Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We saw this morning the spectacle of a government and its Labor members applauding what they have done to diminish democracy in Australia and to damage the viability of small businesses right across our continent. Rather than be circumspect about having told the Australian electorate one thing only to act in a completely contradictory way, rather than be reflective on what that would mean for the millions of people employed in small business across Australia, they cheered themselves. They cheered themselves while they took the wind out of the optimism and opportunities that small business provides right across the Australian continent. And we heard today during question time that there is not one dollar of compensation for small business in these 19 carbon tax bills. We heard the Prime Minister try to justify that by saying: 'We're spraying around compensation and carve-outs everywhere else; small business will just have to get by. They'll have to suck it up or pass it on to their consumers.' This reflects the ongoing neglect and disinterest of this Labor government in the impact of their policies and actions on the engine room of the Australian economy.

You could be forgiven for thinking that this Gillard government tries to take a cylinder out of that engine room every time it gets to a cabinet position, every time a decision needs to be made, every time a choice about policy settings needs to be determined. And you do not have to take my word for it. All you have to do is travel to any business community around Australia, and the one thing that small businesses and family enterprises know is this government is not on their side. They know this, and you get an example of why that is the case just from the discussion that we had earlier here just after question time.

You heard the Leader of the House boasting that 20 per cent of all the legislation passed by the Howard government was transacted before lunchtime today by this Gillard government. What an odd boast to make. At a time when red tape and regulation is gumming up enterprise and opportunity in the small business community, you have this out-of-touch government and Leader of the House, who probably would not know a small business unless he fell over one, boasting about the regulatory impost of this government as if that is somehow a good thing.

He went on to quote Churchill as if that were some guiding light in his thinking. I will give the government and Leader of the House another quote from Churchill. It was Churchill who said 'that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.' That is what we are facing. That is what this government is doing. It comes in here and says these carbon tax bills will be good for prosperity in Australia. It will be good for job generation. If that is the case, why don't you amp it up even more? If it is such a positive influence on all of those things, why not double the carbon tax from its $23 starting point? Why not go berserk and triple it? If it is such a tonic for prosperity and job opportunities as this government seeks to claim, why not amp it up even more? They will not do that, because they know a couple of things. No-one will buy it, because the Australian public has been stooged already and are bitter and will not forgive this government for that deception. But they also have no case to make about a positive economic impact, particularly for the small business and family enterprise community.

We see this time and time again. It was reinforced again yesterday by independent research conducted on behalf of ACCI by the respected Castalia Strategic Advisors. They have done what the government refuses to do: actually analyse the impact of its carbon tax on small businesses and family enterprises in the real economy, in different sectors where small enterprises predominate. They have done the work the government refused to do, because the government has not done any in-depth analysis and has released no research on the impact of its carbon tax on business viability, on the cost structures that they need to contend with, on employment and economic prospects for the future or, importantly, on the competitiveness impact of this carbon tax on our small businesses that are facing a globalised economy. But Castalia have done that on behalf of ACCI. This is another condemnation of this government.

Remember how just prior to the announcement there was that ring-around between all the Labor backbenchers to tell them what Bob Brown and Prime Minister had agreed upon, and the backbenchers, who had gone to the election promising there would not be a carbon tax were being told what kind of carbon tax was now going to be foisted on this nation? Remember that occasion? Shortly after that, every Labor backbencher was given cameos—little breakdowns of the actual impact of the carbon tax on particular households—so they could go out and talk to people about how this impost and the harm and hardship that everyone else could see would somehow be washed over by these lolly words from the government on the basis of compensation and carve-out. You saw a government conduct research on individual households' impacts to advantage its own political interests. But did the government bother to do any analytical work on the impact of its carbon tax on small business and family enterprises right throughout the electorate? Of course not. They would not do that work, because they know that to carry out that work would bell the cat on all the misrepresentations about the impact of the carbon tax that have been so much a part of the Gillard government's advocacy of this carbon tax.

But Castalia have done it. They have done this work on behalf of ACCI. You know what ACCI was urging all members in the parliament yesterday? They said, 'Armed with this research, all parliamentarians should think again before burdening small business with the carbon tax'. They went on to talk about the impact of a 10 to 20 per cent reduction in profitability for energy-intensive SMEs over the first three years and had an enormous caution on the impact after that time. They made the point that the government makes much of the supposed certainty that its carbon tax will introduce, but then the government does not talk about how the price actually floats around after three years. Castalia have made that analysis. They have said:

Any rational investor in the SME sector considering business expansion will immediately factor in the expected prices under the flexible price trading. Very few investments have guaranteed pay-back times of less than 3 years …

because it is only with three years that there could be any suggestion of certainty—only three years over which time a small business could factor in the impact and the harm and hardship of this carbon tax in making a decision about whether or not to expand. They have gone on to say that beyond those three years there is no certainty whatsoever, that there is no capacity to organise your assessments of the impact of this carbon price and therefore you will be in no position to make any investment decision that stretches beyond five years. They then talk about this carbon tax, the world's biggest carbon tax, that will raise $9.3 billion in its first year. The government says, 'Well, it's just like Europe.' The European carbon tax raises $500 million a year. We have a carbon tax that is 18 times the size of the European system spread across 1/22nd of the population. So similar are they that each European pays a buck. We are at $400 a head in Australia, and this is supposed to be just like what is going on in Europe.

The assessment went on to point out that there are some other fundamental differences. It says that these countries—these are competitors with Australian SMEs—are where 80 per cent of our imports come from and that these are countries that do not have any direct price signal on carbon. They are the ones our small businesses are competing with. They make the point that in those countries—this is the 20 per cent of countries that we trade with—that might have something that looks like a policy on carbon 'those costs tend to be distributed across all sectors of their economy through government sponsored direct action initiatives, rather than concentrated on the SME sector as will be the case in Australia'.

They are making the powerful point that, no matter what this government and its ministers say, small and medium enterprises will be the ones paying for this carbon tax. They will be the ones that look through these 19 bills and know there is not a dollar in it for them in direct compensation. They will be the ones that will be burdened with cascading cost impacts wherever energy is used or any input that happens to have an energy component that will build at each stage of the production process, at every step in the service system in those longer supply chains that are very much a part of small business. They know at every stage along the way there will be a carbon tax clip on every transaction, compounding through to the end point where they then have to face their customers and say: 'Look, all these costs have gone through the roof. This carbon tax is hitting us at every stage of the way we organise our work and provide our goods and services. I'm afraid you're supposed to pay for that because you've been compensated on the basis of a 0.7 per cent increase in the CPI.' Time and time again, sector after sector is proving that that analysis is fiction, because it fails to take into account the compounding impact all the way through.

There was the absurdity of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency standing up at the Press Club citing COSBOA evidence, as if it proved its point, misrepresenting the fact that COSBOA have gone back to this government time and time again asking, 'Will you do the analysis of the impact of the carbon tax on our membership?' They even sent material to Minister Combet saying 'Here are all the broad-brush costs that we face; can you please do the analysis?' Rather than do the analysis, do you know what the minister did? They took that input and said, 'Well, there's the answer.' COSBOA said, 'This is the input for you to do the calculation.' He stood up at the Press Club and said, 'There's the answer: no big impact, because you've told us so,' completely missing the point that the government had not done this analysis to work out the harm and the hardship of the carbon tax on small business.

It gets worse. The minister stood up and said that small business was overstating its concerns. This is the form of this Gillard government and its ministers: you have a spray at anybody who disagrees with you; you deride them because you do not happen to fall in line with the chorus of government nonsense. They had a go at small businesses raising legitimate concerns about the impact of the carbon tax on their costs, on their competitiveness, on their viability and on their opportunity to employ Australians. Do you know what the answer was from Minister Combet? I quote: 'A drycleaner is not competing against drycleaners in China.' He also said that drivers cannot get their cars serviced in India. What a nonsense. Does he not know the whole point of his carbon tax is to send a price signal—which is a nicer word than a cost increase—to reduce demand? The whole point of the government's plan is to make people want to buy less of the stuff, and they are already doing this. They are postponing their visits to the drycleaners. Talk to any mechanic around Australia and they will tell you that people are not getting their routine servicing done on their vehicles. They are putting that off, knowing that they have got to be able to balance their household budgets at a time of rocketing cost-of-living increases, yet there is more to come with a carbon tax that they are being told is only going to cost them beer money.

That kind of offence really upsets the small business community. It really says to them that this Gillard Labor government does not care, is not interested in their concerns and does not even value their contribution to the Australian economy. On top of that, they do not actually know what the impact is because the government has failed to get off its backside to do the work that any responsible and thoughtful government would actually do.

But it gets worse. This all compounds at a time when Australian consumers and businesses see confidence plummeting. Households know that the government cannot be trusted on this, because it has form. It has form on the basis of the statement, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Here is one delivered by the Prime Minister in strict contradiction of the assurances she gave. What else can you believe? Can you believe these modest price imposts when the reality is staring you in the face and when all the analysis of people who know their businesses and their cost structures is that the carbon tax will compound. Do you believe them or do you believe the government?

Most people who listen to the government think, 'You can't really believe them on some of this stuff, because they have got form.' When people come out and point to actual facts, they are derided by this government. This is eroding business confidence at this time, making difficult trading conditions even worse. We have seen profitability fall because of a lack of confidence in the Gillard government. We have seen, at a time of sustained mismanagement by Labor, business confidence continuing to erode to points we have not seen other than during the GFC. Time and time again, people are saying it is because of things like the carbon tax. Eighty per cent of Australian small businesses took the Prime Minister at her word and have not factored a carbon tax into their business plans. They are now having to recover, to reshape, to recalibrate their work at a time when the government is completely disinterested in their contribution to the economy. There is also the impact of the carbon tax on their work.

But it gets worse. Look at modelling such as that which Deloitte did for the Victorian government. I will not go through the figures, but I am already hearing government ministers having a crack at Deloitte because they are not on the hymn book of Labor's nonsense about the carbon tax. Deloitte have done an analysis that is different from the Commonwealth government's. Labor's modelling assumes there is no impact on employment. The whole thing is based on the premise that 'the parameters used in the Commonwealth Treasury modelling assumes zero employment impacts with all labour adjustments occurring through wages'. That is code that Labor believe that if you are out of a job they will just drive down their wages and you will get another one. But we know that will not work. We know that the mobility that is needed is not available. We know that people cannot seamlessly be put out of work because of a poorly conceived, flawed and dishonest carbon tax and then pick up a job tomorrow. These are the facts, government ministers. These are the facts, government members. As you travel around your electorates and people see that you have benefited from an assurance about the carbon tax that proved not to be credible they will look at you and say: 'You stooged us once, sunshine. We're not going to let you do that again!' (Time expired)

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who said it was the coalition parties that first introduced the concept of an emissions trading scheme? And he speaketh the truth. Of course, it was the member for Dunkley, the speaker who has just finished his contribution. He proudly linked the coalition to an emissions trading scheme. That was when the coalition believed in markets. But now they believe in central planning—a so-called direct action plan that would impose a tax on households that was originally estimated at $720 per household. But in one of the Leader of the Opposition's more Hansonist moments, he said there would be no international linking of the direct action plan—those dirty rascally foreigners! And that, of course, increased the impost per household from $720 to $1,300. We heard nothing about that impost during that contribution. Of course, many small businesses are householders; many people, in fact, run their small businesses from households. But we heard not one word of sympathy for small businesses from the member for Dunkley. They would have been whacked by a $1,300 impost per small business household. There are so many of them—around 2.4 million households—and we hear no sympathy whatsoever.

Who said it was actually the coalition that instigated work on the emissions trading scheme? In fact, I have in my hand a report I helped author back in 1988 which talks about the regulatory arrangements for trading in greenhouse gas emissions. So proudly said the member for Dunkley. But, of course, under the instructions of the Leader of the Opposition we are back to central planning. This is an opposition leader who said of Bob Santamaria: 'I worship the very water he walks on.' That is where we are at: the coalition supports direct action, central planning; and Labor supports markets and an emissions trading scheme.

The whole contribution from the member for Dunkley was based on the false premise that there is nothing in these bills that has any benefit for small business whatsoever. But this is completely untrue. The Clean Technology Innovation Program will help small businesses move to a clean energy future. It will provide competitive grants of between $50,000 and $5 million on a dollar-for-dollar co-investment basis to support innovative activity such as research and development and commercialisation of clean technology products, processes and services.

But it does not end there. Labor actually believes in providing tax relief to small businesses, and this is what we did during the global financial crisis, against the resistance of the coalition. When we were seeking to save this economy from recession, they did not like the idea of providing tax relief to small business. They said small businesses would not take advantage of it. Of course, they did in droves. It was one of the most welcome and popular measures that this government implemented to save this economy from recession and to keep the doors of small businesses open. And we are doing it again. Under these arrangements, from 1 July next year small businesses will be able to write off instantly the value of any new assets each worth up to $6,500.

But I heard not a word from the member for Dunkley about this great initiative. The reason he failed to mention it is because the coalition would rescind it. The coalition has committed to reversing the instant write-off of small business assets valued at up to $6,500 each. I will explain why and how they propose to go about rescinding that very small business tax relief, which would be worth more than $1 billion to small businesses in 2013-14 alone. So here we have the coalition saying there is not a zack in it for small business, but in fact there is $1 billion in 2013-14 alone. Indeed, in the budget that has recently been passed, we announced that small businesses will also be able to write off instantly the first $5,000 of a motor vehicle from 1 July next year.

So when you look around the political landscape for a party that is interested in providing tax relief for small business it is not the coalition, it is the Australian Labor Party. We have done it time and time again, against the opposition of the coalition. This was a very important reform that passed the House of Representatives today. You will see that, in the sweep of history, it is only Labor governments that have implemented the fundamentally important economic reforms for this country. It was a Labor government that created an open, competitive economy through the reforms of the Hawke-Keating period which the coalition government never got around to doing. We had high tariff walls. Treasury officials got up every morning—they got their Weeties and their tomato juice or orange juice, depending on their taste—and set the exchange rate. They used to set the exchange rate every morning!

So who believes in markets? Labor actually moved to a market based mechanism called a floating dollar, which the coalition was about to do; they were 'gunna' do it. And then, of course, there was the other great reform, superannuation. I was sitting here in the advisers box when the government sought to introduce superannuation for working Australians. And what did the coalition do? They opposed it root and branch. They said: 'No, no, no, no and no. This will tear the heart out of small business, this will rip the guts out of Australia, and we'll rescind it.' Of course, they never did get around to rescinding it.

But there is a promise from the coalition to rescind the increase in superannuation for working people from nine per cent to 12 per cent. I will explain the mechanism in a moment because it is related to another important reform, the mining tax. Today we have seen another major economic reform which the coalition was 'gunna' do. Prime Minister John Howard thought: 'I could have been the champion of the world. I could have introduced an ETS. I got all this work done by Professor Shergold. We were just about to do it and then—damn—the election came along and we didn't get around to doing it.' What a pity. And now we have the shadow minister for small business saying: 'I was responsible for developing an emissions trading scheme in 1998. I had the document, I helped, I was there. We were gunna do it.' But they never got around to doing it. Once again it is the Labor government that is doing the reforms that are necessary to lock in Australia's economic future in this region—the Asian region—in the Asian century. Why is that important? It is important because all Australians—working Australians, small businesses, hard-working people—are getting the benefits flowing through from Australia's economic engagement with Asia. We are making sure, by putting a price on carbon, that we are not left behind—not left at the end of the queue—such that in five or 10 years time everyone else has moved in this direction but Australia is still saying, 'We're gunna do it.' We have gone ahead. We are doing it because it is an important reform for working people in this country. It is an important reform for the Australian community, for working people and for small businesses.

I said that I would come to the mining tax. This is directly relevant to the fortunes of small business. The Leader of the Opposition has said, in relation to the mining tax and the carbon price, that he will rescind both. What does that mean for small business? The mining tax is being used to spread the benefits of the mining boom to small businesses to fund the very $5,000 instant write-off, which has now been increased to a $6,500 instant write-off. What has the Leader of the Opposition said about the mining tax? He said, 'We'll rescind it because mining companies are already paying too much tax.'

That is the position of the coalition: that mining companies are paying too much tax and the small businesses are paying too little. The coalition has pledged to rescind both the mining tax and the carbon price. That would clearly be to the detriment of Australia's small businesses. Can you believe the Leader of the Opposition? He is a Rhodes scholar. He has an economics degree from Sydney University. So do I. I am ashamed that I am, with Mr Abbott, a graduate of economics at the University of Sydney, because the Leader of the Opposition—I am going to let you in on a little secret—has said:

See, one of the things that people haven’t quite twigged to is that carbon dioxide is invisible, it’s weightless and it’s odourless ….

It is weightless! The science is in: according to the opposition leader carbon dioxide is weightless and they are going to reduce its incidence in the atmosphere by 140 million tonnes! That is 140 million tonnes of weightless gas—go figure!

This guy has an economics degree at Sydney University and he is a Rhodes scholar and the coalition say that under their direct action central-planning scheme they will reduce the incidence of a weightless gas by 140 million tonnes. Even Senator Barnaby Joyce has said, 'I can't stand the stupidity any longer.' He put out a press release yesterday describing carbon dioxide as a 'colourless, odourless gas'. He has removed 'weightless'. Barnaby is on to it. Barnaby has worked out that a tonne of carbon dioxide weighs a tonne. Barnaby has broken ranks. There is already a rift in the coalition because Senator Barnaby Joyce has worked out that a tonne of carbon dioxide weighs one tonne. So, no longer is the National Party going to continue and persist with the pretence that a tonne of carbon dioxide weighs nothing.

We have come to this point—a vitally important point for the future of this country. The opposition leader has said: 'This time I'm telling the gospel truth. I will rescind the whole carbon pricing mechanism.' Who believes him? Who would believe the Leader of the Opposition when he says he is going to rescind this? If he were to rescind this it would mean increased taxes for the Australian people. He would reduce the age pension and all pension entitlements. What would he be saying to the Australian people? He would be saying, 'Trust me. The reason I'm doing this is because when I take the carbon price out electricity prices will fall.' That is his proposition. Who in the Australian community would believe an opposition leader who says, 'Trust me. I'm going to take the carbon price out. Yes, I'm going to cut the age pension; I'm going to increase your taxes; I'm going to take the tax free threshold from $18,000 back to $6,000, but you'll all be better off because the price of electricity will fall, under me.' That is what he is saying; that is his proposition.

The Australian people know that the Leader of the Opposition will never remove the carbon price. He has already foreshadowed that. In an opinion piece he wrote this:

Opposition, by contrast, tends to be a permanent debating society because even the most final decisions can sometimes be revisited in office.

You betcha! If the Leader of the Opposition were ever to become Prime Minister he would say, 'Look, I did tell the Australian people in this opinion piece that even the most final decisions can sometimes be revisited in office.' He would be saying that he would not rescind the carbon price. He would not do that.

There was an example, in recent political history, that did not work. That was the GST roll-back. I am being quite frank about this. The commitment that Labor made, in the lead-up to the 2001 election, to reduce the GST—or remove it from some items—was never believed by the Australian people. We lost that election and I remember the then Treasurer—the then member for Higgins—saying that Labor is committed to 'rrroll back' the GST. I tell you that roll-back did not work for Labor in opposition and it will not work for the coalition, because the public will just not believe it.

What the opposition is now saying is that it will not only roll back the carbon price; it will rescind the mining tax. That means that small businesses will be belted. It means that small businesses will pay higher taxes. Why should we be surprised? The highest taxing government in Australia's history is the coalition government. Year after year they had the gold medal hanging around their necks because they kept increasing taxes as a share of the economy. Taxes are now much lower as a share of the economy under the Labor government. That was typical of the reform commitment of the Hawke and Keating governments, when we reduced taxes on small businesses and made sure that small businesses could be competitive in an open, competitive economy.

Now you have their rank hypocrisy. The fact is that the coalition would not roll back the carbon price, because they have no interest in small business. Their only interest is in the opposition leader making the sneaky, easy transition to the Lodge. It will not happen. It will not happen, because today Labor has put in place a vitally important economic reform that will help lock in jobs for working Australians and profitability for small business, because—this is the truth—only Labor governments have the guts, the vision and the commitment to undertake economic reform in this country.

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

I have great pleasure in joining in this discussion on the matter of great public importance—that is, the impact of the carbon tax on small business. I thought I would restate what the matter of public importance was just for the interest of those opposite, because the previous speaker hardly mentioned small business in his address. Really, I am not surprised at all by his reluctance to mention it, because we have the Prime Minister, who the gentleman opposite supports, and just after the Prime Minister's treacherous disposal of the member for Griffith she fronted the Australian public and said, 'There will be some days that I delight you and some days that I may disappoint you.'

I actually have a tremendous view of the backbench from where I sit and I do not see a lot of smiling faces. I have to report that I do not see a lot of love for the Prime Minister. In fact, all I see every day is disappointment. There are some days—and this might alarm the frontbench—when the noddies forget how to nod. They sit there very stony faced. They get out of sync. They think, 'Should I have the concerned look now or should I have the knowing smile or will I use the discerning raise of the eyebrow or should I just give the enthusiastic nod?'

For the Prime Minister, today was clearly a day of absolute delight. Earlier today we had members opposite clapping, cheering and backslapping each other as the carbon tax legislation was passed, but I can assure the House that no-one in small business throughout Australia was joining in the orgy of self-congratulation we saw among those opposite today. The excitement was everywhere. I almost expected the member for Charlton to lead a conga line around the House, with the Independents and the Greens hanging off the end, a bit like dags at the end of a sheep.

Spare a thought for the poor member for Griffith. He was at the very back of the chamber and he did not know what to do. Should he head for the nearest exit or should he come down and join in the festivities? To his credit, the member for Griffith came down, summoned up his courage and puckered up for a prime ministerial kiss.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a nanna kiss.

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

You say it was a nanna kiss, but I do not want to sound too judgmental. It was not much of a kiss. It looked a bit contrived. It looked like the member for Griffith was acting. I am not sure. It looked like he was playing the dutiful senior minister role or something else was going on in his mind. It was as if he had something else to do. It made me think about some of the great Hollywood romances—the great kissing moments. I researched a website which I think the member for Griffith would be happy to hear about. It is titled The Best and Most Memorable Film Kisses of All Time in Cinematic History. The question would be: how—

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was admonished for not mentioning small business. I suggest that, given the subject of the MPI is small business, maybe just in passing the member might—

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

The minister will resume his seat. He was not admonished by the chair. The member for Gippsland is aware, as we all are, that this is a wide-ranging debate, but he will, to some extent, focus on the topic of the matter of public importance.

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

I do not expect the minister to kiss and tell.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't be kissing you!

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

That is at last a point that the minister and I can agree on. How would we describe the member for Griffith coming down to congratulate his colleagues? He was shaking hands in the spirit of the occasion, but suddenly the Prime Minister was cast before him and he did not know whether to run and hide or give the howdy-salute he tried with presidents around the world. For a would-be comeback Prime Minister in these situations it is hard to know which act will get his run on the evening news. So he puckered up and planted a peck on the prime ministerial cheek—

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

Order! The member for Gippsland will resume his seat. There are two people seeking to take a point of order, but I will call the Minister for Trade.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can hardly wait for the member to do the hokey-pokey and the Time Warpdance. Let's get slightly relevant.

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

I would ask the member for Gippsland to return to the substance of the MPI.

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

This kiss is memorable. It is memorable because it is the kiss of death to many small businesses throughout Australia.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just point out that you gave an instruction to the member which he completely ignored.

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

I am aware of that. The member for Gippsland will return to the subject of this matter of public importance debate. It does not seem to be much about kissing.

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

I will get back to it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I made is that that kiss is memorable because it is going to be the kiss of death to small businesses throughout regional Australia. We now know that the member for Griffith will be no different to the member for Lalor when he is reinstalled in the Lodge. When he returns as Prime Minister, the member for Griffith will treat small business in exactly the same manner.

It is often said that in politics timing is everything, but it is never the right time for a bad tax. Now is the time when we have volatile world markets and there is great economic uncertainty. This is not the time for a new tax and those opposite know it. They know it because they are getting that feedback from their electorates on a daily basis. They just have not had the courage to come into this place and stand up for their communities. It is certainly not the right time to introduce a tax that our international competitors will not be paying, when the Australian small business sector is doing it hard.

If there is a first rule in Australian politics, surely it should be to do no harm. When it comes to the small-business sector right now, confidence is down and certainly the retail sector in regional communities is down—and I presume it is the same in metropolitan areas, but I tend to spend more time in regional communities—and confidence is taking a battering. And the worst thing a government could be doing right now is introducing a new tax which will diminish community confidence further and force people to keep their hands in their pockets and not spend, particularly when their international competitors will not face the same impost.

That is the crucial point. We are making Australian businesses less competitive compared to their international counterparts. This tax will erode small business confidence. It will encourage businesses which have the option to relocate offshore to do just that, to take jobs offshore, and it will also make it more difficult for small businesses right across our nation.

One area of small business which has often been missed in this debate is the agricultural sector. The government has continued to make claims that the agricultural sector is out of the carbon tax. The feedback from constituents of mine involved in the dairy sector dispute that. The President of the United Dairy Farmers Victoria, Chris Griffin, put out a statement earlier this year highlighting their concerns that the introduction of a carbon price of just $20 would cost the dairy industry over $45 million per annum. This would work out to a $5,000 charge for every Australian dairy farmer per year. Mr Griffin stated:

These additional costs will disproportionately affect the ability of Victorian dairy producers to compete in international markets. Our competitors will not have to deal with the burden of a price on carbon, making it impossible to pass on the added cost of the tax to consumers.

Dairy farmers hit with a $5,000 increase in their cost of production will survive. But what it will mean is they will have to reduce their expenditure in their local communities. The small country towns that rely on a profitable dairy sector will suffer as a direct result of that, and the people who will suffer most are the small businesses, like the local sports shop. Instead of mum and dad going in and buying the brand product from the local sport shop, they will go to a large warehouse or department store and buy the cheaper variety. That is what happens in small country towns when you undermine the profitability of the dairy sector—the small business community suffers as a result.

That highlights the greatest Labor Party myth about this carbon tax—that the so-called 500 biggest polluters are the only ones who will pay the carbon tax. Regional Australians are smarter than that, and small business owners in particular understand that that is a myth. They realise that they are at the absolute pointy end of this debate. They know that this tax will cascade through the Australian economy like a toxic waterfall. This tax will cascade through the economy and add costs to everyday Australian families. It will hurt small businesses, it will make Australian exporters less competitive and it will cost jobs.

If it was so good, why didn't the Prime Minister go the Australian people before the election and say, 'I will introduce a carbon tax'? If it was so good, why wasn't she honest with the Australian people in the first place? This really comes down to a matter of trust. The Australian people simply do not trust a government when it has a Prime Minister who cannot even arrange for the installation of home insulation batts without tragically killing four young men. This is a complex reform of the Australian economy and the Australian people simply do not trust this government to be able to deliver it.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw the implication on the Prime Minister that she was responsible for the death of four people.

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

I am not aware from my listening to what the honourable member said that he made that imputation.

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

What a weak contribution that was from the member for Gippsland. Of all of the contributions we have seen made over the last couple of weeks in this debate, very few would be able to compete with that contribution when it comes to how puerile it was. I do not wish to waste any more of my time other than to make that observation in relation to those remarks, but frankly I think the country deserves a much higher standard of debate than what we have just been treated to from the member for Gippsland.

We heard from the member for Dunkley a little bit earlier in this debate, and the member for Dunkley, as the Minister for Trade alluded to, is someone who has an interesting track record when it comes to the question of pricing carbon. Apart from being someone who just happens to support the pricing of carbon—or has done so in the past; he has perhaps changed his position now that it does not suit his short-term political interests—not only has the member for Dunkley sought to espouse support for the pricing of carbon but also he has sought to claim credit for being amongst the first to subscribe to that view. In fact, less than two years ago, the Hansard shows the member for Dunkley saying:

It was actually the coalition that instigated work on the emissions trading scheme. … in … a report that I helped author back in 1998 which talks about regulatory arrangements for trading in greenhouse gas emissions—1998!

…      …   …

The coalition’s commitment to an ETS is demonstrable.

Less than two years ago, the member for Dunkley, in this very place, said 'The coalition’s commitment to an ETS is demonstrable.' Today, they have failed to demonstrate that support.

It is not just the member for Dunkley who has in the past expressed his support for pricing carbon. We know that those opposite even went to an election back in 2007 with the then Prime Minister, John Howard, making it absolutely clear that he supported pricing carbon—although, as the Minister for Trade has indicated, he did not quite get around to doing it while he was in office. He made the point, on 3AW, on 27 May 2007 that 'you can't reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless you have a price on carbon'.

What we have from the opposition is one of the most fraudulent policy positions that I have seen in the time I have been following public policy in this country. On the one hand they purport to subscribe to the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020, yet they do not have a plan or a policy that can feasibly do that. They say that they are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet in recent times we have them holding on to this failed view of direct action as being able to get them there. We all know, on direct action, that even Prime Minister Howard, as he then was, said, 'You can't reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a meaningful way without pricing carbon.' Even under their earlier position, where they were prepared to go ahead with direct action but leave open the option of trading permits internationally, they at least would have been able to deliver their program, at considerable cost, at about $700 per family, per household, per year. Now, as a result of their failure to embrace the notion of being able to trade in credits internationally when it comes to carbon emission reductions, they are prepared to increase the cost to the Australian household by more than twice. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported on a group called the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network. This group is not some sort of Labor think tank or some sort of group of apologists for the Labor Party. This is a group which represents mining and manufacturing industries. This group is reported as saying that it agreed with the Treasury modelling showing that Mr Abbott's plan to achieve the five per cent emission reductions domestically would at least double the cost.

The thing to remember is that under the Abbott plan, at more than twice the cost, there is no household assistance. The member for Dunkley has said, 'That does not help small business because the household assistance only goes to households.' The idea is to provide assistance to households as modest increases in prices are passed on to consumers by businesses—such as small businesses. And they are modest price increases. Treasury modelling indicates that, across the board, those increases would be around 0.7 per cent. That 0.7 per cent compares with the 2.5 per cent increase in the cost of living that was experienced when the GST was introduced.

For all of the concern that we now hear from those opposite about the impact of carbon pricing on small business, I must say that there was not a lot of concern shown for the impact on small business of their policies when they introduced the GST. Let us not forget that the introduction of the GST, unlike the pricing of carbon, required every single small business in the country to become a tax collector for government—to put in paperwork every month or every quarter through the BAS. They became de facto tax collectors for the government. I do not recall there being significant household assistance or industry assistance to small business throughout that period. In fact, all I recall was the old MYOB allowance, which did not even pay for the cost of installing MYOB software. So when it comes to loading up small business with all this extra cost and extra regulatory compliance, those opposite have form. But when it comes to delivering real measures—

Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting—

I hear the member for Groom interjecting. I always welcome an interjection from the member for Groom, particularly when it comes to this topic, because he of course was that very brave soul on the other side who said back on 29 September 2009:

…. we did take that policy to the last election and it was clearly enunciated as an emissions trading scheme that would be introduced perhaps in 2011 but most likely 2012.

The member for Groom better get a wriggle on because, apart from supporting the implementation of an emissions trading scheme in this country, he, along with his colleagues, is standing in the way of the attainment of that aim.

I make the point that, when it comes to small business, this government has delivered many important and significant initiatives for small business, most of which have been blocked by those on the other side. The Minister for Trade spoke about the mining tax and how those on the other side must be the only people in this country, except for a handful of the biggest miners, who are still opposed to the introduction of a mining tax. We had a tax forum last week and, even though it was not on the agenda, I can tell you that there was not a person in the place who said that we should not introduce a mining tax.

The patchwork economy and the multispeed nature of what is occurring throughout the our economy mean that, if you are serious about delivering assistance to small business, you will get on board and support our cut to the company tax rate—cutting the company tax rate by one per cent down to 29 per cent. Those on the other side say, 'Not all small businesses are incorporated, so they don't get the benefit of it.' What about the $6½ thousand instant asset write-off? Member for Brisbane, you want to sit there and deny the small businesses in your electorate and in all electorates across this country the opportunity to write off assets up to a value of $6½ thousand instantly. You should put that in your next newsletter so that all of the small businesses in your electorate know how anti small business you are.

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

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer will direct his remarks through the chair.

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

This is part of the pattern of what occurs on the big policy debates in this country. This is a big reform—a reform that will drive investment in clean energy technology. People will look back one day in the future and they will say, 'We appreciate the fact that the Gillard government took these steps to set our country on the path towards a clean energy future,' in the same way as we look back and we talk about how great the benefits of Medicare are—even though back in 1987 John Howard said:

… the Government should have taken a knife to the expensive, failed Medicare system. Medicare has added between $3 billion and $4 billion to the Federal Budget. Medicare is one of the great failures of the Hawke Government.

We will look back on the decision to price carbon in the same way as we look back on the Hawke and Keating decisions in relation to superannuation. But we recall that in 1995 the now Leader of the Opposition said:

Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.

Those opposite will always say no, no, no. They will never say yes when it comes to taking the hard decisions to implement the big reforms—but they are the reforms that make the big difference to Australians all around this country. (Time expired)

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

Today is a very, very sad day for Australia, Australian business, thousands of households and the Australian economy. This is the day when legislation for a carbon tax was passed, and it will live on in infamy for Australian households and the economy. Australians took this Prime Minister at her word five days before the last election when she said: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead.' And today the House sees the consequence of that fundamental breach of trust. Not only did ordinary mums and dads go out and vote believing her but also hundreds of thousands of small businesses all over Australia took her at her word.

Every day businesses make decisions about the future of their companies and, in order for them to do that effectively, they require consistent and effective public policy from the government of the day. With a Labor government that has a track record of announcing new taxes without proper consideration, they are not receiving this consistency. Almost 80 per cent of small businesses took Labor at its word and did not factor a carbon tax into either their business plans or their business operations. These businesses are already suffering from a global financial crisis, and they have also been burdened by the effects of a huge slump in consumer spending. I am told whenever I go around my electorate that there is a huge lack of consumer confidence out there which is affecting small business and plaguing the Australian economy.

But what has this government done while businesses are hurting? It has introduced a carbon tax. Since Labor was elected in 2007, Australia has lost 300,000 jobs in the small business sector and small business profitability is at an 18-year low. This legislation will only inflict further pain and suffering on many hundreds and thousands of households and the many small businesses in this country.

I have to mention the member for Lindsay's contribution. He said I knew nothing about small business, but I need to correct him on that. I have been involved in small business for 40 years—in very small companies from grocery stores to supermarkets to retail enterprises—so he does not know what he is talking about. What he and the government are doing at the moment is hurting every business in Australia. Until about a year ago I managed a small family retail business. In that one year I saw our electricity prices almost double from $4,800 to $8,000. Every business in Australia will be looking at this carbon tax and those operating costs and wondering how they are going to survive.

Australians constantly hear from the Prime Minister that only the polluters—not individuals or small business—will pay for this tax, and in the same breath the Prime Minister mentions that some Australians will be compensated for the costs that they incur as a result of the tax. We know that the Prime Minister was being untruthful and she said that small businesses will not pay, and we have found out today that small businesses are not going to receive one dollar of compensation. That is extremely frightening.

The member for Lindsay said earlier that the tax is only going to impact on grocery prices by 0.7 per cent. That is not true; the tax will have a multiplier effect. Groceries will go up substantially more. I have just given you the example of a small business facing an electricity hike in the normal circumstances, but the effect of a carbon tax on electricity prices will be phenomenal.

Recently, a survey by the Institute of Public Accountants said that 70 per cent of accountants—these are the people who manage and advise small business—believed that small businesses would be negatively affected by the carbon tax. Of these accountants, 63 per cent also believed that small businesses would not be adequately compensated. They are not being compensated. In contrast to large firms, small businesses have limited market power to control the prices of their inputs. Small businesses will have higher energy costs and longer supply chains, but, in contrast to large firms, small businesses will not be able to pass on the costs to their customers and will instead have to absorb them. There is only one way to do that: cutting jobs, which is a further threat to the economy. Worry about the situation comes through in my visits to the many businesses in my electorate. This is part of my job, and I always enjoy visiting small businesses. As a former small business owner-operator, I like talking to small and medium sized business operators about their operations. Constantly they are saying to me, 'Why is this Prime Minister pushing this legislation now when she said to us most clearly that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led?'

Yesterday I received an email from Morgan's Seafood, which is not in my current electorate of Brisbane but in my former electorate of Petrie. During the 2010 election campaign the member for Petrie promised her electorate wholeheartedly that there would be no carbon tax under a Gillard government—and the electorate believed her, as many others did. Many of those voters should now be given the opportunity to be heard. They really do deserve a say in whether they support this tax. Seventy-two Labor MPs broke their promise to the electorate today. Morgan's wrote to me in that email:

I am writing to you to express my very deep concern for the future of my business and the jobs of the 140 members of my staff that I employ. The basis of my concerns is the soon to be introduced 'Carbon Tax' and its repercussions. I have recently been informed by my electricity broker of the projected 17% increase to my 'post tax' electricity bill (the calculation is based on the government provided formula). This increase on its own would threaten the profitability of my business, in what is an already very difficult economic retail environment. Combined with significant other recent cost increases, the 'Carbon Tax' would seriously endanger the continued operation of my company. In the current economic environment how can the imposition of these large scale cost increases be justified?

Recently I toured Essilor, a local optical lens manufacturer which has over 500 employees in Australia, 51 of whom are in Brisbane. Essilor have already cut employment as a result of the general business environment, and they have told me that they cannot see how they can continue to manufacture in Australia with a carbon tax in force. I visited the Brisbane markets, and many of the wholesalers there said that they would have to reduce staff as they would be unable to pass on the cost of the carbon tax. I receive many emails from small professional services businesses in Latrobe Terrace in Paddington, and they are all concerned about the impact of the tax on their electricity bills.

It is important to remind the House that, while a lot of attention is being paid at the moment to manufacturing and industry, there are also a lot of small offices and a lot of office employees—people such as real estate agents and health professionals—and that this tax will impact on them by increasing their operating costs. Importantly, this government has not considered the unseen consequences of this tax: many small businesses that would have been started will now not be started because of this tax. As a former small business owner-operator, I know firsthand that it is already very hard to work through the complexity of the regulatory and legal framework that Australian small business has to contend with. These people are putting their money on the line. They have to work very long and hard hours just to break even. This carbon tax has a huge implication for the future entrepreneurs of this country, making it even harder for new ideas to enter the small business world.

When the GST was introduced I was a member of the Howard government. We spent the entire election campaign selling the virtues of the GST. We were honest about it; we went to the people before the election. It was tough and I nearly lost my seat. But I went to the electorate with all the members on this side of the House who were members at the time ensuring that small business knew what the future direction was of our country. We held forums, we discussed this quite openly and we funded a number of industry groups.

This tax is a small-business destroying tax. I call on the Prime Minister to give the members opposite the chance to sell the carbon tax to their electorates. This tax should have been held off until an election. I do not support the carbon tax, as it will be a soul-destroying tax for the hundreds of thousands of small businesses across Australia. It will impede their operations, it will do nothing for their profitability, it will reduce their ability to employ people and we will see massive job losses. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do feel I am in a bit of a time warp. Be assured I am not going to do a jig in front of you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I think the red in the other place does interfere with people's brain cells at times—but we are in an amazing situation where we on this side of the House, the Labor government, are mandating and putting forward a market based mechanism and those on the other side are objecting to it. I really do feel like I have been sucked into some vortex where this is just weird and people have not really got their heads around it.

This is a market based mechanism, something that businesses across Australia are really good at dealing with. They are dealing with adapting to change and adapting to things that are not certain. Every day in business there is uncertainty. Interest rates go up and down. The biggest uncertainty for most businesses at the moment—small, large, but particularly trade exposed businesses—is the current cost of the Australian dollar. I do not hear any talking on the other side about the current price of the Australian dollar having an impact upon businesses, but our businesses have adapted to that and changed. Indeed, the other side of the House today voted down a bill that would help those businesses currently exposed to the cost impacts and fluctuations of the Australian dollar. They voted down the steel plan, a plan that we are putting in place at this moment, drawing forward money because we have realised that businesses—and these are very large businesses; I will get to small businesses in a moment—are being exposed to very big changes and uncertainties.

The joy for businesses today is certainty: they now know what is coming. They now know what is in the bills and they can plan for the future. The thing for small business is that they really do not have a worry because it will not impact them—unlike when the GST came along and every small business had to become a tax collector, had to understand a BAS form and when it had to go in and out, had to go out and find an accountant because the bookkeepers they were using were no longer eligible to provide the services to them. They had to go out and discover that, to get computer programs and do MYOB, and they are still doing that today. The greatest impost on time and management of small business is complying with the BAS statement for GST.

There will be no paperwork for small businesses under a carbon price. There will be no accounting requirements. They will not have to ascertain what their electricity prices are. They will have to do nothing. If they choose to go and seek compensation or be part of the packages that are out there, they will have to do things.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's Tony's team!

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, there's Tony's team! What has really astounded me today is that we are not hearing the voices from the people who are saying, 'Yes, I want action on climate change'—and there are hundreds of thousands of them across this country who are saying yes. I have received lots and lots of emails in the last day saying, 'Congratulations, well done, for standing firm in the face of this hysteria.' Thousands of people are saying: 'Yes, we want a clean future for our children. We want you to take action. We applaud you for taking action.' I have had recommendations from small businesses in my electorate saying, 'Thank you for doing this.'

I do not deny there are concerns; that would be stupid. But I say yes because it is our responsibility for future generations. I want a healthy future for me and for future generations. It is up to us to give future generations a liveable planet. The science is clear. We must act urgently to slow climate change. I am no climate change expert but I respect those who are. Climate change is a great but still avoidable threat to our and our children's health and survival.

This is the smartest way to secure our children's futures. Where are the voices saying, 'We need to act, and we need to act now'? If we do not act now we have gone past the tipping point, past the point where we can actually make an impact. How can you have businesses in an environment you cannot operate in? If the climate is so bad, those businesses will not be able to work. That is what is being missed from this debate: why we are actually doing it; why we are taking these steps not just now but into the future. When a constituent wrote to me the other day saying, 'It's all just about your super,' I said, 'Well, mate, if it was all about my super I would probably be voting against the thing, wouldn't I, because electorally it would probably be the soundest thing to do'—as we keep being reminded. However, it is the right thing to be doing. Occasionally you actually stand up for principle, for policy, for fact, not hysteria. It would be great if we could return to debate about that.

The Prime Minister recently addressed the Chifley Research Centre. It was a far-reaching, reflective speech, but in that speech she said:

For a long period of time our great movement—

the Labor movement—

believed that the highest aspiration of working people was for a decent job.

Now we understand it can be to run a decent small business.

We are a party who adapts and changes. We are a party who recognises that many of those who vote for us run their own small businesses. The majority of small businesses are one person. A lot of them will get compensation because they are in a household running their small business. You can go on and on about it but, as the Treasury modelling has quite clearly stated, the impacts on business are projected to be minimal. Indeed, the Treasury noted:

Pricing carbon will have much less of an impact on production patterns than we are currently experiencing from the mining boom, and much less than we'd expect from technological advancement and demographic change.

Many businesses will be able to pass their costs on to customers. We recognise that and that is why we are compensating households. While there will be an impact on some businesses who cannot pass on these costs, the impacts will be offset by the numerous measures to protect jobs, to fund research to create clean technologies and ensure Australia's long-term economic growth. Across Australia, the carbon price is expected to increase retail electricity prices by 10 per cent on average in 2012-13 or by $3.30 per week. The sky is going to fall in for everybody at $3.30 per week, which has been factored into the level of household assistance! We recognise there is going to be a cost impost; it is going to be borne by those small businesses. They will pass those costs on to consumers and the consumers will be compensated. The sky is obviously going to fall in and we have not thought about the impact on small business!

The opposition have not thought about the growth in small business that comes from the green clean technologies. In my seat, I have the largest CSIRO campus at Clayton. They are working with small businesses now to create the environment of the future, to create the products of the future. One thing they are working on is packaging pallets. Every time you move goods overseas on a pallet, that pallet must be then thrown away—it is not biodegradable. They are trying to create a biodegradable pallet. It is an amazing achievement. It is a small business that is based in South Australia and has come to Clayton CSIRO to create technology in conjunction with Monash University. There we go—they are waiting for this carbon tax package because they know they will be able to get assistance and support for something that will be a great boom for our planet. Isn't that great?

Interestingly enough, Capricornia Enterprise centre gave evidence to the inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation. The chair of the centre said that she had put out in her recent publication to the membership that clean small businesses will not have to directly pay a carbon price. She said:

They will not be required to undertake any compliance activity or fill out any forms due to the carbon price. When it comes to indirect impacts, most small businesses will not be materially affected. Nevertheless, many small businesses may wish to make a contribution towards the move to a clean energy future. The Government will support these businesses.

Yes, that was taken from our clean energy fact sheet, but that is also what a local business enterprise in Capricornia—a group that was brought along by the Liberal members of the committee—presented to us. The group said in evidence:

… businesses constantly tell me that they are drowning in red tape, their fees and charges are going up, with local government and state government taxes and ultimately this federal tax. The general viewpoint of businesses right across the board is that they are being forced to deal with consistent increases in red tape and they feel that increased charges are being constantly put upon them.

We recognise that. That is why there is not going to be any red tape on small business. Five hundred large businesses, all of them who know and report their emissions, will have to pay. Again, there is not going to be a huge compliance cost. We heard evidence that there will not be a downturn in jobs. There will be impacts in certain industries, but this will onflow to other businesses where jobs will be created. If we do not act now to clean up our environment and to cut the pollution from our atmosphere, no business will survive anyway.

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

Order! The discussion is now concluded.