Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her claim that a new carbon tax would not force up electricity prices. I remind her that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales found that a carbon tax would push electricity prices up by an additional 26 per cent. I further refer her to the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs said in February that an emissions trading scheme would push up prices by 19 per cent over two years. Prime Minister, when will a government that lost its way in June find its way and drop this tax that will hurt small businesses and households through much higher electricity prices?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: as you previously indicated to the House, these questions are out of order under standing order 100(d).

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Parts of the question give difficulty under the standing orders, but I have been generous in the interpretation and I have also indicated what comes with that generosity, although I hope that the Prime Minister in her response will not take up that generosity. The Prime Minister will respond directly to the question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to respond directly. What I would say to the member is that perhaps, instead of trying to summarise what I have said, he should actually read what I have said. I refer him to recent speeches I have given on the subject of electricity. I refer him to the last answer I gave where I said very clearly that we need to have a truthful and full debate about what is happening in electricity generation. If he is under any doubt about what is happening in electricity generation, then I suggest that he has a discussion with the member for Groom because, as I have indicated, the member for Groom, from his statements the day before the election, is actually onto it—he actually understands it. He understands that, in trying to create an image in people’s minds that there are somehow policy settings of no price rises versus pricing carbon, that is a figment of people’s imagination and that we are dealing with rising energy prices. We have had underinvestment. In the words of the member for Groom—and I quote them again: ‘Power prices are set to double over the next five to seven years irrespective of who is in government.’ These are his words, not mine, dealing with the reality of electricity generation and the need to expand capacity to make up for underinvestment.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I refer you to page 553 of Practice. I note that Practice indicates that you have the power, without invoking standing order 75, to deal with tedious repetition. We have heard it all before. I would ask you to rule it out of order, for the member to return to the substance of the question and answer it.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is no point of order. The standing order that was quoted by the member does not apply to questions. I appreciate her assistance from time to time. Sometimes I do not need those sorts of directions and I hope that in future she will remember that.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the policy question that genuinely confronts us is that, as we need to see investment in electricity, we know that investment is now being held up because of current uncertainty. Long-term investment is not going to be made until we answer the question about pricing carbon. As we release that new investment, do we want to release it in a way which helps us tackle the problem of climate change and carbon emissions or do we just want to go on as we are now? Well, I am for reform. I am for dealing with the question of pricing carbon. I am for telling people the truth. The Leader of the Opposition, with his three-word slogans and his denial of climate change, wants to hide the truth from people. But, of course, his ability to hide that truth ran out of rope when we had the Treasury books for the incoming government released under freedom of information, because they made it absolutely clear that this nation needs to price carbon in order to meet its targets for reducing carbon emissions and that the only other way to do it is to put huge costs on the budget. The member who asked me the question asks about costs. I say to him if he wants to talk about costs let us have an honest debate. How much would you hack out of education to deal with it your way? How much would you hack out of health? How much would you hack out of defence? How much would you put taxes up by?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will come to her conclusion.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know the Leader of the Opposition loves a good tax: he took one to the last election. He loves increased taxes: he ran for the last election on the basis of them. So when the opposition actually wants to front up and put a full position about those questions we will have the debate. In the meantime I would say to the opposition and to the member who has asked the question that the Australian community deserves better than this endeavour to hide the truth from the Australian community and just drive fear. We will work our way through this debate. The Australian nation is up to it, the government is going to do it and the only people being left behind are sitting over there on the opposition side.