Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Can the minister confirm that, in the days before the last federal election, Prime Minister Gillard said:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

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

I can confirm that this government has been committed to a carbon price and to attacking carbon pollution in our community since before the 2007 election. Interestingly, at that time we had bipartisan support for a scheme to produce a reduction in carbon emissions. Former Prime Minister John Howard—even John Howard, who was regarded by many as a fairly conservative influence in the Liberal Party—argued the need for this sort of reform.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President: even allowing for commentary and prologue, nothing that the minister has said in response to the question is relevant. The question could not have been narrower. He was asked to confirm whether the Prime Minister made a statement or not. It is, with respect, hard to see how commentary and prologue can be directly relevant to the question of whether or not a particular statement was made by the Prime Minister.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has two minutes to answer the question. The minister is reminded that there is a minute and 29 seconds remaining to answer the question.

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

I thank Senator Brandis for making a contribution, because I remember the days when he used to believe that climate change was a problem for this country. I remember the days when the Liberal Party was serious about tackling climate change and when he supported that position. But unfortunately that is no longer the case.

It is the case that the Prime Minister has been very upfront with the Australian public about these issues—very upfront. She has been in the media the last few days answering questions, responding to the issues posed by the opposition, and she has made the continuity of Labor’s position seeking to address this issue very clear. You might recall that three times in the last term we brought legislation into this parliament and three times those opposite, with a combination of Independents and Greens, rejected that legislation. The consistency of this government’s approach is on the record. We have consistently attempted to make a major reform to our economy to reduce carbon pollution.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President: with 28 seconds to go, nothing we have heard from the minister so far has been directly relevant to the question of whether a statement was made or not. The question could not have been narrower. As I pointed out to you on the last sitting day, an answer cannot be all prologue, particularly if the question is narrowly focused on one issue of fact—was a statement made or not? If you allow this minister to occupy the entire two minutes with prologue and commentary, you will be condoning a defiance of the sessional order.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President: the minister is addressing the question. The opposition are seeking a yes or no answer in response to their question. My submission is that the minister is answering the question by explaining the issue without being drawn into a yes or no response. So my submission is that the minister is on point and is answering the question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the minister’s attention to the question. There are 28 seconds remaining.

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

The Prime Minister has been very frank with the Australian community about these issues. The Prime Minister has made it clear that this party, the Labor Party, has been committed to effective action against carbon pollution for many years now and that we have tried, in each term of our government, to make legislative reform. We will continue to do that. As part of the new parliament, we have set up a process which will hopefully see real action and legislation out of this parliament. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see that you are on your feet, Senator Brandis. I do draw your attention to the fact—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just wait a minute, Senator Brandis. It is very hard when there is commentary going on across the chamber.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the question of relevance: I rose, with two seconds to go and, by the time you acknowledged me, the time had expired. By the time the time had expired the minister had not addressed the question, in defiance to your direction to him to come to the question. That is the consequence of rulings which say: ‘Up until the very end of the period allowed for answering the question, a minister can engage in commentary, prologue and political badinage.’ Your ruling does not operate successfully, Mr President, when you have ministers prepared to defy you, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate just did, preventing the opposition from taking a point of order and preventing you from enforcing the sessional orders until the time has expired.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The minister was responding to the question that was asked and was being directly relevant to the issue raised. What we now have is a question that has been asked in such a way, with a political overtone, that is designed to elicit a yes or no response—

Opposition Senator:

Opposition senator interjecting—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which can be answered, and is being answered, by the minister without saying, as the case may be, yes or no, by explaining the context of the question and by answering in the context of the question and to the issue that is embodied within the question. What we now hear from the opposition, again through an interjection, is simply: ‘A response, either yes or no.’ The minister, in answering the question, does not have to answer yes or no. The minister can actually explain what the issue is, whilst being directly relevant to the question raised. That is the point. Therefore, there is no point of order by the opposition in raising this issue. They are simply ignoring their own standing orders by taking frivolous points of order in this way.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have consistently said during question time that I am not able to tell the minister how to answer the question. All I can do is see that the sessional orders are adhered to. They may not supply the answer in the manner and in the desired form that you require. But I listen closely to the minister’s answers on each occasion and I endeavour to ensure that the minister is complying with sessional orders. That does not mean that I can tell the minister how to answer the question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are entitled to take a point of order, Senator Brandis.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, having heard the minister’s answer in its entirety and the time limit for answering the question having expired, are you now ruling that his answer was directly relevant to Senator Abetz’s question?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order there.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If sessional orders do require a directly relevant answer, let’s try this supplementary question. Minister, is it a fact that the Prime Minister, in her Labor campaign launch speech, of some 5,462 words, made no mention of a carbon tax nor of any other mechanism to reduce carbon pollution?

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

I have to concede that I do not have a copy of the speech with me so, to that extent, I will have to take Senator Abetz’s question on notice. I will have a look at the speech. The Labor Party have made clear for a number of years our commitment to get a price on carbon, to deal with the heavy levels of pollution that are being emitted in our economy and which are leading to the global problem of climate change. We made concerted efforts in the previous parliament to try to get through legislation, to introduce a CPRS. We were unsuccessful in that regard. But our analysis, our critique, our support for the need to seriously address climate change has been longstanding. As I say, the opposition used to support us in those endeavours, until the right wing of the party exerted its control. I would encourage the Liberal Party to rethink their position to help us address this serious issue. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the minister has not denied either statement and, given that the minister has not denied that the Prime Minister said that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads, who is leading the government? Senator Brown, Senator Milne and the Greens? Or did caucus actually have a say in this decision?

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

I think the Australian public would be interested to know that all the Liberal Party and the coalition have to offer on a most serious debate is to try to make some low-level political pointscoring. Seriously, if you take the issues of carbon pollution and climate change seriously, you would think that you would try to engage in a policy debate. You would think you would have something to say about the real issues confronting our nation with respect to climate change. But no, we have this nitpicking, minor political stuff that maybe works inside the Liberal Party at their party room meetings, but has no relevance to the broader Australian public and the serious challenges involved. It is about time the Liberal Party took their responsibilities as an alternative government seriously. Quite frankly, at the moment you are a laughing stock.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Can the minister outline to the Senate how setting a carbon price will help Australia become a clean energy nation?.

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

I thank Senator Brown for her question. Pricing carbon is an essential economic reform, and it is the right thing to do. A carbon price is a price on pollution. It is the cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution and build a clean-energy economy. The best way to stop businesses polluting, and to get them to invest in clean energy, is to charge them when they pollute. Australia, as we all know, has one of the most carbon-intensive economies in the world. Per head of population we have the highest emissions of any developed country, emitting around 27 tonnes of carbon per person per year.

A clean-energy nation is in the national interest. The longer we delay, the harder the adjustment will be. The global renewable energy sector is already taking hold. In 2009, for the second year in a row, both the United States and Europe added more power capacity from renewable sources such as wind and solar than from conventional sources. The government wants Australians to benefit from this new green boom, not get left behind.

Change is difficult, but we have to start now—and we do need leadership from our politicians. Major economic reform does require leadership. In the 1980s Labor in government made the tough economic reforms to deregulate our economy and bring down tariff walls. It was not easy but it did create new jobs, it changed the face of others and we reaped the benefits of that reform. And we can reap the benefits of a transition to a clean-energy economy. What we need to do is to act in the national interest, to take on these difficult challenges and to provide business with the certainty they need. Business need to know how we are going to progress with these matters so they can make the investment decisions that we need, and unless we give them that certainty we will be held back. This is important economic reform, and I hope the parliament will support it in due course. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain to the Senate how setting a carbon price is the most efficient way to cut carbon pollution?

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

A clean-energy nation means harnessing the next generation of renewable energy. Australia has an abundance of renewable energy. We are lucky to enjoy an abundance of solar, natural gas, geothermal and wind resources. It is now time to turn our comparative advantage in these resources to cutting carbon pollution. A carbon price will change this by putting a price tag on carbon pollution. Big business will be aware of their pollution because they will have to pay for it. Households will be aware of the carbon pollution produced by the goods and services they consume because prices of high-polluting goods will be higher than prices of goods which produce less pollution. It will send the signals for business to innovate and find ways to reduce carbon pollution. It will send the signals to households to switch to goods and services which produce less pollution. It is a market mechanism, one that will drive investment to give us a cleaner economy. These changes are necessary both for our climate and for our economy. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate whether setting a carbon price is important for creating investment certainty?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! When you have finished debating across the chamber, we will proceed—simple as that. Senator Evans.

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

Thank you, Mr President. Without action we will lock in high-polluting infrastructure and investments. Anyone with a serious interest in public policy in this country knows that. That would make the transition more difficult and more costly.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Evans, resume your seat. When we have silence we will proceed.

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

We emit carbon pollution because there are no economic consequences for doing so—it does not cost us anything to emit carbon pollution. We cannot see it, we cannot hear it but we know that the effects on the environment are very real. We need to make renewables and low-pollution energy more competitive. Currently, low-pollution energy resources, such as solar and wind, cost more than coal-fired electricity. Renewables cost more under the current system. We need to change the economics. A carbon price will make cleaner energy more competitive and, because it prices pollution, it can also be used to assist households with rising costs. This is important so we can create investment certainty and move to a lower pollution economy. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. The government lauds the fact that a carbon tax—the word that will not speak its name at the moment; it has become a ‘carbon price’—will provide certainty. Can the minister, seeing how the government are upfront, transparent and open, provide to this chamber a certainty that they will be ruling out this carbon tax—carbon price, whatever you want to call it—on fuel?

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

I suspect Senator Boyce could not have been listening to any radio or TV for the last few days, because the Prime Minister—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Joyce! Sorry, Senator Boyce: my deepest apologies! What a terrible mistake to make! What the Prime Minister has announced is the framework by which we will be pursuing putting a price on carbon. She has made it clear that we are going to work through all of the issues that flow from that. Rather than trying to rule things in and rule things out early, the Prime Minister is seeking to make sure we have a proper public policy debate about these issues.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The Prime Minister actually ruled out a carbon tax, so now that it is in, can the minister just inform us whether they are ruling it out or in with respect to fuel?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point. The minister is answering the question.

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

We have made it clear that there is a process we are going through with a committee set up inside the parliament to review the measures we need to take to make a transition to putting a price on carbon. We hope to do that in time to have the price imposed from the start date of 1 July 2012. We are going to have to get this through the parliament. I do not underestimate the challenge of doing that. Our experience with the CPRS was that, despite the so-called commitment of the opposition and the Greens’ support for a scheme, we were not able to successfully get a scheme through the parliament. But we have said that we are going to try to put a price on carbon. We have engaged in a process to try to build support for that. We have said that we are going to work through some of the issues that are obviously out there in relation to how the price is applied and what it will be applied to. We have not yet decided how the transport sector will be treated—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

but it is a key issue and it is one that I encourage the opposition to engage in constructively rather than just performing stunts. (Time expired)