trucking Association estimates that the carbon tax on the sector will cost the industry and its customers $510 million in the 2014-15 year alone. What does that mean? It means there will be higher costs for everyday goods at the supermarket and every store. It also means that there will be less competition in the transport sector because smaller trucking companies will not be able to absorb those costs as easily as the bigger players. That will mean greater concentration in the transport industry, and we know that when you have a smaller number of players in a particular industry that tends to make it easier for those players to put up their costs. So this will lead to a shrinking of industries not just in the transport area but in the retail sector right across the economy, leaving those who remain with greater market power. That is not good for competition, that is not good for innovative industry practices and that is certainly not good for the consumer and households, who are struggling under the costs at the moment.

The aviation sector is going to be slogged with a near tripling in the excise on aviation fuel. What will that do to airline travel in Australia? What will that do to regional airlines? It will decimate regional airlines, and those of us who have regional and rural electorates know how important aviation travel is to us. We see that the CEO of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia has said:

It appears that the government either doesn't care, or doesn't understand the role of regional aviation.

He goes on to say:

The Prime Minister claims that the carbon tax is aimed at the big polluters, but the regional aviation industry contributes around 0.2 per cent of the nation’s total carbon emissions. The fact that the tax is being applied via the aviation fuel levy to regional aviation, an industry that barely emits carbon and which actually acts as an alternative to other carbon producing transport options, makes a mockery of the Prime Minister’s claim …

And indeed it does. How many businesses will be affected because of these increased costs on regional transport? What ripple effects that will have through regional communities remains to be seen.

We also see that the building sector will be significantly affected. A carbon tax of 23 per cent will add at least $5,000 to the cost of building a new home at a time when the affordability of housing is a very vexed issue, causing great anxiety, particularly to first homeowners. We see that a carbon tax will add $36 a month to the cost of servicing an average mortgage of just over $340,000, but have we seen any recognition of the impact of that on the housing industry by the government? No, we have not. They are trying to ram this through the parliament as quickly as possible to avoid scrutiny.

And what about the impact on manufacturing—and one of the most important sectors of the manufacturing industry, the largest sector, the food and grocery sector? The industry association estimates that the carbon tax will add $120 a year to household grocery bills, because any additional costs of running a business will be passed on to the consumer, and this is three times the government's estimate of $40. I say that because a carbon tax will have an impact right across the supply chain, from farming to food processing, from transport to storage, from refrigeration to lighting. Any business that is involved in any of these areas, any industry that switches on a light and uses transport, will be affected to the detriment of the Australian economy and to the benefit of importers. (Time expired)

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

The best part of that speech is that it is over—15 minutes of just rancid negativity. The member for Indi, who has now left the chamber, has been going around Australia with the Leader of the Opposition pretending to be the worker's friend, pretending to be the worker's champion. What a fraud—what an absolute hoax.

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

Order! The minister should withdraw the term 'fraud'.

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

I withdraw. I wonder whether the member for Indi tells those workers what she said in the Work Choices debate when she said that Work Choices was 'big but fair'. The fact is that there is only one champion of Australian workers in this place and it is the Australian Labor Party. We are the ones with the runs on the board. We are the party that established workers compensation, that established the workers pension, that introduced universal superannuation and that got rid of Work Choices—and it is good to see the architect of Work Choices, the member for Mayo, in the chamber today. We are the party that has helped create 750,000 jobs in the last three years. At the same time in the United States there have been six million jobs lost. Before the global recession, unemployment in Australia and the United States was under five per cent. Unemployment in Australia now is 5.3 per cent and in the United States it is now 9.1 per cent. It tells us that we made the right decision and that the Liberal Party made the wrong decision in opposing the stimulus. If we had not acted, unemployment today would be more like it is in the United States—eight or nine per cent. The fact is that unemployment goes up quickly but takes a long, long time to come down. It would have taken five, maybe 10, years before unemployment reached the level that it is again today. That would have meant a decade of unemployment for a generation of workers.

What does the Leader of the Opposition say about this? In his first major speech as the Leader of the Opposition on economic matters in March 2010, he said:

The economic stimulus wasn't necessary to strengthen Australia's economy at a time of global recession …

His was a speech called 'Economic fundamentals'—and he got it fundamentally wrong. It shows bad economic judgment. But his judgment is bad on other things as well, because, if those opposite really cared about jobs, really cared about Australian industry, they would vote for the minerals resource rent tax. Think about this: over the last two weeks BHP has announced its largest profit ever on record—over $23 billion, its highest ever. On the other side of the country you have got BlueScope Steel, another great Australian company, announcing a $1 billion loss. A high Australian dollar has helped to create a two-speed economy and this is one of the best examples of it. Miners are earning more, pushing up the value of the Australian dollar, and that is making it harder for Australian industries like manufacturing. It is only fair, then, and it only makes sense, that mining companies pay a little bit more to help other industries like BlueScope Steel, like the industries that the member for Indi pretends to care about, to pay a little bit less.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Mayo will have the opportunity of participating in the debate if he seeks and gets the call.

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

The Leader of the Opposition is displaying the same bad judgment when it comes to climate change. Now, remember this: on both sides of the House both major parties agree that we should cut our emissions by five per cent by 2020. The debate is not about how much we should cut them by; the debate is about what is the best and cheapest way to do that. The advice from Treasury is that the opposition's plan will be twice as expensive as the government's plan. The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald says the same thing. That is, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Coal Association—all major Australian industries under the banner of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network—are saying the same thing: that the opposition's plan to cut emissions by five per cent by 2020 is twice as expensive as the government's.

Mr Deputy Speaker, think about this: if you had to drive a car from Canberra to Sydney and you had a choice between two cars, one which cost $50 in petrol and the other which cost $100 in petrol, you would—because you are a smart man—choose the cheaper one. Anyone with any nous would. It is as simple as that. That is what we are doing. We are selecting the cheapest and most efficient way to cut emissions by five per cent by 2020. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition has not chosen this path goes to his economic judgment. Paul Kelly made this point in the Australian on 31 August, a couple of weeks ago:

It was said correctly of Howard before the 96 election that the public knew him and trusted him on the economy. That claim cannot not be made of Abbott.

That was Paul Kelly in the Australian in August this year and he was spot on. Remember that this is the Leader of the Opposition who slept through the vote in this chamber—five divisions in this chamber—on whether we should stimulate the economy to stop a recession. He cared so much about it then he did not even turn up for the vote. This is the Leader of the Opposition who appointed Barnaby Joyce as his chief financial adviser. This is the Leader of the Opposition who went to the last election with a $10 billion hole in his costings, and now just a year later it has blown out to a $70 billion black hole. Just to put that $70 billion black hole into perspective, that is about the same amount of cuts that the Greek government has to make. Just to put into perspective, that $70 billion is about the same size as New Zealand's budget. So he has a black hole in his budget the same size as the New Zealand budget and the same size as the cuts that the Greek government has to make. His economic judgment is so bad that he has taken to attacking every economist that does not agree with him on this issue of how we tackle climate change. Members may remember his attack on economists only a couple of months ago, when he said:

So it may well be that Australian economists think that a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme is the way to go. Maybe that is a comment on the quality of our economists, rather than on the merits of the argument.

Do you know who this reminds me of? It reminds me of a former member for Oxley, Pauline Hanson, in her famous 60 Minutes interview in 1996. I remember when she was confronted by the facts from the department of immigration about Asian immigration which showed that her figures were not fact and that we were not being swamped by Asians. What did Pauline Hanson say then? 'They're just book figures; I don't believe them.' This is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying now: 'They're just book figures; I don't believe them.' He is acting more like Hanson than Menzies. He is acting more like Hanson than Howard.

Everything that he says now on climate change or about putting a price on carbon is proving to be wrong. Whether it is for the cement industry, steel, aluminium or Qantas, it has all turned out to be just hysterical nonsense, all made up. There is no better example of this than the coal industry. Remember what the Leader of the Opposition said about coal. He said it would be the death of the coal industry. What happened the day after we made the announcement? Peabody Coal announced the biggest takeover offer for a coal company in Australia's history—$4.7 billion for Macarthur Coal. That is a lot of money; that is not the sort of money you would invest if you thought that this was going to be the death of the coal industry. The fact is that the coal industry has a great future. The member opposite knows that. You do not need to be Bob Woodward to work that out. Remember Watergate? Remember Bob Woodward's old mate Deep Throat? What did he used to say? He used to say, 'Just follow the money.'

To work out if this Leader of the Opposition's scare campaign is genuine, just follow the money. That is what I have done. I have looked at the share registry of all of those members opposite to see if they are investing in energy or coal companies since we made the announcement of the carbon price. Last month the member for Wentworth declared shares in Winmar Resources. Senator Adams declared shares in the Woodside Petroleum group, BHP, Duet and Ski Construction. Senator Cash took shares in Asciano group, BHP, Amoco, OneSteel and Woodside Petroleum. Senator Fisher declared shares in Reclaim Industries, Terranim and Wesfarmers. Senator Humphries declared that he bought shares in AGL Energy, APA, Bow Energy, OZ Minerals, Woodside Petroleum and Newcrest Mining. The member for Stirling bought shares in Newland Resources and GR Engineering. The member for Brisbane bought 88,333 shares in Australian Pacific Coal. It is not the sort of thing you would do if you thought the coal industry was going to die. The member for Kooyong acquired Woodside Petroleum shares. The member for Flynn bought 10,000 shares in the East Energy Resources group. Senator Ronaldson bought Galaxy Resources shares. My old mate the member for Fadden has bought shares in Conquest Mining. Senator Johnston has shares in Mt Magnet Mining and Redback Mining. Follow the money if you want to find the truth and I will tell you this: you will find it out. Since we made the announcement on the carbon price one in six members of the opposition has bought shares in resource companies, and these are the people who are going around their electorate saying it is going to destroy the coal industry and destroy the economy. They come in here and say, 'It is going to frighten off investment.' It certainly has not frightened of investment on the other side, has it?

Instead of listening to what they are saying in here, look at what they are buying and you will find out as Deep Throat said, 'Follow the money.' They are either pretty stupid or they do not believe what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. What takes the cake is the Leader of the Opposition's claim that this is all socialism dressed up as environmentalism. Who would have thought that John Howard was the red under the bed all along. If John Howard had won the 2007 election we would have an emissions trading system right now and those members opposite who were elected in the 2007 election would all have voted for it. They would have voted for the type of scheme they are opposing now, including the Leader of the Opposition. What is he saying now? Suddenly this thing that he would have voted for if John Howard was elected is socialism dressed up as environmentalism. What is he doing to try to stop socialism dressed up as environmentalism? He is organising a workers' revolt so he can replace it with a centrally planned system. It just shows how ridiculous and how desperate this scare campaign has become.

Mr Sidebottom interjecting—

Let me tell you: this party, this parliament and this country are still capable of important reform and we will prove that in the days and weeks ahead.

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

Before calling the honourable member for Paterson I remind the member for Braddon that, unless he has been promoted, he has been interjecting from outside his seat, and the same applies to certain other honourable members.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in the MPI debate on the adverse impact of a carbon tax on the Australian industry. I have to say I have never heard such gall with the Minister for Defence Materiel coming in here and talking about Deep Throat and the trail of money given the track record on that side of the parliament. This government, the Labor Gillard, Greens Brown government, is perched on the precipice of an economic cliff, driven there by the deal of jumping into bed with the Greens just to occupy those government benches. This deceitful Prime Minister—

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

Order!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not say she lied. I said she is deceitful.

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

No. The member for Paterson is pushing me. He well knows it is outside standing order 90 to call the Prime Minister deceitful. I ask him to withdraw it.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right, in an act of deceit the Prime Minister—

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

I ask the member for Paterson to withdraw the word 'deceitful' and also while he is at it the words 'act of deceit'.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw, but I do beg to differ with you because this was the Prime Minister—

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

The member for Paterson will withdraw unconditionally or he will be outside for an hour.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw then. Our Prime Minister is the one who, with her hand on her heart just days before the election, promised the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. This is the Prime Minister who is determined to drive the Australian economy, Australian industry and Australian jobs over that cliff. Those members opposite are lining up and rushing to the cliff like lemmings. The reality is that members opposite, like lemmings, do not have the ability to think individually about self-preservation or preservation of others; they are just lined up to go over the cliff.

Each and every one of them stood with the Prime Minister. I did not hear one member of the Labor Party in those days before the election stand up and say, 'I disagree with the Prime Minister when she said that there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' I did not see one comment in the media. In fact the Deputy Prime Minister said that it was hysterical to consider that there would be a carbon tax. Not one member on that side said to the Prime Minister, 'I disagree with you, Prime Minister.' Not one of them said, 'I think we need to have a carbon tax because it is good for our economy, it is good for industry and it is good for Australian jobs'—not one. But they have all lined up like lemmings following this pursuit over the cliff. In following that pursuit they are breaking the basic promise that they went to the election with.

This Prime Minister also promised that she would seek broad consensus before she did anything of this sort. She would take the Australian people on the journey and she would actually assemble 150 Australians—never mind that the House of Representatives consists of 150 people—for the purpose and there would be deep and lasting consensus.

As I have travelled this country in my shadow portfolio visiting industry after industry and operator after operator and meeting with workers, I am yet to find any deep and lasting consensus in support of a carbon tax. In fact, the only deep and lasting consensus I can find is against the imposition of a carbon tax on our economy. Industry is scared and so, as a consequence, are those people employed in those industries. They are scared when they should not have to be. But there are the reports, including the Deloitte economic report commissioned by the Bligh Labor government, that say that in Queensland 21,000 jobs are predicted to go. Queensland Treasury modelling said that 12,000 jobs would go. The Victorian government commissioned Deloitte and they said that they would be 23,000 fewer jobs created across Victoria by 2015 as a result of this carbon tax, with the Latrobe Valley, Geelong, Port Phillip, Monash, Boroondara and Whitehorse the worst hit areas. In my home state of New South Wales, New South Wales Treasury modelling predicts 31,000 jobs will be lost by 2030, with 18½ thousand jobs gone in the Hunter Valley alone. Where are the voices standing up for those jobs in the Hunter Valley? I stand up for those jobs in the Hunter Valley. The member for Hunter supports the carbon tax; he said so in public meetings. He is quite happy to sacrifice those jobs. We have the member for Newcastle who, on the one hand, says how wonderful green energy is and, on the other hand, says it is fantastic we are building and upgrading more coal loaders to get more coal out of the area. You have the member for Shortland. But the one who will never be forgiven is the member for Charlton, the architect of the carbon tax. The people in his electorate in particular, those coalminers, those that work in various industries, will feel absolutely betrayed by this minister. As Englishman John Heywood said in 1546, 'There are none so blind as those who refuse to see and none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.' Well that about sums up this Labor-Green alliance. They refuse to see; they refuse to listen.

It would not matter what poll you turn to. There is no poll that, in the Prime Minister's own words, would show a 'deep and lasting consensus' or show any strong support for a carbon tax. People want to clean up the environment, and we agree with that. That is why the coalition have signed up, the same as the Labor Party, to reduce emissions by five per cent by 2020. It is our method of delivery that is different. Our method of delivery will not kill industry and jobs in this country like Labor's carbon tax.

If I need proof, I only to look at my own shadow ministry portfolio for tourism. The Tourism and Transport Forum, back in May this year, put out the report Carbon tax and tourism & travel—trade and global warming exposed. They said in that report that they supported a carbon tax. The Labor Party will love to repeat that to me, but have not read the fine print: providing there were compensation and transitional measures put in place for the tourism industry to address it. In that report they said that there would be 6,400 jobs lost mostly in regional and rural areas like Cairns, the Hunter Valley, across Australia, the Blue Mountains and in South Australia. The economic impact to this industry that brings in about $92 billion to the Australian economy would be between $600 million and $800 million per year. They said the only beneficiary in the industry of this carbon tax would be to the outward-bound market. Why would that be? If you fly in Australia, say between Sydney and Perth, you will pay a carbon tax. But if you fly from Sydney to LA there is no carbon tax. Already we are seeing a massive increase of Australians travelling overseas. In fact it has increased by more 11 per cent while inbound tourism has only increased by just over three per cent. According to this report, it will be exacerbated.

Ahead of the carbon tax, when the steel industry stood up, the Prime Minister rushed in and said the government would provide a package of around $100 million. The tourism industry, after the manufacturing industry, is the second largest employer in Australia. If you add to that the hospitality and restaurant industry, it is the largest employer. How much did they get, despite saying they would agree to the carbon tax if they got these eight recommendations through for a support package? Not one cent, so this large-scale employer will suffer dramatically. The only time the Prime Minister rushed in to help was when she was dragged in by Anna Bligh after the floods and cyclones and offered $6 million for the massive economic impact. There was nothing for northern Victoria, which also suffered floods; nothing for Western Australia, which also suffered floods; nothing for New South Wales, which also suffered floods; but there was a little bit for Queensland. At the same time, because Paul Howes clicked his fingers, $100 million dollars was offered. That is disgusting and an abuse of taxpayers' money.

These are the lemmings lining up at the cliff to jump over. The sad part is they are going to take Australian jobs and Australian industry with them, and destroy our economy. The idea of seeing some $57 billion per year going offshore to buy carbon credits when that money could be invested and spent here in direct action to fix the problem here at home is absolutely disgraceful. This government has a lot to answer to the Australian people.

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

This matter of public importance brought by those opposite is another part of their grand campaign to talk the economy down. The Leader of the Opposition, together with the member for Indi, have been touring the country over the last couple of months doing everything they can to zap confidence and talk down the Australian economy. The only problem with that is the Australian economy is not listening because, unlike every other country in the world, we have an unemployment rate below five per cent. Compare that with the US, which is now going north of 10 per cent, and most parts of Europe, where they are struggling to keep their unemployment rates below nine per cent.

Instead of the doom and gloom scenarios we see from those opposite, where people will be thrown out of work left right and centre and the unemployment queues will be kilometres long, we are seeing new jobs being created. There have been over 750,000 jobs created since we came to office. Economic modelling predicts that we will see 1.6 million new jobs created by 2020. We are seeing a growth in the need for new skilled workers; 2.4 million skilled workers will be needed by 2015, doubling to 5.2 million by 2025. This is the scenario that all economic commentators and all modelling is showing, but at the same time those opposite are trying to talk down the economy with their doom and gloom scenario.

We have $190 billion worth of new investment per annum including $450 billion worth of investment going into mining between now and 2014. Interest rates are lower than they were when we took office. We have seen, because of the uncertainty around climate change policy, a capital strike in investment in the energy sector. But, because of the announcements, we are now seeing a pipeline of investment of over $100 billion of new investment in the energy sector. So, far from the doom and gloom scenario predicted by those opposite, we have a world-class economy which is situated in the right part of the world and which has the capacity to deliver strong outcomes for people over the decades ahead. If we are to keep that in place, we need good policy and confidence. I have said many times in this place—

Debate interrupted.