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 Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to her statement at an Australian Industry Group lunch in February 2008 in which she said:

The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate all source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.

I also refer to research showing that China’s Copenhagen offer will see its carbon dioxide emissions rise by 496 per cent by 2020, on 1990 levels. Given China is responsible for 23 per cent of global emissions, does the government agree with this estimate? If not, does the government have any estimate of its own?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question, which is actually the same question that Senator Abetz has previously asked me. He has actually put that very quote to me before. Perhaps I could assist him with some other quotes. I make the point that, from my recollection, the paragraph Senator Abetz is referencing from that speech is part of the justification the government was putting forward for ensuring that there was appropriate transitional assistance to our emissions-intensive trade-exposed sector. In other words, what we were saying is that we do need to take account of what is occurring in the rest of the world and we do need to ensure that there is proper transitional assistance to support Australian jobs, and that is what we did. That is what we put in place under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme through negotiation and consultation with industry.

Senator Abetz can come in here and throw different quotes at us but I would say to him that we do have a fundamental difference between the two parties of government in this chamber: we think that we need to act on climate change; you do not. That is the difference: we think we need to act on climate change; you do not. What we have said very clearly is that we should ensure that we go through the process of designing the mechanism to do that with an eye very much to Australia’s national interest to ensure that we continue to support jobs through the transition as we are also creating jobs in the clean energy sector of the economy.

When it comes to China and other countries, those on the other side are very keen to suggest that no-one else is doing anything. But the facts simply do not stack up, as usual, when it comes to the coalition and climate change. The government has commissioned the Productivity Commission to put forward a report about what is occurring in other countries. I look forward to that report because it may help ensure that this is a debate that proceeds more on facts and less on fear. (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 supplementary question. Is it a fact that China admits to 23 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions? There is a fact you could answer, Minister. I also refer to the fact that, in the United States, there is no prospect that cap-and-trade legislation will pass before 2013, at the very earliest, in the wake of the fourth defeat of cap-and-trade legalisation in seven years. Given that the United States is responsible for 20 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, does the government have any forecast of what the US emissions will be in 2020? (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the usual negative approach from Senator Abetz. It is very interesting, isn’t it? In 10 or 20 years time we will look back and say: ‘Which is the party that said, “We recognise where the world is going. We are going to make sure we adjust our economy so that we can compete in that world. We’re going to make sure we’re not left behind. Which is the party that said let’s freeze—

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 whether the government agreed with an estimate. The only question asked was whether the government agreed with an estimate. I know you say, Mr President, that you cannot tell a minister how to answer a question, and the opposition accepts that, but you must ensure that all of the minister’s answer is directly relevant to the question that was asked. Not some of it but all of it must be directly relevant to the question that was asked. The question asked was: does the government agree with a quoted estimate?

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

On the point of order, Mr President: not even 20 seconds of the answer have gone by. It is almost impossible for Senator Brandis’s point of order to be upheld, on the basis that the minister has not had the time to get remotely close to complying with Senator Brandis’s demand. Senator Brandis has jumped too early once again. He is like a jack-in-the-box over there. He is ensuring that this question time descends into a farce—

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

Senator Conroy, this is debating the issue.

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

I ask you to dismiss this point of order.

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

The minister has been going for 18 seconds in response. The minister has a further 42 seconds remaining to respond to the question that has been asked. There is no point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I was making is that there is an international move to invest in renewable energies, in low-carbon efficiencies and in low-carbon economies. The fact is that the coalition do not want Australia to be part of that race. They do not want us to be competitive in that new wave of reform. They want us to try to freeze-frame the Australian economy. If you look at China, the reality is that we know that China is the world’s largest producer of solar panels. China is installing wind turbines at the rate of one every hour. We know, according to Ernst and Young, that China is ranked No. 1 as the most attractive location for investments in renewable energy and that the United States is second, and Australia is ranked 14th— (Time expired)

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

The time has expired for the answer, but you were on your feet for a point of order, Senator Brandis.

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

Mr President, the point of order is this—and it flows from the consequences of your previous ruling: nothing the minister said in the entire time available to her was directly relevant to the question. The only question that was asked was whether the government agrees with an estimate of the level of American emissions by 2020. The minister began her answer by abusing the opposition. That was entirely irrelevant to the question. And she concluded her answer by speaking of Chinese levels of emission, which was entirely irrelevant to the answer.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: what we have now from the opposition is the same point of order that they take. I rise to indicate that there is no point of order. What we are now faced with is an opposition who ask for a question framed as to a yes or no answer. If they do not get the yes or no answer—

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

You can sit him down!

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

I should be heard in silence too, you buffoon. What we now have—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

I remind senators on both sides that I need to hear Senator Ludwig.

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

On that basis the minister was being directly relevant to the question but the minister is not required to answer in the direct way that the opposition requires.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Senator Brandis, I will give you the call when there is silence.

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

Mr President, when you rule on the point of order perhaps you might care to give the chamber some guidance as to how it is possible to hold a minister to a directly relevant answer when, with the entirety of the time for the answer expired, it is not possible, according to your ruling, for you to direct whether the minister has been relevant or not.

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

Senator Brandis, the standing orders allow the minister two minutes in which to respond to the primary question and one minute in which to respond to each of the supplementary questions. You were quite correct in what you said about my capacity to tell the minister how to answer the question. That is quite correct. I cannot tell the minister how to answer the question. I can listen to the minister’s answer and where the minister is not responding to the question I will draw the minister’s attention to the question. However, the standing order has not been compartmentalised in the way in which you are implying, and the minister has the full 60 seconds in which to respond. If the minister does not respond by giving you the answer that you desire, I cannot force the minister to do that. I cannot force a minister to give a particular response. So I remind those who ask the questions that the minister must be given the opportunity to respond without interjection, and I remind the ministers when responding that they need to respond to the question that has been asked.

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. Is it a fact that China is responsible for 23 per cent and the United States for 20 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions? What guarantee can the government give Australia, which produces—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Abetz, you are entitled to be heard in silence as well on both sides. I am going to ask you to start again, Senator Abetz.

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

Thank you, Mr President. Is it a fact that China is responsible for 23 per cent and the United States for 20 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions? What guarantee can the government give Australia, which produces about one per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, that under its carbon tax production will not simply transfer internationally for no environmental gain?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everybody knows that China and the United States are the world’s largest emitters and that is why this government spent so much time trying to ensure that we could be part of a global arrangement that dealt with all major emitters.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no global arrangement.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those on the other side want to simply expose their biases on this. I would make the point—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting—

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

Order! I am trying to listen to the answer and I have got an interjection from Senator Cormann, which makes it—

Opposition Senator:

Opposition senator interjecting—

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

That may well be your view but it makes it difficult for me to hear the answer. Interjections are disorderly.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would make the point, firstly, that in relation to the United States the President has committed to establishing a clean energy standard to double the share of clean energy in the electricity supply. It is also the case that—

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

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would Senator Abetz like to answer the question, Mr President?

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

Ignore the interjections. Senator Wong, continue with your answer.

(Time expired)