Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

I second the motion. 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' and today, 'We never relied upon the United States having a carbon tax.' We have a pigeon pair of grand deceptions—one before the election and one on the floor of the parliament this day—which mean that the Prime Minister has misled the Parliament of Australia. Last week President Obama let the cat out of the bag and made it absolutely clear that the United States would not have a carbon tax now, would not have a carbon tax in 2016 and, dare I say it, it will be many, many, many, many years before they even consider it.

Of most importance is the simple fact that the government's modelling clearly, absolutely, unequivocally, without question, without debate assumes that the United States, Canada, Korea and Japan will all be part of a coordinated global carbon price by 2016. Let me read the damning evidence which makes this Prime Minister a grand deceiver today on the floor of the parliament. It says:

The modelling assumes comparable carbon pricing in other major economies from 2015-2016.

That is not a statement of equivocation. While the United States is a major economy, and so are Japan, Korea and Canada, these countries are not about to have a carbon price. These countries are not about to live up to the assumptions in the modelling. The Treasury modelling is express, clear, absolute and unequivocal because in chapter 3 it says:

Global coordinated action emerges from 2016.

The government has attempted to say that it is already there. We are just talking about Europe. This is about a transitional process. This is about a change which is in place from 2016. This is about something other than the European system, which is approximately 1/400th per head of the impact on every member of the European population, compared with the system imposed by this government. It is about a radically different global environment from that which is in place now.

The government know that their model is broken, that their assumptions are false and that the President has exposed them. But not just the President, the Canadian Foreign Minister came to this country and was asked whether or not Canada would ever have a carbon tax. The answer was not equivocal or doubtful; the answer was 'no'. Canada will not be having a carbon tax—not now, not anytime soon, not anytime in the medium term, never—according to the Canadian Foreign Minister. That is about as unequivocal as it gets. As the Leader of the Opposition said—this matters because the entire government modelling is based on a fiction, a fantasy, a falsehood. This modelling is therefore broken.

As the Centre for International Economics said in a note which was circulated to explain their modelling:

The new modelling analysis is the first to assess the cost impact of the carbon pricing scheme if global action on climate change is patchy and fragmented.

It goes on:

This is a much more likely scenario than Treasury’s rose-coloured assumption of universal and synchronised action with unlimited cross border trading.

We do not blame Treasury; we blame these guys for forcing a false assumption on the modellers. There is no question that this assumption was forced on people. That is why the government were so uncomfortable during the estimates process. That is why they ducked and weaved. They knew that it was unsustainable and, as President Obama let out last week, the government's best case scenario—and I want everybody to hear this—is that somehow the US meets its targets without a carbon tax. The mightiest economy in the world, according to the government, is able to meet its targets without a carbon tax. How do they do it? Direct action, practical action, real action. Yet, these guys are in deep trouble because there will be no carbon tax in the United States, there will be higher electricity prices in Australia, the modelling is broken, President Obama let the cat out of the bag and the Prime Minister has misled the House— (Time expired)

See this speech in context