ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT - BILLS - SAFEGUARD MECHANISM (CREDITING) AMENDMENT BILL 2022 - SECOND READING

Australia is a trading nation. It is a nation that gets things done, a nation that, being an island continent, relies very much on exporting agricultural goods and exporting resources. These exports have made this country what it is today: great. It's absolutely the best nation on earth. What we don't want to do is expose our agricultural industries and our mining resources sector to legislation that is going to hamper their ability to get things done, to produce things.

If you look at Australia's top 20 exports, this is the list for 2019-20, but it wouldn't be much different in 2023. At No. 1 is iron ore and concentrates: $102,864,000,000. They're big figures. That money provides for a lot of public schools and a lot of state public hospitals. It pays for a lot of things. It employs a lot of people. That's just iron ores and concentrates. No. 2, back in 2019-20, was coal, at $54,620,000,000. No. 3 was natural gas. No. 5 was gold—again, mining. No. 7 was beef. No. 8 was aluminium ores and concentrates, including alumina. No. 9 was crude petroleum. No. 10 was copper ores and concentrates. No. 14 was meat, excluding beef—we're talking about sheepmeat. Then we go to wheat at No. 16. No. 17 was aluminium. No. 18 was other ores and concentrates. No. 20 was copper.

I have been a bit selective in reading that list to the parliament. The others that I didn't mention are such things as education related services, travel services, professional services, computer and information services, telecommunications and those sorts of things. While they are big employers, you would almost think they are not that big as emitters, but they would have a carbon footprint—no question. But it's the ones that I numbered in the list that are creating so many jobs and so many opportunities.

I have been in this place long enough—since 2010, as you have too, Deputy Speaker Buchholz—to remember when Labor under the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, brought in the carbon tax. I have a lot of respect for the former member for Lalor, but her feet were held to the fire by the Greens, by the Independents Windsor and Oakeshott and by others. She went against what she said she would do. She said 'The government I lead will not bring in a carbon tax' and then they did not long after they were elected in 2010. August was the election. They did indeed introduce a carbon tax. At the time the mantra was about big polluters. Every time they went to that dispatch box over on that side they talked about big polluters. They're smart enough now to change the word 'polluters' to 'emitters', but it makes no difference. What we're talking about here are the likes of the industries, businesses and manufacturers—exporters—that I numbered in that list. Those exporters do not deserve to be demonised, do not deserve to be pilloried, do not deserve to be castigated and do not deserve this legislation. And they certainly don't deserve to be criticised by those opposite.

The debt this country is in—and I know those opposite exaggerate the debt, with backbenchers often getting up and reading their talking points, and good luck to them; we were all backbenchers at one stage—is not anywhere near a trillion dollars. I know that some of those opposite are not good with figures, but we do have a debt. We also hear those opposite ask, 'What did we ever get for the debt?' Well, I'll tell you what we got. We got 50,000 to 60,000 Australian lives saved during COVID. We got hundreds of thousands of jobs saved and hundreds of thousands of occupations saved. Also, many businesses were saved. Businesses which would have otherwise gone to the wall because of the global pandemic now still have their doors open and are still providing goods and services. And some of them, just some of them, are exporting. But they all have carbon footprints, as we all do.

This legislation, the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, is a Trojan Horse of a carbon tax—it truly is. If you look at the gross value of those exports that I listed, what you don't want to see is businesses that are providing so much to our gross domestic product being cruelled, being penalised, by the government introducing legislation in this place which it thinks is going to reduce the temperature of the globe. It just doesn't make any sense. I heard the member for North Sydney say we have legacies to leave, and I appreciate that. I do understand that. We have to be good citizens. Moreover, we have to be good global citizens. But, all too often in this country, our schoolchildren are being told, through the sort of curriculum that has unfortunately crept into our schools, that they should be ashamed of our past and that they should probably be ashamed of our future.

We should be very proud of what we as a nation have done. We should be very proud of manufacturing. We should be very proud of the fact that we've got a resources sector which has kept the lights on in this country and which has kept so many jobs. Just take coal, for instance. I'm glad the member for Hunter is here. He's waving. He's happy. Do you know why he's happy? It's because he knows there is a future for the resources sector in the Hunter, and, with his leadership, there will continue to be a resources sector in the Hunter. I'm giving him a plug, but he knows that. Unfortunately there's not too many on that side that do. I know the Minister for Resources quite often gets up and talks about the importance of the resources sector, so much so that I think she should actually be a National, but we'll leave that aside for the moment. The member for Brand certainly is a good egg when it comes to that.

In the adjournment debate we heard from the member for Deakin, who introduced the HomeBuilder scheme during the time of the pandemic. In the construction sector, gross value added was in the order of millions of dollars in 2019-20. It was $142,331 million. That's 7.7 per cent of the Australian economy for gross value added. They're huge figures—massive figures. If you take it as read in 2019-20 certainly one of the things that would be under question, under risk, would be Woodside's North West Shelf project. If you look at that project alone—and I took the opportunity to call it up on the website earlier—the statistics are: 37 years operating, 5,700-plus LNG cargoes since 1989 and $34 billion in investment. In 2021, the North West Shelf contributed $1.9 billion to the Australian economy. These are massive figures. Why should Woodside and other manufacturers and mining companies or, indeed, agriculture, some of those big emitters that those opposite are so fond of demonising, be cruelled? Why should they be hampered? Why should they be restricted? Why should they be limited by ideology? They should not be.

We on this side, as Liberals and Nationals, have always said that we believe in technology, not taxes. But those opposite have never seen a tax that they wouldn't want to impose. They've never seen a tax that they wouldn't want to increase. What they're doing is hurting the job-creating businesses, the job-creating manufacturers, miners and those people who produce the food and fibre, such as those in the member for Mallee's seat and my seat. They are hurting enough, right across the country, with the cost of living.

It's really interesting when you do a bit of reading on this subject to see that the safeguard bill is going to set a price cap on ACCUs that is initially $75—three times the carbon price introduced by the Gillard government. Okay, I accept that. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy already has the power to impose such regulations under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. We understand that. But there's some really interesting reading material in that the legislation updates the penalty system for facilities not meeting the baseline reduction targets or purchasing sufficient carbon credits. The penalty is set at what per tonne of CO2? Wait for it. This is a figure that I don't think we'll hear from those opposite during this debate. What do you reckon the figure might be? I will tell you: $275. You can't make this stuff up. It's the number that those opposite don't want to mention: $275. That figure is also, coincidentally, the amount of money that those opposite, the Prime Minister in particular, on no less than—how many times was it?

Dr Webster: Ninety-seven.

Mr McCORMACK: Ninety-seven, Member for Mallee—of course it was. That's three less than 100. Ninety-seven times during the election campaign the then opposition leader promised that that's how much they would reduce household bills by. But this sort of legislation has been introduced. No doubt it will go through the House of Representatives. I appreciate the member for Watson extending the parliamentary time so that people can speak on it. He didn't gag debate and I will give him his due. I will give him his credit where it's due. It will go to the other place, to the Senate. I hope there are no deals being done. You wouldn't know with Labor and the Greens. I know that every now and again the Greens feign indignation and hop up and down just to show the media and the public and say, 'No, there's no great relationship between us and Labor,' but we know there is. We know there has been all along. It happened in 2010-11 with the carbon tax. It'll happen again with the climate policies that those opposite are introducing, and it's a shame.

I know that the member for Fairfax is right. He describes the safeguard mechanism as a Trojan Horse, and he is so right. He is so correct. He says Labor's carbon tax won't work. It will weaken the economy and worsen the environment. We do want to see measures that are going to help the environment. We want to see measures being taken to improve our oceans, to improve waste. I think that's one of the biggest things that we need to do not just as a country, a nation, but right around the world. I have been to other places and seen how they regard waste. In fact, there's a complete disregard for plastic waste. The build-up I saw in Nairobi was a rubbish dump you could see from space. I'm not digressing. I think that's one of the greatest challenges for humankind, and we need to address that.

But what we see from those opposite is them always placing taxes above everything else. What we see is them always introducing ideology above practicality, ideology above accountability and ideology above transparency. They say one thing before an election and they do the complete opposite afterwards. That's what really sticks in the craw of ordinary, everyday Australians, who are out there facing cost-of-living pressures—not to mention such things as the Port Kembla Steelworks, the Moomba plant, Pluto LNG, Queensland Curtis LNG plant and Gippsland Basin. They're all what those opposite call 'big emitters', but, as I said earlier, they are job creators. They are opportunity makers. They are factories, plants, industries and people—people!—creating power, creating opportunities, creating wealth and creating exports. They're the ones that we should be absolutely promoting and not cruelling with these stupid policies.