Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today we had a little cameo performance from Senator Fifield that was really a proof-positive demonstration of the intellectual wasteland, the intellectual desert, that the opposition chooses to inhabit with its position on the carbon tax. Senator Fifield popped up and said two things; he enunciated two sentences. Firstly, he said: 'I want to take a point of order. Then he said: 'There is no point of order.' Doesn't that exactly reflect the attitude of the opposition throughout this whole debate on the issue of carbon pricing and the introduction of a carbon price post June of this year?

Today's questions to Senator Wong from a range of opposition senators had a set, a seriatim, of big lies that the opposition chooses to peddle post the passage of the carbon pricing legislation in late June of this year. What were the lies that they managed to put out there today? There were four in particular: firstly, Australia is introducing the biggest carbon tax in the world; secondly, it will not achieve anything in terms of a cut in emissions; thirdly, it will not achieve anything anyway because we are only a fraction of global emissions in the world; and, finally, there was the continuing generalised set of misrepresentations that occur as to price. If I have time to come that, I will highlight the error in Senator Kroger's contribution.

The first myth that is peddled by a range of speakers is that Australia is introducing the biggest carbon tax in the world. Let me just say: not true; incorrect; factually unsound. People who make this claim, as Senator Cormann did in his lead-in to this debate, miss two things. Firstly, a whole range of countries already have carbon prices similar to but in most cases higher than that of Australia. Senator Wong took the trouble to go through eight of them in her response to Senator Cormann. I happen to have that list here, and I will again put it on the record. Norway's carbon tax on petrol is $61. Switzerland's carbon tax on certain fuels is 36 Swiss franks, which is the equivalent of A$36. Sweden has a fuel tax of $138. Ireland has a carbon tax of 20 euros, which equates to A$24. Finland's carbon tax is $36 to $72. In Canada, the carbon tax is up to $29. And the UK has introduced a floor price for the electricity sector.

Secondly, and the more critical point made by Senator Wong in her response, is that while Australia's carbon price starts at $23 a tonne, the government is giving extensive assistance to industries that compete in international markets. Industries like steel, aluminium, oil refining, paper making, flat glass manufacturing and cement—I just note in passing that nearly all of them are based on the east coast, in New South Wales and Victoria—will effectively get up to 94½ per cent—think about that: 94½ per cent—of their carbon permits from the government for free. So free carbon permits will be issued to a range of firms that work in those industries.

What does that mean in terms of the effective price that those firms will pay for the carbon tax? Presumably, to some degree, they will pass it on to their consumers, to their clients, to their customers. Those firms will be paying not $23 a tonne, not $15 a tonne, not $10 a tonne; they will effectively be paying $1.30 a tonne.

That is the price impact on the major emitters in the major industries that I outlined on the east coast of Australia—$1.30 a tonne. For that we have had this huge debate over the last two or three years. I have only half a minute left for my contribution in this debate so I will go straight to Senator Kroger's point that the electricity cost for a retail grocer in Ringwood in Victoria is the highest cost in that grocer's business—conveniently forgetting the cost of stock, the cost of product, the cost of labour, the cost of the lease. Every time a small business organisation comes to speak to you, what do they want to talk about? 'We need labour market deregulation, the costs are high; we need you to attack the property trusts that own shopping centres; we need you to address the cost of stock that we have to purchase.' They do not mention carbon tax because it is about two per cent or less of their costs, but Senator Kroger thought it was the highest cost. (Time expired)