David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Johnston today relating to a proposed carbon tax and the Australian Defence Force fuel costs.

In so doing, I want to highlight that the Australian Defence Force in 2009-10 spent about $290 million on fuel and emitted about 1.7 million tonnes of carbon. The complete fraud of this carbon tax is highlighted by the fact that this government does not even know of that figure, which is 68 times the 25,000-tonne threshold. The government has no policy and is completely oblivious to the numbers that I have just mentioned.

This carbon tax is the greatest betrayal of Australians in our political history. It emanates from a lie, and we all know the words off by heart. Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of the Gillard government said that there would be no carbon tax. It was an unqualified promise. It was unequivocal. It was the clearest promise, compact and contract with the Australian voting public that one could ever wish to remember. The question that flows from that promise is: why did she say we would not do it? Why did she say, 'No, no, no, we are not having a carbon tax'? Could it be because it will remove from the Australian economy $9 billion every year? Could it be because everybody—rain, hail or shine; pensioner, new home buyer or student—will get a 10 per cent hike in their electricity bill in the very first year alone? Could it be because there is a nine per cent hike in everybody's gas bill? Could it be because higher marginal tax rates and low- and middle-income earners will be hit for six and there will be a $4.3 billion hit on the budget bottom line? Could it be because the trillion-dollar cost to the economy over the coming decades will send hundreds of billions of hard-won Australian dollars overseas in the pursuit of these crazy carbon credits and $3.5 billion will be spent each year on foreign carbon credits whilst this government pursues, in line with all of its failed policies, this crazy policy?

Small business will be hit for six. Electricity utilities in each state, and particularly the manufacturing heartland of our country in Victoria, will be hit for six. The mining industry will be not only ravaged and savaged in Western Australia and Queensland by this deceptive and lazy government with a mining tax but also copping it in the neck with a carbon tax. As I have said, manufacturing industry will be completely annihilated by this tax, and I have not even begun to talk about the long-term cost of living for ordinary Australians. But they do not care.

In Western Australia, in 2015 the owner of every truck over 4.5 tonnes is going to have pay up the carbon tax. In a state the size and dimension of ours, this is a cyanide capsule for our economy. It is an absolute shocking disgrace that this government stands up and says, 'This is in the national interest.' This is a government that is bringing us the NBN at $50 billion with no cost-benefit analysis. It is going to be late and it is probably going to cost double that. This is a government that has given us school halls and pink batts. Of course, we are repairing the damage from the mismanagement and the negligence of the pink batts program to the tune of a billion dollars. This is a government that says that a carbon tax will be in the national interest. And who can forget the stirring performances of the citizens assembly, the cash-for-clunkers scheme and the digital set-top boxes that you could buy at Harvey Norman? This is the most incompetent government we have ever been saddled with. This tax will be forever writ large on the tombstone of this government when we finally and surely get rid of it. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could it be that those opposite, including Senator Johnston, are just sceptics? They come into this chamber and ask questions about the legislation that was passed in the other place yesterday—legislation that is going to take the Australian economy forward; legislation that is going to build jobs for the future in the clean energy sector; legislation that is going to ensure we have a clean energy future that is going to protect the environment for our children, our children's children and future generations. We will have the opportunity to debate this legislation when it comes before the Senate.

I take note of Senator Johnston's contribution, which was wide-ranging, but I cannot miss the opportunity to respond to one comment about the BER—an argument often made by so many on that side. I love talking about the school halls. I love talking about the new libraries. I love talking about the new classrooms and the new early childhood education centres. If you came to Tasmania and visited the number of schools that I have and attended the number of openings of these wonderful new facilities that I have, you will not find one school principal, one school teacher or one parent who will say: 'We want the government to take away this money. We do not want the new classrooms. We do not want or need the new libraries. We do not want or need the new school assembly halls.' Many of the schools in my home state have not been able to meet as a school in a covered area.

Let me return to what I think Senator Johnston's contribution was targeted at—that is, carbon pricing. On this side, we know that it does not matter what legislation was passed in the other place yesterday, those sceptics opposite and even those who are believers and those who supported John Howard when he was Prime Minister will vote against this legislation when it comes into the Senate next month. They will vote against it because they are in the mode of opposing anything that is good for this economy and good for this country.

I want to congratulate the Prime Minister for the leadership that she has shown in a very difficult circumstance. As those opposite keep reminding us, we are in a minority government. Prime Minister Gillard has been able to negotiate this legislation through the other place and have these 18 bills passed. I am looking forward to the debate when it comes before us here in this chamber.

Let us not forget that it is Tony Abbott who has no policies for the future. The community are understanding that. But he does have one policy—that is, oppose, oppose and oppose, and to act like a two-year-old by saying, 'No, no, no.' That is what those opposite are doing in this debate on the carbon price. On this side, we have acknowledged that there will be a need to compensate those in our community who are most vulnerable. That is why we have committed to providing an increase in pensions and other allowances. That is why we are providing tax cuts. That is why we are providing the increases to family payments. But those opposite have said through their leader that they will roll back this legislation and they will take away those increases and tax cuts from families and workers who need them.

We are looking forward. We are a party of reform. We have set the agenda and we are going to see this through. I am very proud of the fact that this Labor government are tackling the hard decisions. We are the ones who are taking on climate change. We are not doing what those opposite wanted us to do when the global financial crisis hit and that was to put our heads in the sand, sit back and wait to see what happened. We cannot afford to do that. We have to catch up with the other countries. We have to catch up with what is happening in Europe. We have to catch up with what is happening in India and China. We have to show that leadership. On this side of the chamber, we have the fortitude to ensure that this sort of legislation is passed through this chamber. (Time expired)

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley began by saying that people on this side of the chamber are just sceptics. Having listened very carefully to what she said, I can only wonder at the lack of information and understanding on display by those on the other side of the chamber about the impact the carbon tax will have on the Australian economy, about the cost of living for average Australians and about the impact on jobs for those people who might otherwise vote for Senator Polley. Senator Polley demonstrated no awareness of any of those impacts. Given the fact that this matter has been debated not only over the last year or so but also in several Senate committees prior to the last election, I think it is a very sad reflection if Senator Polley is typical of the level of understanding among ALP members and senators of the impact that the carbon tax will have. This taking note of answers is very largely about the impact on the defence forces. Of course, the defence forces are part of the Australian economy and they have a lot of suppliers who are not military people but, nevertheless, are suppliers to the military and so should be considered part of the military establishment. Just like any other members of the community, the people who are suppliers to our military forces will be very adversely affected by a carbon tax if it is brought in. There is no doubt whatsoever that the cost of fuel will rise, and that will mean the cost of consumer goods will rise. Other goods delivered to any military establishment in Australia will reflect that increased cost of transport. The cost of electricity will rise and that will mean that the cost of producing goods, making things and packaging food, for example, will rise. In a general way, the military will bear at least some, if not a lot, of the increased costs impacted on the community by the carbon tax.

There are other ways also that the defence forces will be affected. I spend a lot of time in the north-west of Western Australia where they are very concerned about things like border security. Now there is going to be an increase in the cost of fuel, and I presume that will have an adverse impact on the capacity of the Navy to mount coastal surveillance patrols by ship and of the Air Force to run the coastal surveillance flights that it operates around the northern coast every day of the week. It is not only close coastal surveillance that is involved when our armed forces are seeking to stop people who are smuggling drugs and to detect illegal immigrants; the RAAF also carries out surveillance around the Australian coastline and a long way out to sea every day of the week. The cost of those very long flights will go up. As the cost of those things goes up, it is possible that there will be some restriction of them, and that, undoubtedly, will affect the border security of Australia. The security of our borders is something that the ALP claims is a matter of great importance to it. I am just surprised that the ALP is taking such a light-hearted approach to this matter.

With Australia's security, we also have to look in a broad and general way to the strength of our economy. If our economy is weakened so our military capacity will be weakened. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the imposition of a carbon tax, followed in a nightmare fashion in 2015, we are told, by an emissions trading scheme, is going to substantially adversely affect the Australian economy. It is going to cost a lot of jobs, it is going to reduce our international competitiveness and, overall, it is going to mean that this country has less capacity to spend on the defence of our borders. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For this nation to move forward, we have to be a modern and competitive economy. We cannot just live in the past and be dedicated to the old ways. We know that a fundamental plank of that is moving towards a clean energy economy. This nation cannot countenance any future other than that. All credible analysis shows that we can make significant cuts in pollution while our economy continues to grow strongly. This is the path we need to be on.

Senator Eggleston made reference, as did a question in question time, to our defence forces. We cannot resile from the fact that the carbon price is a price that is borne around the economy so that it can have the effect of encouraging people to make energy savings. It is pure and simple. It is an emissions trading scheme and it is a philosophy that many of those opposite have supported. It is an economic principle that many of those opposite have supported. Senator Eggleston referred to the notion that pricing carbon will somehow affect our national security. Those opposite have, frankly, made up a great many things in relation to the carbon price but I feel that I have heard it all now with the notion that pricing carbon will somehow pose some kind of risk to our national security.

It is typical of the kind of scaremongering that we have had from those opposite and the kind of wrecking attitude that we have had from the Leader of the Opposition, who really is just interested in playing politics. We know that every living Liberal leader has supported a price on carbon. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, has supported a price on carbon. Over half of the Liberal MPs have made expressions of support for a carbon price. Mr Abbott can admit to families and pensioners of this nation that he is planning to claw back money from their pockets, or he can admit that he is not going to roll back the carbon price. It can be one or the other, but he cannot do both.

Mr Abbott should admit what everybody knows—that it is a very difficult task, and I think an impossible one, to roll back a price on carbon. And that is a fortunate thing, too, because all credible analysis shows that we can cut pollution and have our economy grow. But, if we do not do this, we will be stuck in the old ways and we will be doing a great disservice to our economy. We must modernise it. I think failing to price carbon is a form of protectionism. That is because we know that, in order to address climate change—if you believe that climate change is real—the world must cut its emissions. That will require economic and industrial change right around the globe.

If Australia leaves itself behind in those changes, we will be left behind economically as well. But we know that, with a carbon price, the economy will continue to grow, with an average growth in GNI per capita of 1.1 per cent per year; average incomes will continue to grow, rising by more than $8,000 per person by 2020 in real terms; and the number of jobs will continue to grow, with 1.6 million additional jobs by 2020. The evidence in support of pricing carbon just continues to build and build. I have heard no credible evidence to the contrary. The policy of those opposite is simply to pay polluters. It will inevitably lead to higher prices, more spending and higher taxes. (Time expired)

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

I rise to take note of the answer from Senator Evans. He was asked whether the ADF would be expected to pay, or be exempted from, the carbon tax in terms of its use of energy. Senator Johnston mentioned the 1.7 million tonnes of pollution per year in 2009-10 and the fact that that is 68 times over the threshold. What was Senator Evans's response? He had had no brief; that is fair enough. He had no knowledge; that is fair enough. The important thing to recognise is that, like many of their other policies, there will be no accountability from this government for the unintended consequences that flow from their policies.

I see Senator Wong making a face, but let us look at the BER. Nobody complains about school halls; we celebrate the fact that the community has good infrastructure. But nobody should celebrate the fact that there has been over $3 billion of waste because of poor implementation of policy and unintended consequences. Another example is pink batts—it was a great concept, but what were the unintended consequences? Not only waste and corruption—in this case it actually caused death. Unintended consequences can be really serious. Then we have border protection. There has been a lot of talk about the change from three boats in the last year of the Howard government to something in the 200s since then, but what is really important is not the number of boats but the number that did not arrive. Nobody actually knows the true number, but, even by the Labor Party's own estimates, probably over 400 people have drowned. That is a dreadful unintended consequence of policy. In the area of national security, the response to the Black review showed a dreadful lack of understanding by this government of how their response to that review of just adding more layers of bureaucratic oversight to defence will actually decrease accountability and effective outcomes—the very things that they have been talking about—as opposed to achieving them.

Now we have the carbon tax. Here we are in the Senate—it has been passed over from the House of Representatives—with the opportunity to save Australia from the unintended consequences which will flow from yet another government policy. The question related to defence and Senator Evans had one bit of knowledge—that additional funding is provided in operations so there is no win and no loss for defence. In terms of something fairly straightforward, such as fuel operating costs, that is true. But defence capability is not just about platforms; defence capability also includes our defence industry, which is a vital part of our ability to maintain, to repair and to improve our equipment for use both during peacetime emergency responses and during operations.

We need to have a defence capability onshore and ministers from their own side—Minister Combet, Minister Carr, Minister Clare—have talked about the important role, the vital role, the defence industry plays. They have also noted, importantly, that defence industries are only sustainable, in many cases, when they can link into a global supply chain. What is interesting is that Senator Carr said at the Paris Air Show:

Australia has undoubtedly earned its place amongst the leaders of the global aerospace industry, with a reputation for cost-competitive, market-leading solutions.

The magazine SA Defence Businessthe defence industry puts over $2 billion into South Australia's economy— says that all businesses in the defence industry must be globally competitive.

What do commentators say? What do experts in the field say about this carbon tax? Frontier Economics has identified that Australian industry will be unique in having to compete in the international market while burdened by the carbon tax. So we have identified that our defence capability needs industry; that our industry needs to be in the global supply chain to be sustainable; that, to be in the global supply chain, our industry has to be cost competitive; and that experts such as Frontier Economics are clearly identifying that these sorts of things will make our industry uncompetitive. Clearly, then, one of the unintended consequences of this policy from this government is that we are putting our defence industry, and therefore our defence capability, at risk—as well as the livelihoods of many people in states such as South Australia which rely to a large extent on the defence industry. Senator Wong, as a representative of that state, should be ashamed that she is not standing up for the workers in the defence industry and for our defence capability.

Question agreed to.