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. I remind the Prime Minister of the US Congressional Budget Office carbon tax assessment, which stated last week:

… such a tax would have a negative effect on the economy. The higher prices it caused would diminish the purchasing power of people’s earnings, effectively reducing their real … wages.

…   …   …

Investment would also decline, further reducing the economy’s total output.

Why is the US protecting their economy from a carbon tax when her government is doing the opposite?

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

Here in Australia we can actually judge the impact of carbon pricing by what has happened. We can judge the impact directly by what has happened since carbon pricing came into effect. What we know is that, since carbon pricing came into effect, we are seeing reductions in emissions—that is, it is working to cut carbon pollution; we have seen the number of jobs grow—158,000 jobs have been added to the economy since the introduction of the carbon price; and we have seen investment continue not only in resources but also in other sectors of our economy.

We know what the impact on cost of living is. That is already being experienced. In stark contrast to the fearmongering of the Leader of the Opposition during the days of carbon pricing, when he claimed that there would be an astronomical increase in the cost of living, what has actually happened is exactly what was predicted—which means of course that when we have put in place tax cuts, family payments increases and the pension increase, these have assisted families and, particularly for many families in low- and middle-income situations, they have received more assistance than they need to deal with cost-of-living impacts.

So there is no need to theorise about all of this; we actually know what carbon pricing means in our economy. It means economic growth continues. It means the number of jobs continues to grow. It means investments continue to grow. It means that the cost-of-living impacts are exactly what was predicted, which means that many millions of families are in fact better off.

What is less clear and less known, of course, is the impact of the opposition's so-called direct action policy, where there can be penalties put on firms which would inevitably be passed through to consumers and hit their cost of living, and where you do not know how big the impact will be on our economy as a result of the uncertainty that will be generated. What we do know is that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister who asked the question are promising a world of uncertainty for Australian businesses and families whereas, under this government, Australian businesses and families know that carbon pricing is working and that none of the fear campaign led by the Leader of the Opposition has in any way come true. The Leader of the Opposition has been unmasked as simply not credible whenever he speaks about carbon pricing.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a supplementary question. I refer the Prime Minister to her answer to the previous question and ask whether she is aware that the 2016 European forward carbon permit price is actually $5.42, and how she reconciles that fact with the budget estimate that the 2016 carbon price will be $12.10. How can the budget papers be believed when— (Time expired)

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

I thank the shadow minister for his question because it does give me the opportunity to say that, during the last parliamentary week, we listened to any amount of nonsense from the opposition about budget figures. What has happened in the week since is that the Secretary of the Treasury has verified that, had the pre-election fiscal outlook been delivered on budget day, then the same set of numbers would have been delivered. For all of the opposition's false campaigning—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's got the same assumptions.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney!

Mr Hockey interjecting—

No, you're not; you're not helping the House.

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

For all of the opposition's fearmongering and ridiculous nonsense in the lead-up to the budget and budget week itself, it is now no longer possible for the opposition to pursue these claims because the Treasury secretary has verified—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. Is the Prime Minister aware that the $5.42 figure was from her own officials today?

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will be relevant to the question.

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

In being relevant to the question, I was asked about budget numbers and I am making the point that, despite the ridiculous claims of the opposition, what has been verified is that the numbers would be the same as the PEFO numbers had the pre-election fiscal outlook been delivered on budget Tuesday. That now gives the opposition nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Now is the time for it to put out its cuts to the bone. Its last refuge, of waiting for PEFO, is now gone. If they are hiding those cuts, Australians know what to conclude: they are so deep and so hurtful that they do not want Australians to know the truth.

Mr Husic interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley is warned!