Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

I noticed the question about the brothel business and Craig Thomson. He needs to get some negotiating skills. It sounds like the BER. I think he was overcharged.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was just a throwaway. It is as bad as the BER. The carbon tax issue was raised in question time. Rorting will take place under this carbon tax due to a lack of knowledge and the shifting of profit centres. We have already seen what has happened in Europe with the ETS—and this tax is a progression towards an ETS—where they had to shut it down because of the rorting. What we are expecting to do in Australia is give countries like Columbia a pass-the-parcel commission process for companies anywhere around the planet to acquire a carbon credit for the carbon tax. I would not have any idea of how you would supervise that, given that we cannot even supervise our own tax because of places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. God knows it will be a feast for lawyers and accountants, but I bet a lot of that money will not find its way to the coffers that the government supposes it is going to find its way to.

The government has the hide, as part of the bargaining and politics of saying 'we must have a carbon tax', to put a proposition to the people of Australia that there will be no additions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme until we are back in the black. What sort of a tax is that? What sort of blackmail is that? It is outrageous that people who need new medicines and new cures to come onto the PBS are going to be denied them. Unless you have enough money, the PBS is going to be closed up until we get back into surplus.

I also note that a direct effect of the carbon tax is that any abattoir that is killing 24,999 cattle is excluded, but if it kills one more it will be included. What sort of an arrangement is that? The absolute thoughtlessness of the carbon tax and the impracticality of the implementation of the carbon tax is typical of the failures of this government, whether it was pink batts or the BER. No-one is worried about the good school buildings. That is all good. It is just that they cost double what they should have cost.

I suggest that the lawyers and accountants are going to be the winners in this just like in the coal seam mining episode, where the lawyers are getting $2,500 for every $1,500 that the cocky gets. As Senator Joyce noted, the lawyers get $2,500 for negotiating an arrangement for one well but the cocky gets $1,500. Where is all this going to finish up? With great respect, forget the tax.

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

It seems that Senator Heffernan was taking note of all coalition questions during question time today. There is one particular aspect that I would like to focus on. Whilst the PBS was not a subject canvassed in any sense during question time today—and I doubt the accuracy of the way that Senator Heffernan has characterised the situation—and I could possibly spend all my time talking about the strength of the Australian economy, I think it is worthwhile to note that four of the coalition's five questions focused on matters related to protecting our environment, and I commend the opposition for that. The tone of that approach was something that I would probably question, but four of their questions related to protect­ing the environment and I think that that is a worthwhile focus for our question time today.

I will spend a moment on just one of those. Senator Fifield raised questions about community organisations and how they might manage the transition. Indeed, he did not raise the issue of transition; he mentioned increases in running costs. But as he and many of his colleagues who supported a carbon tax in the past know well, it is not about increasing running costs but about promoting more environmentally sensitive behaviour, including by organisations such as the Scouts and other community organ­isations. Householders will be compensated for any increased costs that might arise, but community organisations are also going to be supported in making transitions to more environmentally sensitive behaviour.

On the general point, I am pleased that this has been a subject for question time today because the government is committed to introducing a carbon price. It is the right thing to do for our economy and our environ­ment, and we will keep explaining our policy to the public. A carbon price will put a price tag on the pollution of around 500 big polluters, and more than half of the revenue raised will be used to assist households through tax cuts, increases in family pay­ments, and higher pensions and benefits. Senator Arbib added further information about the other support for community organisations to make the transition to more environmentally sensitive behaviour.

What Senator Fifield highlighted was that the alternative policy, the Tony Abbott policy—which will subsidise polluters, cost households $1,300 a year and generate a $70 billion black hole—is in denial. What Senator Fifield highlighted is that direct action is not about real action. It is not about assisting community organisations to make a transition to more environmentally sensitive behaviour. It is not about using a price signal to drive change in behaviour. In the nature of his question he highlights very well that direct action is not about real action but is of course, as was also highlighted today, about a very expensive plan to subsidise the big polluters. This is why, as Senator Wong pointed out, no credible economist supports the coalition's policy.

This week we have heard the discussions around how this $70 billion black hole might be filled. The discussions have been around the coalition refusing to indicate what they may do for future services or pensions. It includes, as I mentioned before, a significant increase in costs for households. This is a weeping sore for the coalition. For Tony Abbott and the coalition, this big black hole and their failure to show any plan that will demonstrate real action on the environment is a weeping sore. As we pay more attention to this issue, courtesy of question time today and other opportunities the coalition willingly give us, Australian households and the Australian public will eventually under­stand the Gillard government's policies on environmental issues—and on this occasion, the carbon tax—and the lack of any real, genuine alternative.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to participate in the take note debate and particularly to follow Senator Collins, who has the temerity to refer to matters of tone in respect of those on this side of the chamber. She could take a NIDA graduate degree in tone; she is patronising those opposite by taking some sort of inferior position that she seems to have adopted in her own mind.

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

Get over it!

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately for you, you will never get over it.

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

Reow!

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was that, Senator Collins? Mr Deputy President, I do believe I heard from Senator Collins, while she was leaving the chamber, a sound that might bear withdrawing.

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

I withdraw.

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

You cannot do it from there.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not far enough.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Payne, you have the call.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that so many people in such a small space can be in such an absolute state of denial as the entire government is—a state of denial about the impacts that its policy will have on business and small business in this country and in particular the impacts it will have on the sorts of organisations that Senator Fifield spoke about in his question today—volunteer organisations and the not-for-profit sector. They will receive no support, no compen­sation and not even any acknowledgement from those on the other side about the impact of the government's policy on their oper­ations. How are small businesses meant to deal with the sorts of imposts that the carbon tax will place on them?

Yesterday we heard from Senator Wong that people building new houses apparently do not need to bother about a possible $5,000 increase in the costs of building a new home. Apparently that is something we can blithely wipe away with the sweep of a hand. It is not important. But if you ask people who are budgeting to the last dollar in building a new home, they might say that it is important. They might think that the impact of this government's carbon tax on the future of their home and their family is important even if all the government is capable of is being dismissive of it. What will actually happen to homeowners, to renters, to builders, to manufacturers across Australia who are already struggling under the cost-of-living rises that Labor's financial mismanagement has caused and who are looking at a worsen­ing housing shortage? That continues to be completely ignored by the government. We are still waiting for a housing status supply report, which has been overdue since April, and the reappointment of the National Housing Supply Council was not even made until this year when it was meant to be made in 2010. That just shows the level of interest that this government professes in these issues.

If you are a homeowner already facing higher electricity costs and gas bills and water bills, if you have rents rising above inflation if you happen to be a renter, then extra imposts from the carbon tax can only hurt you. They cannot be dismissed out of hand. How are small business people trying to maintain their own home and run their own business while receiving no compen­sation going to cope? There is no answer to that or to many other questions. Most amus­ingly, when the government does end up under a tiny weeny bit of pressure, what does it do? Minister Plibersek, in the other place, implies that the homes of pensioners on the Central Coast are facing inundation. How is it appropriate management of government policy to make people think that their homes are under immediate threat and scare them? It is pretty simple—it is a scare tactic, and it does not work. The member for Lindsay, Mr Bradbury, when asked to advise a local hospital on how it might deal with an increase in its electricity bill of about $300,000, responded by saying in reference to the imposition of the carbon tax—and let us bear in mind that nobody is arguing that no action be taken; the opposition is arguing in favour of direct action on climate change—

Government senators interjecting—

You should listen to this—it is fascinating and some might say hilarious. Mr Bradbury said:

Without taking action, Australia is expected to experience higher rates of infectious and vector-borne diseases as well as food and waterborne diseases.

That is from David Bradbury, the member for Lindsay. How can we take this seriously? How can the Australian people take this seriously? Someone tell Nepean Hospital how to pay $300,000 more in electricity bills. There are no answers coming from the government—there are no answers coming to small business; there are no answers coming to struggling homeowners; there are no answers coming to subbies in the building industry who want to know how they are going to cope. Frankly, there is no hope for them if this is the sort of display that the government continues to put on.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur with Senator Payne that it is always a pleasure to participate in this debate, but it does seem to have lost its momentum in the last few days. It is very hard to see where the opposition were trying to go with their questions in question time today. In part I think that is attributable to the fact that they simply do not listen to the answers that they receive; nor do they even begin to contemplate the facts behind our carbon policy or indeed the carbon debate from beginning to end. For example, Senator Fifield asked about the impact on community groups—how would the Scouts or the Girl Guides or any other community group deal with the prospective impact of the carbon price? The government has a very clear answer to that. Communities need to be assisted when adjusting to a low-carbon future. They need assistance with modifying community infrastructure so that their electricity bills are lower. This is exactly why the Gillard government is expanding the Low Carbon Communities program. It is a program for both low-income households and communities so that community facilities—things like stadiums, education facilities, Scout halls, town halls and even nursing homes—can update their facilities and help reduce their electricity costs. We know that this is something the whole nation needs to do and it is exactly how our carbon approach is framed. We are also helping low-income households with an offset of any cost-of-living increase. We know that, on average, households will have a rebate of about $10 a week and we know that the average cost to households will be about $9 a week. We take our compensation to house­holds very seriously.

On top of this we have a low-income energy efficiency program. We know these programs work. I have worked very closely with people in Western Australia who deliver these programs. They go to people's houses and assist them in working through what they need to do to adjust their electricity costs. That is a lot more than I can say for what Colin Barnett is doing. In Western Australia over the last three years we have seen electricity costs rise by 50 per cent—that is, a 50 per cent increase with no compensation.

On the other hand, the Gillard government very clearly understands the cost-of-living pressures faced by Australians, particularly pensioners and low-income households. That is why under our Clean Energy Futures program we are compensating households. The questions from the opposition simply make no sense.

I will move on to some other answers. As the opposition has invited me to comment on the answers given by Senator Evans, I would like to pass comment on Senator Evans's answer to my own question. He highlighted that the Liberal Party have again failed to rule out cutting penalty rates for millions of Australian workers. Where does that leave us on the cost-of-living question? It leaves millions of Australian families vulnerable. Millions of Australian families rely on penalty rates. We know that Andrew Robb had the opportunity to give families certainty on these questions but he did not. In fact, he said on 16 August:

... we are waiting to see what industry says the failings are of the Fair Work Act.

If industry say that they do not like penalty rates, won't that mean Australian workers are going to have their penalty rates slashed? That sounds like something the Liberal Party are seriously considering. They refuse to rule it out. They simply say, 'We're reviewing the act, so we will wait.' (Time expired)

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers by Senator Wong. Before I do, I was most perturbed that as Senator Jacinta Collins was leaving the chamber she made a catcall and also a gesture. I am very disappointed that she left the chamber doing that sort of thing. Perhaps if Senator Jacinta Collins is still watching this broadcast she might come back and apologise to the chamber. It was very discourteous.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

On taking note of answers: Labor is continuing its pattern of misleading the community on the carbon tax. This week we marked one year since the Prime Minister's pledge: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' I do not know how many times we have heard this repeated, but the Prime Minister has since said that she will be awaiting community consensus. I wonder if she was informed and really understood the message of the 4,000-plus crowd who attended the rally on the Parliament House lawns yester­day. I had a carbon tax petition at a recent local show and within a day I had 1,000 signatures on that petition—it was absolutely amazing. Normally when you are at a show with a petition everyone runs and hides but this time people were asking whether they could sign the carbon tax petition.

The community is very agitated about the carbon tax and some strange things are happening, especially for the so-called 500 polluting businesses. First we started with 1,000 businesses which were going to have to pay the carbon tax. Then we went to 500. Then we went to 400. Now we are back to 500. It is outrageous that the Labor govern ­ ment, which is championing the import ­ ance of a carbon tax, has told the supposed 500 big polluting businesses that the businesses will have to work out what to pay.

To understand this, the shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage, Greg Hunt, wrote to Minister Combet requesting the list of the 500 companies, but Minister Combet has responded by creating more uncertainty, saying that ultimately it will be the responsibility of business to determine whether they are liable under the carbon-pricing mechanism, using commer ­ cial information specific to the operations of their business.

That is very confusing. How can the Labor government implement such a major policy without a defined list of which companies have to pay? How can they be sure of their revenue projections? We know there are some carbon cops out there—or there will be. Who are they going to go after?

The Labor government is creating enormous uncertainty for business. The exposure draft of the legislation has only just been made available for public comment, and I am told it closes next Monday with some of the bills still to be released. Yet businesses are expected to have analysed and assessed whether they are one of the supposed 500 on Labor's carbon tax hit list, and that does not include the extra 60,000 businesses which will be impacted under the diesel fuel rebate changes. I really think we could not be more confused and the supposed 500 businesses that have to pay must be very confused.

With the current global economic uncertainty, the high Australian dollar and the slump in retail trade, this is the worst possible time for a new tax to be imposed on Australian families and businesses. We should be doing all we can to ensure the financial security of Australians is being protected, yet Labor are blindly pushing ahead with a carbon tax. They do so with complete disregard of the negative inter­national economic situation and the local indicators which clearly show Australian businesses are already doing it tough. For the sake of Australian families, to ensure their job security and keep business doors open, I would demand— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.