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

I appreciate the opportunity to debate this very important motion. Just because the carbon tax was introduced on 1 July it would be an absolute folly to think this government has addressed all of the issues in relation to it. With the short time that I have available to me today, I would like to address some of the key points of the motion before the House—in particular, the impact the carbon tax has already had in regions like Gippsland, the likely impacts it will have in the future, and the failure of this government to accommodate the impacts on regions like the Latrobe Valley while at the same time wasting more than $30 million on an advertising propaganda campaign.

The first big myth about the carbon tax is the repeated assertion from those opposite that only Australia's so-called biggest polluters will actually pay the carbon tax. That is about as misleading as the Prime Minister's original promise that there will be no carbon tax under a government she leads. Everybody pays the carbon tax. Our local football and netball clubs pay through increased energy costs to run their lights at night for training and matches; our local aged care facilities and hospitals pay the carbon tax through increased energy costs; and even the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria have estimated the increased energy bill for dairy farmers would be at least $5,000 per dairy farm, with no compensation and no capacity to pass those costs on to anyone else. You are simply making the Australian dairy farmer less competitive with international trading partners at a time when they desperately need every bit of assistance they can get.

Just one hospital in my electorate, the Latrobe Regional Hospital, has budgeted in this current financial year for a $200,000 increase in its energy bills as a direct result of the carbon tax. Government members like to claim that those energy costs, those increases in electricity prices, are not all related to the carbon tax. I will not even try to have the argument with them because the question is: why make it harder for a hospital? Why make a difficult situation even worse for small business? Why act ahead of the rest of the world and take away the clear competitive advantage for the Australian economy of a cheaper and more reliable form of baseload energy? I have examples in my electorate such as the Lakes Entrance fishing fleet based at the port of Lakes Entrance. It is a major fishing fleet. The general manager of the Lakes Entrance Fishermen's Cooperative contacted me. I have an email here from Dale Sumner outlining some of his concerns about the carbon tax. I would like to quote from his email. He said:

Without a doubt, the Carbon Tax will impact heavily on the Fishing industry.

Well, there is news: he is not one of the 500 biggest polluters but he is telling me that he will be impacted 'without a doubt'. But the government tells me that only the 500 so-called biggest polluters will pay the carbon tax. Let's read on. Mr Sumner said:

… the Co-op has a significant Power usage Bill as a result of the Cold Storage & Ice Production equipment, most of the plant is either new or built in a way to reduce power load, it's just energy intensive.

I am sure that is a news flash to the government as well: it actually takes energy to freeze the fish and prepare them for market. He goes on to say:

Our estimated increase in Power alone under the Carbon Tax is $24,000 pa, this will ultimately either lead to the end of the Co-Operative or increased costs to the fishers.

The majority of the 3500 to 4000 tonne of product landed here at Lefcol leaves via Road Freight, so we expect this to increase as costs further up the chain are passed all the way down to the fishers.

Fishers are in a poor position with increased costs as they are price takers, we don't set prices, our product sells for what it sells on any given day, we don't have the luxury to pass the costs onto consumers.

He then goes on to say:

For example, if Lefcol, as a result of increased costs, say to fishers that our charges are being increased by 10c a kilogram, they have two decisions to make—either walk away from Lefcol as they can no longer afford it or wear the costs as they can say that their fish are worth 10c more per kilo on the market. In the market system we operate, prices of fish are driven by demand and set in a market auction system.

He goes on to say further:

As I mentioned, the fishing industry is poorly placed under the carbon tax as they can't pass on cost increases like many other products can.

The simple fact of the matter is, everyone pays the carbon tax every day of the week. The report in today's News Ltd paper should come as no surprise to people on this side of the House. The carbon tax is killing confidence in the small business sector right across Australia, particularly the retail sector. Business owners are absorbing the higher cost because the market is flat and not in a position, just like the Lakes Entrance Fishing Cooperative, to pass on those costs. The report in the news today found that, in a survey of 186 small business owners, 75 per cent wanted the carbon tax scrapped because it was making a bad situation worse.

In Gippsland, and the Latrobe Valley in particular, the uncertainty and the drop in confidence directly associated with this government's carbon tax—remember this is a carbon tax that the Prime Minister promised we would never have—is also exacerbated by another policy, the government's flagship policy called 'contract for closure'. I am not surprised that we do not hear much about contract for closure from those opposite. In fact I have not heard a backbencher sprouting the benefits of contract for closure. I do not even hear any dorothy dixers in question time on this particular policy issue. The reason for that is it is a dog of a policy. The government remains determined to shut down 2,000 megawatts of coal fired power stations in the Latrobe Valley, or in Australia more generally, and negotiations are supposedly continuing today with the Latrobe Valley based power generators. I do not think there has ever been a more poignant example of public policy stupidity than contract for closure.

We have the stupidity of using taxpayers' money to compensate generators for the closure of their assets—assets which would close anyway within about 15 to 20 years. Then we have the stupidity of using taxpayers' money to compensate households for higher electricity prices because we will not be using the cheapest available form of baseload energy that is available to us. In addition to that we have the stupidity of using taxpayers' money, again, to pay unemployment and other benefits to people who have been displaced by this policy.

In fact this policy is so stupid that I do not think it will actually happen. The minister for industry and resources knows that it is stupid because he is out there at the same time talking about exporting Latrobe Valley brown coal. If we follow the minister's logic, it is okay to burn Australian coal in China, India, Korea and Japan but it is not okay to burn it in the Latrobe Valley. It is okay for a Chinese, Indian, Korean or Japanese power station worker to have a job burning Australian brown coal but it is not okay for our Morwell, Moe, Traralgon or Churchill power station worker to have a job burning Australian brown coal. The billions that are going to be wasted if this contract for closure policy continues could be better spent on a whole range of better public policy issues, in particular the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The government has no plans in terms of how it is going to pay for that.

Time is against me going through all the details that are raised in the motion. I would like just to point out the hypocrisy in the government's claim that the carbon tax impacts have been exaggerated. I would invite any member opposite to come to the Latrobe Valley and tell the 30 Energy Brix workers, who were made redundant a week before the carbon tax was implemented, that our claims have been exaggerated. I would invite any member opposite to come to the Latrobe Valley and try telling that story to the engineering workshop owners and to their staff who have seen jobs dry up as the power generators have announced a reduction in maintenance contracts. You can try telling that to the construction workers in the Latrobe Valley and to the young apprentices in Gippsland who have been put off in the last three months due to the lack of new projects, which is directly linked to the lack of confidence in the future as a result of this government's carbon tax and its destructive contract for closure proposals.

I do repeat my offer earlier to simply answer this question: at a time when business is doing it tough, why make it tough for Australian business owners? As for the government's repeated promises to assist the adversely impacted regions, let me tell the House what a farce that has become. All talk and no action would sum up the government's efforts in regard to this. In the Latrobe Valley we have had various ministers come down many times and they have not agreed, yet, to even fund the socioeconomic impact study to actually measure the true implications of the carbon tax and the contract for closure policy.

There are no guidelines in place for the $200 million under the regional structural adjustment systems package, and the minister confirmed that after the budget. We have the tax in place, the impact is already being felt and there are no guidelines for the government's flagship program of assistance.

Let's put that $200 million into perspective. If you shut down Hazelwood Power Station, the loss is about 550 to 600 direct jobs, and their salaries alone are worth $100 million per year. So the $200 million the government is talking about in terms of structural adjustment is meant to be shared right across Australia, but shut down Hazelwood and you would not even compensate the Latrobe Valley for two years worth of wages for the workers at the Hazelwood Power Station.

I stand here bitterly disappointed with the performance not only of this Prime Minister but also of those opposite who used to stand up for the blue-collar workers in regional areas like the Latrobe Valley. This Prime Minister promised there would be no carbon tax under the government she led, and it is only the grubby deal with the Greens which has forced this government into this position. I call on those opposite who are genuine in their passion for the blue-collar workers in places like the Latrobe Valley to stand up and start representing the heart and soul of the Australian Labor Party, which used to be so proud of its representation of those workers in my region.

There is an absolute crisis of confidence in my community directly linked to the uncertainty this government has created through its reckless decision to legislate for the world's biggest carbon tax. I commend the motion to the House.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say: if the member for Gippsland thinks there is a crisis of confidence in his community, perhaps he could start speaking to them a little more frankly about climate change and the way this country needs to address one of the biggest challenges that faces us. Perhaps with a little less misinformation his community might have a slightly different view. I find it hard to believe that a person could make that speech if he actually believed that climate change was real. To stand there and talk about the impact in regional areas of action on climate change without any recognition whatsoever of the extraordinarily impact that climate change itself will have on regional areas if we, as part of the world effort, do not take real action to reduce the growth in greenhouse gases is somewhat to be in denial.

I assume that the member for Gippsland does believe in climate change. I assume he supports his own side's policy to act on climate change. I assume he supports the same targets that we have, as his side does. I assume that he would stand in his own electorate and tell them that he agrees with the targets that we set and he agrees with the need to act, but he could also tell them that his policy is to actually take tax money from taxpayers and give it to business—give it to the biggest polluters—which is really an astonishing approach. It is known to be far more expensive than the market driven mechanism that we have introduced, but that is the policy which he supports. He believes in climate change, he thinks we need to act, he supports the targets that we have set but he thinks he should do it in a more expensive way: he should take the money out of the taxpayers' pockets and give it to big business, paying big polluters to cut their pollution. We, on the other hand, have gone for a market mechanism approach which is seen around the world—including, for most of its history, by the Liberal Party—as the most effective way to act. It is the appropriate thing to do.

We in Australia have been incredibly lucky. We had in the ground at the time when it was of greatest value enormous reserves of fossil fuel. For the last 100 years, as the growth in the use of fossil fuels has grown, we have been the right country in the right place at the right time, and we have prospered on the back of that and continue to do so. We have cheap fossil fuels in abundance, and that has been very good for us, but in the last years we have seen a dramatic change in the approach of countries around the world to where they draw their energy use from. We have massive investments in renewable technology and in renewable energy, and two of the biggest countries in that field are the ones that most often get accused of not acting by the opposition: the United States of America and China. There are massive investments in renewable energy; in fact, 50 per cent of the investment in new power last year was in renewables, not in fossil fuels.

If the part of the world's activity from which we draw our economic strength—fossil fuels—is shrinking year by year, we would be mad not to try to decouple our prosperity from the old way of doing things; we would be mad not to try to move our economy from a fossil-fuels-reliant economy to a renewables-reliant economy.

I have said many times that we often think in Australia that our wealth is in the ground. There is a lot of wealth in our ground, and it will be there and we will make use of it for years to come. But when you look at our capacity to innovate, our capacity to invent, there can be no doubt that we have even more capacity in our minds. Our capacity to find new ways of doing things is second to none, and you can see that through the work of our researchers and our scientists. We are one of the leading countries in new ideas and innovation per head of population, and that is where we should be now. We have, as a nation, this capacity to invent. We have more wind, sun, waves and hot rocks than most of the world—more than virtually any other country. But there are countries that are further away from the equator than Tasmania that have more solar power than we do. Outer Mongolia, with the same population, has 20 per cent renewables; we have eight per cent. Who are we kidding if we think this nation can continue to rely on the old way of doing things when the rest of the world is moving to the new? That is why we needed to introduce—and we did introduce—a market based mechanism, a price on carbon, to drive innovation.

The member for Gippsland has referred to whether or not the community understands it. Let me put a few facts on the table. I doubt that the member for Gippsland will go back to his electorate and repeat these, but I campaigned on signing the Kyoto protocol in 2004.

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

Did you campaign on the carbon tax?

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I did. I campaigned on the Kyoto protocol in 2004. I campaigned on an emissions trading scheme in 2007, as did he.

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

In 2008!

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, my apologies. The member came in when that was the Liberal Party's policy. Other members of the opposition campaigned in 2007, as the opposition did, on an emissions trading scheme. Then, we had a white paper, a green paper, an exposure draft. It went through the House of Representatives. It tried to go through the Senate twice. There were two years of debate on this, during which both sides of politics agreed that an emissions trading scheme—a market based mechanism—was the way to go. And that was right up to 2009.

In 2010, on Julia Gillard's first day as the Prime Minister, she said she would introduce a price on carbon. In the week before the election, she made a statement at the press club, which was reported in all the major press as Julia's 'carbon price promise', where she said that if she was Prime Minister after the election she would take that as a mandate to put a price on carbon. Rewriting of history is great, but in that week leading up to the election, two people—

Mr Chester interjecting—

The member might actually like to google 'Julia's carbon price promise' and read the entire statement, because she actually said both things in one sentence. She said 'market based mechanism', said yes to a price on carbon and said no to a tax. And that is why we have a market based mechanism, a trading scheme with a fixed price for three years—which, incidentally, was Liberal Party policy, and you did not call it a tax then. It is amazing how, when you had a policy of a fixed price, it was an emissions trading scheme, and now, remarkably, there is a different word. The misinformation—I am reluctant to use the word 'deception', because I think it is actually ignorance on the other side over there—regarding your own policy, and our policy for that matter, is quite extraordinary.

We have always been committed to a market based mechanism—certainly for as long as I have been a member of this parliament, and that was what I campaigned for in 2004—and we remain so. And so will you be. As soon as you change leader again, you will go back to your natural state, which is a market based mechanism.

Mr Chester interjecting—

As soon as you change your leader again, is what I said. I was silent for you, even though I thought you were talking nonsense, and I would really appreciate the same courtesy, thank you.

Mr Chester interjecting—

No wonder your electorate is a little alarmed; they have you as a member. It is not surprising. Both sides of politics believe we need to act on this. Both sides set the same target, and both sides agree to act. The difference between the two sides is that the Liberal Party's and the National Party's policy is far more expensive and will rip the money out of the pockets of taxpayers. This is an absolutely astonishing motion.

We have at the moment an opportunity in this country to grasp the future in both hands. I saw the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, interviewed recently and he was asked about peak oil and what it meant. It was clear that he did not know what it meant, but when someone explained to him that it meant that production would eventually start to fall in the world—we would find the biggest oil reserves and, over time, production would start to fall—he made this extraordinary claim that that did not matter because, as the price of oil went up, we would be prepared to go to greater lengths to obtain it. This is all true, but the amazing thing was that he was happy enough for us as a country to go through a process where the price of oil and coal goes up and up and up because they get harder to find and not to act on it.

We have an opportunity now. As a nation faced with climate change but endowed with the most extraordinary resources for renewable energy sources and a capacity to develop those renewables that is unmatched in the world, we have an obligation to grasp that future. The opposition might want to stay in the past. We heard from the previous speaker that that is exactly where he wants to stay. He thinks we can stay with fossil fuels forever. Well, we cannot, because the rest of the world is moving. It is moving now and we are well advised to go with it. That is why I support our policy and totally reject this motion. (Time expired)

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

I acknowledge the previous speaker and thank her for the leniency she showed to me in the chamber last week—but that is as far as it goes! I am sorry the member for Parramatta has left. I could give her a quick history lesson. The member for Gippsland was elected in June 2008. He actually campaigned against an emissions trading scheme, as it was then, along with the rest of the Nationals. It was the first time that the Rudd juggernaut came to a head and there was a huge swing away from the government. Indeed, the member for Gippsland's by-election was the first public indication that people were opposed to putting a price on carbon. The campaign, with the La Trobe power workers getting behind the member for Gippsland and the Nationals, is now a matter for the public record. The member for Parramatta also said that, in the week prior to the election, the Prime Minister indicated she was going to put a price on carbon, but the memory I have of that week is that she actually said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' I thought that was fairly clear, but, once again, that is history.

The issues at stake here, as stated in the member's motion, include the fact that, under the government's scheme, the biggest polluters will pay. Also, research shows 'the carbon price will have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, regional industries and regional communities'. That is indeed correct. If you go back to Professor Garnaut's regional white paper, he said that regional communities would have an economic downturn of 20 per cent while urban areas would have a downturn of eight per cent. Right from the start, as a member who represents one-third of the area of New South Wales, the largest rural electorate in New South Wales, how could I ever support a scheme that was going to disproportionately disadvantage my electorate compared to electorates elsewhere? The idea that the biggest polluters will pay is an absolute nonsense. We are starting to see that now.

It was interesting that, in the House last week, members of the government were talking about the not so great rise in the cost of living index and expenses. It has come to the fore now that small businesses are that squeezed—they are in such a precarious position—that they are not game to raise their prices. They are actually absorbing the cost of the carbon tax because to increase their prices in the fragile state that many of these businesses are in now would mean losing even more customers. That is actually giving a distorted view of why electricity bills have not risen thus far.

Over the weekend I received my electricity bill and, for this quarter, it has gone up $109, just for the carbon tax. It has gone up more than that, but the carbon tax component was that amount. So it is coming through.

If you go through to local government—and the federal government has identified some of the bigger councils and issues mainly to do with emissions from landfill—you will see there are a whole range of things that local government deal with. There is street lighting, keeping their swimming pools clean and the energy required for that, the cooling for aged-care facilities and, in my electorate, many of the aged-care facilities and preschools are owned by local government, which are the local communities. I was speaking to a general manager in my electorate this morning and, because of rate pegging in New South Wales, the increase to their costs brought about by the carbon tax cannot even be met by the allowable amount that they can increase their rates. So ratepayers in regional Australia are going to suffer a decline in services. That is before 2014 when we start to see the increased freight charges coming through and what that will do not only to the cost of construction but also to road building with bitumen, which is petroleum based. The increase in the cost of asphalt bitumen will also come through.

Another thing that is having an effect in my community is the cost of refrigerant gas. It has gone up by 300 per cent. A refrigeration mechanic from Dubbo came to see me. He is a small operator, employing six people, and he was commenting on the cost of refrigerant not only for people who need that for household appliances but particularly for large-scale businesses. For instance, if the local bowling club has a mishap and loses the refrigerant in their coolrooms, it will be up for thousands of dollars in costs to repay that.

I heard the member for New England, in an astounding outburst last week, saying that farmers were going to be exempt, that the carbon tax was not a pricing mechanism and that the Carbon Farming Initiative was going to be a wonderful thing for Australia. He did not mention where the extra funds were going to come from for running irrigation pumps; for the electricity needed to shear every sheep; for the water that is pumped around a property to water the livestock; for the urea, a fossil based fuel. There is a huge cost of inputs. All the farm chemicals such as 2,4-D and Roundup are all based on petroleum, so all these costs are coming through.

We have a Carbon Farming Initiative that has no guidelines and no methodology. Indeed, to implement a methodology that would allow a credit for soil carbon that was of a high enough value to be tradeable, the cost of that process would negate any benefit to farmers. Farmers have worked out that the CFI, the Carbon Farming Initiative, will be of no benefit to them and have stayed away from it in droves.

Volunteer groups in my electorate are also under the pump from the carbon tax. I had a meeting with some of the men's sheds in my electorate a couple of weeks ago, and we are looking at maybe pooling men's sheds across New South Wales, or even Australia, together and maybe trying to get some sort of a discount on their power, because men's sheds run electric equipment, lighting, heating and things like that and they are having an issue with it.

To a large extent, Meals on Wheels now come in a frozen form. Meals on Wheels in Dubbo has a large cold storage facility and the cost of electricity is starting to impact on the services it can provide. Even smaller Meals on Wheels are suffering from this—they have to cook the food themselves and all that energy requires a large amount of electricity, not to mention schools, universities and hospitals that are suffering, but for no environmental gain.

The government has stopped talking about trying to protect the environment with this some time ago and we are now talking about putting a price on carbon. But we are not seeing a quantifiable measure.

In my electorate, with this great Green initiative that we have going through, we are seeing the emergence of wind farms—and that might be a speech for another day. A great irony of this is that there are quite a few hundred tonnes of concrete that secure the base of a wind tower. On one side of Mudgee there are coal mines that are shipping at a rapid rate to China coal that gets turned into wind farms that get shipped back to Australia whereby we can generate a dearer but cleaner form of electricity. But the great irony of it is that the cement that secures the wind farms at Mudgee now comes into Sydney heads on a ship from Asia as clinker and the last refinement is done at Clyde and is put on a truck and sent over the mountain to Mudgee, past the closed Kandos cement plant.

Despite the member for Hunter saying—because Kandos is now in his electorate and it was in mine—that the carbon tax did not close that cement plant, Cement Australia have been telling me for four years, 'When the carbon tax comes in, cement plants will close.' When the carbon tax came in Kandos cement closed, and now our wind farms are being based on cement coming from China. Where is the sense in that? (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened with interest to the impassioned contribution of the member for Parkes in support of cement. I asked him to stay in the chamber, because I will have a question for him on that particular issue. I too have cement works in my electorate, particularly in the Southern Highlands of my electorate, where Boral cement works owns a coal mine which provides the electricity supply for that cement works. It is only the coexistence of the coal mine and the cement works which continue to enable the Boral cement works to exist on a profitable basis.

I would have thought that a proud member of the coalition getting up in not only vociferous support of the cement works within his electorate would probably have a broader interest in the viability of cement throughout New South Wales and Australia. For that reason, I would ask the member for Parkes, when he gets back to his office, to pick up the phone to the Liberals who sit on the Wingecarribee Shire Council. He might be scratching his head and wondering why I am asking that he pick up the phone to the Liberals who sit as councillors on the Wingecarribee Shire Council. It is because the voting record of the Liberals, the coalition members, on the Wingecarribee Shire Council are putting at risk the future of that cement works, because they are voting against the continuation of the increased export of coal from the coal mine in Berrima. It is absolutely critical that we get bipartisan support from all sensible thinking people, or people who know a little bit about economics—and I am sure the member for Parkes would like to include himself in that group—and that we have sensible voting and sensible support for the cement works in my electorate, as we need sensible support for the cement works in electorates right around the country.

As I sat and listened to some of the contributions from the member for Parkes, particularly as he spoke about the impact that rising electricity prices are having on fine community organisations, such as Men Sheds, I had to think to myself, 'Where have these guys been for the last four or five years when electricity prices have been increasing 10, 20 and 30 per cent per annum?' Is this a newfound affection for running campaigns against electricity prices—particularly as their mates in coalition governments around the country have done absolutely nothing as we have seen skyrocketing power bills and continue to see skyrocketing power bills? Where have these guys been on that issue? It is another phone call that they might like to make to their colleagues who have a real capacity to do something about power bills in the states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. If he really wants to do something about the cost of power bills that are affecting the fine community organisations such as those mentioned by the member for Parkes, he should make a phone call to Premier Barry O'Farrell to do something about the absolute price gauging that is going on with New South Wales power.

The purpose of the motion, brought to us by the member for Gippsland, is to address the issue of climate change, climate change policy and how we put in place the most effective and efficient mechanisms for dealing with our contribution to addressing global warming and greenhouse gases, that we do it in a way that enables our economy and our society to transform itself, and that we take small steps now to ensure that we do not have to take big steps into the future.

I am pleased to see the member for Fremantle on this side of the House in the chamber at the moment, because I know she has been a passionate campaigner on the issue of climate change. We on this side of the House believe that climate change is a reality. It is official policy from those who sit on the other side of the House but, when you hear their members speak on it, you can sometimes be forgiven for being confused on it.

The Australian government, acting on the strong scientific advice of the CSIRO and that of the Bureau of Meteorology, as opposed to talkback radio experts, has put in place a strong course of action to deal with climate change. The opposition have been making hysterical claims about the carbon price as 'a wrecking ball that will destroy whole industries and towns and our way of life'. Those are their words, not mine. They have been saying this, despite the fact that they went to two elections with a policy of putting a price on carbon and introducing an emissions trading scheme. We are nearing the three-year anniversary of the Leader of the Opposition saying that that was the most sensible way to deal with climate change. It is the most sensible way of dealing with it and economists around the world agree on that. But what we are seeing from the opposition in response to this critically important reform is a political scare campaign. The motion from the member for Gippsland is just another episode in this sorry saga, which is the opposition's scare campaign.

The Leader of the Opposition and his coalition colleagues have been travelling around the countryside and doing everything that they can do to talk down the economy and scare people. And nothing scares them more than good news for the economy. They have been a little bit wobbly over the last few weeks as the economy has received some good news—that is, that inflation is not going through the roof, as has been predicted by those on the other side, and, instead of whole towns being wiped off the map and millions being added to the unemployment queues, unemployment is going down and employment is going up in this country. We are one of the only countries in the world that can boast that record. Our unemployment rate is half that of the United States and most economists are predicting that, by the end of the year, unemployment in Europe will head to well north of 10 per cent. Overall, we have not seen the doom and gloom predicted by the other side. The most recent labour force figures show that, despite the ongoing difficulties in the global economy, unemployment grew in July by an additional 14,000 jobs. Full-time employment grew by 9,200 jobs and part-time employment also increased by just short of 5,000 jobs. Whilst Australia's unemployment rate fell marginally, to 5.2 per cent, it is still the envy of the entire world.

The motion mentions the situation faced by local government. I heard some statements from local governments in my electorate on this particular issue. I would like to confine my concluding remarks to the situation facing local government. It is a fact that local governments which own landfill facilities, better known to us as waste dumps, do face the prospect of having a carbon price liability if their annual emissions are in excess of 25,000 tonnes. At least one local council in my electorate faces the prospect of having to pay a carbon price, based on the current price of $26 per tonne, on any emissions from solid waste entering the landfill from 2012 to 2013—not on heritage emissions, because we agree that it is unfair for councils to have to pay a carbon price on those so-called heritage emissions that have resulted from any waste that has been deposited into the ground prior to 1 July this year.

That is, of course, if local councils around the country who own their own landfill and their waste dump facilities do absolutely nothing to mitigate or to reduce their emissions. But smart councils, including Shellharbour council in my own electorate, are putting in place mechanisms to ensure that they do do something. Far from incurring a liability, they believe that they can actually make a profit out of capturing, storing and converting fugitive gases from their landfill and converting those into energy. So not only can they make money out of generating a power source from methane emissions from their landfill and selling that back into the grid for a price; they can also gain renewable energy certificates for that process. So these councils can actually make money out of the scheme which has put a price on carbon. And of course that is exactly what was designed to occur, because when you put in place a market mechanism it encourages people to think of creative ways to deal with this, and it also puts in place an economic imperative for them to do that. So good on those councils who are taking these steps. I encourage other councils to do exactly the same.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support this very important motion from the member for Gippsland. As the motion states, the carbon tax came into effect on 1 July 2012 and was supposed to impose $23 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions on the so-called 500 biggest polluters. Australians are concerned and confused about the effect of the carbon tax, because the Prime Minister and the Labor government have not been up-front and have not been completely truthful with the Australian people about its disastrous consequences. There is confusion and chaos, because the Clean Energy Regulator constantly updates and revises its hit list of companies and local councils. At one stage, it was supposed to be 500, and then 250; now the list has been revised to 315, of which 77 operate solely in Queensland.

In late July, almost a month after the carbon tax came into effect, the Clean Energy Regulator decided that an additional 24 organisations, primarily electricity providers, would be added to the list of so-called big polluters. On 7 August, the list was revised again. Little wonder then that confusion reigns when it comes to this toxic carbon tax.

When the Prime Minister of Australia said, four days before the 2010 election, that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led, Australians understandably took that promise at face value. As history has recorded, the Prime Minister broke that promise and, indeed, the trust of the Australian people.

As the motion notes, the Labor government has spent $36 million on an advertising campaign to explain that millions of Australians would be receiving extra money in their bank accounts under the Household Assistance Package. At no point in any of the advertisements did the Gillard Labor government actually tell Australians why this money would be suddenly appearing. Nor did the Gillard government explain why everyday cost-of-living expenses would be increasing.

Although the Prime Minister has refused to be direct with the Australian public, she is fully aware of why this compensation package is required, because a $9 billion a year carbon tax will affect every level of the Australian economy. The carbon tax will hurt small business. It will hurt regional industries and communities and will affect many councils across Australia, including the Brisbane City Council. The Australian Local Government Association has estimated that, even after taking into account local government financial assistance grants, the carbon tax will impact local councils to the order of $185 million. That figure does not, however, include the effect on landfill operations, which will impose significantly higher costs on Brisbane City Council, which is why Brisbane was included on the Clean Energy Regulator's hit list in the first place, despite being one of the largest purchasers of green power in the country and spending millions of dollars on green initiatives.

The Lord Mayor of Brisbane has reminded the Gillard government, time and time again, of the $15.8 million annual impact that the carbon tax will have on Brisbane. However, what the government has not admitted is that every single council across all urban and regional communities will be indirectly hit by the carbon tax. For all Australian communities, the carbon tax will make it more expensive to take rubbish to the tip, more expensive to run council trucks, and more expensive to run local swimming pools, libraries and community centres.

Councils with landfill operations, a basic responsibility of local government, will be hit even harder.

It is little wonder that a survey report in the Courier Mail today indicated that only seven per cent of small businesses will vote Labor at the next election, because they and all Australians know that a Labor government does not support small business. As this motion states, the Labor government should have deferred the introduction of this confusing and chaotic carbon tax until the Australian public could have their say at the ballot box. The Australian public deserves a Prime Minister they can trust and a government which knows how to govern effectively; with the current Labor government they have neither.

I can promise every constituent in Ryan that there will be no carbon tax under a coalition government. Should the coalition be elected to form government at the next election, we will rescind the world's biggest carbon tax and, within the first fortnight of parliament, a coalition finance minister will introduce legislation to shut down the wasteful $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The coalition will ease the cost-of-living pressures on families. The coalition will help small business and restore confidence in the economy. Most importantly, the coalition will restore hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to talk about the carbon price and, in particular, how it impacts on part of my electoral division—specifically, Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island is one of the most beautiful places in the Commonwealth of Australia. It is just a few miles wide and has a population of between 1,500 and 2,000 people, some of whom are registered to vote in the electorate of Canberra.

There have been some recent comments by the Liberal senator for the ACT, Gary Humphries, about the carbon price and its impact on Norfolk Islanders. As we have seen from the coalition time and time again, they have made a range of claims about the carbon price that are based on misinformation and a desire to perpetuate a scare campaign. In fact, just before we rose after the last parliamentary session, I had an exchange with the member opposite on this very issue. As I said to the member opposite at that time, the sky did not fall in on 1 July this year—and the Liberals are now claiming that the carbon price is somehow destroyed the economy of Norfolk Island. This is more scare-mongering based on misinformation and fear from the coalition.

Let me go to some of the specifics of the carbon price and address some of the furphies that Senator Humphries alleges. First, let me refute the myth that the carbon price is having a negative effect on the economy of Norfolk Island. The Administrator of Norfolk Island, Neil Pope, issued a media release on 9 August this year under the heading 'Carbon tax impact negligible'. This is what the Norfolk Island Administrator said about the carbon price:

The advice we have received would indicate that there is little to no impact on households on Norfolk Island. The major reported impact for mainlanders is the increase in electricity prices due to coal fired power stations, estimated to be approximately $9 for every $100 in electricity charges. As Norfolk Island's electricity is generated by a combination of solar and diesel, and the diesel does not come from Australia, there is no impact on electricity prices.

I should point out that the Administrator of Norfolk Island put the word 'no' in capital letters. Let me reiterate that there is no impact on electricity prices on Norfolk Island because of the carbon price. These are the facts. But the coalition is not interested in facts. Senator Humphries spouted more misinformation when he also told the Senate that the permanent population of Norfolk Island dropped between 2007 and January 2012 and this is somehow linked to the carbon price. According to this logic, some residents of Norfolk Island left five years ago because of a very small increase introduced in July this year—that is anticipating, I have to say!

Yes, tourism numbers on Norfolk Island have dropped, and I urge everyone who can visit this most magnificent, beautiful and unique part of Australia to do so. But the high Australian dollar is a factor in tourism numbers, and tourism across Australia is affected by our strong economy.

The next bit of misinformation being peddled by the Liberals is that the cost of living on Norfolk Island will rise dramatically under the government's carbon price package but not one cent in compensation will be paid to Norfolk Islanders. It may come as something of a surprise to the coalition, but Norfolk islanders do not come under the Australian tax system. It may come as a shock to Senator Humphries and members of the coalition that Labor's very generous and targeted compensation package is aimed at helping Australian taxpayers manage the very small price increases that will occur as we put a price on carbon pollution.

The carbon price will have a very small impact on the cost of living, and the government is providing households with assistance to meet this impact. Treasury estimates that the impact on the cost of living from the carbon price will be an increase of just 0.7 per cent in the CPI. That is less than 1c in the dollar. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the government is providing assistance to nine in 10 households, which on average is $10.10 per week.

Senator Humphries, like many in the coalition, seems a bit confused when it comes to policies aimed at tackling climate change. The scare campaign claiming that the carbon price is damaging Norfolk Island's economy is plain and simply wrong. The fact is that the Labor government is working to deliver a Norfolk Island road map. I am very proud to be part of this. We are working with the people of Norfolk Island to ensure their economic and social prosperity through a range of measures and access to services, access to benefits as outlined in the road map, provided by the Australian tax system and a fair contribution to the tax system in return for the benefits. I have travelled to Norfolk Island many times, I have spoken to the people— (Time expired)

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Canberra for her contribution because it gives me the chance to talk about what is probably the greatest island in Australia, Magnetic Island, which is off the coast of Townsville. The only reason Norfolk Island does not have exposure to the carbon tax is that they do not buy their diesel from Australia. If they bought their diesel from Australia, they would be exposed to the carbon tax. If you want to speak about compensation for all things carbon tax, I would like to speak about Magnetic Island. There is no compensation for the ferry and the barge that go to Magnetic Island. There will not be any compensation going to the people who live on Magnetic Island and commute on a daily basis to Townsville. The barge service that takes the goods and services across will not get any compensation for the carbon tax on the diesel that they burn, so the goods and services that they take across—the milk, eggs and basic commodities that go to Magnetic Island—will cost even more under the carbon tax.

We have had personal responses. Friends of mine had Le Paradis restaurant at Nelly Bay. It is a fantastic feed there and they are great people but they have struggled with the electricity price rises, and the carbon tax is just one of those things.

I want to talk about what the member for Parkes talked about—refrigeration mechanics and the distances that they have to travel. Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, you would know all about this because of the distances in your electorate. Before the carbon tax, it would have cost a refrigeration mechanic between $3,000 and $5,000 to fully load his van to take on his road trips. Now, with the 300 per cent increase in the cost of refrigerants and the carbon tax applied to that, it costs up to $12,000 to fully equip a refrigeration van for the distances we travel. This is about regional centres. People from the cities have to understand how much more we do.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you would also know about the distances we travel when it comes to sport, dance, athletics and things like that. I remember a mate of mine, Billy Green. In the seventies he went to work in the Bank of New South Wales in Barcaldine. He played for Barcie, and they played against Winton. If they beat Winton in Winton, they used to run off the field and hop into their cars or onto the team bus—and they did not take their boots off or get changed until they hit Longreach. That is about an 800 kilometre round trip to play Winton in Winton and get the living daylights beaten out of them by those blokes up there, because they play tough. That team bus is now going to be subject to the carbon tax.

When parents take their kids to regional athletics, they will be subject to the carbon tax—all the team buses that go through everywhere. My nieces and nephews, when they travel from Ayr to all the swimming carnivals, are going to be subject to the carbon tax on the buses that they go on. All the cane farmers and small crop farmers around Townsville, the Burdekin and Hinchinbrook are price takers; they are not price makers. The price of sugar at the moment is quite good—we have a lot of things going on in the sugar market—but they are exposed to the carbon tax, while their competitors in Brazil and India are not.

When it comes to their weedkillers, insecticides, phosphate based fertilisers or the diesel they use in their tractors, they receive no compensation. This is something that we have to worry about in the regions all the time.

The length of time it takes to get power to the city from Gladstone to Townsville makes our power even more expensive. To top it all off, you have the Townsville City Council and the Townsville dump. The Labor state government forced amalgamation upon Townsville and Thuringowa. Townsville council had $104 million but now has only $34 million. Townsville City Council is still one of the 34 councils. I have asked the question before. If they had stayed as two separate dumps in Townsville and Thuringowa, would they be exposed to the carbon tax? At the moment, Townsville ratepayers are exposed to the expense of between $6 million and $9 million for the Townsville City Council dump. That is before the Townsville City Council turns on a light, starts a car, fills a pothole or anything like that. You must understand that these are real issues in the regions and will always be real issues in the regions. The council must either cut services or raise rates. It is not fair and it should be cancelled.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion seeks to keep alive a debate that I suspect is running out of wind out there in the electorate. That is certainly the case in the electorate that I represent. I will try to respond to some of the matters that have been raised in the course of this debate and those in the written motion but, obviously, five minutes will not allow me to speak in detail about all of those matters.

To begin with, it is a fact that only the large polluters pay a tax for each tonne of carbon emitted after they have used up their free permits. I stress that point: after they have used up their free permits. Having paid a fee for each tonne of carbon they then have the options to (a) reduce their emissions, (b) absorb the costs of their emissions or (c) pass the costs on to their customers. I suspect that each organisation will determine which of the options they will adopt, because all three options are available to them. Of course, if costs are passed on to customers and those customers are themselves business operators, they in turn may pass the costs on to their own customers. I say 'may' because several business operators that I know have said to me that they do not intend to pass those costs on but intend to simply absorb them into their own operations. They will absorb them because, in truth, they know that those costs are relatively minimal.

Again, those businesses have options as well and whether they wish to pass the costs on is a matter for them. It is however of serious concern that some business operators are using the introduction of a carbon tax as an excuse to increase prices and to do so at much greater amounts than the true impact of the carbon tax. I am pleased to see that the ACCC is acting on this matter and has already identified several businesses that have attempted to exploit the introduction of a price on carbon.

It is also of concern that rising prices due to other factors are also being rolled together with carbon price impacts, and the real cause of many of the price increases are being masked by retailers without breaching ACCC standards. A good example of that is where a business says, 'The increases in these costs are attributable to the carbon tax, plus the value of the Australian dollar and so on.' They do not specifically break down the proportion of the increase attributable to the carbon tax but make sure that they put carbon tax in there first and foremost and very prominently, clearly trying to pretend that the carbon tax is the main contributor to the price increases when the reality is that that is not the case.

A good example of that is the example of the power utilities and local government, which the members opposite have referred to. Can I say in respect of the issues relating to local government that I spoke about this matter on 22 May in a House adjournment speech, and I refer members to my speech, where I outlined, step by step, why those local government authorities which claim that the carbon price will significantly put up their rates are misleading their residents and their businesses. It may be convenient to shift the focus onto carbon price without breaching the ACCC standards, but it is also unethical.

Treasury has estimated that the carbon tax impacts will be 0.7 of a per cent. That figure has not been disputed by any reputable authority to date, and for most households that figure will add about $500 per year to their household bills. Putting aside the government's Household Assistance Package, which nine out of 10 households will share in, the fact remains that costs to both households and businesses, wherever they are located, are likely to be impacted much more by interest rate movements, fluctuations in the value of the Australian dollar and changes in the price of crude oil, yet relatively little is ever said about those factors.

There are many reasons why some businesses around the country are facing tough times. Attempting to lay the blame on a carbon tax is dishonest political opportunism and as immoral as the antics of some unethical business operators who are doing much the same. I suggest that members opposite address the real issues that are causing difficulties to both their residents and the businesses within their electorates, because if they do that they might in fact be of real help to them, as opposed to running with the scare campaign. (Time expired)

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

The motion by the member for Gippsland covers many issues, but I will concentrate on the part that says:

… the carbon price will have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, regional industries, and regional communities …

There is no doubt that regional communities, regional businesses and regional families will bear the brunt of the government's tax on energy, which basically is Australia's historic competitive advantage, particularly in overseas markets. It will be a major blight on rural and regional communities, and it is already.

Everything coming to or going from a regional community will cost more. It will cost more to move anything by truck from July 2014, when diesel is hit by the carbon tax. There will be a reduction in the diesel fuel rebate of 6.858c a litre on all heavy vehicles delivering vital goods to and from regional communities. That is expected to cost the industry and its customers $510 million in 2014 and 2015 alone, on top of this year's 2.4c a litre rise in the diesel fuel excise, and that will mean higher costs and greater impact on regional areas.

People—particularly on the other side—forget what a big country this is. We live in regional areas. In 2007, Australian trucks transported 277 million tonnes of food and animals around the country, and the proposed tax will add cost to every single tonne. I remind members that in Western Australia, in the south-west, you basically cannot produce, consume or receive any good or service that has not been delivered on the back of a truck. We know that the ships and trains are already paying additional carbon costs on every litre of fuel, adding cost to every ounce of product they shift.

The House also needs to be aware that the carbon tax is already hitting road transport for perishable goods, including the food that every Australian family needs. The trucks that need refrigerant gas are facing a massive increase in costs right now. South West Express is a local transport company based in Bunbury, in the south-west of WA. It has already been hit by the carbon tax. In July this year, South West Express had three trucks whose cooling units broke down, and they needed to be regassed. The cost of the replacement gas has gone up, due to the carbon tax, by $75 a kilogram. The cost of the replacement gas in July, following the imposition of the carbon tax, for a complete regassing of a truck which had had a breakdown of a cooling unit was $750 more. Where previously it might have cost South West Express $500 to regas each of its trucks, it is now over $1,000 a unit. And these costs will have to be passed on to consumers when they buy the fresh food being transported.

Of course, all consumers who need to regas their car air conditioning this summer will discover that they will be paying Labor's tax again, and the tax keeps hitting families and businesses in ways that they have never envisaged—and it keeps increasing. That is what people are forgetting.

Regional people rely on transport for everything. The tyranny of distance makes people in regional areas particularly vulnerable. The tyranny of this government, however, is much worse.

I am going to briefly touch on what we have heard today about the numbers of small businesses who literally have had to absorb this tax. They are in such a competitive environment that they have to try to absorb this tax. That means that each of these businesses is going to have less profit. It could mean that they have to put off workers and it is a great issue to those small businesses.

I look perhaps at those people who are dairy farmers like me. Around Australia we cool about nine billion litres of milk on farm that has to be brought back to about four degrees before it will be collected by a processor. I cannot find whether it is a processor or one of the major supermarkets at the moment who is standing up and saying, 'Yes, we understand that this is going to cost you more and, yes, we will increase your price to cover that.' Famers are going to have no choice but to absorb it. But that is not all: they are going to cop the tax on diesel as well. They are going to cop the tax on fertiliser—anything that uses energy to produce it, whether it is feed, whether it is fodder, whether it is the irrigation. If they pump they are going to be paying the carbon tax again and again. It is a compounding, cascading tax. It will be paid over and over, and I would like to see how many times, if you pick, package and send an apple off from one of the orchards in Donnybrook, the carbon tax is going to apply in that refrigerated supply chain.

We know that the best thing we can do is not only get rid of the government but get rid of the carbon tax along with it. We need to repeal this tax to support regional families' businesses and commitments. (Time expired)

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

We have heard a lot of negativity and nonsense from those opposite with respect to this issue, clearly, showing once again they are the apostles of Alan Jones and the disciples of Lord Monckton. About 60 per cent of our economy will be covered by a carbon price. The carbon price is not applied to agricultural emissions, emissions from cars—like commercial vehicles—off-road agricultural forestry or fishery uses. We are seeing fewer than 500 companies at the moment—there are about 300 mentioned in relation to this particular coverage—making them pay for that which they have done in the past for free: pollute our atmosphere.

We are providing assistance to nine out of 10 households. The average income in Blair is about $59,000 a year, so you can see that more than nine in 10 of those people living in my electorate will receive assistance. Almost six million households have received tax cuts. Four million households have received an extra buffer of 20 per cent and above and a million Australians will not have to pay tax as a result of our clean energy package.

All those who might be listening to this debate should listen to the fact that small business operators pay tax—personal income tax. Not all of them are in corporate structures. A lot of them are in a position where they are PAYE taxpayers, and we have given $47 billion in personal tax cuts since we were elected and have lifted the tax-free threshold. Many small business operators are low-income earners.

Those opposite voted against the tax cuts for them. Those opposite, again, backed up the fact that they would not support jobs and small business during the GFC by voting against taking action on climate change and supporting small businesses, households and individuals, pensioners and self-funded retirees with our clean energy package.

They talk about the impact on councils. I will give you an example of two regional councils, one being the biggest council in the country—$3.2 billion is the annual revenue for the Brisbane City Council. The carbon price impact on their budget is $15.8 million—and the member for Ryan came in here as a councillor from that council. They wasted $1.9 billion on tunnels, and the interest payments they are incurring on that are far greater than the carbon tax impact on their actual operations. Ipswich City Council has a $450 million turnover ever year. Guess what? The impact on their budget is 0.7 per cent—exactly what the Treasury model said.

It is the same thing with the coalition governments in New South Wales and Victoria: the Treasury modelling has proved accurate, and we know that we will see a 20 per cent growth in wages by 2020—that is what Treasury says.

We will see 1.6 million new jobs in this economy by 2020. Since 1 July Whyalla has not been wiped off, Gladstone has not been wiped off and we have $107 billion in investment in the coal industry. We have seen 14,000 jobs created as the first example of jobs being recorded in the ABS data. I am waiting for the jeremiads and the financial Armageddon to arrive, but it has not happened, has it? It has not happened, because the python, the constrictor—whatever analogy you like—has not arrived. This was the mother of all scare campaigns, and it has not proven to be accurate or true. Those opposite will be hoist with their own petard, because people know that that has not been their experience—that it has not had the impact on their personal budgets, their lives and their businesses.

Even the mayor and deputy mayor of a regional council like the Somerset Regional Council in South East Queensland, who are not card-carrying members of the Labor Party, said to me and to Mark Dreyfus, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, 'We absorbed it.' They said, 'We're going to take the advantage of the landfill, the carbon credits, the carbon farming initiative.' So they will get credits for it because of what they are doing, because they are operating landfill sites. And they will get the benefit of it.

And the farmers in my area—I have met with many of them and talked to them about it—will get the advantage of the carbon farming initiative. All those old National Party people opposite, who voted against an income source for farmers, should hang their heads in shame. Those opposite know these jeremiads have not proven to be accurate.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have known Greg Carroll all my life. He is a typical country bloke. He is a family man, he is a community minded person and he was an outstanding sportsman whose family name is synonymous with Australian football in my area. And Greg is a businessman—and a good one. He owns and operates the grain handling company M C Croker Pty Ltd, which has depots in Coolamon, Cootamundra, Griffith, Ladysmith and Marrar. Cootamundra and Marrar are manned full time while Coolamon, Griffith and Ladysmith are used mainly for storage and are manned when required.

Croker has the combined capacity to hold 55,000 tonnes of grain, oilseed and pulse and 5,000 tonnes of fertiliser, and offers services such as storage, handling, mixing, blending, pelletising, spreading, transport, export packing and testing. Greg is an honest straight shooter—no mincing his words. This morning he told me that the carbon tax would cost his business between $80,000 and $100,000 a year. That is straight off his profit, straight off his bottom line. This comes by way of a $6 per container slug by the shipping and stevedoring company he uses—and Croker moves 100 of those per week—as well as higher electricity charges, not all state based, and other on costs caused by this unnecessary, unmandated carbon tax.

Croker is a company that proudly claims to be 'small enough to care, big enough to deliver'. It has high turnover costs but operates in a volatile industry with small, hard-won margins. I put it to Greg, quite tongue in cheek, that this was improving the environment, but I will not lower the dignity of the parliament with the response he gave me—as I said, he is a straight shooter. He knows, as all of us do, that it is not going to do one thing to global temperatures, it is not going to do one thing to lower sea levels and, really, it is not going to do one thing for the environment. We all know that. It has been a little more than two years since the Prime Minister uttered those infamous words, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Yet here we stand today, debating the impact the introduction of the carbon tax has had on Australia—a carbon tax introduced by this Labor Prime Minister under the Labor government she leads.

The 1 July introduction of the carbon tax has been felt by every Australian as they have watched their costs of living increase. My electorate office receives daily phone calls from constituents concerned about the impact of the carbon tax and wanting to know why they receive no direct compensation—certainly no compensation with the Household Assistance Package that is going to offset the increases in their day-to-day living costs. Many constituents tell me they have used the estimator online only to discover that the only compensation they will receive is from tax breaks—tax breaks that, as I said, will not adequately compensate the direct hit on the hip pockets of those hardworking Australians whom those on that side purport to represent and have forgotten.

Many self-funded retirees find it hard to believe they will not receive any direct compensation because they are self-funded, yet retirees who do claim a pension will receive some meagre assistance. These are people who have worked hard to set themselves up for retirement and the government has completely ignored their set of circumstances and the impact the carbon tax will have on them. I recently conducted an electorate-wide survey in which I asked constituents if they supported the introduction of the carbon tax. What do you think they said? 'Absolutely not'—the overwhelming majority stated they do not support the carbon tax. There can be no clearer indication that Australians want the carbon tax and this Labor government gone.

Businesses are also feeling the heat from the carbon tax. I recently spoke with a local restaurateur who advised me his business is only just covering operating costs let alone turning a profit and he fears he will have to close his restaurant by the end of the year due to the direct impact the carbon tax will have on his bottom line. This is not an isolated case. Business owners right across Australia fear for their livelihoods as the carbon tax starts to force prices up and up across the board—price increases they will be forced to wear unless they pass them on to customers. But customers are wary of spending their money and are instead keeping it in their wallets as they do not know what hidden costs may be ahead.

This is a tax that the government sees as a magical cure to so-called climate change and exemplifies this government's commitment to the environment over the citizens of Australia. In my electorate I have the Wagga Wagga City Council, the Coolamon Shire Council and the Griffith City Council, who are all going to have to pay the carbon tax. These councils collectively represent fewer than 100,000 people yet are considered by this government to be among Australia's biggest polluters. How ridiculous!

The hit list also includes Riverina Beef at Yanco, Snowy Hydro and the Visy pulp and paper mill at Tumut. These businesses are all good employers. They are not big polluters; they are all good Australian businesses. They deserve respect and they do not deserve the carbon tax. (Time expired)

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take great pride in rising today to speak on this motion. We have heard all sorts of claims coming from the opposition about what impact the price on carbon will have. They have said that this will create devastation. It will create massive price rises and lead to massive job losses. According to their claims, it will lead to Whyalla being wiped off the map. Tony Abbott has said that the impact on the cost of living will be almost unimaginable. Joe Hockey has said it will drive up the price of everything. Barnaby Joyce said that it would force working mothers to pay up to $100 for a roast. And we have heard all sorts of other claims coming from the coalition.

The reality, of course, is completely different. Despite the fear campaign being waged by Tony Abbott and the Liberal and National parties, the reality is that 1 July has come and gone and the python is not squeezing the economy. The wrecking ball has not created mass destruction and devastation on our economy. Indeed, the Treasury modelling is shaping up to be spot on, suggesting that the impact on our economy will be less than 0.7 per cent. The reality is that Tony Abbott has spent the last 12 months running a fear campaign—a fear campaign not based on fact but designed to scare working families.

Meanwhile, this Labor government has continued to argue the case around why polluters must pay for their pollution and why it is important to put in place household compensation packages, to ensure that Australians are shielded from the costs of a price on carbon. Indeed, we have provided compensation to nine out of 10 households, a very Labor thing to do. We put in place compensation that equates, on average, to about $10.10 per typical family, with the impact being passed on by those that generate the pollution being substantially lower than that.

We have also been able to use this opportunity to lift family tax benefits and put in place increases to pensions and other government payments, ensuring that Australians can live comfortably with a price on carbon.

The reality is that Tony Abbott, for the last 12 months, has been running a scare campaign. As I said earlier, 1 July has come and gone, the wrecking ball has not struck the Australian economy, the python has not started squeezing the economy and the cobra has not struck. Indeed, I am sure that, when electricity bills start arriving in the next few weeks, Australians will see straight through the fear campaign, which Tony Abbott has been running, as a deceitful campaign and a campaign based on fear mongering and scaring Australians rather than on the facts. I know the coalition do not like hearing the facts, but the reality is that putting a price on carbon is the right thing to do for our economy, it is the right thing to do for our planet and it is reform that only Labor will deliver in a way that will protect Australians from unnecessary price increases.

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

(.'

I was shocked when two of my councils were named in that list: the Maranoa Regional Council based in Roma, my own home town, and the Western Downs Regional Council based in Dalby in my electorate. They were straightaway labelled as big polluters. These are councils that employ people and create jobs. The families live in these towns, their children go to school, they shop in town, and yet they are labelled as big polluters. I could not believe it. The Western Downs Regional Council with a population of 32,000 is a very large geographic area. The Maranoa Regional Council based in Roma is 13,000. They are the approximate population figures as at June last year.

The Maranoa Regional Council have said that their electricity bill will rise by around $200,000. The mayor said that, logically, they are going to have to pass that cost on. Who to? To the ratepayers, and this is just the start of it. The ratepayers are going to be burdened with another cost, and it is going to be reflected in their rates notices that go out this year because councils have to make sure that they do not run deficit budgets and run up big debts. They are going to have to pay this tax. The mayor went on to say that they will look at retro-fitting some of the buildings, but that also is going to cost money and these are councils that are struggling. They do a magnificent job, but they struggle, day-to-day, and their only source of revenue is Financial Assistance Grants from the federal government or the ratepayers' rates that they receive. When I wrote to the minister about this, he advised me that these councils were included because they are natural gas suppliers. That is why they are considered big polluters. Natural gas is the fuel used in various types of businesses and households, and natural gas suppliers were chosen to be the point of liability to ensure effective and efficient coverage.

I want to touch on another business enterprise in my electorate—and I could probably name many of them—but this one, in particular, came to my attention recently and it is a Goondiwindi business that is going to be hit by the carbon tax.

This is a business that processes grain and packages it for export. I ask the minister: how do you compensate an exporter for the increased costs that they will have to bear as a result of the increased cost of electricity that they will be paying? We hear day to day in the House from the Prime Minister and other ministers, 'Oh, there's a compensation package.' This business was advised by its electricity provider that, as of 1 July this year, there would be a carbon charge applied to the electricity account that they receive. They have estimated that that is going to cost them an extra $70,000 to $80,000 in the first 12 months. Where do they pass that cost on to when they are an exporting enterprise? Do they pass it down the line or up the line or do they absorb it?

This is a business that employs 33 people. It is an important part of the food processing chain—grain cleaning and grain packaging. Of course, most of this grain is going on to export markets, which is already very difficult for exporters given the high value of our Australian dollar. There is no compensation package for this enterprise. So either they will absorb it or they will have to go back to the producer, the farmer, and say, 'We now have to pay you less because we have greater costs as a result of the carbon tax.'

I say to the Prime Minister that it is about time that she got out there and spoke to the real people and visited some small businesses. The Prime Minister should do as we on this side of the House have done—go and visit small business after small business and talk to the real people who are going to be affected by this insidious carbon tax, the effects of which are going to cascade across the country. (Time expired)

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

Once again we hear the argument that the sky is falling in. I think the opposition are just desperate for this carbon price to fail. Let us put some facts into this debate. We hear members of the opposition time and time again quoting the Prime Minister from 2010, stating that there would not be a carbon tax under a government she leads. It is important to also put that into context and look at what the Prime Minister also said in 2010 before the federal election. She said that the federal Labor Party and a federal Labor government remain committed to delivering an emissions trading scheme—a policy that we took to the 2007 election and to the 2010 election. What are we delivering for the people of Australia? We are delivering an emissions trading scheme that comes into effect in 2015.

What has this government had to do to achieve that? In forming a minority government we had to sit down and negotiate for a Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to look into how we achieve that aim, and we now have a fixed-term carbon price for three years. Why have we done that? We have done that so that in the long term we could deliver on our promise to the Australian people that we would have an emissions trading scheme to operate well into the future in this country. I am proud of that commitment. I am proud that we are delivering on that commitment.

Let us look at some of the other comments that we have heard. We have heard from the member for Riverina that the pensioners contacting his office are getting meagre assistance and self-funded retirees are not getting anything. Again, let us put some facts around that. The fact is that pensioners are getting compensation, or household assistance, of around $10.10 per week—more than the estimated cost of the impact of the carbon price. With respect to self-funded retirees, to make a statement in this House to say that self-funded retirees get nothing is just misleading. The fact is that many self-funded retirees who may be on the seniors healthcare card or are low income would also get some assistance.

We heard from the member for Riverina that people in his electorate are scared to spend money. I am not surprised, when the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer are running around saying how bad our economy is—despite them going overseas and saying how great it is—and you have the Premier of Queensland actually stating in a press conference that Queensland is bankrupt and then within a very short period of time that same day saying: 'Well, actually, no, we are doing quite well. Our economy is growing. Don't panic.' A Liberal premier comes out and says, 'We're bankrupt'—and you are surprised that people are worried about spending money!

We should be talking up our economy. When it comes to our economy, we are the envy of the developed world. These are the things that we should be talking about. If we want to stimulate spending in our economy and productivity, then we have to stop talking down the economy. So Liberal parties at the national and state levels need to stop talking down our economy and trying to scare people. If I hear one more example from members of the opposition about businesses in their electorates and the increases in their electricity prices! I would like a member of the opposition to come into the chamber and not just quote dollar figures but actually tell us the percentage of that increase. It would be a nice change to hear what the percentage increase is. When the opposition talk about thousands of dollars of extra electricity costs, they are not talking about percentage. Why? What you will hear is that it equates to 10 per cent or less. It equates to what Treasury has estimated as the cost of electricity as a result of the carbon price.

There are many electricity providers who, when they are currently sending out bills, are also sending out a brochure. That brochure shows where every $100 of their electricity bill goes. The brochure says that $51 goes towards the network, poles and wires; $20 towards retail, customer service and programs; $20 towards wholesale electricity generation; and $9 towards the carbon price. Unfortunately, every person whose electricity provider in Queensland is a state government owned electricity provider is not getting this flyer, because the state government refuses to let the state government owned electricity providers circulate it. Those are the facts. The facts are that GST had an impact on CPI of 2.5 per cent, but we did not see any household assistance to anyone then. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.