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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Birmingham and Cormann today relating to a proposed carbon tax.

As we rush into the Labor Party kitchen, we see so many pots boiling over on the stove it is hard to know which one to turn to first. I suggest that the urgency of the carbon tax issue needs to be addressed, because it is the issue that will confront the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation tomorrow. As the question from Senator Birmingham today demonstrated, vital information for that inquiry is not yet available. Here we have the government's own cooked-up process of rushing its carbon tax through the parliament, and we have an inquiry set up—albeit at great haste and in the most unorthodox style—with a committee chaired by a Labor MP—

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

Senator Humphries, just pause a moment. Senators leaving the chamber or holding conversations in the chamber: please leave so the debate can ensue.

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

It is a committee chaired by a Labor MP and deputy chaired by Senator Milne—a Labor chair and a Greens deputy chair. This is a most unorthodox approach towards this key issue for Australia's economic future, and we have today been told that the minister cannot advise the Senate as to whether the economic modelling on which the carbon tax is based has even been completed. We cannot even be told that much about this incredibly important process which is presently underway. So we have a committee which has six days to receive submissions from the Australian public about this carbon tax and no information about whether the modelling will be available before tomorrow's hearing. We are told that the government cannot tell us what the level of emissions reduction will be under their carbon tax. They cite what is going on in China and tell us that some wonderful things are happening in China, but the minister fails to mention at the same time that, according to former Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin, China's emissions will be increasing by 496 per cent between now and 2020. Again, there is no information before the Senate about those issues.

This leaves the Senate in a position where it simply does not know enough about what is going to happen with this carbon tax to make an educated, careful decision on behalf of the Australian people. Question time is the time for the government to answer questions about its tax—a tax which was conceived in deceit, a tax which the Prime Minister said would not happen under a government she led. So we roll into hearings on this vital legislation and we do not have the information necessary to make the right decisions about it.

In a week where we have discovered that Alcoa Australia is warning that Victoria's two aluminium smelters face a significant threat due to the carbon tax, in a week in which the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance has revealed that nine out of 10 manufacturing jobs are with companies that will face the full impact of the carbon tax, in a week where that same data shows that less than nine per cent of Australia's one million-plus manufacturing workers are employed by firms that will have no compensation from the Gillard government, we are entitled to be concerned and upset about the lack of information before the Senate and before its committees.

The government today offered no enlightenment on those issues whatsoever. It leads ineluctably to the question: what has this government got to hide? Why can't we put that information on the table? The government has had long enough to debate these issues, to sort out internally and with the Greens where it is heading with this carbon tax. The question is fairly asked: why can't it provide that basic information? If there is indeed Treasury modelling of the carbon tax, why isn't it on the table now, with just a couple of weeks to go before the committee that is examining this issue brings its report down and before the debate reaches the Senate? It just is not good enough.

This is a government which has deceived the Australian people from the very beginning about its carbon tax. This carbon tax will destroy jobs. This carbon tax is executed with contempt for the Australian people, because it was promised not to be executed at all. The Senate is entitled to more than it is getting from the government on this question. The government needs to come clean. When will we know the details of this tax sufficient to discharge our obligation to the Australian people to properly examine this package of 19 bills? The fact is we are not going to get that information, and the government stands condemned for being dishonest with the Australian people.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President, for the opportunity to respond to Senator Humphries on this most important issue of pricing carbon. What Senator Humphries did not say anything about this afternoon was the Liberal Party's own plan in respect of carbon.

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

Because it wasn't in question time. That's why. We're taking note of answers to questions.

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

Yes, and I am answering your question.

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

I didn't ask a question.

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

Well, I am responding to you, Senator Humphries.

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

Through the chair, Senator Farrell and Senator Humphries!

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

I fully intend to do it through the chair. Thank you, Deputy President, for that timely reminder. We have not heard anything about the Liberal Party's plans in respect of carbon or the fact that they have got a plan. They have got a plan. Mr Abbott has got a plan. But the problem is that it is the wrong plan. It is a plan that, if, by misfortune, they get into government and are able to implement, will leave Australian families worse off by $1,300 a year more in taxes that they will be paying.

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

Table the figures to show that.

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

Senator Humphries, if your plan is so good, why haven't you submitted that plan to Treasury? You are critical of this government about our plan. Why are you so afraid to submit your plan to Treasury for testing? I know why Senator Humphries is so reluctant to submit his plan to Treasury. It is because he knows what this government is saying about his plan in respect of carbon is right—that it will increase costs to the ordinary Australian by $1,300 a year, and all of that money will go to the big polluters.

Senator Humphries claims we are trying to rush this through the parliament. That is the core of his allegations. I remind Senator Humphries that he was part of a government led by John Howard that in 2007 went to the election telling the people of Australia—yes; do not look so surprised, Senator Humphries—that they were going to do something about carbon pollution. John Howard was going to do something about it. But of course the Australian people had the wisdom to reject Mr Howard. They elected a Labor government, and for the last three years we have not been talking about anything else other than putting a price on carbon.

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

You told people you wouldn't do it!

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

We have been talking about this for three years, Senator Cormann. If you have not heard the message from us then you just have not been listening. We have been talking about this for three years, and now we intend to do it. We are going to put a price—

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

'There will be no carbon price under the government I lead'!

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

Order!

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

Thank you for that protection, Mr Deputy President. If you have not heard, Senator Cormann, for the last three years we have been talking about this issue. We continue to talk about it and now we are going to do something about it. John Howard talked about it in 2007. Now the Gillard government is going to do something about it on behalf of the Australian people, who want something done about carbon pollution. The Australian people want us to do something about it, and that is what we are going to do. You have had ample time to look at what we are proposing on this issue. Senator Humphries, every question you ask has an answer. The big answer is that we are going to solve, to the extent we are able to and to assist— (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of a question asked by Senator Birmingham of Senator Wong, who stated that the impact of the carbon tax was modelled on the entire economy. We would really love to see some of that modelling. My constituency would love to see the modelling of the carbon tax impact on those in regional Australia. In regional Australia, we know emphatically that a one-size policy does not fit all. The Queensland and Victorian governments can model the impacts of the carbon tax. Why can't the federal government release their modelling? We need to know because it is sapping confidence from regions that are already under stress.

I am here today to give the government some benefit from the detailed modelling released by the Victorian government on the impact for Victoria. It was commissioned by the Department of Premier and Cabinet and conducted by Deloitte Access Economics. The results show that in 2015 there will be 35,000 fewer jobs in Victoria than otherwise, aside from the carbon tax, which represents a decrease of 1.8 per cent in our economic output as a state. This modelling includes detailed analysis of the impact of the carbon tax on regional Victoria.

The modelling shows that the Latrobe Valley will experience severe hardship as a result of the carbon tax. By 2020, there are set to be job losses of over 874 workers in the Latrobe Valley, an area that has been through significant restructuring over the recent past. In my local constituency of Bendigo, by 2020 there will be 705 fewer jobs as a result of the government's carbon tax. This represents a 1.3 per cent decrease in employment locally. In Ballarat, another huge regional centre, there will be 663 fewer jobs by 2020, representing a 1.2 per cent decrease in employment. I hope Mr Steve Gibbons, the Labor member for Bendigo, and Catherine King, the Labor member for Ballarat, will consider walking those 10 short steps in the other place to stand up for their constituencies and their workers.

In Shepparton in the north-east of Victoria, the modelling suggests that there will be 319 fewer jobs in an area where food processors such as SPC Ardmona are already closing as a result of external factors. That puts more pressure on these regional economies. In Mildura, there will be 222 fewer jobs by 2020. Regional Victorians spend more on energy and transport than those who live in Melbourne. Whilst agriculture is out for now and transport—so vital to our way of life and crucial to the viability of our local industries—has a temporary reprieve, the increased on-costs are definitely an issue for those of us who live outside the capital cities.

The Victorian Farmers Federation are concerned with the substantial indirect costs involved with the carbon tax scheme. While fuel is excluded, the major cost impact will be on electricity use. We do not have any doubt about that. It is estimated that this could cost a dairy producer $6,000 a year—$6,000 a year for every dairy farming family right across regional Victoria and, indeed, other states.

The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, VECCI, has also strongly criticised the carbon-pricing model and its lack of support for small- and medium-sized businesses. These mum-and-dad businesses are the backbone of regional economies. They employ over 75 per cent of our workforce locally. Ross Weightman from a Mildura packaging and supplying company has said that products will probably end up being imported because of the effect of the tax on the manufacturing industry and the like.

This policy is also going to affect our public hospitals and transport, with modelling showing that our public hospitals will be seeing over 2,500 fewer operations as a result of the increased cost of electricity. Let us face it: the government needs to look at how regional areas will once again be carrying the can for their failed policy misadventures.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometimes when the opposition moves motions in the take note of answers debate, one could be excused for thinking we have shifted over to Alice in Wonderland mode because not one item of sense or truth has yet been put in this entire debate. Senator Humphries took a long time to establish the fact that modelling was not clear or it has not been received in an adequate manner, that there had not been sufficient days set aside for a committee of inquiry, that only six days was going to be given and that the Senate cannot be asked to give consideration to a package of bills in a careful considered manner absent a proper inquiry. Let us establish on the record what the facts are in the debate around the government's clean energy legislation. A package of 18 or 19 bills was circulated in early July to the wider community. Some 300 written submissions were received over the next month that identified issues, shortcomings, deficiencies and matters of interpretation. The government received those submissions, put them in context and circulated a revised package of bills which has now been introduced into both houses of parliament.

Not only have they introduced the revised legislation; they—or the government and the opposition—established a joint committee that is not a narrow committee but a committee comprising members and senators from all parties who have people elected to both houses. That committee is going to sit for some six, seven or eight days. It will, as is the case with all committees, receive submissions. It will sit in public during the day and during the night. It will have the benefit of expert evidence. It will receive material from a range of witnesses. All of the public servants who have been involved in the policy determinations behind the government's position will be available for questioning and scrutiny. Legal counsel will be there to aid the committee in the interpretation of particular pieces of legislation.

That full, detailed and more than adequate scrutiny of an important set of bills is not the only thing that has occurred. For the record, that will be the 18th parliamentary committee of inquiry into various aspects of carbon price legislation, carbon pricing or clean energy legislation. This issue has been around the circus for the last three or four years. So let us not suggest that there has not been a wealth of public discussion. Let us not suggest that every possible argument, in whatever form, has not been put and considered by both the proponents and the opponents of a carbon pricing scheme. It has been out there for the last three or four years. It has been examined and discussed.

People are certainly aware of the government's position. The government's position has been crystal clear. The Prime Minister announced it earlier this year. On behalf of the government, she said that the government would introduce clean energy legislation. We proceeded to establish a multi-party climate change committee to do the preparatory investigatory work on the government's announced policy. We invited Independent members of parliament to participate in that multi-party committee on climate change. We invited minor party representatives from the Greens to participate in that inquiry. And we invited the second major set of parties in this parliament to participate, the Liberal Party and the National Party, and they refused to participate. They refused to bring any considered position at all to the deliberations of that Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.

What did that committee do? It sat for nine months. It had access to verbal and written submission from a wide range of interested stakeholders who wanted to say something about the government's proposition for clean energy legislation. It did not matter if you were an industry group, a producer group, a rural group, a group from regional Australia, a group that was opposed or a group that was in favour. Every group, every set of witnesses, that put in a submission and asked to come to that Multi-Party Climate Change Committee received an invitation to attend and to give their evidence and was the subject of examination by all of the members of the committee who participated. (Time expired)

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer given by Minister Wong in her role representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. I notice that Senator Bishop made reference to my colleague Senator McKenzie, suggesting that there may be some parallel with Alice in Wonderland. I remind Senator Bishop that fairies do not live in the bottom of the garden. Your own Climate Change Commissioner has already admitted publicly that the climate will not change for maybe a thousand years. From the outset, the Labor-Greens carbon tax has been a complete shambles. Handcuffed to the Greens you are. You are walking down the aisle together, about to walk Australia into an economic nonsense. Indeed, Senator Bob Brown has handed you jelly-back Labor fellows an economic hand grenade.

As we heard in question time today, Senator Wong could not answer Senator Birmingham. It was another lesson, like the one from Minister Carr, in how to not answer questions in question time. She did not get to it. She could not supply an answer on updated modelling or when it would be released—some time this week. All we got was a cross and cranky Senator Wong, who preferred to sledge the opposition than answer the question. I can understand why she is so short-tempered. Her party sold out to the Greens to hold on to government.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. It perhaps might be wise to point out that you, Deputy President Parry, are not a she. Perhaps the good senator could direct his references through the chair.

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

Thank you, Senator Ludwig. Continue, Senator Edwards, but be careful to address the chair correctly.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address my comments through the chair. We know that the government said before the election that there would be no carbon tax. That has been spoken about a lot throughout the community, in this chamber and in the other place. We know that this carbon tax will increase the cost of everything without actually reducing Australia's emissions or the globe's temperature. We know that this tax is not supported by the Australian people. To further add insult to injury to the economy, they intend to ram their carbon tax legislation through the parliament without proper scrutiny. If Labor truly believe that this carbon tax is in the best interests of Australia then they should not fear scrutiny of this legislation. Australians only have until Thursday to get their submissions in to this, as Senator Birmingham called it, shotgun inquiry. There are 19 bills, more than 1,100 pages of new laws for Australia and they have allowed less then four weeks for public comment. Labor knows Australians do not want this tax but it is handcuffed to the Greens. It is a tax that will cost jobs, drive up prices and hurt the economy but will not reduce Australia's carbon emissions—

An opposition senator: Not one bit.

not one bit. Labor is in denial of the facts and clearly does not want the Australian people to have their say. The Australian Labor Party should rename itself the Australian Taxation Party because what drives it in 2011 is finding more ways to take money from people to fund its own causes and its own misuse. Why doesn't Labor want to go to the Australian people for them to have a say on carbon tax? Because the government's own figures say that three million households will be worse off under a carbon tax. Three million Australian households will be worse off and should have an opportunity to express their opinion to the committee inquiry. But, no, Labor is effectively silencing them.

Not only will three million Australian households be worse off but this could not be a worse time for Australians who are in the manufacturing industry. Australia's manufacturing sector is already under enormous pressure. A carbon tax will increase costs, which overseas competitors do not have to pay. Jobs will go offshore to factories which will emit more emissions than Australian manufacturers, and, under the current economic circumstances, businesses cannot afford another tax. Australian businesses will be at a major disadvantage. There will be no level playing field when it comes to a carbon tax. Australian jobs will be sent offshore for no good environmental gain. The tax will push up the price of electricity, gas, transport and food. Airfares will increase because the tax applies to aviation fuels, and freight transport is only exempt until after the next election. It is simply a device to redistribute, a huge money-go-round where some big companies are to be recompensed because otherwise they will be at a huge disadvantage compared to their competitors overseas. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.