Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) 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 comments made by the Prime Minister this morning:

We believe we can take traditional industries like manufacturing with us, giving them the benefit of the clean energy future which will require things to be manufactured …

I also refer the minister to the economic modelling of the carbon tax undertaken by the Queensland Treasury and released this morning by the Queensland Labor Treasurer, which shows that by 2050 the government's Clean Energy Future package will reduce the output of Australia's aluminium industry by 50 per cent, of its alumina industry by 39.6 per cent, of its iron and steel industry by 22.4 per cent and of its cement industry by 5.7 per cent compared with what they otherwise would be. Does the minister agree with the Queensland Labor Treasury analysis, which shows that a carbon tax will exacerbate an already difficult economic situation facing Australia's manufacturing industry, as so ably seen in the last few days with the steel industry?

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

First, in relation to the question, there is a very important aspect of the question which occurred right at the end where the senator at least conceded that the figures he was quoting were against a reference case, that jobs may well continue to grow in the sectors that he is talking about. I do not have all of the figures from the Queensland modelling in front of me but it is not correct to say that jobs are lost, and I think that is something that has been unfortunate in some of the discussion.

In fact, my recollection, certainly of the Treasury modelling, is what we see is continued job growth in this nation with a carbon price. I am also advised that the Queensland modelling shows over the period of the next decade that gross state product will grow strongly at an annual average rate of 3½ per cent with or without a carbon price, that employment will grow strongly with or without a carbon price, with new jobs—some 470,000 new jobs—created over the period and that real wages will continue to grow in the same period even with a carbon price.

So gross state product continues to grow, with jobs growth and real wages growth with a carbon price. I think it is important to recognise the sort of scaremongering we are seeing in this place and out there in the community from an opposition who are determined to do all they can to talk Australia's economy down. They have no policy other than saying no. But the reality is we on this side believe that, if you want to continue to be a first-rate economy, you need to be a clean-energy economy and that in the years to come we will need to ensure we are competitive when it comes to clean-energy technology. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to the Queensland Treasury's modelling of the impact of a carbon tax on regional Queensland, which shows that the carbon tax will reduce economic output in the areas surrounding Mackay, Rockhampton and Gladstone by double to triple the amount that the carbon tax would reduce Australia's overall output by. Does the minister agree that the carbon tax will have a disproportionate impact on regional Queensland or does she think that the Labor Treasurer is scaremongering?

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

As I said, what the modelling shows is jobs growth in Queensland, wages growth in Queensland and an increase in gross state product. If the senator wanted to talk about regional Australia, I would have thought he would be somewhat ashamed that he, as a National Party person in this place under a coalition government, never delivered the sort of investment in regional Australia that this government delivered in the budget, the sort of investment that this government delivered in the budget to regional hospitals, regional universities, regional services and infrastructure —something never achieved under Senator Joyce.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. It is one of relevance. Does she agree that it has a disproportionate impact on regional Queensland—yes or no?

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

The minister is addressing the question. The minister has 26 seconds remaining.

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

The senator may wish to recall that what the modelling shows is that the coal industry in Queensland is expected to continue to grow out to the end of the decade.

Senator Joyce interjecting—

Last time I looked they did not mine coal in Brisbane, Senator. Coal will continue to grow and we also have seen record investments in LNG in the state of Queensland. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a further supplementary question. The Queensland Treasury—that is, representing a Labor state—has released modelling of the impact of a carbon tax on different regions in Queensland. To date the Australian government has released no such modelling. When will the government come clean and release full details of the impacts of the carbon tax on regional Australia?

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

My recollection is that we have released I cannot recall how many hundreds of pages. I think there have been a main report of 200 pages, consultant reports totalling more than 300 pages and around 90 spreadsheets providing detailed modelling results. So to suggest that the government has not put forward comprehensive informa­tion to enable people to understand the modelling I think would be incorrect.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Once more it is a question of relevance. The question quite clearly says this. When will you release the full details of the effect on regional Australia? When are you going to do it, Minister? Are you going to release the full details on regional Australia, or are you not going to release the full details on regional Australia? It is not a hypothetical question. Give us a date.

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

On the point of order: again all that the opposition have decided to do is take the opportunity of raising a point of order through relevance to restate the question. The minister has been answering the question and the minister can take the opportunity to explain to those opposite the 'why' part of the question. It does not mean that the minister has to answer the question in a response that you particularly want, which is either a yes or no answer. The minister has been answering the question, the minister has been directly relevant to it and the minister is entitled to continue answering that question. It should be ruled that there is no point of order.

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

I believe the minister is answering the question. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question, as I have said on previous occasions. The minister does have 32 seconds remaining to address the question.

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

I again say this government has released an enormous amount of detail associated with the modelling and that shows continued jobs growth, continued growth in incomes, continued growth in output, contrary to the scare campaign of those opposite. If the good senator is really interested in details in this debate—and I have to say he probably is not because I do not think his view will change—he might like to be upfront about just how much more tax the policy he supports will be imposing on Australian households.