Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. I refer the minister to the Prime Minister’s statement in which she warned that families may have to wait months before they know how much the carbon tax will push up the cost of power and groceries. Why did the government make the announcement for a carbon tax, which will impact every single Australian, without actually designing it first?

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

The opposition say they want to oppose this and then they complain that they do not have enough detail. You have already made up your minds about your position. You are not prepared to engage in the public debate. You are not prepared to seriously engage in a valid way. We think pricing carbon is an essential economic reform, that it is the right thing to do. We have announced the way we intend to progress these matters and we will have a proper public debate and engagement about finalising the detail within the framework we have established.

One of the things we learnt in the last term is that you cannot trust the Liberal and National parties to engage with you, because, after negotiating for months and months getting agreement on the way forward, they suddenly did a volte-face and abandoned their commitment.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Evans, resume your seat. The time for debating the issue is post question time. I keep reminding senators of that. There is plenty of time at the end of question time for people to participate in the debate.

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

We learned last time, in trying to work with the Liberal-National Party for a constructive public policy outcome, they let us and the Australian public down. We were unable to legislate, after three attempts to get the legislation passed by the Senate. What the Prime Minister did the other day was to announce the framework which would be applied in our moving to a price on carbon—the time frame—and we will seek to build community and parliamentary support to achieve that.

Opposition Senator:

Opposition senator interjecting—

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

We need to build parliamentary support, Senator, because we know we cannot rely on you. We cannot rely on you to take your responsibility seriously. All we get from you are stunts at fruit-and-veggie shops, bike rides or appearances in budgie-smugglers, but no engagement in the public policy debate—just knocking, knocking, knocking, with nothing to say. So we are going to engage with the people who have a real interest in public policy and try to make sure we bring in a carbon price that allows us to see the transformation of our economy and our climate. (Time expired)

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the government has revealed that details of the Labor-Greens carbon tax will not be finalised for many months, meaning that legislation will not be presented to the parliament until the second half of this year, isn’t it just an underhanded attempt by the government to concentrate on their Labor-Greens compact and have their carbon tax passed in a post-July Senate, where the balance of power will held exclusively by the Greens?

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

That is a really, really clever point! Senator Abetz must have written that one for you. Get real! Get in the public debate; meet your responsibilities rather than making silly little political debating points. Take your responsibilities seriously, Senator!

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It must be obvious to you, as it is to everyone in the chamber, that the Leader of the Government in the Senate is abusing and badgering a senator, not addressing his remarks through the chair and not addressing the question either directly or indirectly.

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

There is no point of order.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order on both sides!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron interjecting—

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

Senator Cameron! On both sides: it does not help the conduct of question time when there are endless interjections from both sides and people debating the issue across the chamber. It distracts from the conduct of question time and my capacity to hear the answers that are being given. I understand that on both sides there may well be fervent and passionate views on this issue, and I understand that there is obviously a capacity in this chamber for robust debate. That is what parliamentary democracy is about. But it becomes very difficult for me when people on both sides are debating the issue when the question is being answered, whether people like the answer or not—or whether people like the question or not. It is not a matter of what people’s individual views might be, and I understand that there will be people on both sides who will be offended either by the question or by the answer. And I accept that. But what I want to be able to do is to listen to the answers—and with due deference to you, Senator Brandis, there were some parts of that answer I had no capacity to hear at all, because of the debate that was taking place across the chamber on both sides.

I am not singling out one side or the other. I am just saying to the chamber: I am listening to the answers, I am trying to ensure that the ministers are addressing the questions that are being asked. Some of the questions, I might add, do not necessarily help question time in this chamber either, and I have been fairly flexible about the questions that I have allowed during question time, because I believe that this place should not be about a focus on the presiding officer during question time. I think it should be about the questions and the answers that are given by ministers, and the responsibility of the ministers in answering the questions to comply with the standing orders and be directly relevant to the questions that are being asked.

If we do not abide by the framework, then question time becomes argy-bargy, it becomes a battle of voices and it does not really serve the general public any good whatsoever. I just ask for there to be a bit of tolerance on both sides. I understand the robustness and the passion on both sides. But just tinge that with a little bit of restraint so that I can at least hear the answers.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that, Mr President; that was timely. But could I raise a point of order. There is a creeping pattern where ministers are spending the first 30 seconds of their answers personally attacking the questioner and lecturing the questioner on the question they have raised. My point of order is: there is a rule that says that speakers must speak through the President and not directly. If ministers did that, they would not spend the early parts of their answers lecturing the questioner directly on how they should propose questions.

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

Senator Macdonald, my only response to your comment is that I invite all honourable senators to sit down and go back through the Hansard of the most recent Senate question time and do an analysis of the questions and do an analysis of the answers. Let me assure you that one of the things I look at daily, not in a partisan way but in the interests of the conduct of this chamber, are those very issues that you raise. Let me assure you that I can suggest to the chamber that there is plenty of room for improvement on both sides.

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

Mr President, I am sure Senator Payne does not need the protection of Senator Brandis. I have always found she gives as good as she gets and is more than capable of withstanding a debate on even terms with me. I do want to make the point that I was referring clearly to the Liberal Party and the attitude they are taking to this debate. We have got Liberal Party frontbenchers out there comparing the Prime Minister to Gaddafi. That is the sort of contribution we are getting from the opposition. We are trying to debate climate change and an appropriate national public policy response and all we have got is name calling and stunts. Quite frankly, the public expect better of their parliamentarians. I urge the Liberal Party to engage in the policy, not just the politics. (Time expired)

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. For the benefit of the Australian people who await the details of this tax, how is this not just another example of the Greens dictating the government’s agenda—hurting families in the process, putting jobs at risk and compromising the future of this nation?

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

Again it is a political question to try and justify the political posturing of the Liberal Party: isn’t it all about the Greens? No, it is all about climate change. It is all about public policy. It is all about the things that John Howard took seriously and you no longer take seriously because you have made yourselves totally irrelevant to the political debate. You have nothing to say of any seriousness about these issues. This government is trying to pass, through this legislation, a serious response to climate change that puts a price on carbon. We encourage all members of parliament to engage in that serious public policy debate, but the Liberal-National Party have written themselves out of that. They have put themselves on the sidelines—shouting, ranting and name calling but offering nothing; totally irrelevant. This government will work with those members of parliament who are prepared to engage in a serious debate about a serious issue.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Can the minister explain to the Senate how the government plans to assist households in the transition to a low-carbon future?

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

I thank Senator Bilyk for her ongoing interest in these issues. The government believe climate change is real. We believe that taking action is absolutely essential to deal with that climate change. We all know that the most efficient way to tackle climate change and reduce pollution is to put a price on carbon. This is exactly what we have committed to do. We have always said in the Labor Party that we will help households as we make the transition to a low-carbon economy. Our highest priority will be helping individuals, pensioners and families. We will support those Australians who need help with increases in the cost of living, especially pensioners and other low-income earners. That has been a consistent position of this government throughout the debate on the response to climate change.

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 get them to invest in clean energy is to charge them when they pollute. The businesses with the highest level of pollution will have a very strong incentive to reduce their pollution. The government will then use every cent raised to assist families with household bills, to help businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy and to tackle climate change. The government’s resolve is clear: households will come first and assistance will be targeted at the people who need it most. That has been our policy both through the last term of government and through this term. We are looking to tackle climate change seriously and we are looking to make sure that any assistance that is available is directed primarily and firstly to households to help them make that adjustment.

Catryna Bilyk (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 why it is important to assist households to make the transition to a low-carbon future?

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

As I made clear, households are the government’s No. 1 priority. We are about putting a price on carbon so that big polluters pay and big polluters change their behaviour. We are not embarking on this policy path because we want to make it more expensive for households to make ends meet, but we are acknowledging that there will be an impact on prices. As John Howard and others have all recognised, you cannot have a serious debate about this issue without recognising that there will be impacts in the economy. You cannot pretend that that is not the case. We are not only engaging in what is a serious response to changes in our environment but also engaging in major economic reform that will benefit the economy in the long term, right down to the household level. It is important that, in doing that, governments have a focus on assisting those who most need assistance—households, particularly those of low-income earners and pensioners—to make sure that they are receiving that assistance. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister also outline to the Senate why household assistance is a critical element of the government’s carbon price plan?

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 we recognise that the impact on households is a critical part of this response. We know that households need assistance as we make the transition to a low-carbon future. That is why we are focused on assisting them to respond. We are moving to a position where there is a penalty in the economy for big polluters. They will pay a price and that should impact on their behaviour. We know from international experience it will impact on their behaviour, but there are flow-on impacts in the economy that we will have to deal with. The government have made absolutely clear that our focus will be on assisting households to adjust to the changes in the economy, to assist families with household bills, to help businesses make the transition. These are the priorities we will apply to any revenue raised as part of the carbon pricing system. So we are very focused on making sure that households are assisted as we adapt to the changed environment. (Time expired)