Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans), the Minister for Sport (Senator Arbib) and the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to questions without notice asked by Senators Fifield, Payne and Colbeck today.

I might as well start off by commenting that I find it absolutely remarkable that Senator Arbib, the minister, in his response to Senator Payne, would dare mutter the words ‘here comes the scare campaign’ when Senator Payne was asking the very proper question about the impacts of the carbon tax on public housing recipients. How dare Minister Arbib suggest, ‘Here comes the scare campaign.’

The scare campaign is the government’s and the government’s very own. Forget about ‘here comes the opposition scare campaign’, because ‘Here comes the sun’ is as sophisticated as the government scare campaign. That is all it is: a scare campaign as sophisticated as: ‘Here comes the sun. Therefore thou shalt have a carbon tax’—a carbon tax with no detail. It is a carbon tax at what price per tonne? We do not know. The government’s carbon tax adviser himself, Ross Garnaut, speculates that it will be something between $20 and $30 a tonne.

Who will have to pay this carbon tax? For now, apparently not agriculture. That has to reassure the nation’s farmers. Who will be exempt from having to pay the carbon tax? Who else? Which other industries? We know not. How much extra will people have to pay at the bowser and at the supermarket if a carbon tax is to be imposed? We know not. Who will be compensated? And by how much? Who will not be compensated? We know not. What we know—and all we know—is the government scare campaign: ‘Here comes the sun; thou shalt have a carbon tax.’ We know a bit more though. We know that this government is hell-bent on expending taxpayer funds on an advertising campaign. You could ask: for what? They have funded all these experts to tell them about the carbon tax.

We still do not know the details of it so who is the government going to call? Minister Combet says, ‘Thankyou, Senator Nash, now I will not call ghost busters. I will not call myth busters. Who I will call is spin meisters.’ Minister Combet said overnight that the government is examining ‘a number of options for public communications’—about a scare campaign and a policy intent about which we do not know the detail. So Minister Combet said the government is examining ‘a number of options for public communications’ and that this will involve contact with public relations agencies as was ‘standard practice’. You are not wrong about that, Minister. So when this government knows not they call in the spin meisters. That is where they go for their answers, which is a bit intriguing given that the same minister told the Australian public some two weeks ago on Lateline:

It is perfectly valid when developing an important public policy like this that you release your policy intentions in the way that we have ...

So he has conceded that is all the government has: a scare campaign—here comes the sun, thou shalt have a carbon tax. It is full of intention but no detail; we do not know it yet. But a public communications firm might help with the detail—let’s hope so—because this government is going to spend our taxpayer funds on advertising it. Will the advertising campaign cost $30 million or perhaps $40 million? Will it cost the amount that you set aside to advertise your CTS?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There will be order in the chamber.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will your advertising campaign cost $30 million, the $30 million that was set aside for the last abortive campaign? Or what about the $13 million that your government spent on advertising the failed GROCERYchoice, on the policy intent to go ahead with choice which ultimately came to nothing? What about the government’s botched and bungled—and, thankfully, subsequently aborted—Home Insulation Program? What about the millions of taxpayer dollars spent promoting that program? What about the government’s failed Green Loans program? What about how much money this government spent advertising the Green Start program, which never started? So how much money is this government now going to spend on a policy intent, a scare campaign, that is no more sophisticated than here comes the sun and thou shalt have a carbon tax?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say, on the same matter, that Senator Fisher might want to move away from themes such as here comes the sun or the Hokey Pokey or the time warp and seriously address the matters that have been before us in question time. However, I must say that, given the opportunity to review several questions asked by the opposition, we do need to seriously address what is an obvious scaremongering campaign.

Let us look at the nature of those questions today. We had them on Christmas Island escapees, political extremism and the impact of the carbon tax. Unfortunately, in this taking-note session we did not even have Senator Fisher understanding the question that had been asked by her colleague Senator Payne. Senator Payne did not, as Senator Fisher indicated, ask the question in relation to the impact of the carbon tax on people in public housing or social housing. Her question was about how many people in housing generally would be shifted into social housing. So please, Senator Fisher, before you put on a performance like that at least understand the question that your colleagues have actually asked. But I thank you at least for the opportunity to reflect on the quality of those questions.

Mr Deputy President, I was somewhat surprised by the nature of your question. I would ask you to reflect on how you question the government when you refer to people such as prison officers doing the government’s ‘dirty work’. It is no wonder that we characterise the nature of these questions as a scare campaign. When the government brings additional resources to Christmas Island to deal with the problems and the trauma—and we all know of the trauma suffered by some of those people who are on Christmas Island—it does not assist in any policy sense or in any reasonable government sense or in any reasonable opposition sense to have that characterised as doing the government’s ‘dirty work’. I would expect better from any senator in this place.

Then we moved on to the discussion about political extremism. The answer from the government here highlighted that there is political extremism across the full political spectrum and that we have seen much of that as well. I agree with Senator Evans that here in Australia fortunately we have been able to proceed politically with a level of political moderatism. If we want to promote extremism, then the opposition can attempt scare campaigns such as this and continue to try to. But I have come across in recent times several examples of where people among the general public have been led to completely misunderstand the nature of a minority government. The reason that they completely misunderstand the nature of a minority government is the way in which this opposition characterises what one is. We in this place all know what minority government is, but there is no excuse at all for the way in which some members of the opposition, particularly those that I would class as having a more extreme perspective, seek to characterise the nature of the arrangements in this parliament. We had an election result and the government has gone on to move forward and deal with the consequences of that election result. We have an opposition though who seek to take advantage of those consequences by scaremongering and using every opportunity they have to misrepresent the circumstances both in this parliament and in the policy perspectives that we are dealing with.

Let me reinforce the messages from the ministers in today’s question time in response to some of those issues. As I said, Christmas Island was also one of the themes in today’s question time. Border security has not and will not be compromised. That is very clear. This government will avoid political extremism. We will avoid political extremism on both sides of the political spectrum, and I wish the opposition would take the same approach.

Finally, this government will take responsible action on climate change. Despite a scaremongering campaign from those opposite, we will take responsible action, we will consult broadly in relation to the mechanisms we use and any scare campaign that suggests otherwise because there are not answers right now—because we will have comprehensive consultation and engagement—is simply that, scaremongering by the opposition, who should know better.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute on taking note of the answers to questions today. How embarrassing it must be for the Labor government. Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ That was on Channel 10 on 16 August 2010. But now Prime Minister Gillard has announced that there will be a carbon tax. That raises the question, if there is going to be no carbon tax under the government that Ms Gillard leads, who is leading the government? She is obviously not, because she has said. ‘There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead.’

Of course, it went on. On the Friday before the election, Ms Gillard stated categorically, ‘I rule out a carbon tax.’ It was on the front page of the Australian on 20 August 2010. Treasurer Wayne Swan said, ‘What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.’ That was on Meet the Press on 15 August 2010. Mr Swan again, on 12 August 2010, on The 7.30 Report, said: ‘We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.’

But now it is in. This is a broken promise of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. Of course, now they are throwing around the lollies—the compensation. First it was Minister Combet, then Minister Crean: 100 per cent of the tax collected will go toward compensation to households. And now Professor Garnaut has said that 50 per cent—that is his recommendation—will go to households. It is amazing to have an economist who is such an expert on science. He has read one side of the equation. I wonder if he ever listened to Professor Latif, one of the key advisors to the IPCC, who said that in actual fact the globe has been cooling from the late 1990s and will continue to cool for the next 10 to 20 years. No, they are not allowed to listen to that; they only listen to one side, obviously—Professor Garnaut.

This carbon tax, according to the spin put on it by the government, is to bring certainty into Australia. As my leader, Warren Truss, said, ‘The only thing certain about the carbon tax is shifting industries overseas.’ We had an announcement in February that there will be a carbon tax. Prime Minister Gillard and Minister Combet, flanked by the de facto Prime Minister of Australia, Senator Bob Brown, and his deputy, Senator Milne, and the Independents—Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor—announced that we are going to have a carbon tax. One would have thought that all those who were there are in agreement. But now Mr Windsor is moving away, saying, ‘We might not have a carbon tax.’

This certainty is going to be put out to Australian businesses, industries and investment. This is what they are trying to create: certainty. How much will a carbon tax be? Will it be $20, or $26 or $30? Will it go on fuel? If it is $26 and it goes on fuel, that will be another 7c a litre. What will that cost regional Australia? In towns near where I live, everything comes in on the road; there is no rail. All the groceries, all the supplies, all the food and all the products that are in our electrical stores all come in on the road, and of course everything goes out on the road. All the beef from Bindaree Beef at Inverell, off to export every day of the week, goes out on the road. Are we going to look at an extra 7c a litre on fuel? This is a certainty.

But it gets worse. After three to five years we are going to an emissions trading scheme whereby the price of carbon will be determined by the dealers on the world market. Will it be $20 a tonne or will it be $200, as the NAB flagged at one stage? This is going to bring certainty? We have a fluctuating world price, and the size of your electricity bill will determine how the traders are going on the world market. And they call this certainty. This is just outrageous. Certainty is the last thing it will deliver. The one thing that can put certainty into our economy is to never have a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. But no, this is a certainty being flagged by the government.

About 30 billion tonnes of CO2 are produced each year from the burning of fossil fuels. Australia produces around 370 million tonnes. If we lower ours by 70 million tonnes, what is it going to do if the rest of the world stays the same? It will bring C02 from about 380 parts per million down to about 379 parts per million. And that is going to save the world and stop it heating up? That is outrageous.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The questioning today, regardless of the wider question but certainly on any issues to do with the carbon tax or emissions trading scheme, were confused, misleading and illogical, and I think that sums up the quality of debate from the opposition on this issue. I respect that the opposition is caught in a bit of a bind. Within that side of parliament there are markedly different views about climate change and global warming, and there have been some quite markedly different policy views expressed about the coalition position as well. The coalition members must be anxious about standing up and saying anything in case their leader changes policy the next day and they are caught back in the old system. So they stand here in this place and spout rhetoric, grab on to whatever slight titbit of information might come from one of the industry groups who are lobbying for their own industry’s position and try to use that to shore up their own position.

In fact, I am a bit surprised that they have raised the issue today, given the latest poll, which seems to show that they are losing support. One of the key reasons the coalition is losing support generally is this very issue. It seems that people are not responding well to the direct action proposal of Mr Tony Abbott. They are not responding well to the way the coalition is dealing with this issue, and who could blame them? Where does the coalition stand? Where is the logicality of its position? It is nowhere.

The Labor Party has announced that there will be a carbon tax and the overall design and mechanism of how it will work. We are asking for input from key groups. We are asking for input from everyone. The Prime Minister has even offered the coalition some role in all of this, which has been refused. Once the overall architecture has been announced, those industry groups who are now vigorously lobbying, as is their right, to have some input into the design will have it. The government is going out there consulting. Time after time in this place I hear the Liberal Party asking for more consultation. The population have got consulation in this time and within a particular framework. One of the bits of that framework, as the Prime Minister has made very clear, is that lower income households will not suffer as a result of the imposition of a carbon tax. Assistance will go to households.

We have also stated that assistance will go to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries. We will not export jobs offshore. That was indeed one of the bases for the emissions trading system that was previously proposed under the previous parliament. No-one is going to sacrifice 45,000 jobs, I think the figure was, offshore. That is not what is proposed and the coalition know it, but they want to embark on a scare campaign because they have not got a substantive policy to deal with it. Their direct action policy, given their commitment to a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, will cost $30 billion. Who is going to pay for that? How is that going to be paid? Mr Abbott has proposed cuts in programs, but we all know that that will not be adequate. And where do you go into the future with that?

We have a problem in the coalition, as illustrated by Senator Williams, who clearly does not believe in climate change. There are others in the party opposite who do believe in climate change. Where do you go? We do not know and I do not think the population of Australia knows. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go again. When the Labor Party are in trouble they pretend they are not the government. They talk as if they are the opposition and they talk about this side of the chamber. All we hear from them are key phrases. It must be depressing on the other side of this chamber to have a different message about the carbon tax almost daily. We have heard different excuses and reasons and now, finally, they have gone back to the Hawke era. We have got the spirit of Bob Hawke, with Ross Garnaut coming out here to give them some momentum in this debate.

The term ‘scare campaign’ is nothing more than a fudge for Labor being in trouble. The truth here is that the Labor Party has broken an explicit promise. There was no qualification and there was no doubt. It was said directly into the camera, as contrived and rehearsed as everything else that comes out of this Prime Minister’s mouth. You know that that broken promise made the difference last year and, just like all the lobotomised state governments that are falling around the country, you hope that the Australian people will forget it. But they will not forget your duplicity and they will not forget your cowardice in refusing to take this to the people the way the coalition did with its tax package in 1998. You are simply hoping against hope that the Australian people will give you a free pass.

I would like to examine some of the arguments put forward by this government—some of the many arguments we have heard over the past few weeks, but we do not know if they will be the same ones we will hear next week. It might take another spirit from the Hawke government to come back to give them that argument. We apparently need to introduce a price on carbon because forcing up the price of electricity and fuel will lead to a substantial decrease in its use. As if the 50 per cent increase in power prices in my home state of Victoria over the past three years was not going to do it, the government wants to chuck on another 40 per cent in the next three years. What sort of economic sense does it make when you do not take into account the evidence that is already out there in the public domain? ‘The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones’ is an old economists’ truth. The other thing is that the stone age did not end because they introduced a stone tax or a stone trading system.

Pushing up the price of electricity by a few hundred dollars for each household is not going to lead to the technological breakthroughs we need if we are going to move to the greater use of renewable or low-emissions energy. This government knows that. This contrived market, this contrived price signal, is nothing more than a tax grab, and there is real concern and fear about this in the community. Only two Saturdays ago I and a number of my colleagues—Senator Fifield and Senator McGauran—were at a rally outside the Prime Minister’s electorate office in Werribee in the western suburbs of Melbourne. Over 500 people turned out that day to protest. As someone who grew up in the western suburbs of Melbourne, I can tell you that these are not people who regularly come to a rally. But there was genuine community anger because there was fear for their jobs, fear for their businesses and fear for their cost of living. They have worn the cost of this federal Labor government over the past three years, they have worn the cost increases by state Labor governments over the past decade, and they know what is coming next. They know that it is only going to get worse.

This government throws around the word ‘reform’ as if reform were somehow a lifeboat from the disaster they are in and the leaking ship that is this government. The ALP yell ‘compensation for the introduction of this new tax’. Let us just sit back and think of that for a second, compared to the history in this country. They are going to introduce a new tax and they are kind enough to give you back half of it, but only to those select Australians they approve of. Yet again the people on the other side of this chamber seek to divide Australia between those who they think are worthy of paying more tax—and having some of it given back to them—and those who they think are not. That is consistent with the divisive approach the Labor Party has always taken. When the coalition introduced the GST—I was not in this chamber at the time—10 taxes were abolished. Tell me: what taxes are going to be abolished when this carbon tax is introduced?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

None.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apart from you, Senator Abetz, I hear crickets from the other side of the house—the deafening silence of truth. The truth is that they are only interested in the tax grab.

The compensation is nothing more than a con. As well as it being a con that you are going to introduce compensation for a tax you are introducing, you know that the carbon price is meant to rise. You know that this carbon tax is meant to increase in price, so the compensation you allegedly are promising—a worthless promise for people tomorrow—will be worth nothing in two or three years time as you jack up the carbon price. This government will be condemned by the Australian people.

Question agreed to.