Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

The minister today, in summing up the debate, perpetuated the lie, perpetuated the fraud that is being conducted here. The minister again repeated this line about how emissions are going to be cut, how there is not going to be an economic cost from this carbon tax, how there is not going to be an impact on wages and how wages are going to be so much higher.

I am going to put something before the minister that I would like her to respond to, because during Senate question time she has always ignored these questions. I am going to draw the minister's attention to a few bits of information in the government's own Treasury modelling, to get to the bottom of this particular issue. According to the government's own modelling, domestic emissions in Australia will continue to grow, despite a carbon tax. Emissions in Australia now are at 578 million tonnes of CO2. By 2020, under a carbon tax, emissions will be at 621 million tonnes of CO2. According to the government's own Treasury modelling of the economy, in 2050 our GDP will be 2.8 per cent lower, or $100 billion lower, in today's dollars, than what it would be without a carbon tax. If you look at the impact on our GDP between now and 2050, year after year after year, and you add it all up in today's dollars, the cost of the carbon tax to our economy is $1 trillion.

When we made that assertion at the conclusion of our Senate carbon tax inquiry, Minister Combet sought to dismiss it. He sought to make the exact same assertion that the minister just made: the economy is going to continue to grow; the size of the economy is going to double; the economy is going to grow by $2.3 trillion. This is where the deception comes in. The government cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim a cut in emissions just because emissions are going to be lower than they otherwise would have been—because demonstrably emissions will continue to grow and then climb at the same time—and say that the economy is going to be so much better off, that the economy is going to continue to grow, and not also concede that there is going to be a reduction in the size of the economy compared to what it would have been.

After Minister Combet dismissed the propositions we have put forward about the impact of the carbon tax on the economy, we asked questions during Senate estimates. Guess what the Treasury official at the table said about the impact of the carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme which is to follow between now and 2050? She said that the cost will be about $900 billion. So $1 trillion, $900 billion—I guess she could not quite get herself to admit that our figure was right. She had to have a little bit of variation. But the principle here is that we have a carbon tax, and an emissions trading scheme, which has been put forward by this government, which has just gone through the second reading stage of the debate in the Senate and which will cost the Australian economy $1 trillion. Even though it is going to cost the Australian economy $1 trillion, emissions will continue to go up because, as well as reducing the size of our economy by $1 trillion, the government also wants to send $792 billion overseas to purchase permits in unidentified other parts of the world so that we can buy permission to keep our lights on in Australia.

The minister says, 'What the opposition is saying about a reduction in real wages is scaremongering.' I take you to chart 5.12, on page 88 of the Treasury modelling. Do you know what happens to real wages? They go down. The scary bit is that not only do real wages go down all the way to 2050 but they will be about six per cent lower in 2050 than they would be without a carbon tax, and there is no end in sight. Normally you would expect, with all of the assertions the government is making otherwise that there will be some sort of equalisation at some point, that the reduction in real wages would start to plateau, but it does not. If you look at chart 5.12 on real wages in the government's own Treasury modelling, you can see that real wages continue to go down and down and down.

So we have a carbon tax here which will push up the cost of everything and will increase the cost of living at the same time that real wages will be significantly lower and emissions will be higher, and there will be a $1 trillion cost to the economy and we will be sending $792 billion overseas. What is the sense of that? I would really like the minister to explain and confirm that she still stands by the Treasury modelling given the various assertions she has made. I would like the minister to confirm that she still stands by the Treasury modelling, because the Treasury modelling does show that there will be a cost to the economy of $1 trillion between now and 2050, which effectively means that every single Australian will have to work for nothing for a whole year to pay for the impact of a carbon tax on the economy between now and 2050. That $1 trillion is just about the whole GDP for the whole of Australia for a whole year. That is the cost this government is imposing on the Australian economy with its carbon tax.

I know that there are quite a number of people on the Labor Party side who share our concerns on this. It is very interesting. I did not hear a contribution in this debate from Senator Glenn Sterle from Western Australia. I did not hear Senator Sterle tell us during this debate what he thought about the carbon tax. I wonder why? Mr Tony Sheldon, who is about to become the National President of the Australian Labor Party, appeared before the Senate committee inquiry on the carbon tax. I know Mr Temporary Chairman Cameron that you were there when Mr Tony Sheldon arrived at our inquiry. He talked about the carbon tax being a death tax. You were there. Mr Sheldon has since had other things to say about Senator Evans and others. I am very intrigued that Senator Sterle has not actually found his way into the chamber to explain to us his view about the carbon tax, to explain his view about the impact of the carbon tax on the cost of living, on international competitiveness, on jobs, on people in the trucking industry and on real wages, given that the head of the Transport Workers Union, Tony Sheldon, who is about to become the National President of the Labor Party, has referred to it as a death tax.

Where was Senator Conroy? Why was Senator Conroy not telling us things about the carbon tax? I know that Senator Wong well knows that Senator Conroy shares our view that this is a bad tax, that this is a tax that will hurt ordinary Australian workers, that this is a tax that will do nothing to help the environment. We know that Senator Conroy agrees with that. The thing is, in the corridors of parliament a lot is said. I call on Senator Conroy, Senator Sterle and all the other Labor senators who in their heart of hearts know that this is a serious fraud being committed on the Australian people. The Australian people are being asked to make a sacrifice without it actually making any difference, and that is cruel. To impose a tax that will increase the cost of living, shrink the size of the economy compared with what it could be and result in lower real wages without actually doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is just cruel.

In this chamber I asked Senator Wong a question, and I urge her to now answer the question during the committee stage of this debate. I asked Senator Wong a question during question time, but in her usual fashion she did not actually say anything factual; she just gave us a barrage of political rhetoric and abuse. I asked Senator Wong to advise the chamber what the net effect of a carbon tax in Australia would be on global emissions. What will be the net effect of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme in Australia on global emissions? So far, the minister and the officials appearing before various inquiries have been ducking and weaving and have not been able to come up with any response whatsoever to that question.

At some point, not in this context, when we were holding the inquiry into the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, one official said: 'We can't really tell you that. We can't really know that because it depends on what other countries will do.' Well, exactly. It depends on what other countries do. Since the conference in Copenhagen we know that other countries are not prepared to impose an economy-wide carbon tax, other countries are not prepared to impose an economy-wide ETS, other countries are not prepared to inflict this much damage on their economies without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Other countries are not prepared to go down that path. This is of course highly relevant to the other big lie that government members and senators have been spreading in recent months, which relates to the proposal by the former Howard government to introduce an emissions trading scheme. That was at a time when there was an expectation around the world that there would be comprehensive global agreement to price emissions, including by countries like the United States. You can shake your head, Senator Thistlethwaite, but that is exactly the circumstance. You can refer to Shergold reports as many times as you like. A report that is put to government is not government policy.

I well remember the 2007 election because it was the first election that I participated in as a senator for the great state of Western Australia, and I well remember that the shadow minister for climate change, Mr Garrett, made a big stuff-up. The only reason after the election that Senator Wong ended up as the Minister for Climate Change and Water is that Mr Garrett stuffed up during the election, because Mr Garrett went out during the election and he said Australia might go it alone. Mr Garrett said Australia might go down the path of an emissions trading scheme irrespective of what countries like China and others do. Of course, Kevin Rudd forced him to withdraw that, forced him to clarify his statements, forced him to correct what clearly was an assertion that, if implemented in government, would not be in our national interest. That is the only reason why, after the election, Senator Wong became the minister for climate change, because Kevin Rudd, our then Prime Minister, did not trust Mr Garrett to handle this particular policy area of responsibility.

Now here we are. After the election, the government actually wanted to do exactly what Mr Garrett had said before the election. This irresponsible and reckless government wants to press ahead with a carbon tax when our trade competitors in other parts of the world are not proposing to go down the same path. It is proposing to impose a cost on businesses in Australia which will not be faced by their competitors in other parts of the world. This is a government which is seeking to make overseas, higher emitting businesses more competitive than even the most environmentally efficient equivalent business here in Australia, shifting emissions from Australia to other parts of the world, which is of course not effective action on climate change.

The minister, in wrapping up the debate, said: 'Well, it's time for us to act. It's time for us to do something about climate change.' Well, doing something is not enough, Minister. You have to do something that is going to make things better. Doing something that is going to make things worse is the worst of all worlds, and what you are doing in shifting emissions from Australia to other parts of the world where these emissions are going to be higher for the same amount of economic output is not effective action on climate change. It is, as a US congressman quite astutely observed about what was going on here, an act of unilateral economic disarmament. That is what you are doing, Minister. You are going for the unilateral act of economic disarmament, and that is not in our national interest.

I want to know from you, Minister: what is going to be the net effect on global emissions from this carbon tax? By how much will global emissions go down as a result of this carbon tax in Australia? Can you confirm that you stand by the Treasury modelling that shows that real wages will be six per cent lower by 2050 as a result of the carbon tax and that the GDP will be $100 billion lower in 2050 than it otherwise would be? (Time expired)