Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Abetz. Given that the Prime Minister has promised that Australian families will be $550 better off with the abolition of carbon pricing and your confirmation today that that $550-figure was from Treasury modelling, will you now admit that the $550-figure included $250 for food, clothing and rent and that these will not be covered by the government's pass-through provisions? Will you now admit that the $550-promise to Australian families is a lie?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm to the honourable senator that the sort of language she uses does not reflect well on her but is also incorrect. Earlier today, if the honourable senator would have listened, she would have heard me respond to a question with information from a small businessman—I think from Mooloolaba—who confirmed that Qantas had already written to advise that, effective from 1 July, the carbon tax surcharge would be removed from freight. So there is—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order: relevance. I am asking about the Treasury modelling that includes $250 for food, clothing and rent that will not be passed on under your provisions. Is that true or not?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The minister has only just got a quarter through his question and he is being relevant to the question.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was: would the savings be passed through? I am giving the honourable senator a real life example where the savings are already being passed through in anticipation of the repeal of the carbon tax. But of course the senator does not want to hear that. She wants to scare the Australian community so midstream of my answer she has to raise a point of order hoping that that information will not get out to the Australian people.

The Treasury modelling that was undertaken by the previous Labor government said in general terms that the average Australian household will have an impost of $550 per annum as a result of the carbon tax. It stands to reason that part of that $550-impost will be higher energy prices but also costs that will be impacted on the chain on the way through. For example, one would hope that fish can now be delivered cheaper in Australia because of Qantas doing its bit. As a result, there will be cheaper prices for Australian consumers when they want to eat their fish and chips.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. This is also to the hopeful minister. Can he now confirm that that Canberra business Frozpak, which the Prime Minister and Minister Hunt said would pay an extract $60,000 a year because of synthetic greenhouse gases, will be subject to penalties if it does not pass on the total $60,000 in so-called savings?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not aware of this particular business but I do understand—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne interjects and says 'the Prime Minister is'. I say there are lots of things that the Prime Minister is aware of that I am not necessarily aware of. I am more than willing to wear that. If the Prime Minister wants to provide more information then I will come back to the Senate in relation to that. As I understand the amendments, synthetic greenhouse gases being imported into Australia will be part of the proposal, the swag of amendments that will be considered later on today in the House of Representatives.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise to ask a further supplementary question. Minister, given that Woolworths has said that it avoided price rises when the carbon price was introduced so it has no cost savings to pass on, and Qantas has said that it did not increase airfares so it cannot pass on any savings to passengers, will the Prime Minister guarantee that every family will now be $550 better off?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are the sorts of immature word games that the Greens love to revel in. What we have always said is the 'average Australian family' will be $550 better off. Senator Milne, by a sleight of hand, translates that to 'every Australian family'. It stands to reason that when you say 'the average Australian family', some families will get even more of a benefit than $550 per annum and some will get less. That is what the term 'average' actually means. You know that, I know that so why you would seek to deceive the Australian people by that sleight of language is for you to explain but it does you no credit.