Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Productivity Commission has said that the most economically efficient way to deal with that challenge of human contribution towards climate change is a market based mechanism. Once it was that those opposite agreed.

According to Treasury, the impact on the economy is not going to be great. If those opposite got into this side of the chamber, what would be their attitude to Treasury, having rejected Treasury's advice in all that pertains to the carbon price? Guess what? We have the New South Wales Liberal government, the Western Australian Liberal government and the Victorian Liberal government all saying the impact on their budgets is 0.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent. I see the member for Ryan here. The Brisbane City Council's budget is $3.1 billion a year and the impact on that budget is $15 million. Brisbane City Council has debts of $1.9 billion, because they wasted all that money on those tunnels. The Ipswich City Council today handed down a budget of $450 million and the impact on that council is—guess what?—0.71 per cent, in line with what we said. To all those naysayers and doomsayers opposite who talked about the impact on councils, communities, and on state governments: the impact has proved to be in line with what we on the Treasury bench had to say.

I talked about how important assistance is going to be. It is also important to outline the impact on the economy—what Treasury says; not what Lord Monckton or Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt says. Or the member for Flinders. We should call him 'Saul' not 'Paul', because he has gone back to those days, taking the member for Moreton's previous interjection. Real wages will grow by 20 per cent by 2020. We will see employment grow by 1.6 million new jobs by 2020. We will see a modest impact on prices of 0.7 per cent compared to the 2.5 per cent of the GST.

I saw those opposite hanging on to some sort of brochure about butchers today during question time. Have a look at the impact on grocery prices according to Treasury. On meat and seafood it is 10c per week. It is a 0.40 per cent, 10c a week average, impact and they are giving these things to butchers to put in the front of their shops.

Let us look at household assistance. Those opposite are going to oppose it. The 14,000 families in Blair will receive a lump sum in their bank accounts in family payments of about $3 million. The 22,000 pensioners in my electorate will receive a lump sum payment in pension rises of $4.8 million. The 1,400 students in my electorate will receive about $230,000. The 47,000 local workers get a tax cut, with most getting about $300 extra in their pockets every year. We are increasing the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,200. That is taking hundreds of thousands of people out of the tax system and them not having to pay tax.

We are getting extra money to families to deal with the challenges of climate change, delivering money for local families and pensioners—and those opposite belittle it when we say they want to claw it back. They want to hit them in their hip pocket. Treasury says it is going to cost $1,300 per household if the coalition's policies on climate change are implemented. I find it hard to believe that those opposite, when we say that we are going to tax the big polluters and give back to consumers, would tax the consumers and give back to the big polluters. Where are the small 'l' liberals over there? Where are the bleeding hearts who supposedly want to help struggling families and pensioners?

We have heard so many claims, such as those that our clean energy household assistance is not going to be permanent. It is going to be permanent. They claim that not just Whyalla but also Gladstone, which is in my home state of Queensland, is going to be wiped off the face of the earth. Their claims are extraordinary. They claim that the great big mining boom in Queensland is going to be wiped off the face of the map from 1 July. It is an extraordinary claim from those opposite, but it is typical of what we have heard. With hyperbole and hysteria they exaggerate the impact of the carbon price. That is what the Liberals are always about—fear and loathing and doom and gloom. There was a time when the Liberal Party said that there were big bogeymen all over the place—reds under the bed and the Communist Party. Now it is the carbon tax.

The Liberal Party can never campaign on hope and opportunity and reward; they always campaign on gloom and doom. What they say is typical of the economic irresponsibility of the party who once prided themselves on being the party of Menzies and the market. They were not supportive of jobs during the global financial crisis, when they put jobs at risk by their doom and gloom and their constant downplaying of the Australian economy. The impact of the carbon price will be modest. We have said that all along, and Treasury says it. Even the Liberal mates of those opposite in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia and in the Brisbane City Council say it. I suggest that those opposite listen to the Treasury figures and start talking about carbon pricing with a degree of accuracy.

Under the Clean Energy Future Household Assistance Package, nine out of 10 households in this country will receive assistance. Treasury modelling was recently released which says that 98 per cent of people earning up to $150,000 a year will get assistance. Almost six million households in this country will get tax cuts or increases in their payments. Over four million Australians will get an extra buffer covering 120 per cent of the average increase in costs from the carbon tax. On average, the cost is going to be $9.90 per week, and we are providing $10.10 in assistance.

It is important to be accurate. It is important to outline the impact on the economy, on councils, on businesses and on families and households. It is also important to make sure that we deliver for Australians. We are doing that, and those opposite will claw all of our assistance back. I say this because, when they go into their communities, they never guarantee that they will retain it. But I expect them to do so. Do the right thing for once and talk with accuracy about the impact on the economy— (Time expired)

See this speech in context