Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research, Senator Carr. I refer the minister to his statement on 1 October 2007 that industries need certainty for long-term investment and they need to know that an emissions trading scheme will not disadvantage them. In light of the minister’s statement, when will the government be in a position to provide certainty on the date when all the details of its carbon tax will be released, which industries it intends to compensate and the criteria it will use to determine that compensation?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. What the government does recognise is that there needs to be a price on carbon to provide the necessary incentive to see a transformation of this economy so that we can deal properly with the challenges facing this country in the 21st century. We have to be concerned to ensure that industry is able to adapt to those challenges. As a consequence, we have announced a policy framework, with a start-up date of next year, for a new carbon price which will in turn lead to the development of an ETS in this country.

To ensure that there is proper consultation with business, a business roundtable has been established to ensure the business community is able to engage directly with government on those matters. Further advice is being sought through a council on carbon-intensive trade-exposed industries, which is meeting again this Thursday. So there is a process under way to allow for proper consultation and the details of the program will be announced when that consultation has been concluded. If you are in the business of consultation, you cannot proceed by making ultimatums. That may well be the Liberal Party policy; it is not the Labor Party policy. Our intention is to ensure there is a proper process of engagement with industry and with the community and that is exactly what we are doing.

The announcement on 23 February outlined a high-level architecture for the framework within which the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee could start that process of discussion. Legislation has been introduced to this parliament and there is an opportunity for detailed discussions to take place and establish a starting price for carbon and the assistance arrangements for households and industry. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister aware of analysis conducted by JP Morgan which found that a carbon tax would slash between 1.9 per cent and 4.6 per cent from average earnings per share for Australia’s top companies in its first year of operation? How do these figures compare with the government’s calculations for the impact of a carbon tax?

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

On a point of order, Mr President—

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

I was about to deal with this. I was about to say that the minister can answer that part of the question which pertains to his portfolio.

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

On a point of order, Mr President: the difficulty is that you have invited the minister to answer that part of the question which relates to his portfolio. As I heard the question, it did not relate to any part of his portfolio. What it sought to do was use Minister Carr’s portfolio as a way of asking the representative of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to answer the question. The issue is this: we started first with the primary question, which was exactly the same in that it purported to ask the minister to address an industry certainty question but was really about climate change and then, secondly, the supplementary question dropped completely the pretence of being about industry issues and went straight to climate change. The question should be directed to the portfolio minister or the representative of the portfolio minister.

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

Order! This is now debating the issue. I have ruled that the minister need answer that part of the question that relates to the portfolio. The minister is in the position where he can answer the question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I would be delighted to assist in advising the Senate of the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party on this issue. What you have here is a transparent attempt for the climate change deniers—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Just wait a minute, Senator Brandis. You are entitled to be heard in silence.

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question asked was whether the minister was aware of a fact, that is, an analysis by JP Morgan, and the effect of that analysis on the government’s calculation. On no basis can an attack on the Liberal Party for alleged hypocrisy be either relevant or directly relevant to whether the minister is aware of the JP Morgan document or how the JP Morgan document relates to the government’s own analysis.

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

Order! There is no point of order. On the occasion of the last sitting week I took time to remind both sides of the chamber about the need to have questions that conform with the standing orders. On that occasion I said I believed there was a lot left to be desired in the questions complying and conforming to the standing orders. I do not want to be pulling every question up. That is not going to assist the process. I am very tolerant of the questions that are asked and I am endeavouring to give as much leeway as humanly possible. But I remind both sides, again, of the questions that are asked in this place, their conformity with standing orders and that they are being asked to the appropriate minister. I cannot direct to whom the questions are asked, so I ask the minister to continue with his answer and draw the minister’s attention to the question and to that part of the question that he may wish—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. With great respect to what you have just said, I think most people in this chamber and those listening would agree that the minister who has specific responsibility for industry in this country also has responsibility as a result for Australia’s top companies because they are represented in the industry portfolio. That is why this was such a very relevant question and some of the commentary, with respect, that came from the chair made, by implication, a suggestion that this question was not on all fours with the standing orders. It clearly is and the minister should be asked to respond to it.

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

Mr President, on the point of order, Senator Abetz is simply seeking to cover his embarrassment of the fact that their tactics committee actually asked a question to the wrong minister, again. You have accurately said that the minister should answer only those parts of the question which are relevant. I would put to you, Mr President, that it is very hard to be relevant to a question which is irrelevant to your portfolio. I invite you to dismiss Senator Abetz’s point of order.

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

Order! Senator Conroy, I already, quite some time ago, invited the minister to answer those parts of the question that are directly within the purview of his portfolio.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, you have been extraordinarily tolerant. There is no doubt about that. The tolerance with this question is demonstrated again. This is a matter that, of course, is the province of Senator Wong in representing the minister in this chamber. What I can say to the chamber is that we as a government and I as the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research are working closely with industry to ensure that we have a carbon price, which is easy to administer and which is designed to minimise both the compliance costs and the implementation risks, but at the same time expand the opportunities for new jobs, new industries and new opportunities for the Australian people to face up to the great challenges that this country is trying to deal with. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the minister also aware of analysis conducted by Frontier Economics which found that a carbon tax set at $25 a tonne would directly cost at least 45,000 jobs in emissions-intensive and trade-intensive industries in Australia alone? Can the minister guarantee there will be no job losses as a result of this great big carbon tax and can the government guarantee that no Australian will be worse off under the great big carbon tax?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There could be nothing more serious than the question of jobs and living standards for the Australian people. That is why we take this issue—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Carr, resume your seat. When there is silence we will proceed.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What this government are about is ensuring that working people have a stake in the future. Those opposite are actually taking the view that they have no future. You are making an assumption that we can do nothing about climate change. You are working on the premise that, if you frighten people enough, nothing will be done about climate change. We know that not to be a policy that is viable. Jobs in Australia will continue to grow with a carbon price that incorporates appropriate assistance arrangements. We will get the necessary co-investment arrangements in place with new technologies and new processes implemented into the Australian economy and transform this society to deal with those challenges, maintain living standards and maintain high-wage, high-skilled jobs for the Australian people. (Time expired)