Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As an apprentice knuckle-dragger, my question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. Is the minister aware of the announcement by the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal that electricity prices in my home state of New South Wales will rise by up to 20 per cent this year, with around half of the rise directly attributable to the carbon tax? How much does the government expect electricity demand to fall as a result of these increases?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Sinodinos for his question and I thank him also for his past support for a price on carbon when working with then Prime Minister Howard. I wish someone with his understanding of public policy could put paid to some of the ridiculous propositions such as those we saw from Senator Brandis and as we see consistently from the shadow minister. In relation to the electricity price issue, it is the case that IPART has released its determination, which shows that the impact on electricity prices by the carbon tax is a shade under what the Treasury modelling advice at just over nine per cent—the Treasury estimate was 10 per cent. All of this has been factored into the government's assistance package, including the tax cuts, which the opposition will roll back should they ever win government and which the opposition will roll back because they want people in this country earning under $80,000 per year to pay more tax not less tax.

It is very clear from what the regulator has said that the main reason for rising electricity prices is the billions of dollars being invested in poles and wires for the network. In many Australian states, there have been very substantial increases over past years, which have nothing to do with the carbon price. These increases are all about investment in the network. We know that those opposite—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. On the question of direct relevance, the minister is more than three quarters of the way through her answer. The principal question she was asked is, but how much does the government expect demand to fall? She has not come close to addressing that issue.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was part of the question, Senator Brandis. The question was broader than that. The minister is addressing the question and the minister has 24 seconds remaining.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can say that certainly whatever impact there is on demand, it will be more efficient and cheaper than the impact on reductions in emissions that the opposition's policy would have, which would cost Australian households of $1,300 a year—a very inefficient policy being proposed.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I quote the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal:

Many households spend an increasing proportion of their income on electricity bills, particularly those in low-income high consumption households.

In other words, it is a very regressive tax. What does the minister estimate the elasticity of demand to beef electricity from people in that situation?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator is suggesting that it is important to consider the impact on low-income Australians. I am very pleased the Liberal Party have worked that out. If that is the case, perhaps the Liberal Party could tell us that they will not proceed to the election as they currently are proposing to do, rolling back the tax cuts which are part of the clean energy package, which will give everybody in this country earning under $80,000 a year a tax cut. You cannot have it both ways, Senator Sinodinos. You have had people on your side saying that this is socialism masquerading as environmentalism because somehow we are redistributing too much. Then they come in here and suggest that we are not redistributing enough. The reality is that our package absolutely and unashamedly targets low- and middle-income Australians and the only people opposed to that are the opposition.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the government guarantee that low-income high electricity consumption households in New South Wales with special needs, such as the aged and the disabled, who require additional heating, cooling or electricity used for medical equipment will not be worse off as a result of the carbon tax contribution to price rises of up to 20 per cent?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): I can guarantee that a Labor government will ensure that low-income Australians will get a tax cut through the tripling of the tax free threshold—opposed by those opposite. They will get an increase in their pensions, also opposed by those opposite who do not want to give age pensioners and disability support pensioners an increase. Those who are eligible will receive an essential medical equipment payment of $140 for concession card holders who rely on essential medical equipment. There is additional assistance to people who receive allowances, as well as additional assistance through family tax benefit. We have a very comprehensive tax and benefit assistance package associated with the carbon price, in contrast to those opposite who want to impose another $1,300 per tax year on Australian households, including on low-income households, to pay for a policy which will not— (Time expired)