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 the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked today relating to a proposed carbon tax.

I assume that the two ministers at the table will not be speaking in relation to this motion. I assume that Senator Brown is not and, therefore, I assume that Senators Feeney and Pratt will be speaking on this matter today. I ask them this question and I want them to give the chamber the answer: 12 months ago were the Australian people entitled to believe the Prime Minister when she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? Were they entitled to believe her when she made that comment 12 months ago?

The answer to that question must surely be yes. But I will wait for Senators Pratt and Feeney to confirm that the answer must be yes to that simple question of whether the Australian people were entitled to believe their Prime Minister 12 months ago when she told them, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Were the people in the gallery in front of you, Mr Deputy President, entitled to believe their Prime Minister when she said to them that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? The answer to that question must be an emphatic yes, they were entitled to believe it.

So the next question for Senators Feeney and Pratt must be: on what basis do you now justify what was a clear lie to the Australian people? Rise today and tell the chamber and the community on what basis you justify a lie told 12 months ago. If there is no justification, and there can be no justifi­cation, stand up and tell this chamber, tell the people in the gallery, the people listening today and the thousands of people who were demonstrating today on what basis you justify not going to the Australian people for a fresh election to let them vote on this issue.

There are three key issues; there are three key answers to three key questions. I will be very interested to hear, Senator Feeney and Senator Pratt, what your responses will be. You cannot leave this chamber today without answering those questions because they are fundamental questions about the public policy debate we are having at the moment. They are fundamental questions which you must answer. The Australian people surely were entitled to believe their Prime Minister when she told them six days before the last election that there would be no carbon tax. You and I know, Senator Feeney, through you Mr Deputy President, that had she been truthful to the Australian community the outcome of that election would have been entirely different.

It was a bald faced lie designed to put people at ease about a carbon tax prior to the election. She either knew it was a lie at the time, having had the discussions with Senator Brown before then, or knows there can be no justification whatsoever for her behaviour since. If the Australian people are not able to rely on their Prime Minister to be truthful with them about such a significant public policy matter, how can they believe anything else she tells them? How can they believe her? This debate is about the Prime Minister's integrity. This debate is about the sorts of matters that Senator Wong refused to answer today. We saw utter incompetence from this senior government minister. She had absolutely no idea of the implications for the freight sector, the small business sector and regional and rural Australia in the answers she gave. She had absolutely no idea whatsoever. My home city of Ballarat, along with Geelong and Bendigo, are great manufacturing centres in regional Victoria.

Senator Feeney, you and I know what the outcome of this tax will be. You and I know what your own union leaders are saying about this insidious, toxic tax. You know what effect it will have on the coal industry and you know what jobs will be at risk. You have provided absolutely no level of comfort for anyone outside regional and rural Victoria, let alone metropolitan Australia, in relation to what this tax will do.

Let me go very quickly through some of the ramifications, all of which are undeniable and all of which beggar belief—and it beggars belief that an Australian Prime Minister can do this to her own people. A family on a single income of $65,000 a year will receive no compensation— (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on the motion to take note of Senator Wong's answer.

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

Answer my question.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ronaldson, having just endured your hyperbole for the last few minutes, I am sure you will pay me the courtesy of listening. The Labor Party's policy is to achieve a five per cent cut in 2000 emission levels by 2020. This represents a goal of abating some 160 million tonnes of carbon by 2020. I think that policy is generally well known. What I think is perhaps less well known is that the Liberal and National parties have the same policy. It is also their policy to cut 2000 carbon emission levels in this country by five per cent by 2020. One might think that the fact that we have the same target and the same policy might mean that we are in an environment where there could be accord. One might think that it might be the basis for agreement. Of course once upon a time it would have been. The reason it is not the case now, the reason it is not the basis for an accord, is that the Liberal and National parties live in shame of their own policy. Theirs is a policy that was cobbled together in the aftermath of dealing with the clash between those opposite who are sceptics and those who believe in climate change. They now have a policy which they seek to hide. This is why those opposite wander around Australia and say different things to different audiences. This is why those opposite attend rallies of climate change sceptics and shamelessly agree with those audiences.

The fact that their policy is the same policy as the government's is hidden. When one looks in detail through their policy, their so-called direct action policy, one finds it is neither direct nor about action. It is a policy that aims to achieve the very same targets as our policy, but they have found a more expensive route to do it. The direct action policy is a policy which ultimately boils down to paying polluters and sending the bill to Australian households. Theirs is a command economy model and it goes to one of the more extraordinary features of this debate. The government are promoting a policy which ultimately will result in an emissions trading scheme—a floating price. The fixed permit will ultimately transition into a carbon market and that market will mean—

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

It is an artificial market.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that interjection, one might reflect that the very first markets in every sphere of activity were. There is demand. There is supply. There will be a market and that market will set a price. If those opposite want to have angst about the design of this market, let them do that. But surely their first order of business should be to try and craft a market of their own. But they are not doing that; of course they are not. Those opposite are seeking to achieve the same target that this government are seeking to achieve, but they have looked to the Soviet Union for inspiration. It is a five-year tractor factory in the Urals that sits as the guiding light for the policy of those opposite.

While it is estimated that the carbon price designed by this government and to be delivered by this government will cost something in the order of $550 per person, I have seen an assessment that under the coalition's policy it will cost $750 per person. How can this be so? Those opposite are crafting a policy which hinges on the idea of a committee of cabinet handing out enormous sums of money to their friends, the polluters. The extraordinary proposition, as Malcolm Turnbull has so eloquently put it, is that those who are polluting will be paid to abate their polluting. Under their own system there is absolutely no incentive for polluters to reform their behaviour. But wait; it gets worse. Under their carbon plan, 70 per cent of the carbon to be abated is to be abated through soil carbon. As we know, soil carbon is not presently accounted for in the Kyoto accounting standards. So their 70 per cent target is something that cannot be accounted for in the international system. That may be an unfortunate thing— (Time expired)

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on the motion to take note of Senator Wong's answer. I was listening with great interest to Senator Feeney, particularly where he said that both parties have the same emissions reduction target of five per cent by 2020, and that given this it would be nice if there could be bipartisan accord. Can I say that there is a bipartisan accord on the way to deal with this and it is not the one Senator Feeney was referring to. In fact, the bipartisan accord came into existence exactly one year ago today when the Prime Minister put a hand on her heart and solemnly said to the people of Australia, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' From that day on there was a bipartisan approach to dealing with emissions reduction, based on the fact that neither major party would introduce a carbon tax. Earlier this year, the bipartisan approach to emissions abatement which Senator Feeney longs for evaporated when the Prime Minister broke her solemn promise to the Australian people.

So here we are on the first anniversary of her statement that—and I repeat her very clear statement—'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' On this anniversary of her solemn statement to the Australian people the Prime Minister should apologise. Today thousands of people have been out the front of Parliament House, all of them incensed by the fact that the Prime Minister managed to achieve a victory at the last election based, at least in significant part, on the fact that she had made that promise to the Australian people. We all know there is no doubt that there are seats around the country which Labor would not have won had she not done that.

The Prime Minister now says, 'Things changed after the election and we had to go with the circumstances we faced at that point.' When Tony Abbott, as Leader of the Opposition, was challenging the Prime Minister prior to the election, there was absolutely no doubt as to the circumstances he was talking about. When he said to the Prime Minister, 'Will you rule out introducing a carbon tax after the next election?' it was in the full knowledge that the Greens had an excellent chance of winning the balance of power in the Senate and that the Prime Minister would need to deal with the Greens. It was in the full knowledge that the election was going to be tight and that there could be a need to deal with Independents in the post-election environment. The Leader of the Opposition put that challenge to the Prime Minister knowing full well that that was the case and the Prime Minister, in making her response, knew full well that those were the circumstances in which that challenge was being put to her. Yet she still stood up and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'

So after the election, when what was likely to occur did occur, the government, for what can only be considered grubby personal reasons of wanting to hang on to power, did a deal with the Greens. As a result the Prime Minister had to renege on her promise to the Australian people and, as we all know, is now seeking to introduce this carbon tax.

I say again, the argument we have in this place when talking about the government's carbon tax is not whether Australia should take action to reduce emissions. That is accepted by both major parties. Senator Feeney acknowledged that just a few minutes ago. The argument is: what is the best way to do this? This is despite the fact that government senators—Senator Feeney excluded on this particular occasion—continue to paint themselves as the only major party committed to this outcome. It is disingenuous and dishonest to do that because clearly both major parties have a plan to reduce emissions. The government's plan is far more about being seen to be doing something than actually addressing the problem. Their toxic new carbon tax may help them to feel warm and fuzzy and may even help them sleep better at night—because they feel they have done something for the environment—but their tax will not help reduce global emissions and will not address the challenge of climate change.

In answering a question from Senator Abetz, Minister Wong spoke about China's renewable energy production but failed to look at the relativities, to mention the percentage of renewables of the total economy which that represented. This is massive compared with Australia's energy production. (Time expired)

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

In question time today, Senator Wong gave excellent responses to the questions asked of her and said in one of her responses, 'To be a first-rate economy you need to be a clean energy economy.' Australia's carbon pollution is continuing to grow at a rapid rate. Without action it is expected to grow by almost two per cent a year to 2020. That is why the Australian government has a comprehensive plan to build a clean energy future. Our plan includes introducing the carbon price, promoting innovation and investment in renewable energy, encouraging energy efficiency and creating opportunities in the land sector to cut pollution.

Climate scientists have been telling us for years that the world is warming and that carbon pollution poses a threat to our environment and our economy. The rest of the world is acting and we cannot be left behind. Eighty-nine countries, which represent 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the world's economy, have already pledged to take action on climate change. Australia generates more carbon pollution per capita than any other developed country, including the United States. We also produce significantly more pollution per person than India and China. Our carbon pollution is increasing at a rapid rate and without action it will continue to grow. We cannot wait any longer. We must act now and the Gillard Labor government is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A price on carbon is not a tax on ordinary Australians. It is the big polluters who will pay under the government's carbon price plan—unlike the direct action plan of those opposite who insist on making taxpayers pay. Under their plan, families will be worse off with each Australian household paying around $1,300 more in taxes. In the government's plans, Australia's 500 biggest companies will be charged for the pollution they produce. This will help drive investment in clean energy technologies. It will be good for our children and our grandchildren. All of the money raised from the carbon price will be used to support households and jobs and to invest in clean energy and climate change programs. To assist households with price impacts, the government is introducing a comprehensive assistance package. This will comprise two rounds of tax cuts and increases in pensions, allowances and benefits. The tax cuts and increased payments will be targeted at those who need them most. This will mean Labor will ensure that pensioners, low- and middle-income earners and families are assisted.

Under our assistance package, nine out of 10 households will receive assistance through a combination of tax cuts and increased payments. Almost six million Australian households will receive tax cuts or increases in payments that fully cover the average price impacts of the carbon price. Labor will also provide a 20 per cent buffer for over four million Australian households. This means that those households will receive assistance that covers 120 per cent of the average price impact of the carbon price. Age, disability support and carer pensioners will receive $338 a year for singles on the full rate and $510 a year for couples combined on the full rate.

We know that self-funded retirees will also require support when the carbon price is implemented, so we will be providing the same assistance to eligible self-funded retirees that we are providing to age and disability pensioners. We are also tripling the tax-free threshold to over $18,000, which means that over one million Australians will no longer need to lodge a tax return.

In my home state of Tasmania the assistance package will ensure that 102,300 pensioners receive assistance through their pension payments to offset any carbon price increases. More than 45,600 families in Tasmania will also receive household assistance through their family assistance payment. On top of this, taxpayers in Tasmania with an annual income under $80,000 will get a tax cut, with most receiving at least $300 per year. This assistance is in stark contrast to the plan offered by the opposition. (Time expired)

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

The opposition has asked questions today on the carbon tax and is seeking to take note of answers to those questions for the very simple reason that every Labor member and senator who was elected at the last election—every single one—was elected on the basis of a lie. In the House of Representatives, of 150 members, 148 presented themselves to the electorate on a platform of there being no carbon tax—because I assume that Mr Oakeshott and Mr Bandt presented themselves on a platform of a carbon tax. The entire economic policy of this government is therefore also based on a lie.

I take a particular interest in the effect of this so-called economic reform because my state of Victoria will be hit first and hit hardest by the carbon tax. You may know, Mr Deputy President, that my office is in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne and the south-east of Melbourne is the home of manufacturing in Australia. Somewhere in the order of 44 per cent of manufacturing output comes from the south-east region. There are 70,000 people employed in manufacturing in that region. I have been visiting manufacturer after manufacturer during the break, with Mrs Mirabella from the other place, the shadow minister for industry, innovation and science, and when you talk to manufacturers it is not a pretty story that you hear. They tell you in detail the number of employees they will have to lay off if a carbon tax comes into place and about how much their energy bills will go up. We are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased costs for many of these businesses.

I do want to acknowledge, however, that one Labor member, Mr Dreyfus from the other place, who is the parliamentary secretary for climate change and a carbon tax, has been visiting manufacturers in the south-east. Indeed, when I went to the annual general meeting of SEMMA, the South East Melbourne Manufacturers Alliance, a week or two back, Mr Dreyfus was addressing the meeting on the topic of 'Why a carbon tax is good for you'. He did not receive a terribly good reception, it would be fair to say. He did not persuade the audience. I recall that one manufacturer stood up and said, 'In my business we're going to have to pay $120,000 a year more in electricity because of the carbon tax,' and Mr Dreyfus's response was, 'That just goes to prove my point that the impact of a carbon tax will only be modest.' What Mr Dreyfus considers to be modest is something entirely different from what a business considers to be modest.

We have spoken a bit about the manufacturing sector and we have spoken about the steel industry and other industry sectors, but there is one area that has received scant attention from this govern­ment in relation to the impact of a carbon tax. That is the area of disabilities, carers and the voluntary sector. The government, when it comes to people with disabilities, says: 'Trust us. We'll give compensation. It'll be sorted.' The government is offering an increase to the disability support pension. That sounds fine if you accept that that compensation is adequate—which I do not, but let's just put that to one side for a second. There are over four million Australians with a disability. There are 813,000-odd people on the disability support pension. That means there are in excess of 3.2 million Australians with a disability who will receive no direct compensation as a result of the carbon tax. It is ironic in the extreme that at a time when the government is talking about improving long-term care and support for people with disabilities through the idea of a national disability insurance scheme—and that is something I am very supportive of—and making the lives of people with a disability easier, it is also looking at a way, a method, that will impact directly on the living standards of people with disabilities. Carers, according to the government, will receive an increase in their carers payment, but there are many millions more carers than there are people on the carers payment. This tax will hit the south-east of Melbourne hard. It will also hit people in my portfolio hard. (Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to an answer the minister gave in relation to coal seam gas. I find what is going on in Australia with coal seam gas fascinating because there is an assumption, which keeps getting trotted out all over the place, that coal seam gas is cleaner than coal as an energy source and, therefore, we should embrace a massive expansion of coal seam gas.

When I asked the minister today if she could tell the Senate whether coal seam gas extracted in Australia is less greenhouse gas intensive than black coal on a life cycle analysis, she could not answer the question. That is because the work has not been done here in Australia on the greenhouse gas intensity of coal seam gas on life cycle analysis. It is about time that it was. I am one of those people who has said strongly that gas internationally has to be seen at the maximum as a bridging fuel. In Australia we need to move straight to renewables and people looking at gas need to see it as an interim measure and not as a long-term investment. Because certain companies see the profits that they think they can get from coal seam gas, tragically they have completely overrun rural communities in Australia. These communities are outraged at what has been going on, as is the medical fraternity which is out there very strongly warning of the health impacts of coal seam gas.

The Greens will bring in legislation which will give farmers the right to say, 'No, you can't come on to the property to extract coal seam gas.' I will be very interested to see what the coalition does. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, has got into quite a pickle on this. Last week he said that farmers should say no, but he has spent the past 24 hours back-peddling and trying to dig himself a place to hide from that issue. We need to have Australian studies on the greenhouse gas intensity of coal seam gas from whoa to go, including fugitive emissions from the areas where these gas wells are being drilled and fugitive emissions from not only those leaking wells but also the pipes. We need to have the energy input analysed from the reverse osmosis of the billions of litres of produced water. We also need to look at the energy embodied in the transport of the gas to the liquefication facilities, the liquefication itself and the transportation overseas. Once you start looking at the greenhouse gas emissions and the intensity of all that, you will find that all these people who claim that coal seam gas is cleaner than coal are in fact wildly exaggerating any benefits. When you take away the disbenefit of loss of agricultural production, you will show that coal seam gas is not the great investment that so many people claim it is.

It is time we took food and water security seriously. I have argued in here until I am blue in the face that you cannot deal with these issues separately. You need to look at the water crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis and the climate crisis all at once and not take actions that lead to perverse outcomes if you deal with only one of those and not the rest at the same time. Farming communities across Australia are quite rightly saying they are under enormous pressure. They are under pressure from the dollar; they are under pressure because they are losing land to the expansion of urban areas. They are losing because they cannot make a decent farm gate price anymore because of the impact of the supermarkets in Australia and competition from imported food, which is coming into this country having been grown under different environmental conditions and lower wages elsewhere. They are under pressure all over the place and now they find that the gas industry is marching onto their properties with no consideration, no consultation in many cases and completely disrupting life on their land—not to mention the impacts on the Great Artesian Basin. We still cannot get an answer from the government or anybody else on the impacts of this massive expansion of coal seam gas on water availability in Australia and the Great Artesian Basin.

I am glad the minister is going to come back because we want to know on what basis these claims are being made. Are the claims being made just on the basis of industry or have there been any independent reports? Are these reports based in Australia or overseas? I would not mind betting that most of them will come from companies that have done some sort of studies elsewhere. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.