Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection as well. That is blatantly and patently wrong. What are the Americans doing, Senator Polley? What are the Canadians doing, Senator Polley? What are the Chinese doing, Senator Polley? What are the Indians doing, Senator Polley? The bottom line is that you and your better half, the Greens—your partners in economic and political crime—are going to destroy this country. You know and I know that it will have a negligible effect on emissions. But what you and the Greens want to do is to turn this country and this economy upside down on the back of a so-called moral obligation. I can tell you that, if I need a moral obligation lecture from anyone, it will not be from the Australian Greens. I would be more inclined to take one from the Labor Party; I certainly will not be taking one from the Australian Greens.

I thought the most interesting comment of the week was the comment from the Canadian foreign minister, John Baird, who told the Australian on 31 October:

The people of Canada spoke unequivocally about that at the last election …

I think there's only one member of parliament who advocates it, and that's the lone Greens member.

What a marvellous chamber it would be if that were the case in this country—to have one lone Greens member. I think it is also interesting to look at what President Obama has done in the States. He is not proceeding with it. These massive countries are not doing to their economies what we are doing to ours, so there will be very little prevention of climate damage.

There was also an interesting comment from Tim Flannery, who said in an interview with Andrew Bolt on MTR:

If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

That was on 25 March this year. I will read it again:

If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

This is from Tim Flannery himself. But leave that to one side because, as Senator Cormann said, our emissions will actually continue to increase. So let's put to bed this debate about cutting emissions.

Let's get down to the nuts and bolts of this issue, and that is the extraordinary damage it will do to our economy. It will provide a $9 billion slush fund for the Gillard government in its first year alone. Let's have a look at the impact on my own home state of Victoria. It is quite horrifying. Independent modelling commissioned by the Baillieu government, conducted by Deloitte Access Economics, shows the true impact of the Gillard government's carbon tax on Victoria. For starters, there will be 35,000 fewer jobs than there would be without the carbon tax. Investment will be down almost $6.3 billion, or 6.6 per cent. Per capita income will be more than $1,050 lower and the Victorian state budget is predicted to be almost $660 million worse off. I want to turn to the fine regional seats of Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong—one of which I live in, as honourable senators know, and that is Ballarat. By 2015, according to this independent modelling, 663 fewer jobs will have been created in the City of Ballarat than would have been if the carbon tax was not introduced. The local economy will suffer, with business output being reduced by $75 million. In Bendigo the figures are 705 fewer jobs and business output being reduced by $79 million. There will be 1,296 fewer jobs created in the City of Greater Geelong than there would have been if a carbon tax were not introduced and the damage to that economy will be $152 million. These are regional centres and there will be $75 million, $79 million and $152 million of economic damage—and for what, I ask.

In Geelong manufacturing is worth $13.8 billion. It accounts for half of all revenue generated in the Geelong region. This is what the acting mayor said when this toxic tax was announced:

Geelong does have a large percentage of trade exposed and emissions intensive industries—whilst we accept the need for Australia to contribute to a global reduction of carbon emissions it's vital that the Geelong region is not unfairly disadvantaged.

…   …   …

Local industries must be supported so they can remain competitive and that local jobs are not put in jeopardy.

If products that are currently manufactured in Geelong are forced off-shore the effect will be self defeating in terms of global carbon emissions.

Mr Acting Deputy President, if you were one of the local members in Geelong and this package of bills was put into the lower house and you knew what would potentially happen to your region, would you not think it appropriate to stand up and at least explain yourself? The member for Corangamite did not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up in the chamber and explain himself. Why was that? Because he knows, as I know and his constituents know, that he was elected on the back of a lie. There are some other members in marginal seats. The members for Bendigo and Ballarat are now in marginals as a result of this toxic tax. At least they had the guts to stand up in the other place and explain their actions. The member for Corangamite did not have the intestinal fortitude to do so, and for that he stands utterly condemned. I just wonder whether it might be related to the following economic damage that this toxic tax will do in his electorate. Around Colac in his electorate there is a very big and intensive dairy farming industry. Dairy farmers, according to independent modelling, will pay between $5,000 and $7,000 a year more for electricity and other costs. According to the National Farmers Federation, the average cost to farmers will rise by $1,500 a year and this will erode net farm income by 2.4 per cent. Research from the Australian Farm Institute shows that the costs of an average sheep farm will go up by $1,000 per year on average, while for the average cotton farm the costs will go up $10,500 per year on average. According to AUSVEG, the national peak body for vegetable and potato growers, the carbon tax will increase the cost of running irrigation systems and this will again increase the costs of fresh vegetables and potatoes. According to the Australian Coal Association, 4,700 mining jobs will be lost. In my home state the coal-dependent Latrobe Valley will be hit particularly hard. The Minerals Council of Australia has made it quite clear that mines that are marginal will close down.

The other thing about Mr Cheeseman's electorate is that it is rapidly growing with very substantial housing development. This toxic tax will add $5,000 to the cost of building a new home, according to the Master Builders Association. For a $350,000 home, this is effectively a 1.5 per cent interest rate impost. We have had the government boasting about a 25-basis-point reduction today, but their own policy will make sure that those young families in Darren Cheeseman's electorate are potentially going to pay a tax impost that is effectively a 1.5 per cent increase in interest rates.

We have all heard about the cost of electricity prices, but what people living in metropolitan Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra do not realise is that the impost of electricity prices in regional areas is substantially more, upwards of 30 per cent more. I would not expect the Greens to understand that. I would not expect the Greens, who spend the great majority of their time swanning around metropolitan areas, to understand it. Go out into those regional centres. See what the cost-of-living imposts are for those living outside metropolitan areas and then come back in here and debate whether this is or is not a good tax. Schools will pay nearly $200 million more in electricity prices over four years. This is a very, very bad tax.

I am pleased that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation is here tonight. I want to ask the minister about some of the comments that she has made previously. I will just give some quotes, Minister. This is an interview you did with Marius Benson on ABC NewsRadio on 16 April 2010. I will sit down immediately if you stand up and say that you have been misquoted. As soon as you move, I will sit down. I suspect that I will not be sitting down. I quote:

A carbon tax is a less efficient way in the Australian government's view of dealing with this issue.

In a speech to CEDA at the State of the Nation conference on 23 June 2010 you said:

Unfortunately, a carbon tax is not the silver bullet some people would think.

Misquoted, Minister? I do not think so. The doozy of the lot is this from Sky News on 30 April 2009:

You know you cannot have any environmental certainty with a carbon tax.

If that is the quote then what are we doing here? It is not a silver bullet, as you have said. The people who think it is a silver bullet are indeed your own party, Minister, and your group of acolytes who sit down the other end of this place.