John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The less coal that is burned, the less taxes we will raise and the less money we will have to spend. The more renewables we use, the higher the costs and the more compensation needed. It would appear that the government has not contemplated any level of success in this purported environmental policy. It can only be deduced that this government has become so used to failed policies that it is now creating policies that are actually designed to fail.

It is no wonder that the Copenhagen Consensus Center found that a carbon tax would be the worst policy solution to achieve real results in fighting climate change. Technical innovation was found to be the best policy response, and history has taught us that this occurs with relative speed. For example, the invention of the catalytic converter 30 years ago dealt directly with the onset of acid rain. This problem would not have been resolved had governments simply increased the price of petrol. We are better off implementing smaller-scale direct action mitigation strategies and investing our money in scientific development of technological ideas. Imagine a situation where the world's scientists combined their collective knowledge and creativity in the pursuit of technological innovation. This would be far preferable to a money-go-round to compensate for higher taxes.

With this legislation we are revisiting the Melbourne Cup syndrome of 1931, as we handicap our greatest champion to become very ordinary. Just as in 1931, the damage this will do to our economy will only lead punters across the country to a state of great depression. In this crucial economic race, this legislation is the policy that will stop the nation.

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

There is absolutely no shame whatsoever in opposing this package of bills—the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and associated bills. In fact, opposing this tax is the only defensible moral position to take. Not only is the carbon tax a bad piece of policy; it is the product of an unprecedented deceit perpetrated on the Australian people. When the Prime Minister looked straight down the barrel of a television camera and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' people took her at her word. When the Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, told the Australian people that he rejects 'this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax', people believed him as well.

One of the fundamental rules of parliamentary democracy is that you simply cannot promise one thing a week before an election and do the exact opposite six months after. The Prime Minister has attempted to explain away this towering deceit by saying that she could never have foreseen a hung parliament. That is beside the point. In a democracy, politicians are expected to give an honest account of their intentions before an election and remain true to them after the election. They are the rules.

Moving on to the policy itself, I want to clear something up straightaway, and that is the suggestion that Australia is somehow dragging its feet on emissions reductions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Australians are quite rightly sick to death of sanctimonious lectures by their political leaders about how we are the highest per capita emitters of carbon dioxide in the world—as if being Australian is somehow shorthand for being greedy or irresponsible. Australians are no such thing. In fact, we have an outstanding record of meeting our commitments to climate change action. Australian carbon dioxide emissions account for around 1.3 per cent of global emissions—not bad considering we are the 13th largest economy in the world. Under the Kyoto protocol, Australia committed to limiting its emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels. What was lost in the subsequent political bunfight about whether or not to ratify the protocol was that we actually came in well under that target, with an increase of just three per cent.

By way of contrast, Canada promised a six per cent reduction but is on track to deliver a 27 per cent increase. Japan also promised a six per cent reduction but is likely to deliver an eight per cent increase. New Zealand promised to keep emissions static but faces a 26 per cent increase, and the European Union is going to well exceed its promised eight per cent reduction. And what about China and India? China's 2020 emissions will be 500 per cent higher than they were in 1990. India is on track to grow by 350 per cent over the exact same period. So, compared to many of our peers, Australians are entitled to hold their heads high, and that is something we ought to remember as the prospect of any meaningful international agreement recedes.

Despite what the Prime Minister says about the supposedly widespread take-up of carbon pricing overseas, the fact of the matter is that no other country in the world has implemented or is even considering implementing an economy wide carbon tax like the one those opposite are proposing. Canada, America, Japan and New Zealand—none of these countries is even thinking about an economy wide carbon tax. The only place that has anything like what the Labor Party is proposing is the European Union—that lumbering and undemocratic superstate which is doing such a sterling job of looking after its economy. Even there, the European ETS is a piecemeal thing with nowhere near the financial impacts of the one being proposed by this Labor government. As we know, in the first five years of its existence, the European ETS raised $500 million dollars. In Australia we are looking at about $9 billion. That is 18 times as much as was raised in the EU being gouged out of an economy one-thirteenth the size.

To put that into perspective, the European Union has a population of about 500 million. That equates to about one dollar a head. With the $9 billion that is going to be gouged out of our economy, that calculates to around $400 per head. According to a recent World Bank report, the history of the European Union ETS has been one of ongoing rorting, fraud, money laundering and outright theft. That is not surprising. As you might imagine, the buying and selling of carbon credits in an inconsistently regulated marketplace across a dozen different countries is a recipe for every kind of fraud you can imagine. What we have is a government that could not even give away ceiling insulation without making a multi-billion-dollar mess of it now preparing to implement an incredibly complicated carbon pricing scheme 18 times the size of that which has been rorted sideways in Europe. It sounds to me that it is going to be a recipe for disaster.

Meanwhile, our trading partners in South-East Asia must be looking on with disbelief as we prepare to tax ourselves on the inputs they value-add and then export worldwide. In fact, Australia's decision to go it alone places our competitors at a competitive advantage and thereby actually decreases the incentive for them to follow our lead. That is an enormous problem because the government's expert modelling does not just predict that they will do so; it actually depends on it. Inherent within the government's modelling is, frankly, the deluded assumption that, upon seeing what we have done, the rest of the world will suddenly realise the error of its ways and promptly sign up to a global agreement. It is simply not going to happen. In fact, there is every indication that the complete opposite is more likely to be the case. After all, the loftily titled 'accord' that came out of Copenhagen was nothing more than a collection of idle promises—non-binding, unmeasurable and unverifiable. Just as Copenhagen gave us the accord, the subsequent round of talks in Cancun gave us more of the same. In these conditions, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the next round of talks, due to take place in Durban later this year, will produce a binding global agreement. Yet the entire economic rationale for the carbon tax is based precisely on that assumption.

Before moving on, it is relevant to note the absolutely stinking hypocrisy of the union movement in all of this. It is a fact that the union bosses will always support a bad Labor government over any coalition alternative, but the craven way in which they have genuflected to the Greens-led environmental lobby, and thereby abandoned their own members, should be a source of enduring shame. It was only a few short years ago that the union movement mobilised en masse to shriek about the coalition's job-destroying industrial relations laws. We all remember the repeated demands for a guarantee that no worker would be worse off. Fast forward to the present day and suddenly the prospect of widespread redundancies and even the demise of entire industries cannot provoke so much as a whimper of protest from the union movement. Is it any wonder that the majority of Australian workers now see the unions for what they are: out of touch, irrelevant and more interested in perks and fringe benefits than in protecting the interests of their members.

While we are talking about threats to job security, I would like to mention a few businesses in my electorate of Wright which are set to experience real pain under the carbon tax. First there is AJ Bush and Sons, a 100-year-old company still owned by an Australian family. AJ Bush is an animal by-product rendering business producing proteins, tallow and organic fertilisers. David Kassulke and his team there run one of the most energy efficient set-ups imaginable, using biogas produced onsite to power their generators and using leftover water to irrigate nearby farmland. Research out of the United States indicates that, for every metric tonne of carbon dioxide produced by the rendering process, 7.2 tonnes of carbon are removed from the environment, producing a net decrease in atmospheric CO2. Then we have Nolan's Transport, another 100-year-old family owned business, along with the entire transport sector within the electorate of Wright. There is Kalfresh, producers of a great deal of the fresh produce you see in your supermarkets, as well as Gelita Ag, one of the world's leading suppliers of gelatin and collagen. All of these companies are big employers in my electorate and all of them are in line for an absolute walloping from the government's carbon tax, with the flow-on effects to the local community that implies.

What about the community? What about the ordinary mums and dads struggling to pay the bills? What about the retirees, like Walter and Nancy Beal from Kooralbyn, who are finding it hard just to make ends meet at the moment? What about young couples trying to set themselves up for the future? What about the flood victims in my electorate who are still trying to get back on their feet after losing everything earlier this year? What does this tax mean for them? What it means is that life is about to get a lot more expensive. Both the Prime Minister and the environment minister have all but admitted as much. In February this year the Prime Minister said:

I also want to be very clear with Australians about what pricing carbon does. It has price impacts. It's meant to. That's the whole point.

The following month it was the environment minister's turn. Again, I quote directly:

… the true cost of carbon pollution needs to be attached to its production and use …

Put another way, he said:

… carbon emissions need to have a price.

And it is price that changes behaviour.

I could not have put it better myself. This government wants us to sit in the dark.

Despite the impending financial pain and the fact that the whole point of a carbon price is to make things more expensive so people will consume less of them, the government still want you to believe that somehow nine out of 10 households are going to come out in front. Honestly, after the litany of stuff-ups and blow-outs from this government, how are we expected to believe that they are capable of accurately calculating the cost on individual households down to the cent? Even if they could, what do we get for all this? What sorts of emissions reductions will all this economic pain buy? After all, if the carbon price does not reduce emissions, then it is just another tax—just a great big punitive tax to go alongside the 14 others Labor have either introduced or increased since taking office. According to the government's own figures—and here is the clanger—carbon dioxide emissions will still go up under this scheme, which renders the whole thing completely and utterly pointless.

This has led some observers to suggest that, first and foremost, the carbon tax is a vehicle for wealth redistribution rather than a response to climate change. Allow me to expand on that. The carbon tax model is inefficient because it requires tens of billions of dollars to be spent on compensation. In contrast, the coalition's policy requires no compensation because it does not drive up electricity prices. A report by Frontier Economics exposed this fact with analysis it did based on Treasury's 2008 modelling of a carbon price. Looking at electricity generators alone, it found that the actual cost of technology to reduce CO2 emissions from 2012 to 2020 is $6.6 billion. However, during that period, the government would reap $37.5 billion in tax from generators, and consumers would pay an additional $45 billion for electricity. So the government's tax is almost six times the actual abatement cost and the increased cost of electricity is nearly eight times the actual abatement cost. What happens to all this money? Most likely, it will get churned through the Labor-Greens machine and handed out to their preferred beneficiaries.

In conclusion, the carbon tax is, without doubt, the most intellectually dishonest piece of policy I have seen since coming into this place. It was introduced on the back of deceit, it is a poorly designed piece of legislation and it will not work. For these reasons alone, it deserves to be the sad and sorry epitaph of a sad and sorry government. If the government is so confident about this bill, then it should take it to the Australian people. If it is so confident, it should take it to the mums and dads in my electorate. If it is so confident about this legislation, it should take it to my people, who are the silent majority of this nation.

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

I also rise to speak on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills before us. I note that I am speaking immediately following a fellow coalition member, the member for Wright. Ordinarily in the course of debates, you would have a coalition member followed by a Labor member and then back to the coalition, but in fact there are no more Labor members. That might have been a mistake, but I looked through the speakers list for today and, no, there are no further names from the opposite side on the speakers list—yet there are still another 10 coalition members for today, and I know that there are a further 20 or more coalition members speaking on these bills in the days ahead. Why is this the case? This is supposedly, according to Labor, one of the most important reforms that a government has ever introduced in this country. The Prime Minister has talked about being on the 'right side of history' in relation to this particular reform. This reform was going to lead us into a clean energy utopia, according to government members on the other side of this chamber. So where are the other 37 Labor members?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member is misleading the House. The government has been left with no alternative but to pull its speakers because the opposition keeps calling quorums in keeping with their wrecking approach to the processes of this House.

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

The member for Hunter will resume his seat. There is no point of order. He should know better than to raise a frivolous point of order.

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

They are clearly very sensitive about this particular matter because fewer than half of the members of the Labor Party are indeed speaking on these bills, despite the reforms going to be so dramatically beneficial to this nation, according to them. They are running scared and I believe that the members on the other side do not want to come in here and state their support on the record. I ask: where is the member for Deakin and where is the member for Corangamite? Come in here and state your support for this bill on the record. I can understand why they do not want to do that, but if they do not have the courage—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I appreciate the member is a new member of this place, but if he wants to launch an attack on members he can do so by substantive motion. The member for Deakin is in fact overseas on important government and parliamentary business and the member should restrain himself.

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

The member for Hunter will resume his seat. The member for Aston will resume his seat. Those sorts of points of order are not called for. Member for Hunter, I am sure the member for Aston will appreciate your comments in relation to those members who are overseas.

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

The member for Deakin did have an opportunity last week to speak if he had wanted to. My point is that if the members opposite do not have the courage to come in here and speak on this bill, then they should not vote for this bill.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I do this reluctantly but I do feel a need to defend the member for Deakin. He did not necessarily have an opportunity to speak last week because every member on this side—

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

No. The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. If he raises another frivolous point of order on the same subject, I will have no alternative but to deal with him.

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

At the last election there were 144 members of this 150-person chamber who campaigned on a platform promising not to introduce a carbon tax if they were elected. By being a member of the coalition, I made that promise and the members opposite, by being members of the Labor Party, also made that promise. Of course, the Prime Minister famously said a week before the election that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led. She did this on behalf of all Labor members because she was coming under pressure from the coalition, which said on multiple occasions that they did indeed have a secret plan to introduce a carbon tax. So she ruled it out categorically on behalf of all Labor members. There were no ifs, there were no buts—straight down the barrel of the TV she uttered those immortal words, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Had she said at the time, 'Yes, a vote for me and a vote for Labor members will mean that we will introduce a carbon tax,' then I would submit that the Prime Minister would not be in her job today. This bill that is before the House is based on a fraud. It is introduced by a Prime Minister who is only in office because of the express commitment to the Australian people not to introduce such legislation. All 144 members in this chamber should honour the commitments we made before the election to not introduce a carbon tax. If the Prime Minister honestly believes that a carbon tax is the way to go, then she should take it to an election and let the people decide.

Let me go to the substance of this bill. This bill is designed to put prices up. That is the express intent of the policy. By virtue of it being primarily a tax on electricity and transport, it will flow through to the costs of almost everything for very little environmental gain. Let us look at the impact of this tax on the residents of my electorate and, indeed, on residents across Australia. There will be a 10 per cent increase on electricity prices in the first year alone. There will be a nine per cent increase in gas prices in the first year alone. These are not my figures; these are the government's own figures. There will be an extra three per cent increase on municipal council rates, according to the Municipal Association of Victoria, bringing average rate increases to somewhere between nine and 10 per cent next financial year. In the first year alone, the government itself says it will cost the average family an additional $515. This is what we will get immediately at $23 per tonne. In a couple of years time, again according to the government's own modelling, it will be $29 a tonne, and then it will be $35 a tonne, and it will continue to increase all the way up to $131 per tonne. It starts with a 10 per cent increase in electricity prices and a three per cent increase in rates, but it will just go up and up and up.

This could not come at a worse time for Australian residents. People are already doing it tough in my electorate of Aston and across Australia. They are doing so because the costs of basic essential services are going up well in excess of inflation or wage increases. We have seen a 51 per cent increase in electricity prices since 2007. We have seen a 30 per cent increase in gas and a 24 per cent increase in education costs. We have seen a 20 per cent increase in health costs and a 46 per cent increase in water costs. These are all essential items which are very difficult to reduce your usage of.

Let me move to the impact of this bill on businesses and jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs. In my electorate we have a particularly large manufacturing base. There are about a thousand manufacturers, employing about 10,000 people. Knox in my electorate will be one of the hardest impacted by this tax. Why is this the case? Because the carbon tax is in essence a production tax. It taxes everything that is manufactured in Australia but does not tax those products that are imported from overseas. In that regard it operates like a reverse tariff. It will penalise our businesses here in Australia by adding costs, but it does not impose additional costs on those products that are imported from China or from other competitor countries. I do not see the sense in this. Members opposite say that this package is all about sending a price signal. I ask the members opposite: what sort of price signal does it send if you make Australian manufactured goods more expensive than imported goods? Of course, the price signal that it sends is to go and buy those imported goods. Again, that makes no sense to me.

What will be the impact of this in relation to jobs? The Victorian Treasury has done some modelling in relation to this in Victoria and it says that in my electorate alone over 500 jobs will be lost due to this tax. Across Victoria about 24,000 jobs will be lost. I have visited dozens of businesses in my electorate over the last few months, and each and every one of them—almost to the last one—has said that the carbon tax will detrimentally impact their business. It will make it harder for them to operate and to employ further people, and it will put them at a competitive disadvantage with their international competitors. Of course, at the best of times this would be bad enough—to penalise our businesses compared to our international competitors—but it is particularly bad at the moment when manufacturers and other businesses are doing it so tough. This is, indeed, the last thing that they need.

If the rest of the world were going down this path then that would be one thing—but the rest of the world is not acting. Despite what the Prime Minister and members opposite say, the rest of the world is not acting. The Productivity Commission has looked into this and it has clearly stated that Australia is the only country in the world to introduce an economy-wide carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. If you go through and look at the largest-emitting countries in the world, you see that the United States is abandoning efforts to introduce a cap-and-trade scheme, China is forecasting it will increase its emissions by 500 per cent by 2020, India's emissions are growing at 8.7 per cent per annum, Japan has delayed consideration of an ETS until 2013, in Canada an election was just won on a platform of not introducing an ETS, South Korea has abandoned theirs and even Europe's emissions trading scheme does not cover the entire economy. We will be a lone participant in this regard.

So what will be the environmental impact of us taxing our residents and our businesses in the absence of any global action? Zero! It will not alter the temperature in any perceptible way. It will not change the climate. It will not make our air clearer or our rivers cleaner. It will not save any endangered species. It will do almost nothing for the environment for all this pain that I have been referring to.

So let me summarise what these pieces of legislation will actually do. If implemented, they will be a direct breach of the promise that the members of the government made, and which each one of us made. It will push up electricity prices by 10 per cent, just to start with; it will push up rates by about three per cent; it will make our businesses less competitive at a time when they are doing it tough; and it will cost 500-plus jobs in my electorate alone and tens of thousands of jobs across Australia. And in exchange for this pain we will get zero environmental gain. No wonder the government do not want to do a cost-benefit analysis of their proposal. It is crystal clear that it simply would not stack up.

The government continually says that this bill presents the most cost-effective mechanism to reduce emissions. We dispute this statement. But, equally importantly, it misses the key point that Australia reducing emissions is not an end goal in itself. Reducing carbon emissions has no intrinsic value; it is only valuable if it results in a more stable climate or has other direct environmental benefits or productivity benefits. As the government itself has acknowledged, Australia's reduction in emissions will produce few, if any, environmental benefits for Australia if it goes alone. Even if it were the cheapest scheme—and this is not—spending money for no benefit is still a bad idea.

This is why the coalition's direct action plan is attractive. It promotes measures that both reduce atmospheric CO2and produce immediate productivity and environmental benefits. Carbon capture in soil, for example, is the centrepiece of the coalition's direct action policy. It not only reduces CO2 but also immediately makes soils more productive. Similarly, the planting of trees reduces CO2 but immediately curbs erosion, provides additional habitat to support biodiversity and is generally considered to provide positive environmental value for most Australians. This is why the coalition's direct action plan is attractive to us over the medium term. It delivers real environmental benefits to Australia even if the main global emitters are not taking action.

This legislation should not be supported by anyone in this chamber other than perhaps the Greens member, Adam Bandt, who was the only person in this chamber who campaigned on a carbon tax. To do so would breach a promise that the rest of us made not to introduce a carbon tax. It would cause enormous amounts of pain for residents, cost jobs and provide no environmental gain.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The current Prime Minister stated, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. This statement is undeniable. It was a promise made four days before an election, and yet here we are today on the brink of having a carbon tax imposed on this nation by a government led by a Prime Minister who says one thing and does another. This is a bad tax, with no justifiable environmental benefit. This is a bad government with, no idea of how to govern. This is a bad moment in the history of this nation, and those on the other side should be ashamed of the pain they are about to inflict on the Australian community.

Much has been said about the proposed carbon tax: that it will rake in $9 billion per year every year, that it will increase the cost of living every year—and that it is already having an impact; and, most importantly, that it will not decrease emissions. The government's own modelling shows that emissions will, in fact, increase from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes. Julia Gillard's carbon tax is all pain and no gain—no environmental gain. Isn't that what this tax is supposed to be about—the environment?

I acknowledge the genuine concern about the future of this planet. Action to secure our environmental future is vital. People in the electorate of Macquarie and across the nation are genuinely looking for a solution. All of us would agree that saving, protecting and caring for the environment is critical for our future. Where the disagreement lies is in the best way to ensure we have a sustainable future. One of the reasons I am so passionate about the electorate of Macquarie is the diverse range of opinions and ideas on the best way forward. The seat of Macquarie is a microcosm of the nation and this debate is not about whether climate change exists but what is the best way to tackle it.

A tax which places a greater burden on families and businesses already struggling under rising cost-of-living pressures is not the best way. Since 2007, across Australia electricity prices have increased by an average of 51 per cent. Gas prices have increased by an average of 30 per cent. Water and sewerage rates have increased by an average of 46 per cent; health costs—hospital, dental and pharmaceuticals—have increased by an average of 20 per cent; education costs—and school fees is one example—have increased by an average of 24 per cent; and rent has increased by 20 per cent. Everyday Australians will be hit further by this out-of-touch government with an on average $515 a year increase in their cost of living as electricity prices rise by another 10 per cent and gas prices by another nine per cent. The New South Wales government Treasury review has found that the federal Labor government's carbon tax of $23 per tonne will cost the state at least 31,000 net jobs and deliver a $3.7 billion annual hit to the state's economy. The same review has found that businesses will bear further increases of between $927 and $4,191 a year depending on their usage.

There are 19,800 families in Macquarie who are still reeling from cuts to family tax benefits in this government's 2011-2012 budget. They will be hurt by this government's irresponsible and reprehensible carbon tax. Labor has tried to sell its tax by claiming that nine out of 10 Australians will be better off under the compensation package offered and that over six million Australian households will be better off. No amount of compensation can compensate those who have lost or will lose their jobs in manufacturing, tourism and other industries most exposed. The carbon tax will be ongoing but the compensation temporary and limited. This tax will potentially affect every household—families, pensioners, self-funded retirees, small business owners and big business—in Australia by lifting electricity prices and increasing the cost of grocery items and fuel across the nation.

I will make it simple for the Labor government to understand why people do not want this tax. It is easy to think increases to the cost of living for households will only affect turning lights on and off and driving a car to and from work. Wrong. This tax impacts so much more than that. Commuters from the upper Blue Mountains travelling from Katoomba to the city make use of public transport—trains and buses. Trains run on electricity. The New South Wales government estimates a $71 million increase in the New South Wales government's electricity bill. And what about buses? Increases of an estimated 6c per litre on fuel will make riding the bus more expensive. So those who are trying to reduce carbon emissions by taking public transport will be worse off as a result.

This is a tax which will go up and up and up. After three years, the price will not be fixed and it will float in line with the market price. On the government's own modelling, this tax will jump to at least $29 a tonne by 2015 and to $37 per tonne by 2020. From 1 July next year, when this tax is proposed to start, families will be hit by having to find an extra $515 a year to cover living costs. How will families already struggling be able to cope with ongoing cost increases? Senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne are both on the record saying that the price needs to be at least $40 a tonne to shift electricity generation from coal, while Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has canvassed a price of $100 a tonne. Family budgets being squeezed and job losses are all but guaranteed under a carbon tax.

Many older Australians who have lived through Australia's prosperous and challenging times, and many others who have come from other nations to call Australia home, are deeply worried about the impact of this tax. I have also spoken to many senior citizens across the electorate, both self-funded retirees and pensioners. Labor claims that families will be compensated for the price impact of its carbon tax, but how can you trust this government? First it said that the entire proceeds of the carbon tax would be returned to individuals and households. Then it changed its mind and now only 50 per cent will be allocated to compensation. Let us think that through. If pensioners receive, say, $338 compensation and the increased cost of living after the tax is $515, pensioners will be out of pocket. How long will the compensation package last anyway? You just cannot believe anything this government says. Australian pensioners, self-funded retirees and families cannot trust Labor. Small and medium businesses cannot trust Labor. Australian emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries cannot trust Labor.

This is a government prepared to hurt Australians with a disability and their carers. The Australian Bureau of Statistics data show that there are around four million people with a disability in Australia and 2.6 million carers. Out of these 6.6 million Australians, only one in six will receive any assistance to offset increased costs from Labor's carbon tax. More often than not, those with disabilities are high energy users, particularly because of the specialised equipment needed to support them. How will they make ends meet when their budget is continually being squeezed by an uncaring and unsympathetic government? The government needs to explain to these Australians how it will calculate increases in the essential medical equipment payment. This government needs to explain to the Australian people how it can be so heartless as to turn its back on the most vulnerable sector of our community and their carers.

Many Australians have been forgotten by this government, and the question needs to be asked: who will really benefit from this tax? Not-for-profit and voluntary organisations will be hit hard. Volunteer organisations such as scout groups, football clubs and netball clubs will receive nothing from this government. How can local scouts and guides groups cope with rising electricity bills for their scout hall, or local soccer and football clubs keep using the lights for training or keep canteens open if electricity is unaffordable?

Small businesses will be hit and hit hard by this government's carbon tax. Small business forms the backbone of the Australian economy. Under earlier modelling of a version of Labor's scheme, Access Economics predicted a potential loss of 126,000 regional jobs. In Macquarie there are 4,515 small businesses contributing to our diverse national economy. These are businesses that are creating local jobs and driving our local economy. There are small businesses in industries such as tourism and manufacturing—industries which will suffer the most as a result of the carbon tax.

Tourism is already feeling the blow from the high Aussie dollar. The operators of Rose Lindsay Cottage, a bed and breakfast in Faulconbridge, told me about the decrease in holiday-makers and the flow-on effect to other local business like shops, restaurants and tourist attractions. Tourism adds value to the local economy and, as tourism numbers decline further due to the carbon tax, this will have a serious effect on small businesses in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. The Macquarie electorate has outstanding tourism opportunities, but the industry will suffer with fewer families and visitors having less money to spend. It is estimated that the effect of this diabolical carbon tax to the tourism industry, which contributes $92 billion to the Australian economy every year, would be between $600 million and $800 million per year. And where is the compensation for these small businesses? This government is proving to be as divisive as ever, compensating some and not others.

But it is not just tourism operators in Macquarie who will be affected. I recently held a manufacturers' roundtable in Macquarie with the member for Indi. Countless manufacturers told me that their sector is already under enormous pressure. The carbon tax will increase the costs Australia's manufacturers face that their overseas competitors do not. I have spoken to one local manufacturer, who tells me he is considering shutting up shop here and moving his business to another country as he just cannot justify paying another tax. Dean Crozier of Pakmor Waste Equipment Australia in South Windsor said the carbon tax will increase his electricity cost to the point he will be forced to decide between raising prices or letting staff go. Business costs will make his company uncompetitive against international competitors who will not pay a carbon tax . His clients include supermarkets that will pass these extra costs on to their grocery prices, again adding costs to families.

Australia's 750,000 small businesses will receive no direct compensation for the massive jump in electricity prices from the carbon tax. Tony and Barbara Porter of Australian Dynamic Technologies, a local business in Mulgrave, said that inquiries have dropped significantly as their customers put jobs on hold due to the economic uncertainty that the carbon tax is delivering. This great big new tax will be imposed on Australian businesses when no similar tax is going to be imposed upon our international competitors. The inevitable consequence is that jobs will be lost in Australia as investment and emissions flow overseas.

The government makes reference to international trading schemes, but it does not compare apples with apples. For example, the European Union has a trading scheme that does not cover the whole economy. Over the first five years of the scheme it raised approximately $500 million per year from a population of 500 million, costing just over $1 per person per year. By contrast, Australia's population is just 22.6 million. The government's $23 price will raise almost $400 per person per year.

Julia Gillard talks about transforming the economy. This tax will not help the environment, but it will deliver billions of dollars to a government that is racking up debt every day and addicted to waste. Australia is the only nation in the world attempting to introduce an economy-wide carbon tax. When we look at the Labor government's record of managing programs such as pink batts, BER, green loans, Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch, for instance, how can anyone think for a moment that this tax, this time, they will get right? They will not. They cannot.

The Labor government has mismanaged the economy, and what will they do with this tax? With all this money—$9 billion dollars per year every year—it will be waste on a scale never seen before. Three billion dollars in carbon tax revenue will be spent buying carbon credits from overseas. This is a get-rich scheme for overseas carbon traders. It means that Australians have $3 billion less to fund compensation or to reinvest in education, health, disability, infrastructure, water and the many issues vital to the health of our economy and society.

By contrast, the coalition's direct action plan on climate change will deliver real solutions towards reaching the same emissions reductions without slugging hardworking Australians with a great big new tax. Unlike the tomes of legislation put forward by this government, impacting upon every part of everyday life, the coalition's direct action plan is straightforward, easy to understand and practical. It has practical measures like capturing carbon in soil, planting trees on prime agricultural land, cleaning up waste coal mine gas, cleaning up landfill gas, striving for greater energy efficiency and converting some of Australia's older and dirtier coal fired power stations to gas address carbon emissions.

The coalition's plan is based on incentives rather than taxes and penalties. Our tax cuts will be designed to restore people's hope, to reward harder work and to foster opportunity without the need for a jobs-destroying carbon tax. We will provide incentives for Australian businesses to reduce their carbon emissions and to focus on meaningful, effective and direct action to improve Australia's environment. Every dollar goes to directly reducing emissions instead of to the normal bureaucratic red tape this Labor government is addicted to. The direct action plan is capped, so there will be no funding blow-outs. As a member of parliament fortunate to represent a part of Australia so rich in natural beauty, with much of the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury World Heritage listed, I understand how vital the need is to protect Australia's environment. My commitment to the environment cannot be more clearly shown than in my advocacy for the Greater Western Sydney conservation corridor and the solar schools projects in Macquarie.

Our direct action plan is capped and fully funded. Under our plan there will be no cost to families and no new taxes. Australians do not want a big new tax. Recent demonstrations and increased opposition make this clear. I call on the government to shelve these clean energy bills and listen to the Australian people. (Time expired)

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Life has been very tough for thousands of hardworking families in my electorate of Murray in northern Victoria over the last few years, yet the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and Senator Brown, Leader of the Greens, want to legislate to bring in a carbon tax that will make the local food-manufacturing-dependent economy a lot less likely to survive. I find that extraordinarily cruel and difficult. Living as we do in an parliamentary democracy, we would not expect to see a government destroy an economy wantonly.

The tax will negatively impact on every aspect of our lives. It is a tax imposed without a mandate. It is a tax which will create a very sad chapter in Australia's economic history, written by the worst government since Federation. The coalition does have a better way, of course: the direct action plan, a practical approach to climate change, not one that will lower standards of living for very little environmental or global benefit. It will not even make us global heroes. Like-minded nations actually think our leadership is out of control. I have spoken to many recently who wonder what is going on in our great nation.

The coalition will continue to oppose a carbon tax in opposition and rescind it in government. That is our commitment to the Australian people. This is a bad tax. It is a tax that Australians do not deserve and certainly have not voted for. We all remember the now famous line of the Prime Minister on Channel 10 in August 2010. She said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Of course, for the Prime Minister to take up residence in the Lodge, although she knew it was a damaging tax she needed the Greens' support and the support of some of the Independents in order to form a government, so she sold out Australia.

Even Treasurer Swan on the 7.30 Report four days earlier was keen to stress a carbon tax was not on the ALP's agenda when he said:

We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.

All these promises went out the window when Labor had to jump into bed with the Greens and a few disgruntled Independents.

The National Generators Forum have a great deal of interest in a clean energy future, like all of us. They highlighted serious concerns they have about the carbon tax:

The carbon price will impose a $40 billion cost on the generation sector, most of which will be passed on to electricity customers;

Wholesale electricity prices will almost double to $100/MWh by 2020, according to ACIL Tasman;

Despite the $40 billion cost, the carbon price will produce relatively little change in emissions from the generation sector. Modelling for Treasury forecasts that the carbon price may reduce emissions from this sector by as little as 10 million tonnes by 2020. Existing State schemes can deliver similar abatement at a much lower cost;

The starting price of $23/tonne is far higher than carbon prices elsewhere in the world. As high as it is, the carbon price is still less than half the $60 price required to prompt switching from coal to gas-fired generation, according to Treasury estimates;

Applying a high carbon price now puts Australia far ahead of other countries. The Productivity Commission has confirmed that, without a carbon price, Australia is already "in the middle of the pack" in terms of climate change action;

On Treasury figures, there will be a major wealth transfer from Australia with businesses buying 94 million international permits in 2020 at a cost up to $3.7 billion. This will call into question the capacity of governments to continue to compensate households and trade exposed industries;

The absence of clear emissions caps to 2020 denies investors the certainty they need to make the long-term investments needed for energy security;

The narrow scope of the plan (only 62 per cent of Australia's emissions are captured) imposes a heavy burden on covered sectors and risks seeing expensive abatement in covered sectors made meaningless by uncontrolled emissions growth elsewhere;

Restricting business' access to least cost abatement (e.g. restrictions on buying overseas permits) will force up costs for no environmental benefit;

Unlike the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), the Clean Energy Future plan will force up electricity prices by requiring generators to buy permits in advance, sometimes years in advance, for electricity covered by future contracts.

While brown-coal-fired generators receive $5.5 billion in compensation for asset value losses, other coal-fired businesses, including businesses owned by Australian taxpayers, will receive virtually nothing. Public enterprises in New South Wales, Queensland and West Australia will lose $4 to $5.5 billion in asset value;

The policy prevents an open, competitive auction for plant closures. Arbitrary eligibility conditions rule out the possibility of obtaining formal and cheaper abatement; and

The measures announced to support energy security offer no genuine assistance for most generators.

This is an appalling list of concerns from the National Generators Forum. This government quite clearly is not listening or, if it is, it regards its seats in the Lodge as more important than the future of this country's economy and the fact that—and I have to keep emphasising this—these moves will not save the globe or reduce emissions substantially, significantly or even by a little bit.

The carbon tax will cost Australia an extra $9 billion a year, taking more and more cash each year out of taxpayers' pockets. Marginal tax rates even for low- and middle-income earners will rise and $4.3 billion will be ripped away from the budget coffers. Initial estimates from Treasury in 2008 forecast the imposition of a carbon tax with a starting price of $23 per tonne that would see household power bills rise by around 20 per cent. The carbon price is expected to reach $37 per tonne by the end of the decade and over $350 per tonne by 2050. There will be no control over the price after 2015 when the price will be out of the government's hands and simply left to float on international trading markets. This is an extraordinary future that we have to contemplate if this carbon tax remains in place.

Families on average will be more than $515 a year poorer just paying for essentials. There are some families who will pay considerably more than that. I already have over 200 families in my electorate who have lost their jobs. These jobs were in the Heinz tomato sauce factory at Girgarre and Coca-Cola Amatil at Ardmona. These food manufacturers said, 'Sorry, we don't need you any more.' Heinz is going to New Zealand where there is a carbon tax of only $10 per tonne. Guess what? That is substantially less than the $23 a tonne that Heinz would have to absorb if it remained in Australia, even though the tomatoes needed for the product grow within a cooee of the factory at Girgarre and none of the tomatoes that they need are grown in New Zealand. How extraordinary: Heinz has been driven offshore by a policy. This is at a substantial cost to families who do not have too many job options in my part of rural Australia. I find this unconscionable.

Even the former Minister for Climate Change and Water Penny Wong has given her personal concerns over lack of certainty in this legislation. She is on record as stating 'a carbon tax isn't the most sensible thing for Australia'. She also admitted it fails 'to guarantee emissions reductions' and 'is a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes'. I do not often agree with Penny Wong, but on that occasion she was speaking closer to the truth. We have a tax that will give importers a tax-free ride because, for example, cheap foreign imports will not be subject to the carbon tax while our Australian companies will have to look at manufacturing offshore to survive, and I have already mentioned our food manufacturers. According to Treasury and their price modelling the imposition of this tax will contract production across many industries including wood products by 0.1 per cent, non-metal construction products by 0.7 per cent, cement by 0.8 per cent, alumina by 0.2 per cent, other metals by 0.3 per cent and metal products by 0.2 per cent. Why would any country deliberately set about to have those sorts of contractions when the objectives are to reduce emissions in this country and to make a global difference, and those objectives cannot and will not be met? It is just extraordinary.

Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group believes that the manufacturing sector is already in enough trouble without the uncertainty and burden of this punitive tax on investment. Using Treasury's own forecasts, Ms Ridout on MTR Radio stated that more than 15 per cent or 170,000 jobs would be cut from onshore manufacturing jobs, and she vehemently states that the implementation of this carbon tax could not come at a worse time when you consider the ever-increasing prominence of cheap imports from countries like China and the current high value of our dollar. Ms Ridout believes that this taxation measure will push up energy prices and put a price on emissions, placing Australian manufacturing in a highly vulnerable situation. You just have to wonder what is going on on the government benches other than a crazed, desperate move to stay in the Lodge.

Then, of course, I mentioned at the beginning that my electorate depends on growing magnificent, clean, green food. Much of that food, which is often dairy or fruit products, meats, cereals and oil seeds, is manufactured locally and much of it is exported out of the country. In other words it is energy intensive and export exposed. They are the sorts of manufacturers who are most vulnerable to this disastrous tax. We have Murray-Goulburn, which is the largest dairy processor in Australia that is still Australian owned. They have stated that the carbon tax will cause extraordinarily adverse effects on their business to the tune of millions of dollars of extra energy and other costs per year.

According to Robert Poole of Murray-Goulburn, long-life and powdered milk uses considerable amounts of energy in its production. It will be financially crippling for Murray-Goulburn to absorb these costs. They will have to pass on these additional costs to their farmers, their suppliers, to ensure the Murray-Goulburn Cooperative remains viable. What do we know about farmers? Farmers are price takers. They cannot pass on a cent of these additional costs of production to Murray-Goulburn, their own cooperative, nor can Murray-Goulburn pass costs onto Coles and Woolworths, the big duopoly that has purchased most of Australia's manufactured food for customers.

We know that duopoly squeezes the prices of all of its suppliers so hard that there is no way that this industry can expect to get a higher price out of Coles and Woolworths, so its farmers will have to tighten the belt once again, and for many of them there are no belt notches left. They have already been squeezed by drought, by flood, by the higher value of the dollar and by the exchange rate. All of their costs are going through the roof. They must operate their milking machinery and their refrigeration, they have transport costs to pay and they have fertiliser costs. Everything that they touch will have an additional cost with this carbon tax and they cannot pass on a cent of that additional cost. It is an extraordinarily difficult situation that we are staring down. The Murray-Goulburn factory at Cobram has a briquette fire boiler that it uses for manufacturing. You can imagine what they are contemplating in terms of costs of replacing that boiler or the punitive additional costs they will incur if they cannot.

This is a very serious problem and it is about an economy that has served as the food bowl of Australia for nearly 100 years. Now it is staring down the barrel of economic contraction, not because of the floods or the droughts, the mouse plagues or the locust plagues. What is bringing about the contraction now is bad government policy. It is extraordinary that, in a parliamentary democracy in a country as developed as Australia, government policy can destroy an industry that has been benchmarked as amongst world's best practice. Government policy is going to take this industry down. I find that just so heartbreaking.

I have farmers, not at retirement age, who are in their 40s and 50s and who are saying, 'We can't keep pushing and pushing to make a viable living when our own government is against us. It is introducing policies which will simply make it impossible for us to survive and at the end of the day there will be no improvement in emissions, and global warming will not be affected by our sacrifice, the loss of our farm properties, the loss of our livelihoods or the loss of our futures for our children and grandchildren.' So I beg this government to rethink what they are trying to do. It is not worth the Lodge, quite frankly, to destroy the Australian economy. The Greens do not have an understanding of the way the economy works; they never did and it appears they never can. This government should look closely, instead, at the coalition's policies. We are very generous in the coalition and are saying, 'You may take them. Implement them.' At least we will have a country to be proud of in the future and will pull our own weight.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to rise tonight to speak against the so-called clean energy bills that we see before us. I want to start by recapping on how we got to this point where Australia faces these 19 bills and the thousands of pieces of paper for this legislation.

Since 2007 I think we have been on a tortuous road in relation to the politics of the environment and carbon. With the election of Kevin Rudd we saw that there would be change, allegedly, in Australia through the signing of the Kyoto protocol. But what we know, of course, is that the targets under Kyoto were already met by the previous Howard government, so Kyoto in effect achieved nothing except some goodwill internationally. We then saw the government attempt to implement a series of environmental programs and policies, year in and year out. All have failed or ended up in an abysmal smoking ruin for good government policy, for good political environment policy and for the environment in general, whether it be the green loans failure, the solar scheme failure or, let us not forget, the Home Insulation Program, the stated reason for which was an environmental one.

Then we had Kevin Rudd backing down after Copenhagen on advice, allegedly, from the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer. Then we had the new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, promising before the election that there would not be a carbon tax. And we had the great policy initiative that 150 citizens would be brought forward to decide the environmental policies of this country. Would we have a carbon price? What would we do? One hundred and fifty people would be brought together to decide that and we were to trust the people on that. Then, after the election, we do not trust the people anymore to decide. We are going to have a carbon tax. The announcement of a carbon tax is for a high carbon tax when compared internationally, a punitive $23 a tonne carbon tax which is out of sync with the rest of the world and will punish Australian industry and innovation. Then we see the Greens running the show. The policy is going to affect the thousand biggest polluters in Australia. Then it is the 500 biggest polluters in Australia who are going to foot the bill for the so-called Clean Energy Bill that we see before us.

Even today we see more tortuous evasion from the Labor Party on this policy. They have run out of speakers on what they tell us is the greatest policy reform of our time. Does nobody over there want to say anything about this policy? Are they really saying, with 19 bills, with a thousand pages of legislation, that there are no Labor Party speakers to tell us why we need to do this? That is just some of the tortuous path that has got us to this so-called reform.

It is a fact that 144 of the MPs in this chamber campaigned against a carbon tax at the last election. That is why the coalition have been clear about our position: if you want to do such a major reform, you must place it in front of the Australian people. There is nothing wrong with reform. There is nothing wrong with having a policy this radical. But in a democracy, in Australia, you owe it to the people to put it before the people and say: 'This is our policy. This is what it will do. You make the decision about it.'

When you look at what the government is presenting to us, it fails every test that you want to pass over it. It will not work the way the government say it will. They say this is a market based policy. I can tell you there is very little that the Labor government can tell us about the market. The connection between consumption and production, supply and demand, seems to have gone missing in the way they are arguing and articulating their case for this. This legislation is supposed to put a massive tax, a disincentive, on everybody's consumption and production, but somehow we are not supposed to use that disincentive to consume and then pollute the environment because we are going to compensate everybody. We are going to compensate heavy industry. We are going to compensate people on low incomes. We are going to compensate all kinds of special needs sectors and people who have come forward with their hands out to the Labor Party begging for a handout from the government. They are going to be compensated, removing the disincentive to keep polluting. Somehow, the creation of a 19-bill, thousand-page piece of legislation, we are going to save the planet. We will have a law here that will reduce emissions in Australia and thereby somehow affect the climate of the planet. That is what the government is asking us to believe in this parliament today.

Not only can we reject each one of those contentions but also we can say that nothing will be achieved environmentally from this legislation—nothing at all. In fact, it will do nothing to demand, it will make all of us poorer and it will challenge our ability to get ahead internationally. The question the Labor Party has to answer, and every single member of the Labor Party should be in here today to tell us this, is why this orgy of government legislation is going to be beneficial for Australians and for our future. They cannot articulate their own case in relation to this.

I asked a question of the Prime Minister a few weeks ago about this. I want to turn to what I think will be the most devastating impact of a carbon tax once we have put a massive disincentive into the economy: a huge tax, a high carbon price, penalising our industry and business and subsidising some sectors on the basis of whether they have large union memberships or large political clout. Who will be left to foot the actual bill for the carbon tax in Australia? It will be every single small business owner in this country—the people without an organised voice, the mums and dads who run their own businesses across this country. There is no compensation for them. Running a small business in Australia today is already a herculean feat. There are millions of them and they provide most of the employment and generate most of the wealth in Australia today, yet they are being asked to foot the bill for the Labor Party's absolute incompetence in managing the environment and our economic future.

Take, for example, the case of Mr Andrew Fulton, who runs a small construction business in my electorate. What he does all round this country is modify the homes of disabled people. If somebody is a quadriplegic after an accident he will put a ramp into their house so they can be wheeled out of their bedroom for a few hours a day to have some sunlight. He came to me and said, quite validly: 'Under the carbon tax, how am I supposed to quote for jobs next year? All of my input costs will go up under the carbon tax.' He is not going to be the recipient of a government handout to compensate him for that damage. His clients are people who are already in a very difficult situation, people who have suffered severe trauma and injuries and whose relatives or family have put together as much money as they can to make some improvement to the quality of their life. He cannot pass on those costs. They are already doing everything they can just to get a small construction change to the house. He is not making a massive margin; he is doing well for him and his family but he is not making a big margin. Who will wear the increase? What will happen to that business under the carbon tax?

When I asked the Prime Minister that question, the Prime Minister spoke about the National Disability Insurance Scheme in her answer. That is a worthy scheme and, incidentally, something I support. But she did not answer the question. The coalition has asked the Prime Minister what will happen to small business; how will it survive; how could it survive under a carbon tax; what is the long-term future for all of these individual enterprises all around the country? There is no answer.

Take, for example, drycleaners, who run energy intensive businesses. What is going to happen to small individual drycleaners? Is there a compensation package for them? Of course there is no compensation package for them. Can they pass on a massive increase in cost to their customers? Of course not. In practicality, people are going to dry-clean less. What is going to happen to those businesses?

These are not just theoretical questions; these are real, practical questions about how people will survive under the carbon tax. With 19 bills—thousands of pages of legislation—we do not even have a Labor member willing to come into this place and explain to us what will happen to the millions of small businesses in this country, who will face higher electricity and input costs as a result of this carbon tax. There is no question of compensation for these people. They will not get a cent. They already work like stink. They already pay large taxes. What will happen to them?

Electricity is a big, important part of this so-called Clean Energy Bill. There is no contention that energy will be cleaner under this legislation or that we will achieve any improvement in the quality of our energy in relation to damage to the environment. If you are from a major metropolitan city in this country today, you will have already faced massive increases in electricity costs. Sydney is a very good example, with up to 40 to 45 per cent increases in the cost of every individual household bill and every individual business bill. Now, that is very interesting contention, and it has happened in other places as well. But we know that, relative to Victoria, the electricity price increases in both New South Wales and Queensland, in Sydney and Brisbane, are measurably higher. You would think, then, that this is a microcosm of what is supposed to happen under the carbon tax. There has been a massive increase in the price of electricity in both Sydney and Brisbane compared to Victoria; yet has there been any change in demand, in electricity patterns or in consumption? No. The evidence tells us that demand is continuing to increase at the same rate as it does in Victoria. It is inelastic.

People need electricity. Our economy needs electricity. Our households need electricity. We cannot stunt usage by creating a disincentive through price. We can only try to improve the quality of the generation of our power. That is why the Greens and the Labor Party are hypocrites: they refuse to even consider options like nuclear power and other forward-looking technologies, things that will actually make a difference to the level of carbon emissions we generate. If you are serious about tackling Australia's carbon emissions, you must be serious about power generation, because it is the No. 1 reason why we are one of the world's highest emitters of carbon—and, of course, we know that is only 1.5 per cent.

Looking at what the government is proposing, it is clear that this carbon tax will not work. It will affect Australia's standard of living compared to other nations. With our carbon emissions being only 1.5 per cent of the world's emissions, we are only a small part of the world economy, so to put a very high carbon price into our economy ahead of the rest of the world is a completely irresponsible move by an Australian government, considering it will not achieve the desired effect.

What will happen to our industry? We are going to be exporting wealth offshore. That is basically what we are doing. We know that Labor and left-wing governments around the world have always had the redistribution of wealth at the heart of their platforms. It is part of their reason for being. What we have in Australia today is this perverse situation where the Australian government is proposing a redistribution of wealth offshore, to other countries. Australian industry is so competitive, so environmentally friendly. If you look at any major industry in this country, you will find that they are leading the world, in most cases, in the use of environmental technologies. They are already setting a standard and a benchmark in their production, ahead of most other countries. They are doing it voluntarily and sometimes with incentives, but it is happening.

So why, then, would we seek to penalise those functioning, great Australian companies, industries and businesses by placing them at the mercy of the global market? We are not proposing to disengage from the global market. The government is not proposing to protect our manufacturing and other industries on anything other than a mate's selection: 'If you come to us and you beg hard enough, or you've got a big enough constituency or you can make a great case to us, you'll get a handout; the rest of you won't.' That is basically what we are being told by the government. So most people will not get help. We are shipping our wealth offshore. The standard of living that Australians have enjoyed as a result of all the hard work they have put in over the years and the great country that we live in will be shipped to other people. And, if you think that other economies will not take advantage of what is happening in Australia today, if you think that the strategic decisions of every international company—and we have so many global companies that invest in Australia—will not be made on the basis of the high carbon price in the Australian economy versus no carbon price or other disincentives in other economies, then I do not think that is being realistic.

Under what the government are proposing, we have seen the problems with electricity. There is even criticism coming from state owned assets and public generators; it is not just private corporations noting this. Public generator enterprises in New South Wales, Queensland and WA expect, on their own estimates, to lose up to $4 billion to $5 billion in value. The case is so compelling in relation to why we ought to pause at this juncture and say, 'This is not the right approach,' or, at a minimum, 'Let's put this before the Australian people and say, "Here it is; you make the decision."' But the government know what people in this country would decide today. They would decide that they have not got enough information. They are not convinced that this will benefit the environment. They do worry about the economic impact it will have. They worry about their own standard of living—and they are right to do so.

This is not a fear campaign, as the government always says. We do not have to go round saying, 'Be fearful, everybody. Be afraid; be very afraid.' People are making their own decisions from listening to what the government is saying—not just what we are saying; they are listening to both sides and they are making their own judgment. And I can tell you that listening to the government trying to convince you about anything at the moment is a completely uninspiring exercise and sometimes an exercise in humiliation for them, like today when we saw the member for Werriwa abandoning his principles on refugees.

Returning to these 19 bills, I think what we have before us today is a perverse redistribution of wealth offshore. It will do nothing for the environment, and Australians around the country are right to be very concerned about the government's agenda in relation to the pricing of electricity.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise this evening to speak to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills. It is the fundamental aim of public policy to ensure that the seen and unseen consequences of a policy's implementation increase the general welfare of individuals and society. Today we are discussing a bill that is directly and expressly designed to make millions of Australian households and families worse off. It is, once again, an example of this failed Gillard government's complete inability to design and introduce policy that leaves Australia a better place today and into the future. It is absolutely crazy to rush such a policy through the parliament. Inflation at the moment is above the Reserve Bank target range. There is a possible threat of stagflation in Australia. The European community is facing a debt crisis of unknown proportions. And, more alarmingly, there could be a double-dip recession in the United States. The Prime Minister must explain to the Australian people why she so desperately wants to rush this legislation through in the current global climate when so many millions of Australians are already doing it tough.

In this context, one fundamentally important question needs to be answered by this government, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. They refuse to answer this question because they know the answer refutes any arguments they have made in favour of the clean energy bills. While the Gillard Labor government proposes a new tax that is bad for families, bad for the economy and wastes tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, the question is: by how many degrees will this carbon tax reduce global temperatures? The Gillard government says that the policy will remove 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2020 or the equivalent of 45 million cars. What this government does not recognise is that 160 million tonnes is a completely insignificant contribution to carbon dioxide abatement.

The reason the coalition has proposed a budgeted direct action plan is we can take clear positive steps for the future environment of this country until a global agreement can be reached. A carbon price would only be legislated if—and only if—a global agreement could be reached. This side of the House is in favour of effective direct action in the environment. We have a policy that will not pass on costs to households. It is a budget neutral policy that is fully funded from savings in other government spending. We will not be sending tens of billions of dollars—taxpayer money—overseas to foreign carbon traders with no guarantee that this money will not be rorted, as we have already seen in a number of examples in Europe.

In 2010 alone carbon dioxide emissions in China were more than 7 billion tonnes. It is also estimated that China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by nearly 500 per cent between 1990 and 2020. This government is kidding itself and Australians that this policy will make any real contribution to the environment and, in so doing, reduce global temperatures. At the same time, this tax will be economically disastrous for this country.

On the ALP website the Prime Minister says that this policy taxes only the big polluters, not Australian households. She is yet to identify the 500 big polluters. It is quite obviously the case, when you are talking to a number of businesses around the country, that this tax will fall on small to medium sized businesses and it will fall very hard on Australian households.

We in the coalition know that electricity prices in Queensland and around Australia have increased significantly in recent years. All this tax will do is push up prices even more significantly. The government should know that the actual economic incidence of any tax is different from the intended statutory evidence. We know the demand for electricity is inelastic and that electricity providers will be able to pass on the vast majority of this impost directly to hundreds of thousands of Australian households. At the same time, these clean energy bills will continue the huge growth in bureaucracy and waste further billions of dollars in administrative churn.

As other members, including the member for Flinders who has spoken to this bill this evening, have informed the House, other countries are not committing to policies such as the ones that are proposed by the Gillard Labor government. We have seen an abject policy failure of attempts to create so called green jobs. We have seen this around the world. We have seen it in Spain. We have seen it in the United States. Research has shown that in Spain, a country with 21 per cent unemployment—that is right, 21 per cent unemployment—for every green job created, 2.2 regular jobs have been lost. The subsidy cost of each green job created was $774,000. No one in their right mind would seek to claim that that is economically efficient. Similarly, the Obama administration's US$39 billion loan guarantee program that was supposed to create up to 65,000 new jobs only managed to create 3,500. This is another example of these optimistic but ultimately defective policies that never ever stand up to their original claims. I suggest to this House that many of the aims and objectives of the clean energy fund would not pass a cost-benefit analysis.

Other countries have taken note. Canada, a very sophisticated country that we are quite comparable with in many ways and in resource competitiveness, has recently elected a majority conservative government that went to the election with an explicit policy of no carbon tax. Yesterday Anna Caldwell reported in the Australian newspaper that the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance released its own report finding that 950,000 manufacturing workers would be fully exposed to the impact of the tax. The report prepared by SFS Economics for the alliance found that nine out of 10 manufacturing jobs in this country would be hit by a carbon tax.

I visit many businesses in my electorate. It is a part of my job that I enjoy enormously. As a former small business owner-operator, I like talking to small and medium sized business owners about their operations. Constantly I have them saying to me, 'Why is the Prime Minister pushing this legislation through, when four days before the election she said clearly and unequivocally there would be "no carbon tax under a government I lead"?' Last weekend I had mobile booths in the northern suburbs of Brisbane. The very first constituent who came to my mobile booth said to me, 'How do I stop this carbon tax?' That was the sentiment I got all day from my constituents. Many businesses I visited expressed to me their absolute dismay at being left to fend for themselves—and they have. They have been left to fend for themselves as they face all of the costs, all of the burdens, of the Gillard government's carbon tax with no direct support to help them through and to deal with the harm. They are going to be left with the impost and the costs. Local small businesses and family enterprises have been totally ignored when you look at this bill and its related bills. The Gillard government has provided carbon tax carve-outs and compensation for some sectors but has completely forgotten small businesses.

These businesses are the absolute core of our economy. There has been a chorus of concern from small business, with many of them complaining about the added costs of inputs and energy. I know from just a year ago, running my own business, about the phenomenal increase in electricity imposts. Many small business people speak to me about that but there is no compensation being provided. There is a risk to jobs and there is also a risk to small business viability that has been absolutely ignored under this legislation. The small business sector are the very people who are the largest employers in the country.

Families are already worried about the cost of living increases and they are in no mood for further price rises from local small businesses that are already trying to cope with falling consumer demand. Tough trading conditions exist out there in the retail sector and small businesses are on very, very tight margins. They have very little capacity to absorb these cost increases. I visited the Brisbane markets recently, and many of the wholesalers there expressed great concern that they would have to reduce their staff as they would be unable to pass on these costs or add them to the cost of their produce. This Labor-Greens carbon tax adds cost, and it builds at every single stage of the supply chain.

The owner of the Red Deli delicatessen in Clayfield recently told me that he was absolutely concerned about the damaging effect that the increased cost of electricity would have on his business. As I talked to Ross, he told me that he would have to reduce staff or pass the increased operating costs on to customers. These cost increases and the lack of compensation will harm our smaller businesses, particularly those like the small deli that I have just mentioned, as higher energy costs, longer supply chains and limited market power to push back on input cost increases will make business conditions even worse.

It is not only small business that will have to find operating cost savings to offset the increases caused by Labor's carbon tax. There is small business employment, but medium-sized businesses have also expressed their concern to me. Recently the Leader of the Opposition and I visited Essilor in the electorate of Brisbane. Essilor is typical of many businesses around the country that are doing it really tough and will do it much harder under the carbon tax. This is a business that is producing world-class quality lenses, and the carbon tax will mean that manufacturing conditions are going to get even harder for businesses like Essilor. Essilor is a great local company. It employs many, many families. The cost of the carbon tax will increase the additional costs of producing these lenses. At the moment Essilor are responsible for 65 per cent of the market, but their increasing competitive pressures plus another impost of the carbon tax will only make it harder for them to operate in this country.

Even before expected rises in the price of gas and electricity under the carbon tax, Brisbane charities reported to me that pensioners and others on fixed incomes were struggling with the massive increases in electricity costs. Some of their power bills are scandalous and, according to the Queensland Competition Authority, nine electricity service providers were forced to cut power to 5,873 residential customers across Queensland for non-payment of their electricity bills for the September quarter last year. Sadly, many thousands of pensioners would have been amongst this number.

There is little relief in sight, with the state electricity price regulator, the Queensland Competition Authority, announcing yet again a 6.6 per cent increase in power bills from 1 July this year, which added another $120 to the average bill of households already under pressure from the array of cost increases. Power prices have soared by more than 60 per cent since the state Labor government promised deregulation of the industry in the south-east and that it would put downward pressure on prices.

It is a national disgrace that Labor in Queensland and nationwide has delivered a system and an economy where thousands of people will be cold in their homes because they cannot afford electricity. Particularly during winter, living in a cold home has absolutely devastating impacts on people's physical and mental health. It is deplorable that we are seeing reports from agencies about vulnerable people and the increasing costs in electricity and gas which mean that people are left at home shivering.

As to this particular legislation that we are speaking on tonight, when the Prime Minister, leading into the election, promised, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead' almost 80 per cent of small businesses took Labor at its word and did not factor in the carbon tax. They did not factor it into their business plans and they did not factor it into their business operations. This legislation will only inflict pain and suffering on many hundreds and thousands of households and small businesses in this country. Therefore, I cannot support this bill.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills, otherwise known as the carbon tax legislation, the tax we were never going to have under the Prime Minister, who said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' I have spoken in this place before about renewable energy, and I repeat a comment from a previous speech, where I stated:

… as long as our primary energy sources are fossil fuel based, all our best efforts to reduce consumption will not deliver a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and will have a negative economic impact.

This statement was made in a submission by a geothermal company to the Western Australian Greenhouse Task Force back in 2003. I could not agree more with this statement. The only way we are going to seriously reduce carbon emissions is by finding reliable alternative energy sources to coal and oil. Looking for efficiencies has failed and so will a tax. Nowhere in that submission did it say, 'We will reduce emissions by introducing a tax.' To members of the government I say again: nowhere in that submission did it say, 'We will reduce emissions by introducing a tax.'

While I am referring to government members, or even the Independents, can just one of them tell me or my constituents in the electorate of Swan by how much this legislation is going to reduce emissions or the global temperature? I am sure they cannot do that because no-one has yet. This is a tax that is all about economic pain with no environmental gain.

The Prime Minister and the Labor government along with the Greens and the Independents are imposing a tax on all Australians and the economy, and it will not help the environment. This is a tax that was never to be, but political negotiations by the economic Neanderthals, the Greens Party, has seen a Prime Minister turn a promise to the Australian people before the 2010 election into a political lie of the greatest magnitude this country has ever seen after the election.

This government has no mandate for a carbon tax no matter what way they spin it. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech on this legislation, 'This is a bad tax based on a lie and it should be rejected by this parliament.' When this country went to the 2010 election 146 members of this House won seats after saying that there would be no carbon tax. The government has no mandate for a carbon tax. In fact, it has a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax. 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' the Prime Minister said five days before the last election. 'I rule out a carbon tax,' she said one day before the election.

'We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out,' the Treasurer said on 12 August 2010. He reiterated on 15 August:

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

What a grand deception. And, given the impact of this tax, which represents the biggest restructuring of the economy in our country's history, this is arguably the most significant pre-election deception our political system has ever seen.

The carbon tax means a $9 billion a year new tax, a 10 per cent hike in electricity bills in the first year alone, a nine per cent hike in gas bills in the first year alone, higher marginal tax rates for low- and middle-income earners, and a $4.3 billion hit on the budget bottom line, even though we were told before carbon Sunday that the carbon tax was going to be budget neutral. And that is just for starters. The carbon tax will start at $23 a tonne but after three years the tax rate will not be fixed—it will float in line with market prices and the government will have no control.

In addition to squeezing family budgets, the carbon tax will impact on jobs and the economy, particularly in energy intensive small businesses. My electorate of Swan has the biggest transport hub in Western Australia, including freight, rail, distribution and manufacturing centres in Welshpool and Kewdale. The Leader of the Opposition and I have visited the distribution company TNT in my electorate to hear concerns about the impacts of the tax. We heard concerns about the increased costs this carbon tax would mean. This hub is a big employer and we do not want to see jobs lost or companies relocating overseas. TNT is a company that has already implemented efficient transport systems and state-of-the-art equipment to reduce their emissions and, dare I say it, they have the most efficient setup in Australia. This company in my electorate will actually be punished by this carbon tax for already being efficient.

On another occasion, the Leader of the Opposition visited a manufacturing plant in my electorate of Swan and was cheered by the workers as he came onto the factory floor. It was a moment of clarity for me when they cheered Tony Abbott. The workers of this country can see the fraud in this tax that is being foisted upon them. The only people who cannot see it are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, who promised before the last election that there would be no carbon tax.

I have asked the Prime Minister to come and speak to the people in my electorate and listen to their concerns. It was my expectation that the Prime Minister would be doing this as part of her self-proclaimed 'wearing out my shoe leather' tour of the country, which she declared she would do whilst trying to sell the carbon tax to the people of Australia. Unfortunately, this tour ended without the Prime Minister even making it to the electorate of Swan. What a disappointment, but perhaps not a surprise, for the small businesses in my electorate.

When the stated aim of this policy is to close down coal mines I am certainly concerned for energy intensive industries in my electorate of Swan. Now the Prime Minister talks about compensation, but one thing is for sure: you cannot compensate someone who has lost their job.

I want to focus on the Prime Minister's compensation briefly, now. That fact that there is this supposed compensation is an admission from the government that its carbon tax policy will do harm to Australian families. Initially, Labor committed to returning all the moneys raised through the carbon tax to the taxpayer. Members will remember the trade minister stating on 10 March this year, 'We will return all of the moneys raised to people through the tax mechanism.' But later the government changed its mind and it was confirmed on carbon Sunday that 50 per cent of moneys raised would go to compensate families. What this really means is that people will not be properly compensated. We know that a teacher and a shop assistant will be worse off under this tax. A single-income family with a child will be worse off under this tax. And I think the suspicion of most Australians is that the compensation will not keep up with the tax as it goes up and up.

Unbelievably, this government is introducing this tax when no other country is planning to introduce an economy-wide carbon tax. This has been clearly stated by the Productivity Commission. In the United States all moves towards a national cap-and-trade scheme have been abandoned. While the EU does have an ETS, it does not cover the whole economy and it provides many industries with free emissions permits. The EU ETS raises only about $500 million per year while the Labor-Greens carbon tax will raise $9 billion a year. Canada, Japan and Korea—all major exporters—have either ditched or deferred their carbon tax systems. Most experts would agree that there is zero chance that either China or India will adopt any form of serious carbon tax.

That is what makes this such an astonishing act of economic self-sacrifice. And it is in this context that there could not be a worse time to implement a carbon tax. We only have to cast our minds back a couple of weeks for evidence of this in the loss of steel industry jobs. It is clear that Australia's manufacturing industry is under significant pressure at the moment. A carbon tax will increase costs, which overseas competitors do not have to pay. Jobs will go offshore to factories which will emit more emissions than Australian manufacturers—a bad net result for the environment.

Every one of the members of the government and the coalition said there would be no carbon tax. So why is the government forgetting its commitment to the Australian public? For numerous reasons, but not one of them is for an environmental gain. And this is perhaps the most damning argument against this legislation: it will cost and destroy jobs, squeeze household budgets and hit the budget's bottom line while not even reducing emissions. According to the government's own modelling, under the carbon tax—the bills we are debating today—emissions will increase from 578 to 621 megatonnes from 2012 to 2020. Emissions will increase.

So, instead of reducing emissions, what is the government planning to do? It plans to spend $3.5 billion in carbon tax revenue—revenue ultimately derived from households across Australia—buying carbon credits from overseas carbon traders. This means $3.5 billion in taxpayers' dollars going to pay potentially dodgy and corrupt foreign companies to do things like plant trees in other countries, not in Australia. This is the same system that the Australian Crime Commission has this year found was rorted to the level of $5 billion in Europe. And what hope have we got that this government is going to be able to prevent fraud and rip-offs after its famous pink batts and BER debacles? By 2050, funding for overseas carbon credits is expected to rise to $57 billion a year, or 1.5 per cent of GDP. Is there no end to the ways in which this government is prepared to waste taxpayers' money? That is why I say there is no environmental gain from this carbon tax.

There is a better way. Compare this to the coalition's direct action plan, which will actually reduce Australian emissions by the bipartisan target of five per cent by 2020. There is no carbon trading with overseas traders—only measures which will achieve real improvements for the Australian environment. We will green our cities by planting an additional 20 million urban trees. We will establish a standing green army to help with this. I was particularly proud at the last election to announce that three of these green army projects, if we won the election, would be in my electorate of Swan: at Tomato Lake in Kewdale, at the Canning River Regional Park and at the Swan River Foreshore. This is important given the wetlands systems in my electorate, which is surrounded by water on three sides, and the announcement was welcomed by environmental groups across my electorate. In fact, I took my own green army to help out the Canning River Regional Park Volunteers to clear weeds and plant trees in Ferndale earlier in the month. This is real action to protect the Australian environment, not the carbon traders' bottom line. We will invest in solar and renewable energy and in soil carbon to replenish the land. We will provide direct incentives for business and industry to reduce their emissions—all this without a carbon tax. Most importantly, under direct action there will be no cost to families, no new taxes and no rise in electricity prices as a result of our direct action policy. It is straightforward, practical and easy to understand. We took it to the last election and we stand by it.

In conclusion, the coalition will be opposing this legislation. Given that the Prime Minister has already done a deal with the Greens, it is likely this legislation will get through this House and be fast-tracked through the other place with little scrutiny.

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

It's shameful if that's the case.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Fadden agreeing with me on that. If so, the next election will be a referendum on the carbon tax and, if elected, we will rescind the legislation and scrap the carbon tax. The Labor-Greens government has no mandate to introduce the carbon tax legislation. The Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' She likes to compare her change of heart to that of John Howard before he introduced the GST. However, there is a key difference: John Howard took his policy to an election and let the people decide.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not the one he implemented.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor-Greens government is trying to push this through before an election without a mandate. I hear the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities interjecting; he obviously does not care about the Australian businesses and jobs that will be lost overseas. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, 'There should be no tax collection without an election.' I will not be supporting the bills before the House. They are not good for my constituents, they are not good for the country and they are not good for the environment.

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about the devastation this Labor-Greens carbon tax and its suite of 18 supporting bills will bring to my electorate of Macarthur. In Macarthur there is a diverse mix of highly populated residential areas, small business and industrial estates which are home to some of Australia's leading manufacturers, as well as large tracts of productive agricultural land and mining. My constituents have different needs, world views, jobs, interests and political persuasions, but what they do have in common is the very clear community consensus that the carbon tax must be scrapped.

The government has no mandate to introduce this carbon tax legislation. My community remembers vividly the statement the Prime Minister made days before the election: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' The Prime Minister has failed to honour her promise to the Australian people. On the other hand, my colleagues and I in the coalition have a track record of delivering on our promises, delivering good government, delivering good economic management and delivering results on environmental management. The coalition has a real plan for protecting our environment, now and into the future. We are committed to addressing climate change and will reduce Australia's emissions by five per cent by 2020.

In Macarthur there are 9,760 businesses. Of these, over 95 per cent are small businesses. These businesses are the backbone of our community, supporting local employment and investing back into the community through our numerous local charities, events and causes. Whether it is manufacturing or mining, from education through to dining, the carbon tax will hurt businesses in Macarthur and across New South Wales. It will cost local jobs.

The New South Wales government have very clearly stated that families and businesses in New South Wales will be worse off than in any other state in the country. The New South Wales Treasury modelling predicts that 31,000 jobs will be lost in New South Wales by 2030 as a result of the carbon tax. This will include 18,500 jobs in the Hunter Valley alone. The New South Wales government predicts that state finances will be $1 billion worse off between now and 2014, with a reduction in gross state product of close to one per cent per year by 2020, and that electricity prices in New South Wales will rise by $498 in the next financial year. The carbon price will impose a $40 billion cost on the generation sector, most of which will be passed on to consumers. Despite the $40 billion it will cost, the carbon price will produce relatively little change in emissions from the generation sector.

For Australian families, the carbon tax means a $9-billion-a-year new tax and a 10 per cent hike in electricity bills in the first year alone. In New South Wales, families are facing an even bleaker outlook, with electricity prices to rise by 15 to 20 per cent. There will be a nine per cent hike in gas bills in the first year alone; higher marginal tax rates for low and middle income earners; and a $4.3 billion hit on the budget bottom line. There is no doubt the carbon tax will put more pressure on the cost of living. Families in Macarthur are already struggling. This Labor-Greens carbon tax will make a bad situation worse, with a $515 hit on the cost of living. That is just for starters. Since 2007 families in Macarthur have had to deal with power prices that have increased by an average of 51 per cent, gas prices that have increased by an average of 30 per cent, and water and sewerage rates that have increased by an average of 46 per cent.

I would like to touch on the impact the carbon tax will have on local government. In my electorate, Campbelltown City Council has budgeted $4.5 million for electricity for the 2011-12 financial year. The implementation of a carbon tax, where it is common knowledge there will be an increase of up to 20 per cent in electricity charges, will result in an increase of $900,000, which will ultimately be passed directly on to the ratepayers of Campbelltown. The Campbelltown local government area has a population of 160,000 people and is situated on the south-west fringe of the Sydney metropolitan area. It is well-known that families of this local government area are middle- to low-income families who can ill afford this type of increase in their household budget. That is not even considering the impact the carbon tax will have on landfill charges, which nobody in local government can quantify at this point in time. This will eventually lead to an increase in garbage collection charges, which will also be passed directly onto ratepayers.

The cost of living under a Labor government just keeps going up and up. People in Macarthur know that any tax cut will not keep pace with the carbon price that is set to soar to over $131 a tonne. What will that do to the cost of living for families and pensioners in Macarthur? The carbon tax will hit families in Macarthur with a vengeance. As Macarthur sits on the outskirts of Sydney, getting to and from the city for work will send household petrol bills soaring. Businesses who import or export will face sky-high transport costs which will be passed on to consumers. Costs for building new houses are expected to rise by at least $10,000 for an entry-level home in Macarthur. This is the worst possible time for a government to introduce a carbon tax into the Australian economy.

Our manufacturing sector is already under immense pressure. A carbon tax will increase costs that overseas competitors do not have to pay while destroying Australia's one real competitive advantage in manufacturing—relatively cheap electricity. The government's carbon tax will give overseas companies a competitive edge over our own manufacturing industry. We have already seen the damage that this tax has done in the steel manufacturing industry. Jobs will go offshore to factories that emit more carbon than Australian manufacturers—a net loss for Australian jobs, the environment and economy.

In Macarthur there are a large number of employers who will not be able to survive a post-carbon tax economy. One of Macarthur's largest manufacturing companies has told me that they will be facing massive cuts to their competitiveness if the carbon tax is introduced. I have been contacted by many small businesses in my electorate who have real concerns about the rising cost of electricity and the impact it will have on their businesses. For most small businesses in Macarthur the increased tax deductions will not make up for the rising cost of electricity. From hairdressers, construction and building companies, local farmers to exporters—and even a local pet crematorium—local businesses can see the writing on the wall. The carbon tax is bad for business. It will be bad for local jobs and it will be bad for local families. An example here is 'Simon the Pieman', one of Macarthur's most loved pie shop owners, is expected to have to raise his prices to cover his increased electricity and delivery costs. Simon the Pieman is expected to have to charge $10 for a tradie's morning tea break of a pie and a chocolate milk. A carbon tax is going to devastate his business and he will not receive any compensation at all. There are examples of this same scenario all over my electorate.

In Macarthur is one of the region's largest employers in mining. In Macarthur's mining industry there will be 5,500 people directly or indirectly affected by the government's carbon tax. In New South Wales, 31,000 mining jobs will be lost across the state. These jobs represent families with mouths to feed and bills to pay. I will not sit idly by and watch this government destroy the great Macarthur region and indeed our great nation.

I know my colleagues in the coalition share this feeling and will oppose a carbon tax, which is nothing more than economic vandalism. The government likes to say that families will be compensated for the impact of its carbon tax, but a tax cut to compensate for a tax increase is not a tax cut; it is a con. The tax cut will not be a rebate on people's bills. It is nothing more than empty cash thrown at Australians in a desperate bid to suffocate short-term debate and keep interest groups at bay. No other country is planning an economy-wide carbon price. The Productivity Commission has clearly stated that not one other country on earth is bringing in an economy-wide carbon tax or emissions trading scheme.

In the United States, for example, all moves towards a national cap-and-trade scheme have been totally abandoned. Let us look at what small-scale schemes have done for the international community—the results speak for themselves. A United Kingdom study released in March this year found that for every job created in the renewable energy sector 3.7 existing jobs were lost. A 2009 Spanish study found that for every green job created by subsidies and price supports for renewable power more than two jobs in other industries are lost.

The Treasurer has been making grandiose claims that China is acting to reduce its carbon emissions, but China's emissions are forecast to rise by 500 per cent over the next nine years. How fair dinkum is China in relation to reducing emissions? A recent article by John Lee in the Australiannotes that wind power now accounts for one per cent of China's energy needs, while solar constitutes one-thousandth of one per cent of the country's energy use. They are more worried about maintaining economic growth at all costs and there is little incentive to connect renewable energy assets to the power grid when fossil fuels are much cheaper. Chinese figures estimate that by 2030 renewable energy, including hydropower, will only meet two per cent to three per cent of the country's energy needs. Lee goes on to say that China views renewable products and technologies as an export opportunity to subsidise clean energy sectors in foreign countries. They can produce a wind turbine at a third of the price of one made in Germany or Spain. Far from exercising environmental leadership, Beijing has simply identified yet another export opportunity to Western consumers.

In Europe, while they have an ETS, it does not cover the whole economy and it provides many industries with free emissions permits. The European ETS only raises around $500 million a year. In comparison, Labor's carbon tax will raise a whopping $9 billion a year with no actual emission reductions.

This brings me to my next point, one which I believe is the worst aspect of this carbon tax legislation. This tax is all pain for absolutely no environmental gain. The government's own modelling shows that emissions will not decrease in Australia. In fact, emissions are set to rise from 2012 to 2020 from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes. Instead of delivering real emission reductions, this government is proposing to spend $3.5 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money to purchase overseas carbon credits. Using the government 's own modelling, by 2050 this figure will be $57 billion—1.5 per cent of Australia's GDP sent overseas to 'purchase' carbon credits. This will deliver nothing but numbers on a piece of paper. It is just a major wealth transfer from the Australian economy and will call into question the capacity of the government to continue to compensate households and trade-exposed industries. There will be no gain for the Australian environment. The sheer incompetency and arrogance of this government is astonishing. This legislation is nothing more than a get-rich-quick scheme for overseas carbon traders—yet another poorly thought-out scheme, and one that the Australian Crime Commission has already highlighted as involving $5 billion in fraud to date. Internationally, the carbon-trading train has left the station. The United States withdrew from the Kyoto protocol in 2001 and has indicated it will not commit to any replacement treaty. Russia, Japan and Canada have all recently stated that they will not continue with the protocol after it expires. It has also been reported that 90 per cent of trades in the European Union's emissions trading system were fraudulent, resulting in a loss to European taxpayers of more than $6.6 billion.

In her carbon Sunday documents, the Prime Minister's own figures show that more than three million Australian households will be actually worse off. I want to emphasise that these households are not just 'rich' people. Thousands of families across Macarthur will be worse off under this government's carbon tax. Here are just a few examples. A teacher married to a shop assistant will be worse off under the government's package, even on the government's own figures. A policeman married to a part-time nurse will be worse off, under the government's own figures, thanks to the carbon tax. A single-income family with a child, on the government's own modelling, starts to be worse off from below average weekly earnings. That is what the government is doing to the forgotten families of Macarthur. That is why I cannot, as a representative of the community of Macarthur, support this bill. This will be the greatest moral challenge of our time. It is a grievous breach of trust—one that Australians will never forget.

The coalition has a real plan for Australia's environmental future: a plan that involves direct action. We must protect our environment and ensure that it is there for future generations to enjoy. We will address climate change with real, practical and measurable action. Our direct action plan will reduce emissions by five per cent by 2020. Rather than throwing billions of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars at foreign countries to buy their carbon credits, we would rather see that money go towards improving Australia's environment and lowering Australia's real emissions. The coalition will achieve our target through positive direct action for the environment and through providing incentives, rather than through hurting Australian families and the economy with a devastating carbon tax.

Our plan is fully costed, capped and funded. Our plan will ensure that a coalition government would live within its means. Our environmental direct action plan will not cost Australians their jobs. It will not come at the expense of reduced standards of living. Instead of penalties and taxes, our direct action climate policy will provide incentives for Australian businesses to reduce their carbon emissions. We will focus our attention on meaningful and effective direct action to improve Australia's environment. Our plan will give all Australians the opportunity to play a vital part in improving our environment through real, direct action.

In Macarthur, the direct action plan will see thousands of trees planted and local businesses given the support and incentives to go green. The direct action plan will mean that local jobs in Macarthur will be protected and employment opportunities will remain for our future generations.

A carbon tax will create a world of pain for families in Macarthur, and I cannot with a good conscience support such heinous and draconian measures that will not improve our environment one little bit. I would urge all members of the House to think of their electorates—consider their pensioners, their families, their future generations—and oppose this bill.

Standing here tonight, I look around. We have been told that the government has pulled a number of speakers. If I were a sitting member of parliament I would have liked to get in and represent my electorate and put my case in relation to a carbon tax. It seems a shame that there are a number of members who are not speaking tonight because they have been pulled by the Prime Minister and so are not stating their case. I think that is an absolute disgrace. This bill is being rushed through the parliament at 100 miles an hour. It just goes to show that there are a number of members in the government who actually do not believe in the carbon tax and that is why they are not here to speak on it tonight.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that, across Australia tonight, there will be a number of people who, sitting behind the wheel of a truck or sitting in their house just preparing to watch the ABC news—in fact, people in all situations right across the nation—are actually listening to what is happening in the parliament. So I should explain that I am here, standing in the Parliament of Australia, and we are considering the introduction in this parliament of a carbon tax that has connected to it 18 ancillary bills that were presented by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. This is part of the debate that we are having to talk about them on both sides of the House. But it seems that those on the other side of the House, the proponents of this tax, have lost interest completely. They have in the House only the minister at the table, Minister Burke. So, just to explain to the Australian people, I am standing in, basically, an empty parliament, considering something that is going to affect every member of our society for generations. There are those who say that that is a positive. I say: that is a negative.

I have been opposed to the carbon tax. But I want to take you back a step, because people would then say to me: 'Russell Broadbent, member for McMillan: you are a Liberal. The Liberal Party, in coalition with the National Party, under John Howard proposed such a scheme, an emissions trading scheme'—Dr Shergold's baby, at that time, and Mr Howard agreed that we would look at it. But then, in a recent interview, he, the former Prime Minister, said, 'It was always my intention that I would only act on this if the world acted with us.' And that is right for this nation right now.

Why would we put ourselves in the position of being less competitive than our major competitors around the world? In fact, to those who argue that the world has acted: it has not. If you could put to me today that we could not operate in the world unless we had an emissions trading scheme, a carbon tax proposal, and that the other people that we trade with the world had already enacted one, then there would be a case for us to participate. But today there is no case. I put it to you that there are those in the commentariat, such Don Argus, whom I would like to come to in a minute, and others of stature who put their name to economic writing—that is extremely important to them, because they put their name and reputation to it—who oppose this issue.

How did it come about? I am not one to attack the Prime Minister, but I will say this. A politician may make a statement on an issue—especially when people are about to vote on who they want to run the country—with the intention that the people of Australia will understand what their intent is in regard to that issue. During the last election Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, 'There will be no carbon tax under my government.' I believe she was genuine when she said that. I believe it was her intent that under her government in this term there would be no carbon tax. However, circumstances came about whereby the Prime Minister of the day, to remain Prime Minister of the day, needed to do a deal with some others, including the Greens, who demanded a carbon tax or a response to climate change.

I can accept that; that is the process of politics. But if a politician, of any ilk, changes their mind, it is appropriate for them to honestly come to the Australian people and say: 'Look, I cannot hide this from you. I said that before the election and now I am saying this. Here are the reasons why. That is what happened then. That is what I said to you. But, honestly, I have to say to you now that I have done this deal with some other parties which leads me to say that I will be offering the Australian people a carbon tax.' The failure to do that was not appreciated by the nation.

I think the Australian people would have accepted it if they had been told by the Prime Minister, 'I am going to introduce a carbon tax—even though I said before that I was not going to—and here are the reasons why.' I think the Australian people would have accepted the Prime Minister being brutally honest with them, but she failed to be honest with them and this has caused all the trouble about the legitimacy of the introduction of this tax, especially when we are not focused on another election, I do not think, within weeks or months—I do not know; it could be—but certainly we are in the two-year time frame of an election campaign.

If the Prime Minister had said: 'Look, what I am going to do with this is lay it out for you'—which could be the introduction of these bills now—'but I will not introduce it until after I have taken it to the Australian people.' That would have been acceptable to the Australian people, because there would have been a long debate about it and there would have been reasonable consideration of the carbon tax. The Australian people would have got to have their say. They would have voted, exactly as they did with John Howard and the momentous introduction of the GST. The people of Australia had a say. And he just got there. I was part of that. I think we lost 19 seats, and mine was one of them. That is why I said to the people on the back bench of the Labor Party a few weeks ago, 'If you're not sitting in a safe seat, have a look around at your colleagues who are in safe seats, who have a buffer, because they are still going to be here after the election, and you will not.'

I spoke a few weeks ago about when I was sitting in that chair down there and Paul Keating was in opposition. If you ever saw Paul Keating in full flight in this House, you would know that it was something to behold. I can tell you: there were not many orators like Paul Keating, not many with such absolute dominance of the parliament. Paul Keating looked over and said to me, 'You're gone'. And I was. And now I am looking at where Labor members normally sit, and I can say to them, 'You're gone'. This carbon tax is unacceptable to the Australian people in the form it has been put to them.

It is not just me. I have the greatest admiration for Don Argus, who has been used by the government for his astute ability in many areas. He says in his address 'Are we still the lucky country?':

… I have previously stated my view that mainstream science is right in pointing to high risks from unmitigated climate change. I have also said that economic growth and a healthy climate are not mutually exclusive.

I have some concerns about the proposed carbon tax and in its current form I do not think the tax and associated policies are in Australia’s best interest.

First, I have deep reservations about Australia being a world leader in this area when it represents less than 2% of global CO2 emissions. Should we be proposing a scheme when much of the world has yet to commit to a carbon price?

These sentiments echo those of Nobel prize winner, Michael Spence. In his book, “The Next Convergence”,—

which I have purchased now—

Michael makes the point that countries should coordinate plans so nations and regions do not suffer competitive disadvantages. It is also surely imprudent to introduce new taxes when there is so much global uncertainty and confidence is faltering.

Even the Productivity Commission said: it will cost jobs, it will increase inflation and it will increase electricity costs. If you have those three in place and the government then talks about, and only talks about, this being a tax on 'big polluters'—who are the big polluters? They are the electricity companies in Gippsland, Darren Chester's seat, and the workers in my seat of McMillan. They are calling them the big polluters. Who these big polluters are, the government has yet to say, yet here we are in this House discussing a bill that will directly affect every Australian and every 'big polluter'. The government refuses to release the list of the names of the big polluters that will be directly affected by this legislation. If power costs are to increase by 10 per cent with the passage of this legislation, those costs have to be passed on, if they can be passed on, to every household. But where does that leave the so-called big polluters—or, as I call them, electricity producers—who provide the power for all the reverse cycle air conditioners that are going into the new homes on the outskirts of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane as well as, probably, into every new development in both small and large towns? I saw a whole street of homes built in front of my house. Every one of them had a reverse cycle air conditioner, and every one of them relied on power from the electricity producers.

This legislation is not good for Australia now. Time after time there are newspaper articles saying this. I will quote the Australian; in fact, I will not quote the Australianthat is not seen by the government as appropriate. Instead, I will quote the Herald Sun. It said:

… Julia Gillard fronted the media yesterday spruiking the benefits of the controversial carbon tax, looming large in the background was the metaphorical rhinoceros.

In this case it was Bob Brown and his Greens team, who since the last election have been pulling the Government's strings.

These are not my words, Bob; these are the Sun Herald's words. The article continued:

Their influence over the Federal Government should not be underestimated, particularly when the Prime Minister herself promised in the election campaign there would be no carbon tax on her watch.

…   …   …

Once again families who strive hard to better themselves and try to build a future, are targeted by a government that claims to represent workers.

…   …   …

But it appears the only certainty will be that household costs will keep rising, with more jobs on the line. That's for certain.

I do not want my community to be uncompetitive internationally; I want my community to do the best it can to reduce the carbon footprint that we put down. I think there are myriad ways to do exactly that, and I think there is a great opportunity for our nation to say, 'We want to reduce our emissions.' How we go about that can be a topic of conversation and debate from now until the next election.

So tonight I call on the government, if they have any political decency—and I mean political decency; I am not denigrating those on the other side or the Independents or anybody else—to say, 'We are prepared to lay down these 18 bills, which the government does not have a good record of managing, until the next election and to let the Australian people vote.' Let the people have a say so that they are part of the legislation, not opposed to the legislation.

Debate adjourned.