Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Page: 11490

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (20:52): What we are seeing today from the opposition with their amendments is the biggest and longest dummy spit in the history of this parliament about losing an election. Because they could not form government, they have decided to take a politically opportunistic approach to this issue. What we have seen from them is absolute hypocrisy, and the member for Makin clearly pointed that out. In this debate, we have heard the member for Mackellar talk about how the seas are not really rising, saying that this is all a fabrication, people's imagination. We have heard the member for Riverina dispute the science and say: 'There's no point in acting. We shouldn't act, we shouldn't do anything about climate change.' This is what those on the other side have done: they have disputed the science and they have said that the rest of the world is not acting, so why should we. They have put forward inaccuracies followed by inaccuracies, one after the other. In fact, if the opposition really believe that there is no merit in acting, that we should not act on climate change—as opposed to what is being advanced by this side—then why do they have a five per cent reduction target? Why do they want to spend $45 billion of taxpayers' money?

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

An opposition member: $45 billion.

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

Mr Chester: Just think of a really big number! Make it a big number!

Opposition members interjecting

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

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

Dr Jensen: It all adds up. It is all adding up.

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

Opposition members: The claw! Bring out the claw!

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