Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

It is interesting that this is the minister who is supposed to represent the Labor Left; who is supposed to be a person who can stand her ground; who is supposed to be part of the reason, you would imagine, that the Labor Party did not take on what was obviously the eminently wise immigration policy of John Howard. But since Minister Wong decided that John Howard's policy was the one that she wanted to support, and obviously all the Labor Left colleagues agreed, obviously led by Senator Evans, we now have to rely on that same strength of character, that same commitment, that same stoic nature to be able to guide us through part and parcel of the introduction of the carbon tax.

It is going to be quite perplexing as we see the bills that are coming through at the moment. I was talking today to a substantial farmer from South Australia, the minister's state, who is going to have to pay approximately $35,800 this year for the carbon tax. I was trying to work out what I would tell this farmer that they are going to get for that. What exactly do farmers get for that expenditure? If they turn on the television set they might presume that they get Craig Thomson back. Maybe you get him for that, I do not know. You would be surprised what you can buy with that sort of money. He knows the value of what you can buy on a credit card. Maybe you could get that. Maybe you could get whatever we are seeing on the front page of the Australian at the moment with the AWU and the issues pertaining to that. Maybe that is what you get for the sort of money that is on offer from the carbon tax.

We have to realise that what this is actually going to do is go to a very vulnerable section of the economy, a section, especially in agriculture, that cannot pass on their costs. They will either have to absorb the costs by a lower standard of living or by putting people off. If they are putting people off, I do not quite know how this is assisting regional Australia. They tell us today that they have been the champions of regional Australia. One suspects that they are the champions for regional Australia in the same manner that Minister Wong is the champion of the Labor Left. How she has failed so miserably in trying to look after the issues of the left wing of the Labor Party is how miserably they are looking after regional Australia. They are great at the rhetoric, but they are not so good at the delivery.

Since the Labor Left is really a defunct organisation now, has no real meaning, no purpose, no strength of conviction, no ability to stand on its own two pegs; seeing they are now pointless—

Senator Sterle interjecting—

I congratulate Senator Sterle because he is part of the Right and the Right run the show. You are to be congratulated, Senator Sterle, for the way that you have rolled the Labor Left, backwards and forth, backwards and forth, backwards and forth, and shown what an absolutely pathetic organisation they have become.

Senator Thorp interjecting—

It is good to see a new senator in here who gave her maiden speech merely a couple of weeks ago—and it was great to listen to it—as part of the Labor Left. But within merely days they have been rolled on one of their key policies. This is the sort of conviction, the stoic nature—

Senator McLucas interjecting—

Senator McLucas: there is another person from the Labor Left who was absolutely rolled, backwards and forth, complete and utter doormat to the Right. But we must congratulate Senator Sterle and congratulate Minister Conroy for rolling over Minister Wong, for rolling over Senator Douglas Cameron, for rolling over all the Labor Left and making them look like complete and utter imbeciles without even a philosophical soul. But they will, apparently, be able to look after regional Australia; they will, apparently, be able to look after people with the carbon tax. They cannot even look after themselves. They cannot even stand up for themselves. How on earth can they stand up for anybody else? How on earth could they look after anybody else? In complete hypocritical format we have seen people such as Senator Evans tell us that the greatest thing he ever did—not one of the greatest things he ever did, not amongst the greatest things he ever did, but the greatest thing he ever did—was to wind back the Pacific solution. He is of the Labor Left, you see, but he got rolled. So what we have now is a complete capitulation.

There is another person who is in the Labor Left who is a reflection of the stoic nature, the absolute will of iron, the undoubted character. That person's name is Prime Minister Julia Gillard, another person who has that will of iron, that insurmountable character that can be totally relied on. But we do not quite know anymore whether she has been rolled or not because we do not know what she believes in— (Time expired)

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

I rise to participate in this debate on the motion to take note of answers. The first point I would like to make is that the well-known and dominant principle called the 'vomit principle' is apparent in this debate. During every single question time and at every single opportunity the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, and his disciples repeat, ad infinitum, erroneous and non-factual positions on the carbon price. They believe if these positions are repeated often enough they will become part of the Australian public's understanding.

It is a fairly sobering position that Australia is the 15th largest polluter in the world and the largest polluter per person. There is a general community understanding that something needs to be done about this position. I have participated in a number of climate change forums where people have been invited to come along and make a contribution to this debate. I can specifically recall one at the Norwood town hall which, I must admit, I went to with a degree of trepidation having listened to the position from the other side and being a recently elected senator. It was a reasonably well-attended forum and the people there were concerned that Australia was 15th in the world in pollution and the largest polluter per person. There was no regurgitating of the position put by the opposition. One of the important contributions in that debate was a simple and clear presentation from a university lecturer from the University of Adelaide. He had a very dry economic position. Simply put, his position was: 'If it is free to pollute there is no incentive not to pollute; if there is a price on pollution then you will change behaviour.' That is an economic principle which I think stands across a number of areas, not only the carbon emission debate.

I was a bit of a spender, if you like, with my electricity. I would not turn off lights when I moved from different parts of the house. I quickly got re-educated by the person in charge of the household. I can go back to a debate we had during an enterprise bargaining negotiation in Alice Springs, where the airport manager actually insisted that everybody start being frugal with electricity in order to reduce their bills. We laughed at him but I might add that after a month of him taking solitary action he came back to show us the difference in the electricity bill.

I do not think there is anything wrong with a price on carbon which has the effect of changing our behaviour in using a scarce and expensive resource. What is really apparent in this debate is the absurdity of the coalition. They fail to disclose that cost impacts are only a percentage of business turnover—that electricity is a percentage of business turnover. It is estimated that total electricity costs represent only two per cent of turnover. To come in here with all these examples of educational institutions and hotels that are going to close their doors, lay people off, stop selling or stop educating because a fraction of their business cost has gone up is quite erroneous.

The other side of the equation is simply that there is a compensation package which allows people, particularly small business, to justify the impact of any electricity increase and pass it on. There are proper tests and checks and balances in respect of that but that is a clear and unequivocal position. The compensation package is widely understood to be in place in that event.

In summary, a price on emissions will change behaviour. It will change the behaviour of the big polluters. It has changed my behaviour. I may not be under the same pressure as an ordinary householder in paying my electricity bill but I have changed my behaviour in this matter.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wish to take note of answers given by Senator Wong to questions asked by coalition senators. We have heard more denial from the government this afternoon about the impact of their carbon tax. It stands to reason that schools use a fair amount of electricity: classrooms have to be lit, heated or cooled, and there are computers and AV equipment in many of them. Those school halls the Prime Minister has built, whether or not the schools actually wanted them, all have electric equipment in them too. School canteens prepare hot food for students. All of this requires electricity.

The July power bill of one large high school showed a carbon charge of almost $500 separately listed on an account totalling just $6,000. Schools just cannot cop that. The cost of a canteen lunch is going to have to go up. Shame on Labor. Shame on the government. Once again this government and this Prime Minister are asking us to trust them. They claim any increases will be offset by the indexation of federal funding. They want parents to trust them on that and now they want parents to trust them on the Gonski review of school funding.

This government is playing Australians for fools. It thinks it can get away with anything. The problem that is now coming home to roost, though, is that no-one trusts this Prime Minister or this shambolic, deceptive, incompetent government that she leads. Over the weekend we saw a leaked list of 3,200 schools—Julia Gillard's hit list of schools that will have their funding cut. Hit lists are not new to the Labor Party. Back in 2004, when Mark Latham was the new sensation and Julia Gillard his chief cheerleader, Labor had a hit list of schools targeted for funding cuts. They were proud of it. You will not often hear me praise Mark Latham but at least he was honest about the fact that he was committed to cutting school funding. Julia Gillard says she has no plans to cut funding—just like she had no plans to challenge Kevin Rudd; just like she had no plans to alter the private health insurance rebate; just like she had no plans to introduce the world's biggest carbon tax. Yet on Monday during an interview on Sky News, the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Minister Garrett, was asked to guarantee that no school would be worse off. He could not.

We have the Prime Minister running around telling us that everything is wonderful—that there will be chicken in every pot, or perhaps I should say a sausage roll in every lunchbox; everyone will be better off. On the same day we have her own minister refusing to support her claims. If we take everything that has been said in the last day, Labor's position is that every school will be better off—but they cannot guarantee that no school will be worse off. No wonder parents are confused.

I would like to turn for a moment to focus on schools across the Great Southern region of Western Australia—an area in which I take a great interest. I had a look at the hit list and was horrified to discover that some of the schools targeted for significant cuts are some of those most in need. There are many communities across the Great Southern that have been identified as being areas of high socioeconomic need. They are proud and hardworking communities, but they are not necessarily wealthy communities. For instance, one of the schools on the hit list for a funding reduction is the Western Australian College of Agriculture at Narrogin. This is a school that is training the next generation of farmers. We all know that it is becoming harder to keep young people working on the land. Families that have farmed for generations are selling up because their kids do not want to carry on farming.

For those who do choose to remain, we need to ensure that their kids have the best education possible and the very best practical farming education there is so that they can run successful farms in the years to come. We are talking about people who will grow our food in the years ahead. This government seems incapable of understanding that simple fact. The Western Australian College of Agriculture at Narrogin is slated to have its funding slashed by over $2.7 million. To take another example, the Gonski hit list proposes a funding cut of over $1.7 million for the Mount Barker Community College, a school that services a catchment area with a significant Indigenous population and high levels of socioeconomic disadvantage. There are many other schools on Labor's hit list, including Kojonup District High School, Katanning Senior High School, Southern Cross District High, Brookton District High and Newdigate Primary School. By my count, 41 schools across the Great Southern region are on the hit list. None of them are wealthy schools. Many of them are government schools. This is more bad news for the Great Southern community from a government that either does not understand rural and regional communities or simply does not care.

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I sometimes think that on the issue of carbon pricing and how to deal with global warming we have the most clear and striking contrast between the attitudes of the people opposite and the people on my side in this place. There is a very stark contrast.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

I am glad to see that even some of the flat-earthers have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century to recognise that global warming is a significant issue in our country—in fact, in the whole world. Where I live is a coastal region surrounded by areas like Clifton Beach, Sandford and Lauderdale. Work done by our local council, the Clarence City Council, has shown that the dangers of inundation on our coast are very real and significant, particularly dangers coming from storm surges. We are dealing with a very serious problem. It is quite disconcerting to have it trivialised so much by those people opposite. At least the government is taking very sensible action in trying to do something about this serious threat. We are not doing it by imposing a debt of $1,300 on every household in Australia and then handing that money over to the big polluters to spend as they will in some bizarre hope that, if given extra money, they will cut their pollution. No, that is not how Labor is addressing it. Labor is addressing it by making sure that the big polluters have an incentive to change their behaviour and reduce their carbon emissions by having a carbon price put on those emissions. It is a sensible and practical way to do it.

It is often said by members opposite that this is the world's biggest tax. In fact, Australia is in the middle of the pack in terms of global action on carbon pricing. The report The critical decade: international action on climate change found that 90 countries, representing 90 per cent of the global economy, have committed to reduce their carbon pollution and have policies in place to achieve those reductions. The Climate Commission concluded that by next year 850 million people will be living in countries or states with emissions trading schemes, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Those people opposite should be praising this government for taking sensible action on this issue rather than being so negative.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For lying?

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you wish to use the word 'lie', this gives lie to the claim by the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, that we are only going to achieve a significant reduction in emissions if there is global action, and at the moment there is no sign whatsoever that the rest of the world is going to do things like introduce carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes. If there is a lie, there is the lie. What will the coalition's Direct Action policy take us to? It will destroy our international competitiveness, it will leave Australian businesses behind the rest of the world, it will make the essential task of reducing emissions even more difficult and costly for us and it will rip $1,000 out of the pockets of hardworking Australians, pensioners, students and families as you reduce—

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

You are as untruthful as your leader.

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ha ha!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ignore him. He's completely irrelevant.

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know. If the coalition get their way, it will be particularly painful for my state of Tasmania: 171,000 Tasmanian taxpayers may well lose their tax cut; 102,000 Tasmanians and 5,000 self-funded retirees will have money ripped out of their pockets if Tony Abbott rolls back carbon pricing; and a couple on the full age pension will have over $500 slashed from their pension under Mr Abbott's plan. What is most concerning to me is that this is a double whammy for Tasmania, because this is the same opposition that would, if in government, also rip $600 million per year from my state alone. I really wish the Leader of the Opposition in this place were present here because I am still waiting for a commitment from Mr Abetz that he will stand with his fellow Tasmanians, like yourself Mr Deputy President, to make sure that that cruel fate does not come to our state.

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

I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Wong to questions asked by coalition senators about carbon pricing. It is not actually the question I was hoping to be speaking on, but, nonetheless, I am pleased to participate in this part of the debate. I note the comments of Senator Gallacher, who spoke earlier. I am sorry he is not here. If my memory serves me correctly, Senator Gallacher and, indeed, Senator Sterle made a big song and dance about the carbon tax and transport, but what needs to be remembered is that, if the Australian Labor Party is re-elected, in 2015 there will indeed be a carbon tax on transport. I did not hear Senator Gallacher talk about that today. I wonder why. He knows what effect the carbon tax will have on transport from 2015. I would have hoped that he would stand up today to defend and look after his constituency by viciously attacking the imposition of a carbon tax on transport. He knows what financial impact it will have on the sector; he knows the potential employment impact.

I want to talk about the greatest lie ever told in a deliberate attempt to mislead the Australian people, and that, of course, was the statement by the Prime Minister prior to the last election that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led. That indeed has proved to be a lie. The opposition have said quite clearly that we will untie this lie. If we are elected we will abolish the carbon tax. I suspect I know what will happen in relation to the carbon tax after the next election if we win it. Those opposite will be sitting on the side of the parliament which is voting for the abolition of that carbon tax. They will be voting with us in relation to the carbon tax, so every single word uttered by Minister Wong and the conga line of people on the other side about the bonuses and positive impact of the carbon tax will be thrown out in about the time it takes to count the vote after the division, which will no doubt be called by the Greens, who no doubt will be Labor's bed partners at that stage.

In the time left to me, I want to go back to a question asked by Senator Nash of Minister Wong. I do not think anyone should underestimate the impact of the Prime Minister's comment in the past week on small business in this country. When the Prime Minister said that business should simply pass on additional costs to customers in full, she belled the cat on the impact of this tax on small business and on all Australians. It was an extraordinary statement from the Prime Minister of this country. It was a statement undoubtedly driven by the fact that she knows in her heart of hearts what impact this tax will have. She knows full well that she told the world's greatest lie in relation to the world's greatest carbon tax before the last election, to buy off the vote of the Australian Greens. We are now confronted with a tax that will do untold economic damage to this country, and the Australian Labor Party is going to vote to abolish it anyway after the next election if the coalition is elected.

I want to talk about the company that Senator Nash referred to, Geoffrey Thompson Holdings. They have been hit with a one-month carbon tax bill of over $10,000, or 15 per cent, and cannot pass that on. As Geoffrey Thompson Holdings said, they 'may have to reduce their workforce to save costs'. Another company, a food manufacturer from central Victoria, approached me in the last 24 hours. They said they had been told by the supermarket they supply that under no circumstances should they even contemplate passing on their increased costs, because they simply would not be paid and that order would go to another supplier who was prepared to try to absorb the costs themselves. This will have an extraordinarily damaging impact on our economy. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.