Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Ronaldson is correct: they are consistently inconsistent. This is the party that under Mr Rudd stood for an ETS until Mr Rudd changed his mind after Copenhagen and said it was not the time for an ETS. Then Ms Gillard rolled Mr Rudd, and she stood against both an ETS and a carbon tax. In fact, as we all know and as many people have said already in this place and in this debate, Ms Gillard uttered those immortal words, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' She uttered them just days before the election. She did have a climate change policy: it was for a citizens' assembly. That was her climate change policy. Then, of course, after the election—after she had cobbled together a government with the support of the Greens—she changed her mind again and decided that she was for a carbon tax. So for Mr Georganas to suggest that Labor has been the party of consistency really does beggar belief.

Mr Georganas did indicate that we have heard that people will be worse off as a result of the carbon price flowing on to consumers but, as many Labor MPs did, went on to try to say that nine out of 10 households will receive compensation. Nine out of 10 will receive compensation, but it does not get away from the fact that, on the government's own estimates, three million households will be worse off under this proposal. At least three million will be worse off on the government's own estimates, and their modelling is highly optimistic about the extent of international action. They can model quite precisely what extra money will end up in the pockets of households, but the modelling is very imprecise about what the extra costs will be for those households. In fact, they need only be two per cent wrong in those costs for millions more households to be worse off as a result of this proposal.

It was not just Mr Georganas; we had Mr Zappia, the member for Makin, who also made a contribution—another member from my home state. He also sought to claim that other countries were taking action, although he gave an interesting list of countries. He said:

Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland and the UK have all had an indirect or direct tax system that impacts on industries in those countries ... So it is not as though we are acting in isolation ...

Phew! Regardless of the accuracy or not of his comments, I am relieved to know that the Australian economy, with its competitors from around the world, is at least in line with Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland and the UK. There is nothing wrong with any of those countries, of course. But, by and large, with one or two small exceptions, their economies hardly resemble the industrial mix and the mining mix of the Australian economy. This is not comparing apples with apples, Mr Zappia—far from it.

Mr Zappia also pointed out that the Productivity Commission noted that 89 countries that represent 80 per cent of global emissions and nearly 90 per cent of total GDP are already acting. He failed to point out that the Productivity Commission made extremely clear that no other country in the world has an economy-wide ETS or a carbon tax in place—no other country has anything like what this government is proposing.

Ms Rishworth, the member for Kingston in South Australia, also spoke on these bills. She said she was:

... proud that it is this Labor government that is bringing forward a ... plan to tackle climate change; a plan that will ensure that we reduce our carbon emissions ...

Let me deal firstly with her pride. If she is so proud of it, why did she not take it to the election? Is she is so proud of it, why does she not take it to an election? If she and all of those 72 members of the Labor Party in the House of Representatives are so proud of this proposal, why do they not have the courage of their convictions and take it to an election? Let the Australian people have a say. Let the Australian people say whether they are proud of their Labor representatives for introducing this. She said it is:

... a plan that will ensure that we reduce our carbon emissions ...

Unfortunately, that is just not true. It is a plan that will ensure that Australian companies spend billions of dollars buying permits from overseas to meet a target to reduce emissions. Australia's emissions will keep going up under this plan. Australia's emissions will be more in 2020 under this plan. It will not reduce our emissions at all. It is misleading to say so. What this plan actually facilitates is simply a multibillion-dollar transfer of funds by Australian companies into international carbon credits, many of which are of questionable operation or questionable value. It will facilitate the transfer of funds. Those Australian companies, if they can afford to actually purchase those credits, will then continue to emit within Australia. Australia's domestic emissions will keep going up and those companies will pass the cost of purchasing those permits onto their consumers, which will ultimately mean that Australian households will pay more as a result. Ms Rishworth also said:

It will mean that 500 of Australia's biggest polluters will pay for every tonne of carbon pollution they emit into our atmosphere.

But it is not just 500; there are sweeping changes in these bills that relate to fuel arrangements. Everybody who uses fuel for off-road purposes will face increased prices—tens of thousands of businesses around Australia will face increased prices. So it is not just the 500—in the refrigerant sector alone, hundreds more will face increased prices because of the treatment of certain gases. We know that, in fact, tens of thousands of businesses will directly pay increased prices and every Australian business will pay increased prices as a result of the flow-on effects.

Mr Champion, the member for Wakefield, spent basically his entire speech talking about anything but the government's carbon tax legislation. I will not rehash his comments about various coalition MPs and others who were the focus of his contribution. But, right at the end of his contribution, he said:

We are going to implement this practical solution to a practical problem. I think on 1 July next year everybody will shrug their shoulders and just get on with a prosperous economy and an increasingly efficient and green society and economy.

It is hardly a practical solution; it is a great big money-go-round—money goes round and round; billions of dollars go in, billions of dollars go out and the government is left with a multibillion-dollar deficit at the end of it. It is quite a remarkable situation—the government is introducing a multibillion-dollar new tax but will actually end up with a deficit of $4 billion-plus over the forward estimates period.

I would not want Ms Ellis, the member for Adelaide, to miss out as I roll through the South Australian Labor MPs. She argued it was reasonable:

Following the election where it became clear that no party had the numbers on the floor of this parliament to ... change—

the policy that they had. I would have thought that perhaps they could have mustered the numbers on the floor of the parliament for their citizens assembly as there have been plenty of other talkfests. We had two of them just last week. Ms Ellis ultimately also cited some of the same points such as 'only 500 companies' and 'reducing Australia's emissions'—points which I have already countered.

Lastly, there was one South Australian Labor MP who did not speak in the debate—Mr Butler, the member for Port Adelaide. I wonder why Mr Butler did not speak. Senator Cormann might know because he joined me in visiting some of the extremely emissions intensive industries that are located in Mr Butler's electorate of Port Adelaide—businesses like Adelaide Brighton and Penrice that will face enormous bills under this carbon tax. Mr Butler, like so many Labor MPs, just did not have the courage to say why he wants to impose this cost on them.