Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wanted to ask a couple of questions about these particular amendments but also to respond to some of the minister’s claims and, I would consider, misrepresentations of the coalition’s position and certainly my position in the Senate chamber. I feel very strongly that rushing ahead with Labor’s ETS, railroading it through the parliament, is the worst option possible for Australia. Let us be frank about it: it is the most significant economic reform of its type in Australia’s history. It is a high-risk and indeed dangerous strategy for us to be going down this track. It makes no sense, especially when Australians do not understand the consequences of it fully and how it will affect them. They have been kept in the dark. Why race ahead and burden Australia’s economy in advance of the Copenhagen conference and in advance of our major trading countries, including the US, Canada, Japan, China and India?

I have said before and I will say it again: the ETS is actually spelt T-A-X. It is a tax on everything that moves—every good and every service. The only question is: how big will it be? We know that Tasmanians will face a 16 per cent increase in their power costs, and the rest of Australia at least 20 per cent. Yesterday, on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, we found that our cousins in New South Wales will be facing a 60 per cent increase, and half of that increase—meaning 30 per cent—will be due to the ETS. That is not according to me or according to any coalition member of parliament but according to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. They have recommended the hefty rise in power bills from next July. That will apparently be released publicly on 15 December. But it has been leaked—it is out there; it is public—and clearly the New South Wales Labor government are very worried that they and their constituents will not be adequately compensated. This has been brought to bear and there are questions that arise. Are they aware of it, have they considered it and what are the consequences as a result of their review of this tribunal report and recommendation? I and all the people of New South Wales would certainly like to know the answers.

Let us make it clear—and I think Senator Back indicated this earlier—that once this bill is passed there is no turning back; it is irreversible. We had a debate a few days ago with regard to compensation, and the minister clearly indicated there was no need to provide compensation if the legislation would have to change. But the minister could not provide any evidence—no legal advice—to be categorical and provide a stamp of guarantee that compensation would not be paid. At the end of the day, if we do not act in parallel, consistent with our major trading partners, additional costs will be imposed on the Australian people, and we are talking about over $100 billion in the lead-up to 2020. That is how sizeable this particular proposal by the government is.

I have said before and I will say it again: I support action on climate change; I support a price on carbon emissions. As a community we should give the earth the benefit of the doubt. But there is no sense in rushing ahead with this legislation in advance of our major trading partners and in advance of the Copenhagen conference. It needs adequate scrutiny in light of this major structural change to our economy, which will be embedded in concrete for decades to come. I think Mr Rudd wants to rush the legislation through, probably—and perhaps for his own ego—so that he can strut on the world stage in Copenhagen. That is the problem.

In terms of full disclosure to the Australian public, the more they learn about it, the more they understand that the ETS is actually spelt T-A-X and the more they worry and get concerned. They are now starting to understand that the billions of dollars that will have to be paid by Australian businesses and the Australian people will not actually start until 1 July 2011. Here we are, 19 months in advance, rushing ahead all because of Mr Rudd’s ego. According to a recent report, the cost to the minerals sector is 23½ thousand jobs by 2020. In Tasmania it is 1,050 jobs by 2020. That is pretty serious. In a state like Tasmania we take that very seriously. So why would we put all of our eggs in Labor’s ETS basket? It makes no sense.

Mr Abbott has made it very clear today that on our side we support strong and effective action on climate change but, in relation to Labor’s ETS, (1) it is flawed and (2) the timing is premature. There is no need to rush. It needs further scrutiny to get it right. We have only got one shot in the locker and we have got to get it right.

Let us make it very clear: the first draft of the government’s bill had no exclusion and exemption for agriculture. We knew very well that the cost to a typical dairy farmer in Tasmania or around the country was about $10,000 extra in power costs per year. We know that, particularly in Tasmania at the moment, the pressure on dairy farmers is very significant. With the price being offered by the manufacturers, it is hard to make ends meet. The fact is that they would have been paying about $10,000 extra under the first draft of the government’s bill, until the coalition came to the party and pressured the government into getting an exemption. We are thankful for that.

I have two questions about agriculture, and they are specifically these. Could the minister please provide greater detail on how the $150 million for the food processing sector will actually operate in practice? I would like the minister to outline and provide a little bit of detail on how that will operate in practice. Secondly, how many meat processing facilities in Australia will be subjected to having to purchase permits from the commencement of the CPRS on 1 July 2011? How many? If we could get some answers to those key questions, that would be appreciated.