Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Conroy. Given that the only long-term way to constrain petrol price rises, ease the pain for Australian commuters and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport is to reduce oil demand by making system-wide alternatives more available, why is the government spending 20 times more on new roads, freeways, flyovers and road tunnels than it is on mass transit? Secondly, why is the government intent on undermining its own emissions trading scheme and its own emissions targets by driving up transport emissions from its road infrastructure funding?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that question. Perhaps I can be very clear from the outset: the government went to the last election with a very clear program to address infrastructure bottlenecks in this country. It was a very clear program that included road funding and a fund to develop ports, broadband and other areas that were clearly identified. Not only do we not shy away from your claim; we are proud that we went to the election with this suite of commitments, and we intend to deliver on each and every one of them. We also have, at the same time, a comprehensive package to address climate change. So it is possible for us to address both the infrastructure constraints—we inherited them from those opposite, who spent 11½ years avoiding the Reserve Bank’s warnings, because they just could not understand that, as the economy grew, it introduced capacity constraints—and climate change. Not only do we have a comprehensive package to address climate change, we also have a package designed to ensure that the economy can continue to grow without the inflationary pressures that those opposite have left us with.

As I mentioned earlier, we have the highest inflation rate in 16 years. This is an opposition that has lost touch with the issues affecting ordinary Australians and the pressures that are being put on Australian families. Not only are we proud; we will continue to go forward with both our environment package and our infrastructure package to deal with those issues that you have raised.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the government has a policy to drive greenhouse gas emissions up at the same time as they have a policy to bring greenhouse gas emissions down. Given that it is not clear how the government intends to do both at the same time, I ask: will the government refer all of its road funding election promises to Infrastructure Australia to examine the plans against alternatives, such as urban mass transit and regional and intercity rail links? If not, why does the government think it is more important to implement populist election pork-barrelling road funding than to fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and be a world leader on climate change, since you cannot have it both ways?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would disagree completely. We have a comprehensive package to address both of these issues. As for the issue of public transport funding, I accept that the previous government were not interested in it. But this government recognises the importance of the seamless movement of people and freight both within and between cities. You ask whether we would refer this. We debated this at some considerable length in Senate estimates, Senator Milne, as you know. I made it clear over and over again to you and those opposite that our election commitments are guaranteed. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will continue to deliver on our promises on infrastructure and road funding and we will deliver on our promises on climate change. Your paradigm that you cannot have both, we reject utterly. We reject utterly the claim that you cannot have both. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Conroy. Senator Conroy identified that the Labor government is intent on honouring its election commitments. Would he inform the Senate whether petrol will be included in Labor’s emissions trading scheme?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Global crude oil prices have been rising strongly over recent years—that is something that those opposite did not want to acknowledge—and this is putting pressure on domestic petrol prices and family budgets. The world benchmark West Texas crude oil price is now trading at around $130 per barrel.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It is clear that Senator Conroy pushed the wrong button and is reading the wrong answer. I asked specifically whether petrol will be included in Labor’s emissions trading scheme.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. There have been persistent points of order that require ministers, within seconds, to address exactly the answer that the senator wants. I suggest that you rule this one out of order and also indicate to the opposition that it is a misuse of question time.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans, you are asking me to rule as to whether it is a misuse of question time. I have listened to a few question times in my time here, and I do not think that the taking of points of order is wrong. I would say, Senator Bernardi, that Senator Conroy has been speaking for exactly 28 seconds, but I will listen carefully to hear whether he refers to your question. He is allowed to develop an answer, but I will listen carefully.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the price of world petrol has risen and Australian families are suffering because of it. The broader the emissions trading scheme coverage, the lower the cost for all Australians in achieving greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Accordingly, the government has committed to maximal practical coverage. There is wide agreement that over 70 per cent of Australia’s emissions can be practically covered by emissions trading, including emissions from the transport sector. This is consistent with the recommendations of the report of the task force group on emissions trading, which was accepted by the previous government. Excluding transport fuels from the emissions trading scheme—

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ellison interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It wasn’t me! Excluding transport fuels from the emissions trading scheme would not provide incentives for the market to develop low-cost technologies, such as low-emissions vehicles and fuels, and hence would lower market efficiencies and shift the burden to other sectors. The government will take a careful and deliberate approach to finalising the scheme design, drawing on many sources of advice to achieve the best quality policy outcomes and minimise implementation risks. The government is mindful of a range of impacts that the emissions trading scheme will have on the community and will be designing measures to assist households, particularly low-income households, to adjust to the impact of carbon prices.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister referred to pricing pressures and cost pressures on low-income households. I refer the minister to today’s CSIRO report which found that Australian families will be paying at least $10 more per week for electricity, petrol and gas with an emissions trading scheme in place. Can the minister explain how ripping another $8 billion out of the pockets of Australian families will ease the cost of living?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will use revenue from the ETS to help all Australians, households and businesses, cope with costs and investing in cleaner energy options. An emissions trading scheme will impact on a range of prices in the economy, and this is necessary to transform the economy to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. But, as I said, we will be ensuring that we use the revenue to ensure that Australians, particularly low-income households, are given some protections from these issues.