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

I have got plenty of questions that over the next couple of days we will no doubt go through with the minister. I will turn to one in particular at the end of my remarks that follows on from the matters that Senator Cormann just raised and that the minister attempted to address. But I have an initial question for 17 of the minister's colleagues. It is this simple question: where are they? Where have they been in this debate? Will they actually let their views be known and justify their decisions and their reasons for supporting this carbon tax?

We have seen today and in the course of this debate a number of Labor senators simply dodge fronting up and answering. A number just have not had the courage to come into this chamber to spell out their reasons for supporting this carbon tax, to spell out their reasons for supporting a Prime Minister and a government that are doing the exact opposite of what they said they would do in the lead-up to the last election, an election where so many of these Labor senators were elected. In fact, if I look at the senators from my home state, aside from the minister herself not one of them has actually contributed to this debate. Not one of them has had the courage to come in and give us their explanations or their reasons why they think the backflip on their party's position is justified. Not one of them has been willing to go on the record and justify to the people of South Australia why it is that they actually will support this legislation and will back down on their previous promises.

Senator Farrell, Senator Gallacher and Senator McEwen, where are the three of you? Will you come in during this debate and explain your reasons? Tell us why you support this Labor backflip. Tell us why you are supporting this carbon tax, which is the opposite of what you, your party and your Prime Minister promised to do at the last election. So often we hear about the faceless men of the Labor Party, but what we have here are the invisible senators of the Labor Party. These three South Australian senators, out of 17 overall, will not address the issue and will not face up to the electorate for whatever reason. We hear so little on so many issues of importance from them. Where are they when we talk about the Murray-Darling? Where are they when we talk about the mining tax and the impact on developments like those of BHP? Where are they when we talk about the axing of the Green Car Innovation Fund and the future of Holden? Where are they when we talk about the carbon tax and its impact?

They are not alone in this because there are 17 Labor senators. It is not just those from my home state who have dodged it on this issue; there are many others, including many ministers who have responsibility for particular areas that will be directly affected and impacted. There is the faceless man in chief, Senator Arbib. Why has he not come in here and explained why his candidate to be Prime Minister, who made the 'there will be no carbon tax' pledge, did a backflip on her own promise and changed the government's policy days after the election? Senator Arbib has responsibility for some important areas—housing and welfare. We have had questions asked in this place and we have taken evidence in the committees that Senator Cormann and I have sat on from the social welfare sector. Senator Fifield has identified many of these concerns in the welfare sector, as has Senator Payne in the housing sector, about the cost impact of the carbon tax. Is it true that the cost of new housing will rise by around $5,000, as estimated by industry? Why hasn't the housing minister fronted up for this sweeping economic reform that the government talks about as having such an impact across the economy? Why hasn't the housing minister come in and talked about its impact on housing and tried to explain how this package ameliorates the impact on housing? Why hasn't Senator Arbib, as the minister responsible for large parts of the community welfare sector, come in here and explained during this debate how those charitable organisations and community welfare organisations, which have such significant costs from their electricity usage and such high overheads, are going to adapt under this carbon tax? I know the government points to certain aspects of compensation here, but the challenge for Senator Arbib, as it is for the minister at the table, is to give an assurance that all of those community welfare organisations and all of those charitable organisations will be totally compensated for the costs of this carbon tax. They do not give that assurance because they know that the money they are promising will not stretch far enough.

It is not just senator Arbib; it is not just the three South Australians. Senator Carr has not contributed during this debate—he is only the industry minister. He is only the minister responsible for the nation's major manufacturers and the major industries, which have such high overheads, so many of whom will be exposed by this tax policy, so many of whom will actually be the industries dealing with the complexity of compliance, dealing with the complexity, if they qualify, of meeting EITE status, dealing with the complexity of the paperwork that comes with that, dealing with the fact that their free permit quotas face erosion over time and dealing with the activity definitions that come with being in an EITE sector. There are so many questions for the industry minister, not least of which are the questions that go to the nub of how he and this government will ensure that all industries under this carbon tax will be guaranteed they can continue to operate in Australia and how it will not become more attractive for them to base their activities offshore and, as a result of that, for carbon to leak offshore, which is the nub of some of the points Senator Cormann was making previously. To Senator Collins, the parliamentary secretary with responsibility for education: what about the education areas? Again, there are high input costs for many schools, universities and the like in this package, not only for electricity but also, in time, the transport costs that will flow through beyond 2014. Where was Senator Collins to explain those impacts? We took submissions and inquiries from universities highlighting a significant cost for them. Where is the compensation for universities? Where is the opportunity for them to access any of the different funds that are established? What, in fact, can we see in the education sector for these universities and schools to ensure that they are left no worse off?

Senator Conroy equally failed to address this. He is undertaking the nation's largest infrastructure build—the $50 billion NBN. Where was Senator Conroy to explain how the impact on the costs throughout the build will be managed? It is not a build that will be over in a year or two; it is a build that will still be happening once fuels are included in the carbon tax, if the government gets its way. Where was he to explain how that fits within the cost parameters of the NBN? Perhaps Senator Wong, as his shareholder partner in the NBN, can explain how that works and whether there is an additional budget impact to that in the fiscal tables that have been outlined by the government to date.

I would not want to skip over Senator Evans. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has not addressed matters related to this carbon tax. Just like Senator Collins representing the education and university sector, Senator Evans could well and truly answer some of those issues that I highlighted. Senator Farrell, whom I highlighted as one of those three South Australian senators who have not talked about the carbon tax and who have not addressed these issues, handles the matter of urban water. Urban water utilities in the nation's capital cities are some of the most energy intensive organisations in the country. They are some of the biggest power users in the country. You need only look at the NGERS list of major emitters and those who have significant potential liabilities to see that the nation's urban water sector will face real pressures. Australians, who in many instances are already grappling with significantly higher water prices as a result of investments in desalination and other activities, will face yet higher water prices as a result of this. Where was Senator Farrell to talk about the impact on water?

Senator Feeney also failed to come in here and address this. Perhaps it is because Senator Feeney does not support the policy. Perhaps it is because there do not seem to be too many on that side who support Senator Feeney nowadays. But he could have come in here and addressed not only, as a Victorian, the impact on the manufacturing sector and the like in Victoria but also, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, how this will impact on our defence industries over time and what guarantees the government can provide for them.

I have mentioned the impact on transport a couple of times, and I would particularly like to have heard from Senators Sterle and Gallacher. Both are formerly of the Transport Workers Union and both made very public threats as this package was being finalised about the potential inclusion of transport in this package. It is made clear in the explanatory memoranda to these bills that it is the government's intention to include transport from 2014. They know it is part of the integrated package, part of the plan, that transport industries and trucking in this country will be affected, and yet they have not come in and explained how they reconcile that with all the noise they made prior to the release of the detail. Senator Gallacher, Senator Sterle: the invitation is there to come in and tell us why you think it is acceptable to pass this legislation knowing it is simply a foundation stone to do the very things that you were publicly opposing earlier on.

I will let the minister defend the package and its impact on transport now and in the future, because we saw during the committee inquiry into this a very defensive approach taken, particularly by Mr Windsor. Every time transport was mentioned, and when the Australian Trucking Association appeared before the inquiry to highlight its concerns, we saw Mr Windsor getting very defensive, saying, 'Transport's not in this package.' But transport is in this package. It is highlighted in the explanatory memoranda. It is part of the government's long-term plans. It is there in the clean energy future package overall. These people who want to claim it is not about transport really need to explain how they can support something that is a foundation stone for the inclusion of the transport sector.

There are many other Labor senators—I highlighted 17 in total. I will not go through them all by name. There are those who could answer as to the impact on the tourism industry as well, particularly the discriminatory impact that will see domestic airfares hit with the carbon tax while airfares to international destinations will not face the carbon tax, and what that means for the tourism sector.

I want to turn to the issue of global emissions that Senator Cormann raised and that the minister attempted to respond to. The minister said, 'If the coalition believe that their policy will deliver a five per cent reduction in Australia's emission, it will flow through to a reduction in what global emissions would have been, and therefore the same applies to our policy.' I want an assurance from the minister that, in saying that, she believes and is confident: there will be no leakage under this carbon pricing regime; that there will be no instance of Australian industries ultimately undertaking activities offshore; that the five per cent reduction, if that is what it is, to be achieved by 2020 against that 2000 baseline will actually be a five per cent reduction of what global emissions would have been; and that we will not see the reduction in emissions that may be achieved in Australia—or not in Australia, as the case may be with a reliance on permits, but we will turn to those issues later—eroded by the fact that there will be increased activity in countries that do not have a similar pricing mechanism in place. So while the challenge is there to the 17 Labor senators to come and explain themselves during the concluding stages of this debate and to address many of the specific issues across a range of industries that I have highlighted, the specific issue for the minister is: will you give the assurance of no carbon leakage under this plan? (Time expired)