Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the carbon tax legislation, euphemistically named the 'Clean Energy' bills by this government. Can I say at the outset that, apart from the Prime Minister's broken promise—'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'—there is a gross deception at the heart of this legislation. Time and again, day after day, week after week, month after month, Labor members proclaim that this is a tax only on the 500 biggest polluters in the nation, the implication being that the financial penalty of this legislation will only fall upon these companies—500 companies, of course, that the government cannot, or refuse to, actually name. They do not know which 500 companies they are. A company could be No. 499 or No. 501 and they would have no clue at the moment as to which one they were.

But, leaving that aside, let us tackle this proposition from the government that this is a tax the financial and fiscal impact of which will only fall on the 500 biggest polluters in the nation. Let us assume for a moment that that is true. If that were true then why is there a need for a vast compensation package in these bills? The fact is that the claim that only the 500 biggest polluters will pay is political spin. It reminds me of George Orwell's quip: 'Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.' That is about the reality of what we hear coming from this government.

The fact is that this tax will be passed on by the companies that are taxed and it will cascade through every transaction associated with the product of that company—of course, that is what it is designed to do. But we have this political obscuration by the Labor government in the hope that ordinary Australians will think otherwise. The reality, however, is that they increasingly recognise the deception and are opposed to this package. In particular, power and transport prices will increase. The government hopes that Australians will ignore this as it blames other factors. At least President Obama in the United States, who has now abandoned his plans for a similar scheme, was more forthcoming. He told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008: 'Under my plan of a cap and trade system'—the equivalent of what we are getting here—'electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.' That is what President Obama was prepared to say in 2008 about what he was then proposing for the American economy—namely, under his scheme, 'electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.' But do we hear any such truthfulness from this government? No, we just hear more spin that somehow only the 500 biggest polluters will pay. That is, frankly, a joke.

What we have seen with energy prices so far has been a substantial spike over the last few years. As any Australian can tell you, electricity prices have gone up. It does not matter which state or territory in Australia you reside in; the reality is that electricity prices have gone up on average by more than 40 per cent across the country. Gas prices have gone up by something like 28 per cent. The cost of food has gone up. The cost of health care and pharmaceutical products has gone up. All of these things have gone up substantially. The reality is that many Australians are facing cost-of-living pressures the like of which they have not faced for some time. In fact, in my journeys around the country, talking to family service agencies in the honourable member's state of Western Australia recently, family service agencies, whether in Perth or any other part of Australia, are saying that they have more people turning up to their doors in necessitous circumstances than any time in a generation. That is what the family service agencies are saying. So the reality is that, for many Australians, cost-of-living pressures are hitting them in a way that they have not before—and yet, on top of that, we have this tax that the government is proposing to impose over and above all these increases in costs in energy, transport, food et cetera.

Look at what is going to happen. In my state of Victoria, Deloitte Access Economics did a survey, some analysis, of what the impact would be, just in Victoria alone. And they said, after their analysis—one of the leading accountancy and financial firms in the country, employed not only by governments but by a whole range of private sector organisations from time to time to provide analysis of the economic impacts of certain measures and policies—that the carbon tax will make Victorian households $1,050 a year worse off, cost 35,000 jobs and hit the state budget bottom line by $660 million by 2015. That is just in Victoria alone. You can multiply that right across every state and territory in Australia, with the compounding impact that that will have across this country.

There is something else I want to address in relation to this legislation—and that is what I describe as the 'green jobs myth'. A consequence of this legislation, following on from what the honourable member for Indi was speaking about earlier, will be the destruction of Australian industry and jobs. As she pointed out, in the last 12 months, in manufacturing alone, we have seen the loss of 54,000 jobs in Australia. And you can see that that has been compounding over the last few months—49,000 manufacturing jobs gone in Australia in the last six months; 30,000 manufacturing jobs gone in Australia in the last three months.

We hear now and again about the closure of some major manufacturing business. But the reality is that day after day and week after week we see, in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, which I represent in part, and in those sorts of areas in this country, the closure of small manufacturing operations, plants and businesses—often simply closing because they can no longer remain competitive or moving offshore because that is the only way they can keep their business alive. This is happening day after day, week after week, not just the headlines that come up when a major business closes now and again. The reality is that this is happening all the time and that of course is borne out by the data that 54,000 jobs have gone in manufacturing in the last 12 months alone.

With manufacturing already suffering, businesses closing or moving overseas and jobs being lost, Australians are naturally worried about their future and their employment future. When studies indicate that significant additional job losses occur, particularly, to take Victoria again, in places like the Latrobe Valley, the power hub of the state, then they rightly question the indecent urgency of this Labor government to impose a scheme in the absence of similar schemes elsewhere around the world. Nor are they mollified by glib assertions of Professor Garnaut that new jobs will be as numerous as the old jobs that have been lost.

It is in this context that I wish to examine the claim that tens of thousands of jobs will be lost—what Professor Garnaut refers to as structural change. I am sure if you lose your job, you do not refer to it as structural change and that somehow they are going to be replaced in this country in the coming few years by new green jobs. Professor Garnaut acknowledges that:

All Australians want to know where the new jobs and new incomes will come from…

But his response from everywhere to quote him again is 'hardly convincing in the light of overseas experience.'

Let me turn to some recent developments overseas. In the United States:

According to a report last week in the Washington Post:

The program—designed to jump-start the nation’s clean technology industry by giving energy companies access to low-cost, government-backed loans—has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount;

half almost of $38 billion, 3,545 jobs.

President Obama made green jobs a showcase for his recovery plan, vowing to foster new jobs, new technologies and more competitive industries, but the loan guarantee program came under scrutiny after the collapse of Solyndra, a solar panel maker, whose closure will cost taxpayers as much as $527 million. Indeed last year President Obama visited this company in Northern California and hailed it as the future of clean energy. According to a Washington Post report:

Obama’s efforts to create green jobs are lagging behind expectations at a time of persistently high unemployment. Many economists say that because alternative-energy projects are so expensive and slow to ramp up, they are not the most efficient way to stimulate the economy.

Even claims by the US Energy Department that a green jobs program saved 33,000 jobs at the Ford Motor Company have been queried. Several economists said they doubt the loans program saved these jobs. Josh Lerner from the Harvard Business School said:

I always take these job estimates with a big grain of salt.

…

There tends to be a lot of fuzzy math when it comes to calculating these benefits…

Or Mark Muro, from the Brookings Institution, who researches the clean-tech industry, said:

…the agency appears to be counting every employee working in upgraded plants, when the more relevant question is how many workers would have been laid off without the loans.

Solyndra, the first company backed under the greens loan scheme, has now declared bankruptcy and closed its doors just two weeks ago. In fact it has been raided by the FBI since. The failure of the solar panel manufacturer, which got a $535 million government loan guarantee and later direct government loans, led to the lay-off—not the putting on—of 1,100 workers.

Energy Department officials claim the program will create or save 60,000 jobs. But, if the 20 companies that have won loans so far deliver all the new jobs they have promised, they will hire a total of just 8,050 new workers for permanent positions. According to the same report in the WashingtonPost report, half of those 20 companies have neither created nor saved any permanent jobs yet; several won their loans only recently.

If the revised 60,000 target is reached, it will work out at about $640,000 in loan guarantees for every job created or saved. If the companies do well they will not draw down on the guarantees but if, as what happened with Solyndra, it collapses and declares bankruptcy then of course the American taxpayers will pay the bill.

This comes on top of President Obama's claim that his stimulus bill created or preserved 225,000 clean energy jobs. That is $355,000 per job. However, the reality is that when this was analysed in further detail that much of this money went not to firms and businesses in America but to China. Despite the claim of green jobs, the overwhelming majority of stimulus money spent on wind power went to foreign companies, according to a new report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University's School of Communication in Washington, D.C.

According to a report recently on the American ABC WorldNews, nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power, funding the creation of enough new wind farms to power 2.4 million homes over the past year. But the study also found that nearly 80 per cent of that money had gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.

The third largest maker of solar panels in the US, Evergreen, is closing—not opening, not expanding—its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China, despite having received more than $43 million in assistance from the state of Massachusetts.

Michael El-Hillow, the chief executive, said in a statement that his company had decided to close the factory in response to plunging prices for solar panels. World prices have fallen as much as two-thirds in the last three years, including a drop of 10 percent during last year's fourth quarter alone. This is reflected in their share prices. If you look at Evergreen stock, it traded at just over $100 per share in 2007 and had dropped to just $3.00 per share by the start of this year. This follows First Solar, another American company and one of the world's largest solar power vendors, whose products are already made overseas. Reeling from this experience, the US administration announced last week that it is again delaying a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

This overseas experience, real data of what is happening, points to two consequences; first, it is a myth that green jobs are being created in large numbers, and, secondly, every job created comes at an enormous cost to the nation. This reflects the experience in the United States. A similar study in Spain found that for every green job created there were two or three other jobs lost in the economy. Not only will families pay the extra costs for energy and transport; the so-called green jobs are a myth. It is no wonder that workers in places like the Latrobe Valley are worried about their future. (Time expired)

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills. As many people on this side of the fence who have spoken before me have said, these are very important bills. I have long supported the need to tackle the effects of climate change on both our economy and the environment. I have gone on record on this issue on a number of occasions.

Climate change has been in local, national and global discourse for quite some time. It is an issue that challenges the hopes and aspirations of present and future generations. It is also an issue that has caused much emotion, passion and contention on both sides of the debate. I say 'both sides of the debate' because I recognise that there is a difference of opinion on this issue amongst members here in this place, in the community and in my own community. That difference of opinion has been brought home to me in the many emails and letters I have received from my electorate. Some have asked me to support the bills before us and others have asked me not to support them. I have been asked to be a hero and vote against these bills and I have also been asked to secure their future and vote in favour of them. I respect the views put to me by my electorate. One could say that you could be a hero in support of this legislation, and that is what I am doing here today.

It is my view that climate change is a real phenomenon and that human activity is a contributing factor to this change. Many years ago when I was a child I used to wonder where the billowing white or grey clouds that emanated from the various industrial sites in my home town of Melbourne went. I had a particular fascination with the white clouds over the Amcor paper mills in Fairfield. I always wondered what the effect of a few hundred years of such pollution would do to the atmosphere. It does not surprise me that today's young people, including my own children, also wonder the same thing. In the days when I was a child there were no answers to my questions and there was no local, national or global discussion. There was no scientific voice and no political voice. Today, however, there is. There is discussion and there are answers. We may not all agree with them, but human activity and its effect on our planet and climate is a real concern and must be considered.

A new generation of Australians are asking us to act on this defining issue of our time that is pertinent to our future and their future. It is a challenge that requires leadership and a policy approach that gives Australia direction in rising to this challenge and preparing us for an economy geared towards a clean energy future. The government has responded to this defining issue of our time, and before us is significant, far-reaching and progressive legislation that harnesses the need for us to do something significant to arrest climate change that threatens our natural environment and has action designed to protect our future on this planet.

We have to act in a practical and defining manner. Importantly, we have to act collectively as a global community. There is no other way. In doing this we have to look to, and concentrate on, the immense opportunities we have as a nation to capitalise on Australia's innovative capability in a new, developing economy. I say this in particular because many people, including my constituents, have expressed concern about the possible loss of jobs. The action taken by the government through these bills will not destroy jobs and job opportunities. On the contrary, this action provides for a whole new range of job opportunities and new jobs in the new, emerging green economy.

We are changing the way we live our lives and the way we make things. We are doing it for the sake of our future. We are not alone in our endeavours to take action on climate change, as the opposition would have us believe. We are not a lone ship sailing on uncharted waters. As we look to strengthening our economy and position it for the future we have to examine the economic direction of our trading partners and recognise the economic trends and forecasts of global development and the low-emissions products and technologies that will power the clean energy future. These are the markers of the future global economy.

Australia has some of the best renewable energy resources in the world, and a price on carbon will be the driving force for growth and opportunities. Without it we will be squandering not just our environment but our potential in vast manufacturing and innovative capabilities. Imagine if our research and development were geared towards a 1980s style economy whilst both industrialised and developing economies are investing in the development of technologies for the 21st century? What markets would we tap into and which markets would look to us? It would take a lot more than the opposition's policy of spin to convince our trading partners that Australia is part of the future and that we are a part of global economic and social development.

These major economic transformations are not taking place in isolation, as I have said. Our top five trading partners—China, Japan, the United States, Korea and India—and another six of our top 20 trading partners are implementing policies for a clean energy future with billions of dollars of investment in developing that clean energy future. These are opportunities and we are in as good a position as ever to grasp them. The trend amongst our top global trading partners to use energy more efficiently and to cut energy waste in an effort to save money, drive productivity and cut emissions will allow Australia to tap into these opportunities before us. This is what these bills seek to do.

As global investment in clean energy and energy efficiency continues to grow, the economic benefits that will arise through these bills will increase productivity through innovation across a range of industries, creating not only green jobs but jobs in our traditional sectors. Manufacturing has a strong presence in my electorate. The reality is—and my constituents recognise this—that advanced manufacturing is the hallmark of a modern, technologically sophisticated economy. In the 42nd Parliament, I was chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation and the consistent, verifiable evidence from patterns that arose out of various inquiries of the standing committee was that companies with innovative technologies are twice as likely to report increases in productivity and up to four times as likely to boost their employment. They are also 41 per cent more likely to report higher profits.

This means that in order to capitalise on our strengths in the manufacturing sector we need to be innovative. Innovation is not about stalling and it is not about regression to old technologies, but rather about taking advantage of opportunities by using capability to reach our potential. It involves a drive towards new technologies that tap into not only the heightened demand for manufactured inputs to clean-infrastructure projects stimulated by the government's new investments but also the global marketplace that is geared towards a clean energy future that will drive investment and productivity. Importantly the manufacturing industry and manufacturers which have a strong presence in my electorate will be assisted by tailored programs worth $500 million for steel manufacturers, food processors and metal foundries and forges with an $800 million grants program that will help manufacturers invest in low-pollution technologies.

What is important for me is what the clean energy bills mean for the people of my electorate and how jobs and households in Calwell will be supported as Australia undertakes the important economic reform of assisting businesses and households transition to a clean-energy future. I ask the people in my electorate to focus on what the bills do for them. Every dollar raised from putting a price on carbon, which puts the onus of payment on Australia's biggest polluters, will go to support jobs and households and to invest in clean energy programs through a combination of tax cuts, higher family payments and increasing pensions and benefits. The government's household package bills will help my constituents deal with any additional financial pressures.

Up to 25,000 pensioners in Calwell will receive in their pension payments an extra $338 per year if they are single and up to $510 per year for couples combined. More than 18,500 families in Calwell will receive household assistance through family assistance payments, up to $110 for each eligible child for families receiving family tax benefit A and up to $69 per year in assistance for families receiving family tax benefit B. More than 700 self-funded retirees in Calwell will receive an extra $338 per year in assistance for singles and up to $510 for couples combined. More than 6,600 jobseekers in Calwell will get up to $218 extra per year for singles and up to $390 per year for couples combined. More than 3,000 single parents in Calwell will get an extra $289 per year. More than 4,300 students in my electorate of Calwell will get up to $177 extra per year. In total more than 52,600 people in my electorate of Calwell will receive household assistance through the transfer system through Centrelink.

On top of this, taxpayers in Calwell with an annual income of under $80,000 will all get a tax cut, with most receiving at least $300 per year. Taxpayers with annual incomes of over $80,000 per annum will also get a slight tax reduction. Importantly no-one will pay more tax. One of the things I most welcome is that many people in my electorate will pay less tax because the government will more than triple the tax-free threshold, from $6,000 to $18,200 per annum. This means workers earning less than $18,200 will not have any income tax withheld from their regular pay. When combined with low-income tax offsets workers will not pay any net tax until they earn $20,542 per year. This is more than a threefold increase in the statutory tax-free threshold, meaning low-income earners can now earn up to three times more without the need to fill in a tax return. I am confident that as we make use of our local manufacturing and innovative capability, coupled with the household and business assistance packages, communities such as those in my electorate of Calwell will be amongst the greatest beneficiaries of our clean-energy future.

In closing I return to what I said initially and I have been saying for some time—that is, as I engage with my constituents I have been consistently impressed by how young people in particular have a heightened sense of the need to protect the environment. They understand almost instinctively that we need to preserve the finite resources of our planet. These matters are very much a part of their psyche and it gives me great hope when I see their level of understanding. I know that we can feel optimistic about a future in their hands, but the reality is that at this moment their future is in our hands. We are the generation who have the power to make the important decisions on their behalf. We are the generation who need to overcome our own prejudices, our crystallised perspectives, even our day-to-day habits and we must break free from our old paradigms to act to address this urgent issue.

We must remind ourselves that this challenge is an intergenerational challenge. The decisions we make now are as much about ensuring that this prosperity is sustainable into an uncertain future as about markets, research and innovation. We have to ask what kinds of jobs our children will have access to in the future and what kinds of opportunities will be open to them. What will the future look like if legislators today ignore the possibilities of a clean energy future? What kinds of jobs and apprenticeships will be available to the next generation of young Australians?

It is the possibilities that are open to them through the passage of the bills before this parliament that is most encouraging. I have full confidence in Australia's ability to tap into all the possibilities associated with the global push to tackle the effects of climate change through fundamental social and economic reform. It is for these reasons that I commend the bills to the House.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to voice my strong opposition to the Labor government's carbon tax. There is no denying that climate change is a significant challenge facing Australia—indeed, facing the world. It is a challenge that deserves a response. I note that the members opposite are trying to detract from this response. They are trying to mislead the Australian people by making this debate one based on ideology rather than a policy debate seeking pragmatic and commonsense solutions. Let me make something clear: there is no dispute about the goal of reducing carbon emissions by five per cent by 2020. What is up for debate is the best way for us to achieve this reduction in emissions, and what is important in this debate is the cost to our economy: the personal cost to jobs, to families and to small businesses—the forgotten Australians that the Labor Party has walked away from, the forgotten Australians that the Labor Party lied to when the Prime Minister said before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' It is important that we find methods of reducing emissions without attacking our way of life and the intrinsic economic advantages that we as a resource-rich nation enjoy.

The best way to reduce carbon emissions is not with a carbon tax which is going to hurt families, small businesses and Australia's economy and fail to effectively reduce Australia's emissions. The best way to achieve this reduction in emissions is through a direct action plan—a direct action plan which will not be another cost to families, not force rises in the cost of electricity and not be another great big new tax on business; a plan which is costed and capped and funded; a plan which is not going to be an uncontrolled burden on the economy for years to come.

Let me outline what a pragmatic, common-sense policy looks like, delivered by a Liberal administration. When Campbell Newman was Lord Mayor of Brisbane—and I remind members that Brisbane City Council is a local government with a budget bigger than the Tasmanian state government's—Brisbane City Council became Australia's largest purchaser of green power. Impressively, Brisbane City Council buildings run 100 per cent on renewable energy. Council purchased 500 new buses, which all run on Biogreen Diesel, which is cleaner than gas; that is one bus going into service every three days. Brisbane City Council planted two million trees. All of these environmental gains were made through direct action by a Liberal administration. That is what direct action looks like. All of these measures were good for the economy, good for business, good for lifestyle and good for the environment, and all were achieved without a new tax.

Recently I held a series of listening posts in my electorate specifically to hear the concerns and opinions of those in my community about the carbon tax. 'Concern' is not strong enough to accurately represent the emotion of many of the individuals who made the effort to visit me at one of my many listening posts. People are angry. They are angry that their voice has been ignored by the Prime Minister and the Labor government. They are angry that they were lied to by the Prime Minister before the last election, and they are angry that now they are being afflicted with a tax that they do not want, and a tax that they did not have a say on, all for no real environmental benefit. Indeed, the government's own modelling shows that emissions will not decrease in Australia. From 2012 to 2020, emissions will rise from 578 million tonnes to 612 million tonnes per year.

I have spoken in this place before about the challenges my community faces, and the cost of living is always one of the first issues which is raised with me when I am out in my community. It comes as no surprise then that, in the context of this carbon tax debate, the rising cost of living has been on the minds of countless locals. Members of my community are wondering how they will keep up with the rising tide of the cost of living brought about by this new tax. At one of my recent listening posts, I had a young mum tell me that she was afraid to go to her letterbox because there just might be another electricity bill there. How is she, and the many like her, expected to cope with the rising cost of her electricity, her transport, her groceries, her rent, her water bills and her rates? The fear she expressed to me is justified. Based on the Labor government's own modelling, families will be hit with at least a $515 increase in their costs. This means a 10 per cent rise in electricity and a nine per cent rise in gas. And that $500-odd increase comes on top of a 50 per cent increase in electricity, a 46 per cent rise in water rates and a 20 per cent rise in rent since 2007.

The list of rising costs facing members of my community goes on. These costs, coupled with an extra tax, are pressures that families should not have to face. In introducing this new tax, the Labor Party has forgotten the challenges facing Australians and walked away from the very people they once claimed to represent. This Labor government is trying to impose a new tax which is going to hurt Australians. Then, at the height of insulting the people of Australia, this Labor government is dangling the promise of a handout. Well, I suggest that the Australian people deserve better. They deserve honesty. The Australian people are not fools. They know that you only compensate once you inflict pain, and the best thing that the government can do is: leave them alone. Do not invade their lives and inflict pain in the first place.

Recently I held a community forum in my electorate about the carbon tax with my friend and colleague the Leader of the Opposition. I was impressed by the quality of the questions, ideas and comments that people from my local community were able to contribute. The locals in my community do not want the political spin that this Labor government is serving up in the form of a carbon tax. They want to feel confident that their government is going to do the right thing by them—that it is not going to impose a tax which will see their household costs continue to go up and up and up. They want a government that makes their lives easier, not harder.

One of the attendees at the forum, Neil from Burpengary, asked, 'What will farmers do in the face of rising operating costs?' Farmers' profit margins are already slim and they are incapable of passing on their costs. My electorate is home to about 70 per cent of Queensland's strawberry farms, as well as to many other primary producers. I think Neil asked a valid question, and one which deserves a response from those members opposite. Are these farmers, these small business owners, expected to absorb the costs caused by this carbon tax—costs which they are unable to pass on and will not be compensated for?

The prospect for farmers, families and small businesses under this carbon tax is not an optimistic one. I am discouraged to think what the impact will be for many small businesses in my community whose overheads are already high and whose margins are low. I recently visited Atlas Heavy Engineering in Narangba with the shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, to hear their concerns about the impact of the carbon tax on their future. It is very concerning when a business such as Atlas Heavy Engineering, which employs over 65 locals, cannot be certain about exactly how the carbon tax will affect their prosperity and ongoing operations. Atlas is a great local business and electricity is its second highest cost. The general manager of Atlas, Mr Rex Vegt, said to me he is concerned because he just does not know how much this tax will cost Atlas. Atlas Heavy Engineering relies on two main resources, steel and electricity, both of which will be hit hard under the carbon tax. We know that the costs of these resources are going to up and up and up under this Labor government. Rex went on to point out that Atlas is a medium-sized business with a direct connection to the mining boom, a strong position compared to that of local small businesses, which will be hit hard under the carbon tax. While he was rightly worried about the business, he really feels for the small business owner and questions how they can possibly get ahead in an already difficult climate. This is a good question, one which has been frequently repeated by many of the small business owners in my electorate since the announcement of the Labor-Green government's carbon tax.

I have said in this place before that the economy in my community is dependent on small business, retail, tourism and light industry, all of which are dependent on confidence in the marketplace—confidence which is under attack by this Labor government. This tax is generating nothing but uncertainty. The only certainty is that the costs for businesses are going to go up and up and up. In introducing this, the Labor Party has again attacked what should be the engine room of the economy—small business. I have a simple challenge for those members opposite: go out into their communities and find one, just one, small business that will tell them that this carbon tax is going to make it easier for them to run their business; just one that will say it is going to make it easier for them to reduce their overheads and to employ people.

Madam Deputy Speaker, let me tell you another story of a local small business, Rangeland Quality Meats. Like many other small businesses, this butcher will be hit multiple times under the carbon tax: once in transporting stock from farm to abattoir, again in transporting meat from abattoir to store, and yet again with the refrigeration cost in store. The burden on small business in my electorate is enough. The last thing they need is more cost increases brought about by an unnecessary tax that will be completely ineffective for the environment. For many small businesses, a carbon tax will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

In light of all of this, why is the government seeking to impose an economy-wide carbon tax? The Productivity Commission highlighted that 'no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS'. It is imperative that we as a nation consider what introducing this tax will do to our economy and our competitive advantage when compared with the rest of the world. This is a notion that was not lost on Penny Wong when she was climate change minister. As the minister said:

The introduction of a carbon tax ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore—

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I know the member thinks respect is for other people but I ask that you ask him to refer to members here and in the other place by their official titles.

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

Noted, thank you. The member for Longman can ensure that he refers to members by their correct title.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I referred to the minister as the former climate change minister. She went on to say:

… and there is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.

These are not my words but the words of a current Labor government minister. If the Labor Party thought that this was such a good policy, why did they mislead the Australian people at the last election? The Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister is recorded as saying:

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

Well, under this carbon tax Australia will be at a competitive disadvantage to the world. Those causing the most pollution—China, India and the United States—have no plans to introduce economy-wide carbon taxes. Let us put this into perspective. Even if the carbon tax were 100 per cent effective, China's increase in emissions until 2020, just the increase alone, would be 100 times larger than the maximum amount that we could hope to reduce our emissions by. Members opposite have held up the European Union's emissions trading scheme as an example of what can be achieved. Yet the Australian Crime Commission has revealed that the European scheme has been rorted to the tune of $5 billion. That is not a model we need to emulate.

The Labor Party is embarking on a process that is more about wealth redistribution than environmentalism. The coalition has a plan, a direct action plan which is fully funded, which will not increase the burden on households, which is not going to unfairly increase the operating costs of small businesses and which will have a significant practical benefit for the environment. It is a plan that is costed and capped at $3.2 billion over the first four years.

We in the coalition are a party of action, of forward thinking and of practical solutions. Our solution is not to tax everyday Australians but to effectively and efficiently implement strategies which will deliver practical environmental action. Our plan will give Australians the chance to play their own part in positive change through direct action. It is a plan which will invest in solar renewable energies, green armies, an additional 20 million urban trees, soil carbon to replenish the land, cleaning up our dirtiest power stations and incentives for industries to reduce their emissions. Direct action will use incentives rather than penalties, funding the most cost efficient projects, staying within the government's means.

In opposing the Labor government's carbon tax, we on this side of the House are standing up for the locals in my electorate. We are standing up for those small businesses that will bear the brunt of this unfair tax. We are standing up for those families whose everyday costs are going to rise with this tax. In conclusion, I encourage those members opposite to also stand up for their communities and vote against this unfair carbon tax.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the clean energy package before the parliament. I know that it has not been without its controversy and certainly not without misinformation from those who seek to stand in its way, but I am proud to stand here today showing my support for re-election on the critical issue of human induced climate change. In all of the three elections that I have contested to represent the very good folk of Adelaide I have made clear a commitment that I would fight to ensure that Australia meets our responsibility on climate change—a responsibility that we have to the environment, a responsibility that we have to the economy and a responsibility that we have in this nation's long-term interests. Whilst this is complex in the detail in other ways, there is actually a very simple principle behind the determining positions on this debate. If one believes in climate change and believes that we need to act to address it then the only outcome is to support the measures before the House in this bill. We can all see that, for far too long, as a parliament we have argued, procrastinated and delayed. This cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Carbon pricing and climate change policy have been debated widely in this country for literally decades now, including through a staggering 35 parliamentary committees and inquiries on that topic.

We argued for far too long about ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Eventually we got to the point where John Howard himself concluded that pricing carbon was the best approach and proposed an emissions trading scheme. Following our government's election in 2007, we worked long and hard, in consultation with the opposition, to form a bipartisan agreement on a carbon pricing mechanism, the CPRS. After detailed negotiations—and hard work by many on both sides of the House, I would add—we reached an agreement on the package, but of course we all know what happened next. Having struck this agreement about how to move our country forward on this terribly important issue, the coalition decided to split, to roll their leader over the issue by a single vote, to move in the opposite direction with the election of the member for Warringah as their leader, and to commence their now well-established routine of just saying no to anything that goes before the House.

Despite this, our hard work has soldiered on. Following an election where it became clear that no party had the numbers on the floor of this parliament to pass their climate change policy, we determined that the issue was too important and had been delayed for far too long, and we set out to work on a bipartisan position. So we established the multiparty climate change working group, which the coalition opted to sit out on. This multiparty group has worked hard, has consulted widely, has heard from experts and has come up with the package that we see before the parliament today. This is a good package, and it is one that we must act on now; we must not waste yet another parliamentary term.

Since the announcement of the package, I have had many discussions with families in the electorate of Adelaide about what the carbon price means for them. Most people that I have spoken to do support action on climate change. They believe the science and they expect their government to do something about it. They want a better, cleaner future for their children and grandchildren. What they do not want is misinformation and trash talk. The people of Adelaide, who I am so proud to represent, want to understand these proposals. They want to understand the package and how it will work. They want the facts. They do not want a scare campaign.

I think it is important to spend a moment outlining these facts. A broad-based carbon price is the most environmentally effective and cheapest way to reduce pollution. A carbon price will put a price tag on that carbon pollution so that the 500 most polluting companies in our country will have to pay for each tonne of pollution they release into the atmosphere, not individuals. This establishes a strong disincentive to pollute and subsequently a strong incentive for companies to invest in cleaner technologies and innovate with new operating approaches and less carbon pollution.

Whilst it is these companies who pay and not individuals, of course we realise that some of them may pass this on by increasing their prices. It is for this reason, and to meet modest impacts on costs, that the government is providing fair and generous household assistance, with tax cuts, higher family payments and increases in pensions and benefits that will see nine out of 10 households receive assistance.

These bills allow for a fixed-charge period to provide stability and predictability, allowing businesses to get used to a new system and start planning on how they will reduce their pollution. This fixed charge of $23 a tonne in July 2012 will move automatically to a flexible and market-driven approach from July 2015. From then on the market will set the price of carbon and businesses will be able to buy and sell the right to pollute under an emissions trading scheme, as long proposed by members of both sides of this House.

As was made abundantly clear by the independent Climate Commission, the case for taking action on climate change is very real. In fact, the evidence that the world is getting warmer is unequivocal. The decade from 2001 to 2010 was the warmest on record, and here in Australia every single decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the last. There is a clear consensus amongst climate scientists that human activity is causing climate change and that we need to act, and we need to act now, to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions or risk the incredibly serious side effects of dangerous climate change. Australia is a hot and dry continent, and we face risks of climate change above and beyond much of the rest of the world. Research from the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Academy of Science all tells us that we must act to urgently reduce carbon pollution in order to reduce the impact on our planet.

This package will assist with these environmental challenges. The carbon price will see Australia's annual emissions reduced by at least 159 million tonnes in 2020 from where they would otherwise have been. To put this in context, this is the equivalent to taking around 45 million cars off the road. By 2050 we will have taken over 17 billion tonnes of carbon pollution from the atmosphere. Treasury modelling shows that the incentive for business to innovate will be significant. With a carbon price, Treasury says it is likely that by 2050 $100 billion will have been invested in renewable energy and over 40 per cent of Australia's electricity generation will come from renewables. Australia has an opportunity to move to a clean energy future and cut pollution now before that task becomes even more difficult and more costly. These are the realities. These are the very simple facts of the matter.

I know that there are some climate change sceptics on that side. They have made that clear, and I had the pleasure—or displeasure—of listening to one proudly stand and boast about that yesterday. But what I find most disgusting is that I know that, in addition to the sceptics, there are some opposite who know that climate change is real. They know that we need to act, but they are failing to stand up and be counted on the right side of history. What I find disgusting is that instead they stand parroting the 34 pages of misinformation and falsehoods that the opposition have now been publicly exposed as encouraging their members to stand and deliver in this parliament and the misinformation they are being encouraged to spread in their own communities. They stand side by side with the radical fringe groups who are intent on arguing that scientists and economists have all got it wrong, whilst they know that this is real and that action is required. They do this because they see it all as a game. They see what we are doing here in the parliament as a game and, like the Leader of the Opposition, that it is much easier in this political game to just say no. This is not about games. This is about standing up to our responsibility; this is about reaching the responsibility that we owe to the people who elect us to this place.

Similarly to climate scientists, economists have made clear the case for immediate action on climate change and, indeed, the hefty costs of inaction. Treasury have undertaken extensive modelling on the economic impacts of pricing carbon and have concluded in that 'the world and Australia can significantly reduce the risks of dangerous climate change and maintain robust economic growth'. More particularly, they have warned that 'delaying action increases the risks and costs of achieving any given environmental goal'.

A lot has been said about jobs in this debate. There has been some disgusting misinformation and there has been shameful scaremongering of Australian workers. Let's talk about jobs. On this side of the House, we are proud to stand by our record on this topic. More than 750,000 jobs have been created since we came to office and now we have an unemployment rate which is the envy of much of the world. This was also the case throughout the global financial crisis. We are a Labor government, and keeping ordinary Australians in work will always be a key priority for us.

The government recognises that the transformation of the economy to a clean energy future presents both opportunities and challenges for industry. Through our Jobs and Competitiveness Program we will support jobs in high-polluting industries with competitors in countries where those industries are not yet subject to comparable carbon constraints. Increased government investment in clean technology will also support manufacturers to make investments in the innovative energy-efficient producing technologies of the future. This in turn will support the creation of new jobs in these cleaner and more efficient industries.

Modelling makes clear that under a carbon price the economy grows, jobs grow and income grows, all whilst we are serving our environmental interests and standing up to the responsibility we have to future generations. In fact, modelling shows that an extra 1.5 million jobs will be created in Australia under this carbon pricing scheme, so how about we lay off on the scare campaigns and grasp the opportunity that we now have to ensure that our nation is at the forefront of job creation in a new age with new industries.

On a final matter, as Minister for the Status of Women, I of course have a particular interest in the economic security of Australian women. We know that the majority of income support recipients and age pensioners in this country are women. These women will be provided with direct financial assistance which will cover more than 100 per cent of their expected costs under a carbon price. Secondly, and perhaps most significantly, the carbon pollution package not only covers the impacts of any cost increases but also includes tax reforms, which will be particularly important for people working part time or hoping to enter or re-enter the workforce. This is particularly good news for women, especially those with caring responsibilities who will be encouraged to join the workforce.

Changes to the tax-free threshold will benefit 3.7 million women with taxable incomes under $80,000, with most receiving a tax cut of $300 per year. These tax reforms will be particularly significant for women who work part time. The tax-free threshold will be more than trebled to $18,200 in 2012-13. Together with the $445 of low-income tax offset, this means that women who earn up to $20,542 per year will pay absolutely no tax. They will keep everything they earn. This is true of these Australian women workers but, of course, it is true of all Australian low-paid workers who fit this category. In fact, half a million people will go from having to pay tax to paying no tax at all as a result of the package of reforms before the House today. They are important environmental reforms but they are also important economic reforms. Of those half a million people who will go from having to pay tax to paying no tax at all as a result of this package, 300,000 are Australian women, and we are working hard to encourage their increased participation in the workplace. Forty-four per cent of taxpayers are women, but sixty per cent of the people who will get this tax cut are women. This is tax reform for working women and women who want to work more, but it is also a tax reform for our national interest, knowing that we need to work to boost participation and increase the number of women participating in the workforce.

I am proud to support action on climate change. I am proud to be a part of a reformist government. I am proud that we are fronting up to our obligations to act for the economy, the environment and the national interest. I am proud that we are standing up and putting facts on the record rather than running around with misinformation and scare campaigns about people's jobs and cost of living increases. The shameful thing is that it has been pointed out to those opposite that they are knowingly spreading misinformation. That is something that we on this side of the House will never do. In fact, we will front up to our responsibility to act now and act for future generations. I urge all members to support these bills and real action on climate change. (Time expired)

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills. The speech of the member for Adelaide was interesting, because it is our responsibility as members of this House to debate issues when they impact significantly on all Australians, families and individuals. There must always be the opportunity to look at the elements that are constructive within legislation but also the elements that have flow-on, consequential outcomes that we do not plan for. What disturbs me is the number of bills that have been introduced into this House and rammed through this parliament. I do not think that there would be too many members of this House who have read each of the bills thoroughly. If it were the case that the coalition had force-fed its members with a set of fact sheets in order to deliver speeches, it would not be dissimilar to the case of government members. It would be an interesting test to see how many members have read every one of the bills thoroughly and understood them.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many people read Work Choices? How many people read that? No, you don't want to talk about that.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are talking about the carbon tax, not Work Choices. Work Choices is dead and buried. But prior to the 2010 federal election the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, stated the following, clearly and concisely, as an election promise to Australians: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Prior to the 2010 federal election Treasurer Wayne Swan stated the following as an election promise, again clearly and concisely:

No, it's not possible that we're bringing in the carbon tax. That is an hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the coalition.

Isn't it interesting to hear members of the government now using that as the antithesis for our debating the points of concern around this legislation? The Labor Party under Julia Gillard's leadership was elected in August 2010 on the basis of the promise not to introduce a carbon tax, but in February 2011 Prime Minister Gillard announced that a carbon tax would be introduced in Australia by June 2012, despite her very plain pre-election promise not to do so.

In a speech at an AiG luncheon on 6 February 2008, former Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, stated:

The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.

Time and time again we have heard references to the government's own documents that showed we will not get the emission reductions that they purport to be able to achieve. Senator Wong admitted that imposing a carbon tax would encourage or force industries to go offshore, losing Australia's valuable resources and creating unemployment. The government's former climate change minister also admitted to the Australian newspaper on 23 February 2009 that a carbon tax:

… is a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes, as the government would need to adjust the tax frequently to try to meet the emissions reduction target, each time subjecting these adjustments to the inherent uncertainties embedded in the political process.

She went on to say:

A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.

Her admissions prove that the government has known for some time that a carbon tax is not really the way to guarantee the reduction of emissions. Therefore, in my mind it has only one other purpose, and that is to raise revenue for the government. It is more than obvious that the carbon tax is really a scam to fleece the Australian public of billions of dollars, with no guarantee that the emissions will be reduced because of it.

When I read through the Clean Energy Bill—and I read it from cover to cover and found it fascinating—I found some areas I would like to debate in the future. The objects of the act are to give effect to Australia's obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a document which sets out the premise for carbon emission reductions in UN member nations, and the Kyoto protocol. When you read through it, it is a very interesting document. Having it enshrined in domestic legislation means it now applies within Australia. The bill puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions in a way that encourages investment in clean energy and supports jobs, competitiveness in the economy and Australia's economic growth, while reducing pollution.

The United Nations framework is fascinating, because it talks about the parties to this convention. It says:

Noting that there are many uncertainties in predictions of climate change, particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns thereof …

…   …   …

The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.

That mitigation would apply equally to a number of other factors. Instead of ramming through legislation without proper debate that would allow its examination to occur—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was 20 years ago.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not matter whether it was 20 years ago or not. You have an obligation to the constituents in your electorate to be open and honest with them. The convention goes on to say:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty—

and this is interesting—

should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures …

It is fascinating that you have a scientific argument but you say that 'in the times of uncertainty' you are prepared to proceed and not hear the opposing views. In the science field there are many on both sides who have the logic of argument for the basis of why there should or should not be a carbon tax. People who challenge the views of those who are proponents are called either 'flat earthers', like Al Gore did in the lead-up to his election campaign and certainly in his current role of creating a fear campaign around the globe, or 'climate deniers', as members of government would say when people raise issues. It is scary within a democracy that we try to shut down debate because a philosophical position of a government prevails over the top of further debate within our society.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Read some more emails! See who is trying to shut down the debate!

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have to read any more. It is important that you also do some reading. The convention continues:

… taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.

It also says:

Take climate change considerations into account, to the extent feasible, in their relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions, and employ appropriate methods, for example impact assessments, formulated and determined nationally, with a view to minimizing adverse effects on the economy, on public health and on the quality of the environment, of projects or measures undertaken by them to mitigate or adapt to climate change.

Our solution? The Labor-Greens government has no mandate to introduce the carbon tax legislation, and the coalition will oppose carbon tax legislation every step of the way. Our position is clear: we will vote against the carbon tax legislation to ensure that the measured debate that needs to occur happens.

I want to reflect on my father's comments. He always said to me the Labor Party looks after the working man and the working family.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was right. You should have listened.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was right in that era and in that period. What I see now are members on the other side who are not prepared to stand up for the families within their electorates and defend them against a tax that has a cascading flow-on effect. Maybe in the past they did, but the Gillard government does not, and it has demonstrated that in this debate.

The carbon tax will mean $9 billion in a new tax year and a 10 per cent hike in electricity bills in the first year alone. I have people in my electorate who will feel the impact of that measure whereby they will not use that electricity. 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. Who pays for this? Not members of the government but individuals and families of Australia.

I also want to express my concern that the tax cuts and cash grants are inevitably subject to the vagaries of annual budgets and, therefore, are always at risk. Additionally, I am more a supporter of direct action to improve engineering and procedure practices of pollution sources as more reliable and permanent methods of producing solutions. Some of my constituents—I have had a lot—stop me in the street. I have never had this experience of people walking up in droves, saying, 'Get rid of this tax.' I want to cite three of my constituents.

I would love to know how I can help stop this Carbon Tax.

Another:

I wish to register my disagreement with the carbon tax, which I do not believe our current government has a mandate to introduce. I have emailed the Prime Minister my concern along the same lines … Please voice my concern against this tax.

Another:

I will be ineligible for any type of compensation under the proposed new carbon tax scheme. I am already struggling to pay ever-increasing electricity bills. I cannot afford solar panels or other expensive green gadgets to cut energy consumption. I have a heart condition that requires me to use air conditioning in summer, but I will no longer be able to afford it—

thanks to this government.

This is Business Voice now. I have been talking to small businesses.

The worst thing about it is that there are no proven facts that is going to change anything. I am keen to help the environment but not to be the only country in the world that is taking these steps. Costs are high enough running a business. We have a lot of staff here and we want to move on past the GFC, not go backwards.

That is from Michael Roberts, the Centre Manager of Pirtek Fluid Transfer Solutions in Midland. Another group says:

We are a group of hardworking people who believe the carbon tax is a tax on both businesses and the people in them. We do not want bigger Government to re-distribute wealth in the name of the environment. We feel this tax is a front to fund an ideology, with no material benefit to the environment. We run a flourishing recycling business which we formed and funded to assist the environment, and we did not ask others to pay for it, based on our ideologies. Care of the environment is a science not a religion.

That is from Damien Cole of the Damien Cole Group in South Guildford. Another says:

I do not like to be negative and I've always believed in attacking the job and not the person. I travel over sea's several times a year mostly to China and India. I tell myself these places are humanity out of control and the planet cannot sustain this grow, more and more people relying on less and less people to grow their food. I believe all of us need to be accountable for the life we live.

This applies to carbon emissions and the Gillard Government proposal is fundamentally flawed by just penalizing a few big companies and cooking the books to show how it will financially viable for everyone. I believe we all should be accountable for the carbon emissions not just a few big companies. If everyone is accountable for reducing carbon emissions then it is logical that one simple law effecting everyone will change everyone's outlook, which will automatically control the big polluters.

If we are not all held accountable there will always be an excuse why it's someone else's problem. If Australia set a simple effective template on carbon control for everyone to embrace, then the worlds big countries and polluters will hopefully follow.

That was John Power, the Managing Director of Equipment Search Proprietary Limited at Maddington. Another says:

The Carbon Tax will just be used by the Prime Minister to redistribute money to people three months before the election to buy votes. It will have no positive impact on the environment, but the companies affected will just pass on their costs and many smaller businesses will take advantage of this and increase their prices. All this for no real impact on the environment.

That is Ian Lavington, Managing Director at Hydraulic Resource at Bellevue. Jarrod Hewitt at Stihl Shop Midland also registers his opposition to the carbon tax this morning.

When I visit shopping centres and people in the streets, they all say there is a need for debate. They cannot comprehend how this government is so keen to ram this legislation through the House. What I see, fundamentally, is cascading taxes in the way in which we pour champagne into a stack of glasses and watch the flow-on effect of the champagne from that top glass down to the others. I have within my electorate families who will suffer under this taxing regime. They already struggle now.

I do not think there is any member in government who would go without food at any time on any day or have to relinquish the opportunity of buying medications and the necessities of life like I see families do in my electorate. I will continue to champion and advocate for families who will be affected by this tax. I will continue to debate it as long as I need to in order to protect their interests and give them the quality of life that they richly deserve. (Time expired)

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened very carefully to the member for Hasluck and have rarely heard a more confusing speech. One minute he is talking about cascading champagne and, the next minute, the great concern for the poor. It is a very strange speech. One minute he is saying there has been plenty of debate and, the next, we are trying to close down debate. There have been 20 years of debate in this House and in the community. Of course he would not remember the debate we had in the previous parliament. He would not remember a very good speech made by the member for Wentworth. He should go have a look at that speech. It was a very good speech from when he crossed the floor—and exceptionally good speech, actually. I will talk a bit about that later. The choice before the country is basically whether we are going to have practical solutions to practical problems or whether we are going to resort to absolutism and the politics of extremism and delay. As I said before, we have had 20 years of talking about this issue and having bills before this House in the last parliament. It was debated extensively. We had contested debates. We had passionate debates. We have had 20 years of talk, committee reports and parliamentary inquiries.

There are piles and piles of information out there in the public sphere and lots of debate in the community and that is a good thing. But what we do know, what the government knows and what members of the opposition know, if they cared to look at this problem and examine those reports and evidence, is that climate change is a problem. I referred to a speech given by the member for Wentworth on 8 February 2010. It was a very good speech, a passionate speech, a decent speech and a speech that showed a great deal of courage. It is a very hard thing to do, to say to your party they are wrong. It is a very hard thing to do on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is what the member for Wentworth said last year:

Climate change is the ultimate long-term problem. We have to make decisions today, bear costs today so that adverse consequences are avoided, dangerous consequences are avoided many decades into the future. It is always easy to argue we should do nothing, or little or postpone action.

That is what the member for Wentworth said last year.

We know that in previous incarnations the opposition and indeed the Liberal Party in government embraced emissions trading schemes. Prime Minister John Howard said in a release on 21 October 2007:

This year, the Government decided to implement a national emissions trading scheme, to commence no later than 2012. It will be the most comprehensive scheme in the world.

That was John Howard's commitment in 2007 to the Australian people and we know that that was matched by the opposition. This was a matter of bipartisanship. It was a matter of consensus. We know that we had a degree, at one point or another, of consensus about how to deal with this problem. It was a practical problem to be dealt with through a practical solution—emissions trading, a market based system.

We know that we have choices. We know that we have the choice to do nothing. We have the choice of public subsidies, which is the opposition's current problem. It is $3 billion to deal with a problem that many of them do not think exists. We have the option of dead hand regulation or we have the market based mechanism. we know that market based mechanisms are the best way of rewarding efficiency, of allocating risk and of getting the job done. We know that because there have been cap-in-trade systems in the United States, and I have talked about this in other speeches, to deal with the elimination of leaded petrol and to deal with acid rain. Cap-in-trade systems have already worked. We know that is the best way to go.

We talked a bit about the speech made in contribution to this debate by the member for Hasluck. He used a whole lot of language like 'scams' and whether or not emissions trading would work and said it 'won't do anything' and he talked about wealth redistribution. You have to wonder what drives these sorts of speeches. They have moved so far from the Shergold report, from Howard and from Turnbull. They have moved so far from that rational, basic thinking. They have moved so far away from that public policy framework. You have to wonder what drives it.

Conservatives around the world, including Prime Minister Cameron of the United Kingdom, have praised the carbon trading system. A letter was written to Prime Minister Gillard saying that they praised our approach to dealing with carbon. So you have to wonder what has driven this approach and change of emphasis in the opposition. It is rank opportunism. What we have seen is a desperate opposition, desperate to get into government and desperate to run a fear campaign for their own base political desire to get into office. People listening can say that all politicians are driven by that desire but it is not in the national interest to always be driven by votes. That is basically why they are running this fear campaign: 'The sky is going to fall', 'There is going to be a massive cost' and 'It is a great revenue churn.' That is what you hear from those opposite.

What is perhaps more concerning than that fear campaign—which is not based on fact but rather on fiction—is the assault on science and the assault on experts and this constant criticism and assertion that somehow we are trying to shut down debate. We have had 20 years of debate. We live in a free country. We have had rallies out the front. We have had many programs in the public sphere about the science. There has been a lot of questioning and rigor put upon that science. You just wonder what drives it.

It is evident what drives it, and I spoke about this in previous speeches. Last year we had Lord Monckton come and spread his particular brand of corrupted science around the country. We had him meeting with the member for Warringah. We know that drove a lot of the email campaigns and we understand that changed Tony Abbott's position. We know that on 12 December 2009 Tony Abbott said, 'The argument on climate change is absolute crap.' We know that on 27 July 2009 he said, 'We can't conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change.' We know that he previously said, 'I think the science behind the policy is contentious to say the least.' We know that on 27 July 2009 he said, 'I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change.' In the Herald Sun on 5 January 2010 he said:

And it seems that notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man-made CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped.

We have had this constant assault on science. We have seen it in his language and his statements to the media. We know that many on the other side of the chamber question the science. Nobody is debating their right to do so but one has to question why they have adopted the same target for carbon emissions as the government. One has to question why they are going to spend $3 billion on their direct action plan. We have heard very little about direct action in this place. There have been oblique or passing references to it.

This is not a contest, as I said before, about practical solutions for practical problems; rather it is just rhetoric from the other side for rhetoric's sake. They come into this place and they attack and attack. They spend barely any time on their plan because they know it will not work and it will cost a lot. When you get right down to it it is a fig leaf to cover their extremism. We know that this extremism within the Liberal Party is being driven by the email campaigns of those on the far Right.

But for the internet, these people would be sitting in a log cabin somewhere waiting for the United Nations to invade or waiting for whatever conspiracy they think is going to unfold before them. The language of many of these people is very similar to the language of the member for Hasluck. The Galileo Movement is out there saying that carbon pricing is one big scam somehow to impose communist government on this country or that it is one big scam to embrace some sort of wealth transfer.

And then there is this revolting campaign against science and scientists. We had the Four Corners program last Monday night, where Professor Ian Chubb and Professor Will Steffen talked about the emails that they get, including death threats and abusive emails. I will not read them out in the House because they involve fairly extreme statements and threats. You have to wonder what drives people to send those to scientists. It is one thing to have a crack at politicians; it is another thing entirely to try to worry scientists and prevent them from doing their jobs in research and communicating that research to the public.

On that Four Corners program one scientist who was visiting this country, Professor John Schellnhuber, was addressing a climate conference in July. A protestor—a demonstrator—got up. No-one is complaining about the right to demonstrate but the protestor got up and presented a noose to a scientist at a conference. You have to worry about the state of our democracy when that happens in our country. Presenting a noose to someone is a threat. This is something that has been completely absent from Australian public life.

It is a disgrace that that happened and it is a worry that that happened. It is all being driven, I think, by the importation of extremism from other parts of the world. We have seen politicians encouraging this and importing these techniques from the far Right in the United States of America. Senator Bernardi is one of those people. He has been exposed as doing this through Menzies House. He calls it activism but, let's face it, it is all about the embrace of extremism. If you are in the Liberal Party you should be very concerned that people are moving slowly but surely away from John Howard's moderation and away from Malcolm Turnbull's moderation—their commitment to markets—to this bizarre ideology of being fearful of the world, fearful of international cooperation and fearful of markets. And because of that fear people are willing to allege treason, to present nooses, and to issue threats and they underpin all of this with a sense of absolutism and extremism.

I think those opposite need to move back to the moderation of John Howard and the Shergold report. They need to move back to Malcolm Turnbull's great speech to this House defending an emissions trading system. It is all about practical solutions for practical problems. We have had 20 years of debate; it is about time we actually implemented our plans. Too many times in this parliament the emissions trading scheme and strong environmental laws have been frustrated by the politics of extremists—extremists on the far Right, who want to delay and prevent this scheme, and extremists on the far Left, who believe it does not meet some 110 per cent principle.

This government is about doing things. We are going to implement this practical solution to a practical problem. I think that on 1 July next year everybody will shrug their shoulders and just get on with a prosperous economy and an increasingly efficient and green society and economy.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Clean Energy Future package of bills otherwise known as the carbon tax legislation. Labor's proposed carbon tax is neither logical nor fair. After all, what could possibly be logical or fair about yet another massive new tax which has dubious impacts on the very thing it is trying to mitigate—Australia's carbon emissions? The fact that we are even debating this piece of legislation in the House, when the Prime Minister herself declared, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' is laughable. But I cannot find it in myself to laugh when the Labor Prime Minister of this country shamefully broke her election promise to my constituents. When reflecting on Labor's horrendous financial record and abject policy failures, it is little wonder that the people of Australia are genuinely scared that Labor wants to rush through some of the most structurally complex tax changes this country has ever seen. Labor knows this tax is not good for Australia. Labor knows that this tax is not the answer to climate change and that they are trying to avoid scrutiny by rushing through ill-conceived, reactionary legislation in this House.

I want to make it clear from the onset that this debate is not about being a climate change sceptic or believer. For the record I think that we can all agree that there is an overconsumption of resources on this planet that cannot be sustained in the long term. Rather I believe that this debate is about whether or not a massive new tax is really in Australia's best interest, especially when considering Labor's own admission that this carbon tax will actually see carbon emissions continue to rise. Penny Wong, as the Labor climate change minister, admitted:

A Carbon Tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.

I want to thank Penny for her honesty.

The carbon tax has been introduced by a government in turmoil, with no handle on reality of what the people of Australia want or need. This tax has been introduced by a Labor government who knows that a referendum on this matter would have shown decisively that the people and businesses of Australia do not want this tax and, more importantly, simply cannot afford this tax. How do I know this to be true? Because poll after poll has proven unequivocally that this is the case.

In my home state of Queensland, which will be one of the hardest-hit states by Labor's carbon tax, businesses and individuals are deeply concerned. For example, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland recently undertook a survey of over 750 Queensland businesses in order to gauge an understanding of how Queensland businesses feel they will be affected by Labor's carbon tax. The results are staggering but certainly not surprising. Nearly 90 per cent of Queensland businesses—I am going to have to repeat that, 90 per cent—believe that a carbon pricing mechanism or carbon tax will have a negative impact on their business.

This is not some insignificant survey to be easily dismissed. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland is the peak business organisation in Queensland, representing the interests of 25,000 businesses and 135 chambers of commerce across the state. Their findings are in black and white. There is virtually no support by Queensland businesses for Labor's carbon pricing mechanism. The survey also reports the Queensland businesses are deeply concerned that a carbon tax will profoundly increase the cost of running their businesses, that resulting higher electricity costs will make them uncompetitive in an international market, and that they will be unable to maintain current employment levels. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland summarised their report succinctly:

... the reality is that a price on carbon is little more than a multi billion dollar new tax that would decrease Queensland and Australian businesses competitiveness and the incentive to invest and provide jobs.

Nowhere is this more evident than at the Visy recycling centre at my electorate of Bonner. The plant at Murarrie is one of Australia's largest recycling companies, undertaking very important work. For every tonne of carbon emissions this plant produces it saves 1.6 tonnes. So although this plant does emit carbon, net emissions are reduced because of its work. Despite its highly significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions, the Brisbane Visy plant will become one of the many victims of this government's perverse environmental policy. By taxing this plant, emissions will not decrease but it will be severely strained financially and in doing so this tax will no doubt place jobs in my electorate in jeopardy. Visy employs around 200 people. Future expansion at this vital facility has now been put in jeopardy by Labor's tax. I believe the government policy should be to encourage the expansion of recycling operations, not hinder the good work that plants like this do in reducing emissions. Visy is just one of the many examples I could give you in my electorate. So much for Labor's assurances that only the big polluters will play.

This is not just businesses who are filled with trepidation about this tax. In my seat of Bonner my office has been inundated with constituents who have literally begged me to fight against the imposition of this tax. Bonner is a snapshot of middle Australia. The demographics range from young professionals, growing families and a higher than average number of retired or semiretired people. This translates to precisely the demographic which will be adversely affected most by this toxic carbon tax. My constituency is already labouring under the yoke of consecutive budget deficits and crippling government debt. Families are working overtime to meet the increasing costs of living alongside higher mortgage repayments. Overwhelmingly, the response of my constituents in Bonner, since talk of this carbon tax has emerged, is that the Labor government is out of touch with everyday people. Only a government who is out of touch with the realities of working families would inflict a tax which would see a blow of $515 a year to the family budget. Bear in mind that this is just the first year alone. It can only go up from there and continue to go up. After all, as Labor has admitted, if the carbon tax doesn't hurt, it won't work. The kind of people that it will hurt the most are the people of Bonner.

The carbon tax's assault on households' bottom line does not stop there. The Australian Food and Grocery Council already estimate that the carbon tax will add $120 a year to household grocery bills, three times Labor's estimate of $40. Families in Cannon Hill can expect to see prices rise for household necessities, rise due to the costs that will be passed on from the manufacture. National electricity prices have soared by about 50 per cent since 2007 alone. This outrageous tax will also see electricity prices rise by at least another 10 per cent. How can working families who are already under tremendous pressure cope with this? The reality is that the Labor government wants to make the cost of electricity so expensive that people will not be able to warm their homes in winter or cool them in summer. Gas prices have already increased by 30 per cent since 2007. The carbon tax will see gas prices rise by an extra nine per cent. Bonner residents will not escape paying for this tax.

This is a prime example of how the legislation will work: changing consumer behaviour by hiking up the price of goods and services so we use them less and so reduce emissions. As I have said, this tax is not fair and it is not logical. Forget homely comforts. Labor believes that you are not entitled to them. The simple fact is that this tax raises $9 billion a year which will ultimately be paid by consumers.

That brings us to the crux of the matter. Labor's carbon tax fails to take into account basic business principles. It is a fact that those forced to pay the carbon tax will simply pass the extra costs down the supply chain, ending up in a grocery store in Wynnum and at a local fuel station in Carindale. It is simple economics. Not so for the Labor government. This is a government that does not understand how to run the Australian economy, a government that has already plunged Australia into historic debt levels. There are numerous unanswered questions floating around about the carbon tax, but I suggest the most important question that Labor must answer is: why us? Why Australia? Where is the sense in Australia, who only contributes 1.4 per cent of total global carbon emissions, leading the way when the rest of the world has overwhelmingly rejected the Australian model of a deep, punitive carbon tax? If the three largest emitters in the world—China, India and the United States—are not about to adopt a carbon tax or an equivalent system, it can be likened to Australia buying shout after shout of drinks at the pub with no-one else paying for a round. Our efforts would be futile unless the major emitters take comparable action to reduce their emissions. The failed Copenhagen negotiations demonstrate that there is no international agreement and such an agreement may never be possible.

We need not look further than China to put the matter into stark perspective. Between 2005 and 2020, Chinese carbon emissions will increase by 496 per cent while Australia reduces its emissions by five per cent. Playing on a seesaw in a playground is no fun when the person on the other end weighs 90 times as much as you do. Labor's carbon tax will be the harshest in the world but will achieve no tangible environmental benefits. There are far more effective ways of reducing Australia's emissions without compromising Australia's future. I fully support the coalition's direct action plan, which is costed, capped and fully funded. Our plan ensures that the government lives within its means. It will not hurt the hip pocket of Australian families or cost Australian jobs.

In conclusion, this tax is a proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. It masquerades as a panacea for the environment when it is really an unwarranted tax which will devastate jobs, ruin industries and ravage our economy. The Prime Minister of this country has no mandate to impose this tax. She broke her promise and, in doing so, she wilfully betrayed the Australian people by denying them their right to have their say on the carbon tax. Households and businesses in Bonner will be amongst the hardest hit by Labor's carbon tax, which will literally increase the cost of everything regardless of the false promises made by Labor to the people of Bonner. The reality is that every community group, every business, every family and every individual will pay and continue to pay the carbon tax as industry and business pass the cost on to consumers. I want the manufacturers, retailers, business individuals and families who have raised serious concerns with me about the impact of this tax to know that I have listened to them, and that is why today I speak against the imposition of a carbon tax.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Parliament House website provides a definition of Australian government. The Australian Parliament consists of three elements which make Australia a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. The definition then outlines the five important functions of parliament:

It is important today for us to revisit the functions of the parliament, given its current state. Consider the last of the five functions—to scrutinise the actions of government. This is the role of an opposition: to provide an alternative to government actions or policies. In this capacity the opposition scrutinises the government and seeks to hold them accountable for their decisions. I have served both in government and in opposition. Never in all those years have I experienced the vitriolic and disingenuous attacks orchestrated by this opposition. Worse, the attacks are destructive, not constructive, as the Westminster tradition would have it. Of course the opposition must fulfil its role to question and to probe government policies. It would not be doing its job if it did not do so. This parliament has a history of robust and healthy debate, as it should. House of Representatives Practice5th edition, chapter 2 states:

The Opposition is an important component in the structure of the House and is considered to be essential for the proper working of democratic government and the parliamentary process in the Westminster system.

The critical question today is not whether the coalition is in its rights to oppose the government but how the opposition opposes. There we have our dilemma. Let me outline one of the myths being perpetuated by this opposition, who are insisting that the clean energy future legislation is being 'rushed' through the parliament. What rubbish!

The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee was established on 29 September 2010 and held its first meeting on 7 October 2010. The opposition, as we all know, chose not to participate. A series of meetings was held in most months between then and May this year to develop the framework for a carbon price. The final agreement was released on 10 July 2011. So for a year the opposition had the opportunity to participate. If we accept the fact that they did not participate to make a political point, they still had access to the communiques to keep an eye on how the agreement was progressing.

On 28 July, the Treasurer, together with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, released the exposure drafts of the key bills in the government's clean energy legislative package. They sought submissions from the public. The bills were finally introduced into the parliament on 12 September. To any reasonable person, on any reasonable test, this is not 'rushing'. As shadow minister for justice and customs, I recall being sent complex bills dealing with national security at 9 pm one night—these were the terrorism bills—with the instruction that they were to be debated at 9.30 the next morning. That is rushing. I recall saying to the parliament on 13 March 2002:

The Howard government tabled these bills right after the dinner break last night. They delivered 119 pages of legislation and 123 pages of explanatory memoranda under the cover of darkness—and they expect us to consider the legislation overnight and to come back this morning with our response.

And I further said:

Labor is committed to rigorous scrutiny of these bills. Where they provide a sound framework for tackling terrorism without intruding into our society's freedoms, the bills will get our support.

I note that subsequently 95 per cent of the opposition's amendments were picked up by the government and there was bipartisan support for that legislation, but that was not how the process started. The Leader of the House has made it crystal clear that time will be made available for debate. This opposition refuses to accept the premise for their behaviour, which is that they are not the government. What I find most offensive and what is so abominable is the deliberate misleading of the Australian public. My colleague the member for Eden-Monaro, on Wednesday, 14 September, referred to what was in his view the most shameful aspect of this debate as 'the deception, the distortion and the denial that we have seen demonstrated by the coalition'. I could not agree more. What I cannot abide is the deception that is being practised on the public. The behaviour and the claims made by the opposition demonstrate clearly that the opposition are not fit to hold office.

I am confident that a majority of my constituents believe that climate change is real and that action to reduce its causes and effects is necessary. However, I also acknowledge that many members of the community have been misled, deceived and scared by the campaign against this reform. The style and conduct of this debate have made it impossible to have a rational discussion on a complex policy challenge. I intend to outline some of the more outrageous claims made by the opposition in the past months. On 1 June in this place the Leader of the Opposition claimed:

Let there be no doubt about the intentions of the authors of this carbon tax legislation: they want to kill manufacturing industry in this country.

The truth is that this government, unlike its predecessor, fully supports a vibrant and innovative manufacturing industry. In August the Leader of the Opposition continued his scaremongering on manufacturing when he said:

We aren't going to stop using steel under a carbon tax, it's just that it's much more likely to be imported steel than locally made steel.

That was stated in an interview on Radio MTR on 23 August 2011. Do not let the facts get in the way of a good story! The truth is that steel manufacturers BlueScope and OneSteel have both said the carbon price will have no impact on their competitiveness. The government will shield locally-made steel from 94.5 per cent of the impact of a carbon price. A $300 million steel transformation plan will provide further assistance to BlueScope and OneSteel to invest and innovate in steel manufacturing operations.

In an interview on the Sunrise program on 14 July, the Leader of the Opposition said:

This carbon tax is going to drive the cost of living for vulnerable pensioners up and up and up.

The reality, of course, is completely different. The government is providing assistance to help meet any price impacts for pensioners. That assistance will be permanent. In my own seat, more than 22,100 pensioners will receive an extra $338 per year for singles and up to $510 per year for couples in their pension payments. More than 11,400 families in Banks will receive household assistance through their family assistance payments of up to, per year, $110 per eligible child for families receiving family tax benefit A and up to $69 for families receiving family tax benefit B. More than 1,400 single parents in Banks will get an extra $289 per year in increased income support. They will also receive assistance through increased family payments.

More than 3,200 job seekers in Banks will get up to $218 extra per year if they are single and $390 per year if they are couples. Students, depending on the rate and the type of payment they receive, will get up to $177 per year. More than 2,300 self-funded retirees will receive an extra $338 per year if they are single and up to $510 if they are couples. It is expected that the carbon price will add 0.7 per cent to the consumer price index. The impact of the GST on the CPI was 2.5 per cent. The household assistance package will directly assist those who need it and it will not—I repeat: it will not—drive up the cost of living for vulnerable pensioners.

Why did The Leader of the Opposition continue his claim on the impact of the carbon price on pensioners even after it had been disproved? On 8 September, he said at a seniors forum in Tumbi Umbi, 'The compensation to pensioners is temporary; the tax is permanent.' The truth is that the government will provide permanent increases in pensions and benefits. There will be lump sum payments from May to June 2012 followed by increases in fortnightly payments from March 2013. Pensions, allowances and family benefits will then keep pace with the cost of living, as they are indexed in line with the consumer price index. I am appalled by the Leader of the Opposition's deceit and disingenuous claims, which are all aimed at hurting people.

The Leader of the Opposition continues to utilise simplistic arguments squashed into mindless sound bites. The Leader of the Opposition is playing a game of misleading the public. Again this was demonstrated in an interview on 7 July on Radio 2SM when he said:

One of the things that people haven't quite twigged to is that carbon dioxide is invisible, it's weightless and it's odourless, how are we going to police these emissions?

The reality is that Australian corporations have been reporting their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases since July 2008 under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. When the Leader of the Opposition's colleague the member for Wentworth introduced this legislation into parliament he said: 'The bill I am introducing today lays the foundation for Australia's emissions trading scheme. Robust data reported under this bill will form the basis of emissions liabilities under emissions trading.' Even after details of the carbon price were released, the Leader of the Opposition has continued to make false claims and grand assertions, such as, 'The thing about the carbon tax is that it will clean out people's wallets and it will wipe out jobs big time.' He said that on 15 August 2011 at Parliament House. Treasury modelling shows that there will be an extra 1.6 million jobs by 2020 under a carbon price while gross national income per person in today's dollars will be $9,000 higher. The Leader of the Opposition's irresponsible scare campaign continues. Last week in parliament he said:

The New South Wales Treasury modelling—

and this was modelling originally undertaken for the New South Wales Labor government when Michael Costa was the Treasurer of New South Wales—

predicts that 31,000 jobs will be lost in New South Wales by 2030 as a result of the carbon tax …

Not surprisingly, the truth is different. The New South Wales Treasury commissioned modelling by Frontier Economics in August this year under the New South Wales Liberal government. Frontier's report finds employment in New South Wales will grow to 2030 under a carbon price, but by 0.45 per cent less than it would without a carbon price. Modelling by federal Treasury shows 400,000 extra jobs will be created in New South Wales by 2020 with a carbon price.

Recently I have been receiving emails from constituents on the opposition's latest fatuous claim that Australian taxpayers will spend an estimated $3.5 billion in 2020 to buy up foreign carbon credits. Naturally the reality is quite different. When the carbon price mechanism moves to an emissions trading scheme, the government will sell a fixed number of carbon permits each year to polluters covered by the scheme. Polluters who do not buy enough Australian permits to meet their obligations will then have to either reduce their pollution or buy international permits up to 50 per cent of their liability. It will be the polluters who buy the international permits to meet their carbon price mechanism obligations, not the government.

Earlier in the debate, the member for Hasluck complained that a constituent in his electorate said they would no longer be able to afford the electricity that they need for a heart condition during summer. The member should not be fuelling their fears; he should be honest with his constituent and comfort them. The government will introduce a new essential medical equipment payment from 1 July 2012 which will help eligible concession card holders who have high electricity usage as a result of equipment they need to use in their home to help manage their disability or medical condition.

The essential medical equipment payment will provide $140 per year to the 110,000 eligible concession card holders who have high electricity use due to the equipment they need to help manage their disability or medical condition. That $140 is expected to cover the entire impact of the cost of running a kidney dialysis machine, which is the highest-energy-use machine expected to be covered. They are the facts. So let us have a debate on the facts—not on false facts, facts that are manufactured to try to support a particular view.

I think another point needs to be made in relation to the carbon price and this argument about an emissions trading scheme: bipartisanship went out with the election of the member for Warringah as the Leader of the Opposition. It was John Howard who took an emissions trading scheme on behalf of the conservatives to the 2000 election. It was the member for Wentworth who supported an emissions trading scheme for the former Prime Minister Mr Rudd. It was politics that led the opposition to split in relation to their support for an emissions trading scheme.

That is what we are confronting here today: a campaign of fear. It is easier to run a negative campaign, a campaign of fear, than to actually have a debate on the facts. At the end of the day, this is a defining debate, and the opposition stands condemned. I know that there are people on the other side who support a price on carbon and who support an emissions trading scheme. There is not unanimity there but there is an acceptance of the collective view and the majority view on their side of politics. Let's have an honest debate, not a dishonest debate. Let's argue the facts; I think the facts speak for themselves. There is only one way forward and that is to support this legislation.

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on this group of bills in relation to the carbon tax. It will not be a matter or surprise for other honourable members to know that my constituents on the Sunshine Coast do not want me to support these bills. In this parliament I will be voting against these bills for the reason that I do not believe that they are good for our economy or our nation.

There is no doubt that there is respectable public opinion and respectable scientific opinion both in favour of and against the various positions on man's involvement in climate change. What is not disputed is that climate has always been changing. The reality is that climate will continue to change and that many people believe that the impact of man has accelerated that climate change in a way that is adverse.

While I accept that there are contradictory scientific points of view points of view out there, I am quite happy personally to give the environment the benefit of the doubt and, if there is something that we collectively as a world can do to repair what we have collectively created, then that is a step very much in the right direction. I believe there should be a world solution to a world problem. The difficulty I have with this legislation is that the rest of the world is not following suit. We will suffer economically to a very great extent as a nation if this package of bills becomes law and these bills are not repealed after the next election. Sure, it will make us as a country feel good. We will have this nice, warm inner glow believing that we are doing something to repair the world environment, but the reality is that we will suffer and inflict on ourselves the most incredible amount of pain while we will not be providing the world environment any particular benefit. So it is a question of all pain and no gain.

I am advised that, were this legislation to be implemented, the impact on the world environment would be minimal. We are committing a form of national economic suicide; essentially, in a political and economic sense, we are slashing our national wrists. We are exporting jobs. We are making it less viable for us to export items, and the result is that we will damage our economy and yet we will not improve the world environment.

I think all of us need to make sure we do whatever we can in a personal sense to improve our environment and to help the planet so that the future of the planet is brighter than it would otherwise be. At home, my wife, Ingrid, and I do the best that we can with respect to the little things that all households can do to help our environment. For instance: we have a solar system on the roof, we recycle as best we can, we mulch our garden, we have planted extra trees—we have an acreage block so there is plenty of room for trees—and we mulch around them. These are all small efforts that collectively, if everyone did similarly, would have an impact. I know that many people take the same approach.

As I said, Australia is clearly part of the problem and we should be part of the solution. The difficulty with the carbon tax proposed by the government is that it is not a solution. It will result in significant cost increases for individuals, couples, families and seniors across Australia, yet these cost increases will not be accompanied by any substantial reduction in emissions and they will not have any noticeable impact on the environment. While the government is correct to say that many people will be compensated for the impact of the carbon tax, there is a very significant minority of the community which will not be compensated, and those people will certainly be worse off.

It is interesting that in a radio interview earlier this year the government's own climate commissioner noted:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years perhaps as much as a thousand years …

Figures suggest that Australia contributes only about 1.2 per cent to 1.5 per cent of global emissions. That is a fairly insignificant figure—though it is not a figure that we should be proud of—and it is important, given the fact that we are a relatively low emitter, that we do not introduce measures that will create a cost burden for Australians and the economy but not have any impact on the area it is supposedly designed to improve. The very real threat is that the carbon tax, which is a $9 billion new tax, will lead to an increase of 10 per cent in electricity prices in the first year alone and that household budgets will also be adversely affected by such things as a nine per cent increase in gas prices for—I repeat—no substantial positive benefit for the environment.

While the government tells us that only big polluters will pay, the tax will have a flow-on impact on all areas of household spending, including on groceries. It will impact on the spending habits of Australians in general. Their life will become more difficult, and it will be harder for young and not-so-young people to get a job. Areas such as the Sunshine Coast, which I am privileged to represent in this place and which is heavily dependent on tourism and construction, will be amongst the areas most badly affected.

There have been suggestions that the carbon tax will have an impact of at least $515 a year on the cost of living of households. It is worth remembering that the price increases brought about by the carbon tax will follow closely on the coat-tails of massive rises in household costs in recent years. Like the rest of us, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, you run a household, so you would be aware that in the past four years electricity prices have risen on average by 51 per cent, gas prices have risen on average by 30 per cent, water and sewerage costs have increased by around 46 per cent, health costs have increased by an average of 20 per cent, school fees and other education costs have increased by around 24 per cent, and rent has increased by about 20 per cent.

I know that it is not popular to quote Lord Monckton—I can see the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Dreyfus, who is at the table, indicating by his smile—

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

I'm agreeing with you.

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

that he does not think it is a good thing to quote Lord Monckton, and I recognise his interjection. I am a great admirer of the parliamentary secretary—I think he has been given a really difficult job in having to sell this unsaleable tax, but if anyone can do it he certainly can. However, I suspect that, given the feedback from my community, even the parliamentary secretary's competence will be inadequate to turn people's opposition to the carbon tax—which will devastate our economy—into support. I am told that Lord Monckton suggests that, if the Labor government's plan is introduced and omissions are cut by five per cent by 2020 in line with the plan, carbon in the atmosphere will be reduced by just 0.013 parts per million: from 412 parts per million down to 411.987 parts per million. The government is focusing, quite appropriately, on the need for the world to do something about climate change; however, the plan the government has introduced will not achieve what the government wants it to achieve, and at the same time it will make the very existence of many Australian families so much more difficult than it already is.

I mentioned earlier that the Sunshine Coast is heavily dependent on tourism and construction. Tourism is among the industries that are most vulnerable to a carbon tax and the associated impact on prices. It is potentially a big victim of the carbon tax because it depends so much on the spending power of visitors. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you have been to the Sunshine Coast, so you would be aware that we boast wonderful beaches, a relaxed way of life and modern conveniences. I know that the area you represent also has wonderful beaches—though the surf there is nowhere near as good!

The Sunshine Coast has many unspoiled attractions for families. We have our coastline, national parks and walking tracks, camping grounds and caravan parks for reasonably priced family holidays. We have modern and luxury unit complexes. We have Australia Zoo—which is run so effectively by Terri Irwin, whom I greatly admire—Aussie World, the Ettamogah Pub, Underwater World and the Big Kart Track as well as the natural attributes of the coast and hinterland and much more. These attractions help to directly and indirectly provide employment for many people who in turn provide for many families. The survival of these attractions depends on the many visitors who come to our area, yet all these visitors will have their lives disrupted by the imposition of the carbon tax and the associated increases in costs.

Households, families, individuals and the elderly around Australia have been finding things extremely difficult, and it is wrong to impose on Australians an additional tax that would see costs rise further—and dramatically—without the tax having any impact on pollution. I have been advised that costs will rise considerably after three years, when the government's initial set price of $23 per tonne for carbon will no longer be fixed but instead become a floating figure out of control of government and at the mercy of market forces. Households will bear the cost and be forced to cut back in yet further areas. The government says that the carbon tax is estimated to rise to $29 per tonne in 2016, but the Centre for International Economics suggests that the figure will be closer to $49 per tonne. The government's figures suggest the price will rise to $37 per tonne in 2020 and to more than $350 per tonne in 2050. All of these prices are significant, and I just hate to think what the impact of this carbon tax is going to be like for families in the future if it is not rejected by the parliament or repealed by an incoming government. As I said, the Sunshine Coast has benefited from its construction industry—the building of homes, unit complexes and commercial premises. They have all catered for our growing population and brought visitors to our region.

It really is unfortunate that the government has decided to proceed with the carbon tax legislation. It is obvious that the community is not in support of this proposal. The government really ought to recognise that it has no mandate for this tax. After all, it was the Prime Minister who, prior to the last election, said that there would be no carbon tax under any government she led. I consider that, if the Prime Minister has changed her mind—and, if she has, I certainly respect that—she should do what Prime Minister Howard did in 1998 when he changed his mind on the introduction of a GST.

Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—

As the member for Maranoa points out, the Prime Minister of the day said: 'Circumstances are different. While I did say that I would never, ever introduce a GST, it is now necessary for the economy.' But he gave the people of Australia the opportunity to vote for that change of policy at an election. If the government feels strongly about its carbon tax legislation, and I suspect that it does, it should say, 'This is the legislation which we plan to bring in if we are returned by the Australian people at the next poll.' It is wrong, in my view, to say one thing before an election and then change one's mind and one's policy and bring in a contrary policy after the election.

This legislation cannot be described as good legislation. It will encourage businesses to manufacture offshore. It will encourage people to holiday offshore. It will make it more difficult for young Australians and older Australians to obtain work. I just think that it is a very heavy price for us as a community to pay—bringing in this tax so that we all feel good but ultimately destroying our economy, reducing our competitiveness and assisting countries which are worse emitters than us to profit in the international marketplace at our expense. It is not too late for the government to withdraw this legislation. It would be in the national interest for it to do so.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has not been a more important set of bills debated in this place in the first 11 years of this century than those before us. Like my colleagues, I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of what is without question an extremely well designed and carefully balanced scheme for setting Australia on the path to a low-carbon economy, on the path to a greatly increased renewable energy industry and on the path to greater global cooperation in the fight against dangerous warming and other climate effects on the planet we all share.

This is a distinctively Labor reform. In a critical but difficult and complicated area of policy, this policy response has been hard work and hard-won. That work and that struggle continues. Both the driving imperative and the basic structure of the Clean Energy Future package have been clear for some time. Our imperative is the need to address climate change; it is the need to reduce Australia's carbon emissions as part of a shared commitment to global emission reductions that is aimed at limiting to two degrees the increase in average global temperatures by the end of this century. Beyond that kind of increase, we know that the consequences will be grave and extremely difficult to mitigate.

The clear imperative to act is founded on the fact that climate change is occurring and that it will deliver environmental, social and economic impacts that must be avoided. The well-founded and exhaustive analysis in this country and elsewhere shows that it will be both more effective and cheaper if we act to interdict as many of the consequences of climate change global warming as early as we possibly can. Without question, the starting point for all of this is the phenomenon of climate change. The scientific evidence for the existence of climate change, and for the contribution that we are making to it, is irresistible. On that point I note where the Garnaut climate change reviewupdate 2011, from May, states:

Since 2008, advances in climate change science have broadly confirmed that the earth is warming, that human activity is the cause of it and that the changes in the physical world are likely, if anything, to be more harmful than the earlier science had suggested. I have replaced the premise of the 2008 Review that the reputable science was right 'on a balance of probabilities', with the premise that it is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

That view is shared by 89 developed and developing countries, representing more than 80 per cent of global emissions and approximately 90 per cent of the global economy, which have pledged large cuts to their emissions under the Cancun agreements. All those countries accept the science; they accept the environmental, social and economic imperative; and they believe that a shared commitment to reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is essential for our shared future.

Australia accepts its part of the challenge. With approximately 1.5 per cent of global emissions, there are only 10 countries who contribute more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than we do, and of course we contribute the most on a per capita basis. I note, from an opinion piece that appeared in Monday's Australian by Adair Turner, the chairman of the UK Committee on Climate Change, that Britain's commitment to an 80 per cent emissions reduction on 1990 levels by 2050—which has been law since 2008—will deliver a reduction in Britain's per capita pollution from 14 tonnes to two tonnes per person by mid-century. By contrast, Australia's emissions are currently 27 tonnes per person. It is absolutely right that a country like Australia, with a strong and well-developed high-carbon economy and with a tradition of making key contributions to efforts that require international cooperation, now play its part in the urgent global effort to address climate change.

The simple facts are these: climate change can only be addressed by concerted global action, Australia is a significant contributor to the problem and Australia is a country that is more susceptible to the worst effects of climate change than many other nations. The reality, then, is that the only argument worth having on the issue of climate change concerns the nature of the Australian response to climate change.

Unfortunately, that is not the only argument we are having. There are those—including a number of those opposite—who do not accept the science, do not accept the economics and do not accept the logical and moral imperative for Australia to be part of a coordinated global response. Such people clearly do not accept the evidence that has been gathered and analysed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, among others.

Of those who acknowledge that the world has warmed and is continuing to grow hotter decade by decade, there are some who believe that this is simply part of the earth's natural climate variation. They do not accept that human activity has anything to do with global warming. To take this position, you have to turn away from the accumulated evidence and the near-universal recognition of the phenomenon of climate change and our part in causing it. You need to move beyond scepticism, which is healthy, and into conspiracy theories, which are not. You have to turn away from the science and turn instead to the something-for-everyone kaleidoscope of the worldwide web, wherein fragments of all kinds of half-baked pseudo-science cluster about in threads of self-reinforcing delusion.

It is a matter of common sense and a measure of both good judgment and good governance to heed the advice of the scientists and the economists when their evidence and their analysis demonstrates that acting now and acting to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases through a market mechanism is the most cost-effective approach to the clear and pressing danger of climate change.

That is the position taken by the OECD. It is the position reached through the exhaustive green and white paper processes that this government put in place. It is the position that has been expressed in the following terms:

Managing climate change will be one of the great challenges of the 21st century: it represents an important economic shift, and will require a portfolio of responses.

In Australia's case, we are moving toward the progressive pricing in of the cost of carbon into the way our economy operates. This is 'big history' in the making—perhaps the most significant economic decision in a generation.

That is well said, I think, and in 2009 it was the considered view of Greg Hunt, the opposition spokesperson on climate change. Of course, it is also the view of their former leader, the member for Wentworth, who said:

You won't find an economist anywhere that will tell you anything other than that the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon!

At a time when many Australians bemoan the lack of political cooperation in the national interest, it is a shame that we no longer have a bipartisan commitment to tackling climate change. Nevertheless, the government is determined to act in the national interest, and with these bills we have set out a comprehensive portfolio of responses that addresses the need to reduce carbon emissions and does so on a low-impact, least-cost basis using a carbon price that is fixed for three years before making the transition to a floating price under an emissions trading scheme.

Under the Clean Energy Future package the price of carbon emissions will be paid by Australia's largest polluters, and liability will be assessed under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System, which has been in operation since 2007. The independent Climate Change Authority will advise on the setting of pollution caps and will monitor international progress with an eye to adjusting those caps towards greater reductions as the global momentum gathers pace. This will secure emission reductions of at least five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020, which means an effective reduction of projected emissions by 23 per cent. It will be the framework through which we achieve an 80 per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2050.

The funds raised by the carbon price will underwrite a massive investment in renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies; it will buffer households from the expected small impact of the price flow-through into the general economy; and it will support jobs in sensitive industries. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will administer $10 billion in finance and equity support to turbocharge our burgeoning renewable energy industry, and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency will manage a further $3.2 billion as it coordinates the research and development and commercialisation of clean energy technologies. Treasury modelling predicts that the carbon price will drive around $100 billion in investment in the renewables sector over the period to 2050, which will transform our energy sector and create a considerable number of jobs. Not only will these jobs be in new industries but jobs will also be supported in traditional industries such as construction, electrical services and steel making, to name just a few. Simply put, our clean energy plan is good for jobs.

Unfortunately, it is clear from reports this week in the Financial Review that the uncertainty surrounding the coalition's opposition to these bills is directly hurting our economy, by placing an additional cost on new investments and the creation of jobs. For instance, AGL Energy Ltd. chief economist Dr Paul Simshauser made clear that Australian companies are putting off their investments and those who are proceeding are paying more. He said:

Project financing in Australia has become a bit more problematic. We're a bit of an anomaly globally. The only thing we could put it down to was we were having one of the most ferocious debates in the world on a price of carbon.

This was further reinforced by Martijn Wilder of Baker McKenzie, who said:

Until the opposition makes it clear what its actual policy is, there will be uncertainty.

It is critical, therefore, that the parliament passes the clean energy legislation and provides certainty to business—so that they can start to invest in our clean energy future.

The modest price impact on householders of having a carbon price in the economy, according to Treasury modelling, will be 0.7 per cent. The increase in assistance to age and disability pensioners, carers, students, single parents and job seekers will be 1.7 per cent—and it will be permanent. The weekly price impact on the average household will be $9.90; the compensation provided to the average household will be $10.10.

All this is designed to ensure that a cost incentive exists for the largest polluters and for any business with an indirect carbon cost component in their product or service while at the same time ensuring that low-income households are fully protected. It will put a price signal into the economy that will drive emission reductions in the name of cost reduction, and give low-carbon products, services, and processes an appropriate competitive edge. Taken all together, this reform will create a lower pollution and lower carbon economy; it will create a stronger, more sustainable energy profile; and it will foster innovation.

These features of the package have been spoken to in great detail by many of my colleagues, including the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, whom I congratulate. I also take this opportunity to congratulate, for the Mount Everest of work that has gone into this momentous reform: the former minister for climate change, Senator Wong; the parliamentary secretary, Mark Dreyfus; the staff of the ministers; and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.

I want to finish by noting that, in the community I represent, there is a considered and longstanding desire to see the Australian government take action on climate change. As I speak in support of these bills, I feel very strongly that I am supporting a policy approach that accords not only with the scientific and economic logic and with my principles but also with the carefully reasoned and strongly felt views of the people I represent—the people of the Fremantle electorate. Every day I receive more emails from constituents that encourage me to support this policy, that urge me to be a part of positive and necessary change. Of course, I also get emails, letters and calls from people who worry about the effect this reform will have on their personal circumstances, but in many cases when the detail of the policy is explained those people also accept that this reform, though confronting for some, is a step we need to take, and a positive step.

Back in 2008, one of the most significant community events that I hosted in the first 12 months after I was elected to represent Fremantle was a climate change forum. It was attended by nearly 200 people, and it was clear to me then just how much interest, engagement and passion there was for a policy response to the problem of climate change. Earlier this year, when the Prime Minister and cabinet attended a community forum at South Fremantle Senior High School, there was a delegation from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, and they presented the Prime Minister with a card that thanked her for taking the necessary steps to safeguard Australia's climate, energy, environmental and economic future.

In Fremantle, the potential for a clean energy future is being embraced as I speak. As I drive through the suburbs of my electorate, street after street shows the proliferation of photovoltaic cells on the roofs of houses, and in the space of four years these solar panels have gone from being a relative rarity to being commonplace. There should be no surprise in that, because we have supported the installation of something like 150,000 solar PV household units since coming to government, after the Howard government managed only 12,000 in 11 years. White Gum Valley, a suburb in my electorate, has the largest take-up of 'green power' in the Perth metropolitan area. Carnegie Wave Energy, located in North Fremantle, has conducted a successful commercial trial of its wave energy technology off Garden Island, which produces emission-free power and emission-free desalinated water. A company called Quickstep developed its new and less expensive carbon fibre production process, with all the fuel efficiency benefits this will offer, at its factory in Coogee, not far from my electorate office. The City of Fremantle was the first carbon-neutral local government in Australia, and this year the City of Cockburn was a winner in the 2011 National Awards for Local Government for its greenhouse gas emission abatement, sustainability and climate change program.

All these individual and community efforts, these business endeavours and these local government actions are part of a change that has been in progress for several years. This change, which included a change in government in 2007, has seen Australia ratify the Kyoto Protocol and now sees us join the dozens of countries around the world with firm emission reduction targets, and a market framework for decreasing our reliance on carbon and for increasing our efficiency, innovation, and use of renewable energy.

The Clean Energy Future is a bright future, but it is a long way off, and it will need to be hard won, which is why this package of reforms in the long-term national interest is a quintessential Labor task. There has not been a more significant reform debated in this place this century, and I am proud to be here to speak in favour of these bills.

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

I rise to make a contribution on this carbon tax legislation, the bundle of bills. I have to say that, when the government introduced these bills last week with two to three weeks for the parliament to consider them, it really was a disgrace. I must also say that the effect this carbon tax will have across this nation, in all corners of the nation, will be dramatic. No-one will escape the effect of these pieces of legislation if they pass this House and the upper House. I say 'if' they pass this House because they can pass the lower House only with the support of some of the six members who sit on the crossbenches.

The introduction of these bills represents also a very significant breach of the trust of the Australian people, because these bills will forever change our nation, yet the people of Australia have been denied an opportunity which is their fundamental right, I believe, in a democracy: to have their say. When this Prime Minister went to the people at the last election, it was a contest of ideas and minds. The voters of Australia value their vote and they made their decision based on what either side of this parliament had to say in the lead-up to that election. Of course, the Prime Minister said quite clearly that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led. That statement, I think, meant that the government we have today was elected on the basis that there would be no carbon tax under a government that was led by Julia Gillard. Since that time, of course—since the announcement by this Prime Minister—my office has been absolutely inundated with people concerned about the effect that this will have on their business, their farming operation or their family wherever they live.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me give you and the House a bit of an overview of the constituency that I represent, the seat of Maranoa. It represents over 42 per cent of the land area of Queensland and it is one of the powerhouses of this nation. It is certainly a powerhouse in Queensland. It is one of the electorates that are resource rich, and of course the expansion of the resource sector in my electorate is well documented and is happening as I speak in the House today. The growth of the resource sector, the coal seam methane gas, the coal developments and the associated industries that go with that—small businesses—means that there are growth opportunities, job opportunities and small business opportunities as a result of the expansion of the resource sector. But, of course, there is also our traditional base. Since our early pioneers established farming and pastoral interests out in Maranoa, those interests have been a base—and they will always be a base—of the electorate of Maranoa. Whether it is cotton, beef, grain, olives, fruit, wool, vegetables or stone fruit—you name it—it is also a food bowl as well as a growing energy hub in Queensland.

One of the things about Maranoa that do have an impact when it comes to the cost of transport wherever you look is the tyranny of distance, which is a factor in everyone's day-to-day life. The electorate is a regional and rural electorate; that is no secret, and it is no secret also that regional Australia will be one of the areas hardest hit by this carbon tax. The tyranny of distance—whether it is when businesses have to send their product to their market or when they have to bring in goods to farms or small businesses—requires transport, and the transport sector is going to be hit by this carbon tax. Access Economics has found that a $26 a tonne price on carbon will cost more than 126,000 jobs in regional Australia. How can anyone in this place support legislation that Access Economics says will cost 126,000 Australians their jobs? Deloitte predicts that there will be a loss of 21,000 Queensland jobs, with separate Queensland Treasury modelling predicting 12,000 jobs will be lost in Queensland. How the Premier of Queensland, who is the federal president of the Labor Party, can support a carbon tax as she leads to the next election and say, 'I'm supporting a carbon tax and I know it's going to cost Queenslanders 12,000 jobs,' on her own Treasury's modelling, is beyond me.

Another industry in my electorate is electricity generation. I have three coal fired power stations, Tarong, Millmerran and Kogan Creek, in my electorate. These are large, baseload power stations. There are also a number of gas fired power stations and we are soon going to see a very large solar thermal power station established just near Chinchilla. The workers in those power stations and in that industry and also those working in the coal and the gas industries in my electorate are worried. They went to the last election thinking that if they voted for the government, for Labor, there would not be a carbon tax under a government led by the now Prime Minister.

As I travel my electorate, from east to west and north to south, people are not only worried about the future for their families or their businesses, they are now becoming angry at this government. What they want is an election. In numbers of calls to my office and from what I hear when I meet people in the street, people are saying: 'How can we have an election, because we want a say on this? We want to have our say on whether we should have a carbon tax and this bundle of bills.' They want their say, and that is their democratic right. They value their vote. They believe we live in a democracy. Today under the electoral cycle, in the information provided by the parties and anyone wanting to represent a constituency, people read and are well informed. They are worried about this legislation and what it will mean to their families and their jobs, particularly their jobs.

For the benefit of the House I will read what one of my constituents emailed to me recently. Paul is from Crows Nest, in the very east of the electorate. It is very near the Tarong power station, but I do not know where he works. In his email he said:

When it comes to the carbon tax fiasco, I used to be, and I say used to be, a Labor supporter. But now with the recent events over the past 12 months, I can no longer support the Labor movement. I am totally disgusted with the push for the carbon tax that will hurt my family who is already struggling to pay the bills, the mortgage and put food on the table. I have been told by my employer that if this tax goes through, that I would LOSE my job along with others because they will not be able to afford to pay the tax and keep the current workforce.

That is from a person who emailed my office and said he is a Labor supporter, and I respect people like that. But he is concerned for his family. He is concerned as to how he is going to pay his mortgage—and what is so precious in every family is the family home. Being able to own their own bit of Australia, their family home and their backyard, is very precious to them. He is so concerned that, as a supporter of the other side of the House in the past, he is prepared to email my office and tell me his story and his concern.

A resident of Stanthorpe, Ian, has also written to me. He said:

As a resident of Stanthorpe and an Australian tax payer, I urge you to strongly come out and force Julia Gillard to not bring in this new tax. We, like many other families are struggling to survive as it is with out any further rises in the cost of living. Every time we turn around, power, fuel and food are going up. All this government can think of is how to waste our tax dollars.

Once again, this is from a family. I will talk about small businesses in a minute, but this is another family concerned about their future, concerned about how they are going to pay the bills and put food on the table and pay the mortgage.

Among some of the most vocal opponents of the carbon tax in the Maranoa electorate have been small business owners. I received this letter from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland:

A carbon tax will flow through the economy, affecting the price of all goods and services and increasing costs for all businesses including those without a direct carbon price liability. Trade exposed and small and medium-sized businesses have limited ability to pass these costs on to customers and are at even greater risk of business competitiveness and viability. Given the importance of coal mining and minerals processing in this state, Queensland businesses face an even greater impact from the introduction of a carbon price. These industries are key employers in regional and rural areas in Queensland, directly and indirectly supporting a large number of local and medium-sized businesses.

This letter is on behalf of many chambers of commerce in my electorate. Those listed as signatories are: the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland; the Border Rivers Chamber of Commerce, based in Goondiwindi; Commerce Roma, in my home town; the Charleville and District Chamber of Commerce, in a pastoral zone in western Queensland; the Inglewood Chamber of Commerce; the South-West Chamber of Commerce; the St George and District Chamber of Commerce, the Stanthorpe Chamber of Commerce; and the Wandoan District Chamber of Commerce.

Transport businesses in my electorate have written to me. One of them is Frasers Livestock Transport, which is based in Warwick but has other offices and transport centres in Roma, Longreach and Cloncurry, and mainly moves livestock. Ross Fraser is one of the partners and I will precis what he said to me rather than quote him. Ross said that if this tax was $40 a tonne—and we know this is a $23-a-tonne tax bill as presented to us, but we know it will rise under this government, as they know how to put up taxes and spend but not how to save and manage the economy—then it will cost their business $600,000 a year. Not only will it cost his business $600,000 a year but he will have to pass that cost on to his customers and they will pay the bill. This tax is such a retrograde tax because it cascades at each point. It will impact through the economy. Ross went on to say that they employ 110 people and their wages bill is $150,000 a week. This is a small business in a regional town in my electorate. So concerned are they about their future that they said they will have to pass it on if the industries can afford it, absorb it or cut back on their operations. Warwick is also home to the Big W distribution point where Wickham Freight Lines put 100 trucks a day on the road distributing supermarket goods across Queensland, New South Wales and into Victoria.

I will relate a similar story about Crisps Coaches in Warwick. Russell Crisp told the Warwick Daily News, the local newspaper, that he believed the tax would have a negative impact on his customers. Crisps Coaches in Warwick is a bus company that is not subsidised by a local authority in a capital city. It operates whether there is one passenger on board or 50 or board. It runs a magnificent service in Warwick. I often see its coaches down here. Its coaches bring schoolchildren down here to Parliament House. Russell Crisp said the tax will impact on his business because of the cost of fuel. He wants to know, as so many of my other small businesses want to know, whether he is one of the big polluters this government is talking about. We do not know. We cannot find out who they are. Who are the big polluters? We on this side believe those that are considered big polluters by the government are great big job creators in this economy.

There is a whole lot more I would like to say, about the Kyoto protocol and how we as a government were able to meet our obligations, as many have done for years, through a direct action plan. We will continue to propose what can be done to reduce carbon emissions through a direct action plan and without an impact on jobs and businesses across the nation and particularly across my own electorate of Maranoa.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak in support of these clean energy bills, I want to talk about the Northern Rivers region, where I live and where my seat of Page is. Some of the seat of one of my colleagues, the honourable member for Richmond, is also in the Northern Rivers region. I note she is here in the chamber. I will be talking about my seat but also about the Northern Rivers, which covers a broader area. In our area we have communities which have embraced adaptation for climate change. They are ahead of it. They are not waiting for everybody to act. They are taking action themselves locally. What I want to address is a particular collaboration of groups called Sustain Northern Rivers. I will go through what it is doing in some detail because it is happening in our area.

The Northern Rivers region covers approximately 20,732 square kilometres and incorporates seven local government areas. Five of those local government areas are in my seat of Page. It is home to more than 292,000 people, almost 5,500 medium-sized businesses and tens of thousands of small businesses. Our region has a growth rate of up to 2.6 per cent compared to the New South Wales rate of 1.2 per cent. So it is a growth area.

Sustain Northern Rivers—SNR, as it is called—was formed in 2008 in direct response to climate change. It is a collaboration of 20 peak regional organisations working together to provide a local response to a global threat that impacts on us locally. The SNR is a collaborative platform that consults, collaborates and communicates. It empowers local communities to become self-sustaining. The focus is in four key areas: food, transport, energy and behavioural change—all of the areas that we need to address in adaptation to climate change.

Sustain Northern Rivers is a broad network. In the network are Byron Shire Council, which is in the seat of Richmond; a catchment management authority, which covers the whole area; Lismore City Council; Local Communities Services Association; Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority; North Coast Health Promotion; North Coast TAFE, which covers a huge area all across the North Coast; North-East Waste Forum; Northern Rivers Community Colleges, Northern Rivers Social Development Council; Northern Rivers Tourism; Northern Star Pty Ltd; Northern Rivers University Department of Rural Health; New South Wales Department of Industry and Investment; New South Wales Department of Education and Training; Regional Development Australia—Northern Rivers; Richmond Valley Council, which is in my seat of Page; Southern Cross University; Tweed Shire Council; and Northern Rivers Youth Environment Society. I am told there are others joining that network and collaboration to prepare and work to adapt to climate change.

What does the SNR do? It helps Northern Rivers communities live and work more sustainably. It helps cut the collective carbon footprint of the Northern Rivers, fosters networks that stimulate innovation and action, facilitates collaboration amongst regional organisations, pools resources, shares knowledge and learns from past failures and successes. It maximises outcomes by coordinating our efforts and it sustains outcomes from time limited project grants. It also builds the adaptive capacity of Northern Rivers communities. Recently I had the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in Lismore. We held a forum on the clean energy package and he got to meet with Sustained Northern Rivers who were able to put to him what they were doing and what their case was. They are also looking at the package and the opportunities available in the clean energy package, and there are many. People come into this place and I hear the other side always talking about the threats. They live in a world of absolute fear and threat.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Work Choices!

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

Thank you—if you wish to speak next!

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It must be awful to wake up in the morning and see the world through the prism of fear and threat. Why not look for opportunities and challenges, because that is what we have to do and, as leaders, that is what we do in our communities.

There are four key areas for Sustain Northern Rivers. Firstly, to sustain food by increasing local food consumption and the uptake of sustainable food production methods. Are they sitting back and waiting for that? No. There is already a whole range of initiatives that have taken place around food in our area and helping local food producers and farmers. Secondly, to sustain energy to empower and enable the Northern Rivers community to reduce its ecological footprint. The Northern Rivers area has one of the largest take-ups of solar power and panels across the state. In fact Lismore had the highest take-up, and it was across all age groups and all wage groups, which is really interesting.

The third key area is to sustain transport. That is more of a challenge in rural and regional areas because there is not a lot of public transport. But we can still do things, and transport is one of the key areas. The aim is to reduce transport emissions and increase transport options, physical activity, social capital and resilience.

This is a digression—not from the bills but just from talking directly about Sustain Northern Rivers, a collaboration—but when we are looking at reducing transport emissions, in my seat I have an internationally renowned project being undertaken at Harwood Sugar Mill, called Ethanol Technologies Ltd, Ethtec. It is a world-class second-generation ethanol pilot plant and is now almost halfway to full commercialisation. Ethtec's director and chief scientist, Dr Russell Reeves, and his team are converting lignocellulosic materials to sugars that can be fermented to produce ethanol, bioplastics or other high-value renewable chemicals. It is a fully-patented process involving the innovative use of concentrated sulphuric acid and an acid-sugars separation process using cutting-edge technologies developed in Australia and overseas. It is an important breakthrough because it means biofuel production does not have to be at the expense of our food crops as we enter a period in which food security is and will become a major issue for regional communities.

I was speaking with the Southern Cross University Forest and Timber Industry Forum. They are also very interested in this because the forum advocate the conversion of small wood and wood waste to biodiesel as a way of creating local energy markets for forest and mill owners. They would like to see conversion of lignocellulosic materials to biofuels included in RETs. Ethtec has already managed to raise $11 million in private sector investment and they have a $2.9 million Climate Ready grant from the Australian government—our government—to complete the first two phases of their four-phase project. It is estimated that it will cost a total of $22 million to reach full commercialisation. I am working with Dr Reeves and his fellow Ethtec directors, Robert Carey and Lance Rodman, to increase awareness of this project particularly among colleagues here in Canberra.

I did have the minister for agriculture visit too. He had a look at a demonstration of what is happening. So when I talk about sustaining transport, there are things happening—positive things, opportunities and people rising to the challenge to produce some clean fuel and not get into that food versus fuel debate.

The fourth area for Sustain Northern Rivers is to sustain change. That is about promoting sustainability initiatives with the focus on social learning. When we look at clean energy and what is being done in Australia to transition this, we know that we are looking at behavioural change, and that is important. Sustain Northern Rivers say: why are we doing it? We recognise that we are in the front line of the impact of climate change. Our biodiversity is at risk. We have the highest biodiversity in New South Wales, and third highest in Australia—that is, in our region of Northern Rivers.

Northern Rivers is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia. Those living in the Northern Rivers are older than the rest of the state. It can be hard to get around. We have a huge number of volunteers from many of our community services and we rely on them. Our communications are not up to speed, but they are coming up to speed. We have the NBN in our area. It started in Coffs Harbour on the North Coast and is rolling out in our region. We are a cross-border region, a region that has a traditionally high unemployment rate.

Sustain Northern Rivers has targets. To empower, as an energy priority, to enable the North Coast to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent compared to 2000 levels and increase the proportion of renewable energy sources to 20 per cent by 2020. To sustain transport, the aim is to improve an integrated regional transport network which increases human movement options by 20 per cent by 2020 and reduces infrastructure costs. To sustain food, the aim is to build a resilient Northern Rivers food economy, making a contribution to national food security and sovereignty. And to sustain collaboration, the intent is to create a vibrant collaboration that supports engagement and empowerment of the community to respond to climate change challenges. Those are some of the overall goals and some key projects across those four areas. This is an example of a community taking action themselves and not burying their heads in the sand. They are saying that climate change is real and they are taking advantage of the clean energy package. That is what they are looking at at the moment.

Also in my area a lot of farmers are quite excited about the Carbon Farming Initiative. They are seeking the opportunities. Some farmers in my region are already doing wonderful things in terms of increasing production and decreasing their greenhouse footprint. Now they will be eligible to get other more tangible benefits under the Carbon Farming Initiative. I am helping organise for technical people to run a Carbon Farming Initiative project in my area for farmers across the Northern Rivers, so it will cover a broader area again. It is something that the member for Richmond and I have followed up on after the visits we had from both the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government. People across our region are keen, want more information and want to be ahead of the changes in this area.

I want to say a few things in closing. Let us get some things clear. Jobs are not about to be lost. Some jobs will change and some jobs will be created, and we already have a good indication of that. People talk about this being a tax. It is a price on pollution. It is a price on the 500 biggest polluters in Australia. It is a price that needs to be there to effect the change we have. It is the twinning of changes to our economy and the environment that we must make. It is not a choice we have anymore—do we or don't we; will we or won't we? It is something that has to happen.

We talk locally about who you trust. Some people say you cannot trust the science, but that is just ridiculous. All of us, including a lot of farmers, go to the Bureau of Meteorology website every day. It is the most popular website. We look to it and we trust it. We look for the weather and all sorts of things. You should go there. CSIRO believe in climate change and know we have to embrace clean energy.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This parliament has seen many significant contests over recent years—the GST, the Iraq War and Telstra's privatisation all spring to mind—but in my brief parliamentary career the debate over the carbon tax is certainly the most contentious, both because of what it is and because of how it came about. First, it is the most significant economic change we have seen in decades. It is a new tax on everything. Energy powers our way of life. Increase its price and the cost of everything we do and use will go up. Second, the Prime Minister five days before the last election emphatically declared in her own words, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' This was a fundamental undertaking to the Australian people: not an off-the-cuff comment made during some laborious parliamentary debate but a solemn promise made to 23 million Australians, who now bear the ultimate burden of her prime ministerial backflip.

Without the Prime Minister's promise, millions of Australians would in all likelihood have cast their vote differently, changing the outcome of the election and rewriting the pages of history. In the days leading up to the election the Prime Minister was acutely aware of how reticent the electorate was to embrace a carbon tax. The Prime Minister was at pains to emphasise that she would first seek community consensus on the issue via a citizens assembly before making any pre-emptive move. But everything was to change once the Prime Minister reached the Lodge and a new government was formed. Wanting to pander to the Greens and secure her minority government, this fundamental pre-election promise was unceremoniously dumped without contrition or atonement. What now follows with this legislation put before us represents a dereliction of prime ministerial duty and a fundamental breach of faith between the parliament and its representatives.

The fact that these 19 bills, which are more than 1,100 pages long, are being rushed through the parliament, with members being given speaking times equivalent to less than one minute per bill, only compounds the problem. If the Prime Minister were so bold as to say she would wear out her shoe leather selling her tax, why is she not prepared to let her fellow members wear out their voices?

For me the issue of a carbon tax is not one of belief or of ideology. It is a test, however, of what is the most effective way of simultaneously enhancing our environment and our economy—twin objectives that are not mutually exclusive. I am not here to debate the science; I am here to hold the government to account. I am here to hold the government to account for its misguided decision to pursue a carbon tax in the absence of an international agreement. I am here to hold the government to account for its damaging decision to pursue a carbon tax at a time when our industry and households are feeling the pain of a challenging domestic economy. I am here to hold the government to account for a fatally flawed policy that will simply redistribute wealth in society without any commensurate pay-off for the environment.

This is not just bad policy; it is bad faith. First and foremost a carbon tax will have a punishing impact on the cost of living. In the first year alone a $23 a tonne carbon tax will represent a $515 hit to the average household. With electricity bills to increase 10 per cent and gas bills to increase nine per cent, it is not just the household bills for heating, lighting and cooking that will be impacted; the flow-on effect to the weekly grocery bill will also be significant. What is more the carbon price has a built-in escalator; it will not be fixed. It starts at $23 a tonne but on the government's own forecast will jump to $29 in 2016, $37 in 2020 and over $350 in 2050. It is more than a coincidence that the Greens took to the last election a carbon price of $23 a tonne—now that their figure has become the government's figure, Green senators like Sarah Hanson-Young have started to call for a higher price—namely, $100 a tonne.

I say to those opposite, caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. Your support today for a carbon price is locking you into a cycle of an ever-rising tax on every Australian family. It is a heavy responsibility to bear. What is more the government's entire strategy is flawed. It cannot readily change consumer behaviour. Some goods like energy are relatively inelastic. It does not necessarily follow that the more you charge the less you proportionately use. People will simply be forced to pay more, leaving them with significantly less to spend.

It too is insufficient for the government to claim they are compensating the householder. Originally the Prime Minister and her ministers claimed they would return all of the $9 billion raised in the first year to households. Now we are told it is around 50 per cent. When it comes to the government's proposed tax cuts, the exact opposite is true. Some of the marginal rates will in fact increase, including from 15 to 19 per cent and 30 to 33 per cent.

No wonder the Treasurer in an interview on Sky News is on the record as saying, 'We can't guarantee that no-one will be worse off …' Indeed, in my own electorate of Kooyong, I was contacted by a constituent Gabrielle Whiting who as a single, self-funded retiree under the age of 65 with an income of $35,000 has been told after repeated calls to the government's clean energy hotline that she will receive no compensation. In fact, using the household assistance estimator on the website she is $251 worse off. When I asked the Prime Minister in question time about Ms Whiting, who will pay higher electricity and gas prices under the carbon tax but will receive no compensation, the Prime Minister had no answer. Unfortunately, Gabrielle Whiting is no one-off. There are hundreds of thousands like her, left behind by an incompetent Gillard government.

Like the average household, small business will also feel the pain of this carbon tax. Do not take my word for it. This is the view of Peter Anderson, CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Employing more than four million people, our two million small businesses, more than 10,000 of which are in Kooyong, are the backbone of the Australian economy. But who will compensate them?

My local drycleaner in Kew told me his electricity and gas bill has risen in just over a year from $23,000 to $28,000 and with the introduction of a carbon tax it will rise another 10 per cent. He works six days a week, employs four others and is in a daily struggle to meet the higher costs of keeping the doors open. He wants a carbon tax like a hole in the head. So why are we giving him one?

It is a sentiment shared by many. Deloitte Access Economics have modelled the regional impacts of a carbon tax in Victoria. They found that by 2015 there would be 23,000 fewer jobs across the state and the economy would be $2.8 billion worse off if the tax goes ahead. According to the Deloitte's document, the Boroondara area, which closely resembles the boundaries of my electorate, would be among the worst hit.

What is particularly pernicious about the proposed carbon tax, is that the government is going against the international tide. In the United States, a cap-and-trade system is no longer on the agenda. Earlier this year in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper won the most comprehensive electoral victory for the Conservative Party in over 100 years campaigning against a carbon tax. It too is simply false to suggest that rising powers China and India are rapidly weening themselves off their dependence on fossil fuels. In the period between 1990 and 2020, China will increase its emissions by a remarkable 496 per cent and India by 350 per cent. Professor Garnaut in his report details the projected increase in Chinese emissions between 2005 and 2020 from five to 12 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum. With China's growth in emissions 100 times greater than the cuts Australia seeks to make over the same period, it is easy to see that China is where the real game is.

In fact the Productivity Commission has found that Australia is alone among the nations of the world in proposing an economy-wide carbon tax. Little wonder then that so many of our business leaders who are exposed to the global market are deeply concerned about the impact the carbon tax will have on the nation's competitiveness. BHP's CEO, Marius Kloppers, called the tax a 'dead-weight cost' on the coal industry, noting that other competitor countries in the market, including South Africa and Indonesia, did not apply a carbon tax.

The Gillard government simply fails to appreciate the extent to which Australia is a net importer of capital, relying on foreign investment to fund the development of our lucrative resources sector. Global capital is fungible; it is up for grabs. There is no sentiment involved. Investors go where money is to be made and sovereign risk is limited. If we pursue a punitive carbon and mining tax, it is simply inevitable that investors will take their money elsewhere. This will cost jobs across the economy. The fact that the government has not even had the courage to name those companies it is promising to tax—first numbering 1,000 then 500 and now 400—means there is even greater uncertainty among many of our economy's largest employers.

The government makes the mistake of telling us that lost jobs will be replaced by new jobs in the renewable energy sector. International experience does not bear this out. In a UK study earlier this year it was found that 3.7 jobs were lost for every green job created and similar findings were reached in a 2009 Spanish study.

Not only does the government's carbon tax raise the spectre of sending Australian jobs offshore but it also sends billions of dollars of taxpayer funds offshore to buy emission permits. Because the government acknowledge that, even with a carbon tax, emissions in Australia are projected to increase by 43 million tonnes from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes by 2020, they have been forced to allocate $3.5 billion in 2020 to purchase carbon credits. It is hard to believe but by 2050, funding for these foreign carbon credits is estimated to reach $57 billion per year or 1.5 per cent of GDP. It is of great concern that Australia will have limited transparency and control over these foreign trading schemes where corruption and fraud is legion. Significantly the Australian Crime Commission details in its 2011 report the state of international investigations into carbon tax evasion, including in Norway where Europol is investigating allegations that up to €5 billion of revenue has been lost and in Italy where organised crime groups are reportedly tapping into the European wind energy sector.

Since coming to power in 2007 this government has had an extremely poor record in management and implementation. There is no reason to think that their ability to implement a complex, economy-wide carbon tax will be any different from their monumental failures, which we have seen with the school halls, pink batts, Green Loans and NBN programs. In contrast, the coalition has put forward a fully funded, costed, incentive focussed and technologically focussed alternative with our Direct Action policy. We will clean up the dirtiest power stations, invest in renewable energy and carbon sequestration, plant more trees and establish an emissions reduction fund that will source the lowest cost abatement, helping us achieve the bipartisan commitment to a five per cent reduction in CO2 levels by 2020. At $3.2 billion over four years, it is a far cry from the Prime Minister's big government, big spending carbon tax which will hurt the economy without delivering any real environmental benefit.

I finish where I started. In my brief career, the parliamentary debate over the government's proposed carbon tax is the most contentious issue with which I have been involved. But, given its implications for our economy and our future, it is a debate that must be had. Our policy, based on incentives and initiative, will always trump that of a punishing new tax based on a broken promise. In the end, the pages of history and their judgment will be on our side.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Global warming is a reality that is already with us. The CSIRO, the weather bureau and scientists around the world are recording that the planet is warming and that high levels of carbon pollution risk environmental and economic damage. The first decade of this century was the warmest on record. Each decade in Australia since the 1940s has been warmer than the last. Australia faces significant damage in a warmer changing climate, leading to extreme weather events such as droughts, heatwaves, bushfires, floods and cyclones, which are becoming more frequent and severe. These deadly events are also threatening our homes, businesses and communities, and our supplies of food and clean water are becoming less secure.

According to Warnings from the Bush, prepared by Anna Reynolds and published by the Climate Action Network Australia, material that was peer reviewed by Dr Lesley Hughes of the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University and Dr Mark Howden of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, climate change is a threat to the diversity of life on the Australian continent and to many of our great natural icons, including our World Heritage area: Kakadu, the Wet Tropics, the Great Barrier Reef and the Blue Mountains.

What does this material warn us about? I only have enough time today to provide their summary of their findings, and they are as follows:

Finally, in their summary of findings, they said:

Now let me turn to the bushfires like those experienced in New South Wales in 2002 and 2006. Such fires will continue to occur more regularly, causing serious and irreversible damage to national parks, forests and private property. The fire of November 2006 in the Grose Valley kept burning, even at overnight temperatures down to zero, because the fuel load was completely dry. Every year the Blue Mountains are becoming hotter. Snow in winter is becoming a rare event.

The Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria on 12 February 2009, when 173 people died and 414 were injured, are a good example of what a three-degree warming scenario will look like. Most animals find it difficult to survive even a two-degree temperature rise in their environment. Before the fire started on Black Saturday, possums were dropping dead out of the trees. The three-degree rise was enough to completely dry out the normally fire-resistant wet sclerophyll areas of bush so that the temperature of the fire fronts rose from the normal 1,100 degrees to a staggering 1,500 degrees. This was enough to melt steel structures. As we have seen, such fires are unstoppable.

There is plenty of other available evidence for those prepared to look for it. According to the American Institute of Biological Sciences, before the industrial age the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million; today it is over 360 parts per million. That is an increase of about 30 per cent in fewer than 300 years. The institute has pointed out that there is now much more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than ever before in human history. For the earth, this is an unprecedented rate of change—about 10,000 years worth of change compressed into 100 years. The earth has been able to adapt to slow changes, not fast changes. Slow changes allow the biosphere and earth's species time to adjust. Quick change may cause biological chaos and disrupt agricultural production. Carbon dioxide is critical to controlling the atmosphere's temperature because it absorbs infrared radiation, better known as heat. Mr Deputy Speaker, to illustrate the greenhouse effect, try sitting in your car in the sun with the windows rolled up. The sun's rays pass through the car's windows and hit the car's seats. There, the visible light is absorbed and reradiated to the interior of the car as heat. The car's glass windows, while transparent to visible light, are opaque to heat, so the heat is trapped within the car and the car's interior temperature can quickly become that of an oven. That is why scientists think that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will cause the earth's atmosphere to get even warmer.

The issue of rising sea levels is of direct interest to some of my constituents. At the northern boundary of my electorate is Sydney Harbour. The institute is telling us that the global sea level rise is caused by two factors. The first factor is water running into the ocean through the melting of surface ice such as mountain glaciers and polar ice caps. Current evidence of global warming includes the melting of glaciers on five continents. The second factor is the thermal expansion of water within the oceans. As the temperature of the water in the oceans rises and the seas become less dense, they will spread, occupying more surface area on the planet. Increased temperature will accelerate the rate of sea level rise.

Since the end of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, sea level has risen by 120 metres. Geological data suggest that the global average sea level may have risen at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.2 millimetres per year over the last 3,000 years. However, tide gauge data indicate that the global rate of rising sea levels during the 20th century was one to two millimetres per year—that is, 10 times as fast. Low-lying Pacific island nations will be inundated as the rising sea level invades their drinking water reserves. What the institute has been telling us is not new. We know that as the sea level rises some Pacific Islands are under threat. Tuvalu has experienced low-land flooding. It comprises nine coral atolls. Its highest point is only five metres above sea level. Saltwater intrusion is adversely affecting drinking water and food production. Tuvalu's leaders predict that the nation will be submerged in 50 years. In March 2002, Tuvalu's Prime Minister appealed to Australia and New Zealand to provide homes for his people when his country is submerged. The Cook Islands and the Marshall Islands are also under threat and, in addition to island countries, low-lying coastal areas of other countries, including Australia, are threatened by rising sea levels.

I now turn from the American Institute of Biological Sciences to Geoscience Australia, a government organisation which tells us that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that human induced greenhouse gases are very likely responsible. The IPCC's approach is very conservative. Geoscience Australia predicts that global warming will accelerate into the future due to continued human induced greenhouse gas emissions, and this will affect the sea level. Global average sea level rose at a rate of 1.8 millimetres per year from 1961 to 2003. From 1993 to 2003, this rate increased to approximately 3.1 millimetres per year. This is a high degree of confidence that the sea level will continue to rise and possibly accelerate over the next century and beyond through thermal expansion of the oceans, melting of glaciers and ice caps, melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and changes in water storage on land. Changes in sea level will be felt through increases in intensity and frequency of storm surges and coastal flooding, increased salinity of rivers, bays and coastal aquifers, increased coastal erosion, inundation of low-lying coastal communities and critical infrastructure, loss of important mangroves and impacts on coral reefs. Geoscience Australia concludes that any or all of these changes may have a severe impact on urban communities if unmitigated.

Australia generates more carbon per person than any other developed country, including the United States of America. Of the world's 195 nations, Australia is the 15th highest polluter overall. Australia's carbon pollution is high because our electricity is generated mainly by burning coal. We need to produce and use energy in a cleaner and smarter way. Under a business-as-usual scenario and the do-nothing policy of the opposition, future generations face a very bleak future. Nevertheless, the worst effects of global warming can be avoided if we reduce carbon pollution before it becomes too difficult and too costly. That is why we are acting with this legislation. Countries around the world are already taking action—35 countries have already started carbon pollution reduction schemes. Some have carbon taxes as well. Globally, more money is now invested in new, renewable power than in old, high-pollution energy. China is now the world's largest maker of both solar panels and wind turbines—you would not know that from some of the contributions by the opposition—and Germany is not far behind. Both are reaping the economic benefits, as we will with this legislation in the future.

The government's clean energy plan will cut pollution by at least five per cent by 2020, compared with the 2000 levels. This will require cutting net expected pollution by at least 23 per cent in 2020. The government wants pollution to be cut by 80 per cent of 2000 levels by the year 2050. Large-scale renewable electricity generation, including hydro, is projected to be 18 times its current size by 2050. Total renewable generation, including hydro, will be around 40 per cent of electricity generation by 2050. Millions of tonnes of carbon will be stored in the land through better land and waste management. Between now and 2050, around 460 million tonnes of carbon pollution will be reduced or stored instead of entering our atmosphere under the Carbon Farming Initiative. Putting a price on carbon is the most effective and cheapest way to cut pollution. This is recognised by economists around the world, the OECD and the Productivity Commission. Why does the opposition not get it? Currently, there is no charge for polluting the air despite the fact that it is harming our environment. Charging Australia's largest polluters creates a powerful incentive for all businesses to cut pollution by investing in clean technology or operating more efficiently.

The carbon price is not a tax on households. Around 500 of the biggest polluters in Australia will need to pay the charge, and every dollar raised will be used to support households, jobs and to reinvest in clean energy and climate change programs. There will be tax cuts and increases in pensions, allowance and benefits. You do not hear that from the opposition, do you?

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

Order! It being 1:45, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the honourable member for Reid will then have the opportunity of continuing his remarks.