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

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by Senators Wong, Conroy and Evans to questions without notice asked today by Senators Bushby, Joyce and me.

Whatever the issue, whatever the challenge, whatever needs to be done, the only answer that the Labor Party has got is to whack on another tax: 'When people drink too much, let's whack on an alcopops tax. When there is a two-speed economy with the mining industry in the fast lane, let's whack on a mining tax. When there are too many global greenhouse emissions, let's whack on a tax on carbon dioxide emissions in Australia. ' Well, I have got some information for the Labor Party. Whacking on another tax—tax, tax, tax—is not the only way that you can actually resolve policy challenges that we face as a nation.

We know that this Labor government has a terrible record when it comes to the management of our public finances. It is a Labor government that has delivered deficit after deficit—nine consecutive deficits. It is a Labor government that is not able to live within its means. It is a Labor government that is addicted to spending. Of course, to feed that spending addiction, they have to come up with one new tax after another—and the carbon tax is no different.

You would think that whacking on another tax would get the government to a position where they would actually be able to balance the books, but no. Only the Labor Party can come up with another tax that raises $11 billion every year and still have a budget that is $4 billion worse off. Only the Labor Party can come up with a mining tax which is supposed to raise $38.5 billion over 10 years but leave the budget $20 billion worse off over the same period—because the related budget commitments are conservatively estimated to be at least $57.6 billion. No wonder the country's finances are in such disarray under Labor Party administrations. The Labor Party are always trying to catch up to fund their reckless spending left, right and centre. Whenever they come up with another tax that they think might get them into striking distance of bringing the budget back into surplus they spend so much money on other things—because they have to do so many little deals to get their bad changes through the parliament—that the budget actually ends up in a worse position than where it started.

The proposed carbon tax is, of course, bad policy for Australia. The reason it is bad policy for Australia is that it will make Australian business less competitive, it will push up the cost of everything and everyday Australians will face significant additional challenges in terms of cost-of-living pressures—and all of that without actually helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All we will do by putting a price on carbon in Australia through a carbon tax when none of our trade competitors are proposing to put a carbon tax in place is make overseas polluters more competitive than even the most environmentally efficient businesses here in Australia.

We have a Labor Party that is going left, right, left, right depending on where the public pressure comes from at any point in time. They change their position all time. Petrol is in then petrol is out. The carbon tax is going to apply to 1,000 companies and then it is going to apply to 500 companies. One day they are going to ban cattle exports and then they are not going to ban them. One day they think offshore processing of asylum seekers is a terrible thing and then they are trying to do a deal with Malaysia on offshore processing. One day they say they would never do a deal with a country that is not part of the United Nations convention on refugees and then they do one. This government is all over the place depending on where the pressure is coming from at a particular time.

We found out here in question time again today that the pressure right now is coming from the Greens. This is a government that deceived the Australian people in the lead-up to the last election, and it was not just the Prime Minister; every single Labor member elected to the House of Representatives or the Senate at the last election was elected on a promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government led by Julia Gillard. Of course, now there will be. Why? Because the Greens want it. Now, here we have the Prime Minister doing a cosy deal exclusively and in secret with Senator Bob Brown and a number of other people in this secret little committee. And the Labor caucus has been left in the dark. Senator Bushby quite appropriately referred to them as being treated like mushrooms. Senator Cameron had a very eloquent description of the way Labor senators were treated—I think he may have used the words 'lobotomised zombies', or something like that.

I would not normally quote Senator Cameron but the point is that the Australian people are about to be lambasted with a carbon tax, which will be bad for them— (Time expired)

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

Deputy President Parry, I formally congratulate you on your election to the office of Deputy President of the Senate. As a fellow Tasmanian, I commend you. I know you will do an excellent job.

Some of the comments that have been made in this debate in the chamber are a little unfortunate. Senator Bushby accused Labor senators of being like mushrooms—of being kept in the dark. Unlike him, I have never thrown my frock over my head when I have missed out on a position; I understand Senator Bushby is still sulking.

I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate Senator Kroger on her elevation to the position of Chief Opposition Whip.

I would like to put on the record that a lot has been made of the announcement on Sunday but I do not think there is a better day. I will be celebrating my husband's birth­day. It will certainly be a very memorable day for him, unlike those opposite, who are only interested in running scare campaigns. They have little to contribute to a real debate on any policy in this country. There has been talk about people doing backflips and changing—going from left to right—but there are some opposite who know that climate change is real and who were supportive of carbon pricing previously. They have done backflips. So I think we need to put on record the real issues relating to the price of carbon.

Senator Cormann has said that we are trying to go it alone. Australia is not going it alone. In fact, the longer we delay, the greater the risk to our economy. A broad and growing number of countries are pricing carbon. For example, 32 countries and a number of US states already have emissions trading schemes. Carbon taxation is in place in the UK, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, and in selected places in China and India. So we should be honest when we come into the chamber and make comments on issues of great significance like this policy.

In terms of the assistance that households are going to get, those opposite, as usual, are very negative. They want to run away from any real debate but the fact is that nine out of 10 households will get a combination of tax cuts and an increase in the pension or family payments and other payments to help them adjust to the cost of living. The vast majority of those households will not lose a cent because of the carbon price. That is a fact. That will allow those households to do their bit on climate change without making financial sacrifices.

I think the majority of Australians out there understand that climate change is real. They have elected this government to govern in the best interests of this country. And we will be doing that. Australians know that lower income families do not have a lot of room to move. That is why we have taken the steps that we have—to ensure that there is a safety net for those whose costs are higher than average, to give them a bit of extra room to move. Our package is carefully put together to make sure that over three million households will get a buffer—up to an extra 20 per cent in tax cuts and payments over and above meeting the impact of the carbon price. It is a bit like Christmas. You will have to wait until Sunday. You will have to wait for the details but it will be worth tuning in to, I can assure you.

On the other hand, Mr Abbott has for some considerable time now been going around the country trying to scare families and the community. He is not prepared to enter into any real debate on this policy. He has been trying to scare the public into believing that families are going to be worse off with carbon pricing. He says they will have to pay up to $720 a year more in taxes and charges while the polluters get off scot-free. That is not going to be acceptable to the Australian people

We will get the details on Sunday and then we will see what happens as the weeks and months go on. When the facts are out there and the package is announced, I feel confident that the Australian community will get behind this policy and will see the benefits to the environment. They will also see that the measures we introduce will be within our budget restraints so that we will bring the budget back into surplus. Those are the commitments that we have made. Those are the commitments that the Prime Minister will be keeping.

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

Deputy President Parry, I think this is the first time I have addressed you since you have had the position of Deputy President. I congratulate you on your election to that position, although I can tell you that you are being sadly missed in the whips meetings.

It is quite amazing—a new tax is going to solve everything! Senator Polley is saying that there are emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes in other countries. There is an emissions trading scheme in Europe. It covers 30 countries. Those 30 countries produce 14 per cent of the world's green­house gases. Australia produces just one-tenth of that—1.4 per cent. The money it costs those 30 countries is the equivalent of A$500 million a year. What is this govern­ment's going to cost? Will it be $8 billion or $10 billion, rising from then on? When we get to the emissions trading scheme, who knows what the cost will be? It will be the market that determines the price of carbon.

It is amazing. They talk about compensa­ting households. That might happen when the price is $23 per tonne but what will happen if, in five years time, under the emissions trading scheme, the price of carbon goes to $80 per tonne? The National Australia Bank has even forecast $100 a tonne. How would you compensate if the price was four times higher? Here is the problem already obvious to all. The most amazing thing is that China, India and America are the countries that produce 50 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases. Is there a price on carbon in China? Of course there is not. They are going to increase their expulsion of greenhouse gases by three billion tonnes by the year 2020. In India there is no price on carbon even though the Productivity Commission says it is the cheapest way to carry this out. Why don't they have it? There will be an extra two billion tonnes by them. Between India and China there will be five billion tonnes extra come the year 2020. America: a few states doing very little. Those opposite talk about New Zealand's emissions trading scheme. New Zealand produces 0.1 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas by burning fossil fuels, which is basically zero. No matter what we do, nothing will change.

We have already seen fear put into industries. There was news today about the closing of the Kandos cement factory. They can see the writing on the wall. They are facing a high Australian dollar and cheap imports of cement from China, which coincidentally produces in excess of one billion tonnes of cement a year. They produce 1.1 tonnes of greenhouse gas compared to our 0.8 tonnes. What I am saying is that for those 10 million tonnes of cement made in Australia, if we shut our factories down and import the cement from China, there will be an extra three billion tonnes of CO2. This is a problem. We will be shifting our industries overseas, whether they be aluminium, steel or cement. We have heard about the job losses as a result of Kandos closing down. Kandos cement is a very popular, common product in Australia, and that has been a very disappointing announcement.

But there will be more to come. You cannot tax Australian industries. My fear is for the abattoir at Inverell. Bindaree Beef will probably face an extra $600,000 or $700,000 a year in electricity bills. But will our competitors in America competing for the Korean, South Korean and Japanese beef markets have to pay it? Of course they will not. We talk about fuel. Yes, it is a popular thing not to put the tax on petrol for the tradies or the small vehicles. What is going to happen to the truckies? Already Senator Sterle has made a point about the truckies doing it tough at the Top End of Australia with that outrageous decision to have a total suspension on the export of live cattle. And now the truckies are going to get more of their excise kept by the government.

It was the coalition in government that gave the 18.5c a litre rebate to the transport industry. That has been reduced to 15c because those over there in the Australian Labor Party only know one thing—tax, tax, tax. I can take you through them: the alcopops tax, the cigarette tax, the luxury car tax, the flood tax, the mining tax, the carbon tax. All they know is tax, and now they are going to get into the truckies with the diesel, and probably the miners as well. It is not about cutting their spending, taking the pressure off interest rate rises—seven interest rate rises in a row. No, they will simply spend, spend, borrow, borrow, mortgage our children's future away.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want smaller surpluses! Don't talk to us about pressure on budgets!

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

I will take the interjection, Senator Wong. Where is the $4 billion coming from? Are you going to pluck it off the fruit trees? We have already seen the holes in that. Why wasn't it in this year's budget? Come Sunday we will see and hear a lot about it. And what effect will it have on CO2 emissions around the world? It will have absolutely zero effect but it will drive industries overseas and it will cost jobs. The Australian Labor Party used to stick up for the worker once; the worker is the last person they ever think of these days.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I was struggling to think of a way to introduce my comments about last night's State of Origin result into this debate and make it relevant. I am pleased to say—only the few people who are sitting here in the chamber would have been able to see—that some of the moves that Senator Cormann put on in his take-note speech gave me the perfect opportunity to say, 'You would be a proud contributor to any Queensland team, Senator Cormann, with your movements earlier.' That gives me a chance to put on record my congratulations to the Queenslanders.

Senator Cormann's comments in that contribution seemed to indicate that there has only ever been one party in the history of Australian government that has looked at putting taxation into the community. We have also heard from Senator Williams that there is only one party in the history of the Australian economy that has ever, through its process of developing economic responses, looked at taxation! Strangely enough, a very quick scrutiny of Hansard over the history of the Commonwealth, which I was able to do in the last minute or so, has proven that governments of all persuasions from the very start—1901—have debated in the chambers of parliament taxation for the Australian community. The way that is done has not changed that much. Proposals for economic processes come through the community, there is discussion, concern, interest and then in this place there are specific arguments about the merits of individual proposals. That is what is going to happen when we look at the pricing process of the carbon issue in this country.

When the details are released publicly on Sunday—despite the many times over the past week when there have been attempts to say what is going to happen, the details will not be released until Sunday—the issue will be in the public domain for discourse. There will be an expectation that people will be able to see the detail, will be able to argue about the impact on their own circumstances. And when parliament returns, as we see all the time, there will be the opportunity for informed discussion on the issue. Rather than just throwing up our hands with extraordinarily quick movements in every direction—much like that of Queensland rugby league team!—there will be the opportunity for debate here so we will be able to look at the real issue.

We have seen over the past months the development of concern, information and knowledge about why there should be a price on carbon. We have had this discussion. There will be people who will never agree, and we hear that regularly in this place.

The government has a position. There has been a multi-party group considering this over several months but unfortunately, as I said before, that multi-party group was lacking a couple of parties. Nonetheless, the multi-party group looked at the ways of doing this and the reasons, the background to our responsibilities on the issue of carbon.

No matter how many times you throw up the argument that because some people are not doing anything in this area then we should not, it is not a reasonable response to an international need and an international demand. As a community, as a country, we must look at the issues of pollution and carbon pricing and the destruction of our environment. Once that threshold point is there, then you look at how you do it. The process this government is putting forward to the community, to the debate in this parlia­ment, is that there should be a price on carbon. How it will work, what will be the individual processes and what will be the compensation to individuals and business will be the subjects of debate. But to just pretend that there has never been a taxation process discussed in parliament before, to pretend that we have any right as an Austra­lian community or parliament to run away from our responsibilities, to pluck figures from the air and say that we will not be able to effectively and reasonably take this debate here, is not a respectful way of looking at the way parliament operates. There will be a debate on carbon price. There must be a debate on carbon price. When we get into the aspects of how it will work, there shall be a sensible discussion on carbon price. To run a scare campaign, to pretend that the only response to the economy has been taxation from one side of government, lowers the argument. It shows that there is not an intent to look at the real issues. Once again, for people not to want to look at the real issues around the need for our whole globe, our whole area, to take their responsi­bilities in this incredibly important area of protecting the environment is not safe. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The two Australian Labor Party speakers have told us, 'Wait until Sunday and you will hear what Ms Gillard is going to promise by way of compensation to all of those Australian families that will be attacked by Labor's newest tax, this time the carbon tax.' I say to Senator Moore or Senator Brown: who could possibly believe Julia Gillard, our Prime Minister, on her form? A couple of days before the last election, Julia Gillard got up, hand on heart, and promised faithfully to the Australian public, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Six short months later she is doing the exact opposite. I say to my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party opposite: whatever Ms Gillard says on Sunday absolutely no-one will believe, because this person has form when it comes to telling the truth.

Senator Moore also raised in her contribution to this debate to take note of answers at question time the issue of taxes having been introduced by every government since Federation. I agree with her. It was a government that I was a minister in which introduced the goods and services tax. The difference with the GST is that John Howard laid out on the table every element of the GST, told the Australian public what was going to happen with the GST and then went to an election. If the Australian public did not want a GST, they could have voted the Howard government out. They did not. They returned the Howard government and the GST, thankfully, has been the greatest financial reform that this country has ever seen, and it was genuine reform done by the Howard government and done honestly. Contrast that with the Gillard government: 'There shall be no carbon tax under a government I lead'—hand on heart, a solemn promise, four days before the election and one day before the last election.

People in New South Wales, people around Australia, voted for Ms Gillard and her party because they believed her with her promise that there shall be no carbon tax. You can understand now why opinion poll after opinion poll is showing how absolutely annoyed, how angry, the Australian voters are that they were deceived then. They are also angry that Ms Gillard promised she would be more likely to play full-forward for the Bulldogs than to take over Kevin Rudd's job. A couple of days later, what did she do? She got out the sabre, knifed him right in the back and became Prime Minister. This person has form. The Australian public, I suggest, have stopped listening to Ms Gillard. They do not believe and will not believe anything she says, and I say to the Australian public that you are very wise to take absolutely no notice of anything Ms Gillard might tell you on Sunday about so-called compensation. There is no need for compensation. All you do is not have the tax and then you do not have to worry about compensation.

As one of my colleagues pointed out, Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. I would like Senator Wong to participate in this debate and tell me if, as a result of this carbon tax, Australia's emissions are reduced by five per cent by 2020 what that is going to do to the total reduction in greenhouse emissions around the world. Absolutely nothing. What it will do is send jobs offshore, namely, to China, where they do not have a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, where they have less stringent rules than we have in Australia, and they would be more than doubling in a few weeks the reduction in the amount of emissions from Australia. If anyone can tell me how that is a good idea, I would be delighted to learn. I do know that, as a result of this carbon tax, Australia's standard of living will fall, our cost of living will increase and people up in North Queensland, Central Queensland, the coalmines and the manufacturing areas will lose their jobs because of this carbon tax—from a Prime Minister we simply cannot trust.

Question agreed to.