Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Mr Deputy President, you would be aware that we are now in the final countdown, the final 14 days, before the introduction of the world's largest carbon tax—a carbon tax that you know, sir, is a tax on Australia, its businesses, its industries, its working families and its way of life. It is a tax that is being imposed on an economy that is open, that is competitive, that is energy rich and that of course is resource-intensive—a country that will suffer when this carbon tax comes in. That is what will happen in two weeks time. But I have noticed a funny little swerve in very recent times from the government. They now argue that there are other political parties, other governments, as stupid as this one.

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

No!

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do! They argue that there are other countries that are imposing a tax of this extent right throughout the world. And they hide behind the coat-tails, of course, of Nicholas Stern—now Lord Stern—who last week was quoted in the Australian as saying:

… there was evidence the Australian carbon price—$23 a tonne from July 1—was not excessive compared with prices in Norway, Britain and Switzerland.

That is right: Norway, Britain and Switzerland. You can imagine the sort of resource powerhouses that Norway, Britain and Switzerland are. You can imagine the carbon emissions from the chocolate, or the cuckoo clocks, or the watches, or the yodelling coming from Switzerland! They are missing the point, as is Lord Stern: the only thing that matters is what our competitor countries are doing—what are the other comparable economies doing; what are the other energy-rich, open, exposed economies doing? Well, who are they? What are the Chinese doing? The Scientific American, that famous scientific journal, says that, other than understating their carbon emissions, they are doing very little. Russia: very little. India: very little. Canada: very, very little. Also the United States. They are the comparable competitor countries that, just like Australia, want to sell resources, coal and gas overseas. They are not suffering. Their governments are not so stupid as to unilaterally place a carbon tax on their most efficient industries. This government does that. But the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Americans and the Canadians are not that stupid. What happens in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein or Monaco does not really matter. So the government saying that there are other comparable countries doing this is absolute and utter rubbish.

I have often spoken in this parliament about the great lie. My friends often talk about it being the lie of the Prime Minister when she said that there would not be a carbon tax under the government she led. That is not the greatest lie. The greatest lie is that this tax, the unilateral imposition of a carbon tax on an economy like Australia's, is in our national interest. The greatest lie this government has ever perpetrated in its five years in government is to stand up before the Australian people and say, 'It is in your interest that we pay this tax,' when the Canadians, the Americans, the Indians, the Russians and the Chinese will not do it.

Our economy is more exposed than that of any other country on earth. In two weeks time our economy will start to suffer; it will start to suffer from the word go. We now know following question time what the government's result will be at the end of all this—that is, how much our emissions will go down—

Opposition senators interjecting—They will go up!

They will actually go up. They will rise slowly. They will apparently rise more slowly than they otherwise would. This, in the end, is social democratic churn dressed up as environmentalism. It is pathetic. (Time expired)

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

I too rise to take note of answers to questions asked today. If we are to believe Senator Mason, then the sky is falling and we are all Chicken Littles running around, waiting to see civilisation as we know it cease in two weeks time. However, what we need to understand and what we on this side of the chamber and this government recognise is that of course it is in Australia's national interest to continue to work to achieve the international goal of limiting global warming. Everything that has been shaped in the clean energy package is about doing exactly that. It is a critical imperative for us. It is a critical imperative for Australian domestic and international commitments on climate change and clean energy that we stand firm, drive hard change and lead in this debate where others would prefer us to be following along like sheep.

It does not matter who you go to—whether it is the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Academy of Science or any of the science academies around the world—everyone is agreed that climate change is real and action has to be taken to deal with it. The carbon price, despite the nonsense that you have just heard from Senator Mason, is a very realistic carbon price. It is one that, as we heard today in question time, provides the incentives to industry to move to clean energy technologies and it gives signals to industry about where to move. I do not think you can be clearer than that about the purpose and the direction of the clean energy package and the carbon price.

The challenge we have had, and the way we have dealt with the package, has been to ensure that those people who are least able to meet the needs of the carbon price are compensated. An extensive carbon compensation package has been outlined and we have heard about it incessantly, week after week, in this place and in the public debate. However, we have seen that there are those who are prepared to use sleight of hand. While the federal government compensates, governments like that of New South Wales are very keen to see what they can do to claw back some of that money for their own purposes. We saw that last week in the announcement by the New South Wales government to take some of that money from New South Wales pensioners living in public housing and add it to the public housing rents. This is just a blatant cash grab by the New South Wales government. It is quite a shameful exercise. The New South Wales government says, 'We need this money to repair and support public housing,' when in fact the Treasury model shows us that the cost of house repairs as a result of the carbon price is less than one per cent, which is around a third of what the New South Wales government is claiming.

So let us be quite honest and realistic about this nonsense debate that we have been having: it is a stunt. It is the continuing circus routine that we have seen about fear and misrepresentation. As the date gets closer, the rhetoric gets more and more ridiculous, because the opposition will say anything and do anything. They just will not accept the facts.

The Rio 20 summit, which is being held this week, is all about our environment. Everywhere around the world people are talking about climate change, environmental damage and how we can take action on that. On the other side, we still have the debate about whether climate change is real. So that is the nonsense basis on which we have to have a debate here today. Nevertheless, we will continue to see this debate carried on—because on 1 July the sky will not fall. People will move to the clean carbon economy. People will start to understand that it is in everyone's interests, and I will be very glad for it to be here. (Time expired)

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

If I were the Manager of Government Business, the last person I would put up to defend the carbon tax would be Senator Ursula Stephens. She is held in high regard on this side of parliament because we know she would not lie. You saw that today when she was trying to defend something that she did not have her heart in. She knows that the impact is going to be on the people that can least afford it. To ask Senator Stephens to get up and defend the carbon tax is picking the wrong horse for the wrong course.

But today I want to talk about the announcement about marine reserves, which will now circle right around Australia, creating 1.3 million square miles of marine parks—between 50 and 70 per cent of the world's marine parks around Australia. We are a country of 20 million people and we now have 70 per cent of the marine parks. How did we get there? We got there because Pew, an international green group, came here and decided to fund a campaign right across Australia, spending millions of dollars of American money, putting out propaganda that it would be good to have this wonderful world marine park—70 per cent of the world's marine parks.

But it is going to lock out commercial fishermen, it is going to lock out amateur fishermen. 'Oh, but Ron Boswell is a scare merchant.' They say it all the time. So today I quoted Mr Allan Hansard, who is the director of the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation. Mr Hansard says that mums, dads and the kids will be banned from trying to catch fish. It is not Ron Boswell who is saying that, it is the man who represents five million amateur fishermen. Mr Deputy President, you are a fisherman yourself and you know that the majority of the people who go out there in their 16-foot boats with their 60-horsepower motors are not office workers or solicitors or brain surgeons; they are blue-collar workers that rely on the Labor Party that has so badly let them down. When the Labor Party come to voting for the blue-collar worker, when they come to deciding whether to look after the blue-collar worker or the environmentalists and the soft green groups, it is the poor old blue-collar worker that always cops it in the neck.

They have copped it in the neck this time. They have had their fishing areas reduced. It is not Ron Boswell, it is not Barnaby Joyce, it is not Senator Brandis saying that; it is these guys that represent the recreational fishermen. Recreational anglers have been locked out of vast tracts of Australian ocean and a number of inshore iconic fishing spots such as Osprey Reef, Geographe Bay, the Perth trench and Dampier. What is the point of them saying it if it is not true? Why don't you listen to the blue-collar workers? Why have you let them down so badly time and time again? When Pew comes out here and tells the Greens what a wonderful idea it would be to take 70 per cent of the marine parks of the world and put them in Australian, locking out the commercial fishermen, locking out the amateur fishermen and locking out the charter boats that take fishing people out, why do you follow them? They lead you around by the nose and you do not ever learn. If you never learn you are always going to end up in the same spot. Why do you think the Queensland election was an absolute wipeout for the Labor Party? I will tell you why it was a wipeout. You could see, as you went out further into the working class areas, that the vote had left the Labor Party. I will tell you why. The blue-collar worker has worked out that the Greens-Labor alliance has nothing in it for them. It may look after the progressives of the Labor Party but it does not look after the blue-collar worker and they have worked it out. (Time expired)

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

Before I talk about the issue of carbon pricing, I would like to again echo the words of Senator Conroy in his response to the question on marine bioregions, and that is that the government is committed to delivering a national network of marine reserves, as we have indicated, to protect our marine environment for future generations. As Senator Conroy also said in question time today in relation to recreational fishing, these reserves will not impact recreational fishers, who love to fish, and they will preserve our marine life so that future generations can continue to enjoy this pastime. As someone who comes from a family that enjoys a spot of recreational fishing, I know there will be no impact on recreational fishers, as Senator Conroy has said today.

On the issue of carbon pricing, let us again be clear that a carbon price is the most effective and efficient way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That is what our clean energy future package will do. It will implement a carbon price that will cut carbon emissions and will also drive investment in clean technologies such as solar and wind. Our carbon price will ensure that big polluters pay the carbon price and not all ordinary Australians, as would happen under Mr Abbott's plan. The carbon price is about making the biggest polluters pay so that millions of Australians can pay less tax. The money raised from the carbon price will go to supporting jobs, encouraging investment in clean technologies and helping households. This is in stark contrast to Mr Abbott's plan, which would ensure that families are worse off. In fact, under Mr Abbott's plan, Australian families would have to pay more money in taxes and he would give that money to the big polluters. Mr Abbott is focused on mindless negativity and opposition. We have seen that here today in question time and again in Senator Mason's response in taking note. It was yet another attempt to scare people into believing falsehoods about the impact of the carbon price. We have had to deal with these falsehoods for the last 16 months. The prime speaker of these falsehoods is Mr Abbott himself and of course he is joined by his frontbench and also his backbench.

Just last week Mr Billson came across to Tasmania. We always like to see visitors to Tasmania. Currently, we have the Save a Mainlander tourism campaign, which Mr Deputy President Parry would know all about—that is, encouraging mainlanders to come to the most beautiful state in Australia. But I digress. Mr Billson came down to Tasmania, but unfortunately he talked about the carbon price and launched into his own scare campaign and repeated falsehoods that have been repeated again and again by Mr Abbott. For the last 16 to 18 months we have seen Mr Abbott telling small businesses that they will face extraordinary impacts, particularly electricity price rises of 25 to 30 per cent.

But Rod Sims of the ACCC came out and said that he could not see any circumstances where an average small business would have a carbon related price of anything like 25 per cent. He just does not see how that could be possible. Mr Abbott has been running around with many falsehoods. But just in the last few weeks we saw Mr Abbott changing his rhetoric a bit—although still on the biggest scare campaign that we have seen in this country for a very long time—from 'It's going to be a wrecking ball' to a slow— (Time expired)

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

It is quite interesting that Senator Carol Brown chose to speak on the topic of falsehoods. The largest falsehood of the lot is the slippery, slimy, shonky sideshow that we had over on the other side when asked for some truthful answers to some truthful questions. It is all razzamattaz—they are going to be the biggest and the best of everything: 'We're going to have the biggest carbon price.' I use the term 'carbon price'; I note that Senator Ludlam during question time referred to it as a 'carbon tax.' He clearly did not get the memo from his Labor coalition partners that they do not want to talk about a carbon tax anymore; they want to call it a price, because clearly a tax sounds like a much nastier thing than a carbon price. But whether it is a price or a tax it will, in the end, be paid by Australian consumers. It will be the biggest carbon tax in the world.

We also have the other big thing on offer from the Labor government—that is, the biggest national marine park in the world. Wow! Aren't they great at offering us big things. Of course, we have all these things courtesy of, apparently, the world's best Treasurer. Some of the other things that the Labor government are offering us include the biggest number of failures by construction companies—going into either liquidation or administration. The government are also very good at that. They have also given us the world's most unnecessary deficit. That has also been great. When you watch the world's best Treasurer Mr Swan primping and prancing around, excited at the GDP growth he has, it makes you very sick. He is using whatever he can of the mining resources to, once again, mask some of the other world-class problems we have in Australia—and they are that every industry that is not related to mining is in big trouble. You will have all noticed the retail sales going on. Senator Brandis mentioned the 1,900 jobs going from Fairfax. Reed Construction, St Hilliers and many other large construction companies are going into liquidation, courtesy of the government. Part of the whole package is the tsunami of great big taxes, great big problems that the government have brought on.

It was amusing to listen to Minister Carr. He was allegedly chiding the opposition when he said, 'It's easy to prescribe harsh medicine if you don't have to take it yourself.' Senator Carr needs to listen to what he said. That is what this government is doing; it is making industry sick and it is making consumers sick. And the whole country is going to be very sick. It tries to pretend, as it currently is, that there will not be a slow and long rise in the cost of living, which starts from 1 July, when its little package has already been rolled out—the $300 that is supposed to compensate. How long will it compensate for?

The government cannot even tell us what sort of emissions reduction they are expecting to get by 2020. Bizarrely, Senator Wong claims that we cannot really expect her to give us an annual year by year estimate. How does she know we are going to get to a five per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 if she cannot tell us how much we are likely to have per year or what we are going to average per year? How on earth could she possibly know?

How on earth can Senator Conroy say that there will be no damage done to the recreational and commercial fishers of Australia, when he has not consulted with them in any way on this matter, except to announce, 'Whoopee, once again, we've got the world's biggest whatever it is'—but at what cost to Australian industry and at what cost to Australian consumers? But of course the government do not take the medicine; they just dish it out.

Question agreed to.