Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to Geoffrey Thompson Holdings, an apple and pear grower and cool-store operator in my electorate, whose latest electricity bills show a new item, carbon charges—I stress 'carbon charges'—of $23,000 for the month of July alone. This new carbon tax cannot be passed on and there is no compensation. How does this government expect a 60-year-old business to survive and the 400 regional jobs to be preserved?

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

To the member who raises the question I say that, as the member would be aware, we have always said that in carbon pricing the price would be paid by the big polluters, there would be a flow-through impact on electricity pricing—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The member yelling out is agreeing with me, I see. We have been very clear about what that impact would be and the modelling has been proved to be right. Small businesses are not required directly to pay the carbon price and are not required to fill in any additional forms. Unlike the paperwork burden that came their way with the Howard government's GST, they do not pay the carbon price, and they do not fill in additional forms. They will see some flow-through impacts for things like electricity prices, which is why we have put consumers in a position for them to pass that on. Consumers are there with their tax cuts, their family payment increases and their pension increases.

I would say to the member who asked the question: what has she said to this business about the large electricity prices—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Vote Liberal.'

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

She may well have said that, but I hope she has also said that the Leader of the Opposition today has now acknowledged that the biggest impact on electricity prices is not carbon pricing. Having finally moved from a position that everyone knew to be ridiculous—

Mr Abbott interjecting—

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

The Leader of the Opposition is aware that he is not allowed to use that word.

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

when he tried to pretend that all electricity price increases were somehow the fault of carbon pricing, he was repudiated by state Liberals, repudiated by this front bench, repudiated by the regulators. So today he has actually acknowledged that there are other sources of power price increases. What does the member, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, say to the small business involved about that?

I would be in a position to say that we will drive change at the Council of Australian Governments meeting at the end of this year. Is the member in a position to say that this Leader of the Opposition will get Ted Baillieu on the phone, Barry O'Farrell on the phone and Campbell Newman on the phone and say, 'It's about time that the Liberals worked with us to address these electricity price increases at the end of this year'?

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I specifically, in the question, asked the Prime Minister to address what this company is going to be able to do—what she is going to tell them when the 400 jobs are lost.

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

The Prime Minister is answering the question.

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

I am not going to join the member in this fear campaigning. If she is genuinely interested in this business she would be looking at costs from all sources, including the bigger electricity costs flowing from sources other than carbon pricing. If she is not doing that, she is not serious about this business or the 400 jobs she is talking about, and I think her constituents would be very interested to know that she is not serious about 400 jobs in her electorate.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek to present the bills, which identify the carbon charges for the month of July alone.

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

Is leave granted?

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

No. When they get things tabled they do not table them.

Leave not granted.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation. How have financial markets factored in the impact of the carbon price on inflation? How does this compare with the predictions that were made before the carbon price came in?

Mr Briggs interjecting—

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

The member for Mayo is warned.

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 Deakin for his question, because underlying inflation is actually at a 13-year low, and the carbon price will have quite a small impact on inflation. We have stated many times in this place that the Treasury modelling found that the impact on the CPI would only be 0.7 per cent in financial year 2012-13. That is less than one cent in the dollar and certainly much less than the CPI impact of the introduction of the GST, which was 2.5 per cent. It is nothing like the hysterical claims made by the Leader of the Opposition of unimaginable price increases—far from it.

The carbon price has now been in place for approximately seven weeks, and during this time TD Securities' inflation gauge has shown that the overall inflation impact during the first month of the carbon price was just 0.2 per cent in July—one fifth of one cent.

There is certainly no unimaginable price increase in that, as claimed by the Leader of the Opposition, and nothing to support the ridiculous three-page beat-up today in the Daily Telegraph.

But we have also seen in the past week an analysis of inflation expectations on financial markets from financial markets. This confirms the Treasury modelling. Investors, of course, when considering these issues, back their predictions up with their money. They are saying that the impact of carbon pricing on inflation will be in the order of 0.6 to 0.7 per cent. That is bang on the Treasury modelling. In the face of all of these facts, in the face of all of this evidence that is mounting, what do the coalition resort to as part of their mendacious, ridiculous, hysterical fear campaign? They resort to exhorting people to price gouge.

Here is a classic example. A refrigerant company, Equipserve, has been pinged by the ACCC after it replicated a statement, in effect, made by the shadow industry minister, the member for Indi. She wrongly attributed increases in refrigerant gas prices to the carbon price—the entirety of the increase to the carbon price. They are the very same statements that were found to be in breach of the consumer laws and that led to the giving of an enforceable undertaking by that company to the ACCC.

This is the conduct the opposition engage in. They go around misrepresenting, making ridiculous, deceitful claims, encouraging businesses to price gouge. The meat industry has had to disown the silly leaflet that the opposition have put out. Their whole campaign is a fraud and their claim to repeal it is also a fraud. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer her to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in a carbon tax debate last week: 'Farmers will not pay a cent.' How does she reconcile his statement with this letter from a tomato farmer in Bowen? It shows that Visy will increase the annual bill for cardboard boxes used on his family-run tomato farm by more than $12,000 due to the carbon tax.

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

To the member who asked the question: the parliamentary secretary would have been making the simple point that it is only big businesses that generate a lot of carbon pollution, thousands and thousands of tonnes of carbon pollution—indeed, 25,000 tonnes or more—that pay the carbon price. That is the point he would have been drawing out in that debate. To the member who is continuing his question after a series of questions today: what we are seeing today is an opposition determined to continue its fear campaign, even though—day by day by day—the facts are proving this fear campaign wrong.

Whyalla was going to be wiped off the map. That is wrong. Price rises were going to be unimaginably large. That is wrong. Electricity bills were going to skyrocket—even the Leader of the Opposition has had to acknowledge that was wrong today.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: there is an increase in the cost of cardboard boxes—of $12,000—due to the carbon tax.

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

The Prime Minister has the call.

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

To the member who asked the question: No. 1, of course we would be checking the assertions in the question—when they come from the opposition we need to; No. 2, I have described on more than one occasion in question time today the circumstances of small business; and, No. 3, the continuation of this fear campaign today, in the face of the facts, I think is because the Leader of the Opposition this morning and his opposition team are now desperate to distract from his pledge this morning to cut the funding to every public school in the nation—because he does not want to have public debate focused on his cuts to public schools. Here we go with the fear campaign and the ridiculous points of order.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I would refer you to page 519 of House of Representatives Practice and I would refer you to standing order No. 91. It says: 'Where a member is persistently and wilfully refusing to conform to the standing order', as is the Prime Minister. Her behaviour is disorderly. I would ask you to say that this is disorderly, her refusal to comply.

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

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I am making the very simple point that we continue to see the fear campaign despite the facts. And the fact they want to distract from today is their plan to cut public schools.

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

The member for Dawson is seeking to table a document?

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I seek leave to table a letter, which also states: 'Never have we seen such a dud government before.'

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

The member for Dawson will leave the chamber, under standing order 94(a). Abuse of points of order is now out of control. The behaviour of the opposition and the complete disregard of the standing orders by the majority of the opposition are also on display.

The member for Dawson then left the chamber.