Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) 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 today by Senator Mason in relation to carbon pricing.

I also note that question time has been shut down in the other place. There must be a little bit of pressure over there. It is very interesting. The sort of thing that brings about that pressure, on one of the first times that we can recollect that they have actually shut down question time—and that has not happened for a long, long, long time—is that they probably do not have full confidence in what is going on. They are probably generally doing a fine job over there, and these are words that are going to resonate in our heads: 'a fine job'. That is what the member for Dobell was doing: a fine job. He was going to be there for a long, long, long time. Now it looks like it could be a couple of days. And there is 'full confidence' in the member for Dobell.

One of the things that bring about this lack of confidence is that the Queensland Treasury has presented a range of figures pertaining to the assessment of a carbon tax. And remember that the Queensland Treasury, administered by the Queensland Treasurer and member of the Labor Party, has presented a set of figures that are entirely different to what this Treasury has presented on the carbon tax. They are two completely different sets of figures. How could this be, pray tell? We do not seem to have full confidence in what is going on these days. It has not been a long, long, long time, but it seems to be coming really, really, really unstuck.

We can look at the tabled presentations by the Queensland Treasury. We cannot get the tabled presentations from the federal Treasury. They are hiding them; they do not want us to see them. It is secret squirrel stuff. And that is another thing we could talk about: things they keep secret. When they actually present the figures we find that regional towns in Queensland are going to be smashed by a carbon tax. This broad based consumption tax, delivered to you via every power point in your house, will do absolutely nothing about the temperature of the globe. It is merely a gesture. We see people who should be standing up for manufacturing jobs, sitting opposite me today, who should be standing up for working families, but all they want to stand up for is the Greens. That is who they support now: the Greens, the party that has been destroying the Labor Party. It is tearing the Labor Party asunder. The Labor Party is a slave to the Greens, and they are tearing it apart. It has lost its soul. They are doing it here today and they are doing it in the other place. Why are you doing it to yourself?

This carbon tax is the absolute essence of insanity. It has brought you unstuck. Why did you go back there? Why on earth did you go back to that turf? Everything else you could have walked through, but that is the tipping point; it is the destruction of what is happening. Everything that is happening around here is associated with this insane tax. When we look at the global environment and what is going on—the rise of China, the rise of India, the problems in Europe, the problems in the United States—why on earth would this nation go down the path of a carbon tax? It is just beyond belief. But it is not beyond contempt that you would do that to our country. It is not beyond contempt that you would put at risk the future of this nation by reason of this insane tax and a policy that is guided by the Australian Greens.

We have seen so much that is there for Queensland. The towns of Rockhampton, Gladstone and Mackay will suffer up to three times the effect of the carbon tax. These were the heartlands of the Australian Labor Party. Rockhampton was one of the heartlands of the Australian Labor Party. Why are you doing this to their jobs? Why are you doing this to prices? Why don't you care for these people anymore? Why can't you be fair dinkum and stand up for the real issues? Why do you go on this mad frolic with the Greens? Why have you let them do this to your party? Why do you sit back and watch while this happens? Every figure tells a story. The polling that is happening to you at the moment is for a reason. It is basically a self-inflicted wound, because of your mad taxes, mad associations and warrants for people—'full confidence' and all that other stuff. How did you get yourselves into this position?

If you do not back away from this carbon tax, it will go beyond being an issue for the Labor Party; it will be bad for Queensland and bad for our nation. It is absolutely beyond contempt that you would go to the areas that are actually putting money on the table for our nation. If it were not for regional Australia, the money would not go on the table for us to spend to keep the service industry afloat. It is the money that we get from our raw exports—coal, iron ore, wheat—that keeps this nation going. What a carbon tax does for that, gosh only knows. (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to Senator Joyce's diatribe. The fact of the matter is that a market mechanism like the carbon price is the most economically efficient way of reducing carbon pollution. It creates incentives for large polluters to reduce their emissions and to invest in the clean energy sources of the future, like gas, wind and solar power.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Combet—as the senators opposite know very well—has flagged that, when the carbon price is in place, there may be scope to work with state governments to examine other programs that cut pollution at a higher cost.

Far from the fear campaign that we have just heard from the other side of the chamber, we take a responsible position with respect to the future of both Australia and the Australian economy. We know, through Treasury modelling, that the outlook for Queensland and other states as far as jobs go is healthy, but the key conclusion—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Take the time to listen to the facts. The key conclusion of a Queensland Treasury report released yesterday is that, over the period to 2020, Queensland's economy will grow strongly, at an average annual rate of 3.5 per cent, with or without a carbon price, and there will be an extra 474,000 jobs created over that period. This is consistent with Treasury modelling, which shows the economy continuing to prosper and jobs growth strongly nationwide with a carbon price in place.

There is no basis to what we are hearing from the senators opposite. We know, through a whole series of endless debates, year after year, that there was a commitment—with bipartisan support, up to when Mr Abbott took over the leadership of the Liberal Party—to a market based mechanism. Why? Because it is the most efficient and most likely way to help transition our economy to a low-carbon economy. You may stand over there and berate us for not being visionary and all the rest of it, but I am proud of being part of a government that will take this country forwards, not backwards in the irresponsible way that senators opposite are promoting.

Treasury's modelling also shows that the carbon price will see household electricity prices rise by some $3.30 per week, with the total impact on costs for households estimated to be around $9.90 on average. To assist with this—an important fact in this debate that is often neglected by those opposite—the federal government will be providing assistance to households worth $10.10 a week on average, in the form of tax cuts, increases in family payments and higher pensions and benefits. Nine out of 10 households will get this assistance. Almost six million households will get assistance that meets or exceeds their expected average impact on prices, and over four million households, almost half of all households, we will get assistance that provides a 20 per cent buffer over and above the expected average impact on prices.

This is not only good policy but it is mitigating the impact on households, which those senators opposite claim they are concerned about. I think there should be some acknowledgment of the fact and the substance of the policy in this debate, rather than empty critique being thrown at us, as we just experienced from Senator Joyce. It is not helping the public debate to approach this in such a base way. The level of political dialogue around the debate on climate change has descended to the bottom of the pit on the opposite side of the chamber. I call on senators opposite to take seriously the substance of the policy of tackling climate change, to take seriously the substance of lowering our carbon footprint as a country and to take seriously a policy that they once believed in. They were prepared to support a market mechanism in debate on the floor of this place. Why? Because the market is the best, cheapest and most efficient way to put downward pressure on the release of carbon into our atmosphere, therefore allowing us to make a contribution as a nation to the responsibilities we bear to the next generation of not only Australians but young people around the world. If we do not act now, we know, through all of the economic modelling, that it just becomes more expensive and the burden is transferred to the next generation of taxpayers, who will wear the irresponsible actions of the opposition. (Time expired)

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

When I was but a wee boy, the leader of the British Labour Party was the Rt Hon. Michael Foot. He had a shock of white hair. He was a great journalist; he was an appalling politician. He believed in unilateral nuclear disarmament. He believed that it was a good idea for Britain to take the lead and unilaterally get rid of its nuclear weapons. He believed that superpower conflict would somehow stop if Britain unilaterally got rid of its nuclear weapons. He believed also that other countries would follow. He was sincere, he was well meaning, he was idealistic and he was wrong. He was very dangerously wrong. The Cold War did not end because of unilateral nuclear disarmament; it ended because of strength by the West.

By the same token, this is a global problem. Temperatures will not fall unless there is global action, and this carbon tax will not make one iota of difference. Australia should never ever apologise for acting in its national interest. The government are undertaking what some commentators have called 'unilateral economic disarmament'. They are actually taking away economic prosperity from our country unilaterally before the rest of the world, hoping others will follow.

I accept that belief in the carbon tax is sincerely held, often with even religious zeal. But it is wrong. It will not make any difference. Why would a country like Australia—which has a marvellous comparative advantage in that it is energy rich and export oriented but is also trade exposed—do this? Why would it introduce a carbon tax? It is not in our national interest. Why would a government do this at a time of international economic crisis, particularly at a time when our trading position is already exposed and weakened? Why would a government do this? How can they argue that this is in our national interest? Why are they doing this? Why would a government impose this punitive tax on its own people when no other government around the world is prepared to introduce a tax of similar impact, reach and severity? Why would a government do this? And, yet, this is what they are proposing to do.

The Labor government will tell us that we have to lead by example, just like the Rt Hon. Michael Foot thought in the 1970s. I would say it is more like being the first lemming to jump off a cliff—and, believe me, there will be no-one behind us. As if any of our competitors are going to shoot themselves in the foot to assist us. As if developing countries like Brazil, Russia, India or China will follow Australia's example and bind their own hands and compromise their own economies. They will not do that. They will not prejudice their national interest and neither should we.

As if the developed world is going to reduce its growth and employment at a time when it is under enormous international stress. What about the United States of America? When is the last time you even heard President Obama talk about a carbon tax or a carbon pollution reduction scheme? Have we even heard that in months? No. What about the European Union? The European Union is spending more time investigating the fraud in its emissions spot market than actually trading on it. The Treasury modelling on which the govern­ment relies to sell this tax to the public is based on an assumption that countries around the world embrace an international trading scheme. That is an assumption of something that Michael Foot found out in the 1970s just does not occur. Countries do not unilaterally act against their own self-interest and neither should we. (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to enter this debate. I must say that I hope I do not present just a wall of noise like we have heard from both Senator Joyce and Senator Mason. We really need to get back to some facts on this. Why are we doing this? Why are governments around the world saying that we need to deal with carbon pollution? We are dealing with carbon pollution because it is causing massive problems in the environment. The world is heating up. The tides are rising. We know this from all of the eminent scientists who have actually studied this problem. Every scientist who has expertise in this area is warning governments around the world that this is a problem.

It is not just individual scientists who are warning about the problem of global warming; it is also NASA. NASA have more expertise than anyone in the world. If you go on their website you will see that the globe is warming, that the tides are rising and that it has nothing to do with solar flares. It is carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere that is causing the problem. NASA says it, the Australian Academy of Science says it, the CSIRO says it and the Bureau of Meteorology says it.

I can understand this from Senator Joyce. Senator Joyce is a consistent carbon price opponent and global warming denier. But for somebody like Senator Mason to stand up and run this line when he actually supported a price on carbon under his previous leader, John Howard, is just hypocrisy of the highest kind. Yet we have got conservative leaders around the world actually accepting that this has to be done. John Howard accepted there had to be a price on carbon. Margaret Thatcher accepted there had to be a price on carbon. David Cameron—no relative of mine, I must say—accepts there has to be a price on carbon. Probably the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull, says there has to be a price on carbon. So when Malcolm Turnbull says there has to be a price on carbon and that the best way to put a price on carbon is through a market system, what happens? The extremists take over the Liberal Party. The extremists take over the Liberal Party and they destroy Malcolm Turnbull's leadership because he is prepared to accept the scientific reality of the need to put a price on carbon. They assassinate their own leader on the basis of his beliefs on carbon pricing.

Then what did they do? They said, 'We have got to do something because we need to deal with this issue on a political basis. We do not want to deal with it on a scientific basis but we need to deal with it on a political basis,' and they come up with a nonsense called Direct Action. Direct Action, according to the Treasury, will cost every family in this country $720 a year. Our approach on this is to make sure that families are looked after. We accept there will be a cost on families and we have factored that into our approach. The Treasury says the cost will be $9.90 a week. So what do we do? We are saying that most families will get $10.10 in return, that they will actually get better than the cost of the carbon tax. So we have got an economically viable and economically responsible position to take.

Yet what do we get from Senator Joyce? Senator Mason started talking about wrecking the economy, then at least he thought, 'I had better not go down this way,' so he stopped saying 'wrecking' and he said 'compromising'. He knows it will not wreck the economy. He knows it will not compromise the economy. This is the hypo­crisy of people like Senator Birmingham—'Backflip Birmingham'—and Senator Mason going around and changing their whole position on this. They know it will not wreck the economy, because people know that this is the best way to deal with a carbon price. (Time expired)

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

Before calling the next speaker, I remind senators to be respectful of other senators in this place.

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

Senator Cameron seems confident about his government's carbon tax proposal, which will put increased costs of living upon every Australian. If he is so confident, let us have an election about it. If you want to go the whole hog, let us have a double dissolution. Let's go for it, Senator Cameron. If you believe what you say, get out there and ask the people of Australia what they think about the lies of your leader, Julia Gillard, who promised us just a year ago, hand on heart, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Here we are a year later debating the carbon tax, which is going to destroy the Australian economy for no benefit whatsoever. Senator Cameron might tell me I am wrong. After all these taxes on every Australian, by how much are you going to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2020? Even your government's own modelling shows that carbon emissions will go up, not down. Senator Cameron walks out of the chamber because he cannot answer that, because he knows that what I am saying is a truthful reproduction of the Commonwealth government's own modelling.

My own state of Queensland today—as Senator Mason asked about in question time—have done their own modelling. Even they are saying what an impact it is going to have on the Queensland economy. The Queensland state Labor government has done modelling that shows it is bad, the New South Wales state government has done modelling that shows it is bad, the Western Australian state government has done modelling that shows it is bad and the Commonwealth government has done modelling that also shows it is bad.

Senator Cameron talks about the world heating up. Senator Cameron, you have not been following the debate. They do not talk about global warming anymore. It is climate change, remember, not global warming. Statistics over the last two decades show that the climate has either cooled or has certainly not warmed up. He says tides are rising and quotes the CSIRO. I still ask Senator Cameron or the CSIRO to explain to me why 140,000 years ago—a long time—tidal levels were about where they are now, as shown in the CSIRO's graph. The graph shows that, over the next 120,000 years, tidal levels went right down. Then suddenly, 20,000 years ago—this is the CSIRO's graph, not mine—the graph shows that tidal levels scooted back up to where they had been 140,000 years ago to approximately where they are now.

Senator Cameron is part of the group trying to scare people into not buying near the water because the tide is rising, so we all sell our properties next to the seaside and on the river. Professor Flannery, appointed by the Labor government to head the Climate Commission, is part of the group saying, 'Oh, all is lost, the tide is increasing and we are all going to be washed away!' Professor Flannery, I might add as an aside, gets $180,000 a year for two days a week of work.

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

How much?

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

He gets $180,000 a year for two days work a week. But, hang on, Professor Flannery then goes out and buys a flash property on the banks of the Hawkesbury River. I guess he got it at a good price because people who might have had property there probably sold it to get rid of it because he and Senator Cameron are warning these people that they are going to be inundated. How can you take any notice of what Senator Cameron says? How can you take any notice of what Senator Wong said in the nonanswer, I might say, to all the questions that were asked of her today?

Indeed, how can we take any notice of anything that the Labor Party or the Labor leader, Julia Gillard, says when we have direct evidence there before us of Julia Gillard promising the Australian people, the day before the last federal election: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? Here we are, a year later, debating it. How can you believe anything Julia Gillard or her ministers would ever say?

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

Before I put the question, can I remind senators to refer to members in the other place by their correct name or title.

Question agreed to.