Mr MURPHY (Reid) (16:26): I begin by applauding the member for Blair for bringing this very important matter of public importance before the parliament today. Some of the outrageous and false claims that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage, and other members of the operation are truly appalling. The truth is that the carbon price will have a modest impact on the cost of living and an increase in the CPI of 0.7 per cent, but you will never hear the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Flinders say that. State based regulators have confirmed key aspects of this forecast, but of course you will never hear the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Flinders say that. The New South Wales pricing regulator, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, has confirmed Treasury's forecast that electricity prices would rise by $3.30 per week, but of course you will never hear the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Flinders say that. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal said that the impact on council rates will be 0.4 per cent, which is less than the Treasury modelling, but of course you will never hear the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Flinders say that. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal figures have been confirmed by the New South Wales Liberal government, but you will never hear the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Flinders say that. The Liberal New South Wales local government minister issued a press release showing council rates will rise by 0.4 per cent as a result of the carbon price and that for the average household this is only 6c a week, but you will never hear the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Flinders say that. The New South Wales Liberal government has confirmed the Treasury forecast about the modest impact of a price on carbon, but you will never hear the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Flinders say that. Our government is providing tax cuts, increases in family payments and other benefits, and all up an extra $10.10 per week, on average, will be delivered through the government's household assistance package. That is $10.10 per week against, in this case, a 6c per week rate rise, but you will never hear the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Flinders say that. What the opposition leader has said is that the impacts of carbon pricing will be unimaginable. For the last 12 months the opposition leader has been going around the country making numerous false claims designed to engender fear that the carbon price would increase electricity prices by 20, 25 and 30 per cent. That is specifically what he has claimed. That is dishonest. Just last week the Leader of the Opposition said that, as a result of the carbon price, 'Power costs will go up by 20 per cent'. That is dishonest. It is well known that the opposition cannot add up, and recent claims about the effects of the price on carbon made by the Manager of Opposition Business and the shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage, amongst others, exceed any previous efforts in the deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and figures that affect this vital issue. Then they claim that the $3.40 per week that will be due to the price on carbon is some sort— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): Order! I hate to interrupt the member for Reid in full flight, but the member for Reid will resume his seat. Mr Hunt: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In relation to comments by the member for Reid, I would ask that he withdraw references to 'deliberate misrepresentation' and 'dishonesty' with regards to the Leader of the Opposition. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear any remarks in relation to 'dishonesty', but I will take advice. It may assist the chamber if the member for Reid were to withdraw. Mr MURPHY: If it assists the House, I withdraw, but I will not withdraw, Deputy Speaker, from the misrepresentation and distortion that has been undertaken by the shadow minister for climate change, environment and heritage, the member for Flinders, the Leader of the Opposition and other members on the other side of the House. Nowhere is the subterfuge more evident than some statements by opposition members claiming that 85 per cent of the increased price of electricity supplied by Integral Energy is due to the so-called carbon tax. According to the report of the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which I referred to earlier, electricity prices in New South Wales will rise by approximately 18 per cent. The report states that regulated retail electricity prices for typical households will rise from 1 July 2012 by $7 per week for Energy Australia residential customers, $4 per week for Integral Energy residential customers and $8 per week for Country Energy residential customers. These figures show that Integral Energy's increases in prices are the lowest of all the major providers; yet some members of the opposition seek to alarm the public by pronouncing the increase to 85 per cent. The other big hoax being peddled by the opposition is that Australia's carbon price is the biggest in the world. Well, it simply is not. It lies roughly in the middle of the field—which stretches from $130 per tonne in Sweden to less than $10 per tonne for a few other countries—and the member for Flinders knows that. Unless measures such as the carbon price are adopted, there is little doubt that the effects of rising carbon dioxide levels will certainly lead to more frequent real national disasters on the scale of the Black Sunday bushfires in Victoria or the Queensland floods. According to the Bureau of Meteorology, current weather patterns were proceeding as predicted in the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, which stated, amongst other things: We calculate with confidence that: - carbon dioxide has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect caused ... The long-lived gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilize the concentrations at today's levels, methane would require 15 to 20% reduction. Further, Karl Braganza, a Bureau of Meteorology climatologist, has said: Since about 1990, all the climate models have been producing the same or similar results, and that's what we are seeing now. There is more heavy rain in the tropics, as well as more drought in southern Australia. Of course, deceptive claims by the opposition about that effects of carbon dioxide emissions and the carbon price are nothing new to us—a prime example being the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that the Australian steel industry would be destroyed by the carbon price, notwithstanding the fact that the global steel industry is moving to reduce carbon dioxide emissions even without the encouragement of a price on carbon. Those who believe that Australia's coal exporters, such as the major sponsor of the opposition, Mr Clive Palmer, will continue to ride on an unending conveyor belt of money should realise that, according to the International Energy Agency, energy consumption in the global steel industry could be readily cut by one-third by the adoption of proven technology that would save and recycle heat within the steel-making process, even without significant changes to existing steel mills. Quite possibly the demand for coal will decline as overseas steelmakers become even more efficient and reduce emissions. Yet none of that matters to the opposition or their supporters, keen to dig up as much of Australia's natural resources as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Although the opposition may claim that nothing can be done to reduce emissions because of the nature of the process, for some reason overseas steelmakers do not seem to be bound by the same natural laws that apparently apply only in our country and are actually moving to halve emissions, despite the denials of the opposition. There are those that may think that such a goal is unattainable, yet according to the United States Department of Energy, the US steel industry has already reduced its energy and carbon intensity by almost half over the past 30 years. Thanks to process improvements, carbon dioxide emissions declined from 2.2 metric tonnes per tonne of steel produced in the early 1970s to one metric tonne per tonne of steel produced in 2011. And the member for Flinders and the shadow minister knows that. (Time expired)