Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (15:59): I am very pleased to contribute to this debate on the question of the impact of the carbon tax on Australian manufacturing. I was interested to hear the comments of the member for Indi, who has taken it upon herself to try and become the scary face of the scare campaign that has been waged against the government's efforts to price carbon. I know that that campaign she has been waging along with her leader is a campaign that has even brought her into my neck of the woods in Western Sydney. I saw recently that she visited Western Sydney—not my electorate, but a manufacturing business in Girraween. I became aware of this from reading the Parramatta Advertiser on 22 July and I think it is important that I share some of the quotes from that article with the House. The shadow minister, along with Senator Payne, visited a business called C-Mac Industries in Girraween. I see that the member, who had returned for my comments, is now scurrying away from the chamber. I can understand that she would not want to hear— Mrs Mirabella interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): The member ought not to interject from the doorway. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer has the call. Mr BRADBURY: what was reported in the Parramatta Advertiser, but I will read from that article. It says: As general manager of the family sheet metal manufacturing company, started by his father Clive in 1966, Mr McMaster has survived tough times by careful management. It goes on: When federal shadow minister for industry Sophie Mirabella and Liberal western Sydney Senator Marise Payne came a-knocking to tell him the downsides of the government's planned carbon tax, Mr McMaster seemed more concerned over land and payroll taxes. "It all adds up, I suppose, but I don't think the carbon tax will have the same impact on me as land tax"— Mr McMaster says. He goes on: "I pay $30,000 a year in land tax and $6000 a month payroll tax, which means I have to work one month a year to pay that. The article also says: "Everyone has a different opinion (on carbon tax) but I don't see it impacting too much," Mr McMaster said. But Ms Mirabella and Senator Payne told him that "every time you switch on a light, you will be paying". So don't worry about what Mr McMaster thinks; Ms Mirabella and Senator Payne are going to tell him what the impact is going to be. That is what you do when you visit a business and the questions you ask do not deliver the answers that you are looking for: you start to put words in people's mouths. In the article Ms Mirabella goes on to say: "Predictions of how the tax will affect people— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member for Indi, is her title. Mr BRADBURY: The member for Indi goes on to say: "Predictions of how the tax will affect people have not been spot on but businesses will cop more costs, forcing some of them to move production overseas … That is mere assertion, with not one ounce of evidence to support that proposition. We heard the member for Indi a little earlier in this debate say, 'It is very simple: if you impose a cost upon a business that is not a cost that is imposed on a business elsewhere in the world then that business will shut down and relocate.' So my simple question—and I think this is a question Mr McMaster would be interested to hear—is this: what is the land tax and payroll tax that is being imposed on people elsewhere in the world? And if indeed there are countries in the world where there is not the same payroll tax and land tax that is being imposed by the O'Farrell government in New South Wales, then why is it that this business has been able to continue to operate within New South Wales and Australia? I must say I am looking forward to the member for Indi and Senator Payne commencing their campaign against these great big taxes on everything—the great big tax on payroll, the great big tax on land. If they were going to have an even more profound impact than the carbon price, as Mr McMaster has suggested, then you would have thought that the federal opposition, so concerned about the competitiveness of industry and the cost of living, would be waging a campaign against Mr O'Farrell's land tax and payroll tax. I have not heard that campaign yet but I look forward to it and I will join with the member for Indi and Senator Payne in that campaign. The member for Indi has come into this place and talked about the crisis in manufacturing. This is further evidence that people on that side of the chamber are more concerned with talking down the economy and talking down industry than chipping in and trying to assist industry to cope with the challenges that they face. We all know the nature of those challenges—in particular, the rising dollar. If you look at all the commentary that has come from those who have made some of the decisions that are the subject of the discussion here, you will find that they have all cited the high dollar as having the major impact—no suggestion of a carbon price. It is disingenuous to come into this place to allege that an impost that has not even been passed by the parliament, let alone levied, has in fact led to these impacts, when the businesspeople who are making these decisions at the coalface have acknowledged that the impacts are more about with the value of the dollar than any government policy or any other factors. I note that the member for Indi was interviewed on radio today. She was asked some questions about Tony Abbott's efforts in proposing to cut $500 million worth of assistance to the car industry. That seemed to be something that the member for Indi was not aware of. I know she is only the shadow minister, but you would think she would be aware of a proposed half-billion dollar cut to the car industry. The interviewer went on to ask some questions, and the member seemed a little bit sheepish about it all. Then the host said: But five days ago Tony Abbott did commit to that policy. The member for Indi said: Well, there you go. But this is not a single-bullet solution. There you have it. At a time when we have, according to the member for Indi, a crisis in manufacturing, she is talking down the economy and talking down manufacturing with all her talk of a crisis. It is so much of a crisis that the opposition's panacea is to rip the guts out of an industry assistance program—half a billion dollars out of an industry assistance program. That is going to help! What sort of crisis are we going to have when we finally allow the member for Indi to have some influence on government policy in this space? She visited Mr McMaster in Girraween and was told, 'Really, the carbon price is not the big issue you're trying to scare people into thinking it is; the bigger issue is actually land tax and payroll tax, and if you really wanted to represent me as a manufacturer in Western Sydney you'd stand up and take on Mr O'Farrell—but, sorry, he happens to be in the same political party, so we won't do that; we'll beat the carbon drum.' And that is what they have been doing. When the proposal to cut this $500 million from the automotive industry was announced, the Herald Sunreported: "It removes the additional assistance to the motor industry that the government has provided largely through the stimulus package," Mr Abbott told reporters in Canberra today. Oh, the stimulus package! It is no wonder Mr Abbott wanted to rip away that half a billion dollars; it was part of the stimulus package that he spent the last couple of years telling us we did not need. Well, go and talk to people in Western Sydney and see what they think. I hope, when the member for Indi goes round on her carnival of fear—her scare campaign—that every time she visits a manufacturer she asks them, 'What would have been the impact on your business had the government not acted to stimulate the economy?' The government provided things like the business investment allowance, which many manufacturers in my electorate took advantage of. They invested in some very heavy machinery and equipment as a result of the very generous tax arrangements under the business investment allowance. So, when the member for Indi goes around and tries to scare people—as scary as the prospect of her knocking on someone's door and coming in unannounced is—by telling them that they will be wiped off the map, that their business is going to have to shut down because this carbon price is coming in, she should also be honest with them about the electricity costs that they currently face and she should outline what her plan is to reduce those costs. We know that there are many, many businesses out there that are facing the challenge of rising power costs, and when we talk to those in the investment community about why they will not invest in new generation capacity, they all come back to the same thing. They say, 'We will not do it because of the uncertainty due to the lack of a price on carbon.' Mrs Mirabella interjecting— Mr BRADBURY: We can carry on with this game that the coalition have been playing for the last decade, where they deny the fact that we have to price carbon. It is an inevitability, as the shadow treasurer said— Mrs Mirabella interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Indi has made her contribution and she has also had a pretty good opportunity to interject. Mr BRADBURY: As the shadow Treasurer said, it is an inevitability that we will have to price carbon in this country. That is why Michael Fraser, the CEO of AGL says: AGL supports the introduction of a price on carbon emissions as soon as possible to provide investment certainty for the energy industry as Australia begins the transition to a low carbon economy. Meanwhile, out there in the electricity generation world we see that old generators continue to pump out the electricity at higher and higher cost. The investment community is standing back not prepared to invest in new generation capacity because they have to go and borrow money. They have to raise capital. They have to look at a return on their investment across the life of that asset, which might be 30 years, 40 years or 50 years. And they know, because even the shadow Treasurer is telling them, a price on carbon is inevitable. They know it is coming; they just do not know when and they do not know how much they are going to have to pay. They want to know when and they want to know how much they are going to pay so they can factor that into their long-term investment decisions. But every day that they are given continued uncertainty they will choose not to invest in new energy-generating capacity. Like running an old motor vehicle, they will keep their generators on the road; they will keep their generators running at higher costs and they will pass those costs on to consumers all around the country. So people in my electorate, manufacturers and householders, will pay more in electricity costs because of inaction and uncertainty. That is why we say we are going to deliver certainty. We are going to give the investment community certainty about the price on carbon. You know it is coming; we will tell you when it is coming and how much you are going to pay so you can make the long-term investment decisions that you need to make in order to secure energy security for this country in the future. If the coalition ever have the opportunity to repeal the legislation that we intend to put in place then they will have to look people in the eye and explain why there has not been any new investment in electricity generation. They will have to answer that question. And they will have to answer the question about why people's power bills continue to go up, up and up. And they will have to answer the question as to why they do not have a plan to deliver more investment in electricity generation in this country. Indeed, they do not have a plan that will contribute to easing the burden of the rising cost of living that comes with electricity power prices increasing at the rate at which they are. They do not have a plan to encourage renewable energy or cleaner and more efficient energy. There is no plan from the opposition. That is something they will have to confront. The coalition have already indicated that the way they will fund their much more expensive approach to reducing emissions—they do agree with five per cent but they have a more expensive approach to reducing emissions—is by cutting funding elsewhere. They want to cut $70 billion worth of expenditure. We all know what a coalition government is like. We all know that they slash spending when it comes to services and they cut jobs. We are currently up to about 13,000 jobs that they want to cut. We know that they will bring back Work Choices. As sure as night follows day, when you bring back the coalition, when the coalition gets into government, not only will they cut expenditure on government services but also they will cut jobs and bring back Work Choices. (Time expired)