Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the final report of Deloitte Access Economics that shows that her carbon tax will make Victorian households $1,050 a year worse off, cost 35,000 jobs and hit the state budget bottom line by $660 million by 2015. At a time when Australian households are feeling the real cost-of-living pressure, why is the Prime Minister determined to make a bad situation worse by hitting Australians with another new tax?

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

I thank the member for his question. I am not surprised that it is not on asylum seeker policy. I am asked about Victorian government modelling. In relation to that modelling I can say this to the parliament: there are a significant number of problems with that modelling exercise from the Victorian government. The estimates of the economic impacts are right out of the ball park, at least four times higher than other modelling shows. When you have a look at why that would be, there are a number of very compelling and easy to analyse reasons.

Firstly, the modelling includes an inaccurate representation of the government's $9.2 billion Jobs and Competitiveness Program, not modelled in its full extent. For example, it ignores assistance for industries like paper products manufacturing and chemicals manufacturing, which are important in Victoria. I certainly know that; my home is in Altona. So, these things have not been taken into account. The modelling assumes much higher emissions growth than other modelling does, increasing the emissions reductions needed to hit our targets by almost 30 per cent. So it is not in accord with other modelling because it overestimates the emissions growth.

Then, of course, the modelling, which was done by Deloitte, includes results at the regional level which are too unreliable for organisations like the Commonwealth Treasury to use. The modelling also is flawed in that it attributes nearly all future electricity price increases to the carbon price, which clearly and directly overstates the impact of the carbon price. So that is another flaw in the modelling. Can I say to the member who asked the question, it has got one thing right, though, and I would direct the member's attention to this: the modelling discusses the need for linking to other credible international schemes, says that in our national interest and will ensure our emissions reduction targets are achieved at the lowest cost. That is right. That is absolutely right. It is part of the government's policies and plans and it is being ignored by the opposition, which is what inflates the cost of their policy to $1,300 per family.

So generally to the member I would say: this modelling is flawed. We have released modelling from Treasury, we have released the figures which show the impact of the clean energy future, and coming from Victoria what I can certainly say to the member is: Victoria has many opportunities here because of the forefront technology of many Victorian manufacturers; many opportunities because of the investments in Victoria in the clean energy future and in the research and information technology bits of that clean energy future. What we will see with a price on carbon is jobs in Victoria growing. I know the member is concerned about that, I am concerned about that, and that is what will happen.