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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wannon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The adverse impact of the Government's changes to the carbon tax on the Australian economy.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

As is the case with the government's approach to many other policy areas, the government's approach to putting a price on carbon, or implementing a carbon tax, is now in a shambles. It is about time that the Prime Minister came into this House and declared once and for all that this carbon tax experiment has failed, and she should remove it from the statute books. Why? Because the carbon tax is some 100 days old and yet already we have seen eight changes made to it. As a piece of legislation it is a mockery. It is a shame that this government is still standing by the legislation, given that in 100 days it has had to make eight significant changes to it.

Even the government's major supporters, the supporters who are backing this Prime Minister up, the supporters who put her in power, do not support the carbon tax. The AWU have let slip that they oppose the carbon tax because it will cost jobs, it will see jobs go offshore and it will raise the cost of living for ordinary Australians. So, given that the AWU have come clean and made it quite clear that they do not want the carbon tax, surely it is time for the Prime Minister to do the same.

Let us look at the eight changes that have been made to the Prime Minister's carbon tax—the tax that she said before the last election would not be introduced. Just before it was finalised, they bailed out significant major companies in the hope that they would not collapse immediately after the tax was introduced. I know this because one of the companies given additional taxpayer money was Alcoa. There was a real threat that the two aluminium smelters in Victoria could close down as a result of the tax. As we have seen, not long after the introduction of the carbon tax, Point Henry had to undertake a serious review to consider its long-term future. At Portland in my electorate there were also concerns raised about the future of the smelter in 10 to 15 years time. We have seen a decrease in the share of the clean tech investment grant funding for small businesses, so further increases in funding for big business could be provided and those businesses, especially those ones that have strong union membership, can be looked after.

The Clean Energy Regulator has added more businesses to the big polluters list, taking the total to 315—there are now 315 of these so-called big polluters, and some of them are local governments or dairy processors.

These are not big polluters; these are vital parts of government and the private sector in Australia. Yet now they are being labelled as big polluters.

I challenge the Prime Minister to go down to go to the Murray Goulburn plant in Koroit, which is in my electorate, and tell all the workers there that they are working for a big polluter. This is a company which, in 24 hours, turns milk into skim milk powder or whole milk powder and ships it off for export—helping to feed the rest of the world. That is not what I would call a big polluter.

The government has also changed the regulations to allow increased emissions of one million tonnes from pipelines and landfill. The big efficient landfills, the ones which are doing their job and producing little or no emissions, are now actually being penalised by this government's changes—because people are now flocking to the smaller landfills which do not have to pay the carbon tax. As a result, this government's policy will see emissions increase rather than decrease.

The government have abandoned the contract-for-closure program aimed at shutting down inefficient power stations. That means the carbon tax will have to increase in order to achieve the same reduction in emissions. Because it has a lot to do with his electorate, one member of this House has been very vocal about the contract-for-closure program—the member for Gippsland. He has been challenging the government over when they are going to honour their commitment on contract for closure. Day after day he has targeted the government on this issue, yet the government, in the end, abandoned its contract-for-closure program—another change to their carbon tax legislation, which is only a little over 100 days old.

The government has also scrapped the floor price, which was to have been $15, from 2015. The government had said that a floor price was needed for business confidence. The scrapping of the floor price is therefore quite consistent with this government's policy, because the last thing this government wants to do is give business confidence. With everything it does—its changes to its legislation, its changes to its policy approach—this government undermines business confidence. The government had been saying that the $15 floor price gave businesses the confidence they needed to invest. But, just 100 days in, what is the government now doing? It is destroying that confidence by removing the floor price. I would like to hear from those opposite about what they are now going to do to restore business confidence.

The government have also linked the scheme to the European system, a system which does not allow a two-way trade of carbon credits, putting Australian businesses at a disadvantage and resulting in Australia's carbon tax being set by the EU price. We have given up control of our carbon price to Brussels, to the EU. And hasn't the EU been so resoundingly successful recently at governing its economy? Why, at this stage, would you say, 'Oh, yes, EU, you have done a wonderful job bringing all the economies of the European Union together—it has been an absolutely fantastic success—so therefore we are going to hand over to you the running of our economy on this key issue'?

There is another point about merging these two processes, merging our carbon tax with that of the European Union. What does it mean for how emissions-intensive, trade-exposed sectors will be handled? It does not take much looking to see that emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries in the European Union are treated differently from how they are treated in Australia. I will give one example of this, an example which is close to my heart: dairy processing. Here in Australia, dairy processors do not get any assistance from the government—none whatsoever. So they have to pay the full carbon price. In the European Union, dairy processors get free allocation of permits to 93 per cent. What does that mean when the two schemes are merged? The dairy processors in the European Union will be the beneficiary of EU export subsidies, so they will already have an unfair advantage over the Australian dairy sector. What, then, in its infinite wisdom, does this government do? It says, 'We will give them another advantage; we will allow those dairy processors in Europe a free allocation of permits of 93 per cent, yet we will do nothing when it comes to our sector.' So our dairy processors will pay the full carbon price; European Union dairy processors will not—they will pay only seven per cent of the carbon price.

All of our commodity producers operate in global markets. Given that, how can a government come up with a policy like this, a policy which ties our exporters' hands behind their backs, a policy which makes them internationally uncompetitive? Our exporters are already struggling due to the high dollar—and part of the reason for the dollar being so high is that this government has run the four largest budget deficits in Australia's history, which has kept interest rates high. Therefore, not only do they have to deal with a high dollar but they also have to deal with a government that is putting in place a taxation system that makes them less competitive.

What is the last area of the carbon tax that the government have changed in the first 100 days? They have halted the Clean Technology Investment Program grants. This came just weeks after the grants were announced and changed for the first time. So that really makes it nine changes, I suppose, in 100 days, because there was a change and then another change when it comes to this policy.

This government, sadly, never knows what it is doing when it introduces legislation. We saw it with the Margiris. The government introduced the legislation and then had to put amendment after amendment after amendment. We saw it with the government's initial approach to live animal exports—cutting off that important trade with Indonesia, which is about links with one of our most important regional trading partners. Bam! It was cut off overnight. I am still waiting to hear what the minister for trade had to say in the cabinet meeting when that decision was made, whether he thought, 'Gee, this might do damage to our long-term trading relationship with Indonesia.' He just sits there mute. We are still waiting to hear what his response was to that. Did he sit there and say, 'I don't care if we harm our biggest beef and our biggest wheat export markets,' because that is what closing down this trade overnight was going to do? I do not know what he said about that, because we are yet to hear it.

The carbon tax legislation is just another example of a government that introduces legislation but does not understand what it is doing, such as the long-term harm it is doing to our international competitiveness, and has to make eight significant changes to the legislation within 100 days. Who knows what is to come? Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will be able to enlighten us as to what further changes he has in mind to try and fix this draconian piece of legislation, because I can tell you the Australian people would like to know what further impost you are going to put on their cost of living, particularly their electricity bills. Instead of just coming into this place day after day and changing the legislation bit by bit, why don't you forecast what you are going to do? Show us where you see further problems with this legislation. Maybe—and I think this is what the Australian people dearly want to hear—the parliamentary secretary could stand up and say, 'We've messed this up enough; eight changes in 100 days shows we didn't know what we were doing, shows how draconian this bill is and shows that we need to remove it from the Australian parliament.' But I doubt we will hear that. That is why I think ultimately we are going to have to wait for election day, when the Australian people will get the chance to cast their votes on the carbon tax, and I think it will be resoundingly clear that they want it removed from this parliament.

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

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this matter, because the future of the Australian economy, our prosperity, fairness and equity, are of the greatest importance to the Gillard government. What we have heard today from the member for Wannon is yet more of the campaign of aggressive negativity that we have become accustomed to from the Leader of the Opposition and others opposite, and a bit more of what we have become very accustomed to, which is the opposition talking down and misrepresenting the state of our economy. The only major threat to business confidence in this country is the opposition and the way in which they wish to create a climate of uncertainty by talking down our economy. They like to talk about chaos and destruction. They like to talk about the supposed dreadful effects of the price on carbon. It is those opposite who are causing chaos, it is those opposite who are causing destruction, with their negativity. They talk down Australia's economy because they want to take cheap political advantage of job losses and business failures.

You will never hear those opposite talking about job gains. You will never hear those opposite talking about the fact that, since Labor came to office at the end of 2007, 800,000 jobs have been created in our country. You will never hear those opposite talking about the fact that our economy has continued to grow while other economies across the developed world have shrunk. Our economy, by contrast, has grown by 11 per cent since the start of 2008. But what we get from those opposite is more of the same: more wishing to go back to the days of inequity, the good old days of John Howard and Work Choices and, in fact, the days when we had higher taxes—because that is what the Howard government brought this country; it was the highest taxing government this country has ever seen. And, of course, it brought far higher interest rates than anything the Australian people are experiencing now.

We have opposite us an opposition who want to gain votes not because it is in the public interest, not for the wellbeing of all Australians and not to implement policies that would drive growth and promote fairness. On the contrary, those opposite would have us believe that the carbon price—we heard this again today from the member for Wannon—is going to cause the destruction of our economy. I am not overstating that, because we have heard them say that. We have heard that it was going to destroy whole towns. We have heard that it was going to destroy whole industries. We have heard that it was going to lead to unimaginable price rises. We have heard that it was going to lead to the most unimaginable consequences. And, of course, we have heard the various animal metaphors from the Leader of the Opposition. There was going to be a 'cobra strike', but then, no, it was going to be a 'python squeeze' or there was going to be an 'octopus embrace'. I think that was at the fish markets! But there has been no cobra strike, there has been no python squeeze, there has been no octopus embrace. No matter what animal the Leader of the Opposition uses in his next metaphor to describe the impact of the carbon price, it simply will not be true—unless perhaps the animal is a bunyip, because the bunyip is a mythical creature. That might be a fitting animal metaphor for the Leader of the Opposition to use, because the impacts that the Liberal Party have gone on and on about are mythical, just like the bunyip.

Under this government the Australian economy continues to outperform other advanced economies and that is because of our investments in skills, in infrastructure and in education. It is because we, as a national government, acted to stimulate the economy at the right time. We acted fast and we acted large. That is what produced the economic prosperity that Australians are continuing to enjoy and that is what kept 250,000 Australians in work when they otherwise would have been thrown out of work. Our firm policies and our prompt action are what have kept the Australian economy from going down the track that, regrettably, many other Western economies have gone down.

I want to comment on something that the member for Wannon, in some of the further repetition of the wild overstatements and misstatements about the effect of the carbon price, has had to say today. He talked a bit about landfill. I need to say that the landfill industry in our country is predicted to earn $150 million over the next three years by capturing dangerous methane gas and either destroying it or turning it profitably into renewable energy. That is our carbon price scheme. It is a feature of our carbon price scheme that a whole different range of methods are being used to encourage abatement of dangerous pollution. For the landfill industry, its use of the Carbon Farming Initiative—which will give direct rewards to the landfill industry when it captures dangerous methane pollution—is a key plank of our Clean Energy Plan, not that you would get this perspective from listening to the member for Wannon or to anyone from the other side of this parliament. The member for Wannon was drawing attention to some companies which he suggested were experiencing some competition from small operators, while neglecting to mention some key details.

Across the Australian landfill industry there has been a wide-scale welcome of the price on carbon and general approval of the carbon farming initiative. In relation to large landfills, there are economies of scale to make them vastly cheaper and more profitable to run than smaller landfills. The member would do well to explore a little bit further the turnover of the landfill companies he is talking about. It might put some of the complaints he has referred to into clear perspective.

The economic data that has been recorded recently for Australia puts a wrecking ball through the Leader of the Opposition's scare campaign, which has now been running for months and months. He said price rises would be unimaginable. He said that the carbon price would be like a wrecking ball through our economy, destroying jobs. In answer to that, let us look at the most recent statistic and economic prediction made about the Australian economy—that is the release today of the International Monetary Fund's October 2012 World Economic Outlook. That has reaffirmed the strength of Australia's economic fundamentals in the face of a weaker global recovery, with the Australian economy again forecast to outperform every major economy over this year and next. In case those opposite do not want to listen or are blocking their ears because it is inconsistent with all of the things they like to say in this place, I repeat: the Australian economy is forecast by the International Monetary Fund to outperform every major advanced economy over this year and next. In fact, this World Economic Outlook published by the IMF today shows Australia is now the world's 12th largest economy. It has leapfrogged three places ahead under our Labor government, after slipping back three places under the previous government. And not only that, it is the forecast of outperformance of other major economies that you can point to.

Far from being destroyed, the Australian economy is now one of the strongest performers in the developed world. We have solid growth, low unemployment, low interest rates, contained inflation, strong public finances and an enormous pipeline of investment in resources. The Leader of the Opposition has recently been trying to suggest that the economy is not growing. I repeat: the Australian economy has grown 11 per cent since 2008 and is continuing to grow. It is an economic report card that most developed countries could only dream of at this moment. Of course, it is an impressive performance which is the product and the result of decades of reforms.

The government is building on this legacy of hard but necessary reforms. We are investing in skills, we are investing in education, we have invested in infrastructure like the National Broadband Network. We have reformed mining taxation to provide support to businesses not in the fast lane of the economy and we are putting a price on carbon. While the economy is strong, of course, too many Australians are still finding it hard to make ends meet and that is why we have put in place a package of measures—to help people make ends meet and to spread the benefits of the mining boom. That is why we are going to continue to work to improve services in education and in health. That is what Australians want—that is what Australians would far rather we were talking about in this place than the nonsensical claims of doom and gloom from those opposite.

Those opposite like to claim that Australia is acting alone on the carbon price, and this, too, is false. Every major economy is tackling climate change. Ninety countries representing 90 per cent of the global economy have committed to reducing their carbon pollution and have policies in place to achieve these reductions. Many of these countries are relying on a market based mechanism. It needs to be restated that some of those opposite understand this but some of those opposite still have some vague commitment to the free market. A carbon price is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions and is more efficient than other direct subsidy policies.

Some members of the Liberal and National parties understand the benefits of an emissions trading scheme and understand the benefits of a cap-and-trade mechanism. The member for Wentworth would be chief among them. I am pleased to say that there are some representatives of state governments who have a clear understanding of the benefits of putting a price on carbon as well. I am pleased to be able to quote from the statement made just today by the Western Australian Minister for Agriculture and Food, Terry Redman, who is quoted as saying that the introduction of a carbon price has given Western Australian farmers—I hope the member for Wannon is listening—another tool to manage salinity. This is the direct quotation from the statement today of the Western Australian coalition government's minister for agriculture:

Traditionally, many land managers in the northern Wheatbelt have attempted to address salinity through saltbush plantings, which also provides feed for stock.

However, the recent trend in the area towards fewer stock and increased cropping has meant this may no longer be a solution.

And here is the key bit:

With the introduction of a carbon price, the ability of salt tolerant native species to sequester carbon has the potential to provide farmers with another option to manage salinity.

He went on to announce $330,000 of state government funding—that is coalition state government funding—to test the sequestration properties of native plantings at various sites and examine the potential to use our Labor government's Carbon Farming Initiative as a means of managing salinity. Perhaps the next time the member for Wannon thinks about saying that the carbon price is in some way prejudicial to the interests of farmers in this country, he might like to talk to the coalition minister for agriculture in Western Australia, Terry Redman, who seems to have no doubt about the benefits of the carbon price.

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

I'll be happy to talk to him.

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

And you should talk to him often, because he seems to have no doubts about the benefit of the carbon price for Western Australian farmers.

I have said that a carbon price is the most effective way to reduce emissions, and that is why, by next year, 850 million people across the world will be living in a country, a state or a city with an emissions trading system. That includes countries like the United Kingdom, governed by a conservative government; Germany; France; Sweden; Norway; New Zealand, also governed by a conservative government; and Switzerland. Carbon trading is operating at the subnational level in the United States, Canada and Brazil.

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

Subnational!

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

Subnational—and I will come to that. The momentum is growing. California will commence emissions trading next year, on 1 January. On 14 November, they will have their first auction of carbon allowances. By 2015, California's cap-and-trade program will be the world's third-largest emissions trading market, after the European Union and the Korean ETS. The scheme is remarkably similar to the scheme that we have in Australia. It will cover 85 per cent of California's emissions. I can speak with pretty direct and recent authority because I met with senior officials of the Californian government some two weeks ago.

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

When are we linking with that!

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

And we agreed to work together towards the development of regional and global carbon markets. California, which those opposite deride as being subnational, is in fact, if looked at as a stand-alone economy, the world's eighth-biggest economy, with 37 million people. That is why an agreement with the officials from the Californian government to work with them towards linking and to explore options—which we will be doing, of course, with the Europeans as well—to link the carbon markets of California, Europe and Australia over the longer term is absolutely in the interests of Australia. The recognition by the Californians of the worth of linking schemes shows that that is the direction the world is going in.

China is developing pilot emissions trading schemes in seven cities and provinces, and that will commence next year. Korea's emissions trading scheme will commence in 2015, and countries like Turkey, South Africa, Thailand and Chile are also working to develop carbon pricing schemes. The rest of the world is acting, and those opposite should stop disregarding the facts and the direction of the world. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on today's MPI because I hold great concern for the people of my electorate, Macarthur, and the people of Australia, especially families, pensioners and small business owners, who will suffer most as a result of the government's carbon tax and the changes that have been made to it. Today's MPI is about the adverse impact on the Australian economy of the government's changes to the carbon tax. I have many concerns about these changes, especially when so many people in my electorate are already suffering as a result of this tax.

It has been only three months since the government introduced the tax on 1 July. Since then, I have received many phone calls and letters from local families and small business owners in my electorate who have sent me their electricity bills to show the effect this tax has had on their cost of living. One example is a local high school which received a carbon tax charge of $447 in the first month of the carbon tax being introduced. If you take this first month as an average, that means the carbon tax will cost the school and similar schools around Australia between $5,000 and $6,000 per year. This is money which teachers say could be better spent on interactive whiteboards, textbooks, computer programs for design, music or art or urgent maintenance that is not funded by the government. The costs of electricity will also increase the costs of canteen food for students and staff, as most canteens are privately run. Last time this school's carbon tax charge was brought up in parliament, those opposite said these figures were not true. Well, I have this electricity bill right here if those members opposite would like to take a look. It is proof that this government has no regard for local students and families who are being forced to pay for this ridiculous tax.

Let us look at the tourism sector. The director of Quest Apartments in Campbelltown, Mark Drinkwater, has contacted me with his latest electricity bill. There is a carbon charge of $827.24 for one month, which will mean around $10,000 per year for his business. This does not include the $1,000 per month increase in the network service charges the hotel is also being slugged with. This means an additional $20,000 to $25,000 per annum in electricity alone compared to last year. Then add the carbon tax increases in the hotel's gas and other utilities expenses, and the increase in the expenses of dozens of creditors and suppliers, which will be passed on as well. Mr Drinkwater has told me that the hotel's target market is the corporate sector, which is looking to rein in spending, so, for this hotel, passing on the cost to its customers is very, very difficult. Mr Drinkwater made another good point when he asked me: 'If the plan is to encourage us to modify our operations to reduce our footprint on the environment, why couldn't they just legislate that, which would surely be a great stimulus for those industries and create jobs, as opposed to businesses inevitably putting people off?' Loss of jobs will occur in his business. Mr Drinkwater said that, like most businesses, his hotel was already trying to be cleaner and greener so it could be cost-effective and a good corporate citizen of this country. This business is run by a husband-and-wife team who are about to have their first child. This carbon tax has the potential to send them to the wall, and the government does not care.

Local schools and the corporate sector are not the only ones being affected by this tax. I have also been contacted by several seniors in my electorate who are outraged by their electricity bills since the tax was introduced. Mr Brian Ellis of Campbelltown has sent me a copy of his latest electricity bill, which has increased by 20 per cent, despite his usage decreasing during this bill period. Mr Ellis is 70 years of age and is not on the pension, so this increase of $100 per month in his electricity costs is simply not good enough.

Mr Ellis is not the only self-funded retiree facing these increased costs at a time in his life when he can least afford it, and with no compensation. I have been contacted by a couple in my electorate who have concerns about the financial implications of the carbon tax on their lives. The husband is a self-funded retiree living on a pension from his superannuation which is less than $45,000 a year. His wife, 59, has no income apart from a very small amount of bank interest. The husband is aged 60, is no longer paying tax and is not eligible for a promised tax rebate. He is less than 65 and yet not a pensioner, and so he is not eligible for a pensioner bonus. What is the government offering for people in this situation? Absolutely nothing. I have been contacted by a local resident in a retirement village who tells me that the carbon charge directly increases his general supply charges by 45 per cent—another example of the huge increases that the carbon tax imposes on some of the most vulnerable residents in my electorate.

And, if the past three months have not been bad enough for people in Macarthur, the government now want to make major structural changes to the carbon tax which will only do more harm than good. They want to remove the legislated floor price from the carbon tax and link the Australian carbon tax with the European ETS. They are also trying to increase the carbon unit auction limit from 15 million to 40 million for 2015-16. They want to alter the arrangements applying an equivalent carbon price for liquid fuels and synthetic greenhouse gases. They want to make amendments concerning the measurement of potential greenhouse gas emissions and make further amendments concerning natural gas liabilities.

It is not just the coalition who are concerned with the impact of the tax on our economy and trade industry. In March this year, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's director of economics, Greg Evans, told the media that Australia should not impose a carbon tax before a confirmation of international agreement on emissions cuts. He said that the carbon tax would have a negative impact on all trade-exposed industries, which actually cannot pass on the costs associated with a carbon price, because they are competing internationally either through import or through export competition.

It is quite clear that the government is making policy changes relating to the carbon tax on the run, and each of these changes represents uncertainty, instability and consequences for all Australians. Removing the floor price of the carbon tax and linking it to the European carbon price leaves the Australian economy in the hands of Europe. Australia's electricity price will be largely set by European bureaucrats. The regulation impact statement published by the government shows us that having the price set by a completely different economy on another continent would create additional administrative costs for some small businesses due to the potential change in treatment of international units.

The government is also proposing to increase the carbon unit auction limit from 15 million to 40 million. This change means a potential extra $725 million in revenue from forward permits to help prop up the budget for 2014-15. In addition to this, the Energy Supply Association has said that forward-selling permits will lead to higher electricity prices. When is the government going to start to listen? I can tell you that further hikes in electricity prices are not going to go down well with the people of Macarthur, and I doubt they will be welcomed by any family, pensioner, school or small business across the country.

These changes show a great deal of unreliability in relation to the government. On 11 occasions, senior members of the government have expressed to us that the floor price was crucial to the stability of the carbon tax. We simply cannot trust that the government will follow through with what it says. Yet, despite making eight changes to the carbon tax before it had its three-month anniversary, the government says it still stands by its Treasury modelling. Some forecasts doubt that the European price will reach Treasury's forecasts, meaning a budget black hole for Labor—nothing different. The current Treasury modelling relies on all forecasts falling 100 per cent into place in one of the world's most volatile economies.

What also concerns me is that the government is moving full steam ahead with this policy despite not having it formally agreed with the European Union. The negotiations to form a one-way linkage will happen in July 2013, and negotiating an agreement for the full link will occur by July 2015, over 2½ years away.

I must also share my concern for Australian farmers, as we have many farming families living in Macarthur. The government's amendments are a bad deal for our farmers. In relation to the Carbon Farming Initiative, Australian farmers have been excluded from selling carbon credits to Europe until 2018. The deal the government negotiated allows Europe a virtual monopoly in selling carbon credits to Australia, while Australia is locked out of Europe until 2018.

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

Only this government could do something like that.

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

Magic policy! The carbon tax is obviously in a mess. Since the tax was introduced three months ago, there have been eight major changes. No wonder the people of Australia are so confused by this tax and fed up with this government. If you look at the changes in detail, it is obvious that the tax and this government are in chaos.

The government bailed out major companies using taxpayer funds on the eve of the carbon tax being introduced, including funding to Energy Brix and Alcoa. They decreased the share of Clean Technology Investment Program grant funding for small businesses so as to further increase funding for big businesses. The Clean Energy Regulator added more businesses to the big polluters list, taking the total now to 315. The government changed the regulations so as to increase real emissions from pipelines and landfill by one million tonnes. They abandoned the Contract for Closure program to shut down power stations, which will mean that the carbon tax will have to increase to achieve the same emissions reductions.

They scrapped the floor price, which was to have been $15 from 2015. The government had said the floor price was needed for business confidence. They are looking very confident out there at the moment! They linked the scheme to the European system, which does not allow a two-way trade on carbon credits, putting Australian businesses at a disadvantage and resulting in Australia's carbon tax being set by the EU price. They halted the green technology investment grants. This came just weeks after the grants were announced then changed.

Mr Deputy Speaker Symon, these changes show that the government has lost control of its carbon tax and is making changes on the run, which I am sure you would agree is a very dangerous thing to do. This is simply not good enough, especially when we are talking about an economy-wide carbon tax which is already having such a negative effect on families, seniors and small business owners across Macarthur and Australia.

I come from a local government background. We are not even seeing the impacts of what is happening at local government. I know that for the Campbelltown City Council there is about a $600,000 impact to their budget in relation to the carbon tax, and they have not even begun to pass on the operational costs like street lighting and the electricity in the buildings. The associated costs of running the council are not being passed on to local residents, and this will be reflected in the direct loss of services. Their rates will go up. There has already been a $20 increase this year. They are going to go up and up and up under the carbon tax policy. This government should be ashamed of itself.

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

Last month at the University of Western Australia the member for Wentworth, giving the George Winterton Lecture, said:

For the last two years the questions from the Opposition have been almost entirely focussed on people smuggling and the carbon tax.

Are they really the only important issues facing Australia?

When it comes to debates on matters of public interest, the very same point could be made. It is clear that members opposite have simply ignored the comments of the member for Wentworth, who was quite right when he said, 'Are they really the only important issues facing Australia?' The reality is that the matter of the MPI today is starting to wear thin out there in the community, and members opposite have brought forward this MPI in order to try and keep it alive.

The fact is that when I go out into my community—and I do that on a very regular basis—people out there want to talk to me about a whole range of things, not only about a carbon tax and about people smuggling. What they want to talk to me about is the issues that really affect their lives, such as aged care, disability support, education, health care, dental care, mental health, national infrastructure and the like. It is those day-to-day issues, which truly and directly affect their lives, that they are most interested in. When I speak to people in the community it is clear that the coalition's claim that the carbon tax is going to bring gloom and doom to the lives of Australians is simply not correct. The price on carbon has now been in since 1 July, and the examples given just a moment ago by the member for Macarthur of the doom and gloom that is occurring in his electorate as a result of the carbon tax are simply not in tune with reality. I do not for one minute deny that there are people throughout Australia who are struggling to make ends meet and who are doing it tough, and I do not deny for a moment that the cost of living is part of the problem. But I do deny that the problem is all due to the 'carbon tax', as members opposite would have you believe. The reality is that the carbon price introduced by this government has had a relatively minor effect on the total increase in people's cost of living. In fact, I have looked carefully at the contribution of the carbon price in examining claims that electricity costs in my own state have skyrocketed as a result of the 'carbon tax'. The reality is, according to information provided by the energy industry association of South Australia, that the contribution of the price on carbon towards the increase in the cost of power in my home state has been 4.6 per cent—that is all—and this figure is consistent with the Treasury figures of this government and with other figures which have been put together in order to try to quantify what impact the price of carbon will have on the cost of living in Australia.

The facts remain—and these facts continue to be reinforced by the latest science—that climate change is real and that rising greenhouse gas emissions are a factor in climate change. The price of ignoring these facts will ultimately be measured in dollars and in environmental and social costs. This matter of public importance discussion is about the cost to people of what this government is doing; I put it to members opposite that, if we do nothing about climate change, the cost to Australian families will be much, much higher than if we act in the way we have acted so far. This government accepts the science and has acted on several fronts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to invest in alternative energy technology and to assist Australians with the transition away from high carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, the government acknowledges that climate change is a global problem which requires global commitments and global cooperation. The member for Wentworth knew that, and that is why he supported global action on climate change. Unfortunately, not all members of his party agreed with him and he lost his leadership over taking the principled stand that climate change is real and that we need to act to prevent it.

The government's strategy on climate change is quite simple. Placing a price on carbon puts a value on it. When something has a value, it can be traded. The Australian economy cannot compete in a global environment while we restrict the trading of carbon emitted in Australia to the Australian market. The government also acknowledges the changing global response to climate change. The response to climate change is not standing still; we learn more each day and each country reacts differently each day, and therefore we need to be flexible in our response to the issues we are confronted with. Regrettably, the economic crisis across the world over the past three years has distracted countries—particularly Western countries—from the importance and urgency of dealing with climate change. The positive thing about this is that the slowdown in the growth of Western economies over recent years has served to slow down greenhouse gas emissions. Those countries across the world which acknowledge that they may have slowed down their commitment to doing something about climate change nevertheless understand and have embraced their responsibility to the global cooperation which is required to address climate change, which is indeed a global problem.

Governments across the world, as the parliamentary secretary has quite rightly pointed out, are now acting. He has talked about Europe, the UK, China, the USA, Korea, South Africa, Turkey, Chile, Indonesia and Vietnam, which are all coming on board and acting in a manner which suits their respective economies. Whether they are acting at a national level or at a state level within their own countries makes little difference; what is important is that they are acting. According to reports to this parliament 89 countries, representing 80 per cent of the global emissions of the world and 90 per cent of the world's economy, are acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the world. Clearly each country is responding in a way which best suits its individual ability. Some countries are responding by investing in renewable energy or more efficient energy systems; others are putting a price on carbon; some are doing both. The fact is that they are acting.

The suggestion of members opposite that we should stand alone, restrict the trade in carbon permits to this country and not be part of the international response to climate change makes absolutely no sense. I thought that they were advocates of the free market both in Australia and across the world, so I am totally bewildered by their argument that we should not link in with other world markets. It is simply inconsistent with the positions they take on other issues and the positions they constantly put to this government on how we should operate in managing the Australian economy. I do not know whether, with the transition in 2015 from a price on carbon to an emissions trading system, the price of carbon will go up or down. That is not the important thing here; the important thing is that, wherever the carbon price lands, Australia be part of an international system and so remain competitive.

Members opposite talk about the way that this whole scheme is going to impact on families, on the people of Australia. The member for Macarthur talked about some specific examples in his own electorate. Members opposite have claimed that, if they are elected to government, they will rescind the carbon-pricing legislation. But what are they going to do in 2015? Are they going to move to an emissions trading scheme or are they not? They have not answered that question. In fact, they have never addressed that question. My question to them is this: if they do not do that then what will they do? Are they going to proceed with their so-called direct action policy, which has been discredited by a number of economic analysts and which will cost each Australian family in the order of $1,200 to $1,300 a year? Is that what they are going to do to try to help the families of Australia? Or are they going to embrace the logical and sensible policies of this government? Those policies link our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country with those across the world, which creates one market and enables industry and business in this country to trade with overseas industry and business and therefore remain competitive. The policies of this government are the sensible policies— (Time expired)

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support my colleagues from Wannon and Macarthur and to talk about the adverse impact of the government's changes to the carbon tax on Australia's economy. The simple fact is that the government has made eight changes to the carbon tax in the last 100 days, since 1 July. It highlights how fundamentally flawed its carbon pricing system is. The government has shifted the goalposts eight times on the Australian people. This directly affects Australian industries, Australian jobs and Australian businesses.

In my electorate alone, which we call the carbon capital of Australia, there are industries struggling as I speak. It is no good saying, 'You are rumour-mongering; you are not confident' et cetera. There are jobs being lost as I speak—95 jobs from the Boyne smelter alone—as a direct result of the carbon tax. One week after the carbon tax was announced, Rio Tinto, the third largest miner in the world, put their Boyne smelter up for sale. It is now owned by Pacific Aluminium. Isn't that an indication that companies are concerned? Rio Tinto alone employ 6,000 people in Gladstone and a lot more in Perth. They are worried about it. They have spoken to me directly and no doubt they have spoken to the government about their business going forward.

Those opposite said that it was all going to stop on 1 July—what a load of poppycock! What did the government think was going to happen on 1 July? Did they think the whole world was going to stop because Australia introduced a carbon tax? Of course not. It is only now, when electricity bills are rolling in, that people are saying: 'Whoa, hang on, what is going on here? Tony Abbott was right.' It is affecting industry and it is affecting household costs. It is affecting the cost of living in my town and across Australia. Those opposite thought it was all going to stop on 1 July. How naive, how stupid. How can they have thought that? What do we do now with companies across Australia? Do we credit some? Do we take credits back? In relation to the car industry, we will exempt people's personal cars but we will hit the farmers down the track on fuel. Some aluminium companies have got credits and some have not. The aluminium companies in my town do not have the credits that some other companies have. These credits diminish over time but of course the carbon tax will go up next year and in the years after that.

It is a time for leadership and stability in an increasingly uncertain global environment. By shutting down industries in Australia and transporting them overseas to China or wherever, we are still not going to decrease global emissions. In some cases, we will actually increase global emissions. Those opposite talk about LA and California. When I was last in California, Beijing, Bangkok and Hong Kong—all self-funded trips, by the way—I never saw the sun, and I was in those places for quite some time. As I move around my home state of Queensland, the skies are blue and the seas are green, yet we have to be the first in the world with this monstrous carbon tax—$400 per person versus $1 per person in Europe. We have to cop it and our industries have to cop it. Is it any wonder that Australian companies are moving offshore at a very fast rate?

When you put mining taxes on top of carbon taxes, it is sometimes the last straw. Is the government aware that, in Mongolia alone, 171 Australian companies operate in the mining field? We have become very good at transporting our expert mining personnel offshore to countries like Mongolia, Indonesia and Africa. There are over 250 Australian companies with Australian staff and Australian expertise in the mines in those countries looking at their resources and helping them with their economy. They have given up on Australia; they have walked away. How much longer can this go on? How much longer can we keep taxing Australian companies out of existence?

Unfortunately, BHP and Rio Tinto are not Australian companies any more. They are worldwide companies and they will go to the country which offers the best deal. What are we going to do? We have our manufacturing industries reeling; we have our retail businesses not functioning very well. They are all squealing out for help, and yet we sit here and tax them more. If we start taxing our banks and start looking to tax superannuation funds, where are we going to end up as a nation? Mr Murray, the former CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, summed it up last week when he said that if we keep this up we will end up like Greece. It just goes on and on and on.

The South Australian government has said that if a carbon tax is extinguished by Tony Abbott's government, the price of electricity will definitely come down. That is the Labor government in South Australia who said that. The eight changes that have been made here suggest that the government did not think the carbon tax through at all and that it had to make some rapid changes. But it does not give certainty. We have not built a power station in a long, long time—whether it was gas or coal—because we are going to close the brown coal power stations in Victoria. Now there has been a change of heart and they are going to be kept going. The power station in Gladstone, which is coal fired, is at sixes and sevens and does not know what to do, because there is no future in coal. Bob Brown told the Labor Party that there is no future for coal fired power stations. What are we going to do? 'Oh, we we'll go to gas.' That did not work out either. We were going to go to nuclear and that did not work out. So, what are we going to do?

This country was built on cheap electricity and cheap water, but under this Labor government we have neither of them. If we are going to become a food-producing country again, we are going to have to give our farmers cheap water, and we will have to supply our industries with power at a reasonable cost.

We had the Canadian ambassador talking to the government here saying that Canada is not going to move on any carbon tax or any emissions system until America moves. The last time I did a count, there were over 50 states in America. Does one state in America mean that the whole American nation is going to move? I do not think so. One in 50 or one in 51—I would not base anything on that—but the Labor government mentioned LA today. They are going ahead, but to what extent we do not know. I am concerned about what is happening in my patch in Flynn and about what happens to Australian industries. We cannot keep killing them by taxing, taxing and taxing. This government has a set of rules, so keep to it. As a final example, there were 250 big polluters, then it was 300, then it was 315. What will it end up with? There is only one answer to all this: scrap the tax. (Time expired)

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

I am delighted to follow that contribution. My comments this afternoon will reflect on the various Liberal Party and National Party members who have endorsed previous versions of emissions trading schemes and carbon price mechanisms. I will look at the realities of what is happening around the globe and what is happening with our trading partners, not only those countries which are part of the EU, but also other international markets with which Australia might link up its emissions trading scheme in the future. Importantly, given the emphasis this afternoon of members opposite on the response of business to the carbon price, I will also focus on the realities of what is happening in business and businesses' responses to the carbon price and to the amendments that have been made in recent times to enable us to link our carbon pricing scheme to the EU ETS and to facilitate that connection in international markets.

Firstly, I should commend the member for Wannon for bringing an MPI on the topic of the carbon price in any form. While we know that around half of all Liberal MPs have spoken favourably on the record in support of putting a price on carbon in the past, there are not many who will come forward now and admit to that. I will certainly reflect on a few of those remarks later in my contribution today. The member for Wannon is one of a very few who these days, it seems, have not publicly commented on their support for a price on carbon or an ETS. We have had the Leader of the Opposition, the former Prime Minister John Howard and leaders coming thick and fast from the opposition to be on the record in support of an ETS. We have had most of the frontbench support an ETS at some point in their parliamentary careers or beforehand and quite a deal from the backbench.

The important thing to reflect on this afternoon in terms of the linkage of Australia's carbon price mechanisms with the ETS is that this government has consistently put the view that it supports the linking of our carbon pricing scheme with international markets. It has consistently said that because it is seeking to use a market mechanism, and ultimately a global market mechanism, to ensure that business has the most efficient and least costly way of reducing its carbon emissions. That has always been our endeavour; that has always been our view. For many members of the Liberal and National parties it has been a shared sentiment, although today it seems that many of those people have departed from that. We know that the benefits of linking our carbon pricing scheme to the largest ETS in the world—namely, the EU's ETS—are many. We know that the link would mean a wider range of abatement opportunities available to entities that are liable to pay a carbon price. Of course, we are not the only ones to know this, it is also the various industry representatives and other experts who have commented favourably on the linking of the schemes.

Martijn Wilder, of Baker & McKenzie, in his comments to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics on 27 September, said:

… international linking creates a range of choices for you as a participant. You can dip into different markets and work out the cheapest place to buy abatement.

We also know that, by linking our emissions-trading scheme to the EU scheme, we stand to increase liquidity in carbon markets. Once again, it is not only the government's view that that is the case; it is the view of industry. TRUenergy's Executive Manager of Policy, Strategy and Sustainability, Claire Savage, said:

Linking with Europe will also provide access to a deeper and more liquid carbon market.

As a result of this government's efforts, we will seek to link Australia's emissions trading to the European Union's ETS from 1 July 2015. The EU's ETS is a scheme which operates across all 27 EU member states. It is the world's largest ETS, covering around 11,000 facilities.

The member for Wannon said, 'Why would you want to link something like this to the EU's ETS when they have done such a good job with their economy?' The world's largest ETS is operated in the EU. This scheme, as the government has long remarked and as many industry and other experts who appeared before the recent review of the economics committee into these arrangements have found, is supported by many industry participants and many experts in the field.

Let me mention a few other people who have spoken in favour of linking our ETS with that of the EU. The opposition would most certainly have you believe this afternoon that this is a unilateral decision of the government which is unsupported by business and unsupported by experts, so let me disabuse the opposition of that view. The Australian Financial Markets Association's submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics stated:

Linking of the Clean Energy Scheme with sound international schemes has been consistently requested by AFMA as a mechanism to increase market depth, achieve least cost abatement and reduce overall risks for participants.

AFMA was not the only one to comment before the committee. The Chief Executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Matthew Warren, said:

This is an important reform, and demonstrates that the Gillard government is willing to listen to genuine concerns of industry and act decisively to address them.

Andrew Grant, the Chief Executive of CO2 Australia, said it was 'very intelligent policy development'.

The Clean Energy Council's submission to the committee states:

International linking allows Australian businesses to access emissions reductions opportunities at least cost.

This afternoon, opposition members, in particular the member for Wannon, have raised the apparent concerns of business, of industry and of commentators in the market. I can go through page upon page of comments from those who have, in an informed way, reflected on the changes that the government has made to link our system to the EU's ETS as a first move to, hopefully, being able to link to other international emissions trading systems. They have referred to them very favourably indeed.

As the parliamentary secretary suggested earlier, the linking of our arrangements with the EU does strengthen the prospects of further international linkages. Indeed, it stands to promote and improve international cooperation on climate change.

Mr Seb Henbest, the Manager and Head of Clean Energy and Carbon Markets Research Australia, also made mention of this in recent evidence before the economics committee when he said:

… we see a link to the European trading scheme as potentially a very important first step towards establishing a broad coalition of capped markets around the world …

Indeed, on the point of linkage I should mention that John Howard wanted Australia to become what he called a 'carbon trading hub in the Asia-Pacific region'. How things have regressed on the opposition benches since the days when John Howard was proposing not only that an ETS be adopted by his side of politics, not only that this country be forward-looking in its approach to climate change, but that we use it to our advantage by becoming what he called a 'carbon trading hub in the Asia-Pacific region'. I think Mr Howard would reflect somewhat less than favourably on the approach that those opposite are now taking of using a market mechanism to respond to a significant global problem of climate change.

In the time that is left to me I would like to refer to some of the laudable projects that have been entered into by business in Australia following the introduction of a carbon price. We have heard for many months now that, in the opposition's view, the world would end following the implementation of a carbon price and that it would be the death of industry. Yet we find a significant number of industry participants responding and adapting to a carbon price, which is what all of us might have hoped. Mackay Sugar Limited, for instance, is investing over $120 million to reduce carbon emissions across its operations by 70 per cent for every unit of production. This includes the installation of a cogeneration plant at its Racecourse Mill to supply clean energy year round to the mill as well as supplying a third of the city's energy consumption, generating additional income for the company. One would have thought that those opposite would have applauded a measure like that, which would not have come about but for the implementation of our clean energy future package. This government is supporting Mackay's embrace of clean energy, with over $9 million in funding from the Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program, which is funded through the clean energy future package. The reality of the carbon price for a business is that industry is responding and responding favourably. (Time expired)

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

I am pleased to rise this evening to add my contribution to today's MPI: the adverse impact of the government's changes to the carbon tax on the Australian economy. It is now just over 100 days since the introduction of the carbon tax. In those 100 days the evidence has become clear: this is a tax that is hurting families and businesses right across Australia. Less than eight weeks into this tax—this broken promise of a tax—we have seen chaos and confusion reign. We have already seen eight changes, including changing the floor price arrangement—another backflip on the broken promise. Changing the floor price contradicts what the Labor government and almost every member on that side have been saying for the past year.

I would like to give a few practical examples of what this Labor government is doing to our country and the effect this carbon tax is having on average Australians. A few weeks ago an 80-year-old lady called Rose phoned in to a Sydney radio station. Being 80 years of age, she would have been born in the middle of the Great Depression. She would have lived through the deprivations and hardships of the Second World War. She would have worked hard all her life and, in her old age, you would think she would be entitled to some dignity. These are the words of an 80-year-old woman. This shows what the effects of a carbon tax are doing to Australian citizens. She said: 'I just got an electricity bill for $645. The last one was $435; what's happened?' She then broke down into tears and said: 'I can't pay it. I've got congestive heart failure and I can't take any more stress. Now that I am old—I am nearly 80—all I am doing is going to bed at 5 pm at night with two hot water bottles.' That is what this carbon tax is doing to Australians out there. Throughout Western Sydney, 80 per cent of the increase in electricity prices is all the responsibility of the carbon tax. Here we have an 80-year-old lady breaking down in tears because of the effect the carbon tax is having on her electricity bills. That is the effect.

There is another example I would like to give in the time allocated to me today. A few doors down from the electorate office in Hughes there is a small bread shop. It is run by a husband-and-wife team. They get up every morning and start work at 4 am. They keep their little shop opposite Sutherland Railway Station open until 8 pm each night, hoping to catch a few extra sales from people coming home from work off the train at Sutherland. They get a few hours sleep and then they get up at 4 am the next day and do it all over again. For all this, and the risks associated with running a small business, they earn less than $10 an hour. It is these small business people who are the backbone on which our economy is built, and it is these small business people who are bearing the brunt of this carbon tax.

Last week I went into their shop and they were both almost in tears. They had just received their latest electricity bill, which had increased from $1,650 a month to over $2,200 a month—an increase of $550 a month and over $6,500 each year. So here we have someone out there in our country today earning less than $10 an hour who, because of this carbon tax, has to do come up with another $6,600 every year. They asked me what the future is for them. I said to them, 'If you want a vision of the future under this Labor government, imagine electricity bills that go up and up forever.' Remember, to start with, the carbon tax is $23 a tonne. Then it will increase to $29 a tonne by 2015-16, according to the government's own figures. By 2020, this government says, it will go up again to $37 a tonne. By 2050, it will be no less than $350 a tonne. Yet we have this Labor government in complete denial about the adverse effects this is having on the most vulnerable people in our society.

What concerns me the most is the dangerous commercial naivety we have seen from this government. They are simply deluded that small businesses can pass these increased costs from the carbon tax onto their prices and onto the consumers. The Prime Minister, in her own words about what small businesses can do, said:

… you would be in a position to pass that onto the people who buy services from your business and we have expected that those costs would be passed on …

This small bread shop works in a competitive environment. In Sutherland, there are three other small bread shops and two supermarkets all in competition with each other. They do not have a substantial degree of market power. They cannot raise their prices without losing business to their competitors. That is what this government simply fails to understand—that every business is in competition.

They are also in competition, in some way or other, with imports. You might ask: how would a small bread shop be in competition with imports? That is a question I first asked myself. But if you go into our major supermarket chains today you will find that they have started to import bread from overseas. They bring the imported bread in and just reheat it. That puts someone who is making bread here at a competitive disadvantage because they are paying the world's highest carbon tax. When bread is made overseas, the carbon tax is not paid. So it will simply mean more imports and less work and fewer jobs here in Australia.

One of our nation's greatest competitive advantages that underwrites our national prosperity is the seam of black and brown coal that runs down our eastern seaboard. It is one of our biggest sources of export income. We are one of the largest exporters of coal in the world, and it is this coal which in the past has enabled Australian industry and Australian families to enjoy the lowest electricity prices in the world. But today we have the highest electricity prices in the world. According to the Australian energy association, we have here in Australia an economically demonstrated reserves-to-production ratio of brown coal to last us no less than 539 years. We have 539 years worth of brown coal and 111 years worth of black coal. But simply by introducing this carbon tax and other so-called green schemes Labor is actually sabotaging and destroying one of our nation's greatest competitive advantages. Now we see that it is Australian families that are being punished, paying the highest electricity prices in the world.

Labor like to pretend that, as the member for La Trobe came in here and said, all countries are moving to the carbon tax and everybody is paying it. This is simply false. Our overseas competitors are not paying the carbon tax. The Productivity Commission have made that clear. They said:

… no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS.

Last year when President Obama was here he explicitly ruled out the US introducing a carbon tax. Canada's foreign minister did the same. He said his country would never have a carbon tax. China has no plans to introduce an economy wide carbon tax. In fact, last year China increased its emissions by 800 million tonnes of CO2. That increase in one year alone is more than 1½ times Australia's total annual emissions. India has no such plans. Nor does Indonesia. Nor do a raft of other countries which we need to compete against to survive have any plans to introduce a carbon tax. If we look at New Zealand, the Australian carbon tax is 15 times higher than its New Zealand equivalent. According to Scientific American, India alone has 455 coal fired power stations planned or under construction and worldwide there are 1,231.

There is one simple way to fix this carbon tax, and that is to scrap it lock, stock and barrel. Only a coalition government will do that. On day one we will repeal the carbon tax. To those who come in here and say we will not or we cannot, I say: you guys keep talking it up because, when we do, it will show the true difference between us on this side of the chamber and you who sit over there. We will repeal this carbon tax.

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

Order! The time for this discussion has expired.