Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Why is it important, in putting a price on carbon, to provide assistance to households and pensioners? Are there any threats to this assistance and what is the government's response?

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Parramatta for her question. As the House is aware, the government is seeking to introduce a carbon price to cut pollution and to drive investment in clean energy. The carbon price will be paid by fewer than 1,000 of the companies that are the largest emitters in our economy. However, of course, some industries will pass on the carbon price related costs to consumers, and that is precisely why the government has been upfront with the Australian people that there will be a modest cost impact on households. It is also why the government has consistently made clear that we will be providing fair and generous household assistance and that helping pensioners and low- and middle-income earners will be a priority for the government. On this point specifically, the government has committed that more than 50 per cent of the carbon price revenue—

Mr Chester interjecting—

Dr Jensen interjecting—

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

Order! The Pavlovian response of the members for Gippsland and Tangney when the minister is at the dispatch box is unnecessary. They are both warned!

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The government has committed that more than 50 per cent of the carbon price revenue will be used to assist households, that millions of households will be better off under the carbon price and that the assistance will be permanent. As the Prime Minister has indicated, the government is exploring a number of options for delivering that assistance, including through tax cuts. In addition, I can inform the House that all 3.4 million maximum-rate and part-rate pensioners will receive assistance. Under the government's plan, pensioners will receive assistance over and above normal indexation increases from the outset of the carbon price scheme. Therefore, right from the start of the carbon price scheme, literally millions of pensioners will see a real increase in their pension.

The greatest threat to that increase is the coalition, which has made crystal clear that, upon the introduction of a carbon price, the coalition will remove the assistance to households and remove the increase in pensions. The coalition's policy is to remove the assistance and, in doing so, leave millions of Australians worse off. Whether it is a pension rise or whether it is a tax cut, the Leader of the Opposition has made it absolutely clear that he will claw it back. Unsurprisingly, we see in the papers today that some on the coalition side of politics are horrified that the Leader of the Opposition wants to take money away from households, wants to take money away from pensioners.

What is worse, it is going to be, from the coalition, a triple hit on families: first, the coalition is going to hit them to fund its paid parental leave scheme; second, the coalition is going to increase taxes on average households by $720 to pay for the 'subsidies for polluters' scheme; and, third, the coalition is going to claw back the assistance the government will have provided to pensioners and households. It is Mr Abbott's great big new pension clawback that we are confronting here. The difference between the government and the coalition could not be more clear: the government will provide assistance to pensioners and householders, and the coalition will take it all away.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

The members for Moreton and Mitchell probably should be outside the chamber now, but they are lucky.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister for Resources and Energy that 'no-one can rule out a mine or two closing' because of the government's carbon tax? Can the Prime Minister guarantee that the Moranbah North mine, the Broadmeadow mine, the North Goonyella mine, the Carborough Downs mine, the Newlands mine or the Oaky Creek coal complex No. 1, all of which are in the electorate of Capricornia, will remain open if her carbon tax is introduced?

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and I certainly thank him for the reference to the electorate of Capricornia, because, as the Leader of the Opposition may well know, I was very recently in that electorate visiting with the local member there, who does a fantastic job in this place representing that community in this parliament. I want to adopt her words—I am certainly going to give her the credit for these words. As she moves around her community, and people have heard on the radio or seen in the newspapers or seen on the TV screens—

Mr Robb interjecting—

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

The member for Goldstein is warned!

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

the Leader of the Opposition's fear campaign and scare campaign about the future of the resources industry—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was your own minister!

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

The member for Sturt is warned!

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

she actually meets that fear campaign with a very simple line: she says to people, 'Believe your eyes.' Believe your eyes because right throughout that electorate you can see new development. Believe your eyes because that new development will of course be continuing. Believe your eyes because that electorate, like resources based electorates around the country, has a great future with the development of the resources industry.

These apocryphal statements from the Leader of the Opposition remind me that this is not the first time we have heard fear campaigns about mining. We have had fear campaigns in the past. There was the fear campaign run when Bob Hawke took a brave decision to protect Kakadu and we were told that the mining industry would be closed. What is the truth since?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked whether she agreed with the minister for resources that you could not rule out a mine or two closing and guaranteeing that these mines in Capricornia would not close. I would ask you to bring her back to the very straightforward question.

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

Order! The Prime Minister will directly relate her answer 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 am simply reminding us that fear campaigns in the past have been simply that. When we have seen fear campaigns about mining in the past, we have seen mining growth afterwards. That was true of the fear campaign following Kakadu when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister. It was true of the fear campaign run by the coalition about native title. Mining has grown since. It is true of the fear campaign we saw last year by the coalition about the minerals resource rent tax, when now, of course, they are there saying, 'It's okay to put royalties up but mining taxation is fine as long as it is decided upon by a state Liberal government.' Despite all of that fear campaigning, we have seen jobs and investment in mining rise. Of course, the responsible minister was on radio discussing these matters this morning, and I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to his words—and I think these are very wise ones: 'Yes, there are going to be a few gaseous mines challenged, but there is also going to be a huge expansion in this industry that is actually going to create jobs over time.' Let us go through those words again: 'create jobs over time'.

So, for people who work in mining, what they should be reassured about in the future is that there will be more jobs in mining. For communities that directly rely on mining, what they should be reassured about for the future is that there will be more jobs and more investment in resources. For the Australian economy overall, what people can be reassured about is that there is a huge pipeline of investment into our resources sector. This is a very special time in the Australian economy and it falls to us to make sure that that new prosperity is shared as new opportunities for all Australians. The fear campaign of the Leader of the Opposition will be exposed as just that. The resources industry has a very bright future and people who work in it, like the people in the member for Capricornia's seat, know that from their own experience.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the results of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into a carbon emissions policy in key economies. How has the inquiry been received and what is the government’s response?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question, because the report has been received very well. The report is important in terms of the carbon debate. The report shows the importance of concerted action around the globe. And, of course, the report points to the importance of a carbon price. The commission examined climate change policies in seven out of our top 10 trading partners, including the United States and China. It contains two very important messages. Every single country is putting in place a suite of policies to reduce emissions and to transform their economies. This is understood among our trading partners. There is something like 1,000 policies in place across those countries. So it is overwhelmingly clear that global action is taking place. The second point that it made is very, very important. It says that a carbon price is the most important, cost-effective way to cut pollution. The report says:

The consistent finding from this study is that much lower cost abatement could be achieved through broad, explicitly carbon-pricing approaches …

What this report shows is that Australia is not in danger of acting alone. In fact, we are in danger of falling behind. We know, as a result of this report, if we want our businesses to be competitive in the 21st century, we have got to have a clean energy future. Acting on climate change through a carbon price is imperative. That is why business organisations like BCA, AiG and many others are all supporting a market based mechanism. It is why Liberals like the member for Wentworth have supported a market based mechanism. It is why a former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, supported a market based mechanism. It is why Dr Hewson has supported a market based mechanism. It used to be supported as well by the shadow Treasurer.

The other importance of a market based mechanism is that it does supply the revenue which can be used to assist households and industry to make the transition. The government has made it very clear that we will provide generous assistance to make that transition. It shows us the really clear contrast between the approach of the government with a market based price and the policies of those opposite, which are simply policies of subsidies for polluters. What this report makes very clear is how ineffective a policy of subsidies for polluters is.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of Order: I refer you to the standing order about members gathering in the gangways rather than sitting in their seats. The foreign minister's attention should perhaps be drawn to this so that he can listen to the answer of the Treasurer.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! When the House comes to order, the Treasurer will have the call. All members know their responsibility to take their places on entering the House.

Mr Tony Smith interjecting—

The member for Casey is warned.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those on the other side of the House have a policy of subsidies for polluters. They are going to tax our taxpayers to give subsidies to polluters. Of course, in that arrangement there is no revenue to assist pensioners and no revenue to assist households out there that are doing it tough, no revenue whatsoever. That is why there is such unhappiness on that side of the House about their great big pension clawback that they have planned. If they want to come in and take away the generous assistance to pensioners and the generous assistance to households, this absolutely shows how out of touch they are with average families and with pensioners. We on this side of the House will stand up for pensioners and will stand up for average families. Those on that side of the House are standing up for the big polluters.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to this statement about the carbon tax by the head of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes. He said:

… we will end up reliant on imported steel, which will not only increase our carbon footprint but will transfer offshore our jobs, our wealth …

Does the Treasurer agree with Mr Howes's assessment of the effects of the carbon tax and will he agree to the AWU's demand to exempt the steel industry?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that with a carbon price we will see strong economic growth, strong income growth and strong jobs growth. What is clear from the Productivity Commission report and what is clear from modelling that has been conducted by Stern and Garnaut and was conducted for us through the CPRS is that economic growth with a carbon price remains strong, that jobs growth with a carbon price remains strong and that income growth with a carbon price remains strong.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I asked the Treasurer whether he agreed with Mr Howes's assessment that the carbon tax would increase the carbon footprint and transfer offshore jobs and wealth and did he agree with the AWU's demand to exempt the steel industry. That was the question.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

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

The member for Riverina might occupy his time better by not interjecting but reading Practice and he will learn that, whether he thinks the question can be answered yes or no, that is not the practice of this place. But interjections are disorderly. He is warned. The Treasurer has the call. He will relate his remarks directly to the question.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because I am a Labor Treasurer, my most fundamental concern is for jobs. It is for job security, it is for more jobs.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Treasurer has the call, not anybody else.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that those on that side of the House are not concerned about jobs. What they are concerned about is running a scare campaign. But a price on carbon is important because it drives investment in clean energy. To be a prosperous economy in the 21st century we have to be driven by clean energy and that requires a price on carbon. It does mean as a nation we have to make a significant transition. It does mean that there will be assistance for some industries which are trade exposed and energy intensive. We are absolutely committed to working with those industries because we are concerned about jobs—jobs in the near term, jobs in the medium term and jobs in the long term—because only we on this side of the House have the guts to take the hard decisions to protect our future prosperity.

Those on that side of the House are running away, running away from the fundamental decisions that need to be taken to support jobs and to create wealth in our economy. They are pretending that they have a policy in this area. Their policy of subsidies for polluters will tax taxpayers and hand the money to industry but it will not necessarily provide any of the assistance for the workers of this country that we are determined to provide. We are absolutely concerned about jobs and we welcome a debate about the future of jobs in this country, because, when we have in the past put in place the big structural reforms, we have done that so we can support jobs, not just more jobs but jobs with higher wages, so a higher living standard for all Australians. That is what reform is about.

The Liberal Party once used to stand for fundamental reform. They do not any longer. They are now split between two camps. You have the Abbott camp, which is the deniers and they take any opportunity to—

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

Order! The Treasurer will return to the question.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we have the Turnbull camp—

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

Order! The Treasurer will return to the question.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which actually believes in doing something.

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

Order! The Treasurer will return to the question. The Treasurer will not debate the question beyond directly relating his debate to the question.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the question was about jobs and what we need to do as a community to create jobs and to support jobs. We have made it very clear that we will be supporting energy intensive, trade exposed industries to make the transition. Why are we doing that? Because we want more jobs. We want better jobs and we want a brighter future for all Australians in a sustainable economy.