Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Evans), the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) and the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to questions without notice asked by coalition senators in relation to the carbon tax, and by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Bishop.

The government claim that our opposition to this tax is creating uncertainty for the business community, but in fact it is the government’s approach that is creating uncertainty. Don’t blame the coalition for the current uncertainty in the business community; have a look at yourselves. This situation has been created by the government, because they do not have a policy—all they have is an announcement. They have come out and said they are going to have a carbon tax, and they are going to work it out, but it is going to be starting from 2012. That is what promotes concern from the industry sector. It is exacerbated by their relationship with the Greens and it is compounded by their broken promises. So don’t start blaming the opposition for the uncertainty that exists, particularly by government actions.

I asked Senator Carr today what modelling his department had done in relation to jobs. At least he did provide the fact that they had done no modelling—they had done none. He said to the chamber that he relied on others to do that modelling. But we know that there has been no modelling done on the impact on jobs of a carbon tax, or even the defunct CPRS, because the impact on jobs was an assumption, an input, to the modelling process. The government made the assumption at the outset that there would be no reduction in jobs and that employment would grow, so it is not a function of any modelling. Senator Carr should have done that work, to get an understanding of the impact on his portfolio. He is being negligent by not doing that work to get an understanding of the impact on his portfolio.

In fact, at estimates last week we heard that there are tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs that have disappeared from his portfolio in the last three years, since this government took over. And here is the minister who was so much in favour of manufacturing, the minister who was going to save manufacturing and manufacturing jobs in this country. He has completely failed: 87,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared from this country since he became the minister. He wants to impose additional costs on those business, and has done no work to get any understanding of what the impact of government decisions might be. Senator Carr says it is being done by others, when in fact it is not—as I said before, it is an input of the modelling that was done by the government. So they have no understanding of the impact of this tax on jobs, no understanding of the impact on manufacturing in regional Australia.

It was absolutely no surprise when the CEO of BlueScope Steel said that ‘manufacturing policy is now being directed by members of a government who show complete ignorance’. They do not want to listen. You can be part of any council you like. You can be part of the manufacturing councils, you can have input—but, if the government are not listening to you, what impact can that have? If the government do not want to know, what impact can you have? They are in complete ignorance; they do not want to listen. They are engaged in economic vandalism. These are considered statements by the CEO of a major Australian company in relation to the person who is directing manufacturing policy in this country—a person who does no background research, who has no understanding of what is going on, who does not want to listen and who does not seem to care whether or not there are manufacturing jobs in this country. What a complete and utter indictment on the minister.

But of course all of this is compounded by the government’s complete breach of promise in relation to this carbon tax. The Prime Minister went to the election saying that there would be no carbon tax. It was repeated and repeated in context in relation to statements that were being made about a carbon tax. To quote the Prime Minister:

I think when you go to an election and you give a promise to the Australian people you should do everything in your power to honour that promise. We are determined to do that.

It is an indictment on this government. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that government ministers—Ministers Evans, Wong, Carr and Conroy—today have shown great leadership in responding to the questions asked of them. In contrast, we have from the opposition leader, Mr Abbott—a revolting leader, I might suggest, given that he is leading what is quoted as a—

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. That language is inappropriate and does not befit this chamber.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think that is a point of order. Senator Pratt has the call.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To contextualise that remark, if I may—

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order. The senator was actually impugning an individual in the other place and I think it does not behove this chamber. I ask you to get the senator to withdraw her remarks.

The Acting Deputy President:

I appreciate the point you are making, Senator Kroger, but I do not believe that is a point of order.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To contextualise what I have just said, there are two meanings to the word ‘revolting’: one, as in disgusting, and the other, as in participating in a revolt. So, we have a leader who says that he will fight this every minute—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now that the senator has clarified the two meanings for ‘revolting’ it is now incumbent upon her to let the chamber know which ‘revolting’ she is referring to, because if she is referring to the former, that is without doubt a reflection on the Leader of the Opposition. But if she is referring to the second meaning of ‘revolting’ we accept that on this side.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Pratt, it might assist the matter if you were to explain the matter a little further.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I had contextualised this in the context of Mr Abbott’s remarks about a revolt, and I think that speaks for itself. He is a leader who says that he will fight this every minute of every hour of every day, yet we know that Mr Abbott has not even looked in detail at this policy.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has proclaimed that he will roll it back. Every minute of every day—does the man never sleep? No wonder the decision making we are seeing—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senators on my left.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has proclaimed he will roll back a policy that is still being developed—every minute of every day. As I said, does the man never sleep? No wonder the decision making is so appalling.

Yet we know that there are senators opposite who would support our approach. They believe in a price on carbon. We have a major economic reform and, I believe, the right approach to this issue. We need certainty for business, a case that has been well stated by our ministers today. In fact, a delay means business will not be able to make decisions. It drives up costs for businesses and costs for Australian consumers.

We know, this nation knows and this parliament should know that we need to shift to an economy that produces less pollution so that we can make goods that produce less pollution more attractive; in other words, goods that create less pollution should cost less than those that create a lot of pollution. It is a rational approach. The sooner we move on this journey, the cheaper that journey will be.

We also have climate scientists around the world telling us that carbon pollution is causing climate change and that the scientific case demonstrating this is in fact overwhelming. I am pleased to say that this government accepts the climate science. We know that the world is warming. 2010 was the equal warmest year on record, with 2001-10 being the warmest decade. In a summer where we have experienced such extreme weather events around the nation, we really need to ask ourselves, ‘Can we not participate with the globe in creating an insurance against this kind of effect on our population?’ No responsible government can ignore these findings, which is why we need to make a start now in reducing carbon pollution. We need to play our part in the world’s efforts to save our planet.

But these moves, as demonstrated today, are also about driving innovation, creating jobs and building a stronger economy. We know that the world must move and if we lag behind we lose economically and our environment loses. The same scare campaigns have been run every time a government has set out on a major economic reform, such as reducing tariffs. It is easy to put off reform, to ignore the negative impacts of a patchwork economy and to ignore the challenges of climate change. We have been talking about a price on carbon for a long time, as have the opposition. But we know that, just like reducing tariffs, it is about creating jobs and building a stronger economy. It is about driving investment in clean energy and creating the jobs of the future. It is about business certainty. (Time expired)

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question time we have just sat through demonstrates how those on the other side have absolutely no appreciation of the magnitude of the effect that a carbon tax will have on this country. How surprised I was to hear the question from Senator Bishop to Senator Conroy suggesting that the planet was going to be saved by the introduction of the NBN and that there was some relationship, some strong connection, between the rollout of an expensive NBN program and climate change. It is a poor reflection on those on the other side that they would seek to trivialise such an important debate.

But I guess I should not be surprised at all, because in the past week we have seen a disgraceful and outrageous abuse of the democratic rights of Australian citizens by this alliance government of Labor and the Greens. Let us call it what it is, and that is exactly what it is: an unholy alliance between the Labor Party and the Greens. In the very words of the Prime Minister before 21 August 2010, when we had the federal election:

There will no carbon tax under a government I lead.

Let us reflect on this for a moment. This was no quick response to a doorstop. Again, days later—and we saw reports of it in the Australianthe Prime Minister confirmed that she was ruling out a carbon tax, period. But let us remember the context in which she made that statement and that pledge to the Australian people. At the time, the Labor Party was on the nose. The Labor government was on the nose because its own supporters were absolutely appalled at the way in which former Prime Minister Rudd was stabbed in the back. They were absolutely horrified. If they could not trust the gang of four—if they could not trust caucus with the numbers men wielding the power, and a couple of them share this chamber here with us: Senator Feeney and Senator Farrell—who could they trust? It is good to see that they were both promoted for their actions.

Prime Minister Gillard, in response to that, sashayed around trying to demonstrate her fitness for the job and in the process—surprise, surprise!—was not seen to be that real. In fact, she was seen to be stage managed and fake. Then we heard from the Prime Minister herself that the ‘real Julia’ would stand up—not the one who had been turning up to the contrived media opportunities but the real Julia. And so it was presumably the real Prime Minister Julia Gillard who made that pledge that there would be no carbon tax under her leadership. To be honest, I am staggered that she does not blush at the absolute hypocrisy implied by this backflip, but we have all seen that no lack of principle or honour seems to worry this government. Embarrassment certainly is not one of those things that the Prime Minister seems to suffer from.

We all saw, in the photo shoot of that carbon tax press statement, just who was in control of this particular policy. We had Senator Bob Brown at front and centre of the photo. In fact, I am reminded of The Addams Family, for those of you who watched that television program a couple of decades ago. As I looked at that photo I wondered which one was Uncle Fester, the one who could put the light globe in his mouth and set it alight. Looking at Senator Milne, who was standing beside Senator Brown in the centre of the photo, I thought it might be Senator Milne, because she had a radiant glow. If one was in doubt of what was behind this policy, that photo should attest to it. This carbon tax is a disgrace, this government is a disgrace and the Australian people should boot them out sooner rather than later. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers provided by Ministers Wong, Carr and Evans today. It appears as though those people opposite were not listening to the answers provided. They have just gone off at their own tangent. A carbon price is a major economic reform that will create an incentive to reduce pollution and drive investment in renewable energy and low emissions technologies. The government recognises the concerns of industry in adapting to a clean energy future and adopting carbon pricing. However, the introduction of a price on carbon is an essential economic reform that will help Australian business, industry and communities to combat future challenges. Origin Energy, in a media release, said:

To drive a switch to lower carbon options in the electricity market, the fundamental requirements are a clear and credible long-term pricing framework and a carbon price that makes a real difference to investment decisions. Today’s announcement is a very positive start …

In another press release, the Clean Energy Council said:

... today’s announcement was an important step forwards in locking in long term investment certainty for both the clean energy industry and the power sector as a whole.

“A carbon price must be the cornerstone of any effective climate change strategy” ...

The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee has agreed on the principle that appropriate account will be taken of the impacts on the competitiveness of all Australian industries, having regard to the carbon prices of other countries while maintaining incentives to reduce pollution. Meeting Australia’s emissions reduction target without having a price on carbon would be more costly than doing it by harnessing the power of a carbon price.

A price on carbon is the most efficient and effective way to reduce carbon pollution. It will create incentives throughout the economy for people to reduce carbon emissions, either through adopting existing technologies and practices or by finding smart and innovative new ways of doing it. The Climate Institute’s Clean energy jobs in regional Australia report, released on Monday, 28 February, predicts that a substantial carbon price would trigger tens of billions of dollars of investment in geothermal, large-scale solar, bioenergy, hydro, wind and gas. This is important work and it highlights the opportunities that could be created for Australian manufacturers in these emerging industries.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn’t you say that during the election campaign?

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that point, we have always been clear—before, during and since the election campaign—that we want to, need to and must tackle the issue of climate change. Unless those on the other side have been living under rocks—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, a little restraint is in order in these circumstances.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unless those opposite have been living under rocks without radios, televisions, newspapers or internet access, then they should know that Labor advocated long and hard for a carbon pricing regime between 2007 and 2010. Everyone in this chamber is aware of that. And it is what we spoke to the Australian community about during the 2010 election. We have always been upfront that the best way to do this is through a price on carbon.

A carbon price is a price on pollution. The best way to stop businesses polluting and to get them to invest in clean energy is to charge them when they pollute. The businesses with the highest levels of pollution will have a very strong incentive to reduce their pollution. Make no mistake: those opposite do themselves and the Australian people no justice by running a scaremongering campaign.

This government is very conscious of the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian families. That is why we have already reduced the tax burden on families, we abolished Work Choices, we increased the pension, we increased the childcare rebate and we introduced the education tax refund. That is why we are delivering an increase of $4,000 in family tax benefit part A, extending the education tax refund to uniforms and providing the option for families to receive childcare rebate payments fortnightly. All of these initiatives are fully costed and fully funded. We also understand that central to dealing with the cost-of-living pressures on working Australians is the government’s plan for a stronger economy, because a stronger economy means more jobs and better wages. (Time expired)

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers by the ministers named by others. I have great trouble saying that I am going to take note of answers, because there were in fact no answers. Senator Carr told us that he had not done any modelling at all on jobs in the manufacturing area. Manufacturing has lost almost 90,000 jobs during Senator Carr’s time allegedly in charge of the functioning of manufacturing, looking after them with his tender mercies.

Senator Conroy laughably suggested that teleworking is somehow all by itself going to get rid of climate change and overcome emissions. Let us look at that. Firstly, was that a confirmation that there will be a carbon tax on petrol? Is that an extra incentive for people to stay at home and work rather than go to work? The teleworking industry has been growing at a rapid pace without either spending billions of dollars on the NBN or a carbon tax, so I am not quite sure what the massive change is that Senator Conroy is hoping to achieve here.

Then there were the answers of other senators, which bring us back to the basic point of this carbon tax that the government proposed last Thursday out of the blue. Senator Pratt had the nerve to suggest that we had not looked at the detail. We would love to look at the detail. Where is the detail? Are our trade exposed industries covered? Are manufacturing businesses that will suffer because of higher prices and an inability to charge their customers more covered? Who knows? Is petrol covered? The list goes on and on. What is the price of carbon going to be set at? If it is set at $26 a tonne, we are looking at more than $300 extra for electricity for the average Australian family, we are looking at about 6.5c a litre more for petrol for the average Australian family and we are looking at about an extra $100 a year for gas for the average Australian family. The price of manufactured goods—if they can get them—will go up or these people will simply have to go offshore or close down. The price of groceries and food will go up. So we would love to examine the detail of this proposed carbon tax. But all we got was this little bubble—this concept idea—from Ms Gillard, with her friends in tow.

One of the things that have puzzled the coalition and that we have been trying to understand since last Thursday is how on earth the Prime Minister could so shamelessly lie and break an election promise as she did. As a number of people have quoted, just before the election the Prime Minister said, ‘There will no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ We found it inconceivable that the Prime Minister could say that in August and do what she did, alleging changed circumstances.

I think perhaps what has happened is that we are misreading her comment of 10 August. It is not the ‘no carbon tax’ part of the promise that we should be looking at; it is the ‘under the government I lead’ part that we should be looking at. As she points out, in the present circumstances she does not lead the government. It is not the government she leads anymore, so the honest and right thing to do would be to go to an election to see what the people of Australia think about her carbon tax idea and to confirm whether it is she who leads the government or whether it is Senator Bob Brown, Mr Combet or Mr Shorten who leads this government. It certainly is not the Prime Minister, but she should have the courage to find this out at an election. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.