Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Combet—as the senators opposite know very well—has flagged that, when the carbon price is in place, there may be scope to work with state governments to examine other programs that cut pollution at a higher cost.

Far from the fear campaign that we have just heard from the other side of the chamber, we take a responsible position with respect to the future of both Australia and the Australian economy. We know, through Treasury modelling, that the outlook for Queensland and other states as far as jobs go is healthy, but the key conclusion—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Take the time to listen to the facts. The key conclusion of a Queensland Treasury report released yesterday is that, over the period to 2020, Queensland's economy will grow strongly, at an average annual rate of 3.5 per cent, with or without a carbon price, and there will be an extra 474,000 jobs created over that period. This is consistent with Treasury modelling, which shows the economy continuing to prosper and jobs growth strongly nationwide with a carbon price in place.

There is no basis to what we are hearing from the senators opposite. We know, through a whole series of endless debates, year after year, that there was a commitment—with bipartisan support, up to when Mr Abbott took over the leadership of the Liberal Party—to a market based mechanism. Why? Because it is the most efficient and most likely way to help transition our economy to a low-carbon economy. You may stand over there and berate us for not being visionary and all the rest of it, but I am proud of being part of a government that will take this country forwards, not backwards in the irresponsible way that senators opposite are promoting.

Treasury's modelling also shows that the carbon price will see household electricity prices rise by some $3.30 per week, with the total impact on costs for households estimated to be around $9.90 on average. To assist with this—an important fact in this debate that is often neglected by those opposite—the federal government will be providing assistance to households worth $10.10 a week on average, in the form of tax cuts, increases in family payments and higher pensions and benefits. Nine out of 10 households will get this assistance. Almost six million households will get assistance that meets or exceeds their expected average impact on prices, and over four million households, almost half of all households, we will get assistance that provides a 20 per cent buffer over and above the expected average impact on prices.

This is not only good policy but it is mitigating the impact on households, which those senators opposite claim they are concerned about. I think there should be some acknowledgment of the fact and the substance of the policy in this debate, rather than empty critique being thrown at us, as we just experienced from Senator Joyce. It is not helping the public debate to approach this in such a base way. The level of political dialogue around the debate on climate change has descended to the bottom of the pit on the opposite side of the chamber. I call on senators opposite to take seriously the substance of the policy of tackling climate change, to take seriously the substance of lowering our carbon footprint as a country and to take seriously a policy that they once believed in. They were prepared to support a market mechanism in debate on the floor of this place. Why? Because the market is the best, cheapest and most efficient way to put downward pressure on the release of carbon into our atmosphere, therefore allowing us to make a contribution as a nation to the responsibilities we bear to the next generation of not only Australians but young people around the world. If we do not act now, we know, through all of the economic modelling, that it just becomes more expensive and the burden is transferred to the next generation of taxpayers, who will wear the irresponsible actions of the opposition. (Time expired)