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

My question is again to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer him to electricity price increases on 1 July of up to 20 per cent in New South Wales, 18 per cent in South Australia and 15 per cent in Victoria, due in large part to the carbon tax starting at $23 a tonne. What will the electricity price increase be when the carbon tax is $350 a tonne, which is that e government's predicted carbon price by 2050?

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

The premise of the Leader of the Opposition's question is simply wrong. First of all he is claiming that the increases in electricity prices are principally the result of the carbon price. That is a lie, and it has been demonstrated to be a lie by the decisions that have been taken—

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister is not entitled to use that kind of language to describe the opposition, and we would ask him to withdraw it.

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

The Acting Prime Minister will withdraw and will answer the question.

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

It is simply untrue—

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

The Acting Prime Minister will withdraw.

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

I withdraw. It is simply untrue to claim that the great bulk of those price increases are the result of the carbon price. They are not and he knows that to be false. The fact is the impact on the average household from the carbon price when it comes to the average electricity bill is $3.30 a week. He knows that is the case, but he is out there not telling the truth about the impact.

We have the Leader of the Opposition walking back from what he was saying a week or two ago about the impact of the carbon price. First of all he said it was going to put a wrecking ball right through our economy. The wrecking ball has gone out the door, and he is now saying it is going to be a python squeeze rather than a cobra strike.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the huffing and puffing of the Acting Prime Minister is not answering the question, which is what the price is going to be when it is $350 a tonne.

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

The member for Sturt is not to use points of order for debate. It is an abuse of the process, and I will be calling people to account in the future. If it is relevant then get up and make a stand on a point of order on relevance.

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

Whether it is a cobra or a python, it does not change the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is a snake oil salesmen. He has been slithering around the country with a whole series of poisonous messages and a forked tongue telling untruths about the impact of the carbon price on electricity. That is what he has been doing, and it is not true. Now we have been told that this is responsible for what is going on in New South Wales. I tell you what: there is a choice in New South Wales. From the billions of dollars that Barry O'Farrell is getting from the electricity generators, why doesn't he give it back to the people of New South Wales in cuts to their electricity prices? They are the ones that are principally responsible for price increases.

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

The Acting Prime Minister will return to the question before the chair. The difficulty is that when the question is framed as such I am put in a precarious situation.

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

The impact of the carbon price for the average household will be $3.40, for which they will receive average compensation of $10.10.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Minister for Industry and Innovation. Will the minister outline why the government is tackling climate change? In doing this, how is the government helping households, including protecting them from unjustified price rises with the introduction of the carbon price?

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

In response to the member for Capricornia's question, scientists have been advising governments for a long period of time that climate change poses significant risks. To Australia the risks are from higher temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, more extreme weather events and rising sea levels. These represent serious economic risks—risks that you should take as serious economic risks. They will have impacts in many different industries across our economy, like agriculture and tourism, and in our society. Faced with that scientific advice, governments have a public policy responsibility to act. That is why this government is putting a price on carbon. The carbon price will create an incentive for the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in our economy to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, because it will require them to purchase a permit for every tonne of greenhouse gas that they emit. We are doing this not only in an environmentally effective way and an economically responsible way but in a socially fair and just manner. The price impacts will be modest at only a 0.7 per cent increase in the CPI. As the Treasurer and Acting Prime Minister just indicated, the modelling showed that the average electricity price impact will be $3.30 a week per household across the country.

The Leader of the Opposition has previously described the price impact as 'unimaginable'. But the fact of the matter is that state pricing regulators are now confirming the Treasury modelling and they are consistent in the price impacts with that which was suggested by the Treasury modelling—$3.30 a week averaged across households. In South Australia, the average is just under $1.50 a household. The government is assisting households with an extra $10.10 a week through tax cuts, higher family tax benefits and increases in pensions. It is targeted to assist low- and middle-income households. The government is also funding the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission so that it can tackle businesses which try to rip people off with false claims about carbon pricing. Today the ACCC announced a carbon claims hotline to make it easier for people to make complaints. For those listening to the broadcast, it is 1300 303 609. The ACCC, importantly, points out that price increases associated with carbon pricing should be 'truthful and have a reasonable basis'. This is advice that the Leader of the Opposition should take. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The minister talked about what we are doing in Australia to address climate change. How are we playing our part in the global efforts to tackle climate change?

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 Capricornia once again, because tackling climate change is an international problem and countries around the world are taking steps to deal with it. Australia needs to pay its fair share in these efforts. Ninety countries have pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through to 2020, and at the UN climate change conference late last year all countries agreed to negotiate a new treaty that would apply from 2020 that would introduce binding obligations on all of the major emitters to reduce their emissions. That includes our trading partners. That includes our partners in the Asia-Pacific region: the United States, China, Japan and South Korea. Countries including India have also made those commitments.

This has very significant implications for this country and for our economy. If we do not start making sensible, gradual changes to reduce the emissions intensity of our economy and we do as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we can do—travel to 2020 and have emissions continue to grow—we will be hit with binding obligations to reduce our emissions. It will hit our economy with the back of the axe. The only responsible course of action is to take action now. (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the Prime Minister's assertion that petrol prices will not be touched by carbon pricing. How does he reconcile that statement with the view of the petroleum distribution and retail association ACAPMA that the carbon tax will put upward pressure on petrol prices because it will push up the cost of fuel production, distribution, retailing and service station operations?

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

There are a couple of very simple points that I will make. All of those claims, at the end of the day, will be tested by the ACCC. We will have a test of these sorts of wild claims about pushing up prices. There are going to be a lot of them made. They have been made by those opposite. Of course, they would not pass the ACCC test if it applied to them; they have already failed it massively. But the fact is that the impact of this on the general inflation in the economy is less than 1c in the dollar. That is the truth of it. The fact is that most of the claims that are being made out there, particularly from those opposite, are inaccurate, but they can be put to the test if those claims are going to be made.