Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills have no mandate. These bills will send Australian jobs offshore. These bills will have no global or local environmental benefit. This carbon tax is the largest single change to the Australian economy that we have seen in a lifetime. This legislation will have a devastating effect on Australian citizens and Australian business, particularly small business. In my electorate, these bills will put small business and farmers at a disadvantage. The tax will severely impact on the mining industry and on agriculture.

We have heard from the member for New England of the benefits in the Carbon Farming Initiative. This is a Trojan Horse. The Carbon Farming Initiative will not be of benefit to farmers in regional Australia. The Carbon Farming Initiative will not help the productivity of agriculture in regional Australia. The Carbon Farming Initiative will not be accepted by mainstream farmers. Farmers in Australia and farmers in my electorate are the most efficient, the most energy conscious of anywhere in the world. Farmers in Australia produce more tonnes of grain and fibre per litre of fuel and megalitre of water than anywhere in the world. To hamper them with this tax that is going to impact on their inputs is going to place them at a disadvantage to their trading partners and to their competitors who are trading into our markets. This legislation is based on a false ideology. This legislation is working on the conscience of Australians. Australians do want to help the environment. Australians do care about the future of their children and their grandchildren. These bills will not have any beneficial effect on the environment but they will hamper our children and our grandchildren in their ability to be competitive with the rest of the world. If this country sinks into financial oblivion because of the impost placed by this tax, our country, our children and our grandchildren will not be in a position to undertake any environmental improvements because of the financial impost. They will be at a disadvantage to the rest of the world, and we do not need to lead the world in this charge. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor-Greens proposal for an economy-wide tax on carbon is the wrong answer to the question of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Through the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and associated bills, the government is imposing a unilateral tax and costs on Australia's industries, businesses, families, local governments, hospitals, schools, community groups and sporting organisations. No-one will be exempt. It will cost Australians $9 billion in the first year alone. At the same time as the US is facing a double-dip recession and Europe is staring down the barrel of debt default, this is beyond irresponsible. This is just sheer, unmitigated economic stupidity. The Productivity Commission has stated that this will be the only economy-wide carbon tax in the world—described by US Republican congressman on climate change, Jim Sensenbrenner, as 'unilateral economic disarmament'. This is an indictment.

Australians have a great deal of common sense, and common sense tells us that we will all pay more under this carbon tax. Even Ross Garnaut has said that ultimately householders will pay. No matter what the compensation is, common sense tells us that we will pay more—pensioners, self-funded retirees and those who struggle to make ends meet. Common sense also tells us that taxing Australian business and industry in Australia and not in other countries will drive industry and jobs offshore. In fact, it is already happening, as businesses factor the carbon risk into their forward planning.

Australians understand that, while both the Liberal and Labor parties in Australia are committed to a five per cent reduction in our country's emissions from year 2000 levels, the major global emitters will actually increase their emissions up to fivefold over the next decades. World CO2 emissions are projected to rise by about 50 per cent—from 30 billion tonnes in 2010 to 45 billion tonnes in 2020—and nearly half of that increase will occur in one country.

Most Australians are already reducing their own emissions to help meet our five per cent reduction target. Individuals, families, businesses, industries and even those vilified by the Labor government as 'big polluters' have cut or are cutting their emissions. These are the same companies employing hundreds of thousands of Australians and are the major contributors to regional, state and national economies, often underpinning much of regional Australia. Their combined efforts to date have seen Australia's emissions intensity decrease by over 44 per cent since 1990. Australian industries and families have become more energy efficient and less carbon intensive without a carbon tax—a tax that is specifically designed to make their lives more difficult and costly.

Australians are addressing climate change. This is why Australia is one of the few countries in the world to meet its emissions reduction obligations under the Kyoto protocol. As a result, Australians do know that the Gillard government's unilateral, cascading tax on their homes, families and businesses is not the answer. In stark contrast, the coalition policy provides incentives to further reduce carbon pollution by targeting direct action, not through a Labor policy that raises the cost of living for families, increases costs for small business and industry and decreases our international competitiveness.

Even using the government's own figures, three million Australian households will be worse off. We know that over 400,000 families in Western Australia alone will miss out on any form of assistance. And the impact on regional Australia will be disproportionally high, given the impact that transport costs will have. And what for? Australian emissions will not fall under this tax. The government's own modelling states that their new carbon tax will not reduce emissions in Australia—in fact, they will 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes. So here we have a Labor government plan to raise costs for families and businesses through a tax that will not reduce Australia's total emissions and makes a negligible impact on world emissions. The government's own adviser and Climate Change Commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery, said:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

And, as we know, emissions will in fact increase.

The Labor government carbon tax plan only works if billions of dollars are spent on purchasing overseas emissions reductions. Many of these reductions will be brought from in countries with higher total emissions than Australia. According to Treasury, well over half will come from the former Soviet Union and from 'other Asia'. Australians will be paying $57 billion, not to reduce emissions in Australia but to reduce emissions in other countries which may not be paying one cent to reduce their own emissions and may not even have the capacity to measure emissions or emissions reductions. So here we have a Labor government plan to raise costs to families and businesses through a tax that will not reduce Australia's total emissions and the government's own Climate Change Commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery, saying that it may perhaps take a thousand years to make a difference.

The carbon tax will cost jobs across Australia, including in my electorate of Forrest. Australian Trade and Industry Alliance data reveals that nine out of 10 manufacturing jobs are with companies that will face the full impact of the carbon tax and that less than nine per cent of Australia's more than one million manufacturing workers are employed by firms that will have any compensation from the Labor government. Some of these companies are in my electorate. Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd is one of only two Australian titanium dioxide pigment producers. Together with the Tiwest Pty Ltd joint venture, which is also in Western Australia, they produce five per cent of the world's titanium dioxide. I ask members to note that Australia produces 20 per cent of the world's titanium dioxide feedstock but only five per cent of the processed product. The remainder is mined here but sent overseas for processing. According to the submission Millennium and Tiwest jointly made to the government on this legislation, this carbon price impact on titanium dioxide production, even with initial 66 per cent assistance, will very likely lead to carbon leakage with a net increase in global CO2 emissions. They said there was a real risk that potential expansions would be deferred or cancelled. In particular, Tiwest is considering an expansion that would likely be deferred or ultimately cancelled. The loss of this $150 million expansion would come at the cost of around 400 construction jobs and additional operational staff. Like many other trade exposed industries, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals needs to be supported, because this government's carbon tax creates an even more unfair playing field for Australian exporters.

This Labor government could increase their assistance to this industry to the 94.5 per cent level or provide a separate special assistance package or, the best solution of all, scrap its plans for a carbon tax that will drive Australian jobs and industry offshore. Then Millennium could just get on with the job of employing people and generating export dollars for our nation.

Collie is the industrial hub of my seat of Forrest, and it faces a major threat from Labor's carbon tax. Collie has three power stations—Muja, Collie and Bluewaters—with total annual emissions of 9.8 million tonnes of CO2. However, the government is refusing to compensate any of these power stations for the cost of their carbon tax They will be facing a cost of $225 million. These costs will have to be passed on to Western Australian power users. There will also be businesses which cannot pass costs on and there are nearly half a million families in WA who will receive no assistance at all. Some of those businesses and families live in Collie and work in and with the power stations.

There is a broader concern for Collie. The Labor government plans to change Australia's electricity base to just 10 per cent coal generation by 2050—down from 80 per cent now—this is the government's plan—it is in their document. As well, this tax devalues every existing coal fired power generation asset—an issue for finance or refinance. It also impacts on new and proposed businesses, such as the proposed Perdaman coal to urea plant which will face a residual tax liability of $25 million a year.

Worsley Alumina is one of the largest and most efficient alumina refineries in the world. It produces over $1 billion worth of exports every year, and directly employs over 1,500 workers. This is about to rise with the completion of a multibillion dollar expansion. Australian alumina production is part of a highly competitive global market, and making production more expensive here will risk the next alumina project or expansion. Worsley is a part of the Australian Greenhouse Gas Challenge, and has committed to reducing its emissions for each tonne of alumina produced. Over the last five years Worsley has reduced its emissions intensity by 6.25 per cent. This has been achieved without a carbon tax. As a reward for this the government is planning to tax Worsley millions of dollars every year.

Cement is a critical commodity for the Australian building industry, for community development and for the our economy, in the south-west particularly. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development says that 'after water, concrete is the most consumed material on earth—cement is the glue that holds it together'. In my electorate John Hovey runs Australind Premix, and his business is now at the mercy of this government's carbon tax. John has to work out whether he has a carbon tax liability, what that liability might be, and what that means for his business—but of course he will have to pay to find out. And right now neither he nor his accountant can answer those questions.

He, like thousands of others, has no direct measure of his current emissions, so he has to work out if his businesses emit more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Even if he falls under the 25,000 tonne limit he will, like many others, still be hit by the carbon tax. A major part of his business is transport—all of his inputs have to be transported to him, and then the products transported to his customers. He is also a high user of electricity. All this means that John will be paying considerably more to run his business with no compensation, and he will probably have to absorb the additional cost.

At a time of economic uncertainty the government has imposed even more uncertainty on John Hovey, his workers and his business. John is another business owner who has taken environmental responsibility and invested in new low-emissions technologies. His new trucks meet the European standards, but that is ignored by the government. They are in limbo with this tax—he has no clear idea of where his business stands and he is going to have bureaucrats crawling all over his business for years and years. He, like every other business, just wants to get on with what he does best: having a go, hard work, investing his own money, employing local people and offering service and products to people in the south-west.

In agriculture, some of the biggest input costs are fertiliser, feed and electricity—all affected by the carbon tax. We know about dairy farmers, apple orchards, abattoirs, butchers. Australian farmers are at the frontline in the delivery of environmental outcomes—they have collectively spent $3 billion on natural resource management on their properties, and reduced emissions by 40 per cent from 1990 to 2006—that is 94.3 per cent of farmers actively undertaking NRM. Two million Australian small businesses will face higher input costs and receive no direct support, including the nearly 14,500 small businesses in the south-west.

The statement that only 400 businesses will be affected by the carbon tax is a complete fabrication. The transport costs will impact very seriously on regional areas. We know that at least 56 per cent of small businesses may pass on the carbon cost to consumers but, because of restrictions and competition, 44 per cent will have no choice but to pay the costs themselves. This is a real issue in regional areas and right around Australia.

One in three small businesses surveyed expect to have to sack staff as a result of this Labor policy. This policy is expected to cost jobs; common sense again tells us so. We do know about the transport costs; it will apply to transport from 2014. Regional people will feel these costs. It will have a greater impact. In 2007 Australian trucks transported 277 million tonnes of food and animals around the country, and the carbon tax is designed to add costs to every tonne.

In its analysis of Australia's climate policy, the Wall Street Journal concluded that the Labor-Greens proposal was as much about social engineering as environmental stewardship. It noted that 'this is in part a scheme to redistribute income from energy users to Labor voters'. The Labor government's proposal is to raise the cost of living of every Australian who uses energy and the cost of doing business for millions of Australian businesses, for the net result of a small increase in Australian emissions and a massive increase in world emissions. I would counsel the House to remember the very wise words of Winston Churchill, who said that for 'a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle'. That is what we see with this Labor government carbon tax. As I said at the beginning of my speech today, common sense tells Australians that, irrespective of what they are offered, they will all pay.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to begin by sharing a letter I received earlier this year from a group of primary school students in my electorate: the Vardy's Road year 4 reading group. It reads:

Dear Ms Rowland

We are worried about our future. We want you to help our country to reduce greenhouse gas production. Climate scientists tell us that we only have ten years to turn things around. If we don't, by the time we are adults in 2020, it will be too late.

We will still be alive when your life is over. We want to have a good life like you have had. We don't want to live in a mess.

On 3 May I had the pleasure of meeting with and spending time with these young students. These young people, the future leaders of this country and the future mums and dads of Australia, wanted to know what I am doing to address their concerns. I told these young people that I am committed to taking action to safeguard our environment from the effects of climate change, to sustain our society, to support our economy and to create the jobs of the future. I could tell these children that I am a member of a government that cares about their future; that I believe climate change is real, that human activity contributes to it and that it has a detrimental effect on our environment, which will only get worse if we do not take action now; and that I am committed to doing something about it, something that is economically responsible as well as environmentally sound, that recognises that the most vulnerable in our society need a helping hand and that creates and grows jobs in the future. The biggest polluters in our economy will now pay to pollute, something that today they do for free. The cost of that pollution is borne by the environment and in turn by each of us.

I speak today in support of the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills. I do so as a proud member of this government, as a local member and as a mother-to-be. Everything has a cause and effect. Everyone in this place knows that if we drive our car recklessly we endanger society and we should pay a price for it. If we rely on obtaining energy by burning irreplaceable fuel and the consequences threaten the safety of our society then surely those doing the polluting should pay a price for it also. It is the right thing to do for this country both environmentally and economically.

Western Sydney is already embracing a clean energy future that recognises the environmental and economic realities. You can see it in action. The TAFE New South Wales Western Sydney Institute's GreenSkills Hub in Quakers Hill is revolutionising the way our tradespeople are being trained. Last year I was honoured to officially open the GreenSkills Hub, which was later visited by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to see how the green jobs of the future are being created in the fastest-growing region of Sydney. The Western Sydney GreenSkills Hub was funded under this government's Training Infrastructure Investment for Tomorrow initiative. It is a living laboratory designed to model sustainable practices and provide innovative training in subject areas that include green electrical engineering, plumbing, refrigeration and information technology.

For anyone in this place who wants to see how the new green-collar jobs are being created under this government, I strongly recommend a visit to the Quakers Hill GreenSkills Hub. It is the first vocational education and training facility of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. The young apprentices there are literally the first of their kind to become qualified in the green skills trade.

Speaking of young people and jobs of the future, I also have a special obligation to support this legislation because of the reality that exists in my electorate of Greenway. I often refer to our region in west and north-west Sydney as Australia's nursery and that is because in nearly every age category the electorate of Greenway ranks as one of the youngest in Australia. As an example, 8.2 per cent of Greenway's population is aged zero to five years old, making it the second youngest electorate in the entire country.

There is a particular demographic in our society which occupies the time and energy of many a marketing consultant or public office holder—young people who feel disenfranchised from the policy and legislative process that impacts on them and their future and indeed the non-franchised young people who have not yet reached voting age. We spend hours in this place making decisions that affect these young people. Any public office holder worth their salt struggles to find mechanisms to communicate and engage with them. The problem is that by and large these young people do not have the loudest voices on the airwaves or the opinion pages of the newspapers.

As I said in my first speech in this place, I recognise my obligations to these young people. There are occasions when I spend more time with them, their parents and their teachers than any other single group in my electorate. That is why I know that the Clean Energy Future package encapsulated in these bills, which is about transformational change for a positive future, is what these young people, their parents and their families are focused on.

We do not have to look far outside our region to see why we must act on climate change. Countries in our region stand to be hurt the most by changes to our climate. Indeed, Pacific countries such as Kiribati are already being impacted by rising sea levels brought on by climate change. As documented by the World Wildlife Fund:

The people of Funafti in Tuvalu and on Kiribati island are lobbying to find new homes: salt water intrusion has made groundwater undrinkable and these islands are suffering increasing impacts from hurricanes and heavy seas. In the village of Saoluafata in Samoa, villagers have noticed that their coastline has retreated by as much as 50 metres in the last decade. Many of these people have had to move further inland as a result.

Not only in the Pacific are nations being adversely affected by man-made climate change but Asia's low-lying nations are subjected to sea level rise also. The impact of climate change in these parts is well-documented, including as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald in 2010:

The low-lying delta region that makes up much of Bangladesh and the neighbouring Indian state of West Bengal are acutely vulnerable to climate change.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts rising sea levels will devour 17 per cent of Bangladesh by 2050, displacing at least 20 million people.

…   …   …

The Bangladesh non-governmental organisation Coastal Watch says an average of 11 Bangladeshis are losing their homes to rising waters every hour.

These regional examples demonstrate that not only is it in our domestic interest to tackle climate change but it is also in our national interest, for Australia holds itself out as the leading nation in the Pacific region. We must take the leading diplomatic steps to tackle climate change. These bills will reinstate our authority on this issue and reflect our leading economic, environmental and social status in the Asia-Pacific.

The Australian economy even in these challenging global conditions is diverse and dynamic. Sixty years ago it would have been inconceivable that the agricultural sector, for example, would shrink to where it is today as a proportion of GDP—a topic that rightly continues to occupy many debates in this place. Conversely, nobody would have predicted even 20 years ago what the ICT sector in Australia would look like today, how it would become the primary driver of GDP growth in our economy and the way in which it would spawn new markets we had not even dreamt of.

As has been noted time and again, the single most indicative feature of a healthy economy is change. If you are not driving it, if you are not continually transforming it, you are as good as standing still. It is this fact that the opponents of change—the opponents of transformational public policy—have sought to destroy since time immemorial. And of course we have seen scare campaigns on environmental and economic challenges before in Australia. We have seen how they have been exposed as baseless.

Twenty years ago a Labor government introduced a superannuation guarantee. At that time, those who were sitting opposite made a number of predictions about the supposed damage, with no corresponding benefits, that universal superannuation would wreak on Australian workers in the economy. By revisiting some of the uninformed claims made on superannuation, we can draw some revealing comparisons with the current carbon pricing debate.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and associated legislation. From the start I want to point out to the chamber that I do actually understand the theory of greenhouse emissions. I do understand why some scientists say that an overexpansion of CO2 could possibly lead to an increase in temperatures around the world. I also understand climate change. I have been a farmer all my life. I rely on the climate. I rely on the weather. I understand it probably as well as anyone in this chamber because my livelihood depended on understanding the climate and what likelihood we would have of rain, heat, dry conditions, drought and so on. That has been part of my life and without it I would not have been as good a farmer as I was—my son now runs the farm.

I understand the theories. I understand we have had climate change. We have had climate change for centuries and I understand when people, especially from the other side, get up and say, 'We should listen to the scientists.' I believe in listening to the scientists. You do not always have to accept what they say, but I believe in listening to the scientists. But I can say to this chamber there is not one scientist in the world that will say that this these 19 pieces of legislation will have any effect on the climate. There is not one scientist in the world that would say that these bills will have any effect on the climate. Let's just get it right from the start. If we are going to accept the views of scientists then we should accept the view that all scientists in the world would say that this would have no effect on climate.

In the short time that I have I will try to fit in all the views expressed to me by many of my constituents on this government's carbon tax. Firstly, I want to highlight just one of the very bad parts of this legislation. I do not have nearly enough time to tell the House about all the ramifications of this tax but I will touch on some parts I feel are important. After the Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, then set about introducing a tax that would drive up the cost of living, hurt business and do nothing to improve the environment. This is a $9 billion a year new tax. It will increase electricity bills by 10 per cent in the first year alone, hike gas bills by nine per cent in the first year, equate to higher marginal tax rates for low- and middle-income earners and hit the budget bottom line by $4.3 billion to the negative.

It is important to remember the government has not provided updated modelling since the initial price was set at $23 a tonne, so even as we are debating this motion we have not got the updated modelling because the truth about the government's modelling, which it has used to estimate how much the carbon tax will cost families, pensioners and businesses, is that it uses a price of $20 per tonne not $23 a tonne which is what they are setting the price at. Here we are expected to debate something when we do not have the correct modelling. There is a 15 percent discrepancy between the modelling and the actual price. This carbon tax is deeply flawed from the very beginning.

So with the price starting at $23 a tonne and costs estimated on only $20 a tonne it is also important to understand this government's carbon price is not fixed after three years. The government's own forecast is that the price will rise to $29 per tonne, not the $20 of the modelling, in 2016 then $37 per tonne in 2020 and over $350 per tonne in 2050. Has this government done any calculations on what these prices will do to the cost of living? Those figures would be hard to look at, that is for sure.

There is the Greens influence, this is a Labor-Greens government, and Greens senators have already expressed their views on the price, Senator Bob Brown would like to see $40 per tonne and Senator Hanson Young has canvassed a price of $100 a tonne. Even the government's own calculations talk about $350 per tonne in 2050—not $23, nearly 15 times greater.

I spend a fair portion of my time travelling around to businesses in my electorate to listen to their concerns and offer assistance where possible. During my travels this year I have heard one overarching theme: this government's carbon tax will cause unnecessary pain and force many businesses to close their doors. A well-established transport business owner in Murray Bridge with nine employees told me that he will close his doors due to the carbon tax. The added costs to transport will be enormous. A carbon tax will be applied to all trucks from 1 July 2014. This will increase costs significantly for transport companies. On top of that the fuel tax credit will be reduced from 1 July 2012 and this will ultimately lead to higher prices for consumers as the industry will be forced to pass costs on.

An Access Economics report highlighted the potential loss of 126,000 regional jobs under an earlier version of Labor's scheme. Gommers Transport in my electorate estimate Labor's carbon tax will cost their businesses an extra $60,000 a year in fuel alone. That is about $6,000 extra per truck. Gommers employ just under 30 people and transport is just one extra cost. They believe that the flow-on costs will be massive, and I hear stories similar to Gommers all over Barker.

Adelaide Mushrooms, Australia's largest mushroom producer, are another well-established business that believes this government's carbon tax will seriously hurt their business. Initial modelling by Adelaide Mushrooms predicts their costs would increase by $680,700. The price of mushrooms will rise from 18c a kilo to 23c, their gas bill will increase by 10 per cent in 2012, their water bill by 26.3 per cent and freight and packaging both by three per cent. The company will be hit by 5.5 per cent increase to wages, work cover, super and payroll tax—all those increases to a business that has already invested heavily in direct action by planting trees and installing energy-efficient generators.

Australia's 750,000 small businesses will receive no direct compensation; there most certainly will be a damaging flow-on effect from this alone. The Prime Minister has tried dismally to offer support to emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries. BlueScope Steel chairman, Graham Kraehe, had it right when he said Labor's proposed compensation deal is like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.

All this pain to businesses and increases to cost of living and the government's own modelling shows emissions will not decrease in Australia. In fact emissions will increase in the eight years from 2012 to 2020, from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes. These are the government's own figures. $3.5 billion in carbon tax revenue will be spent buying carbon credits from overseas. This is a scheme which the Australian Crime Commission has highlighted has involved $5 billion in fraud already.

Farming has not been spared either, and I have a large farming constituency. ABARES, Australia's premier agricultural sector impact group, said that broadacre incomes will slump by two per cent in 2011 and be down by up to 14 per cent by 2015. That is a slug of $1,100 initially, increasing up to $8,900 over four years. So the idea that farmers will not bear any of the cost is wrong, and of course it will be made worse when the tax on diesel comes in two years time, because every farmer knows they have to transport goods for production. Beef farmers will be slugged $1,200 initially, increasing to $6,700 by 2015. Sheep farmers could expect $800 initially, rising to $4,800 by 2015. Crop farmers could expect an initial $1,400 slug, rising to $9,700 by 2015, and diary farmers would face $1,800 in 2011, rising to $8,800, or up to $10,400, by 2015. I suspect this government only delayed the tax on diesel by two years because they knew the cost to consumers would go through the whole system. But it will affect farmers; it is only deferred for two years. The idea that farmers will not be worse off is quite wrong.

I attended a public meeting in Naracoorte in the south-east of my electorate earlier this year. It was organised by one of my constituents and I was a guest. The forum was advertised widely in the community and there was a great turnout. Even though the forum was open to everyone—and I did not organise it—the attendees were unanimously against this government's carbon tax. I would like to read out just a couple of comments I have received from my constituents. Margaret from the south-east said:

My husband and I are quite worried about the new Carbon Tax. We are pensioners but only own a diesel powered automobile. I have gone on the Internet to find the actual document that Ms Gillard will introduce but I can't find it. We want to know how her scheme will hurt us. We can see no benefits for the atmosphere or the Australian people.

Jan from the Riverland wrote to me and said:

I am very concerned about the Gillard carbon tax. I believe that it will not benefit any individual, nor the environment, but it will cost our country dearly by driving more industry offshore, simply by the fact that it is going to make Australia even less competitive in the World market. I urge you please to oppose this foolhardy action proposed by the government and furthermore stop their socialist agenda.

Her words. If you have a look around the rest of the world, there is no other country planning to impose an economy-wide carbon price. Europe has an ETS, often extolled by those opposite. I have spoken in this place previously on the European ETS and some of the dismal figures coming from it. But today I want to highlight that Europe's ETS is plagued by rorts, fraud and loss of jobs offshore. On top of this, it raises only about $500 million a year while this government's will raise $9 billion a year. That is just over $1 per person that Europe's ETS raises, while Labor's plan will be for $400 per person—$400 versus $1! It is just madness.

China's emissions growth of seven billion tonnes from 2005 to 2020 will be about 100 times Australia's so-called decrease of 70 million tonnes. In reality, there is zero chance either China or India will adopt any form of serious carbon tax. The United States, Canada, Japan and Korea have all either ditched or deferred carbon tax systems. China is experiencing a huge growth in greenhouse gas emissions and this includes the China Daily last year reporting that one League within Inner Mongolia plans to build 24 large-scale coal mines and eight clusters of coal fired power plants. This is just one small League's plans, and the Prime Minister was reported saying this year that China is closing down a dirty coal fired power generation facility at the rate of one every one or two weeks. I think the evidence suggests the opposite: they are building a lot more. The coalition's position is clear: we will vote against this carbon tax legislation and, if elected, we will rescind the legislation and scrap the carbon tax. Australia's manufacturing sector is already under pressure and this carbon tax will increase costs which overseas competitors do not have to pay. The carbon tax will force jobs overseas to factories which emit more emissions than those here in Australia.

Of interest are some promising renewable projects in Barker, a wave power site in Port MacDonnell. Wave power has the ability to be used as base load power and, when not in use for power, can also be utilised for desalination. Also in the south-east is a geothermal site. The Penola project is a measured geothermal resource totalling 11.000 PJs. This is the largest of only three known measured resources in Australia and can provide base-load power.

Unlike this government's carbon tax, the coalition's policy is fully funded and will ensure a government lives within its means. (Time expired)

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to support these bills. Since the industrial revolution in the 1800s humans have been putting more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels like oil and coal. We know that this is having a negative impact on the world's climate and we have known this for a long time. Eighty-six years ago Alfred Lotka calculated the rate humans were burning the earth's energy reserves and talked of how the world's atmosphere would fundamentally change. Since then the science has strengthened and now climate models tell us that CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat and is warming our planet. So after a long debate, a multitude of inquiries and reports, it is time to do something. We know that waiting longer will only make the change to a clean energy future harder.

There is often some confusion in the media, sometimes deliberately so I suspect, about climate science because science deals with what is most likely rather than simple 'yes' or 'no' answers. There is always debate in science because science is based on scepticism. 'Prove it to me!' is what scientists always demand. Scientists want data; accepting someone's word is not good enough. This is also exploited by the opposition and vested interests as they wheel out so-called experts to argue that little to nothing needs to be done. The fact that there is debate in science is often used as a basis for arguing that the opinion of very few is the real position that government should take rather than listen to the vast majority of scientists, who have very different conclusions. This tactic has been used in the past to delay changes that will impact interest groups and big business but benefit the vast majority of the public. Science denying that smoking causes cancer is but one example.

For those lacking a science background, it is always prudent and responsible to take advice from those with appropriate scientific qualifications as you would in the area of health. This is what the Labor government is doing, and the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is indeed real and needs to be tackled. There are also no credible scientific associations, universities or scientific bodies that disagree that climate change is real or caused by human influences. I ask you: are NASA, the UK Royal Society, CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science all wrong?

Anti-climate change websites, blogs, emails and conspiracy books are unreliable sources of scientific information because they are not based on data or peer reviewed scientific studies. They are opinion only. Furthermore, what we quite often see from the opposition and a handful of so-called experts is not scepticism based on science but climate denial. The opposition, with a wink and a nudge, also have the same target of a five per cent reduction by 2020. We all know they are really in denial about the urgency of the issue and the rigor of the science—no more than two years ago they agreed with it! Only one vote separated whether they would have been prepared to put an ETS to this parliament and this country. But now they are all converted, except one or two, to denial.

We know the Leader of the Opposition has used a variety of descriptions when talking about climate change, including describing it as 'absolute crap'. Later he talked about 'a draconian new police force chasing an invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance'. Recently we had the New South Wales Premier, Mr O'Farrell, claiming publicly in July that the carbon price would increase public transport fares in Sydney by 3.6 per cent and warned that some commuters faced extra costs of $150 a year. And, boy, didn't some newspapers and TV networks rush to get that onto their front pages and onto our screens! But documents released in the New South Wales parliament show that the New South Wales Treasury advised the state government in August that the federal government's carbon price would increase public transport fares not by 3.6 per cent but by just 0.49 per cent.

The opposition's alternative policy, if that is what you could call it, is not supported by science; it is simplistic and not supported by economists or pretty much anyone of any note. With any degree of scrutiny the public would dump it as ineffective and too expensive. Why would any polluter bother to change if it was business as usual? No price on carbon means there is no incentive to change. 'No thanks, we like what we are doing,' would be the response, unless, of course, the subsidy is huge. This would lead to corporate rent seeking in the extreme. The more carbon dioxide you pump into the atmosphere and the more technologically backward an industry is the greater the handout you can receive under the Liberals' policy. That is the logic of it. It is a direct handout, a direct subsidy and a direct windfall to the very industries that create the problem in the first place. There will not be a dollar for those companies who have already reduced their carbon footprint. These companies will not get a cracker from the Liberals because they have already acted to become a zero-emissions company. The Liberal's direct action has no capacity to recognise positive action the way a market mechanism does. In fact, companies who have lowered their emissions off their own bat would see their competition get paid to do nothing to lower their emissions. Again, if this is the case, why bother doing it in the first place? You would be much better waiting to get your hands on a huge subsidy. In a perverse fashion, under the opposition's policy the only way to get a subsidy is to be a polluter waiting for cash in a handout and not be an innovator. The other centrepiece of so-called direct action policy is locking up carbon, specifically planting trees and locking up soil carbon. Firstly, you cannot plant enough trees to take enough carbon from the atmosphere. On top of this, they have ruled out planting trees on great swathes of Australia. There is also no evidence that soil carbon can lock up anywhere near enough carbon to counteract emissions.

On the other hand, Labor has designed a fantastic scheme that, after a fixed price period, creates a market for emissions. Only the big polluters will pay. Scientists tell us we need to reduce our reliance on carbon emissions, and economists tell us that a market mechanism is the cheapest and most effective way to do this. Indeed, until recently those opposite accepted the logic of that argument. Now they reject it. They stand by themselves with one or two newspapers in holding that view. To ignore this advice trashes the credibility of scientists and economists. We know those on the other side have sought to do that and continue to do that. But in designing this package we have not forgotten about households, no matter how much those opposite try to whip up a scare campaign to the contrary.

We have designed a comprehensive support package for Australian households. Nine in 10 households will receive some assistance through tax cuts and/or payment increases. Almost six million households, or two out of three, will get tax cuts or increased payments that cover their entire average price impact. Over four million Australian households will get an extra buffer with assistance that is at least 20 per cent more than their expected average price impact. Over one million Australians will no longer need to lodge a tax return. On average, it will cost households $9.90 per week, but they will get $10.10 per week in assistance.

This assistance is permanent and, contrary to what those opposite say, will increase. The government will review the adequacy of assistance each year and will increase it further if necessary. The assistance will mean, for example, that pensioners and self-funded retirees will get up to $338 extra per year if they are single and up to $510 per year for couples. Families receiving family tax benefit part A will get up to an extra $110 per child. Eligible families will get up to an extra $69 in family tax benefit part B. Allowance recipients will get up to $218 extra per year for singles, $234 per year for single parents and $390 per year for couples. On top of this, taxpayers with annual income of under $80,000 will all get a tax cut, with most receiving at least $300 per year. Almost all eligible households will get financial assistance automatically, without having to apply. On top of this there is a significant support package for industry. This package, when combined with the carbon farming imitative, shows clearly there are real opportunities for rural and regional Australia.

Avoiding the worst impacts of climate change relies entirely on top emitters taking action. Contrary to what is claimed by those opposite and denialists, Australia is a top emitter, and acting alongside mid-sized countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands—all of which have a carbon price already in place—we can cut global carbon pollution. We cannot just stick our heads in the sand and expect that we will not be adversely affected by sea-level rises, and the increasing incidence of extreme drought, floods and bushfires. We all have a role to play if the world is to reduce carbon emissions to a level capable of keeping temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius. We owe that to the globe now and we owe it for our future.

It is often said that Australia is acting ahead of the world and that other countries are not acting. Again, contrary to newspaper articles generally from the same stable, News Limited and particularly the Australian, many countries are acting positively, either with schemes somewhat similar to an ETS or through other actions. Eighty-nine countries, accounting for over 80 per cent of global emissions and over 90 per cent of the global economy, have pledged to reduce or limit their carbon pollution by 2020. Australia's top five trading partners—China, Japan, the United States, the Republic of Korea and India—and another six of our top-twenty trading partners—New Zealand, the UK, Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands—have implemented or are piloting carbon trading or taxation schemes.

Ten US east coast states have an emissions trading scheme. One of those states alone, New York state, has the same size economy as Australia. California, the eighth largest economy in the world and more than 50 per cent bigger than the Australian economy, has committed to introducing an emissions trading scheme from 2012. South Korea has committed to introducing an ETS from 1 July 2015 and an emissions reduction target of 30 per cent below business as usual from 2020. New Zealand introduced a trading scheme in 2008, initially covering only forestry but in 2010 expanded significantly to cover liquid fossil fuels, stationary energy and industrial processes. I recall the Prime Minister of New Zealand claiming that the impact of that scheme has been minimal.

China has indicated it will introduce emissions trading pilot schemes in a number of provinces, including the industrial centres of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. And the World Bank recently indicated that these regional schemes may be expanded to a national scheme by 2015. China has the world's largest installed renewable energy electricity generation capacity. In 2009, China added 37 gigawatts of renewable power capacity, more than any other country in the world. India has a tax on coal which is expected to generate over half a billion dollars annually to fund research into clean energy technologies. In the US, President Obama has set an ambitious target to transform the energy sector, which will see 80 per cent of electricity coming from clean resources by 2035. He has also committed the US to being the first country to have one million electric cars on the road by 2015. Countries around the world are already taking action on climate change. Eighty-nine countries, representing 80 per cent of the 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. Indeed, China is now the largest manufacturer of both solar panels and wind turbines. I am very pleased to support our clean energy future.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I quote: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Not in recent history has such a blatant political lie been told, designed purely—

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of these clean energy bills, and I do so as a proud member of the Gillard Labor government, a government which had the foresight to say, 'Enough is enough,' when it comes to talking about addressing climate change and is willing to stand up and finally take action on this important matter. The Prime Minister said in this House just a week ago that this parliament has been debating climate change for decades. The parliamentary debate of this issue predates the building itself. The Prime Minister said:

My predecessor as member for Lalor, Barry Jones, once said this about climate change, 'If we are only prepared to plan five years, 10 years, 15 years or 20 years down the track all the dangers that are feared can be avoided.'

Those words were spoken 24 years ago this week.

For my part, I went to the election in 2007 and promised my electorate action on climate change. In 2010, I went back to the people in the electorate of Petrie and once again affirmed my commitment to take action on climate change and to see an emissions trading scheme introduced to this country. That is what this government is doing for this country.

I have had a number of people in my electorate approach me and talk to me about their views on this issue. Can I say how pleasing it is, but not surprising, that so many of those people who are so supportive of taking action on climate change are our seniors. I cannot count the number of seniors—pensioners and retirees, a lot of them men—who have come up to me and said, 'Yvette, we have to do this. We have to deal with climate change.' A gentleman came up to me in a shopping centre and said, 'Our children will curse us if we do not do this.' I have had retirees who have said, 'We need to stop thinking of our hip pocket and start thinking about our grandchildren's future.' It is our retirees who understand this the most, because they understand that the decisions we make today affect future generations and that we cannot look into the eyes of our children and grandchildren and tell them: 'It was all just too hard; we just could not do it.'

There are a lot of school students out there who are very frustrated by the delay in dealing with climate change because they feel that they are doing a lot. They are doing a lot in their schools and in their homes to try to save energy and make the world a better place. But they feel like not enough is being done in the business community. They say to me, 'Why should we make such an effort at home when we see high-rises in the city with all their lights on?' It is a fair point. It is about time that business steps up and takes on its responsibility. That is what will occur under this set of bills. The largest polluters in this country will pay for the pollution that they put into our atmosphere. By them paying, not only will we start addressing climate change and carbon emissions but we will be able to use the money paid by those big polluters to give back to the community to start tackling some of the important issues that need to be tackled to address climate change, like reinvesting in clean energy and renewables and supporting households and businesses to make this very important transition.

We have heard a number of claims from people in this chamber. We just heard from the member for Hinkler. Despite the claims made by the member for Hinkler, the facts are that more than 36,600 pensioners in Hinkler will receive $338 extra per year if they are single and up to $510 per year for couples combined in their pension payments. On average, the expected increase in costs due to a carbon price for single pensioners will be $204 per year. With the increase in their pension payments they will be $134 better off. The assistance to pensioners will be automatic and will start before the carbon price begins through an advance payment of $250 for singles and $190 for each member of a couple. This will be paid in May and June 2012. From March 2013, assistance will be delivered through extra fortnightly payments. The member for Hinkler said, 'But, if other prices are going up, the assistance that the government gives is pointless. It will all be gone.' Let's be clear: this assistance is about assisting households in relation to the impact that the introduction of a carbon price will have. It is not assistance for all general increases in costs of living; it is about assisting people to meet the carbon price. There will be other cost-of-living increases related to a whole lot of other issues, and there will be businesses out there who try to claim that the price increases that are passing on are due to the carbon price. That is why this government is giving strong powers to the ACCC—to make sure that those businesses who price gouge and mislead their customers about why they are increasing their prices are prosecuted.

Treasury modelling has shown that the average increase in prices as a consequence of the carbon price will be around 0.7 per cent. The assistance that nine out of 10 households get will be equal to or better than that. Our pensioners will get the equivalent of a 1.7 per cent increase in payments to assist them in any costs arising from the introduction of a carbon price. These are the facts. The facts also are that, when we look at what a 0.7 per cent increase means to the average household, we can give people a comparison that they can understand. They only need to think back to 2000, when the GST came in, and to what the impact was on the them then, because at that time there was a close to 2.5 per cent increase in the CPI, whereas what is being proposed and modelled with the introduction of the carbon price is only a 0.7 per cent increase in the CPI.

We have heard from members on the other side, including the member for Barker, and a number of them have made claims that are just misleading. I am sure that they are out in the community trying to scaremonger and convince people that the carbon price is going to hurt them and that they should not support it. But the fact is that the carbon price will be paid by around 500 of Australia's biggest polluters, not the truck drivers, as those on the other side would have the community believe. Truck drivers currently receive discounted fuel through the fuel tax credit by which they pay around 15c a litre less than ordinary motorists. The government is proposing to reduce this discount by 6.9c a litre from 1 July 2014. Fluctuations in the global oil price have a far greater impact than that. In just the last four years, the price of diesel has fluctuated by around 62c a litre—it has cost between $1.18 and $1.80 a litre at the bowser. Trucks that use LPG, CNG and LNG as well as ethanol, biodiesel and renewable diesel will not be affected at all, and the impact of a reduction in the fuel tax credit can be offset by moving to more fuel-efficient vehicles. We need to begin the long process of weaning ourselves off oil, a finite resource which in coming decades is likely to become increasingly expensive as the world's reserves run dry.

Despite what they say on the other side, the Australian Trucking Association in a press release of 10 July 2011 stated:

The ATA has welcomed the Government’s decision to exempt the trucking industry from carbon tax until 1 July 2014.

It continued by saying that this will:

give small trucking businesses a breathing space to increase their fuel efficiency and renegotiate contracts with their customers.

So, despite the claims of those on the other side, the reality is that the industry is willing to work with the government; they understand the importance of these reforms.

The member for Barker is trying to start a scare campaign about the agricultural sector; in fact, the agricultural sector has nothing to fear from the carbon price. The facts are clear: the agricultural sector is permanently excluded from the carbon price scheme. Farmers will not pay the carbon price, they will not have to account to their emissions and every litre of fuel used on a farm will receive the same tax credits that the government pays now. Farmers will now also have the opportunity to earn new income through the Carbon Farming Initiative, which recently passed through parliament and which the member for Barker and the coalition voted against. The government knows that farmers already do a lot for the local environment, and through the CFI we have ensured that farmers can now be rewarded for this good work. Taking steps to reduce emissions from livestock and fertiliser use or increase carbon in soils and vegetation will allow farmers and landholders to generate credits which can be sold to businesses as carbon offsets.

So, despite the views of those on the other side, the fact is that businesses and homeowners want action on climate change and are willing to step up and be part of that action. They acknowledge that there may be a cost, but they also acknowledge that the government is providing assistance. The Treasurer has released current modelling that once again breaks down what the increases in prices will be. For products such as milk and cheese and other dairy products we are looking at a 0.4 per cent increase; for cakes and cereals we are looking at a 0.4 per cent increase; for fruit and vegetables we are looking at a 0.4 per cent increase; and for meat and seafood we are looking at a 0.4 per cent increase. The fact is that all of the price increases that have been modelled will be 0.5 per cent or less other than the increase in prices for electricity, gas and utilities, which, it is estimated will be around 7.9 per cent, which equates to about $3.30 a week in electricity bills and $1.50 per week in average gas bills. These, not those that we are hearing the other side talk about so often, are the real price increases.

What does the other side really offer? They offer a model that does not achieve the bipartisan targets. In order to reach the target, they will need to plant enough trees to cover five Tasmanias, the entire land area of Germany or an area the size of Victoria and Tasmania combined. They have no support from any credible scientists or economists; in fact the Leader of the Opposition has on a number of occasions attacked leading economists and scientists for supporting the government's policy. Their modelling does not add up; in fact, the independent Grattan Institute has estimated that there is a $100 billion black hole—that is, a third of the entire federal government budget—in the Liberal Party's costings. Treasury estimates that, without international permits, which we know the opposition are opposed to, the Liberal Party's model would cost $30 billion in today's dollars in 2020. Taxpayers will have to pay an extra $1,300 per household. This is what the opposition says. Maybe the opposition should start listening to people like David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, who is actually delighted to hear about the ambitious package of climate change policy measures announced by the Gillard Labor government and who, on 31 July, wrote to the Prime Minister of Australia outlining his delight at our announcements. I certainly support the bills before the House. The country is looking for action on climate change. My electorate is looking for action on climate change. I am pleased to support the bills. While we are making history, the opposition will be remembered for their opposition to addressing climate change.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): A year before the last election we launched a series of meetings for our own supporters in the electorate—they were the only people invited to the meetings. We had 15 of these meetings, and at them we asked, 'What are the issues?' I was very surprised that at every single meeting two of the main issues were electricity and dentists. If I had drawn up a list, I do not think they would have been in the first 40. But what we think and what people are saying are two entirely different things. I thought the arguments of QCOSS, the Queensland Council of Social Service—that is, that you switch the lights off or you eat, but you cannot do both—were wildly exaggerated. But people are doing it very, very hard. They cannot afford their current electricity charges.

Between 2004 and 2010 charges in Queensland rose from $839 to $1,296 per household. That is a 100 per cent increase. These are not my figures, but the federal government's figures from the Garnaut report, Australia's low pollution future. That is the document that the Parliamentary Library gave me when I asked them what would be the increase in electricity charges with a five per cent reduction in emissions. Table 6.15 on page 176 of the document tells me that the increase for a five per cent CPRS over the years from 2010 to 2015 will be 20 per cent. The average household electricity price increase for a five per cent CPRS reduction is 20 per cent. They are not my figures, they are the government's figures. They are telling us 10 per cent. On a show recently I asked Greg Combet could he please sack the Treasury and Mr Garnaut for telling lies, because they had said it was a 20 per cent increase, but the government said 10 per cent. The government would not lie, we know that. The audience burst out laughing because either Mr Garnaut and the Treasury report are telling lies or the government is telling lies. A 20 per cent increase translates into mark ups. With retailers like Energex and Ergon in Queensland, with delivery systems, with transmission lines then each of them adds on to that 20 per cent. Whether those add-ons are included in that 20 per cent I do not know. All I can say to the House is that we have an average increase of nearly 100 per cent every five years in Queensland and we are now going to add 20 per cent on to that with the government reductions.

Despite my very anti-environmental statements in this place many, many times, I have never been a person who has said that we should not show some restraint. Some times you need to pull on the reins a bit, and this is a case where I would say that. The argument that the world is heating because there are 358 parts per million up there of CO2 is quite ridiculous. It is a proposition that in any other time or age would have been laughed at. I liken it to putting wire netting over your house and thinking it will keep your house warm, but wire netting is actually more than 400 parts per million. It has got a better chance of keeping your house warm than this proposition being put forward by the government. If you have a particle of energy coming off the earth's surface—rebounding from sunlight that hits the earth's surface and bounds back into outer space—only 50 per cent of it is passed on. That means 50 per cent is retained by the CO2 molecule and 50 per cent is passed on into outer space. Even the 400 parts per million pales into insignificance when you consider that 50 per cent has gone anyway, back into outer space. There may be global warming; I would not deny that, although I think that even in An Inconvenient Truth there is some equivocation on the evidence—even from a very hardened warrior against global warming such as Al Gore. Katharina Fabricius of the Australian Institute of Marine Science is a leading international authority on the effect of CO2 in the oceans. In actual fact, there are some very serious ramifications in the decrease in the alkaline levels of the ocean. Calcium carbonate, which is the shell of shellfish, is an alkaline compound, so there will be problems if the sea ceases to be as alkaline. A tree grows well if there is a lot of CO2 in it. A shellfish grows well if there is a lot of calcium carbonate or alkaline substances out there. So if the alkaline levels drop then it becomes much harder for shellfish to form. I said to Dr Fabricius: 'But they're not at the bottom of the food chain. On the contrary, the minuscule bivalves that you cannot see with the naked eye—you need a microscope to see them—in fact comprise the major part of the bottom of the food chain.' So if those shellfish cannot form their shells then we have a very serious problem which starts to arise in the oceans.

I do not come here as any cassandra or soothsayer of doom—that is a long way off at this stage—but I, being a very strong opponent of the carbon tax and the various other proposals that have been put forward at various times, have said that we should have a bit of a pullback. If you want to cut carbon emissions, let us go to the experts. My environmentalist enemies would claim one of their patron saints to be Al Gore. The very first solution put forward by Al Gore is ethanol. There is no proposal in this place to do anything about ethanol. Mr Iemma, when he was the premier of New South Wales, said that he was going ahead with a 10 per cent ethanol blend because, he said at the conference he was addressing, he could not live another day with his conscience if he did not introduce ethanol into the petrol blend. People are dying in Sydney and Melbourne—not quite so much in Brisbane. I refer people to the works of Jonathan Streeton, the very eminent thoracic surgeon who was the specialist called by Slater and Gordon in the tobacco case in Australia; he is the leading chest authority in the country. I also refer people to the statements by the president of the AMA in New South Wales and Dr Tom Beer, the head of air quality control for Australia. Each of them said effectively—I think Tom Beer probably put it most succinctly—that more people are dying in Australia from motor vehicle emissions than from motor vehicle accidents.

It is remarkable to me that, while Mr Iemma has a conscience, the people in this place do not. They actually listened to the oil and gas lobby, who told them that motor cars will break down if you put ethanol in your tank. They actually said this and, in this parliament—the Liberal and National parties were in power then—actually promulgated that most extraordinarily stupid statement. Mr Speaker, I think you have seen pictures of the people in California. All the cars are breaking down in California, are they? America's average is nine per cent ethanol in their petrol tanks now, and in states like California, which have very stringent laws, it is much, much higher than nine per cent. Are all the cars breaking down in California? Go home tonight and turn on your television. Almost all your movies and TV shows come out of Hollywood in California. Have a look and see if there are any cars on the side of the road broken down. Twenty million people live in Sao Paulo and 21 million people live in Rio. All the cars are breaking down in Brazil, are they? They have 22 per cent. Yet the people on the front benches in this House came into this parliament and promulgated that piece of incredible rubbish put out by the oil companies. Why have we not got ethanol? Why has a country whose sugar industry is collapsing and whose grain industry is in desperate trouble not got ethanol? Why would we go to a solution that will cost this country $15,000 million a year in taxes alone?

I represent the base metals industry of Australia. I represent more base metals than anyone else in this parliament. A great company built up by many generations of great Australians, Mount Isa Mines, has announced the closure of its copper-processing plant in Mount Isa. BHP has announced that it is doing no more processing in Australia. The steel industry is moving offshore. The major cost input item into these industries, outside the copper and iron ore themselves, is electricity. The aluminium industry, the third greatest export industry of this country, is dependent almost exclusively on electricity. Electricity is more built into the cost of aluminium than is the cost of bauxite. It is congealed electricity.

So this government goes forward, smashing the coal industry, which is the carbon dioxide industry of the world. It is saying, 'We're going to be world leaders in smashing carbon dioxide'—and by implication, of course, the coal industry. 'We're going to be the people that lead the world in closing it down. Guess what Australia's biggest export is and has been for the last 15 years? It is coal, and we are going to close it down. The answer is there, not only in your motor cars, not only if you move the 10 per cent ethanol up to 20 per cent ethanol—the same as Brazil—and not only if you reduce your carbon emissions by five per cent for transport. In Australia, where most of that ethanol comes from sugar cane, people will say, 'It's a trade-off; we'll lose food.' Let me tell you: the cattle industry desperately needs distiller's grain for ethanol.