Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, one-third of the impact. Is that correct? I would like to hear that, because when we are dealing with these issues we need to know the context of how we are dealing with it. One-third of the impact of the GST.

I would like you to comment on the Treasury modelling that was done when the carbon price was introduced. As I understand it from the estimates committee—Senator Cormann, I am sure you were there on several occasions, along with me—we were told continually by the same people who are advising you now that the implication for jobs was minor, that employment would continue to grow over the period of the carbon price and that wage increases would continue to grow over the period of the carbon price. These are all big issues. And what I believe the public thought about the carbon price was very successfully prosecuted by the coalition—I think people will look at this in the years ahead and say, 'What was this all about'—and it led the public to believe that jobs would be lost across the economy, that jobs would be lost because of the carbon price. I have not heard anything about the jobs that will be lost because of this decision that you are making in terms of the capacity for our industry to decarbonise and create jobs for the future. I would be interested in your view on that. I would be interested in the modelling that was done that was quite unequivocal that this was a small impact on the economy, completely at odds with the impression that the coalition have left in relation to what the real impact is. The impact that you have argued out there publicly is at odds with the Treasury modelling that I was advised of and that you were advised of.

The environmental implications, in my view, are significant in terms of us not playing a proper role. As the former Prime Minister John Howard argued, we should play a leading role in a worldwide attempt to deal with the impact of climate change. So there are a number of issues that I am interested in. Again I ask: what is the average family? What is that $100 leg of lamb impact? Why didn't it reach $100? Was that simply a lie by the coalition, as everyone else—you should just concede that point; it was part of a fear campaign. How do you deal with the modelling issue? How do you deal with the issue of the market being the most efficient and effective way to deal with it? How do you deal with the criticism of Mr Turnbull in relation to your fig leaf of a policy—that is Mr Turnbull's view. How do you deal with all of those issues when you claim a mandate?