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

The President has received a letter from Senator Fifield proposing that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Gillard Government's intention to increase cost pressures on charitable and not-for profit organisations and the voluntary sector through the introduction of a carbon tax.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

I do not need to tell you, Mr Deputy President, that the carbon tax is a bad tax and that it is a tax that is based on a lie. That is something that is being canvassed each and every day in this chamber and will be canvassed each and every day until the carbon tax package is put to a vote. I still have my fingers crossed that it will be defeated. We do know as well that this tax will have a devastating economy-wide impact.

There has been a significant focus on particular sectors of the economy; most notably, there has been a great focus on manufacturing, and I know this as a senator for Victoria, particularly given the location of my office in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The south-eastern suburbs are the heart of manufacturing in Victoria. Forty-four per cent of Australia's manufacturing output comes from the region and 70,000 people are directly employed by manufacturing in the region. Victoria will be hit if first, it will be hit hardest and south-east Melbourne is the front line of the battle against the carbon tax. We also learned today from the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance that nine out of 10 jobs in the manufacturing sector are in firms that will face the full impact of the carbon tax.

There are other sectors about which the government has largely been silent during the carbon tax debate. The sectors that I refer to are those that are in the portfolio that I shadow—the portfolio of disabilities, carers and the voluntary sector. There are four million Australians who have a disability of some form. There are also 2.6 million carers. The government say in relation to people with disabilities and carers, 'Trust us. We have a compensation package. Don't worry. Australians with disabilities and their carers will be adequately taken care of.' What the government propose is that there be compensation through increased pensions and increased income support payments. Even if you accept that those increased payments will be sufficient to offset the cost increases as a result of a carbon tax—which I do not—you have to look at how many people actually receive those payments. There are 800,000-plus people on the disability support pension. Compare that to the figure of four million Australians with a disability. There are 180,000-plus Australians on the carer payment. Compare that with the 2.6 million Australians who are carers. What that means is that there are 3.2 millions Australians with a disability who will not get any direct benefit in recognition of the additional costs they face as a person with a disability. It means that there are 2.4 million carers who will not get any compensation, above and beyond anyone else in the community, in recognition of the additional costs that they face as people who undertake caring activities.

As I mentioned, the government claims that increased payments will compensate these groups and that tax cuts will compensate for others. Even if you accept—and, as I said before, I do not—that there would be adequate compensation to start with, the carbon tax will continue to rise and the value of that compensation will be eroded over time. It is very clear that Australians with a disability and their carers have been largely forgotten in the formulation of this carbon tax.

Related to these Australians who face additional challenges, often for reasons beyond their control, is the broader not-for-profit sector, the broader charitable sector and the broader voluntary sector. The government have, in their formulation of this carbon tax—which is wrong in the first place—and in looking at compensation arrangements, completely forgotten not-for-profit groups, voluntary groups and charitable organisations. If you take the sorts of voluntary organisations that most immediately come to mind—scout groups, the local footy club, the local netball club, the surf-lifesaving club—they will all have increased cost pressures as a result of the carbon tax.

We know that electricity prices alone will go up by 10 per cent at least, so the power bills of the footy clubs, the scout groups and the surf-lifesaving clubs will all go up by 10 per cent. Those organisations are going to have a choice. They will either have to do more fundraising—and they will be fundraising at a time when people have less money in their pockets to donate—or they will have to cut back some of the activities or services that they provide. They are the options facing these organisations.

Also, if you consider in the broader social policy context Australian disability enterprises, the organisations that employ individuals who have an intellectual impairment, they are terrific organisations and provide a great workplace for the individuals. They also provide respite for the families of the people who work in the disability enterprise. Many of the disability enterprises have very significant electricity bills. Some of the disability enterprises will be in light manufacturing, some will be in the laundry business, and they have quite high power costs. So, if you are increasing the power costs of some of these organisations by 10 per cent, you are looking at tens and tens of thousands of dollars of additional costs. A lot of the disability enterprises do not have a terribly big margin. The gap between surviving and continuing to provide those services or not is very narrow. There is no direct compensation for these particular organisations.

It is not just Australians with a disability and it is not just carers who have been forgotten in the design of this carbon tax; it is also the not-for-profit sector, the voluntary sector and community organisations. You would have thought, if you were designing such a far-reaching, economy-wide change as the carbon tax, that one of the first things you would think about would be the effect on some of the most vulnerable Australians and the effect on those organisations that seek to lend a hand to them to make life easier.

The carbon tax has been completely flawed from its inception. It is not going to lead to a change in global temperatures—no action will in the absence of a concerted effort by the rest of the world. It is not the most effective way of seeking to reduce Australia's emissions. It is a tax that is going to penalise almost every sector of the Australian economy and almost every group in the Australian community. It has been flawed in design from its inception. I know every time we get to our feet in this place and talk about the carbon tax we say that it is based on a lie, but the reason we say that is because it does bear repeating. The Prime Minister went to the election, she put her hand on her heart and she vowed, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' I can guarantee that there are many thousands of Australians who have a disability, thousands of Australians who are carers and thousands of Australians who work in the charitable, not-for-profit and voluntary sector who, if they had known that a carbon tax was going to be imposed on the Australian economy—a tax that was going to directly affect them and the organisations I have referred to—would have cast a ballot for a political party other than the Australian Labor Party. I think it is a great shame that the Australian Labor Party, which has a long history, some of it proud, is embarking on this tax which is based on a lie and which will affect vulnerable Australians.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the opposition for raising this matter of public importance for discussion. It allows the government to clear up some of the deliberate misinformation the opposition has been putting into the community about how the Clean Energy Future package will affect the charitable, not-for-profit and voluntary sector. It is unfortunate, as I have said many times in this place, that the opposition's only strategy—not only on this matter but on all matters brought before this place—is to try to make people fearful. It is particularly unfortunate that the opposition deliberately targets and tries to make fearful, for political gain, those who are most vulnerable in our community—that is, those who rely on the not-for-profit, voluntary and charitable sector to have their daily needs met.

The government's package is a carefully designed and responsible package to ensure that those in our society who are least well off are not unjustly affected by our need as a nation to make progress towards a clean energy future. The government's package supports these Australians by providing tax cuts, pension increases and increases to parts A and B of the Family Tax Benefit. Every pensioner at the single rate will get a pension increase of $338 per year and on average will be $134 better off after carbon pricing. Pensioner couples will get an extra $510 per year and will be $226 better off compared with the average carbon price impacts.

The tax-free threshold will be increased from $6,000 to $18,200, which means that around 60 per cent of taxpayers will get a tax cut of at least $300. Family Tax Benefit A for each child will be increased by up to $110 per year. Single-income families with children will receive up to $69 extra in Family Tax Benefit B, as well as up to $300 in an additional supplement. Newstart and youth allowance recipients will get up to $218 per year for singles and up to $390 per year for couples combined.

The opposition asks how the government's Clean Energy Future plan will affect those in the not-for-profit and charitable sector, and that is an important question. Charities around the country will be supported as we transition to a clean energy future, as is only fair and right. Through the Low Carbon Communities program we will fund grants for local councils and community organisations to retrofit or upgrade community buildings and facilities to reduce their energy use. The result of funding these upgrades for not-for-profit and charitable organisations will be a cut in their energy costs. These upgrades will also serve as demonstration projects to promote energy efficiency in the community, informing the public on ways individuals and families can improve their homes, lower their costs and decrease their carbon footprint.

Charities and the not-for-profit sector will also be supported through a dedicated funding stream under the Low Carbon Communities program to provide payments to charities to offset the carbon costs they will face for aviation fuel and fuel used for maritime purposes. This funding will be provided on an ongoing basis and will ensure that important services such as air and sea rescue services will not be affected by the carbon price.

The government is also helping not-for-profits to reduce their compliance costs through committed funding of $53.6 million over four years to establish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. This will begin in July next year and will make it easier for not-for-profits to go about their business of contributing to a fairer Australia. The not-for-profit and charitable sector has been vocally supportive of the government's Clean Energy Future package. This sector recognises not only that action on climate change is required but also that the government's package supports and protects those in our community who are most vulnerable.

I will give you a few examples of what the not-for-profit and charitable sector is saying about the Clean Energy Future package. Paul O'Callaghan, of Catholic Social Services Australia, has said:

In making such a significant move towards a low carbon future for Australia, Catholic Social Services Australia commends the priority given to assisting low income Australians, who will be the most impacted by the carbon pricing mechanism.

Lin Hatfield Dodds, National Director of UnitingCare Australia, has said about the package:

We support this action to reduce carbon pollution. Not only does it promise a brighter future for the planet, it will help disadvantaged and vulnerable Australians who are already suffering the effects of climate change who will carry more of the share of the costs of climate change into the future.

Lin Hatfield Dodds has also said:

The package uses revenue raised by bad activity (carbon pollution creation) to fund good activity (progressive reform of the taxation system). This is clever policy. It is good policy. It's a bit like spinning gold from straw. It's exactly the kind of smart and gutsy approach we want to see from this Government, and from every government. … The Government … deserve[s] commendation for delivering leadership and a practical package of measures that hit several important policy targets.

Dr Cassandra Goldie, the CEO of ACOSS, said just last week:

We congratulate the Federal Government, the Greens, and Independents for reaching agreement in the drafting of this legislation and we urge all parties to ensure its passage through parliament so we can move on with the necessary task of transforming our economy.

This does indeed seem to be high praise from the not-for-profit and charitable sector for the government's Clean Energy Future package. It is a recognition of just how nuanced a package it is. Its effectiveness as a package for protecting the most vulnerable in our community is highlighted even further when compared with the opposition's so-called direct action—or, as I call it, direct no action. This disappointing attempt at a policy position would cost every Australians an additional $1,300 a year. The opposition's direct action would cost every disability pensioner, war widow and aged pensioner $1,300 a year, an unjust and unaffordable burden that would create a need for the not-for-profit sector to meet the increased costs. Under the opposition's plan there is no compensation for those on disability support pensions. There are no tax breaks for those earning under $80,000 per year. There is no increase in the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,200 per annum.

Under the opposition's alternate plan more than 102,300 pensioners in my home state of Tasmania will not receive an extra $338 extra per year if they are single and up to $510 per year for couples combined. Under the opposition's alternate plan more than 45,600 families in Tasmania will not receive household assistance through their family assistance payments of up to $110 per eligible child for families receiving the family tax benefit A and up to $69 per year for families receiving the family tax benefit B. Under the opposition's alternate plan more than 9,400 single parents in Tasmania will not get an extra $289 per year. I know that you, Deputy President Parry, will be interested to hear this, being from Tasmania: under the opposition's alternate plan more than 10,900 students in Tasmania will not get up to $177 extra per year for singles.

What they will get from the opposition is a poorly thought-out policy that was made on the run and costed on the back of an envelope, that will cost billions of dollars and that will hurt most those Australians who the not-for-profit and charitable sectors help the most. This reckless and thoughtless alternate policy from the opposition would place considerable strain on the not-for-profit sector.

The opposition has a history of ignoring the not-for-profit sector. Under the previous coalition government, not-for-profit organisations were gagged from speaking about government policy by clauses in their contracts. Under the previous coalition government not-for-profit organisations faced increased costs for the sector through unnecessary and overly bureaucratic reporting requirements, which took away from their key functions of helping vulnerable people. Under the previous coalition government the fringe benefit tax rules for not-for-profit organisations were changed to cut community sector workers' childcare and family tax benefits.

The distinction between the positions of the government and the opposition is clear. The opposition, in its so-called direct action plan, does not provide support for either the not-for-profit sector or those whom the sector supports. The government does. The government provides support in the Clean Energy Future package for the not-for-profit sector and those whom the sector supports. The difference is that clear. The government is building a cleaner energy future economy but not at the expense of the most vulnerable, which is what those opposite would have people believe. The government's position is to do what is right and fair. That is only just.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking in opposition to the government's intention to increase cost pressures on the charitable and not-for-profit sector and on the voluntary sector with the introduction of the carbon tax, I would firstly like to the opportunity to put a comment made by my colleague Senator Fiona Nash on the record. During question time, poor old Minister Penny Wong complained that the coalition was always saying, 'No, no, no,' to government policies. Senator Nash promptly responded, 'That is because your policies are so bad, bad, bad.' Regarding 'bad, bad, bad', there could not be worse than what we are looking at today with the issues that are raised by the government's intention to simply plough on regardless of the costs to every sector and particularly this sector. I was somewhat bemused by Senator Bilyk's comments regarding the carefully designed package. If this is a carefully designed packaged, God help us and God help the not-for-profit and community sector.

The Gillard government's carbon tax—the 'Not under my leadership carbon tax'—is an all pervasive instrument that will affect every corner of our society and every part of our economy. It is contagious. The extent of its reach is evidenced by the effects it will have on every sector, including the most vulnerable in our community. A succession of shabby and incompetent Labor administrations have turned their backs on the very people they once purported to champion.

Within Liberalism there has always been the view that government should allow people to conduct themselves as they wish and to be as successful as they aspire to be but that we should have safety nets to assist those who cannot achieve their best through no fault of their own. We continue to stand by this faith. This carbon tax, on the other hand, is another sign of Labor's incompetence. Rather than a carefully designed package, the consequences of this tax have not been thought out and are stark evidence of Labor's inability to care for anyone or anything other than what the Greens tell them to care about.

The not-for-profit sector in Australia, as I think everyone would agree, performs a wide and incredibly important function in assisting millions of Australians. There are over 600,000 not-for-profit organisations in Australia. They account for eight per cent of national employment. They contribute $43 billion to Australia's GDP and the sector continues to grow at the strong annual rate of 7.7 per cent. This is partly because of the ageing of the community, partly because of the development of more and better services and partly because of the expectation of families that people in Australia should be given a decent life. In a world of increasing self-interest, it is good to acknowledge that 4.6 million Australians volunteer in the not-for-profit sector every year. That saves the government $15 billion in forgone wages. However, we should acknowledge that in this sector, which will be severely harmed by the plans of this government, there is very high underemployment. Underemployment in Australia has been rampaging ahead since 2008, with employers basically forced to reduce hours of work, because that is the only way they could stay in business under the regime set up by this government. The underemployment rate in Australia rose to 7.6 per cent in February this year from 5.9 per cent in August 2008. One sector that is particularly affected by this is the not-for-profit sector, which relies a lot on part-time workers and, in many cases, underpaid workers. I think we could look quite reasonably at the debacle that is currently going on in Queensland regarding the more than 316 organisations that, on 1 October, will be forced by regulations signed by Minister Evans to cough up back pay, and they are not being compensated for it. We are talking about $500 million or more in back pay being required by the ineptitude and incompetence of this government, in cahoots with the Bligh government. The Red Cross, for example, are saying they expect their back pay bill to be between $4 million and $5 million, yet there is no suggestion of any funding to assist them with this.

Now let us add in what is going to happen under their carbon tax. It is quite amusing that Senator Bilyk somehow thinks that increases for disability support pensioners will help the sector. Is she suggesting that there will be no problem if all the organisations put up their fees to cover the increased costs from the carbon tax for disability support pensioners? Is that what she wants to happen?

Let us look at some of the costs. Senator Fifield mentioned that electricity prices have already gone up 50 per cent since 2007 and are expected to go up another 40 per cent over the next six years as a result of the carbon tax, with no compensation at all to the not-for-profit or community sector. As Senator Fifield pointed out earlier, this is often quite a power intensive industry. We are talking not only about disability enterprises but also about some of the supported accommodation areas, where there are people who may have sight problems, or those who need medical equipment that works all night or people who require more lighting around them than might be the case in other households. Add that to the costs of the organisations themselves—their head offices—and their inability to do it. So, there is no compensation there.

Gas prices have risen 30 per cent since 2007 and will go up again, with no compensation. Groups such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Social Services Australia, the Uniting Church, Meals on Wheels, Blue Care et cetera rely heavily on fuel and on transport services to assist their clients. They visit people in their homes to provide medical services, food services and other assistance to people, simply to be there to offer respite to their full-time carers. Despite these very large fleets and the large amount of fuel used by these organisations to service these things, again, there is no compensation for these increases in fuel. Even on the food side of it, there will be no compensation to Meals on Wheels for the extra cost of food and the extra cost of the power they will use.

Look, for example, at the Endeavour Foundation, which is one of Australia's largest not-for-profits. It is primarily based in Queensland and Northern New South Wales. It supports a large number of people with intellectual disabilities. Over $35 million of their budget goes on things such as utilities, transport and household consumables. All these will be affected by the carbon-tax-driven price increases. And, again, there is no compensation. These organisations have for years existed on the smell of an oily rag. Now it looks as if they will even have to pay carbon tax on the rag itself, but with no compensation.

There are four million people in Australia with a disability and two million carers. It is all very well to say that it is individuals and they will get the same compensation as other pensioners and other low-income households. That is fine, but it does not change the fact that the services that are available to them will not be there. As for the ridiculous furphy of this government regarding the lack of compensation in the coalition's scheme, well, I am sorry, but if you do not put people's costs up ridiculously with an inept tax you do not have to compensate people. Costs will be lower under a coalition government.

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

I really understand and feel sorry for Senator Boyce for having to make that speech. I can understand why she was struggling several times during the speech. It is because she does not believe what she has just said. The reality is that Senator Boyce has the courage and the conviction that many other senators, like Senator Birmingham, do not have, and that is the courage to stand up for her convictions and stand up for what she knew was right, which is to make sure that there is a price on carbon to prepare this country for a low-carbon future so that we look after the children of this country in the future and make sure that they have the same benefits we had for years—that is, an environment that can sustain this country. So I really do understand why you were struggling, Senator Boyce; it is because you really do not believe that rubbish you just came out with.

You were one of the few, along with the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, who actually stood up and said, 'We think there should be a price on carbon.' That is what you said. You did the right thing. But now you have been sucked in to the morass and nonsense that the coalition is putting up in its fear campaign on a carbon price. What should be understood is that the effect of a carbon price in this country is one-quarter of the effect that the GST had, and yet we did not hear speeches from the coalition warning that the GST was four times the cost of a carbon price. We did not hear any of that come up. We did not hear any warnings from the coalition about the cost to the economy—and this carbon price has an impact on the economy one-quarter of that of the GST.

Why are we doing it? You always have to remind yourself why we are doing it. We are doing it for the schoolkids here today. We are doing it for future generations. We are doing it for my grandkids, who hopefully will be around in 80 years time when we run out of mineral resources in this country, when we understand that there are no minerals left and that we have to have other ways of dealing with our economy and building new industries for the future. That is really what we have to do.

The hypocrisy of Senator Boyce, to stand up here and run a scare campaign on pensioners when she knows it is not true, when she knows that what she has just gone through is part of the broader scare campaign that the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, is running right throughout the country! It is scare campaigns like 'Wollongong will close down' and 'The manufacturing industry will die under a carbon price', yet no-one believes that. It is just for the six o'clock news, to get a grab out there. I really, really am concerned that Senator Boyce has abandoned her principles in terms of the right thing to do and comes in and defends the nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, is running.

I can understand Senator Fifield. Senator Fifield would come in here and do anything and say anything as long as it advanced the coalition's political position. That is fair enough. You are entitled to come in and promote your side's political position. But you should not come in here and try and scare pensioners, try and scare people with disabilities and try and scare the not-for-profit sector in relation to the effects of a carbon price, because the effects of the carbon price are minimal. They are minimal, and we know that.

We also know that every economist worth their salt in this country has said that the most efficient and effective way to deal with a carbon price is to allow the market to determine the price and allow the market to determine how we deal with the most efficient way of reducing carbon. That is what the economists tell us. Every economist of any standing has put that position. Yet what do we get from the opposition? We get scare campaigns—scare campaign after scare campaign. It is a scare campaign a day from the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott.

Senator Boyce, who knows better and who actually supported a price on carbon in this Senate, who crossed the floor to support a price on carbon, showed more morality and more courage than the rest of the Liberal Party put together. That includes Senator Birmingham, who knows exactly the same point, who was a supporter of a price on carbon, who was a supporter of market price, who backflipped on it—'Backflip Birmingham'—

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

and who has absolutely no moral standing to yell across the chamber at me—absolutely none. When you get a bit of backbone, Senator Birmingham, that is the day you should stand up and lecture me, but you cannot stand up and lecture me because you have no backbone. You would collapse back into your red seat. That is what would happen to you—a jelly back, like Peter Costello. There are too many of you over there with jelly backs and no backbone.

If you were actually serious about doing something about the environment and the future of this country, you would put a price on carbon. You know that. Your former leader was assassinated by the worst elements in the Liberal Party, assassinated by the extremists, and you guys stood back and let it happen. He was assassinated because he understood that you have to put a price on carbon to build the new jobs and provide certainty for industry in this country. That was the position put by your leader, and then you assassinated him.

Then, all of a sudden, you had people like Senator Birmingham, who was a supporter of a price on carbon, who was a supporter of putting a market price on, suddenly saying, 'No, we don't do that anymore.' They have absolutely no credibility and absolutely no moral standing in this debate, let me tell you. They come in here and all they want to do is say: 'Let's forget about global warming. Let's forget about the kids' future. Let's forget that we need to do something so we're not left behind the rest of the world and so that our manufacturing jobs are capable of competing in the future. Forget all that. Let's look at short-termism. Let's just look at short-term political advantage.' It is an absolute disgrace.

There is no leadership from the coalition. We had no leadership from them for 11½ years when they were in government. All they did was idle away, when this country could have been making the investment for the future. All they do now is come in here and run scare campaign after scare campaign. There is absolutely no validity in what they are putting up.

Senator Humphries interjecting—

Senator Humphries has interjected. He is another one of those Liberal senators who know that the right thing to do is put a price on carbon and have a market price but who became a jelly back when Tony Abbott took the leadership, who would not stand up to the Leader of the Opposition, who would not stand up for their own principles and their own values and just rolled over to the argument that you should not do anything on carbon price. Direct action is a farce. Direct action will not work. Senator Humphries knows that well. The opposition have no economic credibility and no environmental credibility. They are not fit to govern. They have got no policies for the future. They would cast the future of these children who are watching here today into the wilderness, for short-term political gain. They are an absolute disgrace. All they have is fear campaigns, lies and misrepresentation. You are a disgrace as an opposition. You should stand up here and do what Senator Boyce did in the past and say, 'We need a price on carbon,' and stop being— (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I need to remind members of the government that this is not an open-ended debate that has been placed before the Senate as a matter of public importance today. It is actually a debate about something quite specific—that is, the increased cost pressures on charitable and not-for-profit organisations and the voluntary sector through the introduction of a carbon tax. I appreciate that government members have got their stock standard speeches available to deal with the increasing number of Australians who want to raise concerns about the carbon tax, but the point that the opposition is raising with the matter of public importance today is that there are elements of the government's carbon tax plan which have not been thought through and which the government needs to address as quickly as it can because this tax is coming down the wire.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that mean you'll vote for the rest of the legislation?

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would need a lot of persuasion, Senator, to vote for this legislation, and the more I see of its holes, its flaws and its defects, the less inclined I am to do it. But you might persuade me today by showing me that you have thought through the implications of these policies.

I can understand that those opposite might be in a quandary at the moment, because they have migrated so often through so many policies that, understandably, they could be slightly confused as to what their policy right now actually says. Senator Cameron has just told us that we should be supporting a price on carbon, that the right thing to do is to have a price on carbon. But Senator Cameron needs to remember that it was not very long ago that that was not the policy of the Australian Labor Party. Not long ago—within the space of the last couple of years—the policy of the Labor Party was that there should be an emissions trading scheme. This emissions trading scheme was dumped at the beginning of last year, in a move that the then Prime Minister has subsequently described as a mistake. The then position of the Labor government was that there should be no discussion about carbon pricing or emissions trading schemes for a period of three more years. Senator Cameron calls for courage on pricing carbon, but that was not the case 18 months ago, when the policy of the Labor government was: 'We shall not talk of this policy for a period of three years.'

Then we had the promise to have a people's assembly of 150 members that would sort the problem out for the government. That policy was so ridiculous that it collapsed under its own weight after a short period of time. Then the government said that, whatever it did, if re-elected it would not have a carbon price. 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' the Prime Minister notoriously said. Then she said that there would be no progress on carbon pricing until she had built a deep and abiding consensus through the Australian people—another policy that has fallen over. And today we have got yet another version—it must be iteration 5 or 6 from the government. It now wants a carbon price, leading to an emissions trading scheme in a few years time. So it is not surprising that the government cannot answer basic questions today about what it actually sees this new plan doing to people on disability pensions, carers and charitable and not-for-profit organisations, how it will deal with those people. There have been so many iterations of its policy that it is having trouble itself keeping up with what its latest version of its policy is.

The coalition senators in this debate have outlined the critical question before the Australian community. We have four million people in this country with disabilities and 2.6 million people who are caring for other people, usually family members. That is 6.6 million people for whom life is generally very difficult and for whom provision needs to be made. Almost without debate we know that all of these people will be affected by the higher prices which the carbon tax will lead to—the 10 per cent hike in electricity prices and the nine per cent hike in gas bills in the first year of this carbon tax and of course the escalating cost which people will have to deal with year after year as the carbon price increases with market movements. As that goes on, people of the kind we mention in this matter of public importance will be under greater pressure. They will need to be able to establish a basis on which to provide, as a carer, services to the person that they care for. They will need to have a capacity to survive when there are extra costs associated living with a disability in this country.

As this very legislation is being debated in the other place, it is reasonable to ask this question: 'What arrangements have the government made to deal with the extra costs that these most disadvantaged, most vulnerable Australians are going to have to face?' The answer resoundingly appears to be—on the strength of the debate so far—that they have not thought of what to do about those people. We have heard that there will be an increase equivalent to 1.7 per cent in the maximum rate of the pension, in the form of a clean energy supplement, for some people on disability support pensions and some people on carer payments. But we know that most people with a disability in Australia are not on disability support pensions and that a substantial number of carers do not receive carer payments. Those people will be meeting higher costs associated with the carbon tax, but there is no provision made here by the government to deal with those higher costs. It is reasonable to ask: 'What have you done to ensure that these people are able to face the future with some sense of security that their standard of living will not be eroded seriously by this new tax?'

I remind the government that whatever provisions it might make by way of increases or supplements to existing pension payments, inadequate as they must be because they cover only a minority of Australians in the categories we are talking about, the value of that provision will not last. The carbon tax and the carbon price will rise. As those things rise and people pay more to use services and goods that relate to the carbon tax, to which the carbon tax has a bearing, the more those people will find themselves unable to meet those higher costs. The carbon price depends on certain sorts of goods and services becoming more expensive because they relate to the use of carbon, and it follows that, as those costs rise, people will need compensation unless there are affordable alternatives that they can turn to. That is by no means clear at this point in time.

The other point made by coalition senators in this debate was, what provision is being made for voluntary organisations, particularly those supporting people with a disability—bodies like Disability Enterprises and organisations running day programs? What provision is being made for them to meet the higher costs of carbon pricing? For them, there is no compensation package whatsoever. As individuals, the people who make up such organisations might receive some form of compensation, but are we expecting that a householder who receives a certain number of dollars in compensation from the government's plan—the tax cuts that ministers were talking about today in question time—will carry that windfall, if there is one, over to the organisations for which they work and give the money to them to help those organisations with their higher costs through this more difficult period? If that is the case, then the government might like to tell us that. Senator Stephens is going to speak in this debate after me. She could let me know whether that will be the case. Where will these organisations, facing 10 per cent higher electricity costs in the first year alone, turn to deal with those higher costs?

I conclude by observing that the costs imposed on Australians through this carbon tax are not an isolated example of the policies of this government. The trend of this government and previous Labor government has been for policies to be rolled out and implemented, leading to a lower standard of living for Australians. Standards of living have been declining under successive Labor governments and the measures in the carbon tax will again reinforce that trend. It has happened in the first four years of this government and if the carbon tax, the mining tax and the other tax increases the government has imposed continue then we can see a further erosion in the standard of living of ordinary Australians. That is a fact that the government needs to face up to and is not yet doing.

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

I am very pleased to contribute to this debate this afternoon on a matter of public importance and to put on the record some of the things that the government is doing to address the very issue that we are discussing today. Before I do, we heard Senator Boyce contributing to this debate and Senator Cameron pointed out, exactly, that she was someone with great courage who crossed the floor on this issue last time. I also remind members of the Senate that Senator Humphries is very clear in his support for climate change action. We look forward to seeing how he is going to support these bills because if he is really concerned at how we are looking after charitable and not-for-profit organisations in Australia then it behoves him to pay attention to exactly what is going on in this space. If he aspires to be a minister in a future government that might be considering these areas of policy reform, then he really does need to understand that this is an incredibly changing agenda. The reform agenda for the not-for-profit sector in Australia, which is about enabling those organisations to do what they do best, has come about simply because for the last 20 years the experience under the previous government has been one of regulatory burden, mountains of red tape, reporting requirements, convoluted arrangements—all laid bare in the work of the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the regulatory burden of not-for-profit organisations and then taken further, expanded and dissected by the Productivity Commission's major report on the sector. It recommended a series of very important changes to the environment that will free up their resources and enable the not-for-profit organisations to do what they do best.

For me, it is very important that this clean energy package and climate change response is not debated in a vacuum. It needs to be considered in the broader context of what we are doing. So, for the first time in Australia, we have a Non-Profit Sector Reform Council working very closely with the government. I convened several meetings with organisations in the sector about the issue of climate change and about crafting a response that made sure that the most vulnerable in our communities were not going to be adversely affected. That is why there is such a strong package of support for carers, pensioners and low income families in this package of bills.

For the sector itself, which is the point of this debate, there is so much more happening that is freeing up resources and reducing the pressure of red tape. A major piece of work that has been undertaken by an organisation in Sydney has looked at the compliance burden of not-for-profit organisations in Australia, by a myriad of standards, and has identified that, through a very simple and comprehensive reporting system that has been developed for state and territory governments and already applied to some Commonwealth agencies, the resources that could be freed up to frontline services would be hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. That represents the red tape burden of generations of government impost on the sector, and that is where we are going to make the biggest difference.

Now we are looking at the establishment of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, which comes in place from 1 July next year. Senator Bilyk talked about the extent to which organisations under the previous government were gagged, with actual contractual conditions that said 'you must not criticise the government'. The first thing that we were able to do when we came to government was to lift those gags, to encourage organisations to advocate not only on behalf of their clients but also for the policy reform and the policy change that they wanted to see. We encourage debate and welcome it.

We have come from that point to engaging with the sector through the national compact, which is about developing a collaborative relationship with the sector to get the end point that we all want. We have been working very closely to establish the charities commission. Australia should have been here a long time ago, but the previous government piked on the recommendation of the commission of inquiry, which recommended the establishment of a charities commission in 2002. So here we are, trying to catch up with what has been going on in the rest of the world for more than a decade. This is the way in which we will be supporting organisations through this change.

Now we have a relationship with the not-for-profit sector. We have representatives at the table considering the impact of legislation right across the board. So I can tell members of the opposition here that the not-for-profit sector have been at the table through the work of the Not-for-Profit Sector Reform Council, working closely with government, working closely with Treasury, working closely with the minister for climate change and working very closely with Minister Plibersek and Minister Macklin on the issue of climate change impacts, not just for their clients but for their organisations. We will be making sure that we can support those organisations as we progress through this.

The tax summit is coming up in October, and of course we are going to have the sector there at the table. That has probably been the biggest request and the biggest change that has happened. The sector tells us, 'Thank you—we are now engaged when policy is being developed.' That is going to make an important difference. I want to tell you why it is important and I have an example here which will perhaps explain the reason why regulatory reform and change will make a big difference and why people like Senator Birmingham need to support the extraordinary amount of work that is going on in the not-for-profit space. This is an email that came to me this morning from an organisation working really hard. It received some money from the government through the volunteer grants, and of course the volunteer grants also support organisations such as scouts and Meals on Wheels, which Senator Humphries mentioned, by providing money for fuel. But this organisation—a genuine, hardworking organisation registered in New South Wales as a not-for-profit organisation—wanted to buy a software package. Because it is an American software package, the guidelines are very narrow, rigid, restrictive, burdensome and pretty difficult. Unless you are a charity registered in the same way as charities are registered in America, you do not qualify for charitable purposes under the guidelines associated with the software package. It is a pretty common software package, I have to say. It is one that many, many organisations use. But because we do not have a definition of charities, because we do not have a charities register and because we do not have a charities commission that can sort these things out, this organisation in New South Wales which is defined as a charity for all of the purposes that we have here in Australia and which is registered in New South Wales cannot demonstrate to this large software company that it is a charity for the purpose of getting a price for this software. Instead of paying $500, this organisation is being asked to pay more than $2,160.

That is what we are doing for the not-for-profit sector in Australia. That is how we are supporting organisations. When we have a register, when we have a definition and when we have a charities commission, we will be where everybody else in developed countries is. We will be able to streamline and support our not-for-profit organisations through this whole carbon package and ensure that we can support them to do what they do best. So let us not think there is a quandary here. We know what we are doing. The Clean Energy Future package and the National Disability Insurance Scheme are the things that are going to make a difference for Australians.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.