David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to speak about an issue that is very important in my electorate—that is, the policies relating to climate change and, in particular, their impact on the cost of living. The first point to make is that once one accepts that climate change is an issue that must be addressed, then all of the debate should be focused on one very simple point, which is: what is the best way of addressing the issue? What is the most sensible way? Clearly the most sensible way is the way that addresses concerns while minimising the impact on the economy. Presumably no-one on either side of the House has a perverse desire to unnecessarily smash the economy, but of course that is precisely what the carbon tax does. It is $550 a year for the average household in my electorate of Banks. That is a very substantial impost and it is a policy that has been a disastrous failure.

The Labor Party, prior to the last election, said they would be the terminators of the carbon tax, but they have in fact become its human shield—and that is a very sorry chapter in the Labor Party's history. It is important, in looking at the carbon tax, to note that Australia is way out of line with international practice. We have effectively taken a position that has deliberately made Australia uncompetitive relative to its peers because, despite what those opposite say, we know that other carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes are not widespread in other nations and, to the extent they do exist, they are at much smaller levels. So in China, which is often cited as an example, there is an emissions trading system in three areas, but virtually all of the permits are given away for free. It is a very long way from a comprehensive emissions trading scheme. The United States has one state, California, which has an emissions trading scheme, but that state has a much lower cost than the $24 a tonne that is charged in Australia. Indeed, this does not apply across the board to all industries in the manner of the Australian carbon tax.

It is interesting to reflect. In what other field of policy would a government unilaterally decide to take action that makes a nation uncompetitive? It would be similar to entering a free trade agreement and saying, 'We're just going to remove all of our barriers to entry and all of our tariffs. You can do whatever you want.' There is no sense of quid pro quo or any desire to ensure that Australian businesses are on a level playing field. The consequence of that is that, when businesses consider where they should invest their precious capital, they are much less likely to go to a place with such an unfair and excessive tax. That is why those opposite should get on board. There is still time. They should encourage their colleagues in the Senate to support the repeal of the carbon tax because the Australian people could not have been any clearer at the last election as to what they want to happen with this bad tax.

The Direct Action Plan, through a wide range of means, will have a practical impact on reducing emissions, whether that is through soil carbon capture projects, methane related projects, incentives in the transport space or farming. There is a wide range of very practical, tangible initiatives with a bankable reduction in emissions that Direct Action will see occur. The fundamental question is: if you are trying to minimise the impact of climate change, why wouldn't you have taken an approach that minimises the negative effect on the economy? Why would any sensible government seek to follow a policy that hurts business and costs ordinary families $550 a year? Banks want to see the carbon tax eliminated, and that is certainly what this government plans to do.