Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senators Cormann and Bushby today, relating to carbon pricing.

Senator Wong’s contribution today was a terrific demonstration as to why the Australian public have stopped listening to this government. Legitimate debate on the subject of a carbon tax is characterised by this government as an activity of denying. Whenever the coalition poses legitimate questions, the word ‘denier’ is hurled. It is hurled across the chamber like a clove of garlic to ward off the evil ones who dare question any element of this government’s policy, who dare question a carbon tax.

Labor have a positively medieval approach to debates and inquiry. They use the words of belief when it comes to public policy. Labor members and senators often say, ‘I believe in an ETS,’ or ‘I believe in a carbon tax,’ not, ‘I think the best policy response to the challenge of climate change is an ETS or a carbon tax.’ They say, ‘I believe.’ It is a perverse and bizarre way to express concepts and policy positions in public debate.

But when Senator Wong and her colleagues hurl the word ‘denier’ at the opposition when we question the value, efficacy and cost-of-living impacts of a carbon tax they also smear millions of Australians who think that action is required but who doubt the government’s plan. They smear millions of Australians who are worried about cost-of-living pressures. They smear millions of Australians who think the government already tax the community and business enough, and they smear millions of Australians who are only too aware of the government’s chronic maladministration.

When the government are not talking about deniers and accusing people of being deniers, they talk about scaremongers. It is really not the fault of the opposition that Prime Minister Gillard took the public and the opposition by surprise by coming out and saying she was going to introduce a carbon tax, exactly what she said before the election she would not do. That is not our fault. And it is not the fault of the opposition that the government released a completely half-baked climate action plan. We know that it would have been the case that that day in the courtyard there was a gap for a media opportunity and so the government thought, ‘Let’s come out with a half-baked climate action plan.’ That is not our fault; that is theirs. They have left a vacuum and the opposition is duty-bound to fill that vacuum by asking legitimate questions and by talking about the parameters of the price effects on Australian households.

The government can pretend all they like that their carbon tax plan is in some way analogous to the GST and the new tax system, that it is some great economic reform. Just calling something an economic reform does not make it so. The contrast between the way the coalition government went about the new tax system and the GST and the way that this government is going about this carbon tax plan could not be more different. When the coalition decided to introduce a GST and a new tax system, we took it to the Australian people. We took it to an election and got a mandate. But, before doing that, we produced a complete plan. We produced 500 fact sheets going into every possible effect on every sort of business and every sort of household. We released cameos about the net impact on families. But this government have not done that work. We saw the evidence of that on Q&A when Bill Shorten was asked what the effect would be on a birthday cake if the carbon tax were introduced. Bill Shorten blathered and blathered until Gretel Killeen could take no more and, for many of us, said, ‘This is just blah, blah, blah.’

This government do not have a plan for climate change, unlike the coalition. The government have no-one to blame but themselves. They should stop blaming the opposition and start explaining their plan to the Australian people.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to rebut and provide a contribution to this motion to take note of answers in question time. We have announced a broad framework to deal with climate change, and that is what sets us apart so dramatically from my colleagues opposite. We have tried three times in this parliament to get some legislation passed to deal with carbon pollution reduction in this country, and three times we have not been successful because of the climate change deniers sitting opposite me.

We have outlined our plan to cut pollution, to tackle climate change and to deliver the economic reform that we as a country are going to need to move to a clean energy future. But what do we hear from the other side? On the other side, we hear from deniers, people who still do not believe climate change exists. These are people who up until late 2009 stood behind leaders such as Mr Howard and Mr Turnbull because they did believe in climate change and wanted to do something about it. But suddenly there was this case of the jitters—so much so that the opposition moved to actually replace a good leader in order to prove that this country does not need to do anything about climate change.

They are still in denial about it. They think we do not need to move at all. The global economy is already shifting to a clean energy economy and, if the people opposite me had their way, they would sit back and let that all happen. They say, ‘Let’s see what the rest of the world does first and we will lag behind.’ Thirty-two countries and 10 US states are already moving to emissions trading schemes. We in this country have the highest emissions per capita in the world, higher than the United States. Australia’s households and businesses are at risk of being left behind in this global economy that is already moving to cut pollution.

We have introduced a plan with a number of stages, and we will move through that plan in discussion with businesses, industry and a number of stakeholders in the coming months. The plan is clearly outlined. I want to highlight that yesterday colleagues opposite me on national television—in fact, the world wide web—showed off their dancing attributes to try to prove their point about how desperate they are to block, skewer, deride and criticise any move this country might want to take to tackle climate change.

Can I just say—and I hope the national press gallery is listening—that it is not dancing that comes to mind as I provide my contribution today; it is a song, a famous song by Renee Geyer: ‘Stares and Whispers’. What we have opposite us now is a party of stares. We all remember Tony Abbott’s contribution on national television, and of course Ms Bishop’s contribution day after day in the House of Representatives, trying to stare down our leader, our reformist, our Prime Minister, who is pushing this country forward to be part of the debate and part of the action internationally to tackle climate change—and, of course, don’t mention the words, ‘Mr Turnbull’. He could not even admit to this country on Q&A on Monday night that he could not find one economist who could back their plan, their ‘direct action’ plan. So, in the Liberal Party, it is stares and whispers. How does it go? It goes:

They just stare and whisper wherever I go

They just stare and whisper, now everyone knows

That the dream I thought I had found

Has come tumbl’in’ down

Well, Mr Turnbull, it did—and it is unfortunate, because under your leadership we would have bipartisan discussions. Under your leadership, Mr Turnbull, we would be moving this debate forward in this parliament. But, under Mr Abbott’s leadership, we still have deniers, we have people who are embarrassed to tackle this hard policy issue. And when they do, they produce a policy, a ‘direct action’ policy, that is going to cause a $30 billion hole—not million; I know the difference between billions and millions, Senator Joyce—and that will cost working families $720 a year. They are a party of stares, whispers, deniers, defeatists; a party that is not going to be bipartisan in pushing the climate change agenda forward. (Time expired)

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

That was quite a contribution from Senator Crossin, and quite a rewrite of history along the way—and a particular ignorance of history along the way. There is a particular ignorance of history on her side of the chamber and in the politics of her side of the chamber. She seems to have forgotten that there has been a Prime Minister go by the wayside, that they lost somewhere along the way of this journey of the climate change debate. Somehow your government executed a Prime Minister in the midst of all of this, in the most extraordinary of circumstances—but it is okay, because, although Senator Crossin has forgotten that, not all of her colleagues have forgotten. They are quite happy, it seems—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kevin Rudd hasn’t forgotten it!

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

Kevin Rudd certainly has not forgotten it. Indeed, nor have some of those who appear to still be loyal to the former Prime Minister, because they are happy to still talk about it. In fact, they are happy to consider what the Prime Minister is doing now, against what she told the former Prime Minister he should do. They are very happy to consider that. One of them is quoted in today’s newspapers as saying:

If Julia says she believes that the scheme she is proposing is the right policy, why didn’t she believe that last year when she told Kevin to dump his scheme?

Well, that is a fine question, isn’t it!

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oops!

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

Oops indeed, Senator Fifield! That is a fine question posed by a Labor MP. Another went on to say:

When Kevin took her advice, that was the beginning of the end for him. Now it’s her problem and she’s proposing the same thing.

There is trouble in the ranks over there, quite clearly, as they worm their way through this issue yet again. It is so difficult for them because, not just is their policy flawed, not just can they not get the politics of it right, but their greatest problem is that they are carrying this laggard of a Prime Minister along with them, who has deceived the Australian people. She has flip-flopped on this issue so decisively. If you can flip-flop decisively, that is what she has done. She stared down the barrel of every possible television camera she could find in last year’s election campaign and told the Australian people, ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’—words that will haunt her day after day after day throughout the life of this parliament, because she said it so emphatically, because it was the most solemn promise that she made. As Senator Fifield rightly pointed out, if she wants to break that promise, if she wants to institute her carbon tax, then she should have the courage to go back to the Australian people and ask them for endorsement to do it. She should seek a mandate to actually introduce it, because she can claim absolutely no mandate from the last election for the things that she has done.

Contrast this with the reality that, on this side of politics, since the direct action plan was released in January last year, we have had a clear, consistent policy, a policy we stand by today as much as we stood by it then. During that entire time, the government has had Prime Minister Rudd back down from having a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme; Prime Minister Gillard assume the throne; Prime Minister Gillard rule out a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme; Prime Minister Gillard cobble together a government; and Prime Minister Gillard come out and say, ‘We will now have a carbon tax’. All of that has happened in the time that our policy has been locked in, so the hypocrisy of those opposite to want to talk about our policy knows no bounds, when we have had a very clear and consistent approach.

The important difference is that our policy, our approach, works on exactly where and how you can most efficiently and effectively reduce emissions. We will subsidise actions to do so and we will focus on that five per cent target in doing so. That is how our policy will work: focusing on the five per cent of emissions and subsidising them to get them abated and reduced. The government’s policy, the government’s carbon tax, is a tax applied to 100 per cent of emissions. That is why it costs so much more than the coalition’s policy. That is why it is so much more expensive: because it applies to 100 per cent of emissions as against incentives targeted to five per cent. That is why, of course, it has such spin-off effects on the rest of the economy. As it applies to every tonne of carbon emitted in electricity, to every tonne emitted in the transport sector, it all flows through to everything else in the economy and pushes the price of everything else up. And do you know what? Ours is guaranteed to reduce emissions, because we are targeting reductions; their’s is just a tax applied to everything, with absolutely no guarantee whatsoever it will reduce even one tonne of emissions. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am somewhat disappointed that Senator Birmingham did not give us a bit of a Macarena, but he did use a party trick, and that party trick was done through smoke and mirrors. He indicated to the Senate that somehow the Labor government previously had a different policy. The Labor government has always been committed to taking action on climate change. That has not changed. Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, has had at least eight different positions. Senator Birmingham actually knows perfectly well the history of Mr Abbott’s policy changes, with him at one time supporting an ETS, then coming out against it and then saying that climate change is ‘total crap’. But I want to go through the whole history of Mr Abbott’s positions on climate change. The fact is that this opposition has no coherent policy.

Mr Abbott supported former Prime Minister Howard’s decision to take an ETS to the 2007 election. On 24 July 2009 he supported passing Mr Rudd’s ETS. Then on 27 July he opposed an ETS. Then he supported a carbon tax. And then we have his famous comments from October 2009, in which he called all politics on this ‘absolute crap’. Then he said that an ETS is a sensible policy; then he challenged Mr Turnbull on the ETS. And we all know what happened there. It was a close-run thing. Since then, he has been against a carbon price. There is no coherent policy from the opposition. The Labor government has given a commitment to taking action on climate change. The Prime Minister outlined the government’s plan to cut pollution, to tackle climate change and to deliver the economic reform Australia needs to move to a clean energy future.

This is in stark contrast to those opposite. The Labor government has a plan for the future. We recognise that the cost of climate change will be far greater in the future if we choose to not act now. After the election, the government set up the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, which included members of the government, the Greens and Independent members of parliament, who examined the options for a carbon price. Members of the opposition were invited to participate but have not yet taken up that invitation. The committee was advised by leading experts in the fields of economics, climate science and the social sciences. This is not a policy on the run or inaction. This is a strategic, well-informed plan for tackling climate change.

The Prime Minister, along with members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, released a paper for public comment on a two-stage plan for pricing carbon. If the legislation is agreed upon by parliament, a carbon price will begin on 1 July 2012. The carbon price will be a market mechanism, commencing with a fixed price for a specified period of between three and five years. Following the fixed price period, there is the intent to transition to an emissions trading scheme. The fact is that pricing carbon is the most efficient and cost-effective way of reducing carbon pollution and supporting Australia in the transition towards a low pollution future. It is an important economic reform that is in our national interest. A carbon price is crucial to maintaining our prosperity and competitiveness in a carbon constrained world. Without certainty over a carbon price in the economy, investment in our energy market and low pollution technologies has stalled, costing us more in the long term. We have been talking about action on climate change for decades. It is time to stop the talking and the inaction. (Time expired)

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All I can say is that the answers given in question time today to the questions that were asked by the opposition and the comments that have just been made by those on the other side confirm without a doubt that this is a government that, when it comes to the issue of the carbon tax, is devoid of any moral compass. This is a government that, by its announcement after the election that it will be imposing a carbon tax on the Australian public, has completely, totally and utterly betrayed the Australian people. But the thing is that you would expect nothing less from those on the other side, because the Gillard government will always take the cheap political option when it comes to making policy in this country rather than taking decisions that are in the national interest.

When Senator Carol Brown refers to comments that have been made by those of us on this side of the chamber in relation to the carbon tax, she needs to be very careful. Let us have a look at the comments that the Prime Minister of Australia made in relation to the carbon tax. Julia Gillard claimed, ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ That was on Channel Ten on 16 August 2010. The now Prime Minister could not help herself. The day before the election, the Australian newspaper quoted the Prime Minister as saying, ‘I rule out a carbon tax.’ Does it get any more blatant than what the now Prime Minister said?

Having categorically ruled out a carbon tax before the election on 21 August 2010, lo and behold, she has now done a deal with the Independents and the Greens—and guess what? The promises she made prior to the election are all off the table. The promises she made to the people of Australia, the promises they went to the ballot box and voted on, are all off the table. She is now introducing a carbon tax. That is without a doubt one of the greatest betrayals that the people of Australia have ever been, and will ever be, subjected to. But you would expect nothing less from those on the other side.

The reality is that the imposition of this tax is one of political choice and certainly not of environmental necessity. Australians understand that Prime Minister Gillard, consistent with left-wing ideology, has never seen a tax she does not like or one that, if in existence, she cannot hike. The reality for Australians is that during the Labor Party’s time in office it has whacked onto Australians 13 new and increased taxes, and the Labor government has been in office for only about three years. That is a new tax every quarter. That is the way policy is made on that side of the chamber. The option of first choice always has to be to tax the Australian people. The Labor government forgets that it is not actually spending its own money; it is spending taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers have a right to be informed before they go to the ballot box if a government, when it is elected, is going to impose another tax on them.

Australians are now faced with the reality that the price of the Prime Minister’s betrayal will be paid by them every single day once this is implemented—every time they turn their lights on, every time they go to the petrol bowser, every time they use their gas, every time they go to the shop to buy groceries, every time they touch anything. Everything in this country that the mums and dads of Australia touch will be tainted by this tax.

Question agreed to.