Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) 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 relating to a proposed carbon tax.

Many people around Australia would have been listening to question time today, many of them wanting to know about, and hoping that there would be some provision of information about, the exact process of how one of the most important changes to our taxation system, to the future of this nation, is going to be debated. As many would know, this is a very, very unpopular tax.

Sadly, the Gillard Labor government—curiously, it seems under direction from the Greens—has introduced 19 bills, that is, 1,100 pages of very complex legislation on a whole range of levels. Ordinary people are very concerned about many of those levels. A lot of very ordinary people have indicated to me that they would like to be able to have their point of view. Sadly, the government has given the joint committee that was formed last Thursday, 15 September, and the Australian public—those who are really concerned that the Australian parliament listen to their particular concerns about whatever job or what circumstances they find themselves in—just one week. That is right, one week for the Australian people to have an input into one of the biggest changes to this country's economy, its taxation, right down to the way that we live.

I am not sure what sort of a democracy the government advocates. One week for Australians to read, understand and comment on 1,100 pages of detailed legislation I think confuses informed democracy for some other place. I remember the GST legislation—it took five months and four committees, and they actually held hearings. I understand, and I just forgot that little part of it, the government says, 'We are cancelling the hearings. Sorry, we are no longer going around Australia, as parliament always should, to listen to what people have to say.' A lot of people, instead of being detailed and writing their submission, want to make an oral submission. They want to appear before a joint House and Senate committee and have a say. But no. 'We have cancelled that.' It is like saying, 'Sorry, we are cancelling democracy.' This is the biggest tax, the biggest change in this place, and they say, 'You've got a couple of days and then we are cancelling democracy.' All of this has been at the behest of the Greens.

It is interesting to see that the Greens have come into this place. I used to sit on the other side and get lectured, originally by just Senator Bob Brown. He has been joined by a variety of others but the thematic is the same: 'Don't gag debate' and 'Let's have complete transparency'. This was possibly before your time, to those Greens senators who are here, but believe me, I listened carefully because I have not been on that side since then. At a time when the New Zealand government is scaling back its ETS, when the carbon price in Europe is collapsing, why is the government rushing to put in place the most expensive carbon price in the world and locking it in?

Is this a government that thinks of what is in the national interest or, again the thematic, 'I am thinking about what is in the Labor Party's interests'? What is in the Labor Party's interests is simply acceding to the wishes of the minority groups, and the minority group I am speaking of are the Greens. For sure, if the Greens need to keep Labor in power, they will hang on to power at whatever cost, particularly the national cost.

In one of her answers, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong, claimed that the coalition was fighting increases in pensions. We are saying, 'No, no increases in pensions.' How duplicitous. The increase is simply compensation for dollars that have been ripped out of pensioners' handbags. The truth is that the compensation is only once. The tax is forever. The tax will go up and up every year and the compensation for ripping dollars out of the handbags and pockets of pensioners will not go up. That is the truth. That is the sort of information that people are asking for and need to get. I suspect they are never going to get it out of those opposite.

What about this fantastic modelling? The only thing that we cannot seek is the taxation modelling.

Senator Ludwig interjecting—

To the minister interjecting, I tell you this: you have given Australia a clear indication today: No hearings, no democracy, let's count it into a week. On the Wednesday, when the only people of import—the Treasury—are scheduled, will its modelling be there for our scrutiny? I bet your bottom dollar, it will be absent.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I look forward to contributing to this debate because I think there are some shocking mistruths. I note that Senator Scullion, who is no doubt a fantastic fisherman and Northern Territorian—and I am envious of you, Senator Scullion, because I am not a good fisherman—talks about ordinary people who are concerned. Ordinary people should be concerned by the great mistruths that have been put out over the last nine months by Mr Abbott and those opposite. There have been some shocking accusations in this mother of all scare campaigns, and that is why ordinary people need to hear that they will be winners out of this carbon tax. Contrary to great popular belief, the scrutiny all these months has been on what the government may do but, sadly for all Australians out there, what they are confronted with is what the alternative government will do if the Liberals are successful at the next election. They have had a wonderful opportunity to slide under the radar and they have not had the blowtorch put to them when they have talked about their grand plan.

Let us go through Mr Abbott's grand plan of direct action. Mr Abbott's direct action plan has been assessed by Treasury officials. I know that some on that side might want to have a crack and say the assessment is not true, but if the Liberals are successful at the next election it will be these same people in Treasury who advise them. The Liberals and Nationals were squeezed after the election last year to put costings on the table for the policies which Mr Robb, Mr Hockey and Mr Abbott took to that election. They were dragged kicking and screaming but had to relent to the request of the Independents to see their costings, and these same Treasury officials came out and found a black hole of $11 billion, I think it was. So what have the Treasury officials actually told us about Mr Abbott's direct action plan? They identified that this will cost an average of $1,300 per household in tax. What Mr Abbott is going to do is tax taxpayers, tax Senator Scullion's 'ordinary Australians', and give the money to the heavy polluters, whereas we will be compensating nine in 10 Australian families.

It is also very important to note that last week the same people in Treasury who will be advising the next government, whether it be us or the other side, also identified that under Mr Abbott's direct action plan the price of carbon is estimated to go from $23 a tonne—the Gillard Labor government's cost—to $69 per tonne by 2020. It may be argued by those opposite that we are just making up figures. Well, we are not. Treasury came up with that.

But the biggest criticism of the opposition's plan came last week from none other than the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network. Who makes up the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network? Let me throw a few names to you, Mr Deputy President. I think these people could be considered to be relevant companies and relevant industry associations in Australia. We have none other than the Minerals Council of Australia as a member of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network condemning the opposition's direct action plan. The Australian Industry Group is also a member of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network. We also have none other than the Australian Coal Association, the Australian Food and Grocery Council and the Australian Institute of Petroleum. Then we have some individual business members which I would like to share with the Senate: Rio Tinto, Woodside, Alcoa, BlueScope Steel, Caltex, Chevron, CSR Ltd, ExxonMobil and Wesfarmers—reputable Australian companies. I honestly believe that Senator Scullion's ordinary people do need to be told. The more opportunity we have to expose the opposition for the fraud and the mistruths that they have been spreading throughout the community, the sooner I know Australians will embrace a carbon tax. (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding to answers given by the government this afternoon, one thing is very clear. The most salient fact of all is that you cannot believe anything this government says. You cannot trust one single thing it says, particularly when it comes to the carbon tax, because what did we have before the last election from the Prime Minister? Let me see. What was the quote? 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That is pretty clear, even if you are not a rocket scientist. I think most people out there in the community would hear, 'There will not be a carbon tax under a government I lead,' and think, 'If I vote for this government, I'm not going to get a carbon tax.' But lo and behold, what do we have now? We have 1,100 pages of legislation giving the Australian people a carbon tax. You cannot trust a single thing this government does. That was an absolute corker. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, lied to the Australian people. There is no two ways about it. She lied to the Australian people.

But it gets even more interesting, colleagues, because at the time, I have a recollection, the Prime Minister made some comment that before the introduction, before even the thought of any introduction, of some sort of carbon tax or ETS there would be community consultation. 'Community consultation' was the phrase.

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

Consensus.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Cormann—community consensus. This government has just given the Australian people about five days for that community consensus; five days for the people of this country to make a submission to the inquiry—and there are three days left, mind you. That is absolutely appalling. Not only did the Prime Minister lie, saying there was not going to be a carbon tax, but she did not even go for option B and allow community consensus. How can the Australian people trust anything this government says?

Interestingly, according to the Productivity Commission, there is not another country that has what we are about to introduce or is going to have it. That is not me. That is not my colleagues on this side. That is not scaremongering, which Senator Sterle likes to refer to. That is a fact. Going through this 1,100 pages of legislation, we can see that the impact on the hip pockets of average Australian people, every single Australian, is going to be huge, and—this is the crux of the whole matter—for what? Nothing. It is not going to change the climate one little bit. Even the most rusted-on global warming believers out there are smart enough to figure out that the carbon tax is not going to change the climate. So why are we putting this country at risk for this government's frolic and tax grab through this carbon tax? It is not going to change the climate one little bit. That is why we should not be going down this road.

What the government are putting forward is simply not going to achieve what they say they are trying to achieve. We only have to look at the regional impacts to see that. The government likes to say that we are scaremongering. I like to say, 'We are not. We are simply informing the Australian people of the truth.' You only have to look at some of the examples, particularly in regional Australia, to see the impact that this is going to have. Senators on the other side might be completely in denial, but this is going to have an enormous impact. We know that the Murray-Goulburn Co-operative is going to incur carbon costs of over $5,000 per farm. Guess where that is going to be paid from? It is the farmers at the bottom of the food chain who have absolutely no ability to pass any of these costs on. It is simply wrong. Rice farmers' costs on average are going to go up $10,000 a year per farm. This is not scaremongering; this is fact. The list goes on and on. One of the real kickers is in the transport industry. In 2014-15 it is going to have a cost of half a billion dollars a year. Regional communities will bear the brunt of that.

This is a government that has lied to the Australian people. It told the Australian people there would be no carbon tax and is now bringing in a carbon tax—with the support of the Greens and the Independents, I might add—that is not going to change the climate one little bit. If that is not the definition of stupidity, I do not know what is.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always love it when you hear someone say the words, 'I am not going to be scaremongering,' and then they go on and do nothing but try to scaremonger. It is a shame that the coalition really has had no credibility in recent times on this issue at all. There was a time when John Howard was Prime Minister that the coalition actually believed that climate change was real and that it was man made. Nothing has changed since then; climate change is real and it is caused by human activity. We as a generation that can afford to do something about it need to own up, take responsibility and do something about it. I am not going to stand here and do nothing and then be judged by my children and grandchildren as part of the generation that was so selfish in its use of the Earth's resources and knew that it had to do something about it. The science is clear. It is there. I am not going to be judged and condemned by future generations for knowing that something had to be done, knowing what it was we had to do and then doing nothing. I think that is an abrogation of our responsibility.

The reason Senator Nash cannot come to grips with that is that she does not believe in climate change. She does not believe the science. She does not believe anything needs to be done. Her coalition party has the most ridiculous policy that one could possibly imagine. It says that the polluters should continue to be able to pollute for nothing. It says that they should not have to pay for the pollution but that the coalition will take taxpayers' dollars and give those polluters money to pollute less. They can pollute as much as they like for free under the coalition's policy and taxpayers' money will be given to them to help them pollute less.

We on this side of the chamber believe that it is important to put market mechanisms in to drive change in the economy and to actually put a price on pollution. I do not think it is right that people can pollute our environment for nothing. We know that when you put a price on those things it changes the market behaviour. We know it will drive innovation and change the way businesses conduct their activities and it will directly reduce the amount of their emissions. That is how the market works. If you put a price on something that people have to pay and that then flows down through the system, people will avoid paying that price. If they can reduce their emissions and do things in cleaner ways, they will. That is the way the market works. This is a market based solution.

Unfortunately, the coalition have walked away from that completely. It is what they had as their policy going into the 2007 election. That is what they went to the Australian people with. That was after considerable modelling done by their party when in government. They came up with the solution that an ETS was the most cost-effective and efficient way to go. Nothing has changed in the science or the evidence, except that it is becoming clearer and clearer.

I am not a denier. I know that there are companies polluting out there. I know pollution is affecting our environment. You do not have to be a rocket scientist or any other sort of scientist to understand that. The science is settled. It is there. We on this side of the chamber do not believe in every crackpot that the other side might be able to run up who says, 'I have some formal qualifications; therefore, the overwhelming science of the world's scientists is wrong.' I thought we had moved on from those times. The science is clearly settled. We have an absolute obligation to act because we can act. We know what we have to do and this government have the courage to do it. We will do this thing. We will introduce the carbon price mechanism, we will drive change in our economy and we will make a significant and ongoing difference to our environment. That is why we are doing it. We are doing it for our kids and our grandkids. We are the generation—it has been primarily us—who have used more of the Earth's resources than any generation before us and probably more than any generation in the future will. We have an absolute obligation to act. I am absolutely proud to be part of the government that will take these hard decisions and will act on pricing carbon.

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

Let me start my contribution to this debate on the answers given by Senator Wong today where Senator Marshall finished off—that is, whether the action that is being taken by this government will make any difference to the environment whatsoever. At the end of question time, Senator Fifield asked a very pertinent question of Senator Wong. His question highlighted the extent to which current commitments made by the global community are making or will make any difference at all. Senator Fifield highlighted the 2010 United Nations Environment Program Emissions Gap Report, hardly a source whose credibility could be called into question, hardly a source that those opposite would even claim that sceptics or anyone else would latch on to. It found:

… that developed and developing country pledges are 60 percent of what is needed by 2020 to place the world onto a trajectory that will keep global temperature rises to less than 2˚C in comparison to preindustrial levels.

The International Energy Agency concurred in its report, finding 'that the 2˚C goal will only be achievable with a dramatic scaling-up effort' from what has currently been committed to.

Under what framework have current commitments been made? They have been made under the so-called Copenhagen accord, one of the flimsiest, most meaningless documents signed on the international stage at any time. The Copenhagen accord runs for barely a couple of pages, it is non-binding, commitments and pledges under it are voluntary and there is no framework for how they will be measured, verified or reported upon. There is nothing at all in this accord. Guess what? The commitments made under this non-binding, voluntary, non-measurable, non-reportable and non-verifiable accord do not even manage to achieve the optimistic scenarios on which Labor has modelled its carbon tax for global action.

I wish the rest of the world were doing more; I do. I wish we did actually have comprehensive global action of the kind that Senator Wong tries to portray when she stands up in this place and answers questions. The reality is, and those international agencies that monitor these things have demonstrated, that we simply do not have that level of international action. It is not happening, and is not happening even under the flimsiest, easiest to get out of, of global agreements—let alone what people might commit to if, when, maybe some time into the future, we see some type of replacement legally binding framework to Kyoto. Kyoto, of course, expires next year. So the Labor government is sending Australia down this path of implementing its carbon tax scheme just months before we enter the year in which the only globally binding framework on emissions will expire with no replacement in sight. In fact, as Senator Fifield's question highlighted, it will expire with 90 per cent of those currently involved in the global carbon market telling a World Bank survey that they are pessimistic of there being any legally binding replacement any time soon. Those opposite say it will make a real difference to the environment. My challenge to them is: come into this place and just tell us how it will make that difference, given all of the other global commitments, or lack thereof, that we have seen to date.

Today Senator Wong also belled the cat on the government's intentions about its latest Treasury modelling. She was asked whether it would be presented to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future legislation before the Treasury appears on Wednesday morning this week. She would not give a commitment that it would be. She certainly would not give a commitment that it would be released today. So what we will have is 200-plus pages, if it is anything like the last lot, of Treasury modelling, maybe if we are lucky, dumped on the table of the members of that committee hours or minutes before they are supposed to scrutinise the Treasury on its contents. This is the government's approach to transparency and accountability. As Senator Scullion rightly highlighted, the remarkable thing is that they are being aided and abetted by the Greens, who seem to be happy to let the government get away with this, despite all their previous lectures. It shows what a shame and a farce it is. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.