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

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) and the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Brandis, Kroger and Ryan today, relating to carbon pricing.

I was interested to read this morning some comments by the Victorian Minister for Ports, Dr Denis Napthine. I will read some of his comments given to the Victorian parliament. He said:

In Adelaide recently the Prime Minister said that a carbon pricing scheme would create a wealth of new jobs and clean energy generation particularly in the manufacturing of clean energy equipment. Therefore I raise the very real concerns of the 400 workers at Keppel Prince, Portland, our largest and most experienced manufacturer of wind towers.

He continues:

Keppel Prince has just been advised that the proponents of a 13 tower wind farm near Hamilton, less than 100 kilometres from the Keppel Prince plant in Portland, are planning to import wind towers from China, creating new jobs in China and costing jobs in south-western Victoria.

That comes on the back of the comments yesterday from Graham Kraehe, the Bluescope chairman, who said that the consultation with industry in relation to carbon tax has been appalling and warned that a carbon price could be ‘a tipping point for the steel industry in Australia’. So already, as Dr Napthine said, we are seeing jobs going from Australia to China. We have now seen the pressure, as indicated in the Australian today, about what the risk would be to the steel industry. So what is going to happen? These wind towers will actually come through the port of Portland under the noses of these workers from Keppel Prince on the way to Hamilton.

This is what the government fails to understand, and this is what Gary Banks, the head of the Productivity Commission, is saying in the Australian this morning, that this government has not looked at the risks. It has made assumptions that do not stand up. This is a government that is going headlong into a carbon tax without doing the work that is required. What will happen is that Australian jobs will go, as they are already. You put more competitive pressure on Australian industry and Australian jobs will go. Wind towers are made of steel predominantly. Thirteen of these towers are coming in from China already through the port of Portland, which Dr Napthine has represented passionately and with great dignity and great courage for many years now.

Dr Napthine has belled the cat on these jobs and the clean energy promise of the Prime Minister. There will not be new jobs. There will not be new jobs in the manufacturing of clean energy equipment. They will go overseas because this government is incapable of assessing the risk to Australian industry. It has embarked on a process that is going to damn Australian jobs. It is rushing headlong into a carbon tax without even telling us what the price will be, what planning has been done, implementation, what the risks are—none of it. It is a political fix by a Prime Minister in enormous strife. I thought it was absolutely fascinating. You know when a political party has slipped into the absolute depths. You know that when they are reduced to complaining and—I use the word of Senator Carr interjecting today—‘sooking’ in relation to some banners at a public protest. I would like to go back and look at some of the banners that people were holding up behind Labor prime ministers in relation to John Howard and others.

Let us get serious about it. This ridiculous notion that the Leader of the Opposition was in any way responsible for slogans and banners is quite frankly just childish. Go back and look at footage of the comments that were made about John Howard at Labor Party rallies, attended by Labor Party Prime Ministers or opposition leaders. Have a look at what they were saying about John Howard and other people, and then come back and complain to me. I do not think John Howard complained about that. I do not think John Howard was sooking about comments written on banners. It is about time the Labor Party stopped being so incredibly childish and it is about time the Australian Labor Party started to protect Australian jobs. When you see the pressure those people in Portland are under, as was indicated again by Dr Napthine, these ships will sail past another closed business. That was in relation to the Vestas wind blade manufacturing plant which closed in December 2007, costing 136 jobs. That was clean energy manufacturing and it lost 136 jobs a couple of years ago. You watch the jobs go if this carbon tax comes in. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an honour it is to follow on from that very poor, lacklustre performance! I am really disappointed in Senator Ronaldson because even in estimates he is far more theatrical than he was here today. I have to say that his really poor defence of the Leader of the Opposition, who appeared and spoke in front of that rally yesterday, was a clear indication that Malcolm is not far away.

We as a government know that the community have concerns about a carbon price, but we have undertaken to attack pollution and what it is doing to our climate. People have a right to express their concerns. To think that the Leader of the Opposition would put himself before the Australian people as the alternate Prime Minister is beyond understanding or comprehension. Standing in front of those banners yesterday clearly demonstrated that the Leader of the Opposition is unfit to be Prime Minister of this country. And as for the weak attempt to apologise this morning, that was a little bit too late and not a very good attempt.

Let us get back to some of the other issues in relation to climate change. Those opposite are already on the public record as being an opposition for opposition’s sake: they oppose everything. We know that their policy shifts, we know that the Leader of the Opposition cannot stick to one area of policy in relation to climate change, we know he is a sceptic and we know those opposite do not believe in climate change, but there is very clear scientific evidence to state the contrary to that.

The government have already put on the record that with a carbon price there will be compensation; we will be generous to Australian households and families. For those opposite to come in here and hypocritically show some heartfelt concern for Australian working families is almost hysterical. We know their history, we know their policy and we know they were in government for 11½ very long years and that they did nothing. Since those times they have shifted their policy and their position to where they are now—that is, an opposition for opposition’s sake. We will be generous, as I said, in protecting Australian families. We will also protect jobs as businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy. We will invest to ensure these climate change programs will be explained to the Australian community, so that there is an understanding within the community of how important it is for this government to take action to address climate change.

If we go to some of the comments that Senator Ronaldson made in relation to the Productivity Commission, we will see that Mr Banks in his recent speech concluded that while we may not be able to deliver everything that some people expect:

I am confident the study will shed much light on what other countries are doing, how the various policies work, the uncertainties surrounding the efficacy of many of them, how much they achieve and at what cost.

We on this side of the chamber look forward to seeing the final report, which will be handed down in May.

The government have made it very clear that the final decisions associated with this carbon price will be taken in consultation with the community, so that the community and business have an understanding. We have also put on the record that we will compensate low-income families and pensioners, but those opposite have already said that they will take away those benefits, that they will take away any tax cuts for those people. For opposition to then come into this chamber and talk about the so-called effects that might have an impact on people’s superannuation—the same opposition that attacked working-class families, brought in Work Choices when they were in government and have always voted down any increase to Australian workers’ superannuation contributions—is mighty hypocritical for them to lecture us when we are prepared to take action on climate change. (Time expired)

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

Every single day of every week of every month, all we do under this Labor government is talk tax. Every day of every week of every month they come up with another tax on the Australian people; another tax that will make it harder for people across Australia, that will push up the cost of living and that will put our economy under pressure. Of course, this morning the Secretary of the Treasury confirmed what the Prime Minister suggested was a baseless attack and were baseless figures being circulated by the opposition about a carbon tax. The Treasury Secretary let the cat of the bag this morning. The carbon price will have to be at least $26 a tonne if the government is to go ahead with its five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020. At least $26 per tonne; probably higher. Here we have it. This is a tax on all Australians, ultimately, which is another thing he said. Senator Cameron was trying to protect the government. He said, ‘This is really just a tax on polluters.’ This is what the Treasury secretary said: ‘It will work its way through the economy.’ That is code for saying every single Australian will end up paying the price for yet another Labor Party tax.

Do not give us the story that somehow this is going to do anything about reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. You do not have a clue whether it will do anything of the sort, because you do not have a clue what other countries in other parts of the world will do. You have not done any new modelling. The government made this decision about imposing a carbon tax without doing any fresh modelling. The most recent modelling from Treasury in relation to the carbon tax is that which was published in 2008. That was a time when this Labor government assumed that the United States would have an emission trading scheme in place by 2010. Does the United States have an emissions trading scheme in place? No, of course it does not. Does Russia have an emissions trading scheme in place? No, it does not. This government thought all these countries were going to have emissions trading schemes in place by 2010, but we have known since Copenhagen that there is no suggestion that there will be an appropriate and comprehensive global agreement to price carbon any time soon—possibly never.

I was drawn to an article today which was published by AAP where Mr Partridge, Australia’s largest brick and tile maker, said the federal government’s carbon price proposals will add about 10 per cent to the cost of housing across Australia—10 per cent. When he said it would add about 10 per cent to the cost of housing, he was working on the basis of a carbon price of $20. We know that it is going to be more than $20. We know it is going to be at least $26, because that is what the Treasury secretary, Dr Parkinson, told us this morning. So of course people across Australia will pay for it. Of course there are going to be fewer jobs as a result of the carbon tax. Of course this is going to put pressure on the economy, and what for? For nothing.

The previous speaker, Senator Polley, talked about compensation. I say: what compensation? I asked Dr Parkinson this morning whether he had prepared any tax cuts, whether he had prepared any proposals to increase the pension. There is nothing. There is nothing on the table. And you know what? They are ‘working on some options’, he says. But are any of these options going to be in the budget? No, they are not. There has been no modelling so far. There is not going to be any information in the budget, either about how much revenue it is going to raise or how much it is going to cost to provide compensation. We know from Professor Garnaut that it is going to raise about $12 billion, but there is not going to be any information about compensation for people across Australia to deal with cost-of-living pressures. But we do know that the government can do one thing, and that is advertise. They can advertise a tax on which they have not done their homework, on which there is not going to be any information in the budget and which is going to cost every Australian more for no net benefit in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. What is the sense of that?

Before I finish, let me just pick up on some comments made by Senator Wong in her earlier answer in relation to the mining tax. Trust me, Minister. Our position is very clear. This mining tax remains a bad tax. Your accepting all of the recommendations of the Argus committee, which was not a genuine consultation process, does not improve a bad tax. It came out of a dodgy process which was highly inappropriate. The government negotiated in secret with the three biggest taxpayers, excluding all of their competitors, excluding state and territory governments. It is not the way to produce a tax in Australia. (Time expired)

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of answers to questions this afternoon. Picking up on Senator Cormann’s contribution, it is quite interesting that it took until the last 30 seconds of that contribution to come around to the MRRT, simply because the opposition is opposing for opposition’s sake. It is very frustrating to think that nothing this government could propose would the opposition recognise as being some kind of decent way forward and part of a reform agenda. We are very proud of our reform agenda. After 11½ years of a government that was prepared to milk the mining industry for all it is worth but not invest in the future of Australia, what have we got now? We have an agreement on the recommendations from the Argus committee about the MRRT, the minerals resource rent tax. It is going to deliver some significant issues for us.

As Senator Sherry outlined for us all today, it is going to make a significant difference. First of all, we are going to see some tax cuts for the first time. It is going to make a difference for working Australians. Almost 6½ million taxpayers are going to benefit from the simpler standard deductions that will be part of the agreement on the MRRT. That represents $47 billion in tax cuts. It is a tax cut for a person on $50,000 a year of about $1,750 a year.

We are going to reduce company tax. Again, the opposition are not prepared to support a reduction in company taxes, yet they purport to be a low-tax party. We are extending the superannuation contribution cap. We are abolishing the superannuation contribution tax. We are increasing the cap on the age at which people can contribute to their superannuation from 73 to 75. We are introducing a small business write-off measure of $5,000 a year, supporting small businesses at a time when they need it as much as everyone. We have such a strong strategy of investment. We have the infrastructure investment fund of more than $6 billion, which will particularly support investment in infrastructure in Western Australia and Queensland, the big mining states. These are critical investments that should have been part of the previous government’s approach to supporting our mining industry but never were. It is going to make such a significant difference for us.

But what do we do? We look at the opposition which, having spent years squandering the opportunities, now want to block any sense of reform. They do not want reform here. They do not want reform in our taxation system, which is cumbersome, punitive and unfair. They do not want reform. They do not want to support the mining industry, which seeks clarity and comparable treatment. They do not want to support the manufacturing industry in Australia.

Unlike Senator Ronaldson’s suggestion that the manufacturing industry in Australia is against a price on carbon, many industries see this as a real opportunity, industries such as Origin Energy. They really understand that this is an opportunity for innovation and a new low-carbon, green economy that is going to produce some great initiatives and opportunities for work.

Let us get real about what this opposition are all about—opposition for opposition’s sake. The opposition are not about being constructive. They do not want to see us have a broader debate around taxation. They only want to play politics with the process. They do not really want to confront the issues that are ahead of us. In that respect, it means that they are always going to be obstructionist in any way they can.

We need to put a price on carbon for the big polluters to change their behaviour. We know we need to do this. Everybody understands that. The processes which will put that in place will ensure that this is not carried just by consumers; it will be for everybody.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will commence by saying that, despite all the criticism this week of Senator Wong, I think at times she actually gets it right. Three years ago in February 2008, when she was addressing an Australian Industry Group lunch in Melbourne, she said this:

The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.

Senator Wong was right three years ago. I can prove she was right. Have the Brazilians started to move in anticipation of a global agreement? No. What are the Russians doing? Have they said they are going to lower their emissions? They have not. Have the Indians said they will? These are the major emitters. Have the Chinese said that they will? These are the major emitters in the world and yet somehow this government says we should move before there is a sufficiently comprehensive global agreement. That case has never been made out.

The question is very simple. Is it in our national interest, in the interests of our country, to move before there is a sufficiently comprehensive global agreement? The government has never made out that case because, despite all the rhetoric about a tax on polluters and so forth, the fact remains that the cost of living for average Australians will go up. The cost of living will go up; Senator Cormann was dead right about that. How can it be in our national interest to increase the tax burden on ordinary families, on those working families that Mr Rudd used to talk about? How can that be in our national interest?

How can it be in our national interest to willingly, knowingly increase the cost of living? How can that be in our national interest? How can it be in our national interest to damage our industries, particularly our export industries? Why would you knowingly and willingly do that before there was a sufficiently comprehensive global agreement? The government have never answered that. Why would you want to prejudice the employment prospects of young Australians without any certainty of any environmental benefit whatsoever? This has been the critical point of the debate for the last 2½ years. Right from the beginning, the government have never answered this particular point. Why should Australia sacrifice its interests before we have an agreement at least among the G20 and certainly including Brazil, Russia, India and China? The government have never made out this case. They seem to think it is quite okay to sacrifice Australia’s national interests, to sacrifice employment and, in fact, to be certain that there will be an increase in the cost of living. If it was okay and it made sense, other countries would be doing it.

Professor Garnaut, Senator Wong and others have never justified why we should move in anticipation of a global agreement—never, not once. If it was such a good idea, the Brazilians, the Russians, the Indians and the Chinese would be doing it. I am sick to death of this government parading around with this moral vanity that somehow people on this side are troglodytes who do not care about the environment. That is not the point. There is absolutely no certainty that their policy will lead to a better environment for the world. In fact, as Senator Wong said in Melbourne three years ago, it could even make the environment worse.

Question agreed to.