❓ Mr Sutherland asks about the WA Treasury report on the carbon tax impact. Mr Porter responds, highlighting concerns about the Commonwealth's modelling assumptions, particularly regarding the global carbon permit market.
AnsweredQoN 506Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CARBON TAX — TREASURY REPORT
I refer to the WA Treasury report entitled “Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of the Proposed Carbon Tax on Western Australia”. Can the Treasurer provide the house with some of the information in that report relating to the impact on Western Australian households and any changes to Australia’s carbon emissions that can be identified? Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer to the WA Treasury report entitled “Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of the Proposed Carbon Tax on Western Australia”. Can the Treasurer provide the house with some of the information in that report relating to the impact on Western Australian households and any changes to Australia’s carbon emissions that can be identified? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. The Treasury document, which is online, is entitled “Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of the Proposed Carbon Tax on Western Australia”. It is a very good document. It goes through an analysis of the proposed carbon tax in four sections. Firstly, it has a very close look at the commonwealth Treasury modelling about the emissions impact. It looks at, secondly, the impact on the Western Australian economy overall; thirdly, the impact on state finances; and, fourthly, the impact on Western Australian households. As I say, it is a very complicated and detailed area. This report approaches it in a very user-friendly way. It is simple, straightforward and very thorough, and it is to the credit of the officers in Treasury who put it together. Just looking at two of those issues, the first is the analysis of the commonwealth Treasury modelling of the emissions impact. There are two key assumptions inside the carbon tax, one of which has gotten a lot of air time, and the other seems to have slipped under the radar. The first is that there is going to be a price per metric tonne on carbon. All the modelling that the commonwealth has done prices that at $20. Of course, that was then announced to be $23. For a start, the modelling, very interestingly, does not equate with the actual price. The other very important feature and key assumption is that, after two years, the carbon tax system is supposed to transition to a flexible price system with a cap and a floor—if you like, an emissions trading scheme system. That is not something that seems to be a point of great discussion. To put it another way, there is a presumption that in 2015–16, there will be an unlimited international carbon permit system whereby the carbon permits on sale for Australian industry will be of a quality acceptable within the Australian scheme. A major assumption of the commonwealth government’s carbon tax is that in 2015–16 there will be a broad and deep global trading market in carbon permits. The Western Australian state government thinks that that is, at best, unbelievably optimistic, keeping in mind that in 2011–12 there is no global market whatsoever in carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan : There’s billions of dollars worth of trading going on at the moment. What are you talking about? Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. The Treasury document, which is online, is entitled “Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of the Proposed Carbon Tax on Western Australia”. It is a very good document. It goes through an analysis of the proposed carbon tax in four sections. Firstly, it has a very close look at the commonwealth Treasury modelling about the emissions impact. It looks at, secondly, the impact on the Western Australian economy overall; thirdly, the impact on state finances; and, fourthly, the impact on Western Australian households. As I say, it is a very complicated and detailed area. This report approaches it in a very user-friendly way. It is simple, straightforward and very thorough, and it is to the credit of the officers in Treasury who put it together. Just looking at two of those issues, the first is the analysis of the commonwealth Treasury modelling of the emissions impact. There are two key assumptions inside the carbon tax, one of which has gotten a lot of air time, and the other seems to have slipped under the radar. The first is that there is going to be a price per metric tonne on carbon. All the modelling that the commonwealth has done prices that at $20. Of course, that was then announced to be $23. For a start, the modelling, very interestingly, does not equate with the actual price. The other very important feature and key assumption is that, after two years, the carbon tax system is supposed to transition to a flexible price system with a cap and a floor—if you like, an emissions trading scheme system. That is not something that seems to be a point of great discussion. To put it another way, there is a presumption that in 2015–16, there will be an unlimited international carbon permit system whereby the carbon permits on sale for Australian industry will be of a quality acceptable within the Australian scheme. A major assumption of the commonwealth government’s carbon tax is that in 2015–16 there will be a broad and deep global trading market in carbon permits. The Western Australian state government thinks that that is, at best, unbelievably optimistic, keeping in mind that in 2011–12 there is no global market whatsoever in carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan : There’s billions of dollars worth of trading going on at the moment. What are you talking about? Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
I thank the member for the question. The Treasury document, which is online, is entitled “Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of the Proposed Carbon Tax on Western Australia”. It is a very good document. It goes through an analysis of the proposed carbon tax in four sections. Firstly, it has a very close look at the commonwealth Treasury modelling about the emissions impact. It looks at, secondly, the impact on the Western Australian economy overall; thirdly, the impact on state finances; and, fourthly, the impact on Western Australian households. As I say, it is a very complicated and detailed area. This report approaches it in a very user-friendly way. It is simple, straightforward and very thorough, and it is to the credit of the officers in Treasury who put it together. Just looking at two of those issues, the first is the analysis of the commonwealth Treasury modelling of the emissions impact. There are two key assumptions inside the carbon tax, one of which has gotten a lot of air time, and the other seems to have slipped under the radar. The first is that there is going to be a price per metric tonne on carbon. All the modelling that the commonwealth has done prices that at $20. Of course, that was then announced to be $23. For a start, the modelling, very interestingly, does not equate with the actual price. The other very important feature and key assumption is that, after two years, the carbon tax system is supposed to transition to a flexible price system with a cap and a floor—if you like, an emissions trading scheme system. That is not something that seems to be a point of great discussion. To put it another way, there is a presumption that in 2015–16, there will be an unlimited international carbon permit system whereby the carbon permits on sale for Australian industry will be of a quality acceptable within the Australian scheme. A major assumption of the commonwealth government’s carbon tax is that in 2015–16 there will be a broad and deep global trading market in carbon permits. The Western Australian state government thinks that that is, at best, unbelievably optimistic, keeping in mind that in 2011–12 there is no global market whatsoever in carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan : There’s billions of dollars worth of trading going on at the moment. What are you talking about? Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Just looking at two of those issues, the first is the analysis of the commonwealth Treasury modelling of the emissions impact. There are two key assumptions inside the carbon tax, one of which has gotten a lot of air time, and the other seems to have slipped under the radar. The first is that there is going to be a price per metric tonne on carbon. All the modelling that the commonwealth has done prices that at $20. Of course, that was then announced to be $23. For a start, the modelling, very interestingly, does not equate with the actual price. The other very important feature and key assumption is that, after two years, the carbon tax system is supposed to transition to a flexible price system with a cap and a floor—if you like, an emissions trading scheme system. That is not something that seems to be a point of great discussion. To put it another way, there is a presumption that in 2015–16, there will be an unlimited international carbon permit system whereby the carbon permits on sale for Australian industry will be of a quality acceptable within the Australian scheme. A major assumption of the commonwealth government’s carbon tax is that in 2015–16 there will be a broad and deep global trading market in carbon permits. The Western Australian state government thinks that that is, at best, unbelievably optimistic, keeping in mind that in 2011–12 there is no global market whatsoever in carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan : There’s billions of dollars worth of trading going on at the moment. What are you talking about? Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan : There’s billions of dollars worth of trading going on at the moment. What are you talking about? Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. The Treasury document, which is online, is entitled “Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of the Proposed Carbon Tax on Western Australia”. It is a very good document. It goes through an analysis of the proposed carbon tax in four sections. Firstly, it has a very close look at the commonwealth Treasury modelling about the emissions impact. It looks at, secondly, the impact on the Western Australian economy overall; thirdly, the impact on state finances; and, fourthly, the impact on Western Australian households. As I say, it is a very complicated and detailed area. This report approaches it in a very user-friendly way. It is simple, straightforward and very thorough, and it is to the credit of the officers in Treasury who put it together. Just looking at two of those issues, the first is the analysis of the commonwealth Treasury modelling of the emissions impact. There are two key assumptions inside the carbon tax, one of which has gotten a lot of air time, and the other seems to have slipped under the radar. The first is that there is going to be a price per metric tonne on carbon. All the modelling that the commonwealth has done prices that at $20. Of course, that was then announced to be $23. For a start, the modelling, very interestingly, does not equate with the actual price. The other very important feature and key assumption is that, after two years, the carbon tax system is supposed to transition to a flexible price system with a cap and a floor—if you like, an emissions trading scheme system. That is not something that seems to be a point of great discussion. To put it another way, there is a presumption that in 2015–16, there will be an unlimited international carbon permit system whereby the carbon permits on sale for Australian industry will be of a quality acceptable within the Australian scheme. A major assumption of the commonwealth government’s carbon tax is that in 2015–16 there will be a broad and deep global trading market in carbon permits. The Western Australian state government thinks that that is, at best, unbelievably optimistic, keeping in mind that in 2011–12 there is no global market whatsoever in carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan : There’s billions of dollars worth of trading going on at the moment. What are you talking about? Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
I thank the member for the question. The Treasury document, which is online, is entitled “Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of the Proposed Carbon Tax on Western Australia”. It is a very good document. It goes through an analysis of the proposed carbon tax in four sections. Firstly, it has a very close look at the commonwealth Treasury modelling about the emissions impact. It looks at, secondly, the impact on the Western Australian economy overall; thirdly, the impact on state finances; and, fourthly, the impact on Western Australian households. As I say, it is a very complicated and detailed area. This report approaches it in a very user-friendly way. It is simple, straightforward and very thorough, and it is to the credit of the officers in Treasury who put it together. Just looking at two of those issues, the first is the analysis of the commonwealth Treasury modelling of the emissions impact. There are two key assumptions inside the carbon tax, one of which has gotten a lot of air time, and the other seems to have slipped under the radar. The first is that there is going to be a price per metric tonne on carbon. All the modelling that the commonwealth has done prices that at $20. Of course, that was then announced to be $23. For a start, the modelling, very interestingly, does not equate with the actual price. The other very important feature and key assumption is that, after two years, the carbon tax system is supposed to transition to a flexible price system with a cap and a floor—if you like, an emissions trading scheme system. That is not something that seems to be a point of great discussion. To put it another way, there is a presumption that in 2015–16, there will be an unlimited international carbon permit system whereby the carbon permits on sale for Australian industry will be of a quality acceptable within the Australian scheme. A major assumption of the commonwealth government’s carbon tax is that in 2015–16 there will be a broad and deep global trading market in carbon permits. The Western Australian state government thinks that that is, at best, unbelievably optimistic, keeping in mind that in 2011–12 there is no global market whatsoever in carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan : There’s billions of dollars worth of trading going on at the moment. What are you talking about? Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Just looking at two of those issues, the first is the analysis of the commonwealth Treasury modelling of the emissions impact. There are two key assumptions inside the carbon tax, one of which has gotten a lot of air time, and the other seems to have slipped under the radar. The first is that there is going to be a price per metric tonne on carbon. All the modelling that the commonwealth has done prices that at $20. Of course, that was then announced to be $23. For a start, the modelling, very interestingly, does not equate with the actual price. The other very important feature and key assumption is that, after two years, the carbon tax system is supposed to transition to a flexible price system with a cap and a floor—if you like, an emissions trading scheme system. That is not something that seems to be a point of great discussion. To put it another way, there is a presumption that in 2015–16, there will be an unlimited international carbon permit system whereby the carbon permits on sale for Australian industry will be of a quality acceptable within the Australian scheme. A major assumption of the commonwealth government’s carbon tax is that in 2015–16 there will be a broad and deep global trading market in carbon permits. The Western Australian state government thinks that that is, at best, unbelievably optimistic, keeping in mind that in 2011–12 there is no global market whatsoever in carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan : There’s billions of dollars worth of trading going on at the moment. What are you talking about? Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan : There’s billions of dollars worth of trading going on at the moment. What are you talking about? Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : There are two internal markets—one is in Europe and the other is in New Zealand. They are nowhere near the size that will be required in 2015–16 for Australian industry to buy carbon permits. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn! Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The second thing is that both those economies, which have some form of internal trading system, are far less carbon intensive than Australia. What is presumed to exist is a broad and deep carbon permit trading system that involves nations that are more carbon intensive than Australia, because we want to buy the carbon permits at a lower price than they would be available here. Keeping in mind that there is no global market, the point is that if that market does not materialise in 2015–16, Australian industry will be left with a situation in which it will have to buy carbon permits inside the Australian market, which will push up the price allocated to carbon well beyond — Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan : Why? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It is because there is no market in global emissions. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : They must be. The reason—if the member reads the report, he will see this—is that there are abatement targets out to 2050 that Australian industry must meet, and those abatement targets are going to be — Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan : That’s not the issue. Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : But it is precisely the issue. Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cockburn, if you wish to ask a question, get to your feet and seek the call. I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, if you were not so anxious to answer interjections, you might have been through this question by now. Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What we are looking at here is a huge cost, even if there is some form of deep and broad global trading scheme for carbon permits. Based on the modelling by Treasury, which uses the targets for abatement from the commonwealth—that is the commonwealth modelling—by 2020, there will need to be an abatement of 94 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent and by 2050 that abatement will need to be 434 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. Using an inflation-adjusted price for carbon, if this system eventuates in 2015–16, by 2020 Australian industry will have to purchase carbon permits from overseas to the value of $2.7 billion and in 2050 Australian business will need to purchase carbon permits from overseas worth $56.9 billion. Without the global trading system, which in this government’s view is unlikely to exist as the commonwealth assumes it will, all we would have is a reduction in Australian emissions of about two per cent. Keeping in mind that Australian emissions are 1.5 per cent of global emissions, if there is not a broad, deep global trading system in carbon permits, all that will result in 2050 is a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by virtue of what is going to happen in Australia through the carbon tax system. Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions. By 2050 we could have a two per cent reduction, which would be a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions. Why would we do that? What is the cost? Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr P. Papalia : What would Tony’s plan cost? The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro! Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The first thing the opposition does when it does not like the plan its own government has put out—the idea that anyone could sensibly support this plan is completely remarkable to me; this is one of the worst pieces — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Treasurer! I would like to hear an end to this question. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : I do not need to hear from anybody at this point. I would like members to ask a few more questions. I think the Treasurer has heard me. Members of the opposition might get to hear the end of the question if they stop interjecting. Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am hearing you. What do we get for a 0.03 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050? In year one, we would get a $144 increase in household bills. That is just the direct bills from government to households in WA. Other increases include electricity, $111; transport, $19.50; and water, $13.25—that goes straight up. The opposition appears to support this: a WA family earning a combined — Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : Member for Forrestfield, I formally call you to order for the first time today, along with the member for West Swan. Anybody who wishes to interject further on this answer is also going to get called. Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That must mean I can speak for another 10 minutes! For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
For a typical WA family with two children earning a combined income of $150 000—the main earner earns $105 000 and the secondary earner earns $45 000—the cost impact will be $812 a year. The assistance, based on Treasury modelling, is $306. The family would be worse off by $506 a year, and what for? For a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions by 2050. Someone who was born tomorrow and was 38 years old by 2050 and who had children of their own while earning that income for their family would suffer that impost on their income the whole time for a 0.03 per cent decrease in global emissions. That is a terrible piece of public policy. Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
The SPEAKER : I did promise, members, that I would formally call those who continued to interject. I formally call the member for Warnbro for the first time, and I formally call the member for West Swan for the second time today.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.