Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
ABC News Breakfast -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) and truly under way. The only question is whether we will

achieve it in time to avoid

climate change. We are joined

by Greg Hunt who is the Opposition's slime at spokesman. Do you agree with

Tim Flannery, there is a

growing sense of urgency to globally tackle climate change

? You see two things. You see

yes to action, no to carbon

tax. That is the real

experience the. The United

States has said no to a carbon

tax. Canada has voted

decisively against one. Japan

has deferred indefinitely.

Korea, rather than bringing one

forward has set win back. India

has said no and Europe's carbon

tax has been a fraction of what

is proposed in Australia. So we

do see some action which is

positive but overwhelmingly

it's yes to action, no to a

carbon tax. That's the real

Productivity Commission found global experience as the

in Australia. At the same time we heard there from Tim

Flannery, 850 million people

living in countries by carbon

tax, 33 countries with carbon

pricing. That's not an

insignificant figure. What they

are saying is Europe has a

version of a carbon tax but the

first five years of the

European scheme average ed $5 #

# million. In the first year in

Australia it's $9 billion

almost. So 18 times greater but

then on a per head basis,

Europe has the best part of 500

million people. It's been a

dollar per person in dollar per person in Europe,

it's $400 per person in

Australia. So there is

literally no comparison between

what the rest of the world is

doing and what Australia is

doing. The sad part about it is

that emissions go up in

Australia under the carbon tax,

not down. We go through all of

this pain, and as somebody said

to me on the weekend, what is

the point if our emissions go

up. Why do emissions go up

under a carbon tax? It is at

its heart an electricity tax. Electricity is an essential

service. But the carbon tax

makes up 10% of electricity

bills? The whole point is, it's

an electricity tax and it

doesn't change behaviour in significant way. So you make a doesn't change behaviour in any

bad situation worse. People

live with an electricity tax

and instead of changing their electricity habits

significantly, what they do,

they have to substitute out of

whether it's swimming lessons

or school books or the once a

month restaurant meal for

pensioners. That's the reality

of how an electricity tax

operates and that's precisely

why a carbon tax isn't

effective. It focuses on the

wrong thing in the wrong way. Just getting back to that

point. You are saying electricity prices are going up because of the car billion tax,

not because of the rolled gold infrastructure upgrades on

state networks? This is the

Prime Minister's great

diversion. Of course... It's

not a diversion, Conservative

Premiers have said the same

thing. We have had increases which is the point we have

made. On top of that you add a

car billion tax. This year the

carbon tax will represent,

according to regulators,

between 80 and 100% of the

price rises in Queensland. Well

over 70% in Victoria. Over 75% in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and almost

80% in the ACT and at least 50%

in New South Wales. So the

carbon tax is the prime mover

for the coming year and it

comes on top of rises in the

past. That's exactly the

problem that it makes a bad

situation worse but it doesn't

do the job. Your listeners must

be thinking, "Surely if we are

going through this pain we

would be reducing emissions".

It doesn't do that. Our

emissions go up from 578 to 620

tons between 2010 and 2020. In

other words, pushing on

electricity pricing does a lot

of damage but it doesn't

resolve the problem. That's our

deep real issue with it and why

when you look at the rest of

the world, the message is

carbon taxes don't work because

they focus on electricity

rather than focusing on real

action that reduces

emissions. You have been

running this campaign against

the carbon tax since July,

saying things like parents

parents giving up swimming

lesson. Why has it Labor's

primary vote has jumped 7

percentage points. Depends what

you look at. In the last

Newspoll, Labor's vote has gone

up 7%. It plummeted in the

first poll and bounced back to

a more even position. If you

look at two different polls. Essential went up for the

Coalition, down for Labor

overnight. If you took overnight. If you took this Newspoll results, the only

comparable results would be the

1983 defeat by the Hawk

Government and Fraser

Government which is regarded as a December Malaysian and the defeat of the Keating

Government by the Howard

government. Both of those were

in the 53 change range it is a

catastrophic result for the

Government but there is a

second poll, of course, which

is at 57. So if you took the

two together, you would have to

go back to 1977 to get a result

as bad for a Government. They

can boast and Crow if they want

about a result as bad as 1996

or 1983 or if you took the two

together, one poll has got worse successively over the

last two weeks. One poll has

got slightly better. Speaking

of had you voters are seeing

the politicalisation, how would

they react when they see a

Coalition leader and two

ministers ejected during

Question Time? If theres was

an action replay, most people

would say the ball pitched well

outside of off stump. It wasn't

going to hit the stumps. It was

a very soft dismissal. I think

it was a very unjustified

dismissal. We all sat there,

and to be truthful, we were

ready to move dissent. It was

Tony Abbott who turned and

side, "Guys, let it ride". Tony

was the one who offered the peacemaker's path by turning to

the troops and quietly saying,

"Let it ride". Our view was it

was an exceptionally soft

dismissal. We were ready to

move dissent but it was the

leader who took the path of

being the peacemaker. As you

well know there has been a

battle of wills between Tony

Abbott and the acting Speaker,

Anna Burke. He clearly defied

her order and she, of course,

did what any Speaker would do

in that circumstance. How is

that a soft dismissal? This

was a very quiet response. It

wasn't an aggressive abuse of

Parliament. It was a response

in the Speaker's order. I want to get back to the key

point. You just asked me about

it. Would you do you think on

the vish uls, Warren Truss, the

National Party leader says it's

a badge of honour for Tony

Abbott to be ejected from

Parliament. What do you reckon

voters make of all of that? If

they should it, they would say

the ball pitched well outside

of off stump. There is no way

that should have been given