Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Warringah from moving forthwith:

That this House censures the Prime Minister for misleading the parliament about her discredited carbon tax when she said in an answer earlier today that 'It is wrong to suggest that the Treasury modelling of the government’s clean energy future program depends on the United States putting a price on carbon' when her own same Treasury modelling says, on page 111 and elsewhere:

The modelling assumes comparable carbon pricing in other major economies from 2015-16, …

What we have seen over the last four weeks is the Prime Minister stalking world leaders for photo opportunities. That is what she has been doing—she has been stalking world leaders looking for photo opportunities, but she has to come back and answer to the Australian people and she has to come back to answer to the Australian parliament. That is what she signally has not done today.

No recent Prime Minister faced with a potential censure motion would scurry out of this parliament as this Prime Minister does day in, day out. But let there be absolutely no doubt: this Prime Minister today has misled the parliament. She has claimed that her carbon tax modelling is based on one thing when plainly it is based on something absolutely altogether different. In fact, what has happened is that last week President Obama blew up the Prime Minister's carbon tax by revealing to the Australian public and to the wider world that the international action on which the government's carbon tax is based simply is not going to take place.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

That is exactly right. President Obama said, and he might as well have stood up in this parliament and declared that 'There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead.' And you can believe President Obama in a way that you could not believe this Prime Minister before the election.

Not only did this Prime Minister, before the election, say one thing to win votes and then do the opposite after the election to hold her job she has compounded the pre-election falsehood with a series of flagrant falsehoods in this parliament today.

I asked a question earlier today about the fact that President Obama is not going to introduce a carbon tax, that the Canadians are not going to introduce a carbon tax and that the Russians and the Japanese are not going to introduce a carbon tax. In other words, no major economies are going to have a comparable carbon price to that in Australia. None! Not a single one. And what did the Prime Minister say in response? She said:

The assertions he—

the opposition leader—

has just made about the Treasury modelling are wholly wrong.

She went on to say:

It is simply wrong to suggest that the Treasury modelling of the government's Clean Energy Future program depends on the United States putting a price on carbon by 2016—

wholly wrong. Let me just read again what the modelling does say. In chapter 5, it says:

The modelling assumes comparable carbon pricing in other major economies from 2015-16.

Can this Prime Minister not read? She was the Minister for Education, but she seems incapable of understanding plain English words written on the paper of her own document.

Chapter 3 of the government's own Treasury modelling document—Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a Carbon Pricesays:

Global coordinated action emerges from 2016. …

An equilibrium global permit price emerges to clear the global permit market.

That is the condition on which the government's modelling rests. Chapter 3 also says:

By 2016, a more coordinated international policy regime allows countries to trade either bilaterally or through a common central market. As a result, a harmonised world carbon price emerges in 2016.

So, again and again, in the government's own modelling document, it is crystal clear that it does not work unless comparable major economies adopt a system like that which Australia is now proposing to adopt. And all the bluster, all the obfuscation and all the straight-out falsehood that we got from the Prime Minister today does not alter that fact.

The carbon tax modelling is a fraud. The carbon tax modelling is a con. The government's compensation package, based on the carbon tax modelling, is simply wrong, is simply a rip-off, and the Prime Minister should come into this House, own up to that fact and start telling the truth for the first time since before the last election. It really is a disgrace that this Prime Minister is not prepared to own up to the truth about her own modelling. It is a disgrace that this Prime Minister is perhaps the most brazen purveyor of falsehoods this parliament has ever seen. Let's face it: this is the Prime Minister who still insists that the member for Dobell has her full confidence; that is the quality of truthfulness we get from this Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that this Prime Minister is not prepared to admit in this parliament that her carbon tax modelling absolutely depends on action by other countries which is not going to occur.

What does that mean? That means that the whole foundation of her compensation package—the whole foundation of her claims that Australians will not be hurt by this carbon tax—is absolutely and categorically wrong. The Prime Minister is claiming, based on the assumption that other countries will have a carbon price, that the carbon price will be just $29 by 2020. And this absolutely critical, because they have to buy 100 million tonnes overseas to get their reductions.

Mr Combet interjecting—

We hear the minister at the table saying, 'We think it's funny'. This is the minister who could not answer simple questions about the falsehoods he told on 7.30 just a few weeks ago. This is the minister who claims that Australia's domestic emissions will fall by five per cent and yet it will only happen because we are buying, under his policy, 100 million tonnes of abatement overseas. That purchase will be vastly more expensive if there is no international carbon price, and that is why this fundamental mistake that the government has made is so critical for the future of the struggling families of this country and why this government has to come clean and own up to the fact that its carbon price compensation is simply a fraud.

If we redo the modelling with an accurate assumption, we get very different results. I am pleased to say that the Centre for International Economics have redone the modelling on the basis of correct assumptions. They have correctly assumed that international action would be patchy at best, and what they found is that the carbon tax will not be $29 a tonne by 2020; it will be $43 a tonne. They found that the hit to Australia's GDP by 2020 will not be $32 billion; it will be $180 billion. They found that the hit on household incomes will not be $5,000; it will be $11,000. They say that wages will not be more or less static; they say that wages will be two per cent down by 2020 as a result of a properly modelled carbon tax. The minister at the table is someone who once stood up for the workers of Australia. Now he is knowingly inflicting a two per cent pay cut on the workers of Australia and an $11,000 hit on household budgets. It is an absolute disgrace and what this shows is that the carbon tax is just a rip-off. (Time expired)

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

Is the motion seconded?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' and today, 'We never relied upon the United States having a carbon tax.' We have a pigeon pair of grand deceptions—one before the election and one on the floor of the parliament this day—which mean that the Prime Minister has misled the Parliament of Australia. Last week President Obama let the cat out of the bag and made it absolutely clear that the United States would not have a carbon tax now, would not have a carbon tax in 2016 and, dare I say it, it will be many, many, many, many years before they even consider it.

Of most importance is the simple fact that the government's modelling clearly, absolutely, unequivocally, without question, without debate assumes that the United States, Canada, Korea and Japan will all be part of a coordinated global carbon price by 2016. Let me read the damning evidence which makes this Prime Minister a grand deceiver today on the floor of the parliament. It says:

The modelling assumes comparable carbon pricing in other major economies from 2015-2016.

That is not a statement of equivocation. While the United States is a major economy, and so are Japan, Korea and Canada, these countries are not about to have a carbon price. These countries are not about to live up to the assumptions in the modelling. The Treasury modelling is express, clear, absolute and unequivocal because in chapter 3 it says:

Global coordinated action emerges from 2016.

The government has attempted to say that it is already there. We are just talking about Europe. This is about a transitional process. This is about a change which is in place from 2016. This is about something other than the European system, which is approximately 1/400th per head of the impact on every member of the European population, compared with the system imposed by this government. It is about a radically different global environment from that which is in place now.

The government know that their model is broken, that their assumptions are false and that the President has exposed them. But not just the President, the Canadian Foreign Minister came to this country and was asked whether or not Canada would ever have a carbon tax. The answer was not equivocal or doubtful; the answer was 'no'. Canada will not be having a carbon tax—not now, not anytime soon, not anytime in the medium term, never—according to the Canadian Foreign Minister. That is about as unequivocal as it gets. As the Leader of the Opposition said—this matters because the entire government modelling is based on a fiction, a fantasy, a falsehood. This modelling is therefore broken.

As the Centre for International Economics said in a note which was circulated to explain their modelling:

The new modelling analysis is the first to assess the cost impact of the carbon pricing scheme if global action on climate change is patchy and fragmented.

It goes on:

This is a much more likely scenario than Treasury’s rose-coloured assumption of universal and synchronised action with unlimited cross border trading.

We do not blame Treasury; we blame these guys for forcing a false assumption on the modellers. There is no question that this assumption was forced on people. That is why the government were so uncomfortable during the estimates process. That is why they ducked and weaved. They knew that it was unsustainable and, as President Obama let out last week, the government's best case scenario—and I want everybody to hear this—is that somehow the US meets its targets without a carbon tax. The mightiest economy in the world, according to the government, is able to meet its targets without a carbon tax. How do they do it? Direct action, practical action, real action. Yet, these guys are in deep trouble because there will be no carbon tax in the United States, there will be higher electricity prices in Australia, the modelling is broken, President Obama let the cat out of the bag and the Prime Minister has misled the House— (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I used to think that they moved a suspension of standing orders every day at 10 to three so that they could get on TV prior to Play School. But that explanation does not cut it today because they waited until 25 past three. So the only possible explanation for such a weak resolution as suspension to be moved by the opposition is that they want the opportunity to sit on the government benches, if only for a couple of minutes during the division. So desperate are they to sit on this side of the House that they come in here and move a pathetic resolution, a weak resolution, coming on the back of one of the worst question time performances—and there have been some doozies—that they have had this entire year.

We move to the end of 2011 and we know there have been 235 bills passed through this House; we know that the government have the carbon pricing through; we know that there is support for a minerals resource rent tax regime; we know that we have had the structural separation of Telstra voted for overwhelmingly by all the Telstra shareholders; we know the National Broadband Network is being rolled out; we know we had record infrastructure spending in roads and rail and ports; and we know that the government's agenda on education means that schools are being opened as a result of the Building the Education Revolution with new halls, new facilities, new computers and new sports fields. We know that the opposition are desperate about that, even though they opposed them. We know that the government's health agenda is flowing through with new GP superclinics and new hospital infrastructure across the board. We know that this is a government that is delivering.

Those opposite, as they near the end of the parliamentary year, are getting more and more desperate. Because, with the walking vuvuzela over there that parades himself as the opposition leader—all opposition and no leader—you can only believe one word he says and that is when he says 'no', because you know that that is of conviction. 'No' to action on climate change, 'no' to action on the NBN, 'no' to national hospital reform, 'no' to assistance for the steel industry, 'no' to helping problem gamblers, 'no' to higher pensions, and 'no' to lower personal business taxes.

Although they do change occasionally—such as they did on superannuation. They have read a bit of research that the walking vuvuzela is running up against reality: that those people whose attention he got in the early stages are growing tired of the fact that there is just one noise. There is no vision for Australia's future on any issue whatsoever. He is the stuntman of Australian politics where no platform is too low. The inconsistency of those opposite and the rank opportunism whereby they are prepared to oppose—even things they say they support they oppose. He is the only living Liberal leader who opposes putting a price on carbon.

Let us have a look at their resolution. They want to get the suspension of standing orders through so that they can speak on this today. This is a cracker. They quote the Prime Minister as saying:

It is … wrong to suggest that the Treasury modelling of the government's Clean Energy Future program depends on the United States putting a price on carbon …

And then the quote that they say contradicts it—the big killer blow to the Prime Minister—does not even mention the United States in their motion. It does not say a word about the United States. They know that in fact in the United States you have an economy such as California, the eighth largest economy in the world—an economy bigger than Australia's—that is taking action on climate change. They know that across the world we have action taking place but those opposite are inconsistent about this to an extraordinary degree. We should not be surprised, because the former Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull had this to say about the current Leader of the Opposition when it came to climate change:

His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with, 'Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weathervane on this but...'

That is what the former Leader of the Opposition had to say.

The only strategy they have is for the Manager of Opposition Business is to try and block the camera during this speech. That is what they are reduced to. You can imagine them sitting around, talking tactics: 'We'll ask a question about climate change. Yes, there's no link between what the Prime Minister said, no contradiction between that and what we allege is the big killer blow, but we won't let that worry us. We'll move a suspension motion regardless, because even though we lose it, even though it is impossible for us to get a suspension through'—and there have been more suspensions moved by this opposition this year than by any opposition in Australia's political history since Federation. When they talk it through, they say: 'At least we'll get to sit on the government benches for a couple of minutes. So, let's do it.'

What we are suffering from is the longest political dummy spit in Australia's political history. This desperate Leader of the Opposition knows that his relentless negativity is jarring against the Australian public. The 'no, no, no, no, no, no', the walking vuvuzela that is the Leader of the Opposition, is jarring against the Australian public. They know that there is nothing constructive to say, but this is the highlight of their day. I urge the counters, the deputy whips, to count slowly so that they get to sit on the government benches for an extra 30 seconds or an extra minute. It will be the highlight of the opposition's day.

They come in here and they talk only negativity. Remember when the global financial crisis, according to the Leader of the Opposition, was going to lead to massive debt and deep recession? Then in 2009 he said: 'All of the money that they are spending is not going to stop us going into recession. It's not going to stop the recession being long and deep. I would argue that the recession will be worse in the long run, because of the measures that they've taken.' That is what he had to say about the global financial crisis in 2009. But what does he actually say when he is hit with the reality of being at a serious economic debate overseas, where they know that Australian economic performance is regarded by all—including President Obama, the United States and all the European leaders—as being the envy of the world for what we were able to achieve through the economic stimulus plan? What does he say? What is his real view? It is this. He said:

This year, Australia’s economic growth is expected to be one and three quarters per cent; our unemployment rate about five and a quarter per cent; our net government debt … about 8 per cent of GDP; our collective budget deficits just under four per cent of GDP and net interest payments just under 2 per cent of government outlays.

…    …    …

On the face of this comparative performance, Australia has serious bragging rights. Compared to most developed countries, our economic circumstances are enviable.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the Australian economy on 10 November. The shadow finance minister is so desperate to be consulted, but the only time the Leader of the Opposition will talk to him is when he sits next to him in the chamber! I would stick to trying to get a phone call about a meeting, if I were you. They are trying to drag down the Treasurer's performance today. They ask a question, forgetting the $70 billion black hole!

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

Order! The 25-minute time limit for this debate has expired.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well I say to those opposite: enjoy your couple of minutes on the government benches because it is all you are going to get for a very long time!

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

Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: I invite the minister to table the government's talking points, from which he was reading.

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

There is no point of order. Question put:

That the motion (Mr Abbott's) be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:48]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.