E&OE….
Topics: Labor’s new electricity tax, Penny Wong
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
We'll talk now to Greg Hunt. He's, of course, the man in charge of all things climate change-related for the Government. Thanks very much for your company.
I'll get to some of those issues in a moment, but what's this I hear about this Senate inquiry with Penny Wong apparently laying in to the Electoral Commissioner?
GREG HUNT:
So Senator Wong has launched a vicious attack and slur on the integrity of the Electoral Commissioner today.
Parliament is a tough environment, but attacking and slurring the Electoral Commissioner on the eve of an election is a vicious assault on a democratic institution and one of Australia's finest public servants.
She should withdraw and apologise, and if she won't withdraw, then Bill Shorten should slap down those comments and bring his Senator into line, and express his support for the Electoral Commissioner.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
What was it about, can I ask? I mean, this is…go on.
GREG HUNT:
So the Electoral Commissioner was asked to effectively give opinions and to pre-empt outcomes on evidence before the Royal Commission, and he refused to do that.
So he refused to pre-empt the New South Wales Royal Commission process. Entirely proper, entirely appropriate. Simply being a diligent public official and officer of the highest integrity.
And he wouldn't bow to the will to do something improper and it was an extraordinary assault, attack, and vicious slur on one of Australia's finest public servants and upholders of democratic traditions.
Senator Wong should apologise and withdraw, and if not, Bill Shorten should make her withdraw and express his support for the Commissioner.
If not, this is the sign of a vicious, underhanded Labor assault on democratic institutions.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Well, I've got a feeling this will go places. We'll see where it goes. Let's move to your portfolio area, if we can.
Now this Labor Party policy that was announced yesterday in relation to an ETS – take me through your thoughts on this.
My read of it, for what it's worth, is that the so-called heavy lifting in emissions reductions doesn't happen until the mid-2020s or thereabouts.
So it looks quite fluffy to me in the meantime, and questionable whether we'll ever get there. What's your take?
GREG HUNT:
Well, there are two things about it, and the first is it's an electricity tax – electricity prices are designed and intended to be the principal vehicle.
And secondly, it's not going to do the job of reducing emissions. So the way this is constructed, we know that from Labor's own modelling of Labor's own policy with a very similar target range to this when it was done by Treasury when they were in Government, we're looking at a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices – their modelling, not ours.
We're looking at a carbon price – on their modelling, not ours – of in the range of $209.
We're looking at…
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Well just on the first one, Greg Hunt, sorry to interrupt…
GREG HUNT:
…a hit to families of $4900 by 2030 on their modelling, not ours.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Well just on the first one, the electricity prices, what's the significance, if any, of them trying to detach electricity from the essence of their scheme? They're trying to deal with that separately, is that right?
GREG HUNT:
Well look, they have a carbon tax, and they have two divisions, so it's obviously a very confused approach.
But essentially, it's a scheme for electricity and a scheme for everything else. It ends up in the same place, and that is higher electricity prices and higher costs on manufacturing.
So you get the worst possible outcome – a hit on families, but also a hit on businesses and jobs around the country.
Essentially, what you'll see is prices go up. When last they brought in the system, we had a massive increase in electricity prices. We brought 100 per cent off according to the ACCC, and we'll see it again.
So what's strange is they haven't learnt from the past, and a system which didn't actually do the job and which did hit electricity prices is simply being repeated with a few minor tweaks.
But at the end of the day, with these targets and this mechanism, it's Gillard's carbon tax on steroids.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Would you envisage that this is going to be a major issue in the campaign?
I thought you were maybe going to get off a little bit lighter than you did in the last campaign, where clearly the carbon tax/ETS was a major issue in the mix.
But we've got negative gearing, we've got various other elements that are in the mix as well. Would you now say that this will be a front order issue?
GREG HUNT:
I do expect cost of living and electricity prices and an electricity tax to be absolutely a top order issue.
It matters to families and to businesses; it comes at the worst possible time for firms such as Arrium.
And so you have a housing tax and you have an electricity tax, and you put these two things together – and for families there really is a major choice at this election, both in terms of their own circumstances, but in particular in terms of their ability to find jobs for themselves, jobs for their children, and maintain their job security.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Now, this use of language – carbon tax versus ETS.
Bill Shorten yesterday was at pains to echo Julia Gillard's words that there'll be no carbon tax under a government that he leads.
GREG HUNT:
Yes, I'm not sure that was his wisest move.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Well take us through this, take us through this, because proponents of an ETS often say, hang on a second, that's not a carbon tax, it's different, it's not a fixed price, it's a floating market.
Why does your side of politics call it a carbon tax when the Opposition, the Labor Party, says it's absolutely not?
GREG HUNT:
Well the first thing is both Julia Gillard and Joel Fitzgibbon have said of their system – you can call it a carbon tax, it's a carbon tax.
I think Joel Fitzgibbon, who is one of their frontbenchers, was absolutely crystal clear on this. I'm not sure he's entirely on board with the policy.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
But that was when it was fixed price, wasn't it? That was when it was a fixed price.
GREG HUNT:
No, this was Joel Fitzgibbon only recently. I've been quoting him over recent months in the Parliament and he's been smiling away. I have a suspicion that he may not be entirely on board.
But the broader point is the family of carbon tax is fixed price and floating price. What the Labor Party is trying to do is to pretend that if you have a floating price it's not a carbon tax – of course it is.
It's a tax on the volume of carbon emissions designed to rise both in terms of the volume, but also the price per unit, to inflict pain, to drive down consumption of electricity, to therefore increase the hurt for families and for pensioners and for farmers and small businesses.
That's the theory, the logic, the intent, the purpose of, whether you call it an ETS or a carbon tax – the whole carbon tax world.
Electricity prices go up, families suffer, businesses suffer, therefore they either drop out of business, they reduce their use, and the end result is that it works through higher prices on electricity.
It's an electricity tax.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Well it's going to be interesting to watch. I get the impression that Labor is hoping that they lost the last election on leadership instability, not on the carbon tax, but we will see soon enough.
Greg Hunt, we appreciate your company as always here on Newsday. Thanks very much.
GREG HUNT:
Thanks Peter, cheers.
(ENDS)