CARBON TAX

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:01): I move:

That this house acknowledges the introduction of a carbon tax and the rationale for its introduction.

I know members in here are very astute and they will notice that the motion is expressed essentially in neutral terms because it has been, and still is, somewhat controversial, but once again I think my motivation is to get us to discuss and debate some of these key issues. So, I did not come in with a strong motion advocating or supporting a carbon tax or opposing it. I thought this would be an opportunity to explore some of the issues.

Our carbon pollution levels are very high given our population size and our economy and that is largely because a lot of our power generation is based on coal, as we know in South Australia it is brown coal; Victoria, brown coal; New South Wales, black coal; and Queensland is also another source of black coal, and Western Australia too. I am not sure of the grade of their coal, down near Collie. I think it is probably a bit between our brown coal and the New South Wales black coal.

Australia produces more carbon pollution per head of population than any developed country in the world, more so than even the United States, and that is largely for the reason I just outlined. Our carbon pollution is growing by almost 2 per cent a year and, even taking into account the renewable energy target and the carbon farming initiative, by 2020 our emissions are expected to be about 22 per cent higher than in the year 2000.

Governments around the world have agreed to limit carbon pollution so that an average global temperature rise can be held below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. It remains the policy of both the federal government and the federal opposition to cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020.

As I indicated before, electricity generation is responsible for just over a third of Australia's total carbon pollution; direct fuel combustion, reflecting the use of gas and other fuels in industries and homes, accounts for another 15 per cent; and transport and agriculture each contribute around another 15 per cent. The remaining sources are fugitive emissions, mainly the methane and carbon dioxide that escape when coal is mined and gas is produced, plus pollution from industry and from landfill.

It has often been argued that a carbon price is the most environmentally effective and cheapest way to reduce pollution, and I want to come back to that in a moment. Under the carbon pricing mechanism, several hundred of the country's biggest polluters, a figure reduced from the original estimate of 500, will be required to pay for each tonne of pollution they release into the atmosphere. So, it is a 'polluters pay' model, in theory.

This is also meant to create economic incentives to reduce pollution in the cheapest possible ways, and these incentives will flow through to the economy. The carbon price is meant to make lower polluting technologies, or encourage the use of them, especially clean energy technologies, and make them more competitive by boosting investment in them, triggering the transformation of the economy towards a clean energy future. The carbon tax is a serious, complicated long-term issue for Australia that encompasses:

raising a price on carbon;

collecting significant revenue from that price;

providing quite large tax cuts that improve economic efficiency;

substantial family payments;

support for trade exposed industries; and

support for renewable energy.

In general, there is no dispute amongst economists that you will reduce emissions by a specified amount at a lower cost with an economy-wide price on emissions.

A market-based approach, that is, a price on carbon, offers lower economic cost for the same amount of mitigation as a regulatory approach, i.e. government intervention in particular industries on a case-by-case basis to reduce emissions. The opposition, federally, has proposed the latter as part of their direct action plan, that is, government intervention in particular industries on a case-by-case basis. The theory is that in market operation, businesses will respond to that via incentives and find the lowest cost way of doing things, and the Productivity Commission has basically said the same thing.

The carbon tax will charge businesses for every tonne of carbon dioxide or equivalent greenhouse gas they emit. It is meant to reduce energy use and drive investment in clean technology and is the first stage of a scheme to cut Australia's greenhouse emissions, as I said earlier, to 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. All companies that emit more than 25,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent a year will pay the tax. It will apply to about 60 per cent of the country's emissions. Businesses will buy carbon units from the government to cover emissions; some will receive free units under the various compensation schemes.

Various prices have been set and some of these have changed in recent times. Companies can lower their carbon tax bill by claiming exemptions for emissions from a number of activities. These include:

biofuels, biodiesel, renewable diesel;

transport for agriculture, fisheries, forestry;

domestic aviation;

biomass (including burning landfill);

agriculture;

current landfill waste;

synthetic greenhouse gases; and

certain alternative fuels.

The government claims changes to the tax system and increases to pensions and allowances mean that most households will not be out of pocket, and there are various compensation arrangements.

Although households are not the target of the scheme, they may have an incentive to become more energy efficient, reduce their bills and be able to pocket the alleged $10 plus compensation a week. A range of handouts and subsidies will help certain businesses cope with the effects of the tax—well, that is what is claimed—and around 40 per cent of carbon price revenue will go to businesses. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will receive $10 billion, it is claimed, over five years, and it will lend money to and invest in clean energy companies.

Some people have argued that Australia should have waited until there was more global action. They want to compare other the actions of other countries—usually United States and China—unfavourably with Australia. The USA, which was already doing quite a bit in terms of reducing carbon emissions, has maintained strong support for direct fiscal support for low emission technologies or strengthening regulations to reduce emissions via the Environment Protection Agency.

The USA has also facilitated the replacement of a very large part of coal-fired power generation by gas—the so-called gas revolution. Several states, including California, have legislated to introduce emissions trading schemes, and Professor Garnaut said in July last year that he is more confident that the USA will meet the President's stated goal of reducing American emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020.

China has provided a large amount of funding for low emissions technologies and energy efficiency, and it has also introduced pilot schemes for emissions trading schemes much like Australia's in five cities and two provinces. It is talking about generalising those into a national scheme if successful.

Scandinavian countries have been pricing carbon since 1991. This is one reason why Norway is not a carbon intensive country, despite being the only developed country with fossil fuel deposits comparable to Australia. Norway's emissions per head of population are 10.9 tonnes, and Australia's are 27.3 tonnes. For those who believe that a carbon price will impact on Australia's competitiveness, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have all been higher than Australia on the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index every year over the past decade, and they have occupied three of the top four places among 139 countries; in all years, three of the top 10.

The European Union established an emissions trading scheme in 2005 and has steadily tightened its parameters since then. The United Kingdom recently confirmed a considerable increase in the ambition of its emission reduction targets in the midst of continued economic pressures in the aftermath of the Great Crash of 2008.

What has been generated is often a fairly intensive debate. As I indicated before, the carbon tax pricing has changed in recent times. I personally thought a better approach than a tax would have been to set individual pollution targets for individual polluting companies, and if they did not meet those targets, they would have been penalised, but the model that has been introduced is much more complex than that.

We have this ongoing debate about whether the increase in carbon is leading to higher temperatures and affecting our weather, particularly in erratic and unusual ways. I think one of the points to be made when people are talking about changes in the weather is that, like in economics, you have to look at the trend line. You cannot just look at one week or one year because that will give a very erratic view of what is happening. You have to look at the underlying trend in terms of global warming or increase in sea level and so on.

My own view is that we need to do something about carbon. I am not sure that the current approach by the federal government, which is meant to be an interim approach, is the best way to go about it. I am not convinced, either, that the alternative or the direct action model of the Liberal opposition federally will deliver much. It is great to encourage tree planting and things like that but I am not sure that those particular measures will deliver what is really required.

Contrary to what has often been said, countries like China are starting to do more with regard to carbon emissions. The point is sometimes made: why should we stick our nose out—wait until others. If you take that approach, you will never change anything because the others will say, 'We will wait until someone else changes.' I think it is appropriate that Australia seeks to be in the frontline in terms of being innovative and dealing with the issue of carbon, but I am not totally convinced that the current model is really going to deliver the goods. It is still early days, and if there is a change of government at the federal level, then we will have a different approach and a different system.

I come back to the original statement that I made. I would like to see a broader discussion of this issue. I believe it is an issue that has gone off the radar somewhat in South Australia, but we have a critical interest in this not only because of power generation through Leigh Creek and Port Augusta but also in terms of the impact of a carbon tax on our industries trying to compete overseas.

It is good to be doing things not just for the environment but ultimately for the welfare of the community, but it is not wise to be doing things that ultimately are detrimental to our people, our nation and our state. So in putting the motion up, I look forward to hearing what other members say.

As I said, I argued for a different model. Essentially what we have now it is 'polluter pays', so we are still allowing people to pollute. In effect, it is a licence to pollute. I favoured a simpler model that would have said, 'Look, we know what you do now; we want you to bring that level of pollution down within five years,' or whatever, 'to this point'.

So I commend the motion to the house. It is a big issue and a complex issue, and I am sure there is a divergence of views in this house but, as a parliament and as individual MPs, I think we need to be across this as best we can and try to ensure that not only are we doing the best for the environment but also the best for our people.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (12:15): I wish to thank the member for Fisher for bringing this motion before the parliament but, at the same time, I do not think there is a lot more to say. The member for Fisher has very comprehensively outlined why we need action on carbon, and the fact that the mechanisms are complex and that not everyone agrees with the mechanism that has been decided upon by the commonwealth government. My preference would have been for the emissions trading scheme that was advanced by senator Wong when she was minister for environment, but we could not get the support of the Greens.

So there is a clunky scheme that has the majority support of the commonwealth parliament. That is the way parliaments work these days. Governments have a very difficult job in trying to bring together different interest groups to make something that works, and we all know that when we have done that it is often not the slinkiest scheme possible. However, the commonwealth government has taken a clear position that we must do something about carbon emissions, and this is a position supported by the state government.

Target 59 of the South Australian Strategic Plan seeks to reduce South Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The mechanisms that the commonwealth has introduced will see annual emissions reduced by at least 160 million tonnes in 2020 from where they would have otherwise been. This is equivalent to taking 45 million cars off the road. At the same time the commonwealth is using all revenue raised through putting a price on carbon to provide tax cuts and increased benefits to households, support jobs in the most affected industries, and generate new, cleaner forms of energy.

I note the recent series of floods and bushfires that the Australian east coast is going through, as well as some disasters in the West; fortunately, we have not been the target of the recent disasters but summer is not over. The frequency of disasters in Australia must make us ask what is happening. In one of the television reports I saw one farmer who said that he thought that was the fifth one-in-100 year event he has now lived through.

We do not know a lot about the history of our planet over the last 2,000 years, but we certainly know that during the time of white settlement of Australia these last 10 to 15 years have been extremely unusual, to say the least. Things are different, and we are seeing the consequences. We have to rely on the scientists who tell us that if we do not start acting now the consequences will be even more drastic.

It is not easy to change the way we have been working; it is not easy to change the way industry has based its pricing mechanism; it is not easy to change the way we run our households and our lives and our use of cars.

However, it will not be easy if the climate changes massively, if our houses are no longer suitable, if the crops we grow are no longer able to be grown or if we are exposed to more and different sorts of disease. These sorts of predictions are now really the consensus of the scientific community, and they produce a life that is not easy. In my view, the commonwealth government has done the best it can in a very difficult situation to start protecting us from the devastation that could otherwise come.

Economists and respected institutions such as the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and the Productivity Commission see that putting a price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and economically efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. The carbon pricing mechanism forms part of the commonwealth's Emissions Trading Scheme and the Clean Energy Future package, which together seek to address the challenges posed by climate change.

The Clean Energy Future package provides compensation to nine out of 10 households. It aims to shield low-income groups and pensioners from cost increases related to a carbon price. Industry assistance will also be provided to support jobs and competitiveness in the transition to a low carbon economy. The commonwealth government has also announced that it will establish a $10 billion commercially oriented clean energy finance corporation as part of its Clean Energy Future package to fund investment in renewable energy, low pollution and energy-efficient technologies.

In addition to this, the Land Sector Package will provide support for farmers and land managers to pursue climate change action on the land and enhance biodiversity. We are not alone in the actions that we are taking. The recent inaugural speech of President Obama indicated that he wants to lead the US into even greater action, but already China, India and Brazil are working to reduce their carbon footprint, and mechanisms have been long in place in some of the European countries, particularly Scandinavian countries, as indicated by the member for Fisher in his comments.

It is quite clear that things are changing in terms of the climate. It is quite clear that carbon emissions and pollution are the cause of many of these changes. It is quite clear that action is required and it is quite clear that the commonwealth government did the best it could. It is also quite clear that the South Australian government and I personally support the commonwealth in its actions in the hope that we can provide a better future for our children, grandchildren, great nieces and great nephews, for those of us who look to that regard.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:22): I rise to give a different side to this story. I believe that it is the greatest con job that this nation has ever seen. The model that has been introduced is more about taxation—another form of taxation—than actually reducing carbon pollution. If we look at the results being proposed by the government, the reduction in our country's contribution of carbon pollution to the world will be about 45 microns in a kilometre, a bit like dropping a human hair on the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

We all talk about climate change a lot. I think we must all think about climate change properly. Climate change actually began at the time of creation. We look at the carbon that is now going into the atmosphere; it actually started in the atmosphere. When the world was very prolific and the animals grew large and there was a lot of vegetation, that was when the oil, the gas and the coal were formed and deposited into the earth's crust, and we are now releasing some of that back into the atmosphere.

That may not be a good thing, and I would support our nation doing something about pollution and about how much carbon is going into the atmosphere, but we should not do it through taxation. What we should be doing is giving better incentives to our industries and to our people to reduce their pollution. There is an old adage: you will catch more flies with honey than you ever will with vinegar. All we are doing is throwing vinegar into this argument. I am certainly against the present model that we have in this country, and I will be voting against this motion.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide) (12:26): I rise to support the motion. I do this because I accept the expert advice in two fields: climate science and economics—one describes the problem and the other the way to get the most rational and efficient solutions. Climate science tells us that human activity is responsible for releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere resulting in a concentration of carbon dioxide that has not been experienced probably for millions of years, certainly for a time that pre-dates our modern way of living, with huge populations in fixed cities. We know that the earth's climate has waxed and waned over its history and that the earth has been almost completely covered in ice and almost entirely ice-free at different times. We know that the shorelines, plant life and stability of weather patterns have been wildly different in the past.

For the past 10,000 years, humans have been able to grow remarkable civilisations, in large part because of the stability of weather that has allowed us to reap the full benefit of agriculture. That stability is unusual in the earth's history and a world with a more energetic atmosphere—that is, one with more heat energy caused by greenhouse gases—is likely to imperil that stability.

In our use of fossil fuels (literally the fuels that release the energy of hundreds of millions of years of life) we have made great strides and progress in feeding our growing populations, in clothing, housing, and protecting us all. However, there has been a by-product of this development, an unplanned and undesired by-product, which is the increase of carbon dioxide and related greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

I will just interpolate that there are so many arguments used to suggest that there is no anthropogenic climate change caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases, but I cannot possibly address them all. For people who are generally interested in the arguments I recommend the website skepticalscience.com.

So, what do we do about this: in essence, a pollutant that we must either absorb or not emit at all? The answers are, fortunately, many and varied. While there is great hope for technologies currently in the R&D phase that will make the solutions even easier, we have a range of energy production and carbon capture options—including the simplest of all which is plant life—before us right now.

The market is a powerful beast, innovative in chasing new dollars and capable of rewarding what makes money and ignoring the inefficient and wasteful. What we must do is harness the market to work to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that reaches the atmosphere. Introducing a price on carbon and a market in carbon offsets does exactly that. Rather than governments picking favoured options, the market, once given the incentives, is capable of unearthing and encouraging the fastest and cheapest ways to bring carbon emissions down.

Australia is hardly alone in having worked this out, and joins a long list of governments that have made the step towards rewarding those who are part of a new low-carbon economy. There has been a lot of politics played with this issue and that is a pity. Many of us have children and some have grandchildren, and I venture to suggest that all of us here care about the next generation and what they will inherit. Pretending that the science is other than it is or that the market works sometimes but not when it suits us is a shame.

I have watched politics sink lower and lower in people's estimation in the last 15 years. I have seen debates, largely not in this house or in the other place, that have chosen to ignore truth and justice and, instead, have played to what people wish was true or what their fears tell them might be true. Our responsibility as members of parliament, as representatives of the people, is to behave better than this. We must look clear-eyed at the science, whether or not it suits us, and we must plan for a longer future than the next election alone—if we don't, no one will.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (12:30): I also rise to talk to the motion by the Hon. Bob Such. I will make it quite clear that I am very interested in and aware of changes in our environment, making sure that we protect our communities going forward, ensuring that we have new technology, and to look at ways of not only improving our technology but also the way we operate and the way we live. However, as the member for Mount Gambier has indicated, I think this is the biggest rip-off of all time. It is a tax, and there are lots of people out there and industries that are still polluting. They can still pay and they can still pollute but, at the same time, if you are doing that, you are not creating any improvement in the pollution.

I will just go back to an issue when I was the mayor of the Port Pirie Regional Council. I went to a climate change conference in Adelaide. I went to that before lunch and I was convinced when I went to lunch that we had to do all these issues and, as the member for Port Adelaide has indicated, look at the scientific evaluation and the advice from the scientists. When I went to lunch I was very convinced that we had to do all these things to improve the issue, to reduce climate change. After lunch, I went back to the second stage of that conference. Again, there were professional and qualified scientists there and the view was completely opposite. How can anyone make a decision when there are two different views out there on one day on how we can control climate change?

As the member for Mount Gambier has indicated, since day dot climate change has been going on all the time. There has always been carbon in the environment, but it is a very small issue compared with other issues that we have to face. If we are going to go forward with reducing our carbon, we need to do it worldwide, not in a small environment.

Currently, the way it happens at the moment, the revenue that is collected from us here should go back into industries to be able to improve, but there are many industries and one of those industries was my ex-employer at Port Pirie, the major employer of our community, Nyrstar Port Pirie smelter. They are paying $10 million a year—and I stand to be corrected on that official amount—in carbon tax and at the same time they still need to try to trade on the world environment and the world market. They also have to try to improve their facility there to reduce their carbon footprint and the emissions to be able to reduce that tax.

What should happen, as the member for Mount Gambier indicated, is that industries that were polluting should have been given a time frame to reduce their pollution and, if they did not do it in that particular time frame, then they should be penalised. What happens at the moment, from my understanding, is that the revenue goes back to certain industries. The alumina industry does not get anything, the lead smelter in Port Pirie does not get anything, but the zinc smelter at Hobart gets a portion. It is to do with the criteria.

I am certainly one to safeguard and to produce the best ways for our children, our grandchildren and so on, but I say there is a way of doing it. I just think that the carbon tax, and the way it has come in, has been handled wrongly and, as the member for Reynell has indicated, it has been done by the commonwealth government. We have to wear that currently at the moment, but certainly I am not in favour of the carbon tax in its present form and I certainly will be voting against this motion.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:33): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to the role. The opposition will not support the motion only on the basis that we want to make it crystal clear that we oppose the carbon tax. I know that the member for Fisher argues that the motion is relatively neutral and, in fairness to the member for Fisher, I think that is a fair reading of the motion, but of course in this place debates are often misconstrued and used publicly in an unfair manner. The opposition knows that if we vote for this motion, the government will trot out some spokesman or other in the future saying that somehow the state opposition has a different view from the federal opposition.

So, although we respect the member for Fisher's sincerity in moving what is a 'carbon-neutral' motion, the opposition will be opposing this particular motion. The reason we are going to oppose it is to make it crystal clear to Australia that the opposition, both federal and state, are opposed to the carbon tax. This will be a central issue to the forthcoming campaign because we currently have a Prime Minister, as you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, who went before the Australian public and said there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead' and then went about introducing this particular carbon tax.

It follows on other great Labor leaders who have misled the Australian public before election. I am still waiting for my Paul Keating 'L-A-W' tax cuts. I know they will come through eventually, but we are still waiting for them. I am still waiting for Bob Hawke to deliver the promise that no child will live in poverty. The reality is that the carbon tax is a central issue to the forthcoming federal campaign. It is an impost on virtually every aspect of our life and South Australian electricity prices have increased significantly because of the carbon tax.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I know the member for Torrens keeps interjecting because she is one of the great fans of the carbon tax. They love it over there. We asked the Premier on his first day whether he supported the carbon tax, and he said that he did. We asked the then minister for energy about supporting a carbon tax, and he did. The Labor Party can run around in South Australia all they like talking about the concerns they have about costs of living, but they stand at the pulpit crying tears for the poor people in the suburbs about their cost of living, and at the same time they have their hand in their pocket trying to tax them on a carbon tax.

The Labor Party's answer to everything is a new tax. The reality is that this carbon tax ultimately will be sorted out at the next federal election. There is a very simple way to reduce your cost of living, and that is to vote in an Abbott government, because it will get rid of the carbon tax and that will reduce your electricity costs.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Torrens keeps interjecting. I ask her simply to confirm one thing when she interjects or makes a speech: is it true that, if the carbon tax is taken off electricity, prices will be cheaper? If it is, why are you opposed to cheaper electricity prices? That is ultimately a very simple question the Labor Party will have to answer. This motion simply says that we acknowledge the introduction of a carbon tax. That is fair enough—it has been introduced.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: There was some rationale at some point as to why it was introduced at the federal government level. The reality is that this carbon tax will be sorted out at the next federal election. I was interested to note the passionate contribution by the member for Reynell about an emissions trading scheme. I was interested to note the passionate contribution about the need for an emissions trading scheme, but I will come back to that particular issue another day. The opposition will not support the motion, even though we respect that the member for Fisher has tried to introduce it in a neutral manner, but for perception and clarity purposes we are opposing it.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna) (12:38): I am pleased to speak to this motion and thank the member for Fisher for bringing it forth. It is always good to get a little bit of passion going first thing in the morning. It is good to see that the member for Davenport can still pull out a leadership speech when he needs to and I am glad that the baton is still there in his knapsack. It strikes me as somewhat ironic, listening to the member for Davenport criticise those who have introduced taxes, because he is one of the few members opposite who actually introduced a tax. I refer to the emergency services levy—that is his own tax.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: You supported it!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Whether or not we supported it, it is your tax. You cannot come in and criticise government for introducing necessary taxes when you have done it yourself.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I have introduced taxes too. I am one of the few people on this side to have introduced taxes. I am pleased about the taxes I have introduced because they have been for the benefit of our state. You cannot run an argument, if you are serious about being in government, that all taxes are bad and that you can run as a society without having taxation. That is the depth of the hypocrisy on the other side when it comes to this debate. Taxation is part of the way that governments operate.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Well, please get up and say something, member for Finniss. You like to say a lot from the backbenches over there, yelling a lot, but when it comes to sensible contributions to proper policy issues, you have very little to say. I would also like to note that, in the contribution of the member for Davenport, he did not address the substance of the issue, namely, whether or not he supports action on climate change. This side of the house is very clear: we do need to take some action in relation to climate change. There needs to be a structure in place that tells the market whether or not carbon is something that is approved or disapproved. There are a range of ways that it could have been done, and the member for Fisher outlined some of those.

I have to say to him—he described the federal government's arrangements as a licence. I do not think that is correct. I think what he was proposing in fact was more of a licensing arrangement where you would say to an individual industry, 'You've got a certain amount of carbon you can produce and over time it has to be reduced.' That seems to me more akin to a licensing arrangement. If you were to set up a licensing arrangement then of course you would have tradeable licences and people would be able to buy licences, which they could then sell on the marketplace and you would end up with some sort of trading scheme, I guess, that came from that.

The other solution that was suggested by the member for Mount Gambier was that there should be an incentive and that governments should, I assume, pay industry to reduce pollution. That is also based on taxation. Where does government get its money from? It gets it from collecting taxes. So, rather than having a tax on the polluter, you would have a tax on the general community, which would then pay that money—that tax—to a particular polluter as a way of encouraging them to reduce. It is still a tax-based system, whether or not it is broadly based or specifically based.

These are complex issues. I think the federal government was forced to do something; the community wanted it to do something. They were forced to do what they did because, as the member for Reynell said, the Greens would not accept the original proposition. That is the practical reality. You cannot come in here and say, 'All tax is bad. Any government that puts a tax in place should be voted out of office.' It is absolute arrant hypocrisy. The member for Davenport introduced a tax; he supported it and he still supports it, and that is the reality of it.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:41): Yes, the member for Davenport did introduce the Emergency Services Levy. However, what the member for Kaurna fails to bring to the attention of the house is that a heap of other imposts on South Australians went to bring in the Emergency Services Levy, like the fire levy on insurance. They all disappeared, along with a number of other things, and he failed to bring that to the attention of the house—conveniently, I might add.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw that comment. He is reflecting on me that somehow or other I attempted to mislead the house by conveniently leaving out a fact that he thinks is appropriate. It is up to him to argue whatever facts he likes, but he cannot reflect on me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member did reflect on the member for Kaurna, he should withdraw.

Mr PENGILLY: No, sir, I did not reflect on the member for Kaurna. I merely pointed out that, in having a crack at the member for Davenport in introducing the Emergency Services Levy, no mention at all was made of the fact that a heap of other charges were reduced. It is absolute nonsense; I will not withdraw. Why should I? That is just the way it is.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: I do not support the motion of the member for Fisher, and I think a number of speakers on this side of the house have also indicated that, for very good reason. The fact of the matter is that, if you want to reduce the carbon footprint and have less pollution—which everybody wants; there is no argument over that whatsoever—why would you not introduce nuclear energy? I know the member for Newland is a great advocate of it and I know there are other members on the other side who are great advocates of it.

However, what has happened here is that the current federal government—which will be consigned to history on 14 September, I might add, in no uncertain terms—have inflicted taxes on the Australian community that they deliberately said that they were not going to introduce (mining taxes and carbon taxes and whatever else). They turned around and introduced the whole gamut. If you take away this carbon tax and the mining tax, you will reduce the cost of living to Australian families. That is what it is all about.

Ask the member for Frome what the impact will be up in his electorate, in the great city of Port Pirie, which the Labor Party claim to love. They disagree with it completely—absolutely and completely. I think it is a nonsense. Why on earth would this side of the house even consider supporting such a motion as the member for Fisher has put. He is quite within his rights to introduce it, and I respect him for that, but there is absolutely no way that this side of the house—or the Liberal Party—as explained by the member for Davenport, is going to support such a motion, when it is our policy to get rid of it federally, and the sooner the better.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member for Fisher speaks, he closes the debate.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:45): I think I had better close it before it gets too heated and there is too much carbon generated in here. I think it is great to have the former minister, the member for Kaurna, in here contributing to the debate. I look forward to the member for Elder coming in here, too, in private members' time; he might liven things up as well.

It is a passionate issue. I understand the logic put forward by the member for Davenport that, whilst my motion is essentially a fence-sitting motion, by simply acknowledging that there is a carbon tax and acknowledging the rationale, it does not mean that you agree with it. I understand why the opposition will not support the motion—because they do not want to be seen in any way, shape or form to be associated with the carbon tax.

In terms of the point made by the member for Kaurna, I could have chosen my words more carefully. When I said 'a licence to pollute', I did not mean a licence as in a piece of paper; I meant freedom to continue to pollute. That is what I meant, but I should have been a bit more precise. It is just as well the Speaker is not in the chair, or else I would have been put in chains and thrown out. I meant freedom to continue to pollute and not a licence as in a piece of paper. Anyway, I take what he said; he is quite correct.

It is interesting how people get into who said what and who promised what. I remember, because I was in the government at the time, a promise, 'We will not sell ETSA, full stop.' It was sold shortly after, much to my annoyance, and it was one of the reasons that I chose to leave the Liberal Party—that and some other reasons. I remember a federal prime minister by the name of John Howard saying that he would not be having a GST. I know people say that they had to sell ETSA because of the State Bank. I think people should have look at why the State Bank fiasco occurred, and I would say that 60 per cent was the fault of the government and 40 per cent was the fault of the opposition.

The opposition at the time pushed very hard in the upper house and elsewhere to free up the State Bank so that it could act like a corporate entity and do what it wanted to do. So, the blame for that, and then the subsequent impact of the claim of having to sell ETSA to pay for the debt—if you look back, and I urge members to look back at Hansard—is seen in the turning of the State Bank into a corporate cowboy, if you like, and was very much pushed by the Liberal Party at the time.

Returning to this issue, I was keen to have it canvassed, as I think it is important, and it is good to hear from my colleagues here. We obviously have different views about how to deal with carbon. I do not believe the current approach is necessarily the best one, but I think at least something is being done to tackle the issue of carbon. Like the member for Reynell, I put faith in scientists. All these learned people are not idiots; they know what they are talking about.

And then you get some person like Lord Monckton saying that he has all the answers. One of the sad things that has happened in our society—and I think we need to address it—is a reduction in awareness of scientific principles and an understanding of the scientific method. What we are getting now more and more are cowboy-type approaches to issues that are not based on science.

If we are not careful we will become an even more ignorant society unable to digest and understand issues in a way that is based on science. I see that as a very concerning trend, that a lot of the arguments about climate change and carbon budget are based on straight-out ignorance, not based on science, not subject to any peer review, and not subject to the scientific method, and that is one of the reasons that we have some of the problems we face in this society.

I know the opposition will oppose this motion. I think it is important in acknowledging what has happened in terms of the carbon tax. The motion does not approve of it necessarily, it just acknowledges that it exists and it acknowledges the rationale used for its introduction.

The house divided on the motion:

Majority of 8 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.