Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

So we have had all these 15-minutes political speeches, and I have only spoken for one minute and have already had two points of order. It is really quite amusing.

The first point I would make directly in response to the issues raised by Senator Milne: if she was genuinely interested in the issues she raised, she would have read chapter four of the revised explanatory memorandum which was circulated by the authority of my good friend and valued colleague Hon. Greg Hunt and my other very good friend , the Treasurer, Hon. JB Hockey MP. Over 24 pages—all of the answers are here.

Before we had Senator Lines trying to suggest that somehow some discovery was reported for the first time ever in The West Australian without telling anyone that The West Australian was doing nothing other than quoting from the government's explanatory memorandum. Now we have Senator Milne asking questions in relation to things that are covered in some detail in our explanatory memorandum.

To go to the specific issues that she raised, let me be very clear: when it comes to solar panels, for example, they are not impacted by these measures. As defined in 13A(2)(c) of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989, these measures only cover bulk imports of synthetic greenhouse gases. There are no synthetic greenhouse gas manufacturers in Australia. Bulk importers supply all of the synthetic greenhouse gases sold here in Australia, so our measures do not cover importers of fridges, air conditioners or cars which have synthetic greenhouse gases in them, because it is much too complex and costly to cover.

The government has also made it very clear that the interpretation of 'electricity retailer' is limited to electricity retailers and electricity producers selling electricity into a wholesale electricity market to a retailer. This means that small-scale electricity producers, such as families and businesses with solar PV on their rooftops, are not covered. I will just say that again very slowly for Senator Milne: they are not covered. All she needed to do to find that information was to have a good look at the information openly and transparently published by the government in our revised explanatory memorandum.

In terms of the reductions in the cost of electricity as a direct result of scrapping the Labor-Green carbon tax, I refer you to the statements by Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, which stated on 19 June 2014, in relation to electricity prices, that there would be a 7.8 per cent real fall in electricity prices with the removal of the carbon tax. The Queensland Competition Authority, in relation to electricity prices, stated on 30 May this year that there would be an 8.5 per cent fall in typical household electricity bills. The ACT Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission, also in relation to electricity prices, said that there would be an 11.6 per cent fall in the price of electricity without the carbon tax. The New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, in relation to gas prices, stated that gas prices will be up to 9.2 per cent lower without the carbon tax. I could go on and on, but I will not, because all of these arguments have already been made ad nauseam.

However often Labor senators and Greens senators keep repeating the same erroneous assertions, it does not make them true. The bottom line with all of this, as much as we might want to continue to go round and round in circles, is that all of these issues were canvassed in great detail in the lead-up to the last election, in two very comprehensive debates in the Senate. Now we are having another comprehensive debate. It is time that the Senate acted to respect the will of the Australian people as expressed at the last election.

Specifically in relation to the other questions that Senator Milne raised around consumer protection measures, both in the original and the new bills, all of the issues that she is concerned about are adequately covered in proposed section 60G in relation to price monitoring, proposed section 60K in relation to the false or misleading representations prohibition, section 60C in relation to the price exploitation prohibition—in particular, the modified 60C in relation to the carbon tax reduction obligations; the new 60CA in relation to the failure to pass on the cost savings and the penalty provisions in relation to that, the new 60FA in relation to the carbon tax removal substantiation notice and the new 60FD in relation to the carbon tax removal substantiation statements and the new 60FE in relation to statements for customers.

As we have always said, the government was always determined to ensure that the cost reductions that electricity generators and gas generators, in particular, are able to benefit from as a result of the scrapping of the carbon tax should be passed on to consumers and to small businesses by way of lower electricity and gas prices. We had already taken significant steps to ensure that happens. As a result of the positive and constructive interaction between the government and the Palmer United Party, we have been able to improve even further on what was already a very strong set of provisions. The government is very pleased that the Palmer United Party took such a constructive and positive approach. Of course, the Palmer United Party, like the coalition—and like the Labor Party—went to the last election promising to remove the carbon tax. At least the Palmer United Party is true to its word to the Australian people, whereas the Labor Party is not, yet again.

We can have the ongoing relay filibuster going on—I see that Senator Bullock has now arrived in the chamber, and no doubt he is going to join in straight behind Senator Dastyari with another 15-minute filibuster. But, of course, we all know that in the lead-up to the second version of the WA Senate election—the by-election that we should not have been required to have—it was none other than Senator Bullock who went to Western Australia to say that the Labor Party was scrapping the carbon tax. Sadly for him, that was on the very same day that the Labor Party was voting in this chamber to keep it. I understand why Senator Bullock would have been confused, because he would have been of the view that that was the position of the Labor Party. I see him nod. I am sorry that the Hansard does not pick up a nod, but I saw you nod that that was your belief—that the Labor Party had a policy to scrap the carbon tax. This is the flyer that was circulated in the 2013 election—