Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to a report from the Australian Energy Market Commission which shows that, even without a carbon tax, average electricity bills will increase by 30 per cent across Australia over three years. In Victoria that means a $330 increase; in Queensland, a $400 increase; and in New South Wales, a $500 increase. Given families are already struggling with these cost-of-living pressures, why is the government introducing a carbon tax that will push prices up further and make a bad situation worse?

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

I do thank the member for Hume for that very important question, because it is the case that there have been in recent years very substantial increases in electricity prices. What has driven that increase in electricity prices has been a lack of investment in the distribution and the network. And, of course, the expert who told us all of that is the shadow minister over there. What he said just before the last election would happen has in fact happened, because there has been very substantial underinvestment in the electricity distribution system, and the consequence of that, unfortunately, is price rises across a number of states. The regulator has said in recent times that there will be further increases and that they have absolutely nothing to do with a carbon price. They come from that lack of investment and the need for continued investment in the system.

Those opposite can go out there and run their scare campaigns and pretend that it is somehow the fault of the government. It simply does not wash. There is a very substantial problem and we do need to get more investment into this sector. There is no doubt about that because we need the energy security that a strong economy requires, and that is going to happen. What we do know—and what those over there are running a scare campaign on and in denial about—is that if there is not a carbon price then prices will go up even higher because there will not be the investment that is required. This is what the Australian Energy Market Commission itself said. The member for Hume referred to what they were saying, and they have said this: 'Financing risk associated with uncertainty around the carbon price will contribute to future price rises.'

So the member has performed an own goal here. That is what they have said about the future of prices. That is why we do need to put a price on carbon to drive the investment in electricity. But what we will do, and what those opposite will not do, is assist families affected by those price increases. What they are going to do is tax families, pay polluters and not give anybody any assistance when it comes to their electricity bill. That is the hypocrisy of those opposite—they give no assistance to anyone who is affected by price increases and frustrate a price on carbon, the effect of which is to further increase electricity prices. The hypocrisy of those opposite is just incredible.

We know they are split into a couple of camps. We have the member for Wentworth, who actually believes in a market price on carbon and believes in climate change. That is camp No. 1. We have camp No.2 from the Leader of the Opposition. He is a complete denier and, of course, a sceptic. But we now have another camp. We have the shadow Treasurer. He is in the turncoat camp. This is what he has had to say about a price on carbon—

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

Order! The Treasurer will relate his material to the question.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I say to the Treasurer: ask Kevin Rudd about turncoats. You were No. 1, mate.

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

Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Again, a better than average point of order is spoilt by the argument. But I say to the Treasurer that he must relate his material directly to the question and not overly debate. If he debates, it must still be directly relevant, under the present standing orders.

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

I am arguing the case for a carbon price which is the least costly, most efficient way of pricing carbon and the best way to ensure that we have a prosperous economy. That is what I am arguing and that was once argued by the shadow Treasurer. Only last year he said:

I was acting industry minister in 2002 when Peter Costello, David Kemp and I argued … in the Howard cabinet that we should have an ETS.

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

Order! The Treasurer will bring his response to a close.

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

That is what he said only a year ago.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! I invited the Treasurer to bring his response to a close and he will be able to do that if there are fewer interjections.

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

Mr Speaker, we are seeing a scare campaign from those opposite. The fact is that we on this side of the House will put the national interest before political interest. (Time expired)