Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. Can the minister confirm whether the government has undertaken Treasury modelling on the impact of the carbon tax based on a starting price of $23 per tonne?

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

The senator would know that we have undertaken modelling in relation to a carbon price and the details of that modelling were released, from memory, on the day that the Clean Energy Future package was released. It might have been earlier; I cannot quite recall the dates. It is the case that the Treasury modelling itself was based on a $20 starting price. However, the modelling of the household impacts and the government's household assistance package was based on a $23 starting carbon price. That has been made public. The budget impacts that were released on that day were also calculated based on a $23 carbon price.

As part of the wide-ranging scare campaign the opposition has engaged in, I have seen some commentary from those opposite suggesting that this somehow throws doubt on every single aspect of the government's package. That is simply not the case. Let us keep in mind that this is modelling over a number of decades. So, whilst there might be a slight difference in the price in the first few years, we are looking at long-run modelling. That modelling is the same sort of modelling that, for example, Peter Costello would have used in the context of the Intergenerational report. It is the case, as I said, that some of the key figures which have been the subject of discussion and which are important for the purposes of sensible public debate have been modelled on a $23 starting price. I would make the point that, contrary to the assertion of those opposite that somehow this will ensure the sky falls in, we can still grow the economy and grow jobs with a carbon price. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the government's failure to undertake the Treasury modelling of its carbon price at the price of $23 per tonne it is actually proposing, can the minister advise whether the Treasury modelling is based on a 50 per cent cap on the purchase of permits from overseas or does it still assume the unlimited purchase of permits?

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

In relation to the first part of the question, this is the difficulty when you have questions written ahead of time and you do not listen to the answer. I have addressed the question in relation to the starting price issue. I would again make the point that what the Treasury modelling does show very clearly is that we can continue to grow the economy, we can continue to increase jobs and we can continue to increase our incomes with a carbon price. That is the reason why senators opposite used to support a price on carbon.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President: with only four seconds left on the clock, I draw your attention to the direct relevance of the minister's answer. The supplementary question went to the purchase of permits from overseas under the carbon tax regime. The minister has not mentioned the purchase of permits from overseas at all in the 56 seconds of her answer to date.

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

The question was broader than that. There is no point of order.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the Treasury modelling the government is relying on is based on the wrong price for the carbon tax and wrong assumptions about the operation of the carbon tax, why and how should Australians believe anything this government has to say about the impact of its carbon tax?

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

I suspect the question really is: why would anyone believe those opposite on anything to do with climate change? They have—and they always forget this—the same target as the government. They want to reduce emissions by five per cent. The difference is that they are going to take money from Australian taxpayers, give it to the big polluters and hope that there might be some difference. In that process they will blow a massive hole in the Australian government budget or they will have to raise taxes. That is the difference. That is why no credible economist anywhere supports their policy. This is the sort of economic illiteracy you get from an opposition which has to find $70 billion worth of cuts just to get to the starting line—not for more promises; just to get to the starting line—because of all the mistakes they have made to date.