Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

That was very valiant attempt by the member for Newcastle to defend the indefensible, 19 carbon tax bills that will have a crushing impact on our economy and on our way of life. I rise to speak in this consideration in detail stage, in particular, to highlight the amendment brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I do so having been gagged in the second reading debate and prevented from delivering my speech in full on the government's 19 carbon tax bills because the debate in this chamber was guillotined by this government. I was not the only one who was gagged. Along with my friends and colleagues, the members for Riverina and for Wannon, I had just 20 seconds per bill to outline the concerns of my constituents in Higgins.

Why is the gagging of debate so significant to the consideration in detail? It is significant because we learn tonight that the government is proposing to move 48 amendments. This means that 48 problems with these bills have already been identified. These bills consist of over 1,200 pages of legislation. The parliament had less than one minute per bill to consider one of the most complex changes to our economy. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has brought forward an amendment to defer the commencement of a carbon tax until after an election—until after the Australian people have had the opportunity to have their say and to restore their faith in government, a faith that has been so cruelly and wantonly broken by this Prime Minister. As we all know, there was no mandate from the Australian people for these bills for a carbon tax—in fact, from it, as the Prime Minister gave a categorical assurance only five days out from the election that there would be no carbon tax under the government that she led. The Treasurer also reinforced the government policy position by stating in his Meet the Press address:

Well, certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation somehow that we are moving towards a carbon tax … We reject that.

That is a direct quote. That is what the Treasurer of this country said. Again, I say there has been a cruel breach of faith with the Australian people.

In my speech in the second reading debate I spoke about the fact that in bringing forward these bills we would be going it alone. We will be going it alone in a situation where we have a very parlous global economic condition.

I want to now turn to why it is that we need to support the amendment by the Leader of the Opposition to defer commencement by first looking at the government figures, the government's modelling. We all know that the government have problems with their figures. We know that they are pretty good at turning a $20 billion surplus into an almost $50 billion deficit. They are good at changing no net debt to almost $107 billion of net debt. We know that they can increase the gross debt ceiling to $250 billion. This government are not great with their figures and that is why I want to talk about their modelling. Their modelling is very deficient when you consider the amendments that they had to bring forward. When they first announced their $9 billion a year tax they forgot to mention the fact that there was $4.3 billion over the forward estimates that the government had simply left off their model. Embarrassingly, the Treasurer tried to explain this away as a rounding error—some rounding error!

Earlier this year the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, of which I am a member, were told by the government that due to the floods and Cyclone Yasi the devastation in Queensland and Victoria was such that the government needed a new tax to raise just $1.8 billion because the impact was going to be so significant on the budget bottom line. They said that the money could not come from appropriations like any other disaster because the impact was so great and yet in their own modelling they left off $4.3 billion. Question No. 1: if the government cannot get this simple fact right with their own modelling, what confidence can we possibly have that something as complex as a carbon tax can be got right? This is again another reason that we need to defer these carbon tax bills and the proclamation of these bills until after an election. (Time expired)

See this speech in context