Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) 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 Ronaldson today relating to the carbon tax.

I refer to Senator Wong's comments regarding the Alcoa bailout at Point Henry aluminium smelter. I particularly want to take note of the fact that the minister, despite repeated requests, refused to acknowledge that the carbon tax impact on that Point Henry smelter was going to be $40-odd million. She then refused to acknowledge that the amount of the carbon tax just remarkably happened to be the equivalent of the bailout amount. This further establishes that this bailout was using borrowed money to cover up a bad tax that is based on a lie. The fact that the minister would not acknowledge the remarkable coincidence about the bailout figure and the carbon tax figure just shows again that the Labor Party stands utterly condemned in relation to this lie that was delivered five days before the last election.

The Labor Party can talk as much as they like about the world not changing on 1 July but the Australian people know full well that a carbon tax that has no equivalent in the world is going to dramatically damage this country and damage this economy. As I asked the minister during my question, what is she going to do for those businesses and industries throughout Australia which are now facing complete and utter destruction, in relation to a bailout for them? Was it because Geelong happens to be a marginal seat that drove this?

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

What's wrong with that?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection from Senator Farrell. Senator Farrell, I am absolutely staggered that you interjected that. It is now on the public record and I will be reminding you constantly about this. What is wrong with this toxic carbon tax which you voted for, which you supported before the last election, is that the bailout for Alcoa will not be provided to industries in your home state. There will be no compensation for them, no bailout for them, no compensation for small business in Adelaide or throughout South Australia. And you are saying to the chamber and saying to the Australian people, 'It's fine to put money into a marginal seat. What's wrong with that?' What is wrong with that is that if there were not a carbon tax we would not be required to try to pick winners in the Australian economy. If your Prime Minister had not gone to the last election with a lie—

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

Your Prime Minister too.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are absolutely right. I suspect she probably will not be your Prime Minister in about five months time. Your Prime Minister went to the last election and lied to the people of Geelong and told them a lie: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' I can tell you, Mr Deputy President, that in a poll conducted in the Adelaide Advertiser in February of this year some 53 per cent said they did not support a carbon tax. Well over half the people polled of an 800-person poll said they do not support the carbon tax. And we know from published polls elsewhere that there has been further slippage in those who support a carbon tax and a significant increase in those who are opposed to it. No amount of talk from the Australian Labor Party, no amount of spin from the Australian Labor Party, will change that. It includes the latest line, parroted again by the government leader in this chamber, that we will not revoke this carbon tax, that we will not introduce legislation to rid this country of the carbon tax. Every single person on this side of the chamber, as well as the Leader of the Opposition and those in the other place, is absolutely committed to the abolition of a tax that we know will destroy this country. The government leader in the Senate is asking for a bet in relation to whether we will do it. I have got some news for the government leader: do not waste your money, my friend. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I seek to take note of answers from Senator Wong in response to a question from Senator Ronaldson and from Senator Evans in response to a question from—

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

Senator Feeney, there is a motion before the chair that it is only the answer by Senator Wong. You can move a separate motion, if you wish to, but I will have to put this motion first.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will follow the dictate of the day and confine myself to Senator Ronaldson's question. We have just heard in the triumphalist tone of Senator Ronaldson the distortions that continue to bedevil this very important debate. Whether we are talking about the carbon price, whether we are talking about the mining tax or, indeed, whether we are talking about border protection, on all of these key questions we see that the Liberal Party's policy does not survive even the barest of scrutiny.

Senator Ronaldson has just said how outrageous it is that government policy might pick winners in the Australian economy. I invite Senator Ronaldson to turn his eye to his own policy. The coalition's policy with respect to carbon is that they will achieve a five per cent target in CO2 emission cuts by 2020 based on 1990 levels. The coalition policy boasts that they will abate some 140 million tonnes of carbon per annum. It is entirely probable that most people in the electorate would be astonished to discover that the Liberal Party come to this debate with the same target that the government have.

If one listens to the coalition, as they roam the highways and the byways of this country, one might very well think that they were climate change deniers. We hear them proclaiming that it is impossible to reduce the temperature of the planet. We hear them saying that carbon is not a real threat to our climate. We hear them deny that there is anthropogenic climate change. But when you sift through their policy, you find that they possess the very same target that we do. But they do not intend to achieve this target through using a carbon price—a price signal. They have no intention of achieving this target by using the tried and tested mechanisms of price, demand and supply—no, no, no.

The coalition come to this debate with their own plan, the Direct Action Plan—a plan which defies the markets and the price signal. By their own reckoning, it will cost $3.2 billion over four years—no doubt a number designed by the most reputable of catering companies when the Liberal Party sat down to do their costings. So how is it, Senator Ronaldson, you might say on the one hand that you are appalled to have a government picking winners in the Australian economy, when in fact it is our policy that talks about the market and a price signal and your policy has at its very heart the notion that you will pick winners in the Australian economy? Your Direct Action Plan only works if a future coalition cabinet sits around a table and does precisely that—pick winners in the Australian economy. And no doubt there will be plans and plots across Australia that you will choose to fund and others that you will not choose to fund, and your own marvellous Stalinist five-year plan to abate carbon will be launched. It will be you who will be picking winners in this economy. It is this government, this Labor government, which has understood that the price signal is the way to achieve true and effective change in this economy.

Senator Ronaldson has clearly not read his own policy, because he proclaimed that a future Liberal government would rid the country of a carbon tax. But, of course, what you would not be ridding the country of is the goal to abate carbon and you would not be ridding the country of the fact that, by your own reckoning, you are signing up to $3.2 billion of additional expenditure over four years. How is it going to be funded and from whence will it be funded? That is just one of many mysteries that make up the $70 billion black hole that is the Liberal Party's policy proposition. They have no idea how any of this stuff will be funded. They have no idea what they intend to do, but they do have a strong commitment to rhetoric. This is why Senator Ronaldson says that Labor's policy will destroy this country. Well, you did not get the memo, Senator Ronaldson. While the rest of the coalition have been crab-walking away from their apocalyptic pronouncements, you have come into this place and continued them. I can assure you that on 1 July the Australian economy will be in very fine repair. It will still have the lowest inflation and unemployment rates.

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

Whyalla will still be there.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whyalla will still be there on 1 July and so, too, will be one of the strongest economies in the world and, indeed, one of the strongest economies in the Western world.

So we see in this area of climate change the same kind of deceit that we have seen with boat people and with the mining tax. While the Liberal Party says it is committed to offshore processing, it stands determined to stop this government from making the amendments that are required to enable offshore processing. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was interesting to hear that contribution from Senator Feeney, because I just did not feel like his heart was in it when he talked about the role of the market. But, like every other Labor politician and particularly those who have been involved in state election after state election, they only ever want to talk about the opposition. They never actually want to talk about their own policy and their own agenda. So let us actually talk about what the Labor party have done in this area. By the very fact that they are seeking to compensate industries, to provide special one-off grants to certain firms and industries, the Labor Party concede that this policy is damaging to production in Australia. It is by those very facts that the Labor party concede that this tax will damage economic activity in Australia.

This tax is the equivalent of an eternal tariff. We once had tariffs on goods coming into Australia; but, under the insanity of the modern day Labor Party that has lost its soul to the Greens, we now have tariffs on exports from Australia. So, if someone makes a television or makes glasses or makes anything in Australia, they will pay a carbon tax directly or indirectly. But if someone wishes to import them, they will not pay the carbon tax. Everyone in Australia knows that no-one else in the world is paying a carbon tax of this quantum, of this magnitude or of this extent. I am proudly one of the free traders in this parliament, but I never thought the Labor Party would reach the insanity of consciously unlevelling the playing field so that those who provide jobs and employment in Australia, those who manufacture in Australia, have to pay a tax that those who import do not. It is the very definition of insanity, but it is the core of this carbon tax.

In this carbon tax are also two profound errors that signify the problems of a modern-day Labor Party that has lost its way. Firstly, there is the delusion that we can regulate the temperature of the globe; there is the delusion that Australia on its own can profoundly change the direction of the world. This is the same hubris that led the Labor Party and the Prime Minister to breach their fundamental words, the words stated down the barrel of that camera, which no Australian has not seen: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead.' There has rarely, if ever, been such a profound breach of trust with the Australia people. But I say to the Labor Party that they still have a chance—they still have a chance to repudiate their own lost cause and retake their soul from the Greens down in the corner there. The Prime Minister blames them for driving her to breach this promise and for driving her to make every manufacturing job in Australia more at risk than it otherwise would be, because all of those jobs, being energy intensive, now face a tax that a competitor who imports does not.

The other profound error at the core of this carbon tax is what Labor has used it for—that is, to recreate the culture of patronage in this country. What the Labor Party is doing today—although they would not answer Senator Ronaldson's question—is recreating a culture of patronage, where businesses seek the favour of government not only for survival but for economic good fortune. In this case, businesses are coming to the government simply to try to undo the damage that this government is imposing. What insanity do we have when the government levies a burden upon a business and then tries willy-nilly, at will and capriciously to hand out favours! What do the workers at other aluminium smelters in Australia whose jobs are at risk say? Under the Labor Party there is this curse: there is the urge toward patronage to reward one's supporters and to punish one's opponents. If any business in Australia does not realise that when they speak out against the damaging policy of this government this culture of patronage will be used against them to reward their competitors and to punish them for daring to have an opinion, then they misunderstand the modern-day Labor Party. The Labor Party has become the modern-day version of industry policy Tammany Hall, where you punish people and then use the power of patronage to potentially undo some of that damage.

The Australian people know that this is a damaging tax. They know it makes their lives more expensive. They know it makes their jobs more at risk than they would be without it. No matter what obfuscation and spin the Labor Party provides, it will not escape the judgment of the people when it is held to account for this broken promise.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another day, another scare campaign—and, as usual, we heard it during question time. You heard yourself, Deputy President, the scare campaign that is being peddled by those opposite, who come here and talk about who is being affected out there in certain parts of our country. You need only reflect back on when Mr Tony Abbott was doing the rounds of some businesses in Canberra, going into butcher shops and claiming that a T-bone would increase by some exorbitant amount and going into a wrecking yard saying that people would not be able to purchase equipment or spare parts from wrecked cars as a result of some added tax. 'It does not matter where you are. You can't hide. You will be affected by this new carbon tax.' That is their agenda, that is their claim and that is an absolute nonsense.

On the Alcoa rescue package, it is quite clear that those opposite are deceiving the public in respect of what is happening in that part of the country. The Hydro aluminium smelter at Kurri Kurri prompted the review of Alcoa's Point Henry facility. The government has been working with Alcoa since it announced the review of its Point Henry aluminium operations earlier this year. That is a demonstrated example of us working with this company in times of need. It has nothing to do with the carbon price; it has nothing to do with the scare campaign that the opposition has been peddling. It is to do with what is happening in the global financial crisis. We all know there has been an increased global capacity that is putting downward pressure on this company and also on world aluminium prices. Alcoa has made it quite clear that the Point Henry smelter's difficulties have nothing to do with the carbon price. The company has even said that the high Australian dollar and the low world price of aluminium are the reasons for the review of the Point Henry operations. It is nothing to do with the scare campaign that those opposite are peddling.

Let us compare pears to pears when it comes to what our household assistance package is going to deliver. Nine out of 10 households will get some compensation or assistance as a result of our direct payments. Almost six million households throughout this country will get tax cuts or increases in payments that cover the entire average price of the impact. Over four million Australian households will get an extra buffer. As well, about one million Australians will no longer have to lodge a tax return; that is part of the overall package. In summary, about $9.90 per week will cover the costs but people are getting $10.10 per week from the government. That demonstrates we have put enough of a buffer in the compensation for households to cover the issues that people have been raising with us.

In respect of what the opposition are delivering, however, we know that the Treasury has summed up their package and that what they propose as alternative compensation is going to be about $1,300 per year. We know that it will not have an impact on the environment. For example, part of their overall package is planting trees. That is not a bad concept, but to plant enough trees to cover what they propose to do in their emissions-trading targets will result in trees to be planted over an area the size of the state of Victoria, so there is no way that their policy can deliver the requirements that are intended. It is not going to be an outcome that is suitable for abating any emissions. We know it is going to hurt taxpayers. We know it is going to deliver a $1,300-a-year impost on taxpayers.

We know that they claim that they are going to review or roll back the government's package. We know that that is a fallacy. We know that they are not going to do that. A lot of them over on the other side—I spoke on this the other day—have gone out and purchased shares in the mining and resources sector. Who in their right mind would go out and purchase shares in the mining and resources sector if they were going to withdraw or roll back that particular policy? It demonstrates that they are not honest. They are not sincere when it comes to rolling back this policy. It is a complete fallacy and a complete lie when they come into this chamber and peddle that sort of nonsense. (Time expired)

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

The response of the two government speakers so far has been entirely predictable. They wail about a scare campaign, trying to divert the attention of the Australian public from the facts, which are that there will be a carbon tax, it will be taking effect on 1 July and it will cost all Australians, all Australian businesses and all Australian consumers. The other tactic, of course, that both government senators took was to attack the coalition's policy and the way that we propose to reduce carbon emissions. In both cases, they showed a patent lack of understanding that our process is to decide through a competitive tender which processes to follow to reduce emissions and that that competitive tender will be looking for the maximum reduction for the minimum cost. Of course, that has dual benefits, those being that it can ensure that there are real reductions, not just a shift of emissions out of Australia into other countries, which the carbon tax will effect, and also ensure that those real reductions are achieved at the lowest possible cost.

The fact is that the government like to say that only the top 300 emitters will pay this tax. Certainly the tax is only levied against the top 300—or, I think, 294—but the reality is that everybody will pay the tax. Businesses will pay it. Consumers will pay it. Businesses in particular receive no compensation. The government like to talk about the compensation that they will be paying to consumers, but of course the reality is that only half of the tax that they take is actually returned, which means that somebody is missing out. Half the tax that people pay is returned and the other half is not, so someone misses out, and I am sure it is not going to be just the big emitters that escape the compensation.

Senator Colbeck today asked a question about a garden centre in Tasmania. This just highlights the reality in Tasmania. The reality is that the real impact of this tax is becoming readily apparent in Tasmania, as it is all across the country. Right across Tasmania, small businesses are getting letters—small businesses that are dependent on the fact that they have imports that come into the state via freight and that their produce goes out of the state—from freight companies and from packaging companies, indicating that they are going to pay more because of the carbon tax. This is not just conjecture; these letters are arriving in their mail, saying, 'You will be receiving an increase in cost in terms of the freight you'll pay.' It might be 1.9 cent or it might be two per cent—whatever it is, they are getting letters from all of their suppliers telling them that the carbon tax is going to put up their costs.

We heard today about a garden and rural supplies centre in Sorell, in southern Tasmania. They have put a sign up warning their customers—as I think it is probably appropriate for a business to do—that they are going to have to put up their prices because of the impact that the carbon tax is having on them, particularly through the increased costs of their suppliers and those things that they then on-sell. But what did we hear today? That was pointed out to Minister Combet on 936 ABC radio this morning, and what did he do? He went off, typically, as this government does, in a half-cocked response to this without any idea of what the reality was and took the typical union boss approach to this. When faced with the hard truth, when faced with facts, the typical thing that a union boss does is that they threaten the person who is rashly raising the issue. He gets out the big stick and says, 'This isn't good enough, and we're going to set the ACCC onto that business.'

That is not really how a minister of the Crown should approach these issues. Minister Combet needs to remember that he is no longer a union boss; he is now responsible for taking a considered and reasonable approach to these issues. His going out and saying, 'We're going to set the ACCC on them,' and quotes like, 'It's like misleading conduct,' when he does not know the details at all were indicative of the way that the government approaches these issues when faced with the facts. It also shows that he is not even on top of his own brief, because the ACCC has confirmed that the particular garden centre are not at all in breach of the act. On hearing the minister say that he was going to set the ACCC onto them, what did they do? They rang the ACCC just to check the facts and make sure that they were not doing anything wrong, and they were told that they were not. And yet Minister Combet on the radio got stuck into them, pulled out the big stick and said: 'These guys are in trouble. They can't go round and say that their prices are going to go up because of the carbon tax.' I think this highlights the fact that Tasmanian businesses and businesses right across the country are going to pay much higher prices. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.