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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the climate change minister’s confirmation today that his department has been in discussion with advertising agencies to conduct an ad campaign to promote her carbon tax broken promise. How is that consistent with her statement on Sunday that no decision had been made to conduct an advertising campaign? When did the government first approach advertising agencies about a carbon tax ad campaign? Why should Australians ever trust her again?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Flinders for his question. I have been studying material written by the member for Flinders, and it makes interesting reading. I found this article from 20 May 1990, ‘A tax to make the polluter pay,’ by Greg Hunt and Rufus Black. It made very interesting reading. In responding to this question from the member for Flinders, I want to let him know that I tracked down that article from 20 May 1990 because he cited it as a source in his thesis, would you believe? ‘Hunt on Hunt’—that is how he sourced his thesis.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will put the prop down. The Prime Minister has the call, but she will no longer use the prop.

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

Mr Hunt interjecting

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am giving you a commercial.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume her place, and the member for Flinders will stand quietly awaiting the call. The member for Flinders.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of relevance: I would be delighted if the Prime Minister would table the article and my thesis, as well as her views on the—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders will resume his seat.

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

Mr Hunt interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders is warned. I remind him that a warning is a precursor to naming. Saying this may get me into trouble with some, but the question was badly crafted in that it perhaps had a little too much argument and concluded with something that widened the possibility of a response not directly relevant. Having said that, I think that the Prime Minister has taken that opportunity a bit too far. She will relate her material directly to the question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was talking him up and I will stop doing that right now. On the question of the advertising campaign that the member for Flinders has asked me about, can I just say the following to him: the government is not ruling any options out; however, at this point the government has taken no decisions on advertising. The department is examining a number of options for public communications and this involves contact with public relations agencies, as is standard practice.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism. Why is a price on carbon needed to provide investment in the energy sector?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate about a price on carbon is a complex and difficult economic debate. As minister for energy, I know that better than most in the House. When you look at the fundamentals of the Australian economy, a highly efficient market energy driven system has been the key to the Australian economy. The Australian energy market is actually held up as the most efficient in the OECD world. That goes to a key issue which has to be resolved: our responsibility as a community to debate and finalise the debate about how we put in place once and for all a price on carbon. That goes to the question of certainty. At the moment, the Commonwealth parliament is not responsible for the substantial increases in the price of electricity. There are quite substantial price increases going through the system, because of the need to invest in distribution and transmission. But our problem is that the CEOs in the energy sector have outstanding investments of many billions of dollars going to the question of additional capacity from the point of view of electricity generation.

When we talk about this additional capacity, let us deal with a few facts, because these are the problems that confront us as a community from an economic point of view at the moment, because of our lack of certainty with respect to where we go on a price on carbon. Firstly, it is estimated that over $17 billion of capital is required for powerhouse generation assets—that is, refinancing, capital expenditure and new build over the next five years. Secondly, and importantly, it is estimated that $6.4 billion of that $17 billion has to be refinanced for existing generations prior to the end of 2012. That is why Brad Page, CEO of the Energy Supply Association of Australia recently said on ABC: ‘We are not talking about short-term investments. We are talking about investments made by the sector that really last for 40 or 50 years. We need stable policy.’

With respect to some of these investments, these decisions have to be made in the next two or three years. That is complex at the best of times, because it goes to difficult issues going to environment or regulatory approvals. But, before we can even get to that point, to be able to bank these investments we have to know what the investment horizons are from the point of view of what is a price on carbon. If we do not get this right, then for the first time ever the Australian community will turn its sights on the Commonwealth parliament, because we will be the ones correctly held responsible for failing to guarantee the reliability of the Australian electricity sector. Historically, it has been a state and territory responsibility. If you have any doubts about that from a political point of view of potency, have a look historically at what happens to state and territory governments of all political persuasions when the lights go out. They are held responsible and they soon disappear from office. So I simply say, in conclusion, that the time has come for us to finalise this debate so as to maintain Australia’s energy security and reliability and to ensure that the economic vandalism—which the other side of the House will be responsible for for not allowing us to finalise this once and for all—is overcome.