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. Can the Prime Minister explain why a 44 per cent increase in electricity prices since June 2008 is not a sufficient price signal to change consumer behaviour? And why is an addit­ional tax on electricity required on top of that?

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

I thank the member for his question. First, I thank him for his frank acknowledgement that electricity prices have been going up and that that is nothing to do with carbon pricing. Often in this place we hear a great distortion about what is happening with electricity prices, with members of the opposition coming into this place and trying to pretend that the electricity price rises Australian families have sustained have somehow been caused by carbon pricing. Yes, electricity has risen. It has risen for a number of reasons. It has risen partic­ularly because there is a need for more investment in electricity, including in electricity distribution. That investment is costly and it has been flowing through to electricity prices. And Australians have not got direct assistance to help them with the cost of that rising electricity. Now to the member I would say: people, I do believe, look at electricity prices. If they can receive good information about how to reduce their energy consumption whilst still doing the things that they need to do in their daily lives and still enjoying all the creature comforts that we are used to and want to keep, I believe people will respond to that inform­ation. There are a number of relatively simple things people can do to reduce their electricity consumption and to reduce their carbon pollution, and I believe that many Australians are motivated to do that and that with the better provision of information many more Australians will do that. On the question of carbon pricing and electricity, what I can say to the member is, yes, we have always said that when we were putting a price on carbon pollution to be paid by the biggest 500 polluters in this country—

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is a very simple one on direct relevance. How much more does the price have to rise to change consumer behaviour—a very simple question. If the Prime Minister cannot answer it she should kindly sit down.

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I was asked about consumer behaviour and electricity pricing and I am directly dealing with things that can influence consumer behaviour and electricity pricing. I have just talked about questions of information provision to consumers which I believe can make a difference and now I am going on, having been asked about carbon pricing and electricity, to directly explain the impact of carbon pricing on electricity. I was explaining, before I was interrupted by the point of order, that we have always been very clear that the way carbon pricing was going to work was the big polluters would pay the price, so around 500 polluters paying the price, and that there would be flow-through impacts on prices paid by families, including electricity, and that, to assist those families, we would provide tax cuts and increases in family payments and pensions.

So I can say to the member, who is professing concern about the impact of electricity prices, that nine out of 10 Australian households will get compen­sation, will get assistance through tax cuts or increases in payments. Now that is a pretty stark contrast to Australian families having seen electricity prices go up with no assistance directed to help them with those prices and it is a pretty stark contrast too to the opposition's plan to take away all of the assistance we intend to provide and to put on top a new tax of $720 per year.

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

Order! I invite the member for Goldstein to apologise and I would allow him to remain in the chamber, even though his mobile phone went off, if he were to acknowledge that it was in error. I invite him to apologise.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

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

I do say that the distraction of mobile phones is something that I think is black and white as to 'disorderly'. I am tempting fate. I am being generous to the member for Goldstein.

Mr Robb interjecting—

The member for Goldstein wants to tempt fate like that, given that I have had to mention him as interjecting on a number of occasions today. He does not see that he has simply had a favour done, I really think. Sometimes I wonder whether people realise that they have come into the chamber.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the government will deliver a price on carbon? How will the government assist households and industry in building a clean energy future and a strong low-emissions economy?

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! Members may not have heard of the HGI, the Harry grumpiness index, but it is very high and I expect a bit better from the chamber.

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is about the order of the question. Given that the Prime Minister has been unable to answer any questions from the opposition this week about the carbon tax—and it is not until Sunday that—

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I indicate that, because of the hubbub, I did not hear the question and I invite the member for Kingston to repeat her question.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the government will deliver a price on carbon? How will the government assist households and industry in building a clean energy future and a strong low-emissions economy?

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Having heard the question, I think it clearly asks for an announcement of government policy. I would suggest that you might ask the member for Kingston to reword it or rule it out of order.

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

Order! Similar to a response I gave to the Leader of the House yesterday when he alleged that somebody was inviting the Prime Minister to announce policy, I give the same ruling: the question is in order.

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

I am asked how we will deliver a price on carbon; let me answer that question. We will deliver a price on carbon in the most efficient way. We will deliver a price on carbon, respecting the science that is leading the way and telling us that our climate is changing, that that change is caused by carbon pollution and human activity and that we need to act to cut carbon pollution.

The plan I will announce on Sunday will be a plan to cut 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution by 2020. That is a very large change in the way that the nation generates carbon pollution. It is the equivalent to taking millions and millions of cars off the road, and that is the aim of pricing carbon: to cut carbon pollution. The plan that we will announce on Sunday will be a plan that protects Australian jobs and gives us access to the clean energy jobs of the future.

I am pleased to report to the House that, this month, we have seen in our nation 60,000 new jobs created. That is fantastic; we want people to have the benefits and dignity of work. As we go about pricing carbon, we will protect Australian jobs and get access to the clean energy jobs of the future. Around 1.6 million extra jobs will be created by 2020. We will price carbon in an efficient way, which is through an emissions trading scheme. We will reach that through a limited period of a fixed price and then reach an emissions trading scheme. This is the system of pricing carbon that was supported by former Prime Minister Howard. It is the system for pricing carbon that was supported by the member for Wentworth. It is the system for pricing carbon that economists recommend as the most efficient way of pricing carbon.

Because we are a Labor government we will ensure, as we price carbon, that we assist Australian families, and particularly that we assist those families most in need. Fifty per cent of all of the revenue raised will go to Australian households; nine out of 10 households will see tax cuts and increases in payments. We are talking about pensioners, family payments and tax cuts for working Australians. Three million Australian house­holds will see a 20 per cent buffer. That means that the net amount of new money provided to them will be 20 per cent more than the expected impact of the carbon price on the goods they buy. They can come out better off as a result of our pricing carbon. Indeed, across the nine out of 10 households that we will assist, we will be providing information to people about how to cut their energy use. If people take some simple steps to cut their energy use, they too can pocket the tax cuts, or pension increases or family payment increases provided to them.

This is the right plan for the nation's future. It is a plan to create a clean energy future, tackle carbon pollution, get big polluters to pay, protect Australian jobs and assist Australian households. It is the right way to price carbon, driven by our Labor values, and all of the details will be available on Sunday.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her repeated statement that the carbon tax will affect 'the top 1,000 emitters'. I refer her to reports now that, just three days out from the announcement, the Prime Minister has cut that to 500. Have 500 companies suddenly stopped emitting greenhouse gases, Prime Minister, or are the Australian people being told only half the bad news?

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

I thank the member for his question. Let me explain to the member that coverage decisions have been made which do reduce the number of big businesses who will be paying the price for their carbon pollution. The biggest 500 polluters will be, under the scheme, required to pay a price for the carbon pollution they generate. Our plan is to make polluters pay. The Leader of the Opposition's plan is to make Australian families pay. So, in making those decisions about coverage, the number of big polluters who will be paying has been reduced. I would have to say that I detect a theme across the opposition's questions today. I detect an emerging theme. There are some days when you come in here and you have absolutely no idea what they are on about, but today I can tell what they are on about. They are on about their sense of disappoint­ment because they have spent months and months and months trying to raise fear about carbon pricing. Now I think we can see written on their faces, as more and more details become clear about the scheme, that they can feel it. They can feel that their scare campaign is not going to be able to be sustained.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. I ask why 500 companies have suddenly stopped emitting greenhouse gases.

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

In answering the member's question and explaining the cover­age changes that have been made in the scheme as compared with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, what I increasingly sense is a sense of disappoint­ment from the opposition. They wanted to have their petrol price scare campaign. The Leader of the Opposition was already out claiming 6.5c a litre, and he was dead wrong. They wanted to have a campaign about how wide the scheme was covering and now they can see that scare campaign shrivelling before their eyes, because as usual they have been dead wrong. They wanted to have a cost of living scare campaign. They wanted to be out there scaring Australian families about the impacts of carbon pricing, and now of course it is clear nine out of 10 households will get tax cuts or payment increases, which should actually lead the opposition to say to itself: how irresponsible they have been over the last year trying to scare Australians, making things up, as we get on with pricing carbon in the most responsible way.

We will cut carbon pollution. We will get the big polluters to pay. We will protect Australian jobs. We will provide tax cuts and payment increases. We will get this job done in a Labor way, driven by our Labor values. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition is hostage to sceptics. He is determined to rip assistance off Australian families. He wants to put an extra $720-a-year tax on them. He wants to go around scaring Australians about the prospects of their jobs. Well, we are a confident, creative nation. We have been up to the big challenges in the past. We will be up to this big challenge, and the Leader of the Opposition will be increasingly exposed as someone who went about generating fear with hollow and untruthful claims and as someone who is not ready to lead this nation—no ideas for the future, just relentless negativity and the saying of no, no, and no.