Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister update the House on what a price on carbon pollution will mean for Australian households? How has this been received, 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 thank the member for Chisholm for her question. As the Prime Minister has announced, the government will be announc­ing on Sunday its carbon price arrangements, and these will cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy and at the same time they will provide strong support for households and jobs. The carbon price, of course, is not a tax directly on households, but it is a price that will be paid by less than 1,000 of the largest polluters in the country. Some of these companies, of course, will pass on costs to consumers, which means that there will be a modest price impact for households.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which ones won't pass them on? Name one that will not pass them on.

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

The member for Dunkley is warned.

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

That price impact will be much less than that which was experienced at the introduction of the GST. The government will provide fair and generous assistance for those who need it the most, including pensioners and low- and middle-income households. These will be the government's priority in delivering house­hold assistance. The government has already committed, and we will deliver these commitments, 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 arrangements, that the assistance—contrary to the scare campaign being run by the Leader of the Opposition—will be permanent.

It will mean that, under the carbon price arrangements, nine out of 10 households will get a combination of tax cuts and increased payments. Pensioners will benefit from a rise in the pension and around 280,000 self-funded retirees will receive assistance equal to the extra payments that we will provide to cover pensioners, part-pensioners and carers. Three million Australians will also get a 20 per cent buffer over and above the full average cost of the carbon price to give them some extra room to move and families, tradespeople and small businesses with light commercial vehicles will not face a fuel price rise as a result of the introduction of a carbon price. All of these commitments completely contradict and condemn the scare campaign run by the Leader of the Opposition.

This is a package that will be good for the environment and good for the economy and, importantly for a Labor government, this will be a good package for Australian households and families. In contrast, the greatest threat to Australian households and families is from the Leader of the Opposition. He has been angry throughout this entire campaign period: does not like the scientists, does not like the economists and now he has got his sights set on households.

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

Order! The minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.

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

The Leader of the Opposition has made absolutely clear—

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

The minister will conclude.

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

that with all these improvements he will claw them back at the same time as he will impose a $720—

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

Order! The minister will resume his place. The minister has concluded.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her promise that the government will exempt petrol from her carbon tax because 'I know what it's like for people to have no choice but to jump in their car and go places'. With electricity prices rising 44 per cent since June 2008, will the Prime Minister now exempt electricity prices from the carbon tax or has she forgotten what it is like for most Australians who turn on a heater,—

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

Order! The member for Herbert will be very careful.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the lights or the air-conditioning.

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

The member for Herbert will be very careful. He should read Practice about certain matters.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: one of the things that is in House of Reps Practice, is, of course, that you cannot ask the same question two days in a row. That has been fully answered.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

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

Order! The member for Cowper can resume his place. The question is in order. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I did answer a remarkably similar question yesterday, but let me direct my answer to the question that has been asked today in comparable form. To the member I would say, yes, I have taken a decision about petrol and I think it is the right decision for Australian families. On further right decisions for Australian families, I think it is the right decision for Australian families for this nation to tackle climate change. I think it is the right decision for Australian families to do that in the most efficient way possible. I do not believe it is in the interests of Australian families that we go around abusing Australian economists. I think we should listen to their views. I believe, having taken the best possible advice, that the best way of cutting carbon pollution is to put a price on carbon. As other members—the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister for climate change—have answered questions today, we have had the opposition fron­tbench yelling out: 'How will this cut carbon pollution? How does this work?' It seems to me these are all very odd questions from people who sat around the cabinet table of the Howard government and voted for an emissions trading scheme. Presumably, when they sat around that cabinet table they said to the Prime Minister—Prime Minister Howard—'How will this work?'

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister is far from being relevant to the question and I would ask you to draw her back to the question.

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

The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

The carbon pricing regime that I am committed to is largely like the carbon pricing regime that Prime Minister Howard was committed to—the carbon pricing regime that had the support of the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, the shadow NBN minister, being the shadow minister for the National Broadband Network, the current leader of the National Party, and the list goes on—so exactly like the scheme that they supported when they sat around the cabinet table. The way in which this will work is it will put a price on carbon that polluters will pay. They understood that when they sat around the Howard cabinet table. And because you put a price on carbon and polluters pay it, polluters innovate—they understood that when they sat around the Howard cabinet table; they also understood that price impacts would flow through—

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order as to relevance.

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

Order! The point of order has already been raised. The Prime Minister has the call. She will be directly relevant in her response. I remind her again that the change in standing order narrowed the way in which responses can be framed.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was asked about electricity price impacts and I was just explaining that, exactly in the same way that the whole scheme worked when the Howard cabinet sat around the cabinet table, prices do flow through. There are some price impacts for consumers, including users of electricity; that is right. It was true when the Leader of the Opposition sat around the Howard cabinet table and agreed with it; it is right now. In respect of those price impacts, of course we will provide assistance to nine out of 10 Australian households. The objective of the exercise is that it makes dirty energy more expensive and cleaner energy cheaper; that is, it helps our transition to a cleaner energy economy. They were the economics when John Howard was Prime Minister and the opposition frontbench agreed with emissions trading. They are the economics today.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indig­enous Affairs. How will the government help families and pensioners play their part in taking action on climate change, and how would other approaches impact on families and pensioners?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lyons for his question because he knows that each and every one of us has a responsibility to act on climate change. He and everyone on this side of the House, and one or two over there as well, knows that it is in the interests of our country, in the interests of our economy but, of course most importantly, in the interests of our children. We believe, on this side of the House, that it is big polluters who should pay. Big polluters should pay for their pollution; not families and not pensioners.

Under our plan to price carbon every one of the 3.4 million Australian pensioners will receive assistance that will cover the average cost of a price on carbon. They will receive real and permanent increases to their pensions. The same will go for those self-funded retirees who are on a Commonwealth seniors health card. They, too, will receive the level of assistance that people on a pension will get. Those self-funded retirees who are on a Commonwealth seniors health card will get the same level of assistance as someone on a pension.

Because we believe that it is the big polluters who should pay for their pollution, we do not believe it should be Australian families and we will be providing assistance to those families. Nine out of 10 families will receive help through our household assistance arrangements and that will particularly mean that low- and middle-income families will get help to cover the cost of expected average price rises. Of course, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we will provide a 20 per cent buffer, so three million low-income families will get assistance over and above any expected average increases in prices. One of the good things for pensioners and for families will, of course, be that they will get these payments directly into their bank accounts. They will not have to make complicated arrangements and there will be no queues to worry about. This assistance will go straight to them.

We know that we do need to take these serious actions to help families play the role that they want to play to tackle climate change. By contrast, of course, those opposite are not the faintest bit serious about dealing with climate change. What we see from this Leader of the Opposition is all stunts. Every single day another stunt; no substance whatsoever.

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

Order! The minister will resume her place. The member for Mackellar on a point of order.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order. I refer you to page 553 in the Practice and the statement that it is engaging in irrelevancies to contrast government and opposition policies. That is under the old paradigm. Under the new paradigm, it is clearly out of order and I would ask you to either return to the question or sit down.

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

As I indicated to the member for Mackellar when we were under the old paradigm, Practice goes on to say a few other things that go to being able to contrast and the like.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

The member for Mackellar stretches people's ability and capacity to put up with the disrespect of a lot of things. But, if she wishes to publicly display her disrespect for the chair by interjecting at the time that I am making a response to her point of order, she has to understand that there are consequences. The consequence on this occasion is a warning, and I again stress that a warning is a precursor to a naming. I am indicating to her that in the previous parliament when she rose on similar points of order under the old paradigm, quoting Practice, there could be greater extracts from Practice that could dictate the conclusions that I could reach. I have indicated that I dislike the ability to have debate in either the question or the response. I have urged, over the last two parliaments now, the Procedures Committee to have a look at this and I hope at some stage they do, because then it will become question and answer. But in this case the minister is responding. She is now in conclusion.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition wants Australian families to actually pay $720 to polluters. That is what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do and, even worse, he wants to claw back—

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

Order! The minister will bring her answer to a conclusion.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the benefits that this government will provide to families and pensioners.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, will the carbon tax apply to the oil refineries that create the fuel that goes in vehicles and to the transport businesses that cart the fuel that goes in vehicles, meaning that inevitably the consumer will pay higher prices in spite of the government's latest carbon tax promise to exempt petrol?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 98(d)(ii) is very clear. It is very clear that the government has said we will be announcing our policy on Sunday. I know it is frustrating for those opposite who do not have a policy.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The Leader of the House has the call on a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The standing orders are very clear in this regard.

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

The member for Menzies will resume his place. The question is in order.

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

(Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (15:00): As I have already said, I think, on two occasions, today and yesterday, we will be providing further detail and that further detail will be provided on Sunday. We have made that abundantly clear. We have seen this scare campaign running for months now, but on Sunday most of this scare campaign will go up in smoke because all of these wild exaggerations and all of the claims and counterclaims will be exposed for the falsehoods that they are. So further detail will be there on Sunday.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister update the House on the government's plan to introduce a price on carbon pollution as the cheapest and most effective way to cut pollution? What other options have been advanced, how has the government's plan been received and what is the government's response?

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

I will allow the question because I did not think the member for Throsby was seeking an announcement of policy.

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

I thank the member for Throsby for his question. Of course it is very well recognised that putting a market price on carbon pollution is the cheapest and most effective way to reduce pollution. It is a view that is supported by many institutions—the IMF, the OECD, the Productivity Commission, the Treasury and economists all around the country. The government recognises that, which is why we are committed to the introduction of a carbon price, in the mechanism that we will announce on Sunday, as the cheapest, most efficient way of cutting pollution in our economy. This contrasts strikingly with the opposition leader's 'subsidies for polluters' scheme, where not only do businesses get paid from the taxpayers' purse but the Leader of the Opposition is the one who picks and chooses who gets a subsidy. In comparing the government's carbon price proposal with the Leader of the Opposition's 'subsidies for polluters' program, the Chief Executive Officer of the National Australia Bank, Mr Cameron Clyne, had this to say:

If you're asking for an economic assessment of the two (policies), the carbon price followed by an emissions trading scheme is economically superior to the direct action policy.

It will drive certainty; it will drive investment and so, in a straight comparison between the two, that's the choice.

That is, the CEO of the National Australia Bank is making it clear that the government's policy position is the only way to go. It is no wonder that the opposition cannot find a single economist to support their proposition and, as previously stated by the member for Wentworth, of course it is a policy proposal that is a fig leaf that can be easily scrapped. But that does not worry the Leader of the Opposition in his approach to this issue. When he was asked today on ABC radio in Adelaide about his 'subsidies for polluters' plan and, in particular, the plan to plant trees to prevent climate change, this was what the exchange involved. The host asked the following:

Where are you going to plant all these trees and how are you going to water them?

The Leader of the Opposition replied:

Well, I'm not saying that tree-planting is the whole answer but it is part of the answer ...

The host then said:

Well how many trees do you plan to plant?

The Leader of the Opposition said:

Well, that depends upon what proposals we get, and how cost-effective the proposals are, but there are all sorts of ways of doing this.

There is a great degree of specificity in this proposal, isn't there! The fact of the matter—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Not a bit sensitive, are you, mate?

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

Order! Those on my left will come to order. The minister will refer his remarks through the chair.

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

The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition does not have a clue about his own policy. Of course, when the department of climate change had a look at this tree planting proposition, as the Prime Minister was noting before, the 'subsidies for polluters' policy would require trees to be planted in an area five times the size of Tasmania, 23 times the size of the Sydney Basin and roughly the same area that is covered by Germany. That is what the 'subsidies for polluters' policy means. I wonder whether the National Party has worked out that this means planting trees all over prime agricultural land in this country. The fact of the matter is that the opposition's policy is a joke. The only way to deal with this issue is by a market mechanism to do it at cheapest cost. (Time expired)

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! Those on my right will contain themselves. There is a certain inevitability about this, and the Leader of the Nationals has the call.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to the minister for transport. Since he is so eager to get the question, let us hope he will be eager to answer it as well. I refer the minister to the statement by the Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Tony Sheldon, that a carbon tax on diesel fuel will put more financial pressure on truckies and this will mean 'more fatalities, more injuries and ... greater hazard for every road user in this country'. Does the minister agree with Labor Senator Glenn Sterle's demand for truckies to be fully protected from the damage that will be wrought by the government's carbon tax?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister very much, very sincerely, for this question. I have waited more than two years for a question from the shadow minister and I say to him he can wait five more sleeps for an answer.