Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to Senator Wong representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. I refer the minister to Minister Combet's remarks in the House yesterday when he said:

… the government is exploring a number of options for delivering that assistance, including through tax cuts. In addition, I can inform the House that all 3.4 million maximum-rate and part-rate pensioners—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Abetz interjecting—

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

Senator Humphries, the exchange between Senator Conroy and Senator Abetz meant that I did not catch part of your question.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am quoting Minister Combet's remarks in the House yesterday:

… the government is exploring a number of options for delivering that assistance, including through tax cuts. In addition, I can inform the House that all 3.4 million maximum-rate and part-rate pensioners will receive assistance.

Noting the government's concession that it will be necessary to compensate fixed income earners for the massive increase in the cost of living as a result of the carbon tax, I ask: how will the government compen­sate those who do not receive a government benefit and generally do not pay income tax such as self-funded retirees?

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

I welcome the question from the senator in part because it confirms that Senator Ludwig has seen off the opposition's series of attacks on him well and truly but also because I welcome the opportunity—

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

Withering attacks.

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

I am not sure that 'attack' was quite the right word—

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

Come to the question.

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

Let's say a series of questions. I am also very happy to discuss—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Senator Wong, just come to the question please.

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

I am trying, Mr President. But there are a great many interjections from that side and I can understand why because on this issue it is somewhat embarrassing the extent of the division on that side, including by Senator Humphries. I am surprised that Senator Humphries is even asking this question. I thought he was one of the few on that side who actually thought climate change was real. The government has been very clear in its approach to action on climate change: that a carbon price is the cheapest, fairest way to ensure we reduce the carbon pollution that is causing climate change or contributing to climate change and also to drive investment in a clean energy future. It is the case that we have said the carbon price will be paid by less than a thousand of the largest polluters for every tonne of pollution they emit and that we will take every cent taken from the big polluters to provide generous household assistance, to help with family budgets, to protect jobs as businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy, and to tackle climate change including by investing in new and clean technology.

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

Mr President, a point of order on the question of relevance: the minister has only 20 seconds to go. She has been going for one minute and 40 seconds and she has not anywhere near approached the topic of the question—that is, what proposals the government has for the compensation of fixed income earners, in particular self-funded retirees. Abuse of the opposition and a recitation of the general principles behind the government's policy are not directly relevant. It was a narrow and specific question and it ought to be answered.

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

There is no point of order.

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

Clearly, Senator Brandis does not understand how a carbon price works, because the very point of ensuring you impose a price on the big polluters and you use that revenue to assist Australian households goes directly to the household assistance issue that the senator has raised—unlike your policy, which is about taxing Australian households and giving the money to Australia's biggest polluters. How is that fair? (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I will simplify my question and see if I get an answer. Can the government guarantee that self-funded retirees in particular will not be worse off under a carbon tax?

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

The government has guaranteed that every cent used in the revenue raised from a carbon price levied on the biggest polluters will be used to assist Australian households, to protect jobs and to tackle climate change. The guarantee that those opposite fail to see is the guarantee that they cannot provide when it comes to the $30 billion they will take out of taxpayers' pockets to give to the biggest polluters in Australia. That is the cost of your policy. As Mr Turnbull said, it is a policy that is inefficient, that is a recipe for fiscal recklessness and that takes from taxpayers and gives to polluters without any guarantee that Australia's pollution will actually drop. It is an absolute joke. Those of you on that side such as Senator Humphries, who have some regard for good public policy, ought to be ashamed.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the minister cannot provide the guarantee that I have asked for, will she now concede that no compensation package can ever be without winners and losers and that, in the case of your carbon tax, the losers will number in the millions?

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

We have been very clear about why we need to take action on climate change.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

When there is silence, the minister can proceed.

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

We have been clear about why we need to take action on climate change, and that is that all of us lose, including future generations, if we do not. Those opposite might want to play politics with this issue and dismiss the science. Senator Bernardi might want to talk about the conspiracy of scientists. But, funda­mentally, in five, 10 or 20 years time people will look back at some of the arguments by those opposite, who are so irresponsible about the importance of this issue, so irresponsible about the burden we are imposing. If we do not act, our children and grandchildren will judge us very harshly. We will do this responsibly and we will ensure that the money paid by big polluters is returned for the purposes I have outlined. That is the responsible path. (Time expired)