Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on how this government is reducing Australia's emissions without the world's biggest carbon tax? What are the alternatives to this government's approach?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just wait.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left will not use props!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Gellibrand has already been warned and has repeated exactly the same crime for which he was warned.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, to the point of order: I also note that the minister who is about to answer the question was warned on the same issue yesterday.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was not warned, no. The minister will resume his seat. The minister does not have the call.

Ms Burke interjecting—

The member for Chisholm will cease interjecting. The member for Gellibrand has been warned. He will cease disorderly behaviour. He is on very thin ice. I have patience, but it is running out. I call the minister and ask him to be mindful of yesterday's question time when he was answering a question.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As ever, Mr Speaker, I will respect both in word and in spirit all of your suggestions. But I will note this—and it is perfect timing—to respond to the member for Page—

Opposition members interjecting—

I have not done anything yet, fellas. Don't get too sensitive.

Opposition members interjecting—

No, no, no. In terms of the story of the $600 billion carbon bill, we do not even have to show the $600 billion carbon bill, and you are terrified and ashamed of your own policy.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left will cease interjecting. It is disorderly. It does no service to the parliament. The minister will be heard.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We only have to give the merest hint of the $600 billion carbon bill, and they run for the hills about their own policy. They are ashamed of it.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have ruled before on the use of proper titles.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. The minister will withdraw. The minister will refer to members by their correct titles.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree absolutely. I was referring to the fact that the headline in TheDaily Telegraph this week was about a $600 billion carbon bill. That is exactly the case, because this brings right to the point their terror at their own policy, their dishonesty about the impact of that policy and the fact that they said they would terminate the carbon tax at the last election and voted to keep it and the fact that they are now going to bring it back and impose on Australians a $600 billion carbon tax bill, a $209 carbon tax price, a $5,000-per-family hit and a 78 per cent impact on wholesale electricity prices. That is why this question from the member for Page is so important, because, unlike every member of that side who voted to keep the carbon tax, he voted to repeal the carbon tax. Every member on this side voted to repeal the carbon tax. As the ACCC showed us recently, that produced $550 of savings for Australian families on average. That is what the ACCC itself has said.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I accept your ruling that you have provided that it is acceptable for government ministers to use their time in this parliament to reflect on opposition policy, but the minister has genuinely made no attempt to answer the question, the thrust of which was about the government's policy for which he is responsible. I would ask him to be relevant to the question, please.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will be relevant to the question in his remaining 40 seconds.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first half of the question was about the benefits of repealing the carbon tax. Those benefits included $550 on average per family and the removal of $15.4 billion of tax over two years. That is the reality of what we have put forward for Australians to benefit from.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hotham has already raised a point of order.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker. I am drawing to your attention that the minister is openly defying your ruling to be relevant to the question.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Hotham, I asked the minister to remain relevant to the question. I will judge whether he is remaining relevant to the question. He is on the policy topic. He has not departed from the policy topic. He is allowed to compare and contrast. I made this clear yesterday; I am not going to revisit it.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not only did we make the saving; we also reduced the emissions by 47 million tonnes, at one per cent of the cost per tonne for abatement, in just our first option as opposed to the entire carbon tax experiment. That is what we have done. We have reduced emissions. We have reduced costs. When those opposite come back—if those opposite come back—they want to bring a— (Time expired)