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 answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked today relating to a proposed carbon tax.

I have listened to the minister both in the committee stage and during question time today. The government is determined to have Australians believe that a carbon tax is, firstly, the best thing for our economy. It is also determined to tell us that a carbon tax is in the national interest, that a carbon tax is good for small business, that a carbon tax is great for households, that taking billions of dollars out of the Australian economy will help it grow and that giving billions of dollars to overseas countries for carbon credits is a good thing for our economy. This government has but one talent, but one capacity, and that is to say precisely the opposite of what in fact is the truth. All of those things are untrue.

The lack of honesty and integrity in this carbon tax flows from the very words by which it has had its genesis: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' This is the most notorious and dishonest statement ever heard in Australian politics. It sits right alongside 'We will have a regional processing centre in East Timor' and 'We will have a regional processing centre in Manus Island.' Economic forecast after economic forecast from this government has been completely and utterly false. Another is 'There will be a budget surplus in 2012-13.' Already the Treasurer, after having committed to it, is back-pedalling on this. This government has not delivered a surplus budget, and Labor governments have not delivered a surplus budget for more than 20 years. The minister has just fobbed off every single question—and I heard some very good questions today, including during question time—about particular industries. The minister stood and said, 'The government's modelling shows the Australian economy will continue to grow.' This is not about the individual industries that are devastated by this tax. This glib global statement is one that the minister has stuck to through thick and through thin. The meat industry question from Senator Williamson was very, very good. That industry is going to be devastated, and the minister just said, 'Oh, the government's modelling shows that this economy will continue to grow.' This is the fraud. This is the deception. This is the lack of honesty.

Of course, the minister will fight to the last breath not to disclose the assumptions upon which this crazy modelling has determined that the economy will continue to grow. Confronted with Minerals Council modelling, she said with an almost disdainful tone in her voice, 'Oh, that's Minerals Council modelling,' as if to say that they are all deniers and heretics and they should be crucified shortly. This minister is seeking to put through something that she knows is not good for the economy and is a huge fraud on the Australian public. One need go no further than her immortal words in 2009, when she said:

The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore ...

These are her words. She continues:

... there is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.

This is the minister speaking. Yet she comes in here today with a completely flip-flop perspective. Her credibility is less than zero. She stands over there telling us homily after homily, lecturing us until the cows come home that this is good for us.

She herself has said that this is a shocking tax, that a price on carbon is going to kill jobs and kill our economy, and that it will just send all our manufacturing industries overseas—where they do not have such a crazy government with such a crazy policy. She said that, and she believed it at the time. What has happened? What has happened is that she has got into bed, as her government has, with the crazies at the end of this chamber—the Greens. That is what happened.

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

It does come as a bit of a surprise that Senator Johnston would be talking about credibility after the backflip by his party last week on the issue of superannuation. We had Senator Cormann assuring Phillip Coorey only last Friday that there was no way that the Liberals would not be reversing superannuation. When Mr Robb found out about this, it was of course the end of that policy. I can see that you are laughing, Mr Acting Deputy President, because it is funny. And it is funny that Senator Johnston would even raise the question of credibility. What we know is credible is what Senator Wong was saying about this government's progressive policies in relation to—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leadership.

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

Leadership, yes. We have got great leadership.

Senator Cash interjecting—

Yes, Senator Cash, we have got great leadership. We have got great leadership in the Senate and we have got great leadership in the lower house. It is that leadership—

Senator Cash interjecting—

You can laugh about this, Senator Cash. I know that you can laugh about it.

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

Order on my left!

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. I appreciate that protection from Senator Cash. What was senator Wong talking about today? She was talking about the importance of this government's policies with respect to pricing pollution. One of the great misconceptions, particularly as outlined by Senator Johnston, is that other countries are not going down the track of pricing pollution. The reality is that 90 countries representing over 80 per cent of global emissions and over 90 per cent of the global economy have made pledges to tackle climate change. It is true, as we saw last week in Europe, that other countries recognise the fact that Australia is leading in respect of dealing with the issue of pollution. But the reality is that a whole host of other countries accept, as this government does, that we must act on climate pollution.

The European Union has had an emissions trading scheme for six years and it will be expanding this scheme from the year 2013.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are going broke.

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

Senator Bernardi, you talk about going broke. We cannot afford to ignore the price of pollution in our own country or in the rest of the world. This government is taking on the challenge that John Howard—your great hero, Senator Bernardi—went to the 2007 election on. He said that this was a problem and that he was going to do something about it. What happened to that?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They voted him out.

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

Yes, that is true. They voted him out. They voted him out for lots of reasons.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

They voted him out for lots of reasons. If only Senator Bernardi's other great hero, Senator Minchin, had got his way and you had got rid of Mr Howard, then things might have been different—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'd probably still be in power!

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

That is right; you might have been. But that was not to be, Senator Macdonald. The reality was that both political parties went to that election with a proposition to deal with carbon emissions. But the difference between your party and our party is we are delivering. The difference—

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

You had a leader, Senator Bernardi—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So did you!

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

Temporarily, you had a leader—

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

Order! Senator Farrell, two matters: firstly, direct your comments to the chair, not across the chamber; and, secondly, I think it would assist listeners and certainly the people in the sound booth if you did not hit the desk with your fist. It does cause problems with the sound. Thank you. Senator Farrell, you have the call.

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

Thank you for those two observations, Mr Deputy President. I will calm down my behaviour. But I cannot resist making the point, with or without a fist, that what this government is doing is what we went to the 2000 election to deal with— (Time expired)

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

I rise to also take note of answers given by Senator Wong at question time today to questions asked by coalition senators, regarding the carbon tax. Just how typical it is of the Labor Party that, when they are asked for comments regarding job losses—in my own home state of Victoria, in the western suburbs, a particular region of socioeconomic disadvantage—they go straight to criticising Work Choices instead of dealing with the reality of the legislation in front of us this week that will lead to job losses. Where will the 150 workers who were mentioned during question time go so that they can pay their mortgages today, this week, this year? Where are the green jobs, not in five years time but today? Where are the training programs that will reskill these workers who are losing their jobs now, as a result of the uncertainty brought about by this clean energy legislation?

Speaking of job losses, I would like to mention an industry in our nation that is a significant employer: the dairy industry—40,000 jobs nationwide in the dairy industry, an industry that is particularly energy intensive and will be significantly impacted by the imposition of a carbon tax and the subsequent increase in electricity prices. This is despite agriculture not being directly taxed, as said in one of the many documents I have here as a result of our work this week, Securing a clean energy future. The modelling that is publicly available, including the assumptions used for calculations by the dairy industry, has indicated that individual dairy farmers will see an increase of $6,000 per annum in their electricity costs. That is not to mention the flow-on effects for milk processors, transport after 2014 and even fridges, because that milk eventually goes down the supply chain and ends up in people's fridges, adding to the costs that householders will be subjected to.

Talking about the fridges holding the milk that will be subject to increased electricity prices, if we go to figure 8.2 on page 84 of Securing a clean energy future, we can see that the data on household emissions is based on household emissions in 2007. As the note below the figure says of the data:

… based on 2007 household emissions (the latest year for which the necessary detailed data are available).

So we are modelling all of this on data from 2007, which is the most recent data available—that is, four years ago. There are decisions being made on data that is so old. My comment would be: how are we going to monitor the success of this legislation in reducing emissions of CO2 and in changing households' behaviour so that we can move forward to real action, in the long term, on climate change if we do not know how to collect the data, if we do not have the mechanisms in place to understand how much electricity households use day in, day out? How can we model it if we cannot get our hands on the data? This government answers questions by providing assumptions based on modelling of data that we cannot use.

I want to refer to a comment Senator Farrell made earlier. He said that 90 countries, representing over 80 per cent of global emissions and over 90 per cent of the global economy, have made a pledge to reduce those emissions. But none of them are taking the type of drastic action on climate change that this government is. None of those 90 countries has decided to impose a tax that will significantly damage their nation's economy—and why would they, in the current fiscal climate at the global level? Why would you damage your competitive advantage, particularly when you are a resource-intensive economy like Australia? Why would you risk losing your jobs and your exports for no environmental gain? I think that those 90 countries that Senator Farrell mentioned have not done so because they know how ridiculous this carbon tax is as a policy response to climate change. As we have said time and again, no matter how much paper has been used, no matter how many trees have been felled, in order to produce the legislation that we are considering this week, nothing will make this a good tax or a good response to climate change.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Penny Wong has provided a huge number of responses—I cannot recall how many—to questions on this issue, whether it be in the numerous question times we have had on this issue or in the time in committee recently on the package of clean energy bills. As ongoing as this has become, it is clear that every time the opposition do not hear the answer they want to hear—that is, an answer that fits into their negative agenda on climate change—they choose to pretend that it is just not the right answer, that it is not an answer that equates with or fits their agenda. This is the farcical situation we find ourselves in.

Senator Wong, the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, has provided detailed answers that are evidence based. She has referred, for example, to Professor Will Steffen, one of the climate commissioners who have provided a lot of detail on the science and why we are acting on this issue. The director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, he is peer reviewed and highly respected in the science community and has provided a lot of detail to the government and the multi-party committee that has brought us to the position of having the clean energy package before us. I met with him on 15 December here in Parliament House about the Holocene, which we live in, and the one trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide that is of human origin in the atmosphere today—the one trillion tonnes that Australia is going to play its part in ensuring we do not continue to produce.

Why are we doing that? Why are we here today debating the fact that we need to act on climate change? We are not necessarily doing it for ourselves. We are doing it for our children, for the next generation. We are doing it to ensure that we leave this planet with a much better make-up than it currently has and to ensure that the next generation live in a climate that is not going to be volatile and to the detriment of their lives and the environment in which they live.

The opposition can continue to ask the questions to which they do not get the answers which suit them: the negative answers they are looking for so that they can go out and bag something that is really good. And this is really good; it is not only providing a lot of support to transition ourselves to a clean energy future with a clean energy economy but also providing tax relief to Australians. Of course they do not want to go into that part of it and have to say, when and if they repeal it, whether they would repeal the tax-free threshold of $18,000 that has been offered to Australians. We know their backflip position now on superannuation.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

We know that you will repeal the MRRT, but of course you want to keep the superannuation increase and you somehow have to come up with $12.6 billion to fund it. I do not know how you are going to do that, adding to the $70 billion black hole you have already created. So there are all these things you are going to have to fund that are unfunded. Australians are being left in complete doubt as to how, if you were in government, you would deliver the superannuation increase and how you would deliver a rise in the tax-free threshold to $18,000 now that you are saying you will commit to the superannuation increase but will repeal the minerals resource rent tax.

We have an opposition here who continued to oppose everything, to run scare campaigns, to backflip on policy, and to come into this place and try to pinpoint Senator Penny Wong for answering numerous questions on climate change. And all the while we know that there are those in the opposition who do not even believe in climate change and those who have backflipped so many times like Senator Cormann, who thought in 2007 that it was a positive and sensible approach to have an emissions trading scheme and yet today has backflipped on that principled position. (Time expired)

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I greatly enjoyed some of the contributions this afternoon but less so some of the others. The coalition senators made thoughtful, considered contributions, where they actually examined and considered the issues related to the questions that were asked during question time of Minister Wong, the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. However, as usual, the government senators reverted to their typical approach of obfuscation and diversion from the facts and the real issues, which are the failings of the government's plan to introduce a carbon tax and the fact that it simply will not work in delivering the environmental outcomes that they say it will.

Senator Farrell also noted that there were 90 countries taking action, although he seemed a bit confused at the time—it might have been 90 per cent of emissions or 90 countries. The fact is that none of those 90 countries are taking any action in terms of putting a price on carbon that goes anywhere near being as broad or as deep as what we are doing in this country. No nationwide carbon tax or carbon-pricing schemes have been introduced in any of the 90 countries. I recall that Minister Wong used the term 'a shadow price' on carbon for what she was talking about. The reality is that the vast majority of those countries taking action on carbon are doing the very sorts of things the coalition is proposing to do in its direct action plan: taking action that puts what Senator Wong herself called a shadow price on carbon by using measures that are not a blatant and overt tax on carbon or an emissions trading scheme. So I think the government argument in pointing out these 90 countries is a little disingenuous because all it does is prove that alternatives like what the coalition is proposing in its direct action plan are actually being employed elsewhere and are actually acknowledged by the government as being a legitimate way of addressing the issue.

Senator Singh mentioned that Senator Wong had provided numerous responses to questions. I think she carefully used the word 'responses' because, quite clearly, Senator Wong does not actually provide answers to questions and 'responses' is a very clever way of saying that. Of course Senator Singh has a lot to hide when it comes to this issue because she is a classic example of someone who would not be in this place were it not for the carbon tax promise followed by the backflip later on which proved it to have been a mistruth. Speaking as a senator from Tasmania, as is Senator Singh, I can say there is no way that the Labor Party would have won that third Senate spot in Tasmania—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh's spot?

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly—had the Prime Minister not gone to the people of Tasmania and said, hand on heart, two or three days before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' If she had not said that in the lead-up to the election, Tasmanians would have voted with their feet, the Labor Party would not have received the votes needed to get that third Senate spot and Senator Singh would still be the failed minister, the dumped Labor member for Denison, that she was in Tasmania following the last state election, in which she could not even hold onto her seat. We have also heard today, in response to questions, about Coogee Chemicals, which is a Victorian company that was looking to make a $1 billion investment in methanol production in Australia. That has now been cancelled for the specific reason that the carbon tax is going to make them uncompetitive and they cannot do it. This comes at a loss of $14 billion of predicted exports and 150 jobs, but that is not the worst of it. Obviously it is a terrible thing that 150 people are not going to have jobs that they otherwise would have had and there will be $14 billion worth of exports that will not happen. But the fact is that Coogee Chemicals is the most efficient manufacturer of methanol in the world in terms of the emissions that it produces per output of production. So every single unit of methanol that is not produced by Coogee Chemicals and is produced by someone else—and remember that this is the only methanol producer in Australia, so all other methanol will be produced outside Australia—will be at higher emissions per unit of output than it would have been if it had been produced in Australia. So not only are we exporting the jobs of manufacturing that methanol, not only are we losing the export opportunities in respect of that methanol, but by putting in place this tax we are contributing towards a net increase in carbon dioxide and equivalent emissions as a direct result of a carbon tax that is going to drive this investment offshore.

The minister says that Coogee Chemicals will be fully compensated and so they are not right in making the decision not to proceed. On what basis? We heard from the answers that the assumptions that the Treasury modelling is based on have not been released. Therefore, the cost of— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.