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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Boswell today relating to a proposed carbon tax.

The thing that really concerns me about this carbon tax more than anything else is its effect on industry, employment and our international competitiveness. These are major issues that need to be aired in the Senate. In its submission on the clean energy future legislation the Minerals Council of Australia noted that the jobs and competitiveness program in this piece of legislation is vastly inferior to competitiveness safeguards contained in other schemes, specifically the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. That is a matter of real concern. The Minerals Council went on to say that even the well-known and flawed Treasury modelling concedes that real wages and productivity in Australia will grow much more slowly with the level of carbon pricing proposed under this legislation. Treasury modelling also reveals that Australia's economy will be $1 trillion—that is, one thousand billion dollars—smaller than it might otherwise have been by 2050 as a result of this carbon pricing legislation. And we have to ask ourselves: if we are going to inflict such pain and injury on our economy, how effective will the carbon pricing be in reducing world carbon levels? Because part of the rationale for this legislation seems to be that we are on a crusade, with our 1.4 per cent of carbon emissions, to save the world from the horrors of an increased carbon level. The Gillard government claims the carbon pricing scheme will save 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2020. In 2020, on Treasury's baseline estimates, China alone will be producing 49 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent every day. In other words, in 2021 China will replace Australia's projected emission reductions—that is, 57 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—in just over one day! So in one day, Chinese emissions will replace the whole year's savings in Australia, and Australia's projected emissions savings, including purchases of international permits, in less than four days. I think that set of figures, more than anything else, just shows what a pointless exercise this carbon tax is in terms of the higher ideal which the legislation is supposed to be addressing—that is, our role in reducing world carbon. It is not going to make any difference whatsoever.

It is very interesting also that, in terms of employment, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry have given a pointed assessment of the proposed carbon tax. The CCIWA had a checklist on the carbon tax, of I think 11 points, and it notes that the carbon tax failed to meet the core principles on more than half of those objectives. So, again, the carbon tax is proving to be an illusion in terms of the objectives it is supposed to meet. It is really, as I said yesterday, a fraudulent tax—and so it is proving to be.

The Australian Trade and Industry Alliance claimed manufacturers would be worse off than their European counterparts under the proposed emissions trading scheme—and, in fact, they had research commissioned which shows that the carbon tax will cost 950,000 jobs in Australian companies under this regime. We can hardly be proud of the effects and impacts of this program on the Australian economy. As we have said during the week, this tax is a fraud. This Senate should not be proceeding with it; it should not go ahead. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We on this side of the parliament, we in the Labor government, believe that climate change is real. We believe it is caused by carbon pollution and it is harmful to our environment and the economy. That is why we are taking action on climate change. We are committed to taking action on climate change, which is in stark contrast, as we heard just a moment ago, to the position taken by those opposite. Those opposite, or some of them, used to believe in climate change; they used to have a policy that supported putting a price on carbon through an emissions trading scheme. But that position was thrown out when Mr Abbott took over as Leader of the Opposition, as Leader of the Liberal Party. Mr Abbott becoming the elected leader of the Liberal Party signalled that the sceptics had taken over. In taking over, the climate sceptics led by Mr Abbott dumped their support for action on climate change through the government's proposed emissions trading scheme. And whilst the Liberal Party were backing away from action on climate change, nothing could be further from the position taken on this side of the chamber by the Labor government, because we have remained steadfast in our commitment in taking action on climate change.

The time for inaction has passed. The time for delay is over. The time to take action is now. And that is what the Gillard Labor government is doing. We have a plan to tackle climate change by placing a price on carbon. It is imperative for the future of our economy and of our environment that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and begin to transition our economy to a clean energy future. We know that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the world's climate to change. Climate scientists have been telling us this for years. They have been telling us that we need to change our behaviour to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We know that the rest of the world is acting, and to claim otherwise is just disingenuous. Australia generates more carbon pollution per capita than any other developed country, including the United States. We also produce significantly more pollution per person than India and China. Our level of carbon pollution is increasing at a rapid rate. Without taking action it is expected that our carbon pollution will grow by almost two per cent to 2020. We cannot afford to delay action on climate change any longer. We must take action to cut our greenhouse gas emissions, and that is exactly what the Gillard Labor government is doing.

The price on carbon means that Australia's 500-biggest polluting companies will be charged for the pollution they produce. In turn, this will help drive investment in clean energy technologies. The carbon price is not a tax on ordinary Australians, unlike of course the policy of those opposite. It is not a tax on ordinary Australians, as those opposite would have you believe; it is a tax paid by Australia's biggest polluters. All the money raised from the carbon price will be used to support households, jobs and to invest in clean energy and in climate change programs. To assist households with price impacts the government is introducing a comprehensive assistance package, and this will comprise two rounds of increases in pensions, allowances and benefits. There will also be tax cuts, and they will be targeted at those who most need them. This means Labor will ensure pensioners, low- and middle-income earners and families are assisted. Under our assistance package, nine out of ten households will receive assistance through a combination of tax cuts and increased payments. Almost six million Australian households will receive tax cuts for increases in payments that fully cover the average price impacts of the carbon price. We also know that petrol forms a big part of the household budget, so we have ensured that there will be no carbon price on any fuels, including petrol, diesel and LPG for passenger motor vehicles and light commercial vehicles. Whilst we are providing household assistance to families through our carbon price plan, families will be worse off under Mr Abbott's plan of direct action. (Time expired)

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

I also rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Wong in question time. I concur with Senator Carol Brown that climate change is indeed real. We can all go along with that. The question that we raise and continue to have unanswered—in fact, Senator Wong is like the Artful Dodger when it comes to answering this question—is whether the Gillard Labor government will release the modelling for the carbon tax. The answer is, 'We have released an unprecedented amount of information to do with it.' It is not a big ask. It is only, as outlined by the Labor Party, the single biggest tax reform that this country has ever undertaken, and we are not getting any scrutiny of it at all. There are independent people out there in the Australian business society who would like to have it scrutinised.

In Senate estimates we heard questions asked about when the model is going to be released. Again, the answer came back, 'When we think it might be fit to be released.' Is this another, 'Well, we will get to it soon'? Is it going to come before the next election? I do not know. All we hear from Senator Wong is, 'There is an enormous amount of information out there in the public domain.' What we do not need is another talkfest with voluminous amounts of information that do not accurately represent the financial modelling on which this government has based, punted and bet the economic future of this country's prosperity. The Productivity Commission has the model, but it is not in the Australian public domain. We want some transparency from the government on this one. We would like the people from Bloomberg to have it. They have got a couple of hundred of economists over there who might want to have a look at it and make some public comments. Why won't we give it to them? Instead, we are faced with a model that, on the government's own admission, has a decline in GDP in real terms from 2020 to 2050. What it is, I predict, is churn. It is just another bureaucracy churning it out, taking money from those who have it and generate it, putting it through a mill and distributing it as they see fit.

Senator Wong continues to avoid the question about whether she will give the opposition the opportunity to rightly scrutinise it under that good and solid Westminster system of government that keeps everyone accountable.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have they got to hide?

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

Senator Boswell asked, 'What have they got to hide?' I do not know. I suspect it is because, since 2007, electricity prices across Australia have increased by an average of 51 per cent; gas prices have increased by an average of 30 per cent; water and sewerage rates have increased by an average of 46 per cent; health costs, hospital costs, dental costs and pharmaceutical costs have increased by an average of 20 per cent; education costs—school fees—have increased by an average of 24 per cent; and rent has increased by 20 per cent. The cost of living is just going up and up and up—and you want to impose from 1 July next year another impost on business which they cannot pass on. It will erode the profitability of businesses through increased electricity prices, and all that lays before them is fewer job opportunities for people in manufacturing.

Just out today, we have got the Australian Food and Grocery Council saying that, amid the range of ominous trends and forecasts, the industry is at a crossroads. Its publication shows that the industry is facing a perfect storm of costs and regulatory pressures. How much more of a burden are you going to put on business when the carbon tax comes out? There will be more forms to fill in. In its Industry at a crossroads publication it is saying there could be a loss of up to 130,000 jobs in manufacturing and a further 6,000 jobs in associated sectors like agriculture by 2020. There could also be a slump in operating profits of 4.4 per cent and 11.6 per cent, purely because of the introduction of the government's economic— (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I move around doing my duties as a senator throughout South Australia, going to various country regional centres and attending street corner meetings, we always encourage the voter—or the attendees at those meetings—to engage in the carbon tax debate. We need to raise it in certain areas. Far from being an issue at the forefront of a lot of voters' minds, they are not frightened and they are not buying the scare campaign of the opposition. There is a growing body of people who want to leave a better Australia for their children and grandchildren. They understand that coal fired electricity power stations are not the cleanest way into our future. In my own state of South Australia, we are leading the way in clean energy options. There is, as I say, a continual fear campaign. Mr Abbott says no to everything. He fails to engage in any legitimate debate on clean energy options and simply tries to scare the electorate through a well-coordinated, well-repeated, incessant fear campaign about destroying jobs. The Treasury modelling shows that the economy will still grow and that average incomes will continue to grow and that carbon pollution will fall, which I suppose is the achievable outcome we are seeking for our Australian environment. We will see investment of about $100 billion in renewable energy and hopefully South Australia will continue to lead the way in that renewable energy. Under former Premier Mike Rann's leadership we have led the way. We have certainly led the way in renewable energy with wind farms, geothermal and the like. These things have really been at the heart of our leadership in South Australia, where we produce something like 50 per cent of the renewable energy of our great nation.

Senator Boswell is looking for a model in which he can put his economic data, a tame economic professional to put his details in and produce some trillions of dollars worth of results. These things are simply not going to happen. We are going to rely on the Treasury modelling. They proved through the GST that they could do it and they have proved that they will continue to do it.

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

The modelling is a secret.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The modelling is not a secret. We are simply going to rely on the proven experts in Treasury who did the modelling for the GST and who will do the modelling for the carbon tax. The modelling shows that the economy will continue to grow strongly. It shows that average incomes will continue to grow strongly. It shows that jobs will continue to grow strongly; in fact 1.6 million additional jobs by 2020. And it certainly shows that the carbon pollution will fall, and all Australians will ultimately reward the party that delivers this. It is in the interests of our children and our children's children that we take this action. If you are looking for support in the community about climate change, look at the solar schemes that are oversubscribed. Look at the people who have gone out and put their hard-earned cash into those solar panels to produce their own renewable energy source. Australians do believe in this. They put their own hard-earned cash on the table. They have gone out, paid up to $10,000 and whacked panels on their roof. They are producing green, renewable energy and they are very proud of that. Most of the schemes have been oversubscribed. Yet the other mob tell us that people do not want a bar of renewable energy, they do not want to make the environment cleaner and greener, they want to continue down an old-fashioned path. Well, time is up. We have really got to look to the future for our children and our grandchildren. The community is onside, despite the scaremongering of the opposition. Quite frankly, the opposition used to be onside under their former leadership. So it is without any shadow of doubt that we can continue on this historic path. (Time expired)

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

I have to congratulate Senator Boswell on the question that he put today, which is the topic of this debate. His question goes right to the heart of trust in this government. He asked why, given that the Productivity Commission can release all modelling related to COAG reform, the government cannot release all the modelling related to their clean energy legislation. If it were not so frightening, it would be funny that part of Senator Wong's answer was, 'I am unclear how that is relevant.' She is very unclear about how it is relevant that one part of government can clearly and transparently release the economic modelling they use but this government cannot release all of the economic modelling on the most important piece of legislation that they have put before this house. The Prime Minister is quite right to call it historic. It is historic but it is a very sad day in Australia's history.

The Prime Minister promised us there would not be a carbon tax under a government she leads. We now have modelling where it is okay if they give us the bits and pieces that they feel like giving us but do not give out the full modelling so that it can be tested by the economic sector of Australia. How typical of this government. Of course, people do not believe that the government has given us the bits of the modelling data relevant to the new legislation; they believe, because of the government's history, that the parts of the modelling that are being given out are the bits that are convenient for this government. They do not trust them. Senator Boswell brought that point out very well and Senator Wong's response was disappointing but typical of the dishonest way that this government behaves.

I was somewhat amused by Senator Gallacher's comments regarding solar energy. Yes, Australians have put in large amounts of solar panels and solar hot water and solar heating devices. But he seems to have not noticed that in a number of instances those people have been defrauded by systems that were accredited by this Labor government. Why would we be surprised that there had been a failure in implementation of an energy-saving system by this government? He appears also not to be aware that in fact throughout Australia and most of the world the electricity grids are not capable of taking as much solar power as people generate. In most cases, and I am referring particularly now to South-East Queensland, the grids can only cope with 30 per cent of the grid power being energy that is put back into the system from solar energy. This means that, if you live in a street with no solar power, you are fine: your power can go back into the grid and you can get paid the feed-in tariff for doing that. If, however, you go ahead and put in solar power in a street where 30 per cent of the houses already have solar power, you will not be able to feed your solar power into the grid; you will not get the feed-in tariff.

Right now in South-East Queensland, it is taking up to 16 weeks for people to be connected up, from the time that their solar power systems go in until the time that they actually get paid for feeding the power into the grid. Part of the reason this is happening is that the South-East Queensland electrical authorities are desperately trying to pedal backwards so that they do not have to make the point that the Queensland Labor government, along with many other state governments and many other governments internationally, have neglected to point out to people who bought solar power units that there was a chance that they would not be able to get the feed-in tariff. It is another part of the nontransparency of this government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.