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

The introduction of the carbon tax legislation today formalises a massive deception of the Australian people by this Gillard Labor government. It is a massive deceit by the Prime Minister, and it is a massive deceit by every single Labor member and senator against the people of Australia. History is going to judge harshly every single Labor senator and member across Australia for the bad impact of their broken no-carbon-tax promise on Australia. Yes, it is a broken promise, but it is also a bad tax based on a lie. The lie it is based on—the proposition that is put to us—is that somehow this carbon tax will stop floods, it will stop droughts, it will stop sea levels from rising, it will stop the climate from changing—it will stop every ill under the sun. Nothing could be further from the truth. The carbon tax will push up the cost of everything. It will increase the cost of living, make Australia less competitive internationally, hurt business and cost jobs—all of that without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact in the past we were led to believe that the carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme would help to reduce domestic emissions. It will not even do that. Emissions in Australia and emissions in the world will continue to rise even after the Australian Labor Party and the Greens have conspired to impose a carbon tax on the Australian people. This is a carbon tax that we were promised would never happen. It is a carbon tax which the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, promised the Australian people would not happen under a government she leads.

So let us just reflect on what has happened in this parliament today. The government has introduced 19 pieces of legislation—963 pages of it. If those 963 pages are passed by the parliament, it will push up the cost of everything right across Australia. This will put jobs at risk without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Why would any sensible parliament do that? A sensible parliament, of course, would not. It is our job as parliamentarians—it is our job as senators and it is the job of members in the House of Representatives—to properly scrutinise what the government is proposing to do. It is our job to properly scrutinise the impact of the government's legislation on the cost of living, on the budget, on the economy and on jobs. It is our job to properly scrutinise whether the government's supposed objectives are likely to be achieved, such as the supposed objective of helping to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

Increasing the cost of living will not in itself help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Making Australian manufacturers less competitive is not going to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Making overseas manufacturers in countries where they do not face a carbon tax more competitive than even the most environmentally efficient business in Australia will not help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Helping emitting businesses in other parts of the world to become more competitive, helping them take market share away from businesses in Australia, will only see a shift in emissions to other parts of the world, arguably increasing emissions in those other parts of the world rather than reducing them.

Shifting emissions away from Australia to other parts of the world, shifting emissions to manufacturing businesses in China, the US, India and so on, will impose a sacrifice on businesses in Australia. Yes, it will result in reduced economic activity in Australia and, yes, it will result in lower emissions in Australia than there otherwise would be, but for no reduction in global emissions. That is not effective action on climate change. This is an act of economic self-harm. It is an act of unilateral economic disarmament, as a congressman in the US described it recently.

Quite offensively, in very Orwellian language, the Prime Minister continues to refer to the 500 biggest polluters. What the Prime Minister refers to as the 500 biggest polluters are 500 of our biggest employers. These are 500 of the biggest employers, who are employing Australians. People right across Australia work in those 500 businesses. These are businesses that, over the last 20 years, have made significant efforts to reduce their emissions intensity, to become more energy efficient and to make sure that they are as energy efficient as they possibly can be because it actually makes sense. As Senator Joyce pointed out before, access to electricity is not free. You do not just get given electricity. There is actually a price on carbon in the economy now because you actually have to pay a price for accessing electricity. But what the government are proposing to do is artificially, through a government tax, push up that cost further. They will artificially impose an additional tax and then they are going to call it a market based solution. It is Orwellian language at its worst to call a government tax a market based mechanism. And people buy this? This is not a market based mechanism. It is what it is: it is a tax.

Our manufacturing industry is already under a lot of pressure. Yes, the carbon tax will be only one of many other pressures. We do have a high Australian dollar and we do have general economic uncertainty in significant parts of the world. There are a range of issues that together impose pressure on the manufacturing sector in Australia. But the carbon tax is a self-inflicted act of additional pressure that the people across Australia, the manufacturing businesses across Australia and the working families across Australia were promised would not happen. Every single one of the senators on the other side went to the last election supporting a Prime Minister who promised that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. History will judge every single one of those Labor senators and members harshly, and the reason is that, once this tax has been in place for a while, people will understand that it has not done anything to actually help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

Senator Thistlethwaite can smile, but I refer him to the modelling of his own government which shows that, even under their job-destroying, push-up-the-cost-of-living carbon tax, emissions in Australia will continue to go up, from 578 million tonnes of CO2 to 621 million tonnes of CO2. To really put it into perspective, you have to compare the Treasury modelling of 2008 with the Treasury modelling of 2011. In 2020, emissions in China will be 1.8 billion tonnes higher than Treasury thought they would be only three years ago. That is more than three times the annual emissions of Australia.

The terrible thing about all this is that this government is deceiving the Australian people. They are taking advantage of people's goodwill towards the environment. They are trying to make people believe that, somehow, imposing a tax will fix the climate and reduce emissions. It will not do that, and if you look at the fine print you will see that not even the government believe that it will. What do they then do? They say, 'Let's buy some permits in some non-existent international carbon pricing market. Let's send about $650 billion out of Australia into some unidentified locations overseas and buy permits.' They say this so that we can continue to have electricity, to keep the lights on and have businesses that run on electricity so that people can continue to enjoy an appropriate standard of living. They say, 'We are going to send $650 billion overseas. We are going to send $3 billion overseas very soon and about $57 billion, 1.5 per cent of GDP, overseas by 2050.'

This is just reckless. It is a bad tax based on a lie. We were promised that we would not get it. Every single Labor member and senator should be ashamed for supporting a Prime Minister who has so blatantly broken a promise and is now going to hurt the Australian people. (Time expired)

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a parent of two young children I naturally worry about their future. I am concerned about the world they will grow into as adults and whether they will have access to a decent education and jobs. I am concerned about the environment they will inherit from us as a generation of decision makers. It is in this context that I am dismayed. I cannot believe that we are debating this issue in the Senate this afternoon, because, like most Australians, I believe human induced climate change is real. I believe we need to take action to mitigate the effects of human induced climate change for the sake of our children and of generations to come.

Today, after years of studies, inquiries and consultations, the Gillard government is taking action. The Gillard government is delivering on its commitment to price carbon and to deal with the issue of human induced climate change in this country. We are delivering on a pledge that Labor made in 2007 to the people of Australia to take action on climate change, action that has been developed by a multiparty climate change committee, which those opposite in the coalition were invited to take part in. They were invited to be part of the consultation and the plan to deal with carbon pollution and our children's future in this country. They rejected that opportunity and would not participate. They stuck their heads in the sand when it came to this issue.

The Gillard government's actions have been overwhelmingly endorsed and supported by most economists, by scientists and by environmentalists, all of whom say that pricing carbon is the right approach to tackling one of the most important social and economic issues of our time. But it is also the least costly option—the option that will produce the least burden on taxpayers in Australia.

Labor's plan will protect our environment, create jobs and deliver assistance to households as they make the transition into a clean energy future from a polluting, carbon based industrial age. Our scheme will tax the 500 biggest emitters of carbon pollution in this country. We will ask them to pay for the privilege of pumping carbon pollution into our atmosphere and our environment. Most of the revenue raised from the scheme will go into supporting assistance to households and families to ensure they can make the transition into a clean energy future.

The other half of the revenue raised will go into assisting businesses to also make the transition into a clean-energy future. The Steel Transformation Plan, which is a plan to provide assistance for the steel industry, was opposed by those opposite. The jobs and competitiveness package, designed to ensure that we remain a competitive international trading partner and international first-class place to do business, was opposed by those opposite. The local support package was opposed by those opposite. The package for small business was opposed by those opposite. And support for community organisations to ensure that they can make the transition into a clean-energy future was opposed by those opposite. Our plan will ensure that our nation and our economy keep pace with the transformation that is occurring in the international economy in respect of carbon pollution. Our plan will ensure that our country moves from the industrial age into a renewable age.

When we read this matter of public importance this afternoon we get to the crux of the issue. What this debate is really all about is the politics of economic envy and cynical vote buying from those opposite. When it comes to the big economic reforms in our nation, when it comes to the reforms that generate investment and deliver growth for our economy, that create wealth and jobs and deliver fairness for Australians, it always falls to Labor in government to deliver for the people of Australia. When it came to Medicare, what did those opposite do? They opposed it. The foundation of our health system, delivering fairness and efficiency in our health system, was opposed by those opposite. When it came to superannuation, $3 trillion worth of investment in our economy and our nation was opposed by those opposite. When it came to the economic reforms of the 1980s—reductions in tariffs, the floating of the dollar and the creation of an open, market based economy—those opposite were green with envy because, again, it came to Labor in government to deliver. Far be it from me to make these claims this afternoon. The best way to highlight what the government is doing in pricing carbon and the support we have in the wider community comes from those working in the industry and from businesses. I draw the Senate's attention to the evidence of Ms Bridget Ryan, senior policy manager with Pacific Hydro. Ms Ryan gave evidence to the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes, chaired by Senator Cormann, which is looking at Labor's plan to price carbon. On Thursday, 1 September 2011, she said:

Pacific Hydro is a wholly owned renewable energy company which has been successfully developing and operating renewable energy assets for 20 years—

in this country. It is owned by approximately five million Australians. Five million Australians are shareholders in this company. They have investments worth $2 billion in Chile and Brazil. Ms Ryan said to that committee:

Importantly, the Clean Energy Future package announced recently by the federal government includes the continuation of the renewable energy target and direct funding initiatives such as those through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Renewable Energy Agency, and, most importantly for this committee, the introduction of a price on carbon. This provides a best practice suite of measures to address climate change.

In the energy sector, there has been a lot of uncertainty regarding investment in the sector. What did Grant King, CEO of Origin Energy, say about Labor's plan? He said:

The particular arrangements the government has announced in respect of the electricity industry provide sufficient certainty for industry investment in power generation such that consumers can expect to enjoy a continued reliable supply of—

energy. What did David Cameron, the British Prime Minister say about our plan? He said:

I was delighted to hear of the ambitious package of climate change policy measures you announced on 10 July and wanted to congratulate you on taking this bold step.

But my favourite quote on this particular issue comes from a person who is well known to Australians, a person who, although he is not expert on carbon, certainly knows a lot about expelling hot air—none other than the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, who said some years ago:

If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax?

A ringing endorsement from the Leader of the Opposition, no less, of what Labor is doing in attempting to price carbon:

A carbon tax is a part of our strategy—

that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition said—

and then we will move to a market based mechanism—

another ringing endorsement of Labor's policy to deal with the issue and take action on climate change by the Leader of the Opposition. Then, all of a sudden, the Leader of the Opposition sees, in a cynical manner, a chance to buy votes on this issue and he changes his mind. Then we get the scare campaign aimed at terrifying households, aimed at stifling business opportunities, aimed at holding back our economy, ensuring that we do not make the transition into a renewable future. All we have from the opposition is a scare campaign—no reliable, effective, expert policy to deal with the greatest social and economic challenge of our generation. Labor's plan will deliver jobs and assistance to households and will ensure we make the transition to a renewable energy future.

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

It is a pleasure to follow Senator Thistlethwaite, who is new to the Senate. I acknowledge his eloquent contribution to this very important matter of public importance:

The Gillard Government’s introduction of legislation to impose a carbon tax in breach of its election commitments not to do so.

I notice that Senator Thistlethwaite ignored completely the context of this matter of public importance debate, ignored completely the reality that the government of which he is a member promised explicitly at the election, in the most explicit terms in which a Prime Minister has ever made a promise prior to an election, not to do exactly that which it has done today, not to introduce a carbon tax. It was Prime Minister Julia Gillard who stared down the barrel of television cameras in that election campaign and said the immortal words:

There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.

She did not follow on from that and say, 'However, we remain committed to pricing carbon.' That was not part of the statement. I am not misquoting her. She said emphatically:

There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.

She made sure that the clear and direct impression she gave the Australian people was that she would not do exactly what the government has done today, which is to start the groundwork to debate what are apparently now some 19 pieces of legislation relating to the carbon tax. This is a never-ending feast. A few days ago we thought there would be 13 and then it sounded as though there would be 15. Yesterday Mr Albanese announced the process for handling 18 carbon tax related bills and when the motion was released late last night and we saw it in the light of day today we saw that apparently there are 19 carbon tax bills—more than 1,000 pages of legislation to be dealt with. And this government wants to rush all of that through. I will come back to some of those process issues shortly.

Let us have a look at what Senator Thistlethwaite said. He argued that this is important to make a difference to human induced climate change. That of course is the underlying argument. He brought in the emotive aspects of talking about his children and about the world we leave behind for them, and they are valid sentiments. The problem is he never managed to link those sentiments and the policy of the carbon tax with any evidence that demonstrates that global emissions will actually reduce. He never managed to demonstrate that Australian emissions will even—

Senator Thistlethwaite interjecting—

Senator, you might like to read you own government's Treasury advice which demonstrates that in fact Australia's emissions will keep rising through the period to 2020 under the carbon tax. They will actually be more in 2020 than in the benchmark year. This is the fundamental problem with what the government are doing: they are living in some dream world scenario where they have convinced themselves that the whole world is taking complementary action. I wish the whole world were taking complementary action, but the reality is that the world is not. Many countries are moving in exactly the opposite direction unfortunately and, as the Productivity Commission in their independent advice to the government so clearly put it, no other country has an economy wide carbon tax or an economy wide ETS in place—no other country; nobody else. Anybody who comes in here and cites the countries they claim are moving in that direction are, frankly, citing examples that are in no way comparable with what this Labor government are attempting to do.

The senator argued, in his three points, that this carbon tax would protect the environment, create jobs and compensate households. I would love to think it might protect the environment but for the reality that, as I indicated before, emissions in Australia will continue to go up under this carbon tax. We know from all of the modelling that is available that global emissions will continue to go up as India, China and other countries dramatically increase their emissions over the foreseeable future by an amount far in excess of any difference this carbon tax is going to make to Australia's emissions profile. So we know global emissions will go up and we know Australia's emissions will go up. It is pretty hard to see, in that context, how this meets the senator's criterion of it protecting the environment.

He argued that it would create jobs. Yet in question time today I highlighted the comments of the CEO of BHP Billiton, Marius Kloppers, who indicated very clearly:

… if you increase the cost you will get less investment than you had before.

He described the carbon tax as:

… an economic dead weight cost because it's basically just an export tax, and those costs get discounted into investment decisions.

He said it 'is a tax which competing countries like Indonesia, South Africa, and so on, do not have'. They are pretty clear comments. An economic dead weight loss was how the CEO of one of Australia's largest companies, one of the largest companies to invest in Australia, described this carbon tax. What is the outcome of him viewing it that way? He says:

… if you increase the cost you will get less investment than you had before.

What is the outcome for Australia? Less investment will come to Australia because major competing countries, particularly in the minerals space, like Indonesia and South Africa, do not have a comparable tax; therefore it will be cheaper for investment to go to those countries. That will be the outcome we see.

Equally, the good senator argued that it would compensate households—that the government has a plan to compensate households. Firstly, we cannot get a straight answer out of the government as to how many millions of households will be worse off, but we know there will be many. We know there will be many millions of households worse off as a result of this carbon tax; the government just will not say precisely how many. And we know it will not just be households who will be worse off. Even those who are traditionally friends of the Labor government in the Australian Council of Social Services have highlighted problems with the carbon tax. In their statements and submissions to government they have said:

Many welfare service providers spend disproportionately on essential goods and services likely to be impacted by a carbon price, notably energy and food.

They went on to say this 'may lead to a reduction in the quantum or quality of services' that would be delivered to low-income, disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals and households. But guess what? There is no compensation for those charitable service providers. They miss out. Their only choice will ultimately be to reduce the services they provide or to pass on the increased cost of those services to those vulnerable individuals, households and families.

For the households themselves, even those who are lucky enough to get the compensation, there is absolutely no clarity from this government as to how on earth they are going to ensure the compensation keeps pace with the costs to the overall economy of this carbon tax. We know that by 2020 around $3½ billion per year will be sent overseas as Australian companies purchase international permits. They will still pass those costs on to Australian households and consumers, though; it is just that the government will not have the money to provide compensation. So either there will be a giant black hole or the compensation will not keep up with the costs that are passed on to Australian households and consumers—it is one or the other.

In closing, I highlight the rank hypocrisy of this government when it comes to the way in which this carbon tax is being considered. Back when the Howard government introduced the GST legislation, the Howard government agreed to have four Senate committees run concurrently to assess the vast array of legislation that comprised the package. Those Senate committees had four to five months in which to report. All of them had non-government majorities and a non-government senator, a Labor senator, as chair. And during that time debate on the GST was deferred. Instead, the Labor Party, now in government, want to have one committee, for about three weeks, assess these 19 bills with a Labor chair—with a government appointee as chair. They hectored the opposition today on how we erred in our judgment on Work Choices. Well, you are erring now. You are erring in your approach to the carbon tax. Just as you will pay a price for Ms Gillard's lie, you will pay a price for these mistakes as well.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to follow Senator Birmingham and pick up on his final point, which is the issue of hypocrisy. I do not think I have heard anything more hypocritical than the contributions today from members of the opposition in this matters of public importance discussion on the carbon tax. I suppose the reason that that is all we are hearing today is that there is no alternative policy that makes any sense at all and therefore those opposite come into this chamber with a view to demolishing and continuing to demonise the whole Clean Energy Future package.

We know from all of the work that has been done—not just by this government but by the previous, conservative government—that there has been an extraordinary amount of consultation and an intensive period of policy development from governments of both persuasions over many, many years to bring forward an emissions trading scheme. Working on the basis of the preliminary work of the Howard government, we are here today to bring this into effect and that is a significant event for all of us. The basis, the foundation, is immutable. It is absolutely understood that even the climate change deniers have to acknowledge the science that underpins this package. We did not hear much about that today but we know that this work will fundamentally make a big difference.

So, first of all, the science is in and the science is right. Despite those people who deny climate change, we are already seeing the social, economic and environmental impacts of climate change. We have heard about the extent to which human activities trigger the changes that we are witnessing. We are seeing the severity of climate change, how it plays out across our continent and across the world.

These are the important things. These are the concerns that Senator Thistlethwaite was expressing for the future of his children—and all our grandchildren, I would hope. We know from all of the work from the Climate Commission, from the scientific agencies, from individual sciences, from all the work that has been done, that we have to tackle climate change by cutting carbon pollution in our own economy and by playing a very responsible role internationally. The idea that we can put some kind of border around ourselves and pretend that we do not belong to a global economy and a global environment is such a nonsense that it beggars belief. Yet this is the kind of argument that we hear from the opposition.

We know too that the way to cut carbon pollution in our economy is to put in cost-effective measures to achieve the necessary reforms. That way is through a market-based mechanism. Senator Cormann would like to deny that that is what this is all about but it is absolutely what the government has in mind. It is our clear objective.

A carbon price, as is being introduced through this package of bills, goes to the heart of the issues because it makes activities that cause the problem more expensive and activities that address the problem less expensive. That is, in a nutshell, what this is all about. It is not just us saying that. This is the conclusion of many, many people. It is the view shared by the OECD, by the IMF, by the World Bank, by the Stern review and by the review undertaken by the previous government—by Professor Peter Shergold. So this is not politically motivated; it is economically responsible and environmentally sustainable, if this is what it is all about. Senator Thistlethwaite went to the issues of green jobs and strongly growing employment and opportunities. We really have to take action now. That is what this is all about and that is why those bills were introduced this morning.

I would like to make some reflections on the public debate. I am very disappointed this afternoon to hear yet again the continuing tirades and the most absurd, inane, nonsensical arguments being put up by the opposition about this issue. Nobody has challenged the policy substance because it is undeniable. The policy substance underpins this work. All we have from the opposition is a response aimed at engendering fear and dumbing down the politics—frightening people with deceit and misrepresentation and distortion going to people's basest fears and insecurities. Thanks, but that is not the way we need to have public policy debated in Australia. It is pathetic.

What the Leader of the Opposition has been saying in this policy debate has been quite nonsensical. He changes his mind every time he opens his mouth. On one day he has never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. On another day he says the simplest solution is: why not introduce a tax? He says one thing to one audience and something else to a different audience. I recall he said one day that one tonne of carbon dioxide is weightless. That is a very scientific basis, isn't it? We had better send him back to school.

The issue that concerned me today, though—Senator Cormann raised it, as did Senator Birmingham in question time today at the behest of the largest mining industry in Australia—was this nonsense that a carbon price is going to mean the ultimate death of the coal industry. That is such a furphy. We know that these industries and companies have been factoring in a price on carbon for quite a long time. We know that the coal industry has a sound future and we can see that in the investments happening around the country right now. Peabody's $4.7 billion investment in Macarthur Coal is an investment in the future of that industry. Rio Tinto and Mitsubishi's proposed buyout of Coal and Allied for $1.4 billion is another significant investment in industry here, along with Vale's approval just last month of an investment of about $870 million at Eagle Downs. This is not an industry that is falling over and going to disappear. This is an industry that is about investing in manufacturing and mining in ways that will continue into the long term.

We also hear time after time these tragic stories—as the opposition starts to use its carbon tax instruction package—about the worries of small businesses. It happened in my own community last week with Senator Abetz and the member for Hume, Alby Shultz, quoted yesterday in my local paper saying:

Both Wollondilly and Goulburn Mulwaree councils have grave concerns about the increasing in costs for ratepayers from the introduction of Labor’s proposed carbon tax and are telling me they are going to have to make some tough decisions on spending.

Small businesses are already experiencing colossal increases in the cost of doing business.

A carbon tax will devastate the bottom line of many small and family run businesses who can’t keep up with the increase in electricity prices as it is.

This is at the same time that, under the opposition's own proposed package, they are saying: 'No, we're going to introduce this; we're going to reach the same targets, but there will be no cost to families, no new taxes and no rises in electricity prices.' But, at the same time, we have an extraordinary effort by state and territory governments around doing some of these things. To me, the frustrating thing is that such a scare campaign is not doing any one of us any good. It really is destructive in the current environment for people to be worried and driven down to this base level of debate.

Fundamentally, the critical issue is that former Prime Minister John Howard understood the whole rationale for an emissions trading scheme. I suppose there may be people who are quite disturbed by the fact that the New South Wales Liberal Party today endorsed Arthur Sinodinos for the Senate—and the expectation is that he will go straight to the front bench—because of course he guided Prime Minister Howard through some of those initial discussions, and he will try to be a voice of reason in all of this. There are some people on the front bench over there who I think would be very worried about their jobs.

So let us just think about how we conduct this debate. It needs to be one of reason and rationale and certainly not one of hysteria and what could be called a white carbon policy. That is the best that this opposition can do and, quite frankly, it is pathetic.

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

Senator Stephens said that those on this side are hypocrites. Well, Senator Stephens—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Cameron—what do you call it when the Prime Minister says to the Australian people, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? What do you call that? Is that not hypocrisy? We have had all the leaks now from the old kitchen cabinet of four, where it was the now Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, who told the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, to drop the emissions trading scheme, to get rid of it, that it was a bad egg, it was toxic—throw it away. But now we have Prime Minister Gillard saying, 'Yes, we will bring in a carbon tax.' Of course, it has been driven by the Greens and by Independent member for New England Tony Windsor, who stated in a media release a few months ago that one of his conditions for putting Ms Gillard into the Lodge was that she form a multiparty climate change committee and proceed along this road. So is not only the Greens but the member for New England as well.

But do not be alarmed, everyone, about the pamphlet that is now circulating Parliament House, sent to my office today, entitled Hot earth: the case for planning and regulation to deal with climate crisis, because who is it from? The Communist Party of Australia, September 2011. We now have the Communist Party out there supporting the government and supporting the Greens. They propose a carbon tax which will go to an emissions trading scheme in a few years time, when the bankers and brokers will be just popping champagne corks over a way to make money.

This proposed tax is especially a tax on regional Australia. Electricity prices are already higher in regional Australia. If you add 10 per cent, of course the rise is also going to be higher. Look at what is proposed for fuel. It is simply amazing: if the government are concerned about carbon emissions from fuel, why didn't they include petrol? Of course they would not include petrol; there would be too much backlash at the polling booth. Instead it is, 'We'll hold off till 1 July 2014 and we'll add a tax of nearly 7c a litre to our truckies'—the very people who carry our nation.

When Tony Sheldon, their representative, was giving evidence at the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes, he described it as a 'death tax'. They are the words of the National Secretary of the Transport Workers Union: the carbon tax is a death tax for those truckies, who will have to work longer and harder, sweat themselves and sweat their rigs. That is what the Transport Workers Union think of this $510 million tax on our truckies—the very people who work long and hard, often for little in return, especially owner-drivers, who carry our nation. That is how they describe it.

Keri Brown of Inverell Freighters was another of our witnesses. He has 25 prime movers and employs 40 people at Inverell and Parkes. He said:

… we are very thankful that the tax on diesel has been deferred for three years.

But then he makes the point that they are already paying the tax. They have the Euro 5 motors in many of their trucks which produce far less polluting emissions. But, because the Euro 5 motors are a much cleaner motor, they use 10 per cent more fuel, so they are already paying 10 per cent more. They are already paying their way in direct action to reduce emissions. That is what is happening to the transport industry.

Bindaree Beef, a business in Inverell of which I am extremely proud, employ more than 600 people. They have a huge electricity bill. When it goes up another 10 per cent—it will probably cost them $300,000 or $400,000 a year—how can they pass that on to their customers? They cannot, of course. They cannot pass it on. They are exporting, so they are exposed to the world market, where their competitors in America will not have these costs. Whether it be transport, electricity or other costs, they will not have to compete against those. Bindaree Beef have said that it will cost them up to $2.74 million in the first year of the introduction of the carbon tax.

The government say the carbon tax is not on agriculture. How amazing, then, that Armidale business Superair, a crop-dusting business, with a 6c increase in tax on avgas for their aeroplanes, have an extra $30,000 to $40,000 a year to pay. Of course they will pass it on to the farmers. The farmers will then spread less fertiliser, have less stock in grates and have lower production of wool, mutton, beef, lamb—it is a tax on production in regional Australia, especially in the industries I just mentioned. The Regional Aviation Association of Australia have said:

… $11m/per annum will be added to the fuel bill of … regional operators.

The Australian Dairy Industry Council estimates dairy farmers will be up for as much as $10,000 more a year to run their dairy farms. This is at a time when we have this price war of $1 a litre between Coles and Woolworths, and when dairy farmers are already doing it so tough, especially those in Queensland and Western Australia, where the cost of production is much higher. They are going to face an extra $10,000.

There is one thing I have grave concerns about in this whole proposal of a carbon tax, and I have raised it before. It is about the Constitution. We know that, in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, the coal fired generators are owned by the states. However, the Constitution clearly states in section 114:

… nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

The generators are the property of the state, and the Constitution clearly says 'nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State'. I will seek professional advice in the near future on this very issue. The Senate must address whether this tax on generators is in breach of the Constitution. The environment is the most important thing for us to protect for future generations.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wouldn't think so.

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

I will take that interjection. I have spent most of my life on the land and I know that the most valuable asset in this country is our soil. That is what grows our food; that is what feeds our nation and many people around the world as well. But the government wants to tax those people out of existence. Look after your land—if you have healthy soil you will grow healthy food and have healthy people. It is as simple as that. If there is a lack of nutrition in the soil, how do you expect to have nutrition in your food? That is why the land is the most important issue here. Those in government seem to have little or no concern for the land.

I suggest that Senator Singh go and have a look at a map of Australia. Probably 50 per cent of this nation is in the hands of farmers and graziers. How can they be green when so many of them are so far in the red? Have a look at what the government did to the beef industry in recent times—the way they devastated the top end of Australia with the outrageous full suspension of beef exports. How do those people look after their properties when they do not have income? That is what this government is about—the destruction of the people who feed our nation and their asset. That is why it is most important that we look after those on the land, because they are the caretakers of the greatest asset this nation has. We need to look after it for future generations. That is why so many on the land have endorsed programs such as Landcare and have looked after the environment through extremely tough times, especially with the drought from 2002 through to 2010.

This is a tax we were never going to have under a government led by Julia Gillard. The people of Australia were deceitfully cheated prior to the last election. Of the 150 members of parliament in the other house, at least 145 went to the election not supporting a carbon tax. The government is now trying to spin its way out of why it has to do this. But don't be concerned—you have the Communist Party behind you as well. That will be of great assurance to the Australian people. This is what we are facing in the future. I was very pleased to hear Tony Abbott make it quite clear that if we are elected to government at the next election, this tax will go. If it needs a double dissolution, bring it on—it will go. This tax is bad for our nation, it does nothing for the environment.

Let us look at the Treasury figures that the government is basing its policy on. We are producing 578 million tonnes of CO2 in Australia this year. Come 2020, after $72 billion of tax, we are going to produce 621 million tonnes—we are going to go up 43 million tonnes. But, don't worry, we will use billions of dollars to buy carbon credits from overseas. Just have a look at the fraudulent activities going on in Europe now. This opens up the whole trade around the world to fraud—fraudulent permits that we are going to be suckered into buying. Also be aware, from Treasury figures, that China is currently producing 10.3 billion tonnes of CO2, and by 2020 it will be producing 17.9 billion tonnes. It is going to go up 7,600 million tonnes a year, and this government thinks that our going up by only 43 million tonnes will save the planet. It is an outrage. It is a deceitful tax and we will have a lot more to say about it in the very near future, after 12 October when the legislation find its way to this chamber.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by thanking coalition senators for bringing this matter of public importance to the Senate. It provides an opportunity for those on this side of the chamber, government senators, to put on record the positive agenda that the Gillard Labor government has for a clean energy future. I particularly thank them for bringing on this MPI on this day because, as we know, this is a historic day for the nation and for this parliament. This is the day that we commenced the legislative process necessary to create a clean energy future. In the other place earlier today the Prime Minister spoke very passionately about the need for a clean energy future, about the fact that we cannot afford to wait any longer. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency spoke with conviction about why and how we are approaching this issue and about the history-making conversation that continues and will be had in this place some time ahead.

Today we do take responsibility. We introduced the Clean Energy Future bills because it is the right thing to do. We believe in taking responsibility for our future and for our children's future. We have had decades of conversations about the need to act on climate change. We have talked about the science; we have talked about the various ways to tackle this important issue. And, yes, even John Howard in 2007 took to the election a commitment to price carbon—something that those opposite conveniently now try to forget. In fact, we know that amongst those opposite there are turncoats on this issue. I am still new to this place so I do not know exactly which ones of those opposite, although I am sure they would include Senator Birmingham, who spoke on this MPI earlier. They did support their former leader, Malcolm Turnbull, on the CPRS, and we now know that they are conveniently turning their backs on that decision and are now embracing, unlike the bills that have been presented to the parliament today, a non-clean energy future. Yet those opposite are happy to get on their feet, bring this MPI into this place and speak against their children's future, against the responsibility that this nation needs to take, against the CPRS position that they held in the past. Today they are denying the opportunity that Australia has to ensure our future is a sustainable future, is a future where we can look at clean energy jobs and industry development while ensuring that we have a community that cares about the way we use energy and what that energy is made up of. Even John Howard took to the 2007 election a commitment to price carbon.

Now is the time for action. Just as state parliaments have taken action in the past, this is the time for the Australian parliament to take further action and debate this challenge facing our country. I would like to acknowledge the role the Tasmanian government took on climate change as one of the first states to legislate to reduce emissions, to 60 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. At that time, I was the Minister Assisting the Premier on Climate Change. As a state that has most of its energy coming from renewable resources, Tasmania embraced very much the playing of its role as a state trying to lead the nation. As members opposite would know, Tasmania is a world leader in renewable energy generation. Liberal senators such as Senator Bushby, who is in this place at this time, are very aware of the positive benefits that we have experienced from hydro generation, which now continues into new renewable energy such as wind technology. Senator Bushby would also know of the job creation that has come about from wind technology. That will continue into the rest of Australia through the support of these clean energy bills. It is not too late, Senator Bushby, for you to stand up and support your state and this nation in job growth and in a clean energy future for your children and your children's children. It is not too late: you have a choice and you have a vote. You have the opportunity to show a bit of leadership and support the clean energy bills, which will be in front of you when the House of Representatives has finished debating them, to ensure that we have a strong sustainable future for the children of this nation.

Renewable energy is of course the future of energy generation across the globe. Renewable energy not only makes sense because it makes use of energy-producing technologies that produce fewer or no carbon emissions as an imperative, it makes sense economically, scientifically and environmentally because it uses natural resources that are so accessible and cannot be depleted.

The Labor government is taking a modern approach to the issue of climate change. We have consulted widely, we have received over 300 submissions on the draft bills, and have had direct conversations with business, NGOs and a wide range of stakeholders. We have used the very best scientists and examined the science time and time again. There are years of research behind our decisions. In fact, today I had the privilege of joining with Senator Cameron, Senator Bilyk and Senator Milne in meeting and having a short briefing with the Climate Commission delegation that came here. We heard first-hand from experts, namely our climate commissioners, Professor Flannery, Mr Roger Beale, Professor Lesley Hughes and Dr Susannah Elliott, their international visitors, who were here from the US, India and Denmark, and particularly Dr Daniel Kammen, from the World Bank, who shared with us information about clean energy activities in California, including the integrated grid and its opportunities, and also about biodiversity and land issues there. It was something that, perhaps, those opposite could have benefited from, if only they had turned up. Similarly, they did not want to turn up and be part of the working group that has formed part of the bills that we introduced into parliament today. They continue to keep their heads in the sand, because they suppose it to be in their political interests to do so. It is not in the nation's interests and it is not in our children's interests.

The coalition will go down in history—on the wrong side of history—as those who opposed a future that ensured we had some structured stability on the issues that affect us each day, such as turning on the lights, driving our cars and, as Senator Williams pointed out, conducting our farming activities. That is why I would like to provide Senator Williams with a bit of detail about our package as it relates to the farming sector. This government, as Senator Williams would know, has excluded the agriculture and land sectors from the carbon price. Farmers, forestry operators and other land managers will not pay a price for carbon pollution from their activities. Importantly, farming, forestry and fisheries activities will not pay a carbon price for their off-road use of fuel or their on-road use of light vehicles. Senator Williams would be well aware of that, I am sure. He just chooses to come into this place and grandstand about issues relating to these clean energy bill which he knows little about.

Federal Labor is going to do what is best for Australia and for Australian families. We are going to do what is best for our future and future generations. We are acting on climate change, we will cut carbon pollution, we will build a clean energy future and we will create an industry that thrives on clean energy jobs. There are huge economic opportunities, as we provide the drive for a clean energy future. There is $440 million worth of projects in the pipeline across the country. We see continuous investment plans for a clean energy economy in this nation, which is needed for a clean energy future.

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

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.