Mr PITT (Hinkler) (14:09): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the impact of the carbon tax on electricity prices for Queensland families and businesses? What are the impediments to removing the impact of the carbon tax?

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:09): I thank the member for Hinkler for his second question to me this week. He recognises how important it is for the parliament to repeal the carbon tax legislation, to get rid of the carbon tax, and how important it is for Queensland families and Queensland small businesses, because the carbon tax increases the cost of everything. Particularly, it increases the cost of doing business in Queensland.

Over the last two years the average Queensland family has paid more than $300 in carbon tax on their electricity bills. With the carbon tax removal, the typical Queensland household would save $116 next year, and the average family of four would save $174. That would go up to $240 with the abolition of the carbon tax—on just their electricity bills next year. Of course, on average, Australian families would be $550 better off next year with the abolition of the carbon tax.

So why are the Labor Party blocking this? The Labor Party said they wanted to terminate the carbon tax. The legislation is now in the Senate, and the Labor Party are opposing their own policy to terminate the carbon tax. A typical Queensland small business would save $152 next year in electricity prices if we got rid of the carbon tax, if they did not have that burden on their business. And that is just electricity—of course, it flows through to every part of the business. For example, for operators on the Barrier Reef, it flows through to the cost of fuel for their boats. It flows through in tourism to the electricity bills in the hotels, and that then flows through to every hotel bill.

So I would just say to the Labor Party: if you care about economic growth, the best thing you could possibly do at this moment is support the repeal of the carbon tax, because getting rid of the carbon tax, according to Treasury’s own modelling, will improve economic growth. So, if you want to grow the economy, get rid of the carbon tax. If you want to help families, get rid of the carbon tax. If you want to help small businesses, get rid of the carbon tax. As we approach the release of the mid-year budget next week, surely the Labor Party will come to realise the best thing they could do for Australians is get rid of the carbon tax.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (17:24): In response, I would like to speak about the fact that it is Labor’s debt, and I would like to discuss where it came from. It is very clear to me that the money has already been spent. This is the reason the debt cap needs to be increased and, as the amendment has come back, to be deleted—to have no debt ceiling. Quite simply, the money was spent on things like school halls. I have been to many locations, up to 100, where the school hall was replicated side-by-side with one which they already had. When I said, ‘Why do you have a second school hall exactly the same as the other one?’ they said, ‘We were told we had to spend the money; we didn’t have a choice.’ That is not the way we do business on this side of the House and it is certainly the way business should not be done, but I will give them some credit. In areas like Tara, Miles and St George, where there was absolutely nothing, where there was no local community facility, there was some benefit. But in the many hundreds of coastal locations there were literally thousands of replications, whether they be libraries or other BER projects. The very first school project I went to I said to the construction company, ‘Are you sure this cost $2 million?’ They said, ‘Absolutely: design and construct project,’ I said, ‘How many do you have?’ They said, ‘Ten,’ I said, ‘What do you have to do?’ They said, ‘Same again.’ I asked, ‘What about the design component?’ They answered, ‘That’s fine; we covered that in the original quotation, no problems at all.’ It cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Just because somebody sends your credit card in the mail, that does not mean you necessarily have to fill it. Just because we have an option to use the money, that does not mean that we are going to spend it. We are not the United States. This is Australia, and this is the Australian parliament.

I sat in this place in recent weeks as a new member of the House. I continue to hear from those opposite how they represent the union movement. I am more interested to hear what it is that they intend to do for their electorates. Over and over they say that they represent the unions; that they represent the workers. I find it absolutely outrageous that they would indicate to those on this side of the House that they do not fairly represent all people because I am a worker. That is exactly where I come from. I hold a trade qualification. I work on a farm. I also have a degree in engineering. I represent people equally. That is why we are here and that is why I am on this side of the House and sit with the Nationals—because the Nationals are for regional Australia. That is what we are about.

I would like to talk briefly about a gentleman called Craig van Rooyen, who is an immigrant to this country. He came through with the correct process. It took years to arrive and they work hard. They have a lychee farm in my electorate of Hinkler. They were the people who broke the story on backpacker cheques. You may recall a story in The Australian during the election campaign. Mr van Rooyen came to me and said, ‘How is it possible that I have a cheque for a backpacker who has not worked at this location for two years, yet they get a cheque for $900?’ That is an absolute waste, yet it continues.

The house insulation scheme: as an electrician I think it was criminal. People lost their lives because of that project. They should be very careful about what it is that they put forward because it was clearly poorly-planned. There was evidence provided to people in this place, and they knew that over and over people with no training were put at risk in areas where they should not have been—and some lost their lives. It is time that people on this side of the House recognise that those opposite are not interested in what we do for Australia. What we do here is in the best interests of all people in our electorates—not just union members, not just workers but all people in the electorate. I look forward to the process where this legislation goes through the Senate and we can get on with the business of running this country.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (14:40): My question is to the Treasurer. Is he aware that fruit and vegetable growers in Hinkler are continuing to receive $900 stimulus cheques for backpackers they employed years ago, who are no longer even in the country? What action is the government taking to end the waste and mismanagement of taxpayers’ money?

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:41): I know the member for Hinkler was not around when they were handing out $900 cheques, but they are still handing out $900 cheques. Five years after the stimulus was called for, nearly nine million $900 cheques went out—and they are still going out. We are going to stop them. What a waste of money. It was the member for Lilley who was the architect of that.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moreton! The member for Kingston is warned.

Mr HOCKEY: He must be rather proud of that. I picked up on the weekend, in a report from his favoured journalist—

Mr Champion interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakefield will remove himself under standing order 94(a).

The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.

Mr HOCKEY: I picked up on the weekend that the member for Lilley is now writing a book. He said: ‘Mr Swan, who remains in the parliament,’—could have fooled me—’has signed a book deal with publisher Allen & Unwin with a working title Australian Treasurer. Let go, Wayne, let go!

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: under standing order 104(a), there is no way this is directly relevant to the question.

The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will address himself to the question as asked.

Mr HOCKEY: The architect of the $900 cheques, the member for Lilley, sent 16,000 cheques to stimulate dead people. He sent 27,000 $900 cheques to people overseas, to stimulate the Australian economy. That should be a breakout in the chapter on stimulus.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I understand that you asked the Treasurer to return to the question, and he has not changed tack at all.

The SPEAKER: He certainly is answering the question. He was asked about $900 cheques and he is answering that question.

Mr HOCKEY: I was asked about the waste. I refer to an article from The Age, by Tony Wright. He said that talk-back callers proved a little more reckless with the money:

Someone called Denise said she’d spend the cash on a new tattoo to match the wolverine job she has on one foot.

This was from $900 cheque at work. I think that, in the book, there have to be pictures; it cannot be just a lift-out about Denise, whom the member for Lilley should track down—

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moreton!

Mr HOCKEY: We need to have pictures—

An opposition member interjecting—

Mr HOCKEY: The Tweed Daily News—

Mr Danby: What a stupid example! How many Australians did that?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Melbourne Ports will desist.

Mr HOCKEY: I would refer him to the pictorial. You have to have pictures in a book, and I am sure there will be plenty in that book. I would ask him to take a photo of this:

Mr Cullen, who took over Number 33—formerly the Sanctum—at the start of the year, even ran cheeky newspaper advertisements about the stimulus package, encouraging people to “Get more bang for your buck”.

He said the economic downturn had certainly taken its toll on the sex industry.

“It is very quiet at the moment,” Mr Cullen said.

Thank God for the $900 cheques!

“The stimulus package helped a bit. Around the time the money started to come in business picked up.”

The problem is that it is taxpayers’ money that went out: $900 cheques—borrowed money from the next generation—that the member for Lilley and the Labor Party just splashed around without regard. It is only the coalition that is going to stop the waste. It is only the coalition that is going to stop the mismanagement. What a disgrace from Labor.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (13:46): Last week I toured the site of Australia’s first fully-integrated digital hospital. On track for completion in August next year, St Stephen’s Hospital will attract new medical specialists to the Hinkler electorate and take pressure off the Hervey Bay public hospital. It will mean fewer patients will have to travel to the big cities to receive treatment. Cokram Construction project manager, Ian Coulburn, showed me around the impressive site, where approximately 65 per cent of the workers are local. Leanne Tones from Uniting Care Health is very proud of the 96-bed facility, and rightly so.

All medical records, X-ray and pathology results will be accessible to doctors and nurses anywhere in the hospital, whether at the bedside or at the nurses station. Medical devices such as blood pressure pumps will also be integrated. The technology will improve efficiency and enhance the experience of patients and clinicians. The hospital will include renal and oncology services. On that note, I welcome the health minister’s decision earlier this week to list medicine for the treatment of certain types of cancer on the PBS. Also, the genetic tests for non-small cell lung cancer will be listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule.

While Bundaberg has long had a private hospital, the lack of a private hospital in Hervey Bay prior to 2006 was a limiting factor in both retaining and attracting professionals to the southern end of my electorate. Championed by local state and federal MPs,Ted Sorensen and Paul Neville, the $87.5 million project will have $47 million from the Health and Hospitals Fund by the time it is complete. I look forward to working with Uniting Care Health to make Hervey Bay one of the country’s leading health hubs.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (16:01): As a former farmer and small business owner I understand the many difficulties facing the sugar industry and the Hinkler business community more broadly. In a recent submission to government on the repeal of the carbon tax, Queensland cane growers advised that Labor’s tax had increased the cost of production by $20 million since it was introduced, hurting the industry’s international competitiveness.

Sugar cane is Queensland’s largest agricultural crop by volume and value. With 80 per cent of Australia’s sugar exported overseas, it is also Australia’s seventh largest agricultural export. Australia’s sugar exports were worth $1.4 billion last financial year, making us the third largest supplier in the world. The industry also employs 50,000 people, directly and indirectly.

Irrigators have been hardest hit by the carbon tax. Cane growers indicate that repealing the carbon tax will save them up to 10 per cent on their energy bills and save thousands of jobs. It will also bring significant supply chain benefits. The tax inflated the price of goods like fertiliser and chemicals. Industry research shows growers are paying up to 33 cents extra per tonne this financial year to produce the same crop they did in 2010-11, before the introduction of the tax. As cane growers are not able to pass the cost on to their international consumers, the increased cost of production is being paid for directly from the bottom line, in some cases leading to a reduction of wages and the loss of jobs. Cane growers have always opposed the carbon tax, and for good reason. Repealing Labor’s carbon tax will go some way to helping restore profitability to the industry and provide workers with greater job security.

Despite the significant impact of the carbon tax and the relatively high trade exposure of the industry, sugar cane growers did not receive any assistance under the Clean Energy Futures package. The Queensland Cane Growers Organisation argues that they are the only sugar cane growers in the world to operate without some form of subsidy, trade barrier or market control. The only way Australia’s cane farmers remain competitive by global standards is through constantly improving productivity and by containing the cost of production relative to cane producers in Thailand, Brazil and India.

Agribusiness contributes greatly to the economic viability of regional communities like Hinkler and that is why this government is committed to repealing the carbon tax. Like cane growers, Hinkler’s horticulturalists are price-takers and not price-setters, which means they are unable to pass the cost of the carbon tax on to their markets. Peter Hockings, Executive Officer at BFVG, recently told me his members were deeply concerned about their future under Labor’s carbon tax. The tax has been the final nail in the coffin for many.

Many growers are eager to find ways to reduce their carbon footprint, but argue a tax is not the way to go about it. They, like this government, favour direct action, improving productivity and finding efficiencies. They are paying more for fertiliser, more to transport their products to market, and more to dispose of their organic waste material. As well as the increased cost of electricity for irrigators, our growers are paying more for their cold storage.

Our farmers are not the only ones paying more for refrigerant gases. Businesses like the Woodgate Beach General Store, which services a small community, have taken a big hit. Owners, Barry and Rose, are looking to retire and know their prospects for selling the business will be better without a carbon tax. Businesses and community groups already running on tight budgets are feeling the pinch. The carbon tax has impacted on the cost of gas in the bowls club. It affects the electricity costs for the ice-makers who supply our commercial and recreational fishermen. It has increased costs for the local library and community hall.

But the strong opposition to Labor’s tax does not stop there. Allow me to read just one of the many letters my office received in relation to the carbon tax, which said:

l am contacting you to express my concern of the impending rise in the cost of living and loss of industry when the carbon tax is introduced.

As a senior Australian I am finding that my dollar does not perform in the supermarket, petrol bowser or when paying rates.

I am fearful that the increased costs levelled at councils, through the introduction of the carbon tax, will mean I will have trouble finding the funds to meet the financial demands of life.

Being a baby boomer, I bought an investment property in Maryborough, as our superannuation would only support us for about six months in retirement.

There is no work for people my age in Hervey Bay and unfortunately, because we now have an investment property asset, we are not entitled to any Centrelink benefit and miss out on government assistant packages.

To gain employment we left the Bay in 2011 to pursue seasonal work. We cannot afford this tax and I ask that you take steps to prevent its introduction.

I am pleased to say, Madam Speaker, that the removal of the carbon tax in 2014-15 will save households around $550 a year. At the election, the people voted overwhelmingly for change. It was a referendum on the carbon tax and a referendum on Labor’s $9 billion a year hit to the Australian economy.

The SPEAKER: I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide, but just for 20 seconds.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (14:40): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of any correspondence he has received that will assist the parliament in its deliberations on the increase in the debt limit?

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:40): I thank the member for Hinkler. I was kind of hoping that I would be asked this question by the Labor Party and in particular by the member for McMahon because just before question time a letter from the member for McMahon was sent to my office. I read the letter—it is a very interesting letter—and it says:

The Opposition also remains ready to vote for an increase in the debt limit to $500 Billion, if such an increase is supported by revised net debt figures in the Mid-Year Economic Forecast …

Hang on, ‘net debt figures’? He could not have got ‘net debt’ and ‘gross debt’ wrong, could he? Hang on, this is the shadow Treasurer. I know Labor do not understand the difference between deficit and surplus and I know they do not know the difference between Rudd and Gillard, but I thought they would understand the difference between ‘net’ and ‘gross’. I read on and it said:

I note that in Senate Estimates, Senator Wong asked Dr Parkinson to provide an updated iteration of Table 8 of PEFO, showing projected net debt.

I thought I would go to table 8 of PEFO to see what that is and, hang on, it is gross debt. It is gross debt. How did that happen? Then I thought, hang on, gross debt peaking at $370 billion? But I still gave him the benefit of the doubt because surely the shadow Treasurer would know the difference between net debt and gross debt, given that this is such a significant issue for the Australian parliament. I read on, and it gets better. It states:

The latest figure in the forward estimates for net debt is $370 billion …

I hope it is not, because the latest estimate of net debt is $217 billion. No wonder they are concerned. I am going to help the member for McMahon because the last sentence of his letter says:

Given the importance of this as a national issue and debate and in the interests of openness and transparency, I will be publicly releasing this letter.

I am sure he will not, so I am going to help him now. If the former Treasurer of Australia does not understand the difference between net debt and gross debt, no wonder the Labor Party just do not get it. They were incompetent in government and they are incompetent in opposition.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (13:46): Earlier this year, Bundaberg Brewed Drinks—the maker of Hinkler’s iconic ginger beer—was named 2013 Queensland Exporter of the Year. As well as winning the award for manufacturing, Bundaberg Brewed Drinks was a finalist in the agribusiness and regional exporter categories.

The family-owned company started out in 1960. Today it employs more than 150 people and is taking its beverage products to 33 countries. The company’s success should be a source of inspiration to other family-owned regional businesses. It is a clear example of how exporting can bring significant benefits to the local economy.

Winners of state and territory export awards automatically qualify as finalists in the Prime Minister’s Exporter of the Year Award. The national winners will be announced this coming Tuesday at the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne. While this year’s finalists represent some of the best performers in Australia’s $300 billion-a-year export sector, I am confident Queensland businesses will do us proud again this year.

Exports comprise about 20 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product and help support about 1.5 million jobs. This year’s finalists earned over $9 billion in export revenue in 2012 and employed more than 22,000 people. The Australian Export Awards recognise their efforts and celebrate their achievements.

I congratulate Bundaberg Brewed Drinks on their success to date and wish them the very best of luck at the Prime Minister’s Exporter of the Year Award.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (10:26): This weekend I will attend the 125th anniversary celebrations of the Bundaberg Distilling Company. To mark the occasion the company will release 4,888 numbered bottles of limited edition Bundaberg rum. The commemorative product is a blend of the company’s oldest and rarest rums. A list of 125 ingenious Australians will also be released coinciding with the arrival of the Bundaberg tall ship into Sydney. Earlier this month, before the tall ship departed on its 1,888-kilometre journey from Bundaberg, I attended an event where the captain was presented with the bottle numbered 1,888.

As the member for Hinkler, I am particularly proud to see our very own Bert Hinkler make it onto the list of ingenious Australians. Known as ‘the Australian Lone Eagle’, Hinkler was the first person to fly solo from England to Australia in 1928 and then the first person to fly solo across the southern Atlantic Ocean in 1931. Just like Bert Hinkler, Bundaberg rum is a local icon. The anniversary marks not only a momentous occasion for the company, but also for the Hinkler electorate and me personally. I worked with Bundaberg sugar and the distillery many years ago as an apprentice, and I clearly recall working around the giant storage facilities.

Bundaberg rum was born in 1888 from the ingenuity of a consortium of Bundaberg sugar mills who found a way to utilise their excess molasses. Today the distillery employs more than 50 people and is responsible for generating many more jobs indirectly. BDC’s legacy has endured thanks to the passion, perseverance and creativity of all those who have worked there. Over the years it has developed into one of Queensland’s most popular destinations. Tourists, both domestic and international, know Bundaberg because of our rum and ginger beer. The white polar bear is a common sight throughout Australia, including here in my parliamentary office. Bundaberg rum is a part of Australia’s heritage.

As well as putting Bundaberg on the map and supporting our local economy, Bundaberg Distilling Company is a member of the Hinkler community. It is a company with a conscience. Bundaberg has flooded twice in the past three years. In 2011 the Bundaberg Distilling Company raised money for Queensland charities with the release of a limited edition collector’s rum, titled ‘Watermark’. Across the country pubs and clubs, including some of those affected by the floods, simultaneously hosted events to raise funds and celebrate the resilient and courageous Queensland spirit. In February this year they announced the Road to Recovery program, calling on Bundaberg rum fans from around the country to help the Bundaberg community get back on its feet. The bottles were labelled with the names of the roads and the streets that were submerged. Each flood-affected household in Bundaberg was offered a complementary bottle, featuring their road or street name. The remaining bottles were sold to the public with all proceeds going towards Bundaberg’s flood recovery efforts. Only available for purchase at the distillery’s tourist centre, Road to Recovery Rum attracted fans and out-of-towners to Bundaberg, injecting much-needed funds into the local economy.

BDC and its parent company Diageo donated a further $200,000 to the Red Cross Queensland Flood Appeal. Even when other companies cut back on sponsorship due to tough market conditions, BDC continued to support local community groups, like the Bundaberg Surf Life Saving Club. As a former member, I must say I was very proud to see them donate things from surf boats to wet suits. Their commitment to the local community has never waned. On behalf of all Hinkler residents, I would like to thank the Bundaberg Distilling Company for their support and I congratulate them on reaching 125 years—a very significant milestone indeed.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (14:05): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer the minister to the report of Queensland cane growers that shows the carbon tax will cost the sugar industry in Queensland $20 million over three years, putting thousands of jobs at risk. How will the government reduce costs and save jobs by abolishing the carbon tax?

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:05): I would like to thank Mr Pitt, who has won the seat of Hinkler after the very distinguished career of Mr Paul Neville. The problem we have is that over the other side of the chamber we have a very interesting group of people. Over the other side of the chamber we have government-change deniers—a government-change denier there and a government-change denier there. Some of them are not denying there is a change of government, some of them have got queries about a change of government, but generally they are government-change deniers. On a more sombre note, what we have in Queensland is the fact that we have thousands of people whose jobs are at risk because they are denying the change of government.

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Those on my left will cease interjecting.

Mr JOYCE: They are denying the mandate of the people. We have people in Queensland who are going to lose millions of dollars in the sugar industry because they deny the change of government

By reason of their denying the change of government, we have a situation where less money is getting back through the farm gate to the people of Hinkler, to the people of Dawson, to the people in the sugar industry. It is not just the sugar industry which is suffering this; it is also the cattle industry, it is the sheep industry and it is the grain industry. Remember, after these government-change deniers, the carbon tax, which was the essence of their government, will come into transport. Therefore, on everything we do, there will be a little legacy of these government-change deniers, unless they decide to accept the truth that the government has changed.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (11:57): In the past week we have seen horrific images coming out of the Philippines. Australians have been shocked by what they have seen and yet in a very small way they understand a little of what the people of the Philippines are going through. In my electorate of Hinkler earlier this year, homes and businesses were destroyed by the remainder of tropical cyclone Oswald. Roads were washed away leaving behind only trenches full of raw sewage. There were no services, no pipes, no cables, no poles and no wires. People stacked their filthy possessions on the kerb. Very little was salvageable.

Events like Supertyphoon Haiyan remind us just how lucky we were in Hinkler. All but a few families were reunited quickly. Some residents may have been frustrated by the time taken to restore services, but the rescue and initial recovery effort was swift in comparison to the devastating situation in the Philippines. In Hinkler, people had immediate access to shelter, medical supplies and clean drinking water. The generosity of our fellow Australians helped us through. I am proud to live in a country that so willingly helps others in their time of need.

So far, the federal government has committed $30 million to address nutrition and child health and to provide logistics support. This support is commensurate with what other nations have provided. The funds will go towards the United Nations appeal, the international and Australian Red Cross as well as Australian and local NGOs. With the help of the Australian Defence Force, we have deployed a medical team, AFP disaster management specialists and DFAT humanitarian consular experts. With the rescue and retrieval efforts still underway, we stand ready to provide further assistance when it is needed. The statistics continue to rapidly change, with often conflicting reports. The UN puts the number of fatalities at about 4,500 but the Philippines government says the number is closer to 3,600. Just this morning, news reports indicated a further 50 bodies had been found overnight in one town alone. The Philippines government estimates 12,500 people have been injured and 1,200 remain missing. Almost 73,000 families are being assisted at 1,500 evacuation centres.

Debate adjourned.