Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigen­ous Affairs and Minister representing the Minister for Social Inclusion, Senator Arbib. Can the minister advise whether voluntary organisations like scouts, local football clubs and lifesaving clubs, together with charitable and not-for-profit organisations, will receive compensation for carbon tax cost increases?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The federal govern­ment will provide assistance to community organisations, and this has been outlined extensively by the Prime Minister and by Minister Combet. Charities around the country will be supported as we transition to the Clean Energy Future. The Low Carbon Communities program will fund grants for local councils and community organisations to retrofit or upgrade community-use build­ings to reduce their energy use. This will cut their energy costs and serve as demonstration projects to promote energy efficiency in the community. There will also be a dedicated funding stream under the Low Carbon Communities program to provide payments to charities to offset the carbon cost they will face for aviation fuels and fuels used for maritime purposes that will attract an effective carbon price under the fuel excise and tax credits scheme. This funding will be provided on an ongoing basis. So there will be support. We have also committed $53.6 million over four years to establish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission from July next year to reduce compliance costs and make it easier for not-for-profits to go about their business of continuing to a fairer—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, a point of order on relevance: I am not sure that Scout groups, for instance, use a heck of a lot of aviation fuel, so I am not sure how that particular measure would help these organ­isations. The question was specifically about compensation for carbon tax cost increases—not about retrofitting, not about light bulbs but cost increases.

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

There is no point of order. I believe the minister is answering the question and has 30 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I was talking in terms of charities as the question related to them. Let us look at the alternative. Let us look at direct action and the effect that is going to have on charities and households, because we now know that the average household will be over $1,000 worse off under direct action—taking money from families and from the communities and giving it to big business. This is the policy under the Liberal Party. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

When you have ceased the debate across the chamber, we will continue.

Senator Sherry interjecting—

Senator Sherry, I have invited people to desist from debating this across the chamber. The time you can debate it is past three o'clock.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supple­mentary question. We have still heard not a word from the minister about direct compensation for cost increases for these organisations. Can the minister explain how the government expects local footy clubs or organisations like the St Vincent de Paul Society or the Salvation Army to compensate for the shortfall in their running costs as a result of the carbon tax and what are the government's expectations for voluntary organisations to cover the increased costs from the carbon tax—more fundraising or reduced services?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that Senator Fifield talked about running costs, and that is exactly what I have been talking about in terms of charities. In terms of sporting clubs in particular, the expanded Low Carbon Communities initiative will provide $330 million over four years to support local councils supporting community groups and to support sporting organisations to reduce energy consumption and pollution. Senator Fifield talked about running costs. That is exactly what the government is providing in supporting these organisations. Again, Senator Fifield and the Liberal Party should be honest about what they are intending to do through direct action, moving the cost from big business on to families, on to households. Households will have to find over $1,000 extra because of direct action, because of the policies of the federal Liberal Party. They do not talk about it. They are trying to hide it, but we are going to remind them because their time is coming on that one. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have another supplementary question. Given the substantial impact the carbon tax will have on charitable organisations, how does this sit with the government's much hyped compact with the not-for-profit sector?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield knows full well the support that this federal Labor government has given to the not-for-profit sector, the support during the global financial crisis that we provided to that sector. Liberal senators on that side voted against support to charities. They voted against support through the jobs fund—they voted against it time and time again. They should be ashamed of themselves. Senator Fifield has the hide to come in here and question our commitment to the not-for-profit sector. We have worked with them day in, day out.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, a point of order on relevance: the minister is not even being relevant to his own policies. The government only provided $11 million in direct funding support during the financial crisis.

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

That is debating the issue. Order! The debate on the issue takes place after 3 pm, as I keep pointing out. The minister has 22 seconds remaining.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I am being directly relevant to the question Senator Fifield asked about our commitment to not-for-profits, to the charity sector. There is $5 billion going now into the homeless­ness area, 180 extra services being rolled out. We have made the commitment. Those over on that side cut funding of services and now they have a $70 billion black hole. That money is going to come out of services. (Time expired)

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. At the recent Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes hearing into the carbon tax mechanism in Canberra, I drew the attention of Treasury officials to the fact that each of the documents produced by the government regarding the carbon tax contained a disclaimer stating:

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the content of this publication.

Each of the publications I opened—'Clean Energy Australia'; 'Strong Growth, Low Pollution'; 'Securing Clean Energy Future' and 'Securing a Clean Energy Future'—contained this disclaimer. On each one I found this disclaimer. My question to the minister is: does the government have so little faith in the modelling provided by Treasury that it cannot accept responsibility for the figures being used to promote its carbon tax?

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

I thank Senator Madigan for the question. I have seen some public commentary about this. Although I was not there, I understand—and you have also indicated in your question—that this was raised at the committee hearing recently. I understand that the disclaimer to which you refer is a standard disclaimer in government documents.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

And that means no matter who is in government, Senator Brandis.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

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

Senator Brandis, it is not your question. I think Senator Madigan is entitled to hear the minister's answer and then ask a supplementary question.

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

I do not have the document to which the senator is referring. I do have one of the previous budget papers, and I think it is the same disclaimer. It states that the Commonwealth's preference is that this publication and any material sourced from it be attributed using the following wording: publication title, source and then the words 'the Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the content of this publication.' In other words, the disclaimer refers to content created by third parties utilising and drawing from Common­wealth data. It is a standard disclaimer used at the front of most government publications. So it is the way in which the Commonwealth deals with the fact that it allows third parties to use Commonwealth material such as that in the Clean Energy Future guide but seeks to ensure that that disclaimer is included.

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question of the minister. I have a copy of the government's Clean Energy Future fact sheet, which I received today from the office of Greg Combet. On opening the publication I find not only that there is a lack of any disclaimer but also that there is a lack of any details of any kind indicating which department is responsible for the facts contained in the fact sheet. It does not even contain the name of the printer. My question is: does the minister accept the details as published in this document as actual facts, or does the minister accept the Treasury's approach and make the assumption that the assumptions presented in these fact sheets are actual facts rather than simple assumptions? (Time expired)

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

Thirty seconds are allocated for a supplementary question. That was a very long supplementary question.

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

In relation to the assumptions issue, I assume—no pun intended!—that the senator is referring to the modelling assumptions and various other assumptions that Treasury has been clear about. The government does have faith in the Treasury's modelling. It is modelling undertaken by some very highly skilled public servants, people who not only provided advice to this government but who in the past have provided advice to governments of the opposite political persuasion. So if the senator's focus on assumptions is in relation to modelling, it is the case that modelling requires certain assumptions. What is important is that those assumptions are sound as well as clear and consistent, and that is the way in which the modelling is approached. (Time expired)

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Does the minister accept that if the government disclaims responsibility for the contents in its own publications then the Australian people are within their rights to refuse to accept any of the details contained in any of these documents and therefore any of the government's arguments?

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

I again refer the senator to the fact that the disclaimer to which he is referring refers to material created by third parties, not to material created by the Commonwealth. The Com­mon­wealth allows third parties to use Commonwealth material, such as is provided in the Clean Energy Future guide. Under the Creative Commons licence, third parties can use Commonwealth material to produce their own material. There are two conditions associated with that. The first is attribution and the second is that third parties need to allow the Commonwealth to disclaim responsibility for material that the third party created from Commonwealth material. That is the reason for the disclaimer—that third-party material may have an opinion, factual assertion or position that is not supported by the Commonwealth. As I said previously, you will find that attribution statement in many official documents.