Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by Senator Cormann, Ryan, Ruston and Williams today relating to the carbon tax.

Three years ago, we were told by Ms Julia Gillard, the then new Prime Minister, that she was taking charge of a good government that had lost its way. That was the justification given by Ms Gillard for her unprecedented seizing of the reins of the Labor Party leadership and the prime ministership of this country from Mr Kevin Rudd. She claimed that it was a good government that had lost its way; that caused people like Senator Farrell, Senator Feeney and Mr Shorten to engineer unprecedented change; and that saw the Australian people effectively go to bed one night with one prime minister and wake up the following morning to discover they had a different prime minister. The Australian people had absolutely no say in the matter, which was decided by the factional controllers of the Labor Party.

It may then have been a good government that had lost its way, but now it is simply a government that is lost. Whether it is under Mr Rudd or Ms Gillard, this Labor government long ago lost any sense of unity. As the old saying goes: 'If you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country.' That is clear from what we see from those opposite. The ongoing civil war in this government really knows no boundaries. Long ago, this government equally lost any credibility for its financial management of the country, with the record debts we have seen, the record levels of deficit and the promises to return the country to surplus this year, only to have those promises broken. This government long ago lost the confidence of the Australian people in its ability to successfully deliver any of its programs—be they the school halls program, which saw massive cost blow-outs and caused a great waste of taxpayer money; be it the pink batts program—

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: my understanding was that Senator Birmingham was taking note of the answers by Senator Conroy to questions in question time today, except for Senator Abetz's question. So far, Senator Birmingham has got nowhere near the questions or the answers given. I ask you to draw him back to the questions.

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

Senator Birmingham is in order. He is responding to some of the content of the answers given by Senator Conroy. As you know, there is some latitude to the debate, providing you stick to the topic. Senator Birmingham is relevant.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government long ago lost any ability to claim to be making Australia more competitive, especially because of its carbon price. It is one of the many features of how this government has lost its way and its credibility—the carbon tax, the mining tax and making Australia's business environment one of the least cost competitive places in the Western world to do business. It is to the shame of this government that its policies, including those discussed today, are such a demonstration of how much it has lost its way. We now have the reality that this government has lost any sense of moral compass whatsoever, as each of its members spends far more time worrying about their own jobs than they do about the jobs of other Australians. Every single member of this government seems completely preoccupied, not with the impact of the carbon tax, not with the hurt to levels of confidence in the Australian business community and not with the hurt to the competitiveness of Australian business but with the bad polls that are afflicting their government and what they can do about it by changing the Labor leadership. Now, to be frank, the government have reached the point where they have lost any right to be taken seriously at all.

The cannibalisation of the Labor government is an amazing feat to watch. We have now seen leadership ballots and battles in June 2010, in February 2012, in March 2013 and now, again, in June 2013. It would all be a big joke if it were not so serious in terms of the harm it is doing to the country and if it were not for the fact that, with the sideshow happening opposite, the government have completely lost sight of the important policies and the harm that some of their policies, like the carbon tax, are doing to the Australian people. While the sideshow continues, Australia continues to suffer, with the highest carbon tax in the world and the broadest coverage of any carbon tax in the world, with an increase next year, an increase the year after that, with the expansion of the coverage to the trucking industry and with Senator Conroy today failing to rule out hitting the family farm or family car as well.

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

Once again, today in question time we heard a perpetuation of the fear and smear campaign that those opposite have delivered consistently, along their path of opposition, as critics of the emissions-trading scheme that we have introduced as a government. Many years ago, the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy that Senator Feeney and I were both on heard at first-hand evidence from economists explaining why we needed to introduce a emissions-trading scheme in our country, to serve it well and look after our unique environment.

Let us look at the report card on the scheme, what this scheme has delivered since 1 July. For a start, emissions in the National Electricity Market are down now by 7.4 per cent. Renewable energy generation is up almost 30 per cent. I recall, during those inquiry hearings, people coming to us and explaining the renewable energy possibilities in this country, as far down south as the Great Ocean—wave energy, solar energy, wind technology. But all of those possibilities have generated one thing that I know those opposite have an issue with, and that is jobs. They will stop the jobs in this country if they are elected, because they will wind back all our renewable energy targets and accomplishments.

According to the report card, as a result of our emissions-trading scheme, there have been 150,000 new jobs created. If it were not for our scheme, those 150,000 jobs would not have been created. We know those opposite will stop the jobs if they are elected, as a result of them winding back the emissions-trading scheme. We also know that they will claw back the good household assistance packages that were provided to many low-income earners and pensioners around the country. Those opposite claim that they will not take those amounts back off them, but we know that is a fallacy. We know that that is the situation their actions will lead to.

Recently, I was privileged to visit a sauce manufacturing company in the southern industrial areas of Yatala, on the way down to the Gold Coast. I was down there a few weeks ago. It is only a small company—and we heard today in the chamber questions about the impact of emissions trading on small businesses. This is a small business of a little under 70 employees. But, as a result of our assistance as a government in granting them a bit over $109,000, accompanied by their own contribution, they have installed renewable energy technologies. There are solar panels on the roofs of the factory building now, generating solar energy back into the enterprise to make sure that they are getting the benefit out of doing something for the environment, because in doing that they are cutting their emissions. In addition, that is helping them to reduce their power bills by $19,000 and they are intensifying their operations by 31 per cent. That is what this sort of scheme is all about—assisting small businesses, assisting the environment and protecting people from the effects of climate change.

I want to address what is happening in my own state. Up there we have a conservative government. I have never seen such a conservative government in my life. The Liberal National Party up there—

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Senator Sterle, I will take that interjection. It would be a stark comparison between the two states to see which is the more conservative. Up there they are increasing electricity prices twofold. We have people out on the streets after the Premier up there sacked over 25,000 employees in that state. They are struggling on their knees, yet the Liberal-National Party Premier in Queensland wants to jack up electricity prices. You can imagine what that is doing to the economy and what it will do to people in that area. It is disgraceful that we see that sort of conduct from a Liberal-National Party government in my home state of Queensland. That is just a curtain-raiser for what we will see in this nation should we be extremely unfortunate and see those opposite form government in this nation. (Time expired)

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

I rise to also take note of the answers given by Senator Conroy to questions asked by Senators Cormann, Ryan, Williams and Ruston. I want to take the chamber back—and it is good to see a couple of TWU old fellows on the other side here to listen—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Three of you, sorry, I apologise, Senator Furner.

Government senators interjecting—

Senator Feeney, the soon-to-be member for Batman I think. Of course, it would have been far better if you were a woman, Senator Feeney; it would not have caused anywhere near the controversy. But I digress. Three years ago on Monday last was the changeover to the now Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. What time is it? Is she still the Prime Minister? It is half past three. I am not quite sure who is the Prime Minister.

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

I rise on a point of order, Deputy President. It is the same point of order that Senator Brown took earlier. The questions that were put to the government in question time related to the carbon price. The question that related to leadership and other speculation was from Senator Abetz to Senator Conroy. I draw your attention to the fact that the senator over there is misleading the chamber with regard to taking note of answers.

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

Thank you for the point of order. You are starting to debate it.

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

I rise on the same point of order, Deputy President. From the government's perspective this performance is so terrible that I have no desire to interrupt it.

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

That is not a point of order, Senator Feeney. Senator Edwards, I draw your attention to the motion before the chair. You have not addressed the substance of the motion in your opening remarks. I am sure you are about to move there.

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

I am. In relation to the carbon tax questions, I am not quite sure where I can go back to, whether to Prime Minister Rudd's ETS proposal for which he was axed and brought down without an election or whether to Prime Minister Gillard's carbon tax that she introduced after going to the election saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. However, we have got a carbon tax. In actual fact it is the biggest carbon tax in the world by far. I point out that this week the price of carbon in Europe is around five euros, which is around $6.87 in our money. And you are proposing to put it up. I was very pleased to hear that the opposition climate spokesman, Greg Hunt, moved to suspend the standing orders to allow him to call on the government to scrap the increase which is proposed for 1 July, a five per cent increase on the biggest carbon tax in the world.

I really find it quite amusing when those on the other side, the Labor Party, talk about small business. They are the only government in this country that has taken big business to small business. I know because I still am involved in business. I do not know too many small businesses that use 10 megawatt hours a year. It must be somebody sitting at home with their computer on. It works out to a $260 increase. That is a lot of hot dinners. You can dumb it down. It is called reduction to the ridiculous: $5 a week, yes. Let us just reduce it. What is that a day? It is less than a dollar a day. It does not really matter, but, on top of all the other dollars a day that have gone on in the reign of this Rudd-Gillard government, there are just so many of them.

In answer to Senator Williams on fuel for heavy transport: 'Oh, it's only 29c.'

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

27.

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

He said 29c a tonne per hundred kilometres. I am quite happy for you to take it up with him, Senator Gallacher, if you think it is 27. But I will only apply it to my own experience: for 7,000 tonnes of grapes coming through a winery with an average trip of about 200 kilometres per trip, that is an increased impost on that business of $4,060 per annum. But let us just reduce it, dumb it down, to that argument where the punters out there will not have any idea as to what on earth you are talking about. Anybody that drives a truck—

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order! You continue, Senator Edwards. Order on my right!

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

Thank you. These trucks are going to be exempt, aren't they? For what? For two years. Okay, but it is coming at you like a tsunami. Where is Tony Sheldon on this one? Where is Tony Sheldon, your boss, on all these things? He is nowhere to be seen. It is—what do they call it?—a death tax. Road users get a carbon tax. How ridiculous. They are already paying an excise, and so are mums and dads, but you did not rule that out. Senator Conroy did not rule that out in his answers, did he? And look out for the farmers: you are coming after them as well.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow Senator Edwards—and I say that tongue in cheek, Mr Deputy President. I just think we have to clarify a couple of silly statements from Senator Edwards. We are 'coming for the farmers'—what a ridiculous statement. The minister has made that very, very clear. You know that that is a mistruth, Senator Edwards, so just keep stirring up the scare campaign.

But can I go to another point where Senator Edwards, in his stumbling five minutes—I do not know what it was, actually; it was something to do with grapes—actually attacked the good persona of the National Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union, Tony Sheldon, when he said, 'Where is Tony Sheldon?' Let me just remind those opposite where Tony Sheldon and thousands of Australian truck drivers were, along with this side of the federal political sphere, probably about 18 months ago when we were introducing, through the other House, through Minister Shorten, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Let us have a little walk back through history, shall we, when in this place none other than the good Senators Gallacher, Feeney and Furner and I stood up here for hours and batted. There were 30 years of my previous life, and a lot longer for the good Senator Gallacher, to bring a safe, sustainable rate to Australia's truck industry, where our truckies could go out, leave home, kiss the kids goodbye, wave goodbye to the wife, head off up north or across the Nullarbor or wherever it might be, knowing that they could have a rate that would bring them home safely, a rate that would give them the—

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

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I see no relevance in the subject matter of safe rates to the taking note of questions. Nothing you have said has even attempted in the nearly two minutes that you have—

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

Thank you.

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

And I ask you to direct him to the noting of questions.

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

Thank you, Senator Edwards. Senator Furner, I really do not need assistance, but if you want to speak to the point of order—Senator Furner.

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

On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: certainly during question time Senator Williams asked questions in relation to the transport industry. Senator Sterle is clearly answering the taking note of answers provided here today, based on what was provided during question time. Even Senator Macdonald had his little toy truck out there in front of him, playing with it.

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

Thank you, Senator Furner. Senator Sterle, you are in order. You are sticking within the realm of the debate. You have the call.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much for that protection.

Senator Edwards interjecting—

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

Senator Edwards, that is disorderly. Senator Sterle, you have the call.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I think the five minutes of Senator Edwards was disorderly, but that is not casting aspersions on your good self. I would not do that, Mr Deputy President.

As I said, on this side of the chamber, there are those of us who fought for years to give our Australian truckies the opportunity to leave home and get home safely in one piece and to be sustainable, because they are constantly faced with a barrage of challenges and costs. We talk about this side of the chamber. May I—through you, Mr Deputy President—mention Senators Williams, Cormann, Ryan and Ruston, who all of a sudden, in a one-hour period today, have all become friends of the trucking industry. I sit here and I do listen at times. I actually do listen if I can stay awake long enough with some of the rubbish that goes on in here. But how dare they in one hour today decide to become friends of the trucking industry, to be worried about the on-road costs of Australia's heavy vehicle industry, when in this chamber last year every man and woman of them, to a T, voted against the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal? They voted as a bloc, proudly, after filibustering debate, against safe rates for Australia's truck drivers. I find it highly hypocritical. In fact, the level of hypocrisy in this place does not surprise me, but today it did tweak a little nerve.

I have to just continue there. I think to myself, 'Are they standing up for Australia's trucking industry, or are they standing up for Australia's transport operators, those small businesses like I was for 11 fantastic years?' I built my own little business; I fed my family; I built a house—with the great support of my wife. I could not have done it without her. She was home bringing up two babies while I was away every fortnight running between Perth and Darwin on my own. There was no fatigue management in those days. There were no safe rates. There was no Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. There is now today. I say thank you to the Labor government, thank you to the Greens for their support and thank you to those great Independents, who realise that truckies do deserve to get home safely to their families.

I will come back to the accusations from those four senators. How dare they pretend to be friends of the trucking industry! I invited the Leader of the Nats to have a debate—I will not use the word 'blue' because there are sooks on the other side who want to report me—in any trucking yard in Australia with any trucking operator about the value of safe rates. None of you picked it up. The Leader of the Nats did not have the intestinal fortitude to bring on a debate with me, at his calling. None of you stood up for Australia's trucking industry. You are friends of the trucking industry? Who are you really friends with? The ATA? Is it the major operators? Or is it Coles and Woolies? (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy to questions asked today by Senators Cormann, Ryan, Williams and Ruston. I rise to talk about the people who create jobs in this country, particularly those who create jobs in South Australia, and provide a future for our young people, our children.

The problem with this government, according to Mr Crean, one of the previous ministers who was sacked, is that the Prime Minister has a tin ear because she does not listen. When it comes to the carbon tax, we see no clearer case of this tin ear. On radio in South Australia, the Prime Minister was asked by Mr David Basham, head of South Australian dairy farmers, about the impact of the carbon tax on dairy. He highlighted the fact that this was costing small businesses in South Australia between $14,000 and $25,000, which is a significant impact. The Prime Minister's response? Did she listen? Did she care? No, her response was mere rhetoric: 'Oh,' she said, 'the industry will thrive.' Have all those scary stories come true? Here was somebody telling her about the real impact on small business and about the fact that dairy farmers were losing money. When they go out of business, not only is that product not available but the jobs that are supported, both on the farms and in the associated industries, go with it.

In terms of small business, we heard Senator Conroy today say, 'Oh, well, that impact is only about two per cent to a small business.' Does he not understand that the net profit margin for many small businesses is well under 10 per cent? That is a significant hit to a small business looking to fund investment in the business and growth, as well as quite often taking their salaries out of their profit margin. It is small business that creates jobs and opportunities for young people in South Australia and it is small businesses being impacted by the carbon tax, particularly when it goes up by five per cent in July. Small businesses are often the ones who are driving vehicles powered by diesel. With the abolition of the diesel rebate in July, their costs will increase further. In a competitive market, they have very little opportunity, if any, to pass that on to their customers, which means that there are more jobs at risk.

With small businesses in South Australia that work in the area of refrigerants and with the gas R404A, the ACCC has found that, of the original price of $98 per kilogram, the carbon tax was directly responsible for a 76 per cent rise in the price of that gas—some $74.98 that the ACCC found was directly attributable to the carbon tax. For larger business, just this month the head of GMH in South Australia, responding to the closure of Ford and to calls by unions that they should manufacture the Captiva SUV in South Australia, was talking about the fact that the input costs for manufacturing in Australia are too high for them to remain competitive. He was looking at all sorts of options, including reducing wages of both executives and workers, to achieve that. But the alternative, he said, would be for the Gillard government to scrap the carbon tax. From small business, from the agricultural sector with dairy farmers through to large business, people who create jobs for South Australians have one message for this government, which is demonstrating yet again its tin ear: the carbon tax is hurting business and damaging jobs for people in South Australia.

Lastly, I come to BHP and Olympic Dam. South Australia was devastated in April 2012 when BHP announced that they were shelving plans to expand Olympic Dam. There was a lot of talk about why that might be. One of the factors people do not often look at is that in the electrolytic refining of copper, which was one of the main products coming out of Olympic Dam, electricity availability and price is one of the top considerations for the viability of that copper-mining activity. You only have to go online and look at prospectuses of people who are looking to set up mines in places like Laos and South America and you see that availability and price of electricity rates very high. When BHP made that decision to shelve their option for expanding Olympic Dam, the carbon tax was $23 a tonne and it was planned to increase by 2020 to $37 a tonne. Just at a time when BHP would be hoping to see a return on their investment and the creation of lots of jobs, the carbon tax will be $350 a tonne by 2050. Is it any wonder that industry, from miners to big business to small business, is saying that the carbon tax is a job-destroying tax for South Australians?

Question agreed to.