Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, speaking to my colleagues about Senator Paterson's question to the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher, I want to address a claim that was made by Senator Gallagher that potentially the Assistant Treasurer had been verballed. I had an opportunity during question time to refer to my mobile phone to see the Assistant Treasurer, in fact, on his own website, stephenjones.org.au—if people want to refer to it—said:

Because we actually—this might sound bizarre to many of your listeners—

I should say it sounds bizarre to me as a senator in this place.

but if we have demand galloping ahead and galloping ahead and people just putting up prices for a limited supply of goods and services, then that is going to feed into hyperinflation.

That is from Stephen Jones's own website, and my colleague Senator Paterson was accused of not quoting the Assistant Treasurer appropriately in the context of this question. This is important. Language is important because it feeds into the confidence or lack thereof in the market. Using the term 'hyperinflation' was extraordinarily irresponsible by the Assistant Treasurer, because when people think of hyperinflation, they think of Germany, where in July 1920 one mark equated to US$40. By November 1923, US$1 equated to four trillion marks. That's hyperinflation, and it is grossly irresponsible for the Assistant Treasurer to use that term 'hyperinflation' in the current market. We are nowhere near hyperinflation. I don't expect we will come anywhere near hyperinflation. The RBA certainly doesn't think so. Treasury doesn't think so. So why do we have an assistant Treasurer who doesn't know such a fundamental term of economics, 'hyperinflation'? The textbook definition of hyperinflation is inflation of at least 50 per cent per month. We are nowhere near that but we have an Assistant Treasurer who doesn't know the actual definition of hyperinflation. Maybe they should keep him away from radio interviews so he doesn't scare the horses of the Australian economy so much.

We also have a government that doesn't want to live up to the $275 cut to power prices. This is from the Labor Party's own policy, currently on their website. It is called Powering Australia. It's still there. It says:

It will cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year for homes by 2025, compared to today.

That is what it says. The policy is still on the Labor Party website. As my colleagues in this place have referred to consistently, that $275 cut in Australia's power price was referred to over 90 times during the course of the election campaign. But when Albanese government is formed, there was no mention of this promise to the Australian people, absolutely no mention of it. There was ample opportunity during question time for it to be referred to. But this promise given during the election campaign by the Australian Labor Party on their own website—you can check it out yourselves, a $275 a year cut—there was no mention of it by the Albanese government. Albanese opposition: $275 price cut. Albanese government: no mention. It is still on its website, if you want to verify it.

We then have the introduction of the Climate Change Bill 2022, an urgent bill introduced earlier today, even though, by the admission of their own minister, it's not necessary. How can something be urgent if it's not necessary? It baffles me. The Climate Change Bill 2022 doesn't make any mention of the $275 price cut. They introduced the Climate Change Bill, though their own minister said it's not necessary, and it then became urgent. One would have thought that it would connect electricity prices to climate change, but, no, there's no mention of the promise of the $275 price cut the Labor government made when they were in opposition.

Question agreed to.