Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

A market solution? A tax of billions and billions of dollars is a market solution?

Government senators interjecting—

And, I might say, it will make absolutely no impact whatsoever on the changing climate of the world. We were told all of these taxes are going to reduce Australia's emissions by five per cent, yet the figures in the government's own documents show that we are actually going to be emitting more tonnes of carbon at the end of the five years than we are now. We are introducing this enormous tax on everybody, increasing everybody's costs of living, making Australia uncompetitive so that we are sending workers' jobs over to Asia and to places where there is no carbon tax.

Government senators interjecting—

Hang on. We will get there. They are your figures. Have a look at your documents. You are imposing this tax on everyone, and at the end of the period, by 2020, the amount of carbon emissions will have increased. That is in your document. That is in the document that your Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Treasury have modelled. They have put out the figures. They are out there. You are increasing the output and putting a huge tax on everybody.

It has little to do with climate change. You know, with Australia emitting less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, that reducing them by even five per cent, if you were to get there, is going to make absolutely no difference whatsoever. I challenge you: tell me how five per cent of 1.4 per cent is going to make one iota of difference. After going around and warning everyone in Australia that they should not be going near the seashore because the tide is going to rise and their houses will be inundated, what does Professor Flannery, your very highly paid person personally selected to lead the Climate Commission, do with the $180,000 you people are giving him for two days work a week? He buys some property right on the banks of the Hawkesbury River in one of the wealthiest areas of Australia. Great socialists! Great for the workers! Great for the underprivileged! Give Professor Flannery $180,000 a year for two days work a week and tell everybody: 'Don't buy near the water.' If you were a conspiracy theorist you might almost think: 'Why would you tell other people not to buy and then slip into the market when it falls because of the climate change boss's warnings on tidal increases?' Nobody else would want to buy those properties, would they? They would be inundated by the water! But suddenly Professor Flannery does not mind taking that little bit of risk. I think he said he will have moved on by the time the tide comes in and takes his house. But, come on—let's get serious about all this. We are going to set up this new Climate Change Authority—another $400 million.

The other thing I have to tell you, sitting opposite—and I mean no disrespect in this, either—is that when I look around I note everyone on this side of the chamber has worked in their own business. If you did not work you did not get a cheque at the end of the year. In your business, if you spent more than you earned and then you borrowed from the bank, the bank interest plus the repayments eventually caught up with you if you kept borrowing. There is a difference, with respect. It is no reflection on the fact that for all of your senators their whole life's work experience has been working for the Labor Party, working for the unions or working for another politician. The cheque comes in at the end of the month; it does not matter whether you work hard or you do not work hard. And if you have a problem in government you say, 'Let's just spend another $400 million and set up another bureaucracy.' If I did that in my business, if I said, 'Things are going bad. I think I'll spend'—in proportion—'a couple of hundred thousand dollars to set up a new element of my agency', where was I going to get that money from? Hey, if I borrow that I have to pay it back. But the Labor government just spends another $400 million. Where do you get it from? You write out a cheque to the Treasury and when the Treasury runs a bit dry you just put on another tax like the carbon tax.

Money means nothing. It is so easy to spend other people's money. It is so easy to spend money when you never have to be responsible for paying it back. Whenever my colleagues and I borrowed money we actually had to pay it back. That is why we understand what thrift is about. We understand that you just cannot keep borrowing and spending and borrowing and spending—because in my business I eventually had to pay it back. But, in government business, the Labor Party just borrows, spends, borrows, spends, borrows, spends. Somebody will pay for it—the poor old mug taxpayer. As they did in the Whitlam and Keating days, the Labor Party will run up debt. In those days we used to think it was outrageous—$96 billion of debt. They did not care. They knew that the Liberals would eventually come along and pay off the debt, pay off the $96 billion, and put the Treasury in credit to the extent of—what was it?—$60 billion. The Liberals left the incoming Labor government with a $60 billion surplus, having paid off the previous Labor government's $97 billion deficit. We go a couple of years into it, and the Labor Party has wasted the $60 billion we set aside in surplus and they have run up—what?—$120 billion extra in debt. Have a look at Greece. Have a look at Portugal. Have a look at Spain. Have a look at Ireland. Senator, give it long enough and that is where your government will have Australia. Those socialist governments who did not understand the value of money would, if there was a problem, just throw money at it. They would borrow the money. Someone else will provide it. The Greeks are now finding out that they have got to pay it back some day.

Labor are lucky because they know that at the next election the Liberals will be back in power. They know that we will be prudent and fiscally responsible. They know we will pay back all of their debt. It is going to cost us both in money and in political terms because we have to take the razor out and slash their extravagance. I can assure them—and it is not my area of the coalition to be making these commitments on the run, but I will have a fairly good bet—the Climate Commission, the Climate Change Authority and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will be the first to go. There is a saving of a billion dollars over a few years.

An opposition senator: $70 million.

That is a fairly good start, and I have identified it without any research! I have identified that in 30 seconds. It is going to be so easy to get rid of the waste, duplication, bureaucracy, red tape and regulation of your government, Senator, whilst, at the same time, looking after those people who cannot look after themselves. We will be spending our money on the defence of the country and disadvantaged people who need our help. We will be spending it on them. We will not be spending it on public service edifices like the ones that you have. The Climate Change Authority and the climate change depart­ment—that is just for a start. Good heavens! Sit me down with a pencil and paper for 10 minutes and I will give you a list of wasteful things. For example, we will not be spending $14 billion on putting in pink batts and then paying another $14 billion on removing them. There is a start. They are the sorts of things that a prudent, fiscally responsible government would do.

I have been deflected from my discussion on the carbon farming initiative bill by the interjections. Suffice it to say, as Senator Birmingham has clearly pointed out, we like the principle but the legislation is too open-ended and it has too many holes in it. There is also the fact that trusting this government to do anything is too high a risk, and we are not going to do that.