House debates
Monday, 21 November 2011
Bills
Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge — General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011, Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011, Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011, Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011, Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011; Returned from Senate
2:01 pm
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source
To the Leader of the Opposition I say: he should stop misrepresenting the facts of this to the Australian people. The assertions he has just made about the Treasury modelling are wholly wrong. They are wholly wrong and the opposition should know that they are wholly wrong because they received detailed briefings at Senate estimates. So, before they make these claims, they should actually go out and acknowledge to the people of Australia that this is a misrepresentation when they are in possession of the facts. It is simply wrong to suggest that the Treasury modelling of the government's Clean Energy Future program depends on the United States putting a price on carbon by 2016. It is wholly wrong and the opposition is out there misleading again.
The two key assumptions about international action in the Treasury modelling—and the Leader of the Opposition, if he were not addicted to negativity and saying no, would acknowledge this to the Australian people—are, first, that companies meet their low-end pollution reduction targets for 2010—something verified in respect of the United States by President Obama when he spoke in this parliament late last week. The second assumption about international action is that countries have access to international abatement; and, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, there are carbon markets in operation now that Australia's scheme can link with internationally, including in the European Union.
The assumption in the Leader of the Opposition's question is wholly wrong. This is what happens when you have no policy and you are simply addicted to saying no.
No comments