Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Fisher, Boswell and Birmingham relating to carbon pricing.

Specifically, these questions were about the carbon tax. While I was listening to Senator Wong's answers I was reminded of a particularly distasteful joke which mentions the three greatest lies ever perpetrated by humanity. I think we have to add a fourth one to that, and that is Ms Gillard's lie to the Australian people when she said, just six days out from an election: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' That goes down as one of the greatest lies in the political history of this country. It is a travesty for the Australian people. We know it is going to put the cost of living up. That has been established. We know it is going to cost tens of thousands of jobs, and we know it is going to see industry exported overseas and emissions exported overseas as well. We also know, but because the government is unwilling or unable to supply an answer we can only deduce, that it is actually going to have zero beneficial impact on the environment.

Let me remind senators that we are talking about emissions of carbon dioxide, that odourless, colourless gas that is exhaled by all of us as we go about our daily business. According to the government this is rampant pollution and, despite the fact that Australia contributes only 1.4 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions globally, apparently we are going to save the planet by imposing a tax on the Australian people. But when called upon to justify this tax, Senator Wong, with all the arrogance that we have come to associate with her approach to policy, said it is because we are not slackers—Australians are not slackers, so let us whack them with a new tax. What sort of logical conclusion is that for any government to make, that because Australians are not slackers, which I presume to mean they work hard and pick up their end of the bargain, we should whack them with a new tax. There is an incentive to do a bit more! The logic that has flowed over the last three years on climate change policy saw it characterised as the great moral issue of our time and saw it characterised by the great success of Copenhagen, which led to the dumping of that 'necessary' thing called the emissions trading scheme, then to the dumping of Kevin Rudd and then the dumping of the minister afterwards. Now we have seen the policy of no carbon tax dumped. We have also seen the citizens assembly, to convince the people of Australia about the merits of this great new tax, dumped. The only things we have not seen dumped are those two spruikers of government policy who are paid extortionate amounts of money to peddle lies and misleading statements. I am referring to the person Senator Wong once described as an 'input', Mr Garnaut, and Professor Tim Flannery. These people have been trotting out government policy and outlandish scaremongering and fear campaigns which have no justification in fact. They take a kernel of truth and then embellish it to say that the seas are going to rise by eight storeys, we are going to have to save the planet, and the Barrier Reef is going to die—all these things which have later been debunked. Of course, the government never admit that, because they will never admit they have got things wrong. Clearly the Australian people know they have got this dreadfully wrong, because the Australian people cannot afford a new tax, no matter how this government dresses it up. This is not about saving the environment; it is about the government trying to save their spendthrift ways. It is about them putting more money into the government coffers. In fact, there have been reports that government ministers have said: 'You're going to get a tax because we need the cash and we need it very quickly.'

This is a problem. We have got a government that cannot manage its budget finances. The failed climate change minister is now in the finance portfolio where $50,000 million more than they have taken from taxpayers will be spent in the year ahead. That is an alarming thing for any Australian. We know there is disquiet and distrust about it, because we know that people are going to the Treasurer and saying all sorts of things to him, in a very pointed manner, and we would like to hear from one of those people shortly—'Slugger' Hutchins, sorry, Senator Hutchins. I would like to know how you got your new nickname. It comes back to this: the Australian people trust governments to do the right thing for them. It is not just about the economy, it is not just about their finances. They want to make sure there are practical solutions for the environment. What we do know is that no matter how the government wants to dress this up, there will be no benefit to the environment from this carbon tax. There will be none whatsoever. It will only be bad. It will be bad for everyone except for this government, but they will ultimately reap the rewards of what they have sown at the election.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We just see the scare campaign continuing, and it is disappointing that Senator Bernardi, with many of his colleagues, continues on this program just denying the settled science. I do not pretend to be a scientist, but I have been briefed, I have been lobbied by some of the smartest people I have ever met, who have taken us through study after study, the science, and have certainly convinced me. I have also been in international forums where, again, scientists—the best minds across the world—have said: 'We need to act on climate change. We need to act soon, and the sooner we act the cheaper it will be for everybody.'

I clearly believe in climate change. I have been overwhelmingly convinced. Unfortun­ately, the coalition is so out of step with the rest of the world. You only have to look in Britain, where the conservative government there also believes in climate change and taking firm action. The conservative government in New Zealand also believes in climate change and taking firm action. If you look across the world—and I know the coalition does not want to hear this—we see governments taking firm, strong, short-, medium- and long-term action every day. Everybody, except for the coalition here in Australia, now understands that we need to take action to save our climate. Who do we need to do this for? Not for me, and not for most people here. We need to do it for our children. If we want to have a healthy, prosperous economy and country into the future, we need to take these actions now, and we need to get the results soon.

When I said that the coalition are the only ones across the world who do not believe in climate change, of course, they used to once. They went to the 2007 election with a policy that believed in climate change and, in fact, was going to do something about it. What were they going to do about it? They were going to put a price on carbon, the very thing that Senator Bernardi says is this harmless thing that we breathe out every day and we should not have to worry about it. Quite frankly, Senator Bernardi, I think you ought to get together with the old tobacco lobby and the old asbestos lobby. You could find some crackpots here and there who would come out and tell you anything to support your negative scare campaign. They are the people you want to keep mixing with, because, quite frankly, you obviously get on very well with those sorts of people. But the rest of us need to move on.

We know from all the modelling that has been done—and I am no economist but I know and I have been briefed by some of the best economists around—that the sooner we take action, and take action that is going to make a difference, the cheaper it will be for our economy. What is wrong with making the polluters pay for the cost of pollution? What is wrong with putting a price on the cost of pollution? Really, what we are arguing is that we want the market to drive innovation and drive solutions, and we think that the best way to do that is the market. I would have thought that those on the other side would have agreed that the market tools would be a good way to transform our economy to address climate change. I would have thought that is what you would be believing. But, no, you have got a policy of saying, 'Let people pollute for nothing, continue to increase unlimited pollution and we will just use taxpayers' money to clean up the mess.' That is your policy. Keep polluting; pollute as much as you like, the taxpayer will pick up the bill. We do not believe that. We believe that market mechanisms will drive innovation and will assist in transforming this economy so that it can actually address climate change and start reducing the pollution in this country. We think that is a smart way to go and we know that it is the cheapest way to go. We know it is the cheapest and most effective way to go, and that is why we are going to do it: because it is the right thing for this country. It is the right thing not necessarily for me but for my kids and your kids and our grandkids and the future generations. I am not going to be here in this parliament as someone who ignores the signs, ignores the science and abrogates my responsibility as a legislator to do the right thing by this country, the right thing by our economy and the right thing by our children. Those on that side will stand condemned in the future if they actually stop this happening. You may think that is very funny. I thought you actually cared about children. You are actually voting to abandon their futures and abandon a healthy, strong economy. Shame on you.

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

Way back in the 2007 election campaign, a long time ago—certainly a Prime Minister ago and it could soon be two prime ministers ago—a press release was put out by Ms Gillard, the then Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, and Senator Wong, the Labor Party's campaign spokeswoman at the time, if I recall correctly. In their joint press release, they stated quite clearly, simply and succinctly: 'Labor will end the abuse of taxpayer funded government advertising.' It was almost as succinct and clear a message as: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Yet today we have had Minister Combet announce that yet more millions of dollars of taxpayers' money will be ploughed into government advertising, will be ploughed into an abuse of taxpayer funds, because it will be government advertising designed to simply sell the government's deeply unpopular carbon tax policy.

The best that Senator Wong in her answers to questions today could offer was, 'Our spending is not as bad as you guys' were.' That is the best that she could offer. It is also basically the best that Mr Combet can offer in his media release today. I thought those words 'Labor will end the abuse of taxpayer funded government advertising' meant that you would actually end the abuse; not be 'not quite as bad as some things that happened in the past' but actually end the abuse, actually stop it from happening, actually stop the waste of taxpayer funds—but apparently not. Apparently that promise is as meaningless as so many other promises, and in particular as meaningless as this core promise about there not being a carbon tax under a government that Ms Gillard leads.

So we have this remarkable situation today where the government has ditched its promise to get advertising through—but it is going to have its advertising approved by their coalition partners, the Greens. Senator Wong again highlighted in Mr Combet's media release where the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee would approve the final shape of what is to be advertised. So the Greens will be involved in this, despite the fact that Senator Bob Brown has railed against government funded advertising even more passionately and vehemently than anybody on that side of the chamber has managed to do. We have hypocrisy writ large here from the government and from their colleagues in the Greens that they are all getting together to work out how they are going to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars on this government funded advertising campaign.

As if that is not bad enough, buried in this $12 million for advertising, nearly $14 million for public education and awareness, they are going to go along and fund a bunch of their mates who have been helping the government out nicely on the sideline. They are setting up a range of grants programs within that. They are going to offer $250,000 grants to a range of organisations. Today the minister said, 'We have announced the grants program, but we do not have any guidelines and we do not have any rules so of course I cannot rule out whether organisations like GetUp! or the ACTU will be eligible for these grants.' These are the organisations out there spending money on the government's behalf today but who no doubt have every hope they will be able to recoup their money through government grants tomorrow. That is the outrage of the situation we are confronted with here.

We know the government is going to do this. We know it not just through our television sets, not just through those sorts of organisations, but also from evidence in Senate estimates, where we heard how they are going to run a range of deliberative forums. These deliberative forums, we were told, would be rather small-scale groups of people. Another phrase for it might be 'kitchen table discussions'. So we have waste right around the country. The government is going to fund the nation's kitchen table discussions on climate change and its carbon tax as well.

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

No roundtable?

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

Senator Boyce might like to host a kitchen table discussion. I am sure she would welcome it.

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

I can't; I don't have a round table.

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

But I reckon Senator Boyce would be happy to pay for the tea and coffee and bickies herself; she would not need a government grant to do it. Not so with this government. The money will flow and it will flow to all of their mates, and they will break every promise they have made in this regard.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue we are discussing this afternoon is one that many on our side have had to think about very seriously. The issue of carbon tax, how to deal with carbon emissions, has been on the political agenda for some time. Indeed, Mr Deputy President, you probably discussed it in your party room, when your party was in power. It was an issue, as has been outlined, that was discussed at the 2007 election and it was dealt with as a policy issue in one form or another by the previous Howard government. I say that because, as we know, this issue has taken out three political leaders in the last three years, because we are still grappling with how to deal with it.

It is all right, I suppose, for us here to consider this issue, but out in industry you and I know that they want some certainty on this. Of course there are many who are opposed to the introduction of this carbon tax. But I know—and I am pretty sure that you would know from your contacts in the wider industry and the community, Mr Deputy President—that, despite the fact that there may be opposition to it from industry, industry does want some certainty. Industry also accepts that there is going to be some control in one form or another over emissions and that there is going to be a price put on it. What the government is proposing, whether it is liked or not by the opposition, is that there will be a figure put on carbon dioxide emissions.

I do not see that necessarily industry particularly likes that—probably the big polluters are very much opposed to it—but in the end you and I know that they have already worked out a price that they are going to pay for carbon dioxide emissions. They are already budgeted for it—they have already planned for it and they already have an idea about when it will come in. If we are defeated at the next election without introducing these measures and your side becomes the government, you will introduce measures of your own of some sort—an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax. Do not get up and say that that is not the case. You have to think about this, because industry will say to you, 'We cannot continue to have this division and this debate in Australia, because we want certainty.'

As Senator Marshall said, even con­servative controlled governments have introduced a form of tax on carbon emis­sions. The actions of the Cameron Con­servative government in introducing a carbon tax in the United Kingdom must cause particular displeasure to the coalition. In New Zealand, the measures were not introduced by a conservative government but by the previous Labor government; yet they are not being overturned, because industry has sought certainty. I continue to emphasise the word 'certainty', because that is what people tell me.

I have my own views on where this is going, and in the end my view is that we have to give the community and industry some undertaking about what is going to happen. If you get into power, you will introduce measures along the same lines as the ones that we are proposing, because you will be told by the likes of Shell, and Coal and Allied, that they want something done. Please do not come in and say that this will not happen, because you and I know that it will. I think it is dishonest to suggest otherwise, because we know that measures have to be introduced, and, whether reluctantly or not, this government is proceeding to do it so that people will know in the end what they are going to pay.

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

It is not often that I disagree with my very good colleague Senator Bernardi, but I must admit that today I need to do so. He said that Senator Wong was intending to attack Australians because they were not slackers—that she was going to slug them with a carbon tax because they were not slackers—and he asked how this was repaying them. I disagree with Senator Bernardi, because I think that the intention of Senator Wong, the Prime Minister and the Labor government is to turn Australians into slackers before they slug them with a carbon tax.

If you look at the figures that came out yesterday from ACIL Tasman, you will see that 3,000 jobs will be lost in the coal industry in New South Wales and 1,100 jobs will be lost in the coal industry in Queensland in just the next three years if a carbon tax is implemented. What is more, 23,000 jobs are forecast to be lost in the steel industry, and, over 20 years or so, the steel industry in Australia could be forced to close down. Let us look at those lost jobs and think about where the people made unemployed might go. There is nowhere for them to go, because the only thing that is holding the Australian economy together right now is the mining industry. If you look at every other sector, there is no growth; there is only dismay and lack of confidence.

A National Australia Bank survey which came out yesterday said that in May confidence levels for business outside the mining sector fell back to confidence levels before the dismal dead-cat jump of last year's Christmas sales, followed by the appalling floods and other problems. Without the mining industry there is no Australian economy, and Senator Wong will do a very good job, if she implements her carbon tax, of creating a nation of slackers, because there will not be any jobs to be had. She can happily impose a tax on those people and on those industries.

I was very amused by the comments of Senator Marshall and Senator Hutchins. They seem to think that only the so-called big polluters will pay the carbon tax. These so-called big polluters use coal to manufacture steel. Steel is used to erect buildings—commercial, residential, the bridges that we drive on, the whole gamut. The so-called big polluters produce cement, which is used to make concrete and which goes into every building in this country. The so-called big polluters use coal to generate electricity, which is used by every person in this country. So we are all polluters, and we will all pay. No wonder the Australian people are concerned about the idea of this tax and about the levels of compensation. The responsibility for creating pollution cannot be quarantined off to a couple of hundred big polluters, whatever the Labor Party thinks that phrase means. Everyone in this country who uses energy and the materials produced by energy contributes to the pollution and the emissions that cause climate change.

This is something that we are in nationally and needs to be considered nationally, yet we had the announcement from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Combet, today, which has been confirmed by Senator Wong. Senator Wong tells us that it is not a $12 million advertising campaign but a $12 million public information campaign. Could she tell us if the public information will include what the cost per tonne of carbon tax will be? No-one knows what that will be. Could she tell us if the public information will tell us which industries will be affected by this tax? No-one knows which ones they will be. I guess that we would all think that $12 million was cheap to get an answer to some of these questions, which have been asked for months and months with no response for this government because they simply cannot get a plan implemented. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.