Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The House will consider the bills in detail in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 13 September. The bills will be taken together. The question is that the bills be agreed to. Any proposed amendments are to be moved now. It might suit the House if members with amendments are permitted to move them in one motion. The questions on any amendments will be deferred and there will be a general debate on all amendments. At the conclusion of consideration in detail, questions will be put on amendments to all bills except the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011. One question will be put on all government amendments, one question will then be put on all amendments moved by opposition members and any necessary questions will be put on amendments moved by other members. Any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage will then be put. One question will be put on any government amendments to the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011. One question will then be put on all amendments moved by opposition members and any necessary questions will be put on amendments moved by other members, followed by any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Clean Energy Bill 2011. I move amendments (1) to (48) to the Clean Energy Bill 2011:

(1) Clause 5, page 12 (line 24), omit "covered emissions and legacy emissions", substitute "covered emissions, legacy emissions and exempt landfill emissions".

(2) Clause 5, page 14 (after line 22), after the definition of executive officer, insert:

exempt landfill emissions, in relation to a landfill facility, has the meaning given by section 32A.

(3) Clause 5, page 20 (line 26), after "sections", insert "11AA, 11AB,".

(4) Clause 20, page 38 (line 14), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(5) Clause 20, page 38 (line 31), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(6) Clause 21, page 41 (line 12), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(7) Clause 21, page 41 (line 29), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(8) Clause 22, page 44 (line 4), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(9) Clause 22, page 44 (line 20), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(10) Clause 23, page 45 (lines 25 and 26), omit "covered emissions and legacy emissions", substitute "covered emissions, legacy emissions and exempt landfill emissions".

(11) Clause 23, page 46 (lines 8 and 9), omit "covered emissions and legacy emissions", substitute "covered emissions, legacy emissions and exempt landfill emissions".

(12) Clause 23, page 47 (line 10), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(13) Clause 23, page 47 (line 27), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(14) Clause 24, page 49 (lines 26 and 27), omit "covered emissions and legacy emissions", substitute "covered emissions, legacy emissions and exempt landfill emissions".

(15) Clause 24, page 50 (lines 8 and 9), omit "covered emissions and legacy emissions", substitute "covered emissions, legacy emissions and exempt landfill emissions".

(16) Clause 24, page 51 (line 2), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(17) Clause 24, page 51 (line 19), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(18) Clause 25, page 53 (lines 23 and 24), omit "covered emissions and legacy emissions", substitute "covered emissions, legacy emissions and exempt landfill emissions".

(19) Clause 25, page 54 (lines 5 and 6), omit "covered emissions and legacy emissions", substitute "covered emissions, legacy emissions and exempt landfill emissions".

(20) Clause 25, page 54 (line 22), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(21) Clause 25, page 55 (line 7), omit "supply", substitute "use that resulted in that combustion".

(22) Clause 30, page 63 (after line 4), after subclause (9), insert:

Exclusion of exempt landfill emissions from landfill facilities

(9A) For the purposes of this Act, a covered emission from the operation of a landfill facility does not include exempt landfill emissions from the operation of the facility.

(23) Heading to Subdivision F, page 64 (line 1), omit "Legacy emissions", substitute "Emissions".

(24) Clause 32, page 64 (lines 9 and 10), omit "the regulations", substitute "a determination under subsection 10(3) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007".

(25) Page 64 (after line 12), at the end of Subdivision F, add:

32A Exempt landfill emissions

  For the purposes of this Act, if:

(a) a person is a liable entity for an eligible financial year (the relevant eligible financial year) under a particular provision of Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 3 in so far as that provision applies to a particular landfill facility; and

(b) the landfill facility's threshold number for the relevant eligible financial year is 10,000 for the purposes of that provision; and

(c) the following conditions are satisfied in relation to each earlier eligible financial year at any time during which the landfill facility was in existence:

  (i) no person was a liable entity for the earlier eligible financial year under Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 3 in so far as that Subdivision applies to the landfill facility;

  (ii) the landfill facility's threshold number for the earlier eligible financial year was 25,000 for the purposes of a provision of that Subdivision; and

(d) an amount of greenhouse gas was emitted from the operation of the landfill facility during:

  (i) the relevant eligible financial year; or

  (ii) a later eligible financial year; and

(e) waste was accepted by the landfill facility during the period:

  (i) beginning on 1 July 2012; and

  (ii) ending immediately before the start of the relevant eligible financial year;

so much of the amount mentioned in paragraph (d) as is, under a determination under subsection 10(3) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, taken to be attributable to waste accepted by the facility during the period mentioned in paragraph (e) is an exempt landfill emission from the operation of the landfill facility.

(26) Clause 33, page 65 (line 10), omit "supply", substitute "use".

(27) Clause 35, page 66 (after line 17), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) it may reasonably be expected that the natural gas is wholly or partly for use by the OTN holder; and

(28) Clause 35, page 66 (line 19), omit "supply", substitute "use".

(29) Clause 35, page 68 (lines 33 to 35), omit paragraph (7)(c).

(30) Clause 36, page 70 (after line 2), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) it may reasonably be expected that the natural gas is wholly or partly for use by the OTN holder; and

(31) Clause 36, page 70 (line 6), omit "supply", substitute "use".

(32) Page 70 (after line 21), at the end of Division 3, add:

36A Extended meaning of use

  For the purposes of this Division, if:

(a) a person (the first person) provides an amount of natural gas for use by another person; and

(b) the provision of the natural gas does not involve a supply of the natural gas;

any use of the natural gas by the other person is taken to be use by the first person.

(33) Clause 55B, page 83 (line 12), omit "supply", substitute "use".

(34) Clause 56, page 84 (after line 3), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) it may reasonably be expected that the natural gas is wholly or partly for use by the recipient; and

(35) Clause 56, page 84 (line 5), omit "supply", substitute "use".

(36) Clause 56, page 84 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph (1)(d).

(37) Clause 56, page 85 (line 7), omit "the facility", substitute "an eligible facility of the applicant".

(38) Clause 56, page 85 (after line 12), after subclause (6), insert:

(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6), a facility is an eligible facility of the applicant if:

(a) the facility is under the operational control of the applicant; or

(b) the following conditions are satisfied:

  (i) the facility is under the operational control of another person;

  (ii) the applicant provides natural gas to the other person for use in the operation of the facility;

  (iii) the provision of the natural gas does not involve a supply of the natural gas.

(39) Clause 57, page 85 (after line 19), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) it may reasonably be expected that the natural gas is wholly or partly for use by the recipient; and

(40) Clause 57, page 85 (line 21), omit "supply", substitute "use".

(41) Clause 57, page 85 (lines 23 and 24), omit paragraph (1)(d), substitute:

(d) it is intended that the whole or a part of that amount will be used as a feedstock;

(42) Clause 58, page 86 (after line 14), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) it may reasonably be expected that the natural gas is wholly or partly for use by the recipient; and

(43) Clause 58, page 86 (line 16), omit "supply", substitute "use".

(44) Clause 58, page 86 (lines 18 to 20), omit paragraph (1)(d), substitute:

(d) the natural gas is to be used, in the course of carrying on a business, to manufacture compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas or liquid petroleum gas;

(45) Page 87 (after line 4), at the end of Subdivision C, add:

58A Extended meaning of use

  For the purposes of this Subdivision, if:

(a) a person (the first person) provides an amount of natural gas for use by another person; and

(b) the provision of the natural gas does not involve a supply of the natural gas;

any use of the natural gas by the other person is taken to be use by the first person.

(46) Clause 92A, page 121 (after line 25), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) For the purposes of this section, in determining whether an entity is entitled to a fuel tax credit in respect of the acquisition, manufacture or import of an amount of taxable fuel, disregard section 41-30 of the Fuel Tax Act 2006.

(47) Clause 125, page 163 (lines 26 to 28), omit paragraph (7)(b), substitute:

(b) the number of eligible Australian carbon credit units exceeds:

  (i) if at least 50% of the total of the interim emissions numbers of the person for the relevant eligible financial year is attributable to, or to estimates of, provisional emissions numbers under Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 3 (which deals with landfill facilities)—the total of the interim emissions numbers of the person for the relevant eligible financial year; or

  (ii) otherwise—5% of the total of the interim emissions numbers of the person for the relevant eligible financial year;

(48) Clause 128, page 169 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraph (7)(b), substitute:

(b) the number of eligible Australian carbon credit units exceeds:

  (i) if at least 50% of the person's emissions number for the relevant eligible financial year is attributable to provisional emissions numbers under Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 3 (which deals with landfill facilities)—the person's emissions number for the relevant eligible financial year; or

  (ii) otherwise—the number worked out using the formula in subsection (8);

Amendments (1) to(10), (11), (14), (15), (18), (19) and (22) to (25) that appear on sheet 267 deal with issues associated with landfill waste. The Clean Energy Bill provides that landfill facilities with emissions of at least 10,000 tonnes but less than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents will be covered by the carbon-pricing mechanism if they are within a prescribed distance of a designated large landfill facility with emissions of at least 25,000 tonnes. This provision was intended to address the risk of waste being diverted from large landfills to smaller neighbouring landfills. The government has decided to set the initial prescribed distance at zero so that operators of small landfills will not be liable on 1 July 2012 and for at least the first three years of the scheme. This will provide time to gather evidence rather than projections of waste diversion to smaller landfills and to have the prescribed distance rule reviewed by the Climate Change Authority no later than 2015-16. Any future increases in the prescribed distance could bring additional small landfills into the mechanism for the first time. It is also possible that small landfills will become liable for the first time because another landfill within the prescribed distance will start to pass the 25,000-tonne threshold.

The amendments I have moved will reduce the regulatory uncertainty for landfill operators regarding the future operation of the prescribed distance rule. These amendments will ensure that, if the prescribed distance is increased following the review, small landfills brought into the carbon price mechanism will not be liable for emissions from waste deposited retrospectively. The small landfill will only be liable for emissions from the waste that is deposited in the financial year that coverage of the landfill commences and subsequent years. They will not face liabilities as a result of these factors beyond their control.

The amendments also provide for legacy and exempt landfill emissions to be measured using the NGER determination under section 10 (3) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act rather than regulations. Amendment (3) is a minor technical amendment which is consequential on the amendments in (1), (3) to (6) and (9) of sheet 257. Those amendments deal with situations where no person has clear operational control of a facility. Amendments (4) to (9), (12), (13), (16), (17), (20), (21) and (26) to (45) are technical amendments to ensure that natural gas liability works the same way whether or not the end user of the gas owned the gas. These amendments respond to comments made by some stakeholders during the inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation. In some cases, gas is provided for use without transfer of ownership of the gas. For instance, the owner of a facility might buy gas for the facility and make it available for use at the facility without transferring ownership in the gas to the contracted operator of the facility.

Amendment (46) on sheet 267 is a technical amendment to the opt-in scheme to ensure that aviation fuel users can use the opt-in scheme as intended. The amendment seeks to clarify that fuel users may opt into the carbon-pricing mechanism, even if the user or another entity becomes entitled to a fuel tax credit after opting in. The amendment will ensure that the opt-in scheme operates as intended and will remove any doubt as to the validity of aviation fuel users. Amendments (47) and (48) on sheet 267 will allow local councils and other landfill operators to discharge a larger proportion of their emissions using eligible CFI credits than currently permitted during the fixed price years of the carbon price mechanism. The surrender limit will be raised by these amendments from five per cent to 100 per cent of an operator's liability if the majority of liability is attributable to landfill emissions. The amendments are restricted to emitters in the landfill sector because they are in the unusual position of being able to generate CFI credits by implementing projects to capture legacy emissions at the same time as they have to surrender emissions units to discharge their liabilities. The added flexibility under these amendments will reduce the compliance burden on local councils and commercial landfill operators. Mr Deputy Speaker, if it is convenient to the House, and I understand it may be so with the Leader of the Opposition, it may be useful for me to move the remaining government amendments together.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Permission is granted.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that courtesy. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum for the Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011 and the Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011 and I move government amendments (1) to (13) to the Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, government amendments (1) to (22) to the Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011 and the government amendment (1) to the Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011:

(1) Schedule 1, item 307, page 58 (line 17), after "11A,", insert "11AA, 11AB,".

(2) Schedule 1, page 65 (after line 12), after item 339, insert:

339AA At the end of section 10

Add:

(4) A determination under subsection (3) may also deal with matters required or permitted by section 32 or 32A of the Clean Energy Act 2011 to be dealt with by such a determination.

(3) Schedule 1, item 348, page 66 (line 8), after "11A,", insert "11AA, 11AB,".

(4) Schedule 1, item 349, page 66 (after line 27), after section 11A, insert:

11AA Operational control during part of fixed charge year—nominated person

Scope

(1) This section applies if the following conditions are satisfied in relation to a period that is included in, or consists of, the first 9 months of a fixed charge year:

(a) 2 or more persons could satisfy paragraph 11(1)(a) in relation to a facility throughout the period;

(b) no particular person has the greatest authority to introduce and implement the policies mentioned in subparagraphs 11(1)(a)(i) and (iii) in relation to the facility throughout the period;

(c) no declaration under section 55 or 55A applies in relation to the facility at any time during the period;

(d) as at the start of 1 April in the fixed charge year, it may reasonably be expected that a person would have had an interim emissions number for the fixed charge year if it were assumed that:

(i) the person had operational control over the facility throughout the period; and

(ii) none of the persons mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection had operational control over the facility throughout the period.

Nomination

(2) The persons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) must, before the end of 30 April in the fixed charge year, jointly nominate one of them to be the nominated person in relation to the facility for the period.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(3) A nomination must:

(a) be in writing; and

(b) be in a form approved by the Regulator; and

(c) be accompanied by such information as is specified in the regulations.

(4) If:

(a) any of those persons is a foreign person; and

(b) any of those persons is not a foreign person;

a foreign person cannot be nominated.

Operational control—nomination made

(5) If a nomination is made and the facility is a facility of a joint venture, the nominated person is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have operational control over the facility throughout the period.

(6) If a nomination is made and the facility is not a facility of a joint venture, the nominated person is taken, for the purposes of this Act and the Clean Energy Act 2011, to have operational control over the facility throughout the period.

Operational control—nomination not made

(7) If no nomination is made and the facility is a facility of a joint venture, each of the persons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have operational control over the facility throughout the period.

(8) If no nomination is made and the facility is not a facility of a joint venture:

(a) each of the persons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken, for the purposes of this Act and the Clean Energy Act 2011, to have operational control over the facility throughout the period; and

(b) if there is a provisional emissions number of such a person for the fixed charge year in relation to greenhouse gases emitted from the operation of the facility during the period—for the purposes of this Act and the Clean Energy Act 2011, that provisional emissions number is taken to be the number worked out using the formula set out in subsection (9).

(9) The formula is:

Unadjusted provisional emissions number

Total Number of persons mentioned in

paragraph (1)(a)

where:

unadjusted provisional emissions number means the number that, apart from paragraph (8)(b), would be the provisional emissions number of the person for the fixed charge year in relation to greenhouse gases emitted from the operation of the facility during the period.

Exception

(10) A person is not required to comply with subsection (2) if the question of who has operational control of the facility is not relevant (whether directly or indirectly) to a requirement under:

(a) this Act; or

(b) the Clean Energy Act 2011.

11AB Operational control during part of fixed charge year—trust with multiple trustees

Scope

(1) This section applies if the following conditions are satisfied in relation to a period that is included in, or consists of, the first 9 months of a fixed charge year:

(a) because of section 11, 11A or 11AA, a trust has operational control over a facility throughout the period;

(b) throughout the period, there are 2 or more trustees of the trust;

(c) no declaration under section 55 or 55A applies in relation to the facility at any time during the period;

(d) as at the start of 1 April in the fixed charge year, it may reasonably be expected that a person would have had an interim emissions number for the fixed charge year if it were assumed that:

(i) the person had operational control over the facility throughout the period; and

(ii) the trust did not have operational control over the facility throughout the period.

Nomination

(2) The trustees must, before the end of 30 April in the fixed charge year, jointly nominate one of them to be the nominated trustee in relation to the facility for the period.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(3) A nomination must:

(a) be in writing; and

(b) be in a form approved by the Regulator; and

(c) be accompanied by such information as is specified in the regulations.

(4) If:

(a) any of those trustees is a foreign person; and

(b) any of those trustees is not a foreign person;

a foreign person cannot be nominated.

Operational control

(5) If a nomination is made, the nominated trustee is taken, for the purposes of this Act and the Clean Energy Act 2011, to have operational control over the facility throughout the period.

(6) If no nomination is made:

(a) each of those trustees is taken, for the purposes of this Act and the Clean Energy Act 2011, to have operational control over the facility throughout the period; and

(b) if there is a provisional emissions number of such a trustee for the fixed charge year in relation to greenhouse gases emitted from the operation of the facility during the period—for the purposes of this Act and the Clean Energy Act 2011, that provisional emissions number is taken to be the number worked out using the formula set out in subsection (7).

(7) The formula is:

Unadjusted provisional emissions number

Total Number of trustees mentioned in

paragraph (1)(b)

where:

unadjusted provisional emissions number means the number that, apart from paragraph (6)(b), would be the provisional emissions number of the trustee for the fixed charge year in relation to greenhouse gases emitted from the operation of the facility during the period.

Exception

(8) A trustee is not required to comply with subsection (2) if the question of who has operational control of the facility is not relevant (whether directly or indirectly) to a requirement under:

(a) this Act; or

(b) the Clean Energy Act 2011.

(5) Schedule 1, item 349, page 67 (line 13), omit "period.", substitute "period;".

(6) Schedule 1, item 349, page 67 (after line 13), at the end of subsection 11B(1), add:

(d) if the period is included in a fixed charge year—section 11AA does not apply to the facility for the period.

(7) Schedule 1, item 349, page 68 (lines 16 to 24), omit paragraph 11B(8)(b), substitute:

(b) if there is a provisional emissions number of such a person for the eligible financial year in relation to greenhouse gases emitted from the operation of the facility during the period—for the purposes of this Act and the Clean Energy Act 2011, that provisional emissions number is taken to be the number worked out using the formula set out in subsection (9).

(8) Schedule 1, item 349, page 68 (lines 30 and 31), omit "or the controlling corporation, as the case may be,".

(9) Schedule 1, item 349, page 69 (line 17), omit "period.", substitute "period;".

(10) Schedule 1, item 349, page 69 (after line 17), at the end of subsection 11C(1), add:

(d) if the period is included in a fixed charge year—section 11AB does not apply to the facility for the period.

(11) Schedule 3, item 1, page 174 (lines 12 and 13), omit subsection 11(2), substitute:

(2) The Regulator may refuse the application if the Regulator is satisfied that the applicant is not a fit and proper person.

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), in determining whether the applicant is a fit and proper person, the Regulator:

(a) must have regard to the matters specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subsection; and

(b) may have regard to such other matters (if any) as the Regulator considers relevant.

(12) Schedule 3, item 5, page 176 (lines 4 and 5), omit subsection 30A(5), substitute:

(5) The Regulator may, by written notice, suspend the registration of a registered person if the Regulator is satisfied that the registered person is not a fit and proper person.

(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), in determining whether the registered person is a fit and proper person, the Regulator:

(a) must have regard to the matters specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subsection; and

(b) may have regard to such other matters (if any) as the Regulator considers relevant.

(13) Schedule 4, page 189 (after line 3), after item 25, insert:

25A After subsection 47(1)

Insert:

Effect of transmission

(1A) The transmission is of no force until the Administrator transfers the unit under subsection (7) or (8).

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 18), after paragraph 914(1)(b), insert:

(ba) the person is residing in Australia; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 26), after paragraph 914(2)(b), insert:

(ba) the person is residing in Australia; and

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 4), omit "and (b)", substitute ", (b) and (ba)".

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (after line 34), after paragraph 914A(1)(b), insert:

(ba) the person is residing in Australia; and

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (after line 8), after paragraph 914A(2)(b), insert:

(ba) the person is residing in Australia; and

(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (after line 16), after paragraph 914A(3)(b), insert:

(ba) the person is residing in Australia; and

(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 22), omit "and (b)", substitute ", (b) and (ba)".

(8) Schedule 2, page 66 (after line 31), after item 15, insert:

15A At the end of section 62

Add:

(5) For the purposes of working out an individual's rate of family tax benefit, if the individual is an absent overseas recipient on a day (disregarding section 63A), then the following provisions do not apply in relation to that day:

(a) paragraph (cb) of step 1 of the method statement in clause 3 of Schedule 1;

(b) paragraph (e) of step 1 of the method statement in clause 25 of Schedule 1;

(c) paragraph 29(1)(c) of Schedule 1;

(d) paragraph (c) of step 1 of the method statement in subclause 29(2) of Schedule 1;

(e) paragraph 29A(2)(c) of Schedule 1.

(9) Schedule 2, page 66, after proposed item 15A, insert:

15B At the end of section 63

Add:

(5) For the purposes of working out an individual's rate of family tax benefit, if an FTB child of the individual is an absent overseas FTB child on a day (disregarding section 63A), then disregard that child in working out the amount applicable in relation to that day under the following provisions:

(a) paragraph (cb) of step 1 of the method statement in clause 3 of Schedule 1;

(b) paragraph (e) of step 1 of the method statement in clause 25 of Schedule 1;

(c) paragraph 29(1)(c) of Schedule 1;

(d) paragraph (c) of step 1 of the method statement in subclause 29(2) of Schedule 1;

(e) paragraph 29A(2)(c) of Schedule 1.

(10) Schedule 2, item 34, page 77 (line 13), omit "16", substitute "15A".

(11) Schedule 3, item 6, page 85 (after line 20), after paragraph 61A(1)(b), insert:

(ba) the person is residing in Australia; and

(12) Schedule 3, item 6, page 85 (after line 29), after paragraph 61A(2)(b), insert:

(ba) the person is residing in Australia; and

(13) Schedule 3, item 6, page 86 (line 4), omit "and (b)", substitute ", (b) and (ba)".

(14) Schedule 4, item 9, page 119 (after line 9), after paragraph 424A(1)(a), insert:

(aa) the person is residing in Australia on the test day; and

(15) Schedule 4, item 9, page 119 (after line 16), after paragraph 424A(2)(a), insert:

(aa) the person is residing in Australia on the test day; and

(16) Schedule 4, item 9, page 119 (line 19), after "met", insert ", the person is residing in Australia".

(17) Schedule 4, item 9, page 120 (after line 11), after paragraph 424B(1)(a), insert:

(aa) the person is residing in Australia on the test day; and

(18) Schedule 4, item 9, page 120 (after line 18), after paragraph 424B(2)(a), insert:

(aa) the person is residing in Australia on the test day; and

(19) Schedule 4, item 9, page 120 (line 21), after "met", insert ", the person is residing in Australia".

(20) Schedule 4, item 9, page 121 (after line 11), after paragraph 424C(1)(a), insert:

(aa) the person is residing in Australia on the test day; and

(21) Schedule 4, item 9, page 121 (after line 19), after paragraph 424C(2)(a), insert:

(aa) the person is residing in Australia on the test day; and

(22) Schedule 4, item 9, page 121 (line 22), after "met", insert ", the person is residing in Australia".

(1) Clause 49, page 26 (after line 23), after paragraph (1)(t), insert:

(ta) the Energy Security Council;

Sheet 257 deals with amendments to the Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011. Items (1), (3) to (6), (9) and (10) of sheet 257 bring forward the deadline for nominating a person with operational control of a facility from 31 August to 30 April. The basic provisions deal with situations where no single person has operational control of a facility and a person must be nominated from those who have some operational control. The items correct an oversight which meant that nominations would have been required after the provisional surrender obligation on 15 June. The amendment I am moving will allow the person who is going to be liable for emissions from the facility to register by 1 May and meet their progressive surrender obligations on 15 June of each charge year.

Item (2) of sheet 257 clarifies that the measurement determination made under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act will be used to measure legacy emissions and exempt landfill emissions for the purposes of clauses 32 and 32A of the Clean Energy Bill. This is a technical amendment to ensure that all emissions from landfill facilities, including covered emissions, legacy emissions and exempt landfill emissions, are measured in accordance with a single consistent set of methods under the NGER Act.

Items (7) and (8) of sheet 257 correct an error in proposed section 11B of the NGER Act. They ensure that liability applies to liable entities as defined in the Clean Energy Bill 2011, instead of controlling corporations as a result of a nomination.

Items (11) and (12) of sheet 257 clarify the new provisions for refusing or suspending registration under the renewable energy target in light of the issues raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. In its current form the Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill includes an amendment that provides for the regulator to refuse or suspend the registration of persons under the renewable energy target legislation which enables them to create renewable energy certificates. This provision responds to stakeholder concerns around alleged unscrupulous conduct by agents selling certificates on behalf of owners and installers of small-scale renewable energy systems.

The government is moving a further amendment to clarify that the additional powers to refuse or suspend registration of an entity under the renewable energy legislation are to be constrained to situations where the regulator is satisfied that the entity is not a fit and proper person. Regulations will prescribe matters to be considered by the regulator in determining whether or not the applicant or registered entity is a fit and proper person.

Item (13) of sheet 257 provides that a transmission of Kyoto units by force of law is of no force until the units are registered in the account of the transferee. This amendment makes it clear that changes in title over Kyoto units must be effected through the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units so there is no ambiguity about legal ownership of units. There is similar provision for the transmission of carbon units, Australian carbon credit units and prescribed international units. This amendment ensures the same situation applies to Kyoto units.

Sheet 269 amends the Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011 to allow information to be shared with the Energy Security Council. Sheet 238 amends the Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011 to clarify in legislation the government's policy in relation to residency for household assistance. Items (1) to (21) address inconsistencies in the drafting process.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) to the Clean Energy Bill 2011:

(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8) to page 5 (line 3), omit the clause, substitute:

2 Commencement

(1) The provisions of this Act commence on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.

(2) A Proclamation for the purposes of subsection (1) must not be made until after elections have been held for the 44th Parliament and the Parliament has met.

The purpose of my amendment is to restore a measure of integrity to our tarnished democracy. It is to give members opposite a chance to make honest politicians of themselves.

What my amendment does is provide for the carbon tax package of measures to commence after the elections have been held for the 44th Parliament. My amendment says it will be up to the new government after the next election to decide whether or not to proclaim the carbon tax and whether or not the carbon tax will come into force. In other words, it will be up to the people of Australia, voting at an election, to determine the fate of the carbon tax—and that is as it should be. This tax is the biggest carbon tax in the world. This change is the biggest tax change in our history, and it should not come into force without first going to the people, asking them and getting their consent.

A change as big as this should have a mandate. As is absolutely clear to this parliament and to all the people of this country, there is no mandate for what this government seeks to do now. If this parliament has a mandate for anything, it has a mandate not to introduce this tax. That is why the amendment that I am moving is so necessary if democratic integrity is to be restored to our system. As the Prime Minister is constantly reminded in this parliament, she said five days before the last election:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

Let me repeat it for the benefit of the rather raucous member opposite. The Prime Minister said, five days before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' That was the commitment that the Prime Minister made on behalf of every single Labor member of this House.

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

She made that commitment on their behalf and I am giving this parliament and those members, including the raucous member opposite, the chance to turn what would otherwise be a lie into a truth. I am giving members opposite the chance to turn a lie into a truth, to make honest politicians of the Prime Minister and themselves by deferring the actual proclamation of this carbon tax until after the next election. We had the member for Moreton today say very publicly that he was determined to keep faith with the people of Moreton by ensuring that the person they voted for as Prime Minister at the 2010 election stayed in that job. The amendment that I am moving now gives every member of parliament a chance to keep faith with their electorates. When the Prime Minister made that promise five days before the election she was not doing it as a private person and she was not doing it as just the member for Lalor; she was doing it as the Leader of the Labor Party; she was doing it as the leader of every member opposite. So if they want to keep faith with their electors they will support this amendment, because it is a contemptible thing for a government to say one thing before an election to win votes and do the opposite after the election to stay in power.

I say to members opposite: if they want to stand up for truth in public life, if they want to stand up for the jobs of their constituents, if they want to stand up for truth-telling and if they want to ensure that the Labor Party really is the party of truth-telling, they will back this amendment. In the end, my amendment is not about whether you support a carbon tax—obviously I do not; some people in this parliament do—this is about whether you support democracy and whether you support integrity in public life. That is why this amendment should be supported by this parliament. (Time expired)

Tony Crook (O'Connor, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (after line 5), after paragraph 43-8(4)(b), insert:

(ba) you acquire, manufacture or import the fuel in a financial year for use in a business whose use of taxable fuel in the year has a *carbon dioxide equivalence of less than 25,000 tonnes; or

(2) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 8), after item 24, insert:

24A Section 110-5

Insert:

carbon dioxide equivalence, in relation to taxable fuel, means the carbon dioxide equivalence of the amount of potential greenhouse gas emissions embodied in the fuel within the meaning of the Clean Energy Act 2011.

My strong opposition to the carbon tax will not prevent me from representing my electorate and therefore I will try to make improvements to this flawed. tax.    One of the most consistent and specific complaints I have heard in my electorate concerns the government's Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to place what is effectively a carbon price on every business in a non-exempted industry that uses transport fuel on site. This usually involves the use of diesel fuel in combustion engines for on-site power generation.

This bill is not a just a tax on big polluters. On the contrary, it will affect thousands of small businesses, many of whom are in regional Australia and have no alternative but to use diesel fuel for power generation. I realised that my amendments were necessary following discussions with various constituents and industry representatives in my electorate. For example, one of my constituents, Helen, owns the Widgiemooltha Roadhouse and relies on diesel for on-site power generation to run both the roadhouse and attached accommodation facilities. Helen's small business will pay thousands of dollars for the carbon tax on fuel use. A small business such as Helen's is in no way a big polluter and should not be liable to pay the carbon price through reductions in diesel fuel rebates.

Other examples include the many junior miners and mineral exploration companies in my electorate. These explorers and junior miners rely on diesel fuel to operate. For many rural projects there is simply no viable alternative. These miners and explorers are in no way big polluters and should not be made to shoulder the carbon price. We should not be burdening our small businesses with further tax liabilities. Our small businesses should not be liable to pay a tax that was designed to be paid by big polluters.

My amendments introduce a threshold under which low-polluting companies will not pay the carbon price. Under my amendments, if a business's taxable fuel use in a year has a carbon dioxide equivalent of less than 25,000 tonnes, their fuel tax credits will not be affected and they will not pay the carbon price. Carbon dioxide equivalence, in relation to taxable fuel, has the same meaning as in the government's Clean Energy Bill. In essence, these amendments ensure that only the big polluters will pay a carbon price on fuels. Under my amendments, low-polluting junior miners, mineral explorers, roadhouses and accommodation facilities will not be liable to pay the carbon price. These amendments hold the government to its promise that the carbon tax is only a tax on big polluters.

I will not be supporting the government's carbon tax as it is one part of the government's triple assault on regional Western Australia. I commend these amendments to the House as fair and reasonable amendments to the fuel rebate reforms. They are necessary amendments to protect small businesses in Australia.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government cannot support the amendments that have been moved by the opposition. What needs to be understood is that this is the culmination of a debate that has been running for almost two decades. We have seen 35 parliamentary inquiries into climate change since 1994 and we have had a lot of discussion on these topics in this House already. This year alone, around 250 questions have been asked on carbon pricing and there have been over 15 separate debates on matters of public importance. The clean energy debate itself has taken 33 hours. It has featured 120 speakers, of course not including the member for Wentworth. He is the only frontbencher on the other side who has not contributed to this debate. Significantly, this has been a longer debate than the former, Howard government allowed for the GST, a longer debate than the former, Howard government allowed for Work Choices and a longer debate than the former, Howard government allowed for the legislation dealing with the sale of Telstra.

The time to act is now. That is absolutely clear to those of us on this side of the House and those on the crossbenches who have already indicated their support for these bills. We must begin the transformation to a clean energy economy and a low-carbon economy. This transformation will begin with the passage of the clean energy bills. We must put in place incentives for business to invest in the clean energy technologies that will allow Australia to maintain its economic growth while cutting pollution. The countries that pioneer the clean technologies that will allow the decoupling of economic growth and growth of carbon pollution to occur will be the countries that see strong and consistent economic growth through the next century. These will be the countries that will be the most competitive, and the alternative is the Leader of the Opposition's prescription of doing nothing.

It is a prescription that pretends that climate change is not happening, and we heard that in many of the speeches that were given by those opposite. It is a prescription that, in effect, attacks the scientists who say that climate change is occurring. It attacks the economists who say that the carbon price is the most efficient way of tackling the problem. This, of course, is from the weathervane Leader of the Opposition, who once supported a price on carbon, and not so long ago. This weathervane Leader of the Opposition leads an opposition, about half of whom actually do support a price on carbon, but they are being prevented from expressing that view.

By refusing to grapple with the challenges and opportunities of a carbon constrained world, the Leader of the Opposition would rather see our economy stagnate and fall behind the economies of our competitors as long as his political interests are served. Indeed, he would rather anything as long as his political interests are served. He does not care about the inconsistency with former positions. He does not care about the views expressed by economists. He does not care for the views expressed by scientists. He cares only for his own political interest, and now that the Leader of the Opposition has seen, now that it has been made clear to the Leader of the Opposition and to those opposite, that this important reform is not going to be able to be stopped, he seeks to delay it. Again, it portrays that the position of this Leader of the Opposition is to put his own political interests ahead of those of the nation.

The fact is we know that any delay to this important reform, any delay to pricing carbon, will not somehow magically make it less costly. It will not reduce the effort that Australia will need to put in to reduce our carbon emissions. It will not reduce the effort that the world needs to put in to reduce world carbon emissions. It will only increase the costs when we get around to taking on the task. Various studies have looked at the implications of delaying the introduction of a carbon price. All conclude that delay will be costly not only in terms of delaying the contribution that we can make to improving the world's environment but also in terms of how much it will cost additionally to take on the task of reducing Australia's emissions. Federal Treasury have consistently stated that delaying this crucial reform will only increase the costs of decoupling carbon pollution from economic growth. These amendments are an attempt to sacrifice the national interest by delaying this crucial economic reform for purely partisan political motives.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate was summed up in a simple sentence given to me by a senior within my own electorate of Flinders. That senior, a pensioner, said to me, 'If the people have to pay, surely, the people should have a say,' and right now we are debating the Leader of the Opposition's attempt to give the people who will pay in higher electricity prices, higher gas prices, higher grocery prices and higher prices across all goods made or manufactured in this country, a say. That is what is on the table at this moment in this place. Whether you support a carbon tax or oppose a carbon tax, you should support giving the people a say at the next election as to whether or not they face that carbon tax. It is a simple proposition. In a democratic society a government has a duty to take a fundamental policy to the people to win that mandate and then to implement it.

This government unfortunately pledged that there would be no carbon tax. The Prime Minister in particular said on the day before the election, 'I rule out a carbon tax.' It was so fundamental to her pitch to the Australian people that it was her closing pledge and, on the Monday leading up to that election, she ruled out a carbon tax with the very famous words: 'There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead.' In that context, these amendments are about giving the people a say. It is about giving the people the right at the next election to determine whether or not they face a carbon tax. There is no barrier to anyone in this House supporting the right of the people having a say and, if the Prime Minister believes all that she says, then take it to an election. Bring forward the election. Let the people vote and let them vote soon, and in that way they can determine whether or not Australia faces this tax. That is our goal, our objective: to give the people a say and let them determine their future and to do so because of the profound consequences of a system which is ineffective, sends an extraordinary amount of money overseas, and will not solve the problem.

This does not solve the problem. Let me give you three simple examples. Does it decrease demand for electricity, as the Prime Minister has discussed on many occasions? The parliamentary secretary in a debate last week conceded that this bill is not designed to decrease demand for electricity. That is a profound and extraordinary concession. Demand will not be decreased.

What about supply? Will it change supply? Will this bill cause any coal fired power stations to shut within the next decade? The answer is that the carbon tax side of it will not. What have the government had to do? They have had to go straight to the coalition's direct action plan to create an Emissions Reduction Fund to buy out coal fired power stations. We would clean them up; they want to close them down. But they have conceded that their bill will not cause one single coal fired power station to close. But, according to the National Generators Forum today, it will lead to the best part of $40 billion in additional electricity costs between now and 2020 being passed on to consumers.

The third thing it was meant to do was to bring on board new renewable energy. But the tax itself will not do that. We have a 20 per cent renewable energy target and that will not be increased by one watt—not a megawatt, not even a watt. This legislation will not decrease demand for electricity, as claimed by the parliamentary secretary. It will not close down any coal fired power stations, as claimed by the government, who have had to rely on the coalition's own mechanism to try to clean up the coal fired power sector. It is interesting: having conceded that their method will not deal with cleaning up coal fired power stations, out of all of the possible systems in the world they could use, they chose the coalition's. Great work, guys! Your system will not work and you have had to turn to ours. The difference is that we will not close down power stations. We will clean them up and you will close them down—and to no effect. Above all else, it will send $3.5 billion every year, going north from 2020, straight to foreign carbon traders. That is why we do not support this legislation. (Time expired)

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I find the hypocrisy of his argument absolutely outstanding. This is a man who stood there today and said, 'The Prime Minister was untruthful before the election.' This is a man who said that you cannot believe anything he says unless he writes it down. Then, when he does write it down, he still goes against it. It is absolute hypocrisy. The member for Flinders quoted the Australian article—but of course, in typical fashion for the opposition, they do not let the truth get in the way of a good story: 'Let's give only half a quote.' The Prime Minister was very clear and concise in saying that she would not rule out a carbon pollution reduction scheme—a market mechanism. That is what we went to the election with. We said that before the election. I attended a forum before the election to which the Liberal Party—the shadow minister and the local candidate—were invited and never turned up. They would not even front up to it. I strongly support taking action against pollution, and I do that because I want to do the right thing by our kids.

This is not about today, tomorrow or some rubbishy amendment that says, 'Call an election on everything.' You would have to ask: what is it about? It is about our future. It is about making sure that our kids and our grandkids have a clean future. It is about making sure they have an opportunity to continue farming, to continue manufacturing and to continue to have the life that we enjoy here in Australia—and to do it in a cleaner, greener future. These are the things that those opposite fail to understand.

If you listen to the arguments that the opposition put forward, the only thing they are saying is, 'If we make a big policy we should go to an election.' Under that theory you would expect that an Abbott government would have an election every single week. Every time they made a decision they would have to go to an election. It is absolutely silly to say that this amendment is genuinely about doing the right thing for this nation and the right thing for the people in this country. We, on the other hand, have been very clear. We have supported putting a price on pollution. We have done that from day one and we continue to do it. And we do it knowing that it is about delivering a better future for this country. We do it by supporting households. We are supporting households by making sure that nine out of 10 households will receive assistance for any price adjustments. We know that some things will go up and some things will go down. We know that the cost of electricity over the last decade, particularly in Victoria, has gone up dramatically. Why has it gone up dramatically? Because those opposite sold off the SEC, they took away all the investment that was coming from there—the jobs—and they left the Latrobe Valley an absolute wreck. They took the money and ran and left no investment in electricity infrastructure. That infrastructure is failing, it is breaking down, and that is what is causing the rise in the price of electricity. It has continued to rise every year and it will continue to do so, because of the failures of those opposite, because of their selling everything off—selling off the farm—

Mr Hunt interjecting—

You sold it off! You went straight through and sold it off. You sit there and say, 'Hang on a minute.' The SEC delivered $400 million net to the state of Victoria every year. It also employed a lot of people and trained a lot of apprentices. Because of the failures of Liberal governments and stripping those things away, we ended up with the skills shortage that we have today. We do not have the apprentices trained in the trades that we need.

I support what the government have done and I am very proud to see that the vote went through today. I actually support jobs and I support industry. You might scoff over there, but I notice that you backed away very quickly and you would not support the steel industry. You do not support keeping jobs in this country. You actually go out there every day, put your hard hat on, get your silly little photo taken and say, 'Look at me: I'm backing the workers.' There is not a worker in this country that believes for one minute that Tony Abbott cares a damn about them. They know that as soon as he gets back in power, the first thing he will do—along with his National Party mates—is to rip the guts out of workers' wages and conditions. You know it is true, because your own backbenchers are saying it—the same backbenchers who are saying, 'Let's put GST on food.' That is exactly what will happen. You will go out of your way to rip workers' rights and conditions away. Everyone knows that you do not give a damn about them, and that is why these amendments should not be supported. (Time expired)

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The confidence in our democracy has been seriously damaged by the way in which this government has introduced its carbon tax legislation. The government promised faithfully, before the last election, that there would be no carbon tax. The Prime Minister said it quite clearly. She could have withdrawn the statement; she could have corrected it if she had been misunderstood.

The Deputy Prime Minister was even more vehement and ridiculed anybody who suggested that Labor might, at some stage during this next term of government, implement a carbon tax. Every Labor member sitting opposite today was elected on a promise that there would be no carbon tax. Today they are giving the lie to that promise. They are not honouring the word they gave to the Australian people before the election. All Labor candidates said there would be no carbon tax. All Liberal candidates said there would be no carbon tax. All National candidates said there would be no carbon tax. The only member of this House who supported a carbon tax and who is therefore being honest to his word in supporting this legislation today is the Greens member. This, therefore, is a crisis in confidence because the government failed to honour its promises. This is a major change. It is way ahead of anything anybody else in the world is doing. In fact, most of the rest of the world is moving in different directions. There are no models to follow. There are no international agreements to implement this kind of arrangement. So it is appropriate that the people have a say. We suggested there be a plebiscite; Labor rejected that. The Howard government gave an example by going to the Australian people and seeking a mandate before introducing the GST reform. That was the model that this government should follow. People have a right to a say. That is a fundamental part of our democracy and, therefore, the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition that this bill should be tested by the Australian people at an election is an appropriate way for a democracy to work.

I refer briefly to some of the other amendments before the parliament. The amendment of the member for O'Connor has considerable merit. It proposes to exempt the relatively small emitters from having to pay for the effects of the carbon tax. It also has significant benefits for regional areas. It reduces some of the massive disadvantage that is built into this carbon tax through the way the government has proposed it. People in country areas will pay more carbon tax than those who live in the cities. Most of the jobs lost will be in regional areas. This tax is a particular burden on people who live outside the capital cities. So I welcome his proposal to look at ways to reduce that disadvantage. I think we need to look at the amendment in the context of the legislation as a whole. Taking some of the tax away from the small users would undoubtedly result in a fairer system.

This legislation is full of anomalies. The government has never been prepared to address those in the debate. Whenever anybody has raised questions to the Prime Minister and others about various issues, she has simply dismissed them and said, 'You are a climate change denier.' If you raised any areas of detail you were immediately accused of being opposed to taking any kind of action to protect our climate or she said, 'It is the right thing to do,' never justifying that. It is just some right thing to do. It was never a right thing to include many of the anomalies in the legislation.

The government have admitted today that the legislation has significant anomalies and they have come into the House with amendments. They gave these amendments to the opposition only as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency spoke. There was no real chance for us to consider them in detail. I note the comments on the changes to landfill, an issue I have raised in this parliament on a number of occasions and have been ridiculed by the minister opposite for daring to so do. This proposal seems to address the issue for only three years, so local government would also be concerned. I have also raised the changes to aviation on a number of occasions. But does this amendment also deal with the smaller airlines like Rex or is it something for only the larger airlines? The government always refuse to deal with the detail, even if the detail can be corrected. There are lots more anomalies that the government have not sought to address which I do not have time to raise now but which I may raise later in the debate. But, even if the anomalies are corrected, this is still an evil tax. This is still a tax that costs Australian jobs and the only practical thing to do is to vote the bill down.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the amendment that has been moved by the member for O'Connor. It was referred to briefly a moment ago by the shadow minister, the member for Wide Bay. I indicated in question time today that the government was giving some consideration to this proposal moved by the member for O'Connor. The government is in fact not inclined to agree to that amendment.

It is very important to go back to some of the basics of the policy in considering this issue: a broad based carbon price will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest overall cost to the economy. The bills overall seek to apply an effective carbon price to off-road energy use outside of agriculture, fisheries and forestry to provide an effective price signal relative to the carbon content of the fuel used. Off-road fuel usage is a separate matter from the carbon-pricing mechanism. The way the off-road fuel use is dealt with—whether it is an off-road energy need that is met by electricity from the grid, from diesel, from onsite generation, from biofuels, from renewable energy generation, from LPG or from natural gas—means the relative carbon intensity of fuels is taken into account in the formulation of the bills.

The different arrangements for natural gas, LPG and liquid fuels combine to ensure that the impact of carbon pricing—or an effective carbon price—flows through to end users in a manner that is competitively neutral for both energy suppliers and the industries which use that fuel. Of course, the flowthrough of that has been an important factor in modelling household assistance, for example. Obviously, the effective price is not retained by all businesses. It is passed through and, ultimately, that leads to the CPI effect that has been modelled and the way in which the household assistance has been designed.

All of these arrangements have been fully taken into account in the design of the household assistance package. They are a key part of establishing a carbon price in the Australian economy and rewarding low-pollution choices of large and small businesses. The point at which the carbon price applies has been designed to achieve broad coverage while minimising administrative costs. The use of the fuel taxation system to apply an effective carbon price to fuels will achieve broad coverage of fuel emissions while minimising compliance costs to business because it uses the existing fuel taxation arrangements. Fuel-using businesses will still claim fuel tax credits using existing administrative systems and will not be subject to additional regulation, compliance burdens under the carbon-pricing mechanism or the need to engage in carbon markets. So businesses in those circumstances will not have to be concerned with any of those matters. The government also recognises the issues for small, off-grid electricity generation—and this is one of the matters that I think the member for O'Connor has expressed concern about—so support is provided for off-grid generation through multiplier arrangements under the renewable energy target, in particular, and the $40 million investment in the Remote Indigenous Energy Program, which I know is also a matter of interest and concern to the member for O'Connor. If that amendment were to be passed, there would not be competitive neutrality between different fuel users, and more-emissions-intensive liquid fuels would be advantaged relative to grid electricity, renewables, natural gas and LPG. In addition, up to 200 liable entities under the carbon price mechanism whose emissions mainly relate to non-liquid fuels or other sources of emissions may also have no effective carbon price for their liquid fuel emissions, should the amendment be passed. Clearly, that would not be consistent with the intent of the legislation. It could also result in assistance being provided to industry or households for costs which they did not face.

I can develop some of these arguments a bit further in the course of the evening's debate, but those are the broad reasons why the government does not support the amendments moved by the member for O'Connor.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members of parliament are often accused of not keeping their promises, they are often accused of breaching faith with the public, and as a result there is a level of cynicism within the Australian public about some parliamentarians. In fact, there was a whole political movement that was based on holding politicians to their promises: the Australian Democrats. As you might recall, they had a famous pledge to 'keep the bastards honest'. Now we have a complete reversal of Don Chipp's famous pledge. The government, the Greens and some of the Independents have decided to keep the government dishonest, complicit as they are in ensuring that the Prime Minister's clear breach of her commitment before the last election now becomes law. Instead of holding the Prime Minister to her promise, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' the Labor Party, the Greens and some of the Independents are holding the Prime Minister to a broken promise, to a breach of faith with the Australian people.

That promise was not some aside or some afterthought on the part of the Prime Minister. It was not just a throwaway line or an unscripted, unguarded moment. No, this was a carefully considered, deliberate statement made to mislead the Australian people into voting Labor. That is why the Prime Minister said, in response to the Leader of the Opposition's constant refrain throughout the election campaign that, 'As sure as night follows day, if this government is re-elected there will be a carbon tax,' the Prime Minister deliberately set about trying to convince the Australian people that she would not introduce a carbon tax. Now, rather than hold the Prime Minister to that promise, we have members who are trying to force through the parliament a policy unsupported by any electoral mandate at all.

Major reforms are challenging and they are difficult to implement, so it is vital to bring the Australian people into your confidence and bring them with you as you seek to implement reforms that will transform the economy, for good or for bad. The Prime Minister did recognise this during the election campaign, when she was talking about a price on carbon but promised it would not be introduced until there had been consultation for a couple of years in order to build a lasting consensus. Yet, when the Prime Minister realised that the government might well lose the election because of the threat of a carbon tax, she set about deliberately misleading the Australian public into voting Labor on the basis that Labor would not introduce a carbon tax.

Compare that to the history surrounding the introduction of the goods and service tax. During his first term as Prime Minister, John Howard became convinced of the need to replace the complex layers of wholesale sales tax with a flat-rate GST. Labor vowed to campaign against the GST, but their attack was blunted because Prime Minister Howard decided to take the proposed GST to an election, to campaign on it and seek a mandate from the Australian people, to ask the Australia people whether they supported the introduction of this tax. He took a risk, but he had courage and he had the respect of the Australian people, and he showed them respect in return: he put that tax to the Australian electorate. I remember that 1998 election. It was my first election. It was very hard fought. But we had the courage to take the Australian people into our confidence, tell them what we were proposing to do and seek their support—and we got it. Through this parliament, this legislation is being foisted on the Australian people, without their having a say on this most fundamental transformation of our economy.

I urge the members of the Labor Party to support these amendments. Show the Australian people some respect. Show them that you care about the promises you make at an election and that you are prepared to stick to your promises—and, if you change your mind, then take it to an election. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is disappointing that what we all know to be such a serious issue, not just for Australia but for the globe, is being used for political purposes by the members opposite in the way it has been for not weeks but months now. Rather than come in here and debate the merits of the clean energy bills before parliament, they continuously choose to play politics. In response to the member for Curtin's contribution, I say this: I too recall the 1998 election, and the outcome of that election, as I recall, was that the two-party preferred vote—that is, the majority of Australian people who voted—was against the Howard government. Yet the Howard government, knowing that a majority of Australians had voted against that proposition, still came into this chamber and turned that proposition into law. The Howard government did that because, at the time, it believed it was doing the right thing. In the same way, this government believes it is doing the right thing with these bills. This was said on 6 November 1990:

… the threat to our world comes not only from tyrants and their tanks. It can be more insidious though less visible. The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.

That is from one of Margaret Thatcher's speeches. She made a number of speeches in respect to this very issue, 21 or 22 years ago—and 22 years later we are still debating the merits of whether we should do anything or not.

It is interesting that 21 years ago Margaret Thatcher touched on two critical issues. Firstly, global warming is hard to accept because you cannot see many of the changes that are taking place. They occur relatively slowly, although quickly in terms of the time that man has been on this planet. Secondly, she talked about making changes that cause sacrifices. All people, if asked, would rather not have to make sacrifices. It is clear that this is exactly what the opposition are playing with the Australian people. They are pretending to the people that you do not have to make a sacrifice, that you do not have to do anything, because the issue will go away—it is not really there because you cannot really see it. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is why this debate is so disappointing. Members opposite know that this is being dishonest with the Australian public.

I suspect there are many members opposite who know that this situation, global warming, is real and that we as a nation have a responsibility—not only to ourselves and to the globe but also to future generations—to act and to do so now. They also know that each year we delay action on this issue it becomes much more difficult and much more costly for future generations, if and when a decision is finally made.

Members opposite constantly say that this is not a good time for Australia to act. Please tell us when you think it will be a good time. It would be fair to say that there will never be a good time to make tough decisions which impact on the Australian people but they are decisions that have to be made. If we do not make them, the costs to Australians will continue to rise. Because we failed to act 20 years ago and because we failed to act three or four years ago, we are already paying dearly.

Members opposite keep criticising the fact that we are introducing legislation which puts a price on carbon. The Australian Labor Party has supported a price on carbon for the last decade or so. I recall that this was an issue in 2004, an issue in 2007 and an issue in 2010. It has been debated, and the Australian people supported a price on carbon in those elections.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly pleased to rise and put on the record my opposition to the carbon tax that Labor has proposed in this House. There can be no doubt, in considering my remarks ahead of this evening's debate, that the world does need to address the issue of climate change. There can be no doubt that, globally, mankind is having an impact. As the father of a three-year-old son, as someone who looks at what is happening around the world, I cannot help but think to myself that not only is there a certain—and I do not want to overstate it in any way, shape or form—element of morality to this from one generation to the next but also there is something more fundamentally and economically rational about tackling climate change.

For the last five, six or even 10 decades the world predominantly has relied on one source of fuel to drive electricity and generate power for industry. This at its core has been crucial to the way in which, globally, we have helped to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into a better state of living. It has been at the core of the way in which societies have helped to raise standards of living, lower infant mortality, increase life spans and make a material difference to humanity's survival on this planet.

We have reached a point where, if we apply adequate resources and ingenuity, we are able to develop, commercialise and harness other renewable forms of electricity in a way that will make a difference to our world, to our environment and to mankind going forward. Ultimately, it is in all of our collective interests to develop a form of renewable energy that does not have a significant detrimental environmental impact. That is just plain good economics, that is just plain good common sense and that is an approach to this issue that resonates with the moral obligation we have from one generation to the next.

Unfortunately, I seek to make the bulk of my contribution to consideration in detail on the amendments, because I was gagged by the government from speaking in the main debate that took place earlier today. That notwithstanding, I feel very strongly about this issue. That is part of the reason I said to the Leader of the Opposition I was prepared to fly back from New York, from my secondment to the United Nations. I wanted to put on the record my opposition to Labor's approach. There can be no doubt, as I said, that we as a nation do have an obligation to act on climate change, but this is not the correct approach. Labor's approach to tackling climate change—through the introduction of a carbon tax and, in a more deceitful way, through the introduction of a carbon tax without a mandate; in fact, quite the opposite, since the Prime Minister vowed, only days out from the last election, that if elected they would not introduce a carbon tax—is not the approach. The key to ensuring the success of a reform like this is to ensure that the community has ownership of the reform. And Labor's approach provides no community ownership whatsoever.

This is a significant reform that absolutely must be done in lock step with global action. Despite the pressing need for there to be action on climate change, despite the issues that I have raised about economic consequences and despite the fact that I believe there is a moral obligation to deal with climate change, to do so effectively unilaterally, thus imposing a significant impost on the Australian economy when the rest of the world is not at that point, is economic recklessness. It is blind ideology that drives an agenda that does not look to the stark reality that, in order to perform meaningful change, in order to foster and grow meaningful ownership of a reform throughout a community, you must ensure that the community is going to be better off for that reform.

There are some elements of this debate that can simply not be ignored. Principal among them—I am mindful of the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I would seek the call again.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to participate again in this debate, particularly following the member for Moncrieff, who has so significantly acknowledged that action on climate change is such a moral imperative and there is a need to take urgent action on climate change, because it is not often that you get those concessions consistently from members of the opposition. Certainly it is very unlikely that we would get, on any given day, and indeed on consecutive days, those sorts of concessions from a leader of the opposition.

This is certainly a historic occasion for those of us on this side of the House who have assiduously committed ourselves to moving along a policy initiative that is very significant for our environment and for business certainty to create the kind of long-term opportunity and prosperity that we know is necessary and required for the development of clean energy industries in order to give Australians jobs into the future and in order to sustain the kind of economic circumstances that we find ourselves in presently.

By contrast, in those opposite, and certainly in the most recent statements of the Leader of the Opposition in moving his amendment, we see hysteria; we see continuing hysteria. We see a bid to delay significant action on climate change. We see a policy vacuum. We see a leadership vacuum. The Leader of the Opposition's amendments today seem to me to be more about distraction. You might ask, 'Distraction from what?' I think the most significant thing that the Leader of the Opposition wants to distract all of us from with his amendment is his failure to support the steel industry in this country through the steel transformation plan.

That is curious because not long ago the Leader of the Opposition visited and spoke at the Australian Steel Convention and said:

The steel industry is very important to Australia’s economy. From smelting to fabricating, steel employs about 90,000 people—critical to so many other sectors of our economy as well … So, steel is critical to our way of life, steel is important in our economy and I’ve been making the point up hill and down dale since the carbon tax was first announced …

Well, he has been up hill, he has been down dale, and occasionally he has snuck off the edge of the dale and into the gutter—in fact, more often than not he has found himself there. But unfortunately today, despite his several pages of oration to the Australian Steel Convention, he seems incapable of coming into this place and supporting and encouraging those who sit alongside him to practically give support to the steel industry. Instead he comes up with another fig leaf—this sad little amendment, which is a bid to delay one of the most significant reforms being made to our economy and in our country's history. He inevitably will and his colleagues in the Senate most likely will try to oppose significant endeavours to continue to support the steel industry. So, despite all the rhetoric and visits to steel mills, the wearing of hard hats and pretending to be out doing hard graft alongside Australian workers, once again, when it comes to actually making a decision and taking a vote, Mr Abbott is off having another siesta.

This reform that we are pursuing today we have pursued long and hard for many months now. Indeed, as one of the previous speakers mentioned, our action on initiatives such as this and action on climate change has been many years in the making. Our efforts are about ensuring that electorates such as mine benefit from the development of clean energy industries, clean energy technologies. They are about ensuring that electorates such as mine which have significant areas of environmental heritage are duly protected and are not exposed to extreme weather events such as bushfires. My electorate covers an area including much of the Dandenong Ranges, so I am very familiar with the environmental impacts that are likely to flow from inaction on climate change.

So, contrary to the reformist, forward-thinking initiatives of this government, all that those opposite and the Leader of the Opposition can offer to the Australian people is delay and a policy and leadership vacuum. That is simply not good enough.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying earlier, there are some facts about this debate that simply cannot be ignored. First among them is the fact that, at its core, Labor's policy, which would effectively penalise the Australian economy vis-a-vis other industrialised economies, will see a five per cent reduction in emission levels when Australia currently contributes around 1½ per cent of global emissions. So we are talking about imposing a multibillion-dollar tax on the Australian economy. We are talking about imposing a significant burden, which must be shared by households and by small and large businesses across the Australian economy, to make a five per cent reduction to global emissions of 1.5 per cent. The lunacy of Labor's approach on this—I heard it from the speaker immediately prior to me, and this is the great con job that lies at the core of this debate—is that it is a choice between positives and nothing. This is an approach that forces Australians to choose between the economic benefits that might flow from this policy and nothing. Can I put it unequivocally on the record that I believe there are benefits flowing from a shift to renewables—and I have already indicated that. But the key difference between my perspective and Labor's approach is that I say it must be done in lock step with other developed economies because there are costs associated with this reform that cannot be ignored. While it might suit the arguments of Labor members to claim that it is only ever filled with positives, there are significant and real economic disadvantages that will directly flow from Labor's imposition of this tax.

I am very willing to concede that there are benefits that will flow in time as well, and I say let us embrace these benefits. But we should embrace these benefits in lock step with other developed economies because, by doing that, we will ensure that the disadvantages that are felt immediately, as opposed to the longer term benefits that will flow in due course, are not done in a unilateral way.

I will speak about my own electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast. There can be no clearer example of the difference between long-term benefits and short-term costs than the tourism industry. Under Labor's proposal before the House, which has now been passed in terms of the second reading speech, we have a situation where international tourists coming to Australia will pay more as a result of Labor's carbon tax with no compensation. There is no international compensation for tourists travelling to Australia. So, for the 70 or 80 per cent of the Australian economy who will be facing increased costs—the service side of the economy—there will be no global compensation. They will pay more to visit Australia than other countries that are not doing this. What will their choice be? If you believe in the basic laws of supply and demand, when the price goes up, fewer people will demand the product. That is point No. 1.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Should we compensate them for movements in the Australian dollar too?

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

he minister at the table interjects. He concedes that the tourism industry is already being battered by a sky-high Australian dollar. He says, 'Oh well, they've already got that problem, so why would we worry about this other problem?' This is the lunacy of this government. This is the lunacy of an approach that says, 'We're already doing it tough because of this factor, so what's one more nail in the coffin?' So there is no compensation for international tourists.

In addition to that, under Labor's policy there will be no carbon tax payable on a flight overseas for an Australian but there will be a price payable to holiday domestically. So, in addition to there being a disadvantage for Australia vis-a-vis other countries around the world, under Labor's policy it will cost you more to holiday domestically but it will not cost you more to holiday internationally—and that in some way makes sense to the Labor Party as well! So, using that one industry as an example, we can already see the immediate upfront economic disadvantages that will flow to the Australian economy versus the long-term benefits that will flow to the Australian economy—which are largely qualitative and perhaps even unquantifiable—as a result of Labor's changes. The simple issue is that these reforms must be done in lock step with the rest of the world. (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this chamber today we saw, from those opposite, one of the greatest acts of political hypocrisy and political doublespeak that we have witnessed in this country for a very long time. It came in particular from the member for Indi and the Leader of the Opposition, who have spent the last nine months travelling the length and breadth of this country knocking people out of the way to get into workshops and don silly hard hats and fluoro vests so that they could pose for cameras in front of real workers and try and send a message around the country that they care for workers. They had an opportunity in this place today to put those slogans, that cheap rhetoric, into action and put their votes where their mouths are, but they squibbed it. They had an opportunity to stand up for Australian workers. They had an opportunity to stand up for people like those in my electorate of Throsby and do something valuable for them, but they went missing. They had the opportunity to vote for the steel industry transformation plan. This is a plan that is providing $300 million worth of much-needed assistance to the steel industry, which is vital to my region and the national economy. As the member for La Trobe has previously identified, the steel industry provides jobs to thousands of Australians and provides an incredibly important product to Australian and international markets, and it is finding it very difficult to trade in an international environment with very high input costs—the flipside of the high value that we are getting for our commodities like iron and coal—and the very high Australian dollar.

So the opposition had the opportunity today to say they were going to do something to assist the workers and companies in the steel industry and they went missing. I know that many of those opposite might say that the reason they voted against this was because they are opposed to what the government is doing to put a price on carbon and put in place real action to deal with climate change. The simple fact of the matter is that they could have maintained that objection and still voted in favour of the steel industry and manufacturing workers because not one cent of the revenue that is raised from the carbon price is going into the steel industry transformation plan; they are completely separate revenue streams. It would have been possible for the member for Indi to try and convince all of those economic rationalists on her front bench and those on her back bench to do something in support of manufacturing workers, but they went missing. They went missing because what they have been engaging in over the last nine months is nothing more than a sideshow designed for the media crew and it has absolutely no substance. We have a plan. We have a bundle of legislation which will enable us to deal with the generational challenge of climate change, and deal with it in the cheapest, most efficient and most effective way possible. It is a way, by putting a price on carbon and providing incentives to invest in energy efficiency, that will enable business to transform at the lowest cost. It acknowledges that there are some industries which need additional assistance and need shielding from the carbon price because of the nature of their business—the nature of their manufacturing process or their production process. We have put in place a well calibrated package which deals with the economic circumstances of these businesses.

We have been met today by a proposition that we should delay the introduction of this legislation and the carbon price. This comes after 35 parliamentary inquiries into climate change since 1994. There have been about 250 questions asked in this place on carbon pricing and over 15 separate MPI debates. We have had around 33 hours of speaking on this legislation alone, featuring around, or in addition to, 120 speakers on this. I do not think anybody who has been witnessing this debate for over 10 years can say that we have not had a full and proper debate, that the science is not known and that everything is not clear.

When you analyse the real reason behind this motion to delay the introduction of this legislation you find that there is one thing—and one thing alone. We know that delay will prevent the thing that those opposite fear the most. The thing that they fear the most is the lived experience of this legislation. They know that from 1 July next year the sky is not going to fall in, and all of those consumers around the country will be measuring in brown copper coins the increase to their costs, and not in the orange-and-yellow notes, as they have been led to believe, by those opposite. That is the real reason lying behind their motion to delay. We have had enough delay already. (Time expired)

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I go on about with respect to Labor's approach in this particular debate, and the reason why this is not the correct approach, and why the coalition's way is a better way, is perhaps best summed up by some of the media commentary. Labor's approach to this has been not to tell the truth prior to the last federal election about their intentions and to introduce something that the Prime Minister said she would not introduce.

Labor's approach is also only to speak about the positives and completely ignore the negatives that flow from their policy. The old adage is, 'You can only fool some of the people some of the time, and you can't fool all of the people all of the time.'

Labor's approach is perhaps best summed up by a variety of front pages from the Gold Coast Bulletin. The first one is headed, 'Julia's fun tax. Carbon scheme to bring more pain to the Coast.' I will read very briefly the first couple of paragraphs from this story. It says:

Take a good look at this scene—you might not see it so often once the fun policy in Canberra hit us between the eyes with a carbon tax.

Tourists like Perth couple Stewart Jarvis and Kate Walker won't be able to afford the inflated airfares, the hiked-up hotel rates or the mark up on our theme parks as companies scramble to pass on the additional costs.

Chief killjoy Julia Gillard's attempt to sell the tax to the nation yesterday only reaffirmed fears here on the Coast that our number one industry, tourism, will be hit and hit hard.

Then this page is headed 'Rescue me. Carbon tax punishes helicopter heroes.' This is a story about how charitable operations like RACQ CareFlight will have to pay more under Labor's carbon tax without any offsetting compensation. And there is this front page with the heading, 'Emission impossible. Carbon tax could bring battling city to its knees.' Flights and accommodation, up. Rates, up. Theme park tickets, up. Hospital fees, up. Construction costs, up.

There is this story about Bond University on the Gold Coast. Most people, including me, would have thought that an educational institution would not be liable for Labor's carbon tax. The reality is quite different though. The article says:

Bond University expects to pay an additional $2 million a year under the Federal Government's carbon tax and says it will have to cut more than 100 jobs or raise tuition fees to compensate.

These are facts about what is going to happen under Labor's carbon tax in a unilateral sense. There is another front page of the Gold Coast Bulletin. It says: '"Power cost surge to hurt ratepayers," warns mayor. City's $112 million carbon bill.' These are the negatives from Labor's carbon tax which members opposite do not ever want to talk about.

You could understand the logic if these negative consequences were occurring in our economy at the same time as they were occurring in other economies. But the Labor Party pretend that the negative consequences simply do not exist and I guess the next election will probably sort out what the Australian people think about that. The Australian people know that there are very real and significant negative consequences from Labor's carbon tax: job losses, increased rates, increased power bills, more expensive aircraft flights, more expensive fuel, household costs to go up. You name it there will be a massive price impact. But it will not be happening around the rest of the world; it will only be happening in this country.

This is not a choice between a carbon tax or nothing. The reality is that countries can still invest in renewables, countries can still commercialise new R&D and countries can still explore new alternatives without the impost of a carbon tax. Perhaps a good example is what the UAE is doing with their Masdar project. That country is currently one of the leaders in energy production and the Crown Prince wants to ensure that the UAE is one of the leaders in the world of renewable energy in the future. Guess what—they are doing it without a carbon tax.

The reality is that Labor's plan is not the correct approach. Most fundamentally it is not the correct approach because it is an approach that is based on deceit. It is an approach without a mandate. It is an approach without any bona fide support of the Australian people. Labor is simply burying its head in the sand and shrieking that there are only benefits and no negatives, when the evidence is crystal clear that the costs are significant. That only reinforces how out of touch this government has become.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was good to hear the member for Moncrieff acknowledge in the first of his speeches that there are actually negative consequences for inaction. We have heard so much negative comment and fear mongering from this opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is effectively a walking stuntman going from town to town looking for workers to pose in front of, spreading fear about what will happen if we as a nation decide to act on climate change. Then we had the member for Moncrieff collecting the media articles that result from that and reading them into the House as if they were some sort of evidence. He may as well, in fact, be reading the Liberal Party press releases.

I want to go back to something he also said, where he referred to Australia's contribution to greenhouse gases in the world and used that as a reason to not act. It is something we hear from time to time. We hear people say that Australia's contribution is less than two per cent and therefore we should not act. I want to address that. Australia per head of population is the highest emitter in the world by quite a significant margin. When you look at it by volume we are No. 15 in the world. There are only 14 countries that emit more greenhouse gases by volume than we do. So we are well and truly a very large contributor. But more than that, when you look at the other countries that emit around the same level of greenhouse emissions as us—less than two per cent—such countries represent over 50 per cent of world emissions. If every country that emitted two per cent or less took the attitude the member for Moncrieff and so many on the opposition want us to take then action would be left to the remaining 50 per cent. That is clearly not a path the world can take. Countries have to act, including us.

There were also statements made about Australia's prosperity and our reliance for that prosperity over many decades—in fact, centuries—on fossil fuel. That is absolutely true: our prosperity is well and truly coupled to fossil fuel. But for me that is the very reason why we should act. A good friend of mine, Donald Horne—who has now passed away—used to refer to us as the 'Lucky Country', and we were. We had the right stuff in the ground when that was the source of prosperity, and we still have that stuff in the ground and we continue to prosper through it. But the rest of the world over the last decade has been moving slowly away from that. Investment in clean energy last year exceeded investment in fossil fuel. That means the rest of the world is seeking their prosperity from a technology that we are not in. Donald Horne also said to me once that we needed to be the clever country and that we could no longer afford to be reliant on The Man from Snowy River. We can also no longer be depending on the Snowy River Scheme for our renewables. As a nation that is where our renewables still come from. About eight per cent of our power comes from renewables and it is still from the Tasmanian and Snowy hydro schemes, which were built many, many decades ago. So while the rest of the world is moving into new technologies, developing skills, developing infrastructure, educating their young and skilling-up their workforce in new sources of prosperity, we as a nation have been hanging around assuming we can continue to benefit from the old way of the world, which is fossil fuels.

It is important as a nation, of course, that we acknowledge that we do prosper from that and we use the revenue raised from the sale of permits to assist the transition of our industry from the old fossil fuel economy to the new clean energy future. We are doing that. We are putting more than half the revenue raised from putting a price on carbon pollution towards households to meet the price impact, but the rest of it goes on supporting jobs and the transition to a clean energy future. There is a $9.2 billion Jobs and Competitiveness Program to support jobs and encourage investment in clean technology. There is a $1.2 billion Clean Technology Program to help improve energy efficiency in manufacturing and support research. There is a $1.3 billion Coal Sector Jobs Package, a $70 million Coal Mining Abatement Technology Support Package, and a $300 million Steel Transformation Plan—that is on top of the $9.2 billion Jobs and Competitiveness Program. Of course we have seen the opposition vote against that today. We have to transition as a nation from the old fossil fuel economy to a new clean energy economy and I am incredibly pleased to speak in support of this today.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to use this forum to speak on this carbon tax legislation after having been gagged speaking on the main debate—being allocated only five minutes to talk on it, which was absolutely shameful and in particular shameful for my electorate of Wannon. The constituents of my electorate deserve better treatment than that.

I rise tonight to talk on some particular aspects of this bill. I am glad that the minister is here tonight and I hope he is listening to what I have to say. It goes back to a question I asked the Prime Minister about the impact that this carbon tax will have on the dairy industry. In that question I outlined that if Murray-Goulburn or Bega or Warrnambool Cheese and Butter were operating in the European Union they would basically be exempt from paying the European Union carbon tax—the tax they pay under their emissions trading scheme.

The dairy industry in Australia employs over 40,000 people and indirectly provides jobs for over 60,000 people. By not protecting our own local dairy industry the government is putting at risk local jobs within the dairy industry, because the dairy industry is an emissions-intensive trade-exposed industry. It has nowhere to go to pass the costs on. They have to be passed back to the dairy farmer. We have very good research which shows that an average dairy farmer will be hit with costs between $5,000 and $7,000 per dairy farm. For some of the bigger dairy farms in my electorate we are looking at costs of $10,000 to $15,000 to $20,000. I ask the minister in the chamber tonight: if he was putting an impact on his own constituents of $15,000 to $20,000 per farm, would he stand there and let this legislation go through? These are working dairy-farming families that he is hitting with these extra costs and taxes.

Following my question to the Prime Minister, the Australian Dairy Industry Council wrote to the Prime Minister, and copied it to the minister. It stated:

I write regarding your response to the member for Wannon in question time last Thursday regarding the impacts from the proposed carbon tax on the Australian dairy industry. Your response to the question infers that the likely cost impacts on dairy farming families and dairy companies are being misrepresented in the current debate. The Australian Dairy Industry Council strongly rejects any inference that we have or are engaging in misrepresentation on this issue. From the very start of public discussions on climate policy the ADIC has observed that the impacts of carbon pricing on Australian dairy farmers were likely to be significant, unless appropriately structured. Carbon pricing would lead to a sharp increase in dairy's key on-farm energy import, electricity, and the inevitable pass-back of higher energy and import costs for diary manufacturers to farm suppliers in the form of lower milk prices.

This is a serious issue which will impact my electorate. We produce more milk in the south-west than any other region in the country does. You are directly whacking, directly impacting on, the dairy farmers in my electorate. It is time that the minister got his head out of the sand and had a look at the detrimental impact this carbon tax is going to have on the dairy industry, and especially on dairy farmers in my electorate. If we were in the EU, they would be exempt, because they are trade exposed emissions intensive. They need the same exemption here in Australia. (Time expired)

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this cognate debate on the clean energy bills. The Gillard government has developed a comprehensive plan to move to a clean energy future. We, unlike those on the other side of the chamber, accept the science on climate change. The Liberal Party have been scaremongering around the country. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, is a risk to jobs and the economy. We need stability and a plan for the future.

Our plan is to move to a market price, whilst the Liberals have the same target as us but prefer instead to tax working families and give to the polluters, including multinationals—that is, take from battlers and give to the rich. Job opportunities in science and engineering and in building trades will open up as existing businesses move to clean energy and invest in new technology to generate less pollution. This is a great opportunity for this country. In fact, the Climate Institute research paper found that about 31,000 jobs could be created in regional Australia by 2030 if a price is put on carbon and clean energy policies are put into place. Climate Institute Chief Executive John Connor said:

We don’t want to be lumbered with the energy sources and jobs of the 20th century, while the 21st century charges on without us.

Australia generates more carbon pollution per person than any developed country, including the United States. We produce significantly more pollution per person than India and China. This is a problem we can no longer ignore. The world is moving to a clean energy future and we will be at the forefront. Some constituents in my electorate have asked me why Australia has to be first, and I say, 'Well, we were up there with universal health care, super and opening up our economy, and we need to be first with carbon as well.' I explain that countries around the world are already taking action on climate change: 89 countries, representing 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the world's economy, have already pledged to take action on climate change. This is a tremendous commitment.

The world is shifting and accepting the science. Yet those opposite continue with their criticisms and scaremongering. And, yes, we have all heard the member for Warringah say he will rescind the carbon price if elected. He will also reverse household assistance. He would prefer to tax Australian families and hand the money to big business. The Australian Labor Party will look after vulnerable and working people; the Liberals will take from those least able to pay and give to the rich multinationals. We know the Liberals will cut benefits to the vulnerable because they have form—look at their history. They voted against the jobs that were created by the BER.

What I find very interesting is that the vast majority of Liberal coalition members have not mentioned their direct action policy in this important debate. Is this because they are embarrassed about their policy? Is it because they would rather play cheap politics and hoodwink the Australian public about the government's plan? Is it because they do not believe the science and know that the Liberal Party will never action the policy if they do win government?

This is an exciting reform and we have the support of many scientists, leaders and stakeholders. The President of the European Commission, Mr Jose Barroso, welcomed the clean energy future package, and I quote:

Australia's decision to put a price on carbon emissions is in our view an important step both environmentally and economically, because it is in our European experience the most cost efficient way to reduce emissions and also a great green business opportunity.

The Uniting Church of Australia has also weighed in, with the Victorian and Tasmanian branch welcoming the initiative. UCA President Reverend Alistair Macrae said that strong and swift action on climate change is needed and that this is a historic moment for Australia. Dr John Hewson said:

…this is the most important thing we can do for our nation this century—

Interesting—yet those opposite continue to play political games on this critical issue. Tony Abbott's carbon plan would send ordinary taxpayers' money direct to the biggest polluters, costing every household an average of $1,300. Yet, as I mentioned before, those on the seats opposite have been deathly quiet. This is a real difference between the Labor Party and the Liberals. Labor look after the vulnerable and create jobs for the future, whilst the Liberals look after the rich. I ask those opposite to get on board, to think about Australia's future and to support these bills. (Time expired)

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise again to speak because I was gagged in speaking in the substantive debate on this legislation. I am going to use this forum and I will advertise the fact, again, that I will use various forums to keep hammering the government on this toxic tax. I once again say how appalled I was on behalf of my constituents that, for a bill which was over 1,200 pages, the government saw fit to give the electorate of Wannon and its representative only five minutes to speak on that over 1,200-page bill.

I will now turn to the impact that the toxic carbon tax will have on manufacturing in my electorate. I have been pursuing the government in this place on the impact that it will have on manufacturing in my electorate. On 3 March I asked the Prime Minister:

Portland Aluminium, located in my electorate of Wannon, directly employs 600 people. Across the country there are 60,000 jobs dependent on the aluminium industry. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no job losses in the aluminium industry as a result of the carbon tax?

What was the answer that I got? Could I get a straight answer to that pretty straightforward question? No, I could not. I got: 'Let's have a go at this. Let's have a go at that. We'll do everything that we can bar answer that question.' So, I followed up that and I asked the Treasurer, because I thought the Treasurer might be able to shed some light. I asked the Treasurer:

I refer the Treasurer to a fact sheet from a group including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Environment Victoria and Greenpeace, which claims:

'… if Alcoa’s aluminium smelting did go overseas, there would be a direct environmental benefit even if the same quantity of aluminium was produced.'

Does the Treasurer agree that relocating Australia's aluminium industry, including Portland Aluminium in my electorate, to countries that do not impose a tax on carbon would help reduce global emissions?

The Treasurer did give me a direct answer on that but it was not a very expansive one. I now know why the Treasurer would not expand on that and why the Prime Minister was rather reluctant to go into too much detail about the impact of the carbon tax on the aluminium sector. When Alcoa presented to the Senate select committee inquiry into carbon tax pricing, it came out that the carbon tax will cost the company around $40 million a year. This is a trade-exposed emissions-intensive industry and competes internationally. Yet we are sitting here today and those opposite are quite happy that Alcoa takes a $40 million hit to their bottom line. Aluminium is Victoria's biggest export and we are putting an additional cost of $40 million per annum on these exports. It beggars belief that we would be doing that to Victoria's largest manufacturer.

There are other manufacturers in my electorate who are also going to be hit. I refer in particular to two in Ararat—AME Systems and Gason Industries. Both these small manufacturers actually produce equipment which reduces emissions. What is the government doing to assist and help these manufacturing businesses who are making goods here in Australia which help reduce emissions? They are adding to their costs. Go figure! We have leading technology being produced by these two businesses to help reduce emissions, and what is their reward? They are going to get hit with extra costs and in particular extra electricity costs. This carbon tax will be bad for manufacturing in my electorate; it will be bad for manufacturing in Australia.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I may just respond to a couple of the things that the member for Wannon has raised. Firstly, shortly after the government announced the clean energy future package on 10 July I was at Point Henry smelter in Victoria with representatives of Alcoa who, in fact, welcomed the government's policy announcement and the fact that the government had taken into account issues that they had raised. Specifically, of course, in the aluminium industry an average of 94.5 per cent of their carbon price liability will be offset in the first year of the scheme by the issuing of free carbon units, or free permits. Along with some other important changes that the government made to policy prior to it being announced on 10 July, Alcoa, certainly in their public commentary and in their observations to their own workforce—in fact, I spoke in the canteen with representatives of Alcoa and with a number of members of the workforce—indicated that their concerns have been met. That is an important thing to place on the record given the absurd hysteria that has just been recited by the member for Wannon.

Similarly in relation to the manufacturing sector—and the member for Wannon raised issues concerning the cost impost for small manufacturers—you have to bear in mind that the cost impact is, in fact, very modest in many businesses. The Treasury modelling, of course, indicates that the overall CPI impact is 0.7 per cent upon the introduction of the carbon price. Within that, electricity is modelled to rise around 10 per cent for households in particular. If we take that number and apply it to the current proportion of costs attributable to electricity for many businesses—and working with the Small Business Council and speaking to some other businesses, including an iron foundry—it is around two or three per cent of their total costs. Taking that figure and applying the Treasury modelling of a price increase for electricity, you are looking at a potential increase in the order of 0.2 per cent to 0.3 per cent in costs for many businesses. That is a manageable cost impost. Businesses which are not in the trade-exposed sector of the economy can pass through these costs, and it is the passing through of these modest cost increases that leads to the overall CPI increase. That is why the government has formulated a policy to deliver assistance to households. We are delivering assistance in the form of increases to benefits to meet those cost increases. For example, there will be a 1.7 per cent increase in the pension, with $250 to be paid in advance to single pensioners in May/June next year and, similarly, there will be a 1.7 per cent upfront payment to families in receipt of family tax benefits. These are the ways that the government is dealing with these cost increases and the overall CPI increase.

In addition, for the manufacturing sector as described by the member for Wannon, there is an $800 million Clean Technology Program which is a co-contribution grants scheme to assist businesses to improve their energy efficiency. All these issues are pertinent too to the dairy industry, which has been raised by the member for Wannon. ABARES analysis indicates that electricity costs are about 2.3 per cent of total farm cash costs. With the increase in electricity prices, that will translate to an increase in costs of around 0.23 per cent in total farm cash costs. The government has been through these matters with dairy industry representatives a number of times. We do not agree with all of their calculations of the cost impost, and these are some data that are important to inject into the debate.

We are very mindful that in dairy processing in particular there is a high level of electricity consumption. As a consequence of that, the government has formulated a $150 million program specifically for the food processing sector which will operate in the form of a co-contribution grant for dairy processors and others in the food industry to assist them to find efficient ways of reducing their electricity consumption—that is, to improve their energy efficiency. The government is committed to that program. It will help the industry. In discussions I have had with the industry, it has acknowledged that it will be an important contribution.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad that the minister is prepared to engage in the debate. I have a couple of things to say. Manufacturers cannot pass the costs through. These are businesses which compete globally, so they cannot pass the costs through; instead, they must suffer the consequences.

Let us listen to what three manufacturing businesses say. Alcoa has confirmed that the carbon tax along with the strong Australian dollar and high import costs is imposing 'a significant threat to the future viability of both the Victorian aluminium smelters'. Alcoa also confirms that the carbon tax will cost the company around $40 million a year. I will leave it there.

Let us look at the two small manufacturers in my electorate. Mr Peter Carthew, who is the Chairman and Managing Director of AME Systems, says:

The Carbon Tax is the sort of charge against our business which we cannot recover from in an already highly price competitive market place …

Mr Les Gason, Chairman of Gason Industries, says that they are expecting an increase of up to nine per cent in expenses. Forget about the Treasury modelling; that is what the business on the ground is saying—nine per cent in expenses. Mr Gason says:

This imposes a cost on us which I don’t believe is necessary or fair, because it is not imposed on the imports we compete against. These additional costs will make it a lot harder.

I invite the minister to come down to Wannon, and together we could go and see these two small manufacturing businesses in Ararat. We could then go down to Warrnambool and meet with Murray-Goulburn and Warrnambool Cheese and Butter and have a discussion about the direct impact of the carbon tax on the dairy industry. We could then head to Portland and have a discussion there with the workers about the impact that the carbon tax will have on the aluminium sector. I extend an open invitation to the minister to come down.

While we were there, we could also talk to local farmers. I have not started yet on the impact the carbon tax will have on other parts of the agricultural sector in my electorate. Agriculture has diversified in my electorate. We now do a lot of cropping. Modelling done on the impact of the carbon tax on a grain property in Western Australia says that the tax will add an additional $36,000 a year in farm business costs. For meat processing, which is trade-exposed and emissions-intensive, the carbon tax will mean that at least another 24c to 30c per sheep is taken off the farmer's bottom line. We have just been through 10 years of drought, and now along comes the government to hit the competitiveness of our meat industry. For sheep meat we are looking at a 16 per cent loss under the carbon tax, and the list goes on.

So I offer to the minister, the Prime Minister or any member of the government who would like to come down the chance to talk to the farmers, the manufacturers and, in particular, the dairy industry in the electorate of Wannon to see what impact this carbon tax is going to have. I reiterate once again to the minister that, if Murray-Goulburn, Warrnambool Cheese and Butter, Fonterra or Bega operated in Europe, they would be largely exempt under the EU scheme. The reason they would be exempt is the European Union does not want carbon leakage. It does not want jobs and industry going overseas. It is a shame that the government here will not stand up for our industries and for jobs in our country, and is going ahead with the standalone, do-it-yourself carbon tax, which is reckless. (Time expired)

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the government's Clean Energy Future legislation. Today in the chamber the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency said:

The 19 bills comprising the clean energy legislation and the Steel Transformation Plan Bill represent one of the most important environmental and economic reforms in this nation's history.

It is days like today that make the people on this side of the House proud to be members of this government and proud to be members of the Australian Labor Party. In my electorate we have waited a long time for this legislation and we have been preparing for it. I hear so many members on the other side spread fear through scaremongering about the loss of jobs and the threat to the economy. This defies the realities of a place like Newcastle, the city I represent. It is a city that once was dependent on one industry, BHP Steelmaking, yet we learned about diversification, innovation and investing in skills and modern capital. We also learned about the powers of collaboration.

For the 10 years since the CSIRO Energy Centre came to Newcastle we have been preparing for this legislation. In 2007, when this government was elected, we were ready and since then capacity has been built around a clean energy economy, with investment exceeding $300 million. The clean energy technology centre, the Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources, the Australian Solar Institute, and Smart Grid, Smart City are wonderful things, but there is one thing missing—a mechanism to price carbon and increase the competitiveness of clean and renewable energy. That is exactly what these bills do. That is why today is such a wonderful day for places like Newcastle.

It is extremely important to know that this legislation also sustains existing industry. I have said before and I will keep saying that there is no minister who better understands how important it is to sustain employment by sustaining jobs in our traditional industries. In an electorate like mine, we value-add to steel from Whyalla. We make the steel products at OneSteel using innovation to make innovative products that are used all over this nation. We make the aluminium and at Tomago Aluminium we are going to diversify and value-add to that product as well. We make cement. We also export the biggest volume of coal in the world. Under this government there is support for every one of those industries. I have been astounded by this government's willingness to listen and to respond to the needs of current industries and the jobs that they create.

The other side have been really concerned because they have seen, not only in action but also at the tax forum and the jobs forum last week, a willingness from all stakeholders to step into the future and face with realism the challenges that confront our industries and our economy. A Prime Minister's task force has been set up to look at sustaining industry, just as a Prime Minister's task force was set up when BHP closed in Newcastle. I know that under the Gillard government this will be an extension of everything that is good in this legislation.

It is always disappointing when the voices of those who should know a lot better spread fear and untruths, misrepresenting the realities of our economy. For example, the Premier of New South Wales, Barry O'Farrell, repeated fallacious claims that up to 13,000 people in the Hunter would lose their jobs. That is not true. All the modelling says job growth in the Hunter is real. Mr Baldwin, the member for Paterson, said the coal industry in Newcastle is doomed. What rubbish—there is billions of dollars in forward investment and new terminals are being created by three different entities. Finally we have the legislation to boost our investment in clean energy and the future economy. (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting listening to members opposite. In particular I refer to those members who have spoken about the impact of this legislation on industry around Australia. I want to respond to a couple of comments made firstly by the member for Moncrieff, who earlier on was referring to the 1½ per cent that Australia contributes to total global emissions and the five per cent reduction target on the year 2000 levels by the year 2020. The member for Moncrieff criticised that target of a five per cent reduction on the year 2000 levels by 2020 saying that it was only five per cent. He conveniently neglected to say that it represents about 23 per cent on business as usual levels if we did nothing. It is in fact quite a significant decrease in emissions by the year 2020. Here is the irony of his comments: he also neglected to point out that his own party have set an equivalent target. If you are going to come in here and criticise the target of five per cent reduction by the year 2020 and your own party has adopted it, what does that say about your own credibility?

Quite frankly, the member for Moncrieff also omitted to talk about the impact of the policies that his leader has put to this House as an alternative to achieving those targets. If you believe that we ought to achieve those targets then you must have a strategy to do so. We have heard about their strategy, and their strategy will cost households about $1,300 a year as opposed to $9.90, or around $500, which is the cost of this legislation—in other words, more than twice as much. What impact will that have on the industries and the businesses that he claims and purports to be concerned about?

I want to talk about another aspect which the member for Moncrieff also conveniently failed to refer to. It is a fact that climate change will impact on Australia's biodiversity and our ecosystems in this country. It is a point the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has made on numerous occasions in this place. It is such a serious matter that the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts is inquiring into that very issue right now—that is, the impact of climate change on Australia's biodiversity and in turn our ecosystems. I want to quote from a statement made by the CSIRO, an organisation that I would expect would have credibility in this country and quite rightly so. I am referring specifically to the issue of Queensland. The CSIRO said:

In Queensland, fisheries are likely worth more than $200 million per year, mainly through the Great Barrier Reef system … and tourism is estimated to contribute $9.2 billion and employs 222,000 people …

That was based on a Tourism Queensland report of 2006. All of these industries and these ecosystems are at risk if we as part of the global world do nothing in respect of climate change. If the member for Moncrieff is genuinely concerned about the impact of this legislation on those business operators in Queensland, where is his concern when the fact is that, if we do nothing, the impact on their businesses will be even greater and there will be 222,000 people whose jobs are at risk?

In respect of the other point made by both the member for Moncrieff and the member for Wannon about the impact on businesses, again they pretend that we are working in isolation here. They conveniently ignore the fact that other countries with whom we compete have had a cost on their businesses since 1990. Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland and the UK have all had an indirect or direct tax system that impacts on industries in those countries, and you can break that down to a cost per tonne. So it is not as though we are acting in isolation and it is not as though we are not acting on a level playing field. It is a fact that, since 1990, we have been acting with an advantage because we have had no price per tonne on carbon in this country. Let us be honest when we start making comparisons with what is proposed in this legislation and what is occurring around the world. The reality is, as the Productivity Commission has quite rightly pointed out, that 89 countries that represent 80 per cent of the global emissions and nearly 90 per cent of the total GDP are already acting. (Time expired)

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

I rise again to speak on this issue in the consideration in detail. I return to the point that I was making earlier regarding the government's very rubbery figures: the fact that it forgot $4.3 billion and then said, 'Oops! Don't worry about it; it's simply a rounding error'. What that demonstrates to all of us in this chamber is that the government got it wrong again on its figures and then, of course, found an excuse to try to make it look as though it was all meant to be. But we know that it was not meant to be. The government's default position is to tax and spend, and the carbon tax that the government has brought forward is the biggest tax and spend redistribution of wealth that we will see in our lifetimes.

But this is not where the government's rubbery figures end. The government also forgot to factor in the $10 billion in the slush fund for the leader of the Greens, to fund his pet causes and projects. Again, we were led to believe that this perhaps was not real money. We know that the Treasurer has had problems in the past with real money—he has problems with this concept—because in opposition he referred to the fact that a $600 per child payment was not 'real money'. I have news for the Treasurer: the money is real, and it comes from ordinary Australians.

We know that the cost of the carbon tax will be around $1.5 billion between now and 2020. It is going to cost up to a trillion dollars over the coming decades. This is despite the fact that the Prime Minister in her own speech said that the price impact of the government's plan will be modest. A trillion dollars: I would hardly call that modest.

Now we come to the modelling. Only last sitting period, the Treasurer was forced to release new modelling to factor in those things that had not been factored in. Who can forget that the government modelling in the compensation arrangements they put forward was based on $20 a tonne when in fact they were bringing in a carbon tax with a starting price of $23 a tonne? In his most current press release on the modelling, the Treasurer acknowledged that the updated modelling covers the main impacts on the Australian economy of the Clean Energy Future package. However, including all elements of the plan was not feasible. So he is acknowledging in his own words that they cannot really properly fully model the impact. They either do not know or do not want us to know what the impact is going to be.

We keep being reminded by the government that this is a wonderfully vital economic reform, yet by their own admission they cannot say what the impact is going to be and, more to the point, they cannot tell us who the 500 big polluters are. We know that the supposed 500 big polluters dipped down to around 400 and then went back up to 500. And yet, when specifically asked to name the supposedly hundreds of big polluters who are going to have to pay this carbon tax, the government cannot detail for us who they are.

It is fair to say that if they cannot answer these fairly basic questions and if they cannot get basic programs like a pink batts program, or a solar homes program of only $850 million or a $350 million green program right, how on earth are they going to get the most complex change to the Australian economy right? We know that there is one thing they are consistent on, and that is budget blowouts. We know that they are very good at wasting taxpayer money, but we will all be paying for that.

I would also like to talk about another thing that the government says is close to its heart and is very important, and that is jobs. The government is very good at talking about jobs and yet not very good at defending them. Let us analyse some of the numbers. Verso Economics recently found that, for every supposed green job created, 3.7 jobs were lost in other areas of the economy. Spain's Universidad Rey Juan Carlos found that, for every green job, 2.2 jobs were lost. Study after study demonstrates what we know to be correct, which is that with a carbon tax jobs will go, jobs will be lost. This government says that it is a matter of pride that it defends jobs, yet when the Prime Minister was asked to guarantee that not one job would be lost she would not give that guarantee. Why would she not give that guarantee? She would not give that guarantee because she knows the truth. The truth is the carbon tax will lead to a destruction of jobs.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened to the honourable member for Higgins, and she talked about being guillotined. She did not make a bad fist of it tonight in speaking. She had two goes, and I am sure she will come back for some more goes. It is just utter nonsense that we are listening to.

This amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition is only designed to delay the start of the carbon price. That is all it is designed to do. The government cannot support this amendment. I cannot support this amendment. The people in my electorate of Page want the certainty that this package of legislation is bringing. I have spoken to some of the people tonight, and they are pleased that it is happening.

They talk about delays. Let me tell you about delays and what has happened. This is the culmination of a debate that has been running for almost two decades. I repeat: two decades. We have seen 35 parliamentary inquiries into climate change since 1994. We have had a lot of discussion on these topics in this House already. This year alone there have been 225 questions asked on carbon pricing and over 15 separate MPI debates—more debacles than debates, but for form's sake I will call them debates. The clean energy debate has taken some 33 hours. There have been 120 speakers. Again, I ask: is that being guillotined? Significantly, this has been a longer debate than the former Howard coalition government allowed for the GST, for Work Choices and for the sale of Telstra—significant issues indeed, as is this one. Mind you, it is not as if we have not talked about this before. When I listen to the opposition it is a bit like being trapped in that movie Groundhog Day. They just wake up, they come in here and they trot out the same old stuff. At least in Groundhog Day the lead character woke up every day more accomplished, more informed and more intelligent. I do not see that happening on the other side but that is what it feels like.

The time to act is now. That is what the government is doing. We must begin the transformation to a low-carbon economy, and this transformation begins with the passage of the clean energy bills. We have to put in place the incentive for business to invest in the clean energy technologies that will allow Australia to maintain its economic growth while cutting pollution. It is about being competitive. I am sure the opposition do not understand. Their only competition is really with the opposition leader wanting to come into this place in another position; it is about his job. The countries that pioneer the clean technologies that will allow this decoupling to occur will be the countries that see strong and consistent economic growth through the next century. These will be the countries that will be the most competitive. That is what this is about. It is about keeping Australia competitive.

The alternative of the Leader of the Opposition's prescription is to do nothing. It is about pretending that climate change is not happening—heads buried totally in the sand—and it is about attacking the scientists who say that climate change is occurring and attacking the economists who state that a carbon price is the most efficient way of tackling the problem. I know there are many on the opposite side who believe that. By refusing to grapple with the challenges and opportunities of a carbon-constrained world—and that is what this clean energy package will transition us to—the Leader of the Opposition would rather see our economy stagnate and fall behind those of our competitors, as long as his political interests are served. That is how it looks to me and that is how it is increasingly looking to many others.

Now that the Leader of the Opposition can see that he will not be able to stop this important reform, he attempts to delay it. Just get on with it. It is time to just do it. It is happening. This again betrays his inability to put the interests of the nation above his own narrow political interest. The fact is that we know that any delay to this important reform will not magically make it less costly. In fact, it will only increase the costs. Various studies have looked into the implications of delaying the introduction of a carbon price and all conclude that such delay is costly. We cannot ignore them. We ignore them at our peril. In addition, federal Treasury have consistently stated that delaying this crucial reform will only increase the costs of separating— (Time expired)

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

I was listening very intently to my colleague across the chamber, the member for Page, about the importance, as she put it, of not delaying, of doing it right now, because it will increase costs at some point in the future. We know that this is simply based on a false assumption. It is based on the assumption that there is going to be a global consensus on carbon tax and on emissions trading schemes, and we know for a fact that this is not where the world is going. Let me tell you, while there may be some people in Page who might support you in this endeavour, I can certainly say that there are people in Higgins who do not. I know for a fact, because they have told me, that it is going to have a dramatic impact on their cost of living and on their way of life.

I went out to speak to my electorate specifically on this issue. Just as the Prime Minister said she was going to wear out her shoe leather speaking to everybody about this, I not only talked the talk but also walked the walk. I had a community forum in my electorate on 27 July and had around 200 people turn up. People spoke there about the cost of living going up and they asked the question: what is the global environmental gain from this carbon tax? Self-funded retirees without a Commonwealth health card stated that they would be dramatically worse off. They know that they will not receive any payments from the government. They know as well that payments simply will not keep up. They know that every time they turn on the light, open a fridge, wash their clothes or turn on the air conditioner a carbon tax is going to mean it will cost them more. This is going to affect over 285,000 Australians, many of whom are in my electorate of Higgins, who have sacrificed and saved to fund themselves in their own retirement.

During that forum that night I was also particularly struck by a very sobering dilemma faced by a small businessman, Mr Errol Mymin, the managing director of Timbermate Group, which manufacture and then export a unique product to 15 countries. He said, 'I make a 100 per cent locally made product of which 90 per cent is my raw material, and that is from Victoria.' He is already being hit by the high Australian dollar. He employs 18 people, 12 of whom are over the age of 50 years. He told the forum that the carbon tax and the 10 per cent hike in electricity will force him to consider relocating his business overseas. He expressed concern that many of the people that he employs would find it very difficult to get another job. He asked: how do you compensate people for the loss of a job? That is exactly the point—you cannot. He went on to say in an email to me, 'Comrade Combet'—who is sitting across the chamber here tonight—'refers to households, low earners and large polluters, but does no-one in Labor understand the people that will be hurt the most are the low-paid workers who will lose their jobs as they become too expensive and manufacturers move overseas?' That is the question that this government needs to answer.

On Saturday, 18 September, I spoke with many small businesses in my electorate of Higgins who specifically run their businesses in Koornang Road, Carnegie. The chicken shop owner told me about the impact that the increased electricity prices will have on his business. The cafe owner said that it would make it harder for him to employ people when he had to cut costs to absorb as much as he could before passing on those remaining costs to consumers. The florist spoke to me about the fact that she has never seen such bad business conditions and that the added impact of the government's carbon tax would finish many businesses off. And on and on it went.

But it is not just businesses, the people they employ and their families who are affected; it is also the services we use. I met with a not-for-profit hospital that has calculated that the carbon tax will increase its electricity bills by $345,000 per year. This hospital in my electorate of Higgins receives no compensation. It is not a multinational for-profit organisation. It is not a big polluter. It simply cannot absorb this cost. Imposing a carbon tax ultimately leads to one of three outcomes for this not-for-profit hospital: increased costs to patients, cuts to staff or both. People in business and the community understand the dangers of imposing a carbon tax. This government needs to understand the very real impact it will have on everyone's life here in Australia.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We hear from the other side: 'What's the hurry? What's the big need for this legislation?' The facts in this debate are simple. Climate change is real. The evidence is overwhelming. We are already seeing the impacts of a changing climate. Human activities are triggering those changes, and we are witnessing it in the global climate. The International Energy Agency has found that last year greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount and that an estimated 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon were released worldwide. The IEA advised that to avoid the worst effects of global warming we must stop short of 32 gigatonnes a year by 2020. It is worth noting that even this target is 'starting to seem impossibly optimistic.' We will act. It is important to act.

I also hear: 'Why act early? We're going out before anyone else.' No, we are not. That is not at all true. As the minister explained today, that claim conveniently ignores the action that is occurring all around the world. It disregards that it is in our national interest to be part of that change, part of that competitive economy. China is spending one per cent of its GDP on renewable energy. That is a huge market. We cannot afford to be left out of that. We want our slice of that. We cannot ignore the fact that we are the highest emitters per capita amongst developed economies. Our future prosperity does depend on us embracing change—on embracing a cleaner, carbon-free economy.

I note that the minister also drew attention to the fact that 90 countries representing 80 per cent of global emissions and over 90 per cent of the global economy have now made pledges to undertake mitigation action. China, I know, intends to have a national scheme by 2015. So it is something we cannot afford not to be part of. We are not acting early. We are acting responsibly.

People also say, 'Isn't this a great big tax on everything?' and 'Isn't this a Labor government that's putting the needs of working people aside?' No, that is not right. This is a typical Labor policy.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It sure is!

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will desist from interjecting.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is good Labor policy that makes big polluters pay. It is a Labor policy that supports 90 per cent of households with any cost impacts. It supports all pensioners. It supports three million low-income families with a tax-free threshold rising from $6,000 to $18,000, which will support over 90 per cent of households. I would like to know if the Leader of the Opposition will stop those payments. Is it his style to stop the cheques, denying the Australian people the assistance they will need? Possibly.

This is a Labor policy because it sustains industry. It absolutely invests into our current industry and the jobs they create. It also invests in innovation, in the future and in the environment. I note my colleague mentioned the impact on biodiversity if we do nothing. Australia leads the world in loss of biodiversity. That is not something we should be at all proud of. This is a very good effort to do something about that.

I have also heard across the chamber: 'We can't afford this; this impost is terrible.' I think they said that about slavery: 'We can't afford to get rid of slavery. We can't afford anything that prejudices our profits.' This is absolutely an argument that we hear every day from the opposition. 'We can't afford it. The sky will fall. The economy will be ruined.' This is the economy that has been recognised internationally as one of the strongest, most resilient economies in the world.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will desist from interjecting.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard those opposite absolutely denigrate some other winners of the Euromoney award. Pakistan was laughed at, yet the Pakistani who won went back a world leader to assist his country for two years to improve their financial management and economic growth. So, no, we will not be ruined. This is the policy we need. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am so pleased that so many of my New South Wales colleagues in this federal parliament are here tonight. We have the member for Parramatta, the member for Newcastle, the member for Robertson, the member for Hughes and the honourable member for Mackellar, as well as me as the member for Riverina. New South Wales people are sensible people, as is everybody in this chamber. We know how vital it is that members of this chamber support the amendment to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and accompanying bills to make commencement of the carbon tax contingent on a proclamation of the next parliament. Almost 14 months after the Prime Minister uttered those infamous words she will live to regret, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' Labor is about to impose the world's costliest carbon tax at a time of global economic despair. Labor is doing this without first taking it to the people of Australia—or is it? Yes, in fact it has already gone to the people of Australia. We have already polled members of the public, the voters of this great nation, as to what they thought of a carbon tax. The Greens' policy included a carbon tax in the lead-up to the 2010 election and they fielded candidates in each and every one of the 150 electorates across Australia. The votes came in and—guess what!—the Greens won just one seat and the other 149 electorates went to candidates who said they would not support a carbon tax. The people have already spoken. Australians resoundingly rejected a carbon tax then and, to be fair to the 12 ½ million voters, Labor should do the right thing and give the people another say. Labor needs to do this because it did not listen last time at the 2010 election.

The coalition listens and acts accordingly—always. All of the coalition's recent major policy reforms—however challenging, confronting, difficult and electorally unpopular—were put to the people to decide. These included Fightback in 1993, the goods and services tax in 1998 and Work Choices in 2007—all taken to elections. The coalition accepted the will of the people. That is democracy. That is the Nationals-Liberal way. Labor ought to do the same thing with its carbon tax initiative and support this amendment and defer the introduction of the clean energy bills until the 44th Parliament.

Remember this: those who back the Prime Minister do so at the behest of the unrepresentative Greens against the express wishes of the people they purport to serve and at their own peril at the next ballot. Voters have long memories. They will remember the great untruth they were fed before the last election. They will remember, if these 19 bills become law, the Independent and Labor members who did the double-cross. They will remember and will cast their vote accordingly. Labor does not have a mandate to introduce such a job-destroying, lifestyle-changing policy. This is bad policy from a bad government, which gets worse by the day. The Prime Minister will be, do and say anything to stay in the Lodge. She says she cares about jobs. In truth, she does: her job and those of some, if not all, of her frontbench. She cares not about many of her backbenchers because if she did she would not be introducing legislation which will do such irreparable harm to the now strong but soon to be devastated manufacturing and mining electorates they represent—seats once regarded as Labor heartland, which the Prime Minister in her haste to kowtow to the rabble that is the Greens surely knows will change at the next election. Here tonight is the opportunity for Labor MPs to do the right thing: show some conviction, some fortitude and some backbone. Support this amendment. Your leader might not like it, but your constituents surely will. This carbon tax is unpopular, unnecessary, unwanted and undemocratic.

The member for Lyne wants to let the market rip. He repeated the same line to me just this afternoon, but let us not rip out jobs, family incomes and hope for the future for the sake of a whim of the Greens who want a carbon tax. We hear so often from those opposite about clean energy jobs, but what are they and where are they? The price of carbon will start at $23 per tonne, which will add to the cost of everything we do every day of our lives yet will do nothing for the environment. Even on Labor's own figures, it will rip a trillion dollars out of the national wealth over the next 40 years. It will make our businesses less competitive. It will be a $515 a year slug to Australian families and it will cost jobs.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity to speak in the consideration in detail stage of the clean energy bills, having already spoken in the second reading debate, to do two things that have developed since I last spoke. The first is to address the disgraceful vote today on the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, which those opposite, who claim to be concerned for the welfare of people in the steel industry, failed to support and which would provide very important, strategic and needed support to the steel industry. In particular, I could not believe my colleague Joanna Gash, the member for Gilmore, sat on the other side of the House and voted against the Steel Industry Transformation Plan, and no doubt Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who has an office in my area, will also vote against that bill.

The reality is that the steel industry at this time needs those opposite to support this bill. I point out to those opposite that BlueScope as a company have made it quite clear that the carbon tax is not the issue that they are confronting. They are confronting the international circumstances and the level of the Australian dollar. The Leader of the Opposition took the opportunity to come to the Illawarra, go to the steelworks and make a big song and dance about the carbon price. I very much doubt that he will be back to explain to them why he led his party in voting against the bill that was before the House today. In fact, the bill was put separately and those opposite could have supported it if they had wanted to but still chose not to do so.

In my region we are always at the forefront of innovating our industries for the future. The steel industry is an important part of the story of developing the new technologies that will be needed for a cleaner energy future. We understand that and we are working to support the steel industry. We also understand that other manufacturers—for example, David Brown Gears in my area have recently got contracts to do gear work for wind farms—see the opportunities that will develop from a greener energy future. It is important for the long-term future of this country that we begin to take up the opportunities that are on offer and position ourselves for the jobs in a cleaner energy future. Those opposite got this not so long ago. In every one of their contributions to this debate they want to ignore the fact that until the change of leadership on their side they backed taking action on climate change—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we did not.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

through a market mechanism. The one thing that they have perfected in this debate is the rewriting of their own history. In every contribution that they make they want to pretend that this action is something they have never agreed with.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will cease interjecting!

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sadly for them, that is not the evidence of their own cabinet when they were in government, as has been outlined by many in this debate. Their own cabinet in government, of which the current Leader of the Opposition was a member, supported bills, actions and policies to put a price on carbon and to introduce a market based system to put that price in place. Now, of course, they want to rewrite history. At that point in time they were not saying it was a devastating outcome for jobs. What they were saying was that it was an important new opportunity for us as a nation to move into a greener future and to find the jobs of the future. So all the crocodile tears that we hear now, which are never backed up by action to support jobs such as voting in support of the Steel Transformation Plan, are absolutely contradictory to the record of their own party and their own decisions and, indeed, their own government when they were in government in this country. I am very disappointed that my colleague the member for Gilmore and, no doubt, the senator in the other place will not vote in support of local jobs in the Illawarra. It is a real shame that they cannot look beyond their own political message and support local jobs. I express my support in the belief that this will create opportunities as well for jobs in my regions and, more broadly, across the nation. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to quote a Labor politician in my next comment, and that is former New South Wales Labor Premier Morris Iemma. On 21 July he summed up the feelings of many when he was quoted as saying:

… Labor's platform for re-election in 2013 is environmentally marginal, economically costly and likely to lead Labor to a historic electoral train wreck.

Ka-boom! That is my contribution—the sound of the train wreck. It is happening tonight and it is going to happen into the future. He went on to say of the carbon tax to the Australian:

"One thing is sure—it won't change the world, but it could change the government"—

His remarks are precisely why federal Labor needs tonight to support the amendment to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and accompanying bills to make commencement of the carbon tax contingent on a proclamation of the next parliament. The article went on:

Mr Iemma accused the Gillard government of betraying the Hawke-Keating legacy of economic reform, instead embracing the environmental policies of the Greens' agenda.

"We embraced economic growth, and the benefits of economic growth, in the Hawke Keating era, but we're fighting this battle on the Greens' turf, not our turf. Bob Brown wants to replace the Labor Party as a major party."

…   …   …

He rejected the government's view that Australia's carbon tax was similar in scope to actions being taken by other countries.

Members opposite should listen to Mr Iemma:

"Every day there are reports of growth and development in China, its growth in emissions will far outstrip our total emissions," Mr Iemma said.

"The carbon tax at best reduces the rate of increase of emissions slightly."

Indeed, even the Gillard government's chief promoter of the climate debate has admitted even a global effort to cut carbon emissions would not lower temperatures for up to 1,000 years. Chief Climate Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery said on 25 March:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years.

If, as Professor Flannery declared, cutting all, not merely reducing, emissions will do nothing to cool the planet then why on earth are we going down this path? This slippery slope to economic despair—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will be heard in silence.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed I should be, Mr Deputy Speaker, because they could learn a lot from what I am going to tell them. This slippery slope to economic despair and job losses, this rocky road of higher electricity, gas, fuel and grocery prices—

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

I know you might not care about it but, I tell you what, your constituents do—will strain already stressed everyday household budgets to the limit. And all this for what? Certainly not to help the environment. A carbon tax will not lower global temperatures by one degree, will not lower sea levels by one millimetre. If, as the member for Melbourne so hysterically foretold in his speech in this debate, the seas are rising due to the catastrophic climate change, why is it that so many of the doomsayers are still happy to live on the ocean's edge? For every alarmist scientist after their next funding grant who will tell you we are facing 'dangerous climate change', I can show you a salt-of-the-earth generational farmer who will be just as convincing with his assurances that the only thing which changes is the weather. 'Of droughts and flooding rains', as Dorothea Mackellar put it so well.

But back to Mr Iemma, who said:

"… the Greens' agenda is anti-growth and anti-investment. Lower growth and lower investment leads to lower incomes and fewer jobs."

The article went on to say, and I hope those members opposite who are from New South Wales are listening to this, that Mr Iemma said:

… New South Wales would be particularly hurt by the carbon tax in smelting steelworks and manufacturing in western Sydney.

He could have easily added agriculture, horticulture and a whole host of other worthwhile endeavours in the Riverina. He said:

"Voter reaction ranges from unease and uncertainty to outright hostility. I went down a coalmine myself recently and all the guys I spoke to were uncertain of their futures."

Mr Iemma also offered federal Labor some sound advice:

"We should always be standing shoulder to shoulder with steelworkers and miners and factory workers before we stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Bob Brown and Christine Milne."

To Mr Iemma I say: hear, hear! Rest assured we on this side will stand shoulder to shoulder with this country's hardest workers. Rest assured we on this side will not seek to curry favour with the Greens and their economically damaging and fiscally irresponsible policies. The article also said:

Mr Iemma's comments reflect the growing concern of many Labor politicians in private.

So tonight those Labor backbenchers so justifiably worried about their political futures would do well to support this opposition amendment.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I get to the substantive contribution, about the international linking of permits, that I would like to make to tonight's debate, I have to make a comment on that farcical claim of the member for Riverina that he stands shoulder to shoulder with the hard workers in the manufacturing sector, having today absolutely opposed a $300 million steel transformation package. When we are growing up we get great moral advice from our parents: beware the fake friends. That is what we have seen from the opposition: the fake friends of the working man and woman, shoulder to shoulder. The only time they would be shoulder to shoulder with you is when they were going to take something from you. That is the big difference between the policies on this side of the chamber and those on the other side of the chamber. The policies we see the Liberal-National coalition putting together would have every household in my electorate—indeed, every household in every electorate around the entire country—paying $1,300. They would take it out of the pockets of ordinary workers, with whom they would never stand shoulder to shoulder. And what do they propose to do with that? They would give it to the polluters. That is the truth of the scheme that is proposed by those who oppose us this evening.

Hypocrisy is rank in this place with the comments from those opposite. In December 2009 the member for Sturt, the Manager of Opposition Business, said:

… we took an emissions trading scheme to the last election. We believe in climate change action.

Those were his words. The member for Sturt said:

I believe passionately in climate change action.

Yet today we see them voting against a scheme that will ensure that we do respond to that climate change action. As a Labor member I am very proud to stand here and say that we will be making sure that, as this economy undertakes a significant shift towards a clean energy future, we position ourselves to take advantage of all the new clean industries that will emerge around the world in that new context. In contrast, we have those on the other side just pooh-poohing and being negative, saying, 'No, no, no'—a strident voice of opposition to any sense of the future with our participation in that new clean economy.

I want to get some facts on the record this evening. Australia's carbon price is going to be linked to carbon markets around the world and that will happen from the start of the flexible price period. It is important that Australians get some truth about what is going on, because those opposite are masters of misrepresentation of the program that we have organised well—and it is sitting right there, in all that legislation ready to bring forward. We will be allowing the reduction in carbon pollution to be pursued globally at the lowest cost. The Prime Minister today, I think, made the point that carbon pollution is absolutely not confined to national borders.

Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy, you might be of an age to remember a very powerful visual image in the 1960s. I think it was on the front cover of Life magazine when the Apollo trip to the moon looked back and took pictures of the earth. We saw the blue seas, we saw the green and brown land shapes and we saw that the entire planet is in fact connected—that we all breathe the same air. Because there are no national borders and carbon pollution is an international reality affecting the whole planet, international linking of carbon markets will allow businesses that release carbon in one country to be matched up with businesses in other countries that are able to reduce their carbon pollution at lower costs. This is very important because international linking encourages action to reduce carbon pollution around the whole world and plays an important role in helping not just advanced economies such as ours—a very successful economy; indeed, the envy of the world—but developing countries to adopt clean technologies. This international linking will start when the flexible price comes in on 1 July 2015. I look forward to making more comments about this as the evening progresses.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's largest abattoir will be slugged about $3.3 million a year from the combined costs of the carbon tax and higher electricity prices when the scheme comes in, unfortunately next year, and faces a bill of up to $9 million to cut emissions to reduce its exposure. John Berry, a director of JBS Australia, which owns Riverina Beef near Yanco—between Leeton and Narrandera, in my electorate—has had discussions with the Gillard government over the impact of the carbon tax on the company, which employs about 2,000 people and processes about 1,600 head of cattle over 11 shifts five days a week. That is, 500 people with more than 30,000 head of stock currently in the feedlot which uses world's best practice in everything it does.

Mr Berry warns that the carbon tax will create a two-tiered meat processing industry—of big abattoirs forced to pay the carbon tax without compensation and smaller operations which do not—and it will add costs to an industry which is one of the biggest employers in some rural and regional areas. JBS Australia also owns abattoirs at Dinmore, Townsville, Rockhampton and Toowoomba in Queensland, which may be above the threshold of 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year. Mr Berry summed up the feelings of many when he said the carbon tax policy had been poorly thought through and that the Yanco facility was facing an additional cost of $5 to $6 extra per head of cattle which was not being borne by its domestic competitors and the big players in its key export markets. Exports make up the bulk of the company's production. Mr Berry said Yanco would be forced to pay the carbon tax—an estimated $678,000 slug—while smaller abattoirs owned by competitors would not face the $23 a tonne price on emissions.

I need to add that Cargill at Wagga Wagga, now co-owned by Teys Australia, is also extremely worried about the introduction of a carbon tax. The industry, despite the bulk of its output being produced for export, is unlikely to receive trade exposed industry assistance. Mr Berry has had talks with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig, and staff from the office of the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, and has invited bureaucrats from Canberra to tour a JBS Australia site. I hope it was not the case that he was talking to a wall. The company has calculated that the carbon tax will cost it about $1.8 million a year and it expects to pay $1.5 million in higher electricity prices while smaller operators in the industry will not be taxed.

On 30 September I toured the JPS plant at Yanco with Mr Berry, the Mayor of Leeton Shire Council, Paul Maytom, and a high-level Malaysian government delegation, which was headed by Senator Major General Dato' Seri Jamil Khir bin Baharom, who is a minister in the Malaysian Prime Minister's department. Riverina Beef is one of four JBS Swift owned Australian abattoirs which supply the Malaysian market with halal products from Australia. The standards required are very high, but it is a good market with a lot of opportunities, Mr Berry said. JBS Swift represents 25 per cent of beef sold in Malaysia and more than 30 per cent of offal. The group, which consisted of JBS Swift representatives as well as 12 guests from Malaysia, were given a tour of the Riverina Beef plant and feedlot. The Leeton Shire Council mayor, Paul Maytom, also attended as he is also concerned about the effects a carbon tax could have on the local government area.

It is typical of Labor stalling tactics to put off Mr Berry and his request to receive assistance on this carbon tax, knowing full well that it will not go away. This is in the year of so-called 'delivery and decision'. That is why the amendment to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and accompanying bills to make the commencement of the carbon tax on a proclamation of the next parliament is so essential, so that people can have a say and companies such as JBS Australia can have confidence, knowing that such economy-changing legislation will not simply be forced upon them in such an undemocratic and unjustifiable way. JBS does not need to be thwarted in its attempts to help our balance of payments and to ensure that it continues to employ hundreds of good people in my electorate and other electorates and to ensure sustainability for the Leeton and Narrandera shires.

Mr Berry's concerns are echoed by the National Farmers Federation President, Jock Laurie, who fears that cost impacts on food-processing businesses will ultimately be borne by farmers through lower farm-gate prices for import-competing businesses unable to recoup losses through price rises brought about by this toxic tax.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased once again to stand here tonight to talk about this suite of bills, as I was pleased to be in this chamber earlier today when this House voted on the second reading stage. Before I start, I would just like to take issue with some of the comments made by the member for Riverina. He should not be surprised about that because I do tend to take issue with most things that he says in this House.

First of all, he implored us to do the right thing. I am doing the right thing by supporting this suite of bills. I am a strong supporter of this suite of bills. I have been for a very long time a strong supporter of a clean energy future and for introducing measures to combat climate change. I am doing the right thing, and I am, most importantly, doing the right thing by the will of the Canberra people.

Most of the Canberra people I speak to in my mobile offices when I am out doorknocking and when I am on the phone to them, and in the emails and letters that I get from them, want this legislation. They want a clean energy future for their children. They want a clean energy future for their grandchildren, their children's children. I am doing the right thing, as the member for Riverina implored, and I am doing the right thing by the people of Canberra.

The member for Riverina also mentioned the fact that we need to do the economically and fiscally responsible thing. This is the economically and fiscally responsible thing. This will ensure Australia's continued future prosperity. This will ensure continued jobs. It will ensure continued growth. It will ensure that Australia continues to compete in the world for future generations. It will ensure that this country continues to prosper in the future.

I can now come back to my speech, having addressed those issues that the member for Riverina implored me to do. This week in this chamber we will see a turning point in this nation's future. It will be a week when the rhetoric and posturing will end and members will be asked to cast a vote that will decide whether this country tackles the problem of carbon pollution and embraces a clean energy future. It will decide whether or not this country will ensure a prosperous future for my nieces, my great-nieces, my great-nephews, my godchildren and their godchildren.

It is not over yet—we have still tomorrow to come—but, in getting us to this point, I particularly want to acknowledge and thank the dedicated members of the Public Service. Those opposite will probably scorn the Public Service because they have a strong tradition of doing that. They scorned them so much in 1996 that they sacked tens of thousands of them and sent Canberra into a recession when the rest of Australia was growing. So it would not surprise me if we are going to get public servants abused in the process of this debate tonight. If they ever become a government, they want to sack 12,000 public servants, I think. So we can see what those opposite think of the Public Service, the dedicated public servants who serve this nation fearlessly and tirelessly—the invisible heroes. Tonight I want to acknowledge those invisible heroes and thank them for their service to this country.

Before I was elected last year, I was a consultant. I had my own business and for about three of the years that I was consulting before I was preselected I worked in the Department of Climate Change on the CPRS. So I have seen firsthand the dedication of the public servants who work in that agency, the quality of the advice that they provide and the thankless tasks that at times they had to perform. I saw a man here today whom I remember having a meeting with at 9 am a few years ago. He had actually just come into the office after spending the whole day and night there, working tirelessly trying to ensure a clean energy future and a solution to climate change. He had just gone home, had a shower and come back for another full day's work after working round the clock. This was typical of the work in the department and typical of the dedication of those public servants. I thank them.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Canberra for her contribution. I invite her, like I invited the Prime Minister, to come to the Riverina and talk to the hardworking farmers, families, businesspeople and all the industries who will be affected by the carbon tax that she and her Labor colleagues are going to foist upon our people. The Prime Minister said she would wear out her shoe leather talking to people across Australia, but she certainly did not respond when I wrote to her to invite her to come to the Riverina to wear out some of her shoe leather talking to my constituents. I am sure that when I write to the member for Canberra—which I will do in the morning—to invite her to the Riverina, she will respond. She may not come to the Riverina, but I am sure she will give me the courtesy of a response.

The costs and job losses from this carbon tax are going to be compounded in regional Australia and certainly in the Riverina. The member for Canberra will find that out if she goes down the highway to meet the good people of the Riverina and if she talks to them about what the carbon tax will mean to them. When the Prime Minister announced the big new tax on 10 July—carbon Sunday—she said that nine out of 10 households would receive compensation. But millions of middle-income families will be worse off. For those who will receive financial assistance, the government cannot or will not say for how long. How could anyone trust this government, which is being told what to do by the Greens? It is being led by the nose by the Greens. How else could you explain that the PM's office allowed Senator Milne to announce the government's $3 billion renewable energy package on 8 July? How else could you explain that the Greens—and there are only 10 of them out of the 226 elected upper and lower house MPs—not only knew about the carbon tax but also had significant input into its planning over many weeks, while 103 Labor backbenchers were told about the details of the tax during a teleconference on the morning of carbon Sunday? That is why Labor is so divided.

Professor Ross Garnaut revealed what could aptly be described as an inconvenient truth in his updated climate review report when he said, 'Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost.' In the European Union, its emissions trading scheme raised $2.6 billion to $2.9 billion between 2005 and 2011. The Gillard government's proposed carbon tax will raise $9 billion a year—more money in the first three months than the European scheme has raised in 5½ years. Already Gillard Labor has foreshadowed, courtesy of these bills, three new bureaucracies: the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Climate Change Authority and a $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We will eventually become little more than a nation of coffee drinkers and paper shufflers. Be forthright, honest and fair dinkum. Allow the people to have their say. Your constituents deserve to have their say. They will not be silenced; at the very least they will respect you a whole lot more for it.

I received an email this morning from Alan Perman of Forest Hill, a suburb just east of Wagga Wagga. He said:

We do not want the proposed carbon tax without an election on the issue.

That is gone. But he also added:

Please vote against this tax or at least for a delay until after the next election.

So I ask the members opposite to at least please defer this legislation until the 44th Parliament. At least the constituents in your electorates—maybe your electorates were once safe; they will now be very marginal and, if the polls are anything to go by, they will be very, very marginal and very, very loseable—deserve to have their say. The coalition has a policy, the direct action policy—

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're mentioning it! Finally!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor-Greens government has no mandate to introduce the carbon tax legislation. The Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' She has failed to honour her promise to the Australian people. She has failed to honour her promise to those hardworking backbenchers who are now extremely worried about their political futures. The next election will be a referendum on the carbon tax which will drive up the cost of living for all Australian families and will cost local jobs. The $9 billion carbon tax means a 10 per cent hike in electricity bills in the first year alone—and on and on and on. Support this amendment and at least do the right thing by your constituents.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition have run their campaign against this legislation from day one as a campaign of misinformation and fear. What is concerning is that this is a serious matter and, as I listen to members opposite tonight make their contributions in this debate, they are continuing with that campaign of misinformation and fear.

I want to refer to a couple of comments that have been made only in the last hour or so. The member for Higgins made a reference to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency which implied that this legislation is based on some kind of socialist or communist agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. The issue relating to carbon science is one that has been accepted by conservative governments around the world. I referred earlier to the comments of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dating back 22 years. In addition, you can look around at what is happening in the world right now. Angela Merkel from Germany, David Cameron from the UK, Nicolas Sarkozy from France, John Key from New Zealand—

Mr Husic interjecting—

The opposition would have us believe that they are all socialists. The reality is that they are conservative governments that have accepted the science, as did the coalition's own leaders—John Howard, Brendan Nelson and the member for Wentworth. The reality is that the carbon science on this issue is absolutely clear. If time permits, I will come back to that in a moment.

What is equally disturbing are the constant implied attacks on the scientific community not only of this country but around the world. I want to refer to some of the rhetoric we have heard from the member for Riverina and the member for Higgins, who bring into this chamber stories of people they have spoken to and their concerns about the implications of this legislation. They do not talk about their alternative policy, which would cost them 2½ times as much. They do not talk about the fact that it would impact on their livelihoods and on their businesses 2½ times as much. They do not tell them that their policy would reward the large polluters. They do not tell them that their policy would not achieve the five per cent emission reduction target by 2020, which they have committed to, and they do not tell them that their policy is entirely reliant on 60 per cent of the carbon being sequestered into our soils—which they know is unachievable. If they are going to criticise our policy while committing to an emissions reduction target and pretending that they accept the science on global emissions, they should at least be honest enough to compare the two policies when talking to the people that approach them.

I come back to the issue of questioning and challenging the scientific community. Quite frankly, it does disturb me, because I have spoken to countless scientists both from this country and from overseas and I have yet to find one scientist working in the climate science field today that does not accept the science. I have yet to find one academy of science that refutes the science. I have yet to find one national government that refutes the science. It seems to me that, if members are going to come into this place and question the science, they ought to be honest about their position rather than say, 'We question the science, but we will commit to a five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020.' That is the height of hypocrisy. You cannot have it both ways. Either accept one position or the other.

The reality is that this country has benefited over the years from the work of our scientific community. We have benefited in incredible ways. We accept their advice and their opinions when it suits us, but we reject it and pretend that they are part of some conspiracy when we do not like the advice that they are providing. Quite frankly, that is not only absurd but an insult to the good men and women of this country and around the world who are genuinely concerned about this issue, who in some cases have devoted their lives to researching this issue and who know that we ought to be acting, and the sooner we start the easier our task will become. They also know that if we do not act—and, yes, we have to act in conjunction with other countries—the consequences for the planet and for future generations will be absolutely disastrous.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition which says that proclamation of the bill, if passed, must not be made until after elections have been held for the 44th Parliament and the parliament has met. The reason for that is very straightforward and simple. Six days prior to the election, the Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead.' This is the statement that was designed to attract votes and to say, 'You can trust me, I will not give you this great big tax.' This was deliberately designed to allay the suspicions and fears that the Australian people had about this woman who had knifed the previous leader and usurped power—Lady Macbeth, by any term.

In this parliament every day the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Combet, stands at the dispatch box and says that the opposition is running a campaign of fear. Yet the exact opposite is true. It is the government that runs a fear campaign. Let me give you an example. Mr Combet said to this House that a report had shown there is a significant risk to human health, to agriculture, to cities, to infrastructure and to natural heritage from the more severe climate impacts over the longer term and sea levels will rise, the implication being that houses will fall into the sea. Yet this same minister, when he chose to buy a house that was not in his electorate but on the foreshores of Newcastle, said in an interview to the Daily Telegraph dated 16 November—

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, a point of order on the principle of relevance: I refer you to section 76 of the standing orders and ask you to bring the member back to the subject.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will address the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am saying that proclamation of the bill needs to be after the election is held because this government is running a scare campaign, which it denies, and because it gave a commitment prior to the election that there would be no carbon tax. But Mr Combet, of course, said in the interview that I mentioned that his wife had looked at a home in Charlton and found this place and fallen in love with it.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I ask that the member for Mackellar direct her comments to the bill and the amendments that are before the House and not stray into total offensive irrelevance.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will continue and she will address the amendment and keep her remarks to that.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reason that I am talking about the personal decision that the minister made—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: in dissent from the chair, the member for Mackellar is disputing your ruling. She is now arguing the point and you have ruled that she should not stray into this subject matter.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The member for Mackellar will stick to the amendments, please.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking to the amendment. The amendment says that this bill will not be proclaimed prior to an election being held, and I am making the point that the reason for that is there are dishonesties coming from the government side and one of them is that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—whatever his grand title is—

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will not go into that area, please.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can indeed. I can make the point as to why he is misleading the parliament. He is misleading it because, despite saying that the seas will rise and houses will fall into the sea, he chose to buy a house because he wants a safe place for his family. That is a perfectly valid point to make and it is important to make because—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, this is not just a point of order about relevance. This is now bordering on disorderly conduct. The member for Mackellar has been here well long enough—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you haven't.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat. The member for Mackellar can continue but must address her remarks to the amendments.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I am.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And not cast those kinds of aspersions on members of this House.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What aspersions does the Deputy Speaker say I am passing?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order which is directed not just to that comment but also to the complete irrelevance of the way in which—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are wasting my time.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I may be taking up the member for Mackellar's time, but she has been wasting the House's time with irrelevant matters and offensive and disorderly conduct, and is proposing to continue with it, it appears.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member's time has expired. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are seeing today from the opposition with their amendments is the biggest and longest dummy spit in the history of this parliament about losing an election. Because they could not form government, they have decided to take a politically opportunistic approach to this issue. What we have seen from them is absolute hypocrisy, and the member for Makin clearly pointed that out. In this debate, we have heard the member for Mackellar talk about how the seas are not really rising, saying that this is all a fabrication, people's imagination. We have heard the member for Riverina dispute the science and say: 'There's no point in acting. We shouldn't act, we shouldn't do anything about climate change.' This is what those on the other side have done: they have disputed the science and they have said that the rest of the world is not acting, so why should we. They have put forward inaccuracies followed by inaccuracies, one after the other. In fact, if the opposition really believe that there is no merit in acting, that we should not act on climate change—as opposed to what is being advanced by this side—then why do they have a five per cent reduction target? Why do they want to spend $45 billion of taxpayers' money?

We heard before that the opposition are concerned about this legislation being some sort of communist proposition. Well, the only communist proposition that has been put before the Australian people is the opposition's proposal, their direct action plan, where those in government have command and control, and will choose the winners. In government, they would spend $46 billion of taxpayers' money—

An opposition member: $45 billion.

$45 billion—or $46 billion; it will probably blow out—

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just think of a really big number! Make it a big number!

Opposition members interjecting—

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it is a significant proportion. We know how much it will cost householders. It will cost the average household $1,300 a year. But you would take that and give it to the big polluters. You would make it government directed and government controlled—forget the market, forget any market principles. As I have said before in this place, it is no surprise when the National Party let go of their market principles; that is pretty much expected from the National Party. But for the Liberal Party to forget their market principles, to say, 'We don't want the market; we want government intervention,' is unique. It certainly shows that they are all about political opportunism.

Let us get some facts on the table. There has been a huge fear campaign about what these clean energy bills will do to the cost of living. Let us look at the facts, not the fear. I will go through the estimated price impact on families. Per week, the impact of the carbon price, as modelled by Treasury, is less than $1 per week, on average. Electricity will go up $3.30 per week and gas $1.50 per week. The cost of dairy and related products, which have been talked about, will rise by less than 10c a week as an average impact on households; bread and cereal products, less than 10c a week; meat and seafood, around 10c per week; fruit and vegetables, 10c a week; non-alcoholic drinks and snack foods, 10c a week—

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It all adds up. It is all adding up.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

meal takeout and takeaway foods, 20c a week; and other food, minus 10 per cent. It does add up, Member for Bowman—it adds up to $9.90. With our compensation, nine out of 10 families will receive assistance. Under the opposition's plan, the $46 billion that they will rip away from households, there is no compensation, no assistance and no tax cuts. In fact, the opposition will claw back those tax concessions—

Opposition members: The claw! Bring out the claw!

Well, you will. There is no other way to describe it. I have not finished here; I am still going. The price of men's clothing will increase by less than 10c a week; women's clothing, less than 10c a week; children's and infants' clothing, less than 10c a week; footwear, less than 10c a week; and the list goes on. This clearly demonstrates objective modelling, which shows that the opposition's fear campaign is exactly that. The opposition need to come clean about their own plan's impact on families. As I said, it is $1,300 per year that the opposition will take from taxpayers. Every single taxpayer will have to pay for the opposition's subsidised polluters policy. That is an appalling policy, and one that completely puts it— (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to the previous speaker, the member for Kingston, talk about the fear campaign which the opposition is alleged to be running; yet the fear campaign coming from the government about passing the bills, which is the point I was making earlier, is why we need to have an election before this legislation, which may be passed, becomes operational—that is, it is proclaimed.

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency again stood up in this parliament today and said that the government were going to bring down the number of millions of tonnes of carbon emitted, yet the government's own document called Strong growth, low pollution, on the summary page, shows that, in 2009-10, carbon emissions were at 578 million tonnes and, in 2020, they will be at 621 million tonnes. In other words, emission levels will not come down; they will go up. But the pain being inflicted on the people is enormous.

That is why we have said that we will repeal the carbon tax laws if they are passed by this parliament, just as the Labor Party repealed Work Choices. You said all along that you would do so. We are saying all along that we will repeal the carbon tax. Just as you repealed Work Choices, we will repeal the carbon tax. To make it very clear, the reason we did not need to support the steel industry plan today is that, once the carbon tax is removed, it will not be necessary, because the jobs will not be impacted.

The bottom line is, very simply, that, as the polling showed this morning, the opposition parties are more trusted to deal with the question of climate change than the government. It also showed that we are also the parties more trusted to deal with the economy, to deal with interest rates, to deal with all the matters that are of importance to the Australian people. For you people to sit there and fly in the face of the Australian people when you only got elected because you misled the people into believing you would not impose a carbon tax is a huge insult to the Australian people. That is why this amendment has been moved, to ensure that the Australian people can have a say. If you had an ounce of decency you would say that you accept that you were elected because the Prime Minister promised the people there would be no carbon tax.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: the member for Mackellar is reflecting on the chair by constantly saying 'you people'. She should make sure her comments are made through the chair.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good try, dear. A tactic is being developed to interrupt opposition members. Perhaps we can retaliate in a similar manner.

A point I make strongly is there is a scare campaign with the government being disingenuous about the fearmongering it is putting out about rising seas and houses toppling into the sea when the minister responsible has a house on the coastline. It is perfectly in order for me to say so.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: again the member for Mackellar is engaging in disorderly conduct and is addressing matters which you have already ruled are irrelevant to the matters that are now under consideration.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is correct. Those remarks are not relevant to the amendments that are being debated. I ask the member for Mackellar to address her remarks to the amendments.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This goes two ways. We have sat here and listened to irrelevancies from government members again and again, but not a squeak has anyone made because this is a wide-ranging debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have chosen to narrow that debate and you will have to wear the consequences of that. The point I made about scaremongering on the part of the government is because you are so disingenuous. You scare the people and yet you choose simply to say that you are the only people who believe in the science. There are many scientists who disagree with the ones that agree with you and those who disagree with you do not get funded. They make the point that they are entitled to be funded to do their research as well. The bottom line is this: the people are entitled to have a say before this penalty is imposed upon them. (Time expired)

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally the true position of the opposition front bench comes out: that they do not believe in climate change and it is all a conspiracy by nasty scientists paid by heaven knows who.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the comments made by the member for Parramatta are not relevant to the amendment being moved and they are a reflection upon comments made that you ruled were not in order in the debate.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: my comments were about a part of the member for Mackellar's speech which you did not rule on, and she knows that full well. If she does not believe in climate change, one would have to question her capacity to think things through.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: the member for Parramatta when rising to speak to the subject matter of the amendment must stick to the subject matter. She is not entitled to put words in my mouth. She is only entitled to speak strictly to the amendment.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Parramatta that she is under the same obligation to address her remarks to the amendments before the House.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not need to put words in the member for Mackellar's mouth. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition concerns yet another delay, an attempt by the opposition yet again to delay action on climate change. The member for Riverina, who spoke earlier, is quite new to this House, but the member for Mackellar and many of the other people in the House have been here long enough to know the history and how long the debate on climate change has been going on.

I came to this parliament in 2004. At that stage the Labor Party was campaigning on signing the Kyoto protocol. I ran an extensive campaign in my electorate way back in 2004 on that aspect of climate change. It was well received in my electorate and in the electorates of many of my Labor colleagues. In 2007, both sides of this House, the government and the opposition, went to the electorate promising action on climate change through a market based mechanism. The two policies were different. The opposition policy was for a three-year fixed price which they did not call at tax time.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, you have ruled that speakers must be directly specific to the amendment as moved. Therefore the member for Parramatta has to explain why it should not be held up until after there has been an election and give reasons why it has to be put now. That is not what she is doing.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am describing the history of this, why the debate has gone on long enough and why there should not be a further delay. In 2007, the Labor side went to the election with an emissions trading scheme with a one-year fixed price. During the term from 2007 to 2009, when it was finally rejected in the Senate, we had a white paper, a green paper, an exposure draft, debate in this House and two Senate inquiries. The opposition of the time negotiated with the government on an outcome and the parties agreed on it. Then overnight there was an opposition leadership change and the opposition changed their policy after four years of consistency on this policy. The shame of it is that on this side we know that this is a policy blip on the part of the opposition. Once their leadership changes again, they will revert to their natural policy position, which is to support a market mechanism as they did in 2007, 2008 and 2009. When that happens, they will realise they lost this opportunity by not entering into the debate on this.

Australia is an interesting country. The Australian people tend to pick one party in the state government, one party in the federal government and a balance-of-power, minor party in the Senate. They require us as a government and an opposition to work together to get our bills through, and every government in Australian history, with the exception perhaps of the Howard government when it had a majority in the Senate, has done exactly that. The government and the opposition have worked together to find a path through. It is the working together of both sides which causes stability in this country. It means that when governments change we do not flip-flop from one side of the policy to the other because we have worked together to find a position which we can both support. You have lost an opportunity here. You have lost a real opportunity to be part of a major reform.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition to the Clean Energy Bill 2011. That amendment deals with the commencement provisions and the amendment makes it clear that:

(1) The provisions of this Act commence on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.

(2) A Proclamation for the purposes of subsection (1) must not be made until after elections have been held for the 44th Parliament and the Parliament has met.

The reason for that is quite clear: it is to delay the commencement of the legislation. I would think that members opposite if they were desirous of thinking about their own future might well be disposed to supporting the amendment.

As I sit quietly and think about events that are occurring in the nation at the moment they are quite fascinating. In the time that I have been here I have not seen a government that ostensibly argues that it ought to be well received by the Australian community because it saved us from a global financial crisis and that it has maintained unemployment levels at relatively low numbers and the Australian community ought to be grateful that it has delivered that outcome. How is it that it has lost that support that it might have otherwise expected that those policy prescriptions about which it boasts might have delivered?

The fact of the matter is that they know that they are on the nose and the reason they are on the nose is not because of the government's own policies it is because they are part of a coalition with the Greens. The policy prescription has been delivered because they did that deal with the Greens and it is very necessary for the government to produce legislation that they know in their heart of hearts the Australian people do not support. I suspect that if they were desirous of thinking about their own future—and I gather that some of them are contemplating whether they ought to have a slight shift in direction—then if they do shift in a slightly different direction their thinking is how might they be able to survive. I think the reasoning that I see coming through over and over again is that if they did have a change in leadership, they might well be able to strike out in a new direction to put this matter off the agenda and to be able to focus on what they believe are the positive arguments in support of their own situation.

I hope that they do not see that this is a particularly unique opportunity for them to be able to get the government off the hook by voting for the Leader of the Opposition's amendment. This is an amendment which is a particularly useful opportunity for some members of the government who think they might be able to hang on in their marginal seats because they would get it off the political agenda. This is a serious matter.

My view very clearly is that the way in which the government is proceeding with this matter in advance of the rest of the world leaves us seriously exposed. I have recently travelled to the United States and I have had the opportunity of talking to a number of people who are very interested in public life in the United States of America. This is not a matter that is on their agenda. This matter has largely been driven off the public agenda in the United States because of the other serious issues that confront their economy. The government argues that we know that they are not going to deal with it nationally but hopefully some of the states are. It is very interesting. One of the signposts was the Chicago Climate Exchange. Even that has closed. There is little prospect that the United States is going to buy into the sort of agenda that we are buying into here, and with so few other countries buying into this, it will leave us dangerously exposed. Any claims that the government has delivered us a reasonable standard of living will be quickly lost in a situation where we become even less competitive in a very competitive world. (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Berowra. Often you have to pay to see acts of contortion and tonight we got one for free. That twisted logic that said to us that we needed to accept their idea or their proposition of an amendment to save ourselves is something else. We are being asked to delay action and it is said that that would provide some benefit when the reality is that, for every year we have delayed acting in trying to meet a bipartisan target of cutting emissions by five per cent by 2020, from 2015 there is $5 billion in cost that we would have to engage in to catch up to make that target. We are being asked to delay action and in effect assume huge costs in the process.

Tonight we were chastised, I would put it, about engaging in a scare campaign by relating fact—fact that the Climate Commission in its report The critical decade outlined clearly in the types of impacts that will come about as a result of worsening climate change as it relates to Australia should temperatures change by one per cent. A mere one per cent has impacts on Australia. The frequency, the duration, the intensity and the spread of climactic events in this country and the impacts that they have are real and they have been outlined in the Climate Commission's report, which members opposite can access. After Cyclone Yasi we saw in one year a decrease in economic growth of one per cent—$13 billion—and inflationary impacts of up to 0.8 per cent. That was from one climactic event. So asking us to delay—

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On your previous ruling this is quite variant to what the amendment is about, and I ask you to bring the member back to the amendment.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley has the call and will address his remarks to the amendments.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is science that underpins what we are trying to do and the fact that delay will impose a significant financial cost. What we are being asked to do by those opposite has an impact.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Chifley is not addressing the amendment at all. According to your previous response and ruling to this parliament he is not addressing the amendment, which is clearly about deferring a vote until after the next parliament.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Barker has made his point of order. The member for Chifley is relevant to the amendments and he has the call.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I may be a rookie compared to the person opposite—

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley will continue—

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to respond to the point of order. You made a clear ruling in relation to it and he still persisted with a point of order.

We have been asked to delay action in response to what is going on, and we cannot afford to do that. At the same time those opposite, by virtue of their amendment, ask us to delay and to wait—for what? At the point when they get in, what will they do? In a speech that the Leader of the Opposition gave to this chamber he dedicated 3,743 words in response to the Prime Minister, 244 of which actually outlined what they were proposing to do. What is interesting in this debate is not just what is said but also what is not said by those opposite and what they propose to do by in effect forcing us to delay implementation. To then not outline what they propose to do to meet their bipartisan target is completely irresponsible to the Australian public.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot tolerate an idea that we would delay action—given the consequent cost on the general economy of $5 billion a year in not acting beyond 2015—in meeting a bipartisan approach. We simply cannot afford to wait. This is what their amendment would seek for us to do. It would make us wait and delay further any action.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak a little further in relation to the amendment that is being moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The point that I made, very strongly, about the United States of America was reinforced in a very interesting article that I read today in the Age. It was by an academic who is very highly regarded, and I suspect very highly regarded by members opposite. He is a person of very considerable stature—this is Hugh White. He writes:

As the government's carbon tax finally goes to a vote in Parliament this week, remember two tough truths. First, nothing Australia does by itself will materially affect carbon emissions or the trajectory of the world's weather. Only concerted global action will make any difference.

We are being told that the change you might be able to make to the weather will be affected by the decisions that we in fact make here. We have, I think it has been said, one per cent of emissions, and we will make no impact on what is going to happen to the rest of the world. That is the point that Hugh White is making. It is the point I think that is well understood. He goes on and says:

Second, the chances of concerted global action are low and trending lower. Two years after the collapse at Copenhagen, momentum for a global plan is stalled. As the global economy teeters, this year's Durban follow-up meeting is expected to mark time.

This is not a matter on which we need to act now and on which delay is going to hurt us. That is simply the point that somebody as well respected as Hugh White is making. He goes on to say:

The heart of the problem is the world's most complex, important and dangerous relationship - the edgy mix of implacable rivalry and mutual dependence between the US and China.

They are not just the world's two biggest economies, and the world's two biggest carbon emitters. They are also the world's most powerful diplomatic players. If they can agree together on a carbon emissions plan, they can make it happen. If they cannot agree, nothing will happen. It is as simple as that.

I have not seen an exposition as clear.

This is something that colleagues opposite have fixed their flag to, but the fact is that implementation of this legislation, without changing global emissions, will have a very, very significant impact on the cost of doing business in Australia, particularly for those who have to be competitive in world trade markets. You may talk about the strength of the Australian economy, but implementing this legislation will leave us considerably worse off. That is the bottom line.

I made a speech quite early in the second reading debate on this matter. I made it clear that my speech was not a commentary on the science. If there were a global response I would want Australia to be part of it. But I cannot see why Australia should be out there largely in isolation. I have heard the arguments about what is said to be happening in the rest of the world. I cannot see it. I have participated in conferences abroad and discussed these issues with others who would have some knowledge of what is happening in their situations. Countries are backing off, because they cannot afford in this matter to go it alone in the way in which this government wants to.

I jocularly spoke about why members opposite ought to support this amendment. I think supporting this amendment would in fact get them off the hook. I think they are in a perilous situation as a government. I think they have little prospect of surviving in the situation of implementing legislation that was not part of their agenda. I remember a Prime Minister who went to the Australian people on the basis that there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead'. (Time expired)

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the amendment put forward by the opposition and to support the bills proper that have been put by the Labor government to finally take action on climate change. It is of no surprise that the opposition have sought this amendment to push back the introduction of any action on climate change. We have heard a number of members on the other side of this chamber give their reasons why they oppose the action on climate change and these bills of the government. We have had members who state that they believe in climate change but then at the same time say that they do not believe human activity is contributing to greenhouse gases at all. In other words, they believe that there should be no action because they do not believe in the science. There are those who say it is not the right time because of the global economic circumstances or, as we heard from the member for Berowra, it is not the right time because they think that we are acting before other countries, ignoring all of the information and evidence out there that many, many countries—89 countries, in fact—have actually signed up to taking action and seeking to achieve the same targets that this government is seeking to achieve.

Then, of course, there are those who actually support what the government is doing. Those on the other side who support what the government is doing have chosen not to speak on these bills. I quote the following:

Those of us who do not believe the CSIRO is part of an international Green conspiracy to undermine Western civilisation or do not believe that leading scientists like Will Steffen are subversives should not be afraid to speak out, and loudly, on behalf of our scientists and our science. We must not allow ourselves to be deluded on this issue.

…   …   …

Now let me just say this to you: The idea that our country, this great country of ours, can sail through a 3, 4 or 5 or more degrees rise in temperature this century with our prosperity and freedom, let alone the Great Barrier Reef, intact is very naïve. So this is a big issue. So in the storm of this debate about carbon tax and direct action and what the right approach to climate change should be, do not fall into the trap of abandoning the science. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that what Lord Monckton says or what some website says is superior to what our leading scientists or leading universities would say.

Those are not my words; they are the words of the member for Wentworth. He said those words in a speech at the Inaugural Virginia Chadwick Memorial Foundation Lecture in Sydney on 21 July 2011. I also quote the member for Wentworth in National Press Gallery Questions and Answers on 3 August 2011:

I do think that there has been a war on science to some extent, an attack on climate scientists … So, it’s common sense, you’ve got to take the science seriously and I do.

I welcome the words of the member for Wentworth. There is one member on the other side who actually gets the importance of this action, who actually understands the importance of these bills. It is unfortunate, however, that when the time came this afternoon to stand up and have the conviction of his own words, his own beliefs, that member sat there quietly, opposing the bills.

We have heard much from the other side about the impact of these bills. We have heard about the big tax and the impact on households come 1 July 2012. We have heard from the government of the real impact: a 0.7 per cent increase on GDP. We have heard that this government through these bills will provide assistance to households. If we had not come into government, on 1 July 2012 there would be a tax introduced, but it would be a 1.5 per cent tax on business that would flow through in full to consumers and to households with no assistance, and the leader who would be introducing this 1.5 per cent tax has said previously, 'I would introduce this tax over my dead body.' It would be the opposition's paid parental leave scheme, a tax of 1.5 per cent with no assistance given, compared to what this government is introducing, which is a 0.7 per cent CPI increase to finally address climate change. (Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Even if you think that this carbon tax is the best thing since sliced bread; even if you swallow hook, line and sinker that this carbon tax is going to cool the planet or that it will hold back the rise of the oceans; even if you believe that unless you pay this carbon tax the reef will be gone, the polar bears are going to die and we will all be doomed; even if you are one of those individuals who love big government; even if you are one of those who are aboard the carbon tax gravy train—a gravy train to be funded by families and small business through higher electricity prices; and even if you are one of those foreign carbon traders who will be enriched by this scheme, I ask you to stop, to pause and to think of the damage that passing this legislation will do to our democratic system without this amendment.

We all remember that in the dying days before the last election, with the polls locked, the Prime Minister stared down the lens of the camera and pledged to the nation that there would be 'no carbon tax under the government that I lead'. That is the promise that everyone sitting on the other side of the chamber was elected on. But earlier today the very same government led by the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister for the mean time, anyway—voted to impose the world's biggest carbon tax upon our nation. What an outright betrayal of our democratic principles. And here it is: 19 pieces of legislation, 1,129 pages, over one-quarter of a million words. Is there anyone sitting over there on that side of the chamber who can honestly say that they have read all this legislation and understood it? I bet not. This is the most radical piece of legislation in the last decade. It is being rammed through parliament in an underhanded and undemocratic way.

The guiding principle in our democracy—one that you may well laugh about and one that our forefathers sacrificed their lives to safeguard—is that we here in parliament are agents of the people. The power of this parliament is vested in the freely expressed will of the people. That is something that you lot should never forget. But this carbon tax is not the freely expressed will of the people. Despite millions spent on propaganda to manipulate public opinion, despite the scare campaigns and the gross distortions, the electorate remains overwhelmingly opposed to this tax. While those that bleat like mindless sheep—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. We are addressing the amendment. I ask the member to come back to the amendment—which is a point of order raised by those on the other side on our speakers numerous times tonight.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are in fact debating the amendments, and the honourable member will confine his comments to the provisions of the amendments before the House. I call the honourable member for Hughes.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So while those that bleat like mindless sheep regurgitate the spin of putting a price on carbon or, more truthfully, a price on carbon dioxide, I ask them to first put a price on our democracy. To those who say they respect the science, that is fine, but I say you firstly respect our democracy. But the actions of this government to deny the public a vote on this bill says a lot about the ideology of those who sit opposite. They have no respect for our democracy. They believe that they are a group of privileged elites and that they know better than the public. They do not care about the will of the people. They do not care about the importance of our democracy. That is why the community is so angry.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Deputy Speaker, but I think he is defying your call. He is continuing with the written speech, which is not on the topic of the amendment before the House.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Hughes will confine himself to the topics of the amendments before the chamber. The honourable member for Hughes has the call.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. But that is why the community is so angry. That is why passions are running so high against this tax. It is because the people feel deceived. They feel double-crossed. They feel cheated. They feel they have been lied to. They feel they have not had their say. That is the amendment.

And to the so-called Independents: shame on you. The strength and legitimacy of the Independents in this place in the past have been based on the principles of keeping the bastards honest, but their actions of aiding and abetting this Prime Minister in breaking her promise to the electorate is why they have lost the respect of their own electorates. (Time expired)

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, which is 'Wait till Tony is in the Lodge before we do anything.' I would have to say that, (a), he is putting the horse before the cart and, (b), everybody in this parliament knows where the Leader of the Opposition stands when it comes to climate change. We understand why he has moved this amendment. We know that the Leader of the Opposition was the man who stood up and said, 'Climate change is crap.' There is absolutely no—

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As with the member for Petrie and the member for Cunningham, the member for Shortland is not addressing the legislation or the amendment before the House, and I ask you to draw her comments back to the actual legislation.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member should be aware that this debate on the amendments has been quite wide ranging. The amendments do cover quite a large amount of ground. But I would counsel the Government Whip, who has been here for a number of years, to focus carefully on what we are discussing in the chamber at the present time.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. What I am concentrating my comments on is not the legislation, not the amendments, not the comedy act of the member for Berowra—as he twisted and turned when he tried to explain his position and his party's position on this amendment—and not the words of the sceptic member for Mackellar when she stood up and referred to 'so-called climate change'; I am looking at this amendment from the Leader of the Opposition that we have before us here—this amendment that is about doing nothing.

Members on the other side of this parliament are very long on rhetoric. They are very good at giving excuses for why we should do nothing. They are very good at saying 'even if you believe', which obviously leads those of us on this side of the parliament to think that they do not believe that such a thing as climate change exists. That is why they want to do nothing. That is why they are not prepared to act now. They do not believe that the extreme climate events that we have been subjected to in our country and throughout the world have anything to do with climate change; rather, they think that we should sit on our hands and do absolutely nothing. The member for Mackellar referred to the polling, saying, 'These polls look pretty good at the moment, so why don't we push for an election and hope that we might end up with Tony in the Lodge?' That is what those on the other side—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Government Whip ought to refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title and not by his name.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise most profusely for not referring to the Leader of the Opposition as the member for Warringah, and I will do so in future.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An apology is not necessary. The honourable member ought to observe standing orders.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please accept my apologies. This delay is about waiting until the Leader of the Opposition has positioned himself so that he may realise his lifetime dream of living in the Lodge. He thinks if he can get there and if we do nothing—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been debating these amendments together, both the government and the opposition amendment, as I understand it, and even on my reading of the government's amendments there is no way in the world that what the member across the way is discussing is relevant to any of them, and I would ask that you bring her back to them. Maybe she could discuss the unadjusted provisional emissions number divided by the total number of trustees.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar is right to the extent that we have had a wide-ranging debate. However, the member for Shortland ought to focus at least to some extent on what we are discussing.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been focusing on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, which I oppose. Statements by those on the other side of this parliament that Australia is leading—(Time expired)

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the opposition leader's amendment for the carbon tax to be deferred until after an election. I am compelled to speak on this issue because I believe that the people of Macarthur deserve a chance to have their say when it comes to the biggest tax change in Australia's history. This government has no mandate to introduce this carbon tax legislation. Before the last election the Prime Minister said there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. The Treasurer said, 'We have made our position very clear; we have ruled it out.' And the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency said, 'We know that you can't have any environmental certainty with a carbon tax.' Surely these comments will come back to haunt them some time. These comments are proof that the people of Australia were led to believe that there would be no carbon tax under this government.

The people of Macarthur were misled and they deserve the chance to have their opinion heard. The people should have their say with regard to this tax. On the government's own website, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states:

Under responsible government, the executive is accountable to the parliament and the parliament to the people.

This is not occurring at the present time. This Greens-Labor alliance treats the people of Australia with contempt. We are all accountable to the people of this country and the people we represent in our electorates. We must not mislead them into trusting false claims and promises; instead, we should listen to them and ensure that their opinions are heard, especially when we are talking about the biggest tax change in our country's history.

It is no secret that Australians will start paying $105 billion in tax between now and 2020 under a Labor and Greens carbon tax—a trillion dollars over coming decades. This will have a significant impact on the Australian economy, driving up electricity prices by 10 per cent and putting thousands of jobs at risk. Residents in my electorate are already doing it tough. Some are struggling to pay their bills and others require vouchers to pay for electricity and food. How can anyone support a tax which will mean higher electricity bills, increased grocery prices and job losses with no environmental gain? Tell that to the people of Macarthur.

This tax will impact on our entire community. The average punter can tell you that now is the worst possible time to introduce a new tax that will drive down Australia's economy, especially while international economic conditions are so uncertain. If the government's legislation is passed, Australians will pay an extra $9 billion a year in tax, but Australia's emissions will increase from 578 million tonnes to 628 million tonnes by 2020. On top of the tax itself an extra $3.5 billion will have to be spent on purchasing foreign carbon credits each year by 2020.

It is not just the struggling families of my electorate who will suffer as a result of this tax. I have spoken to many small business owners who will be forced to cut jobs or close down as a result of this tax. The TRN group, Nepean Engineering, Stockade Pies, Sambello Menswear, Sport Spirit and many more businesses in my electorate have raised real concerns about the impact of this tax. A lot of blood, sweat and tears have gone into these businesses and they do not deserve to suffer as a result of a tax that will not do anything for the environment.

Last week I attended a carbon tax debate in Liverpool, as did the members for Hughes and Werriwa. At least 80 per cent of the crowd was against the carbon tax and was very vocal with regard to the effect it will have on their families. It was clear that these people resent the fact that they did not have the opportunity to vote on this tax during the last election. They like all Australians have the right to voice their opinion on this tax, which is why it should be deferred until after an election.

Today I would like to quote the government's own climate guru, Tim Flannery. He states: 'If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years'—one thousand years. According to Labor's own figures the carbon tax will not clean up Australia's environment. In a recent World Health Organisation study of urban air quality in 1,100 cities and towns around the globe Australia came third behind Estonia and Mauritius. So, we are actually doing a good job in fighting pollution in our cities right now, especially when compared to other developed countries—and we have achieved this without a carbon tax. Third in the world for clean air!

I would be interested to see how many constituents have contacted their local Labor MPs to voice their opinion against this carbon tax. Our role is to represent the people of Australia in this parliament and we should all aim to keep faith with the people who live in our electorates. There must be many Labor MPs opposite who will not be able to look at themselves in the mirror tonight after passing this carbon tax today. This carbon tax is based on a lie and it is a broken promise made to a nation that genuinely wants to improve the environment but not at the cost of our jobs, our livelihoods or our children's futures.

I support the amendment to defer this tax until after the election for many reasons—mostly because the people of Macarthur do not want it and many cannot afford it but also because this will be the biggest tax change in Australia's history which will have no positive impact on our environment and Australians should have the right to vote for a government who will not mislead them into thinking otherwise.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the amendment that the opposition has brought forward. When we sit down and have a look at this, we see that this is the culmination of a debate that has been running for almost two decades. For 20 years we have talked about climate change and taking action on it. We have seen something like 35 parliamentary inquiries into climate change since 1994. There has been a lot of discussion about this and so far the only people taking action—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will happily readdress that question for the tuckshop raiders over there. Before the last election we had a climate change forum in my electorate, and I said strongly that I support action on climate change and I support cutting pollution. But where was the Liberal party candidate? He did not even have the guts to front up. I have said that before and I will say it again: he did not even have the stomach to front up.

I would like to address some of the things that have been said earlier tonight in this debate. The member for Curtin came in here and said—

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Hughes has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. He will remain silent. The member for McEwen continues to have the call.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Curtin said that Prime Minister Howard took the GST to the election. Well, in the 1998 election it was Labor that actually won the majority of the vote. So by their standards, the standards that the member for Curtin brought forward earlier tonight, they should never have introduced it because they never had a mandate. But, suddenly, that is a bit different. Those opposite should remember that the ALP scored over 50 per cent of the vote in the 2010 election and the National Party, the combined extremists over there, 3.34 per cent.

They talk about honesty in the election, and the Leader of the Opposition is saying we should hold off on this until after an election. This is the same opposition leader who said we should have a plebiscite on the carbon tax. Again, they are trying to say that we should have a democratic right to do nothing, but when it came to the plebiscite what did the opposition leader say? These were his exact words in the HeraldSun on 20 June: 'Mr Abbott told 3AW he would not accept the plebiscite—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Firstly, the member for McEwen must remember he ought to refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title and not by his name. And now I gather the member for Mackellar is seeking the call on a point of order.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have searched through all the amendments that have been moved that we are debating and I cannot see a reference to a plebiscite anywhere. I ask you to get the member to come back to the topic of the amendments.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very wide ranging debate—in my view, regrettably too wide ranging, but we are discussing a broad range of amendments. The honourable member for McEwen has the call.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Maybe the member for Mackellar might want to go back and listen to the speeches tonight. Her friends have mentioned—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the member for McEwen will focus on the amendments before the House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. The plebiscite was mentioned earlier tonight, just before the dinner break. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said that even if the plebiscite came out supporting a carbon price he would not agree with it. So he does not agree with the election result that we won, he does not agree with abiding by a plebiscite that he wants, and now he wants us to sit there and do nothing.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you agree that you promised not to introduce a carbon tax?

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only thing we can agree is that that suit should have gone in the 1980s with you! This debate on these amendments is ridiculous. We cannot keep sitting there and listening to these people trying to stop taking action on climate change. This is about ensuring our nation's future. It is about ensuring our kids' future. It is about ensuring where we go in the future. If we have a look at the two parties and what they have said—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: prior to your assuming the chair we had a different Deputy Speaker in the chair who limited the terms of the debate quite considerably. While it is true that there was a wide-ranging debate earlier, the ruling of the other Deputy Speaker narrowed the debate. Unless we have a ruling to the contrary, I think that the member has to be pulled right back to the very strict meaning of the amendments as moved.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Mackellar on a very good try. The member for McEwen has the call and his time has almost expired.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just remind the member for Mackellar that tonight she admitted they are not interested in the national interest; they are only interested in polls.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said no such thing!

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And let's remember that their idea of action on climate change to save the Great Barrier Reef was to cover it in shade cloth. (Time expired)

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an opportunity for those opposite to deal with the calculated deception that was perpetrated on the Australian public. When I look out over this chamber and across to the Labor members I say to myself: I wonder how many would not be here had they been straight with the Australian public.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dunkley has I think accused the Prime Minister of calculated deception. If he has, he will withdraw.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I haven't; not yet. No, the last time I spoke you pulled me up for that.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you mentioned 'calculated deception'.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did I?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I did say 'calculated deception', as accurate as that is, I withdraw and I ask those opposite—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will withdraw unreservedly.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do so. We have an opportunity tonight for the opposition's amendment to be supported by this chamber and hopefully that might allow Labor members of parliament to not be recognised for two great deficits in their time in office. We know the budget deficit, that great world record that they have already achieved, is something they own and will never be taken away from them. But what is most damaging about this debate is the democratic deficit that is being perpetrated on the Australian parliament and the public. To have the Prime Minister stare down television cameras and assure Australian voters that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led was a calculated action designed to create the impression—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, come on, Mr Deputy Speaker! Calculated action?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact is I am going to sit you down unless you observe the standing orders. It is inappropriate under standing orders 89 and 90 to use offensive words or to cast a reflection on honourable members.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will come and visit you later to gain some knowledge, because 'calculated' is hardly offensive. You can tell me where I have got it wrong.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The situation is that the honourable member will either withdraw or the call will be withdrawn.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw using the word 'calculated'.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since when is that unparliamentary?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is just ridiculous. I think you misheard me on that occasion.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member has accused the Prime Minister of calculated deception. He will withdraw that or I will name him.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw that again. I will not invite you to check what I have said, but I did not use those words.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Dunkley has the call.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue we have today is whether the government will support the opposition's amendment to actually give the Australian public a chance to vote on this policy measure. They have been denied that opportunity. They were reassured that no such proposal would be introduced by a Labor government that Prime Minister Gillard led, yet here we are today talking about this very measure that the Australian public was assured they would not be confronted with. Just today the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have released yet another paper that shows how the government has failed to calculate the impact of its carbon tax on the small and medium enterprises of Australia. The amendment that the opposition has put forward would give the minister an opportunity to carefully examine this material. Members on all sides of the chamber should also consider the urging of ACCI where they say:

Armed with this research all parliamentarians should think again before burdening small business with the carbon tax …

ACCI go on to point out how some of the comparable schemes that the government refers to have none of the characteristics of the carbon tax being imposed on the Australian public and none of the burdens that are being imposed on the small- and medium-sized enterprises of Australia. There is an opportunity here for government members, by supporting the opposition's amendment, to recover some policy and political legitimacy around this debate. Time and time again there are examples of where the government has failed to understand the impact of its changes. Even the Victorian government study, undertaken by Deloittes Access Economics, makes the point that the parameters that the Commonwealth has used in its modelling assumes zero employment impacts. That is the assumption. Yet when you actually look at the impacts, in my electorate alone, by 2015 an estimated 1,385 will be lost in the City of Frankston and Mornington Peninsula Shire areas and some $154 million of economic output will be lost. Time and time again these facts are brought before the government and it has failed to address them.

There is even the insult that the minister inflicted on the small business community, telling them not to worry about the impact of the carbon tax because 'you can't get your car serviced in India and your dry-cleaning done in China'. What a nonsense argument that is. His actions and the government's carbon tax policy are impacting on demand. It is already undermining small business viability and is hollowing out employment in that important sector. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the opposition's amendment to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills before us tonight. It is an amendment about timing. I want to reiterate some important words to the House. I will quote the policy to be accurate. It says:

We have an obligation to manage climate change responsibly on behalf of future generations, so that our prosperity today is a legacy they too can enjoy tomorrow. The Australian economy depends more on fossil fuels for its wealth generation and power supply than most developed economies and we are a significant supplier of energy to the world. Adjusting to a carbon-constrained economy will entail costs. We cannot change the structure of our economy overnight and we need to manage the transition with care.

Yet, as well as costs, the same transition will also present new opportunities. We are richly endowed with natural assets that will be valuable in a carbon-constrained world—

(Quorum formed) I will continue as I was quoting:

We are richly endowed with natural assets that will be valuable in a carbon-constrained world, including high-quality geological and biological sequestration sites, large uranium reserves and abundant renewable energy resources, including geothermal energy opportunities. An important component of Australia’s climate change policy is developing key low emissions technologies to realise these opportunities.

Climate change is a global problem and Australia cannot solve it alone. The multi-faceted response set out in this document will ensure Australia leads the world in our domestic approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and is a key player in effective international responses to climate change.

Those were the words of July 2007, which the member opposite sought to interrupt, and they were the words of John Howard. In July 2007 John Howard understood, and those opposite who were in government at the time understood, that it was important for Australia to play its role in leading the world on an important new challenge that the world faced, as we have done generation after generation on important issues that challenged and faced the world. Those opposite now would have us believe that the Australian people are not up to this task. They are up to this task.

I want to put before the House an event that I attended yesterday with my colleague the member for Throsby. We had the opportunity to attend the Gujarat NRE No. 1 colliery site at Russell Vale in my electorate. We were celebrating the positioning of new longwall machinery, valued at $90 million, in conjunction with Joy Manufacturing, a production and manufacturing company in my colleague the member for Throsby's electorate. It is a really important commitment by Gujarat NRE, an Indian mining company in our area. It shows their faith and commitment to the future of mining in our region. It is an important opportunity to create— (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member's time has expired.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek a second call.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member has the opportunity to seek a second call. However, the practice of the House is to alternate speakers from one side to the other. If the honourable member chooses to stand when it is next the government's opportunity, I will look upon her with favour, as indeed I would with all members on my right or my left. The call is now given to the Second Deputy Speaker, the Honourable member for Maranoa.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening in the debate on these clean energy bills to support the amendment as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I just want to read into the Hansard yet again for the benefit of those on the other side of the House why we are seeking to amend this package of bills to delay voting on this bill and take these 1,200 pages to the people of Australia. That is what should be happening. Let me read for the benefit of those on the other side of the House what the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition would like to see happen. This is our amendment:

(1) The provisions of this Act commence on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.

(2) A Proclamation for the purposes of subsection (1) must not be made until after elections have been held for the 44th Parliament and the Parliament has met.

Why do we say that on this side of the House? It is because the Prime Minister, during the last election campaign, said that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led. Yet, what we have got in this House are 1,200 pages of new legislation. It is one of the greatest pieces of misleading information that any Prime Minister has ever bestowed on the Australian people.

If you do not want to take the Prime Minister's word and you do not accept what she said, let us look at what the Treasurer said on 15 August 2010 on Meet the Press. When asked the question whether there would be a carbon tax if the Labor Party was elected, he said:

Well, certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation somehow that we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals and their advertising. We certainly reject that.

So the Prime Minister and the Treasurer both gave firm commitments to the people of Australia before they voted to decide who they should put into government in this parliament: there would be no carbon tax under a government led by the now Prime Minister, supported by the Treasurer, who said that this was a hysterical allegation and they rejected the notion.

The people of Australia looked at the two sides of the House—and that is what democracy is about. They look at the policies from the opposing sides of the House. It is a contest of ideas: whom do they really trust to elect on policies to lead this nation? It is a very important decision the people take. All we say is: take this package of bills back to the people of Australia and ask them. Do not ask this House; ask the people of Australia. That is what our amendment says: that there be no vote taken on this until the people of Australia have been asked.

During the sitting break I drove into the outback of my electorate, because I know that if these bills pass they will impact on everyone's daily cost of living wherever they live in Australia. I went out and searched for someone in western Queensland who might support these bills. I went to Charleville—I thought I might find someone there as it was once a stronghold of the Labor Party; there is still an office of the Australian Workers Union in Charleville. I could not find anyone there, so I went on to Quilpie. I thought I would find someone there, but there was no-one. I went further out, to Eromanga into the oilfields and I caught up with Dick Loveday. He was loading cattle to take them 1,100 kilometres from far out in western Queensland in my electorate to a processing plant near Toowoomba. He has been branded one of those big polluters because he is taking his cattle on road trains that create jobs and create export income. He said, 'Give us a go at these bills. We want to vote on these bills. We are sick and tired of working for nothing and all we see are taxes, taxes, taxes from this government. Just give us a say.'

On returning to this place, I thought I would bring these comments to this parliament. The minister is at the table. Minister, I plead with you: please, please listen to the Leader of the Opposition. Listen to our amendments. Let us take these bills to a vote and ask the people of Australia.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I am quite sure that Mr Speaker has pointed out that props are not desirable. However, I would like to congratulate the Second Deputy Speaker on the fact that he has obviously undertaken weight training to lift those papers so easily in the House.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House for the opportunity to finish the comments that were interrupted by the quorum call previously. I just want to again put into context the comments that I am contributing about the amendment by the opposition on timing by indicating again the climate change policy in July 2007 of the then government led by those opposite, which said:

Australia’s domestic policies will influence, and be influenced by, effective and practical international responses to climate change. It may take some time for a truly effective international framework for emissions reductions to emerge. It is likely that in the near term progress will be made through national and bilateral actions. A domestic emissions trading system, investment in low emissions technologies and energy efficiency measures in Australia will create opportunities as the international framework emerges.

Within the context of the 2007 policy of those opposite I want to indicate that my colleague the member for Throsby and I attended an important event in our area, which was the announcement and unveiling of longwall mining machinery by Gujarat NRE, an important local mining company in our area, and a celebration of that.

It was done within the context of a statement made to the Stock Exchange by Gujarat on 4 October 2011, headed 'Implication of carbon tax for Gujarat NRE'. It is an extensive statement, but I just want to go to the conclusion so that it can be put on the record of this place. In terms of the time frame that we are looking at here, there have been, as many speakers have said, two decades of debate on these issues. We got to a point in July 2007 where there was bilateral agreement and the very issues that attempts are being made to undermine by the arguments of those opposite were in fact their policy and printed for the world to see at that point in time.

But companies in our country are actually moving on. This is what Gujarat NRE has said:

The company expects that it would be eligible for government assistance via the Coal Sector Jobs Package which will assist in reducing the overall impact of the tax. However a substantive emissions management strategy is being developed as part of each mining operation to ensure that emissions are controlled.

Mr Jagatramka, Executive Chairman for GNCCL said "we have actively investigated action that will be undertaken to reduce our total emissions of greenhouse gases. The development of new underground roadways separate from the old and existing mine workings, supports the sealing off of these old workings and prevents waste gasses from being included in our mine's ventilation system. Into the future the company is committed to utilising ventilation controls, the sealing of old mining areas and gas drainage techniques that will allow the capture and flaring of gas."

Based upon this strategy and the above mentioned measures, the potential impacts of the carbon tax are expected to be around $2.70 per tonne of coal produced. It is apparent that the direct impacts of the carbon tax will be minimised and this is not expected to impinge on future growth of the company.

It is important to acknowledge that companies in this country do understand the international dilemma that we all face about the need to get our carbon emissions down and they are investigating and seeking opportunities to do exactly that. Gujarat NRE is a mining company in my own area. Five generations of my family have worked at this mine—since the 1900s, in fact. It is a company that understands the challenges of the future. It is a company that is up to the challenges of the future. It reflects the great strength of this nation that our companies and our communities are up to the challenges of the future and are up to taking the opportunities of the future. It is sad that those opposite persist in a view that is narrow and negative. I believe it is a view of our capacity as a nation that will not last the test of time. Now is the time for action. These amendments should be rejected and we should get on with leading the world as we have done so well, in so many areas, for so many generations. It is time that we act.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise with great sadness, because there is so much concern out in the community. It is not limited to one demographic but is right across the board. There is particular anxiety and sadness in those demographics that have traditionally voted Labor, and those members opposite know that. They are not only defying the wishes and concerns of their constituents but also destroying the future opportunities and prosperity of their communities—and they know it. And for what? For the short-term political gain and the short-term political survival of the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen.

We have heard a lot of cute comments from those opposite, a lot of gilding of the lily to try to justify the position they have taken in supporting an economy-wide carbon tax that will do absolutely nothing to save the environment but will, in fact, arguably increase worldwide emissions by exporting manufacturing to countries that do not have the same environmental regulations as we do but will make the same things we used to make but create more emissions in doing so. Those opposite know it. We have seen the experience in Europe where carbon leakage has risen massively, where Europe has lost industries only to have them replaced by industries abroad that have increased carbon emissions.

We have seen the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—he is coming back to the table; I am grateful for that—be very cute and use a twist of words, trying to claim some sort of implicit carbon tax. He was very embarrassed when that was exposed as an absolute fraud. He was trying to claim that China was moving ahead of us in leaps and bounds when the reality is that China is engaged in an extraordinary increase in emissions. China will replace coal-fired power stations with other coal-fired power stations, and it will increase emissions far more than Australia will. We have seen the US abandon an ETS. We have seen the Japanese decide to postpone it, and we have seen that countries that compete with Australia are not even contemplating introducing an ETS.

We have seen the discussion on the Steel Transformation Plan. If you were not going to damage, with a sledgehammer, an industry as important as this you would not need to contemplate this very expensive use of taxpayers' funds to compensate it. But what about the vast majority of steelworkers who are not going to be covered? According to the most recent figures we have, there are about 91,000 employees across the entire Australian steel industry, and the Steel Transformation Plan will only cover those in BlueScope and OneSteel, and at best there are 17,000 employees there. You cannot have a viable steelmaking industry in Australia without a viable steel fabrication industry. If there are no steel fabricators in Australia, there is no need for steel to be made in Australia—particularly since BlueScope has closed the door for the moment on its export market. So it is a fraud to say that the Steel Transformation Plan will save the steel industry, because there is no plan for when this money runs out. That is because it has not addressed the basic problem of competitiveness. It has not addressed the problem of what happens when this money runs out and when imports will effectively be given a leg up with this reverse tariff that we have on Australian industry and Australian manufacturing. As for the green jobs: what a joke, what a farce. Nowhere in the world have we seen jobs in industry destroyed and replaced with commensurate jobs in the green sector, and it will not happen here.

Constituents in my electorate are extremely concerned about the retarding impact that the carbon tax will have on development of their rural and regional communities and on their cost of living. I am sure it is the same in non-rural and regional electorates and I am sure it is the same in Labor electorates as well. The people will have a say. They should have a say at the next election. I take this opportunity to seek leave to table signatures of more than 1,200 people in my electorate who have opposed a carbon tax and want to seek an election.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member's time has expired.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to table those signatures.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time has technically expired. I will ask the minister: is leave granted? Leave is not granted.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I actually asked before the time had expired.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I gave the honourable member the benefit of the doubt. I asked the minister if leave was granted and I believe the minister said leave was not granted.

Mrs Mirabella interjecting—

Order! The honourable member for Indi is warned!

Mrs Mirabella interjecting—

The honourable member for Indi is warned!

Mrs Mirabella interjecting—

I name the honourable member for Indi!

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the member for Indi be suspended from the service of the House.

Question put.

The House divided. [22:19]

(The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Hon Peter Slipper)

Question agreed to.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Indi is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours under standing order 94(b).

The member for Indi then left the chamber .

The question before the House is that the amendments be agreed to.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think, if anyone amongst the Australian public was in any doubt about what the debate has largely focused on this evening, that doubt has now been removed by the actions and the antics of not only the member for Indi, who has now, appropriately, been discharged from the duties of the House, but also the member for Paterson, who despite the government's decision to facilitate this debate decided to call for a quorum throughout that debate. I see he is rising now; I hope this is about that quorum now, because he would be thrown out, just as the member for—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask honourable members who are milling around the chamber, including the member for Groom and others, to resume their seats so I can give the call to the member for Paterson, who I suspect is raising a point of order.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: in line with your earlier rulings and those of deputy speakers who have occupied the chair tonight, I ask you to bring the member for Hunter's attention to the amendments at hand. He is not addressing the issues of the amendments before the House.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson is correct in saying that honourable members ought to be debating the amendments before the House. The amendments are, however, wide ranging. But I would urge the Chief Government Whip to confine himself to the wide-ranging amendments the House is currently debating. The Chief Government Whip has the call.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly respect your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. While I have not been here as long as the member for Mackellar, who has been very active in this debate, I have been here for some 15½ years and I have been a student of the parliamentary process for much longer than that. I have never seen such an extraordinary course of events. Never has such a wide-ranging and broad amendment been moved in the in-detail stages of a government bill. It is not that strange for an opposition with no new ideas and no alternative solutions to put forward such an amendment to defer the actions of the will of the House, but it is extraordinary that they should put forward such an amendment in the in-detail part of a debate, a period of the debate which is usually confined to the specifics of the very complex legislation before the House.

It is extraordinary that having done so they would spend most of the time the government agreed to give them for further debate on the clean energy bills by wasting time and taking frivolous points of order. The other side ignored points of order from this side while they continued to read their speeches no matter what the deputy speakers ruled. What is even more extraordinary is that we all stand here in defence of democracy. People over the ages have given their lives for democracy. Indeed, Australian soldiers continue to give their lives in pursuit of giving others the opportunity to participate in parliamentary democracy.

The opposition's proposition is that from now on if you have hard reform to put to the Australian people through the parliament you should go and seek the will of the Australian people on every occasion. Imagine if Gough Whitlam and those who followed him had done that on tariff reform. Imagine if Paul Keating had done that on the floating of the dollar. It is not the way our democracy works and nor should it be. There are only two sorts of people at the end of the day—there are leaders and there are followers.

The Prime Minister and those who stand behind her on this side have shown very strong leadership in picking up an issue that has been debated in this country for the last 20 years. The government went to the last election promising to act on climate change, just as John Howard went to the 2007 election promising to act on climate change. Indeed, John Howard went to the 2007 election with a response to climate change not unlike the architecture of what we are putting through the House and what we have been debating in this place for a long time. When the Australian people pick up their newspapers tomorrow and come to understand the antics in this House tonight, the crescendo being the expulsion of the member for Indi, they will understand what this debate is really about. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment before us is to let the people have a say on this carbon tax by postponing it until after an election. I want to highlight some of the people who have not been able to have a say and really want to have a say. These are people from my electorate. Sallyann Pottinger from Shoal Point says if the carbon tax goes ahead she will never vote for Labor again. Mary Old from Mackay says the government does not have a mandate from the people for this. Dianne Worthington of Seaforth says she will never vote for Labor again if this tax goes through. Rob Geisler of Shoal Point, a Labor voter of 29 years, will not be voting for Labor again if the tax goes through. Susan Griffin says this will not do anything to improve our carbon footprint, but will affect our wallets. Dianne Pulfer of Slade Point says no to the carbon tax. Rodney Barrett of Bowen says that this is all pain and no gain. Leslie Cuthbert of Glenella says no to the carbon tax. Michael Smith of Dolphin Heads does not support a carbon tax. David Drage of Mount Pleasant says no to the carbon tax. Glenn McGrath, a builder from Mackay, says the Labor government needs to go sooner rather than later because of this carbon tax. Peter Harding of Mackay says, 'Don't let them waste more of our money' with this carbon tax. Robbie Morris of Glenella calls it another useless Labor tax. Pat O'Shea from Balnagowan disagrees with this proposed carbon tax. Paula McInnes of Andergrove says that people cannot afford this carbon tax. Joe Dance of Mount Julian says that this tax is 'a crime against humanity'—a bit poetic, but I agree. Elizabeth Taylor of Calen says that the Prime Minister is not listening to the people. The Van Lint family of Balnagowan say no to the carbon tax. Nigel Rack of Mackay says this has nothing to do with climate change.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It is not very helpful for others to be interjecting. I remind the member for Dawson that there has been a discussion about relevance to the debate. I ask him to refer his remarks to the question before the chair and for all members to be on their best behaviour. They have seen what can happen very quickly. The member for Dawson has call.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, these people are very relevant to this debate because these people want to have a say and so far they have not had a say.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dawson will not take on the chair. The chair has already been taken on once tonight and we saw the result of that. The question before the chair is the consideration in detail about the amendment. The member for Dawson has plenty of opportunity to relate the remarks of his constituents to those amendments, but this is a debate that he could have had in the second reading. The member for Dawson has the call.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact is that the people of this country have not had a say in this. The government does not have a mandate. This amendment seeks to give the people a say by having an election before this tax is adopted. As someone who sat on the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation, I know that there is a groundswell of support for our proposition and against this carbon tax proposal by the government.

I have with me a rather weighty document. It is all of the submissions given to the carbon tax inquiry, but that were knocked back by the carbon tax inquiry. Some 4½ thousand people who sought to have their say were simply ruled as correspondents only. So the government have form on this in not giving people a say. Today they have two opportunities. I seek leave to table this document and have it included in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

A simple thing like that rejected just goes to show that the government do not want the people of this nation to have their say on the carbon tax. They have no mandate for this, absolutely none at all and I have plenty more submissions from people in my electorate who are outright opposed and say that this government does not have a mandate. They should have accepted the tabling of this document but they do not want to because they do not want people to have a say.

The government should accept this amendment that we are proposing because it gives them a mandate. They currently do not have one and they must sit here very ashamed when they vote tomorrow, knowing deep in their hearts that the Prime Minister said that there will be no carbon tax under the government that she leads, the government which are now voting to accept this disgraceful tax against the wishes of the people.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to this amendment I will confine my remarks specifically to the amendment that has been put by the Leader of the Opposition which seeks to delay the introduction of this legislation. As other members on this side have already said, the motive for delaying the introduction of this legislation is simply to ensure that the Australian people do not get to see it in operation because if they do then it will dispel much of the misinformation and the myths that have been created by members opposite when they speak about this legislation. It is absolutely in their interest to delay the introduction of the legislation because it enables them to continue to run the fear and the misinformation campaign which they have been running for the past 12 months and more.

In speaking to the amendment I raise this point: the longer we delay the introduction of any legislation to reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on our climate the longer the uncertainty continues in the minds of the business people of Australia. Speakers on the other side have time and time again come in here and spoken about the concerns that business people have about this legislation. I also speak to business people around the community. It is my view that they are equally concerned and for almost five years they have not known where they stand in respect of legislation relating to carbon emissions in this country. While that uncertainty hangs over their heads, they do not know whether they should plan particular investments, they do not know what direction they should take because they simply do not know where they stand in the future when it comes to legislation on this issue. It is time, after five years, that they did know because that will enable them to plan with certainty for the future.

The member for Berowra quite rightly pointed out that the two biggest global players on this issue are China and the USA. He made the point that we should not be acting because firstly our emissions—he put them at one per cent, they are a little bit higher than that—are irrelevant to the global situation. He quoted a speech from a person whose name I do not recall who made the point that without America's and China's involvement there is no point in us doing anything. I say to the member for Berowra, firstly with respect to the USA, whilst their national government might not be acting, certainly the state of California is and the state of California is the eighth biggest economy in the world. It is not inconsequential, it is not insignificant; therefore the USA is contributing to the global response on this issue.

China is investing heavily in replacing old, inefficient coal-fired power stations and also in renewable energy sources including solar, wind and hydro. China today has the world's largest installed renewable energy electricity generation capacity. China has also in the last five years reduced its energy consumption by 19.6 per cent in terms of the per unit of GDP consumption that it produces. That is again not insignificant. Furthermore, China has pledged to lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 per cent by the year 2020 compared to 2005 levels. That is quite an ambitious target. Finally, China has a number of provinces and cities including Guangdong and Hubei and the municipalities of Tianjin, Shanghai, Beijing and Chongqing which are set to trial an emissions trading scheme in the year 2012. Those Chinese provinces represent a quarter of a billion people—that is the magnitude of the input just in that area alone.

It is my view that Australia should do its fair share in addressing this global issue. I think it is totally wrong and improper to suggest that just because we produce one per cent it is insignificant in the global scheme of things. At the very minimum we should do our share to play our part in what is truly a global problem. Quite frankly, that is all this legislation ensures that we do—play our part as responsible global citizens in addressing a global problem.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I have to agree with the member for Makin inasmuch as we are trying to delay this vote. We are in fact trying to encourage the Prime Minister to show that she has at least some level of integrity in relation to maintaining a commitment that she made prior to this last election where she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' We have seen what she has done, she has trashed the promise and we are in the situation that we find ourselves in tonight. I see the member for Dawson with the 4,500 submissions that have been rejected—4,500 rejections. There were only 73 submissions accepted. Those 4,500 were submissions that said, 'We do not agree with the government and we do want the opportunity of being able to express a point of view and have a vote.' I actually have a couple of those submissions from my constituents, who raise some serious concerns and disappointments. One of them that I have here is from Sally Bain from Bayview Heights in my electorate. In her single page submission she talks about things such as the tax weakening the Australian economy, that the tax will not make even a half of one per cent difference to the international carbon dioxide level and that it would be far better for the environment for the government to concentrate efforts and finances in other areas, such as reduction of use of plastics—particularly bottles and bags—and, of course, financing cheap and regular public transport. And so she goes on—it is quite a thoughtful submission.

I have another one here from Bernie Treston, a solicitor in my area and clearly somebody who has put a lot of thought into his submission. Again, he expresses concerns about the mass of paperwork and employment of many public servants to try to implement the proposed methods of limiting pollution when there are so many cheaper and more effective ways of achieving results. Of particular concern is that it is likely to increase the costs of production, mainly caused through increase in electricity charges. He fails to see how they can pass this on to their customers.

Both of those submissions were rejected, and in the rejection letters the committee stated: 'The committee has received your email as correspondence. While the committee considers the views in correspondence, it does not publish correspondence on its webpage. This does not lessen the importance of your contribution, however only those documents that went to specific detail about the bills were published as submissions.' I have one of the submissions that was actually accepted by this committee, and it was by Rob Feith. This is his submission:

I am writing to express my support for the Government to legislate to put a price on Carbon. I urge the government to continue to move ahead with the Carbon tax.

That was the total extent of his submission, whereas you have Sally Bain's and Bernie Treston's missing out completely.

When we talk about that, there are many others. Fred Ariel and Dennis Cole of Raging Thunder Adventures have expressed to me very serious concerns about the impact on their tourism business. And Phil Hobbs from Tusa Dive in Cairns says that already the tourism industry has done it very difficult, and here we have a situation where we have the government now pushing this through and breaking a promise.

All we are saying in this amendment here is to let us take it back to the people, to let us hold this over until the 44th parliament and to let the people have an opportunity to have a say. The fact that these 4,600 which rejected this government's submission that we ought to have a carbon tax were not accepted I think is unprecedented. In fact of all the submissions they could only find something like 73 that actually agreed with them, and they are the only ones that they were prepared to accept.

It is just absolutely outrageous that the government is continuing to push this through. I can tell you now that there are many people on the other side who we will not see around in the 44th parliament. I can guarantee you that. There is outrage in my community of Leichhardt and many other areas—everywhere I go. They are absolutely disgusted by the antics of this. They certainly do not accept the proposition that has been put forward by this government. They totally reject it and they demand a vote. (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The effect of the amendment that has been put forward by the opposition is, as has been admitted by their side, to delay any action on climate change. Part of the defence is that in actual fact others are not moving on this issue and therefore we should not.

But quite frankly, we are not leading the world and the biggest danger for us is that we are in danger of being left behind. The rest of the world clearly is acting, and both our economy and environment are at risk through delay. Many countries—all the major emitters—are acting now to reduce carbon pollution, and a broad range of countries have introduced or are planning market-based emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes. It is worth noting that our top five trading partners—China, Japan, the US, the Republic of Korea and India—and another six of our top 20 trading partners—New Zealand, the UK, Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands—have implemented or are piloting carbon trading or taxation systems at a national, state or city level. Many of those countries have renewable energy targets, including 14 of Australia's top 20 trading partners.

We are being asked to delay action when in fact the pace of change that is occurring beyond our borders is speeding up. Eighty-nine countries, accounting for over 80 per cent of global carbon pollution and over 90 per cent of the global economy, have pledged to reduce or eliminate pollution by 2020 under the United Nations Framework on the Convention on Climate Change. There have been ETSs operating for years in 31 European countries, in New Zealand and in 10 US states. California is the world's eighth largest economy and has legislated for an ETS. Again, we are being asked not to do anything when there are many countries and many parts of the US that are already moving on this.

In addition to regional cap-and-trade measures, at the national level the US is basically implementing a diverse range of actions to reduce carbon pollution, including environmental regulations, renewable energy targets and transport sector initiatives. All this work is happening. China, which was referenced before in the debate, has ambitious targets to reduce its economy's energy and carbon intensity. By 2013 it is planning pilot emissions trading in several major provinces and cities, including Beijing and Shanghai. The combined population—this is worth noting—is over 200 million people, and the combined GDP is significantly larger than Australia's. So it is obvious that the world is moving on this, and the danger for us is that we will be left behind as they move ahead and, as I indicated earlier in the debate, we will be forced to play expensive catch up. For every year we do not undertake any action we will be required to stump up $5 billion extra to help get us closer to the five per cent emission reduction target by 2020. I have noticed in this debate a reference to democracy, and I have noticed a reference to people not being given a say. I think that if we are going to talk about people having a say, there is one member of the entire opposition front bench of 21 MPs that has not spoken against the carbon price. He is the only member of the entire shadow ministry of 27 members, including all of the shadow parliamentary secretaries, who has not spoken. He is one of only five out of 72 coalition MPs not to speak against the carbon price and one of only three MPs of the 70 who have been present for the whole debate who have chosen not to speak. That person is the member for Wentworth. So if you are going to come in here and tell us that, bringing all of your petitions and all of your statements, and quoting people who have been denied a say, look at your own side, where there is clearly a division, particularly amongst senior people who believe that action does need to be taken and is not.

Significantly, we had some references when I had to sit in the chamber earlier listening to people who believed that they had been gagged. Let us go to the stats. Those opposite gagged 26 Labor MPs during the Telstra privatisation. I represented the union that was part of that organisation, where jobs went from 90,000 to 30,000 through the course of privatisation. All of those people lost their jobs and their livelihoods. There were 26 Labor MPs gagged during that privatisation—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member should not unduly reopen the second reading debate.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and 20 Labor MPs gagged on Work Choices. If we are going to have people talking about democracy, look first at your own record before you start lecturing us.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the amendment for the delay of the proclamation of the legislation. I do so on a couple of grounds. One is the issue that the member for Chifley raises—that is, the construct of democracy. I thought with the new paradigm that we would be doing business very differently in the way that we would debate legislation in this House, that we would have much more open processes that would enable us to deal with some of the complexities, particularly of this legislation.

Ms Burke interjecting—

I am glad that the member is interjecting. Let me share with you that, in a shocking and historically unprecedented suppression of political expression, 4,500 Australians opposed to the carbon tax have had their submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation rejected out of hand. Upon its establishment, the joint select committee called for submissions from Australians on the legislation to impose a carbon tax. Despite giving Australians only one week to wade through over 1,000 pages of legislation, the committee website specifically states that it encourages submissions to its inquiries from a wide range of individuals and organisations, yet only 73 submissions, mainly in favour of a carbon tax, were accepted by the committee, with 4,500 rejected out of hand. Never in the history of the Australian parliament has such a widescale rejection of opinions taken place. Never before have submissions been rejected in such a manner. This is hubris of the highest order.

It was also interesting, in looking at page 8 of today's West Australian, to see a full-page advert by the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance. I will cite its words because they are words that were conveyed to me and to the shadow minister when we met with many small businesses and groups within Hasluck:

If a carbon tax passes parliament, higher prices that could do nothing for climate change become law. The government is introducing the world's largest carbon tax legislation in parliament this week, and if the world's largest carbon tax becomes law it effectively means higher prices will also become law. It will be the law for higher fuel prices for 60,000 businesses. It will be the law for higher electricity prices for every Australian family and business. It will be the law for higher public transport costs. It will be the law that raises costs for Australian manufacturers.

In my electorate, constituents have openly expressed their sense of betrayal and have made strong comments in condemnation of a commitment that was given to not introduce a carbon tax. They have in fact found that this government is introducing a carbon tax that will impact on them. Businesses have been direct in their opposition because they have been considering the flow-on, cascading costs. For Western Australia, let me take the example of food supply. It tends to emanate out of the south-eastern corner of this country. Significant costs will be derived from the cost of an increase in fuel and then transporting it across the country. When talking with truckies, they say to me that it costs them $3,000 minimum, and if they go further from Perth to Kununurra then the cost is again the same.

In my electorate there are people who currently make decisions about whether they go without medication to put food on the table. They find that the increasing costs are impacting on their quality of life and their choice of life for themselves and their children. Any other increases that are additional to what they experience at the moment will only be an added burden, and it will be a pity to see that the people who go without will be those in greatest need. Even those on Centrelink payments will have to bear the cost of the increases that will come. I am sure that there are many in this House who will never go hungry nor want for a comfortable bed, yet there will be others in my electorate and those of many others who will experience poverty and the challenges of meeting the costs of living. In that context, they will not be able to give their families and children the quality of life that they have always dreamed of and aspired to. Those seeking to own homes will have the additional burden of that tax. I feel for those who will have the greatest impact— (Time expired)

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the minute or so of time that is left before the House adjourns, I would like to thank members for their contribution during the consideration in detail phase of the debate on the bills. It has spanned the better part of six hours and traversed quite a number of issues, and I do thank members for their contribution. I would like to take the opportunity, too, to thank my friend and colleague the member for Isaacs, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, for all of the work that he has done over the last 12 months to contribute to the development of this policy and this legislation and all of the support that he has given me. I am tremendously grateful for that. Finally, I confirm that, in relation to the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition, there is no case, in the government's view, for delay of this important reform. It will be environmentally effective, it will be economically efficient, it will socially equitable, and the country does need to make this reform. We also do not support the amendment that was moved by the member for O'Connor. Finally, I commend the government's amendments to the House.

Debate interrupted.

House adjourned at 23:00