Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 22 August 2011:

In regard to the Clean Energy Future document, 'What a carbon price means for you', which was sent to all households:

(1) In relation to the paper used for the document:

(a) where was the paper sourced;

(b) was the paper made in Australia, if not, where was it made;

(c) where did the pulp that made the paper originate;

(d) what was the type of paper used;

(e) what was the total cost of the purchase of the paper; and

(f) which company was successful in providing the paper.

(2) With reference to the statement 'China is now the world's largest manufacturer of both solar panels and wind turbines' (p. 5), what quantity of these solar panels and wind turbines are manufactured for export to other countries in the world, including Australia.

(3) With reference to the statement that 'by 2020 the carbon price package will take 160 million tonnes of pollution out of the atmosphere every year'(p. 6), does that statement take into account the possibility of any carbon leakage whatsoever from manufacturing moving from Australia to other countries.

(4) With reference to the statements 'average incomes grow strongly' and 'national employment is projected to increase by 1.6 million jobs by 2020' (p. 7), does this modelling indicate that the growth in average incomes and employment will be slower than if there had not been a carbon price imposed; if so, why was this not stated in the document.

(5) With reference to the statement 'some businesses will pass on the carbon price' (p. 8), can a detailed list be provided of businesses which are anticipated will not pass on the carbon price.

(6) Does the document refer to the increased marginal tax rates increasing:

  (a) if not, why not; or

  (b) if so, by how much will the marginal tax rates increase.

(7) With reference to the statement that '9 in 10 households will receive tax cuts, increased payments, or both' (p. 14):

  (a) is it acknowledged that not all of those 9 in 10 households will in fact be better off; and

  (b) is it a fact that less than 50 per cent of the population will be better off if Treasury's modelling and assumptions are accepted.