Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian 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. Can the minister outline to the Senate the importance of formulating climate change policy based on objective evidence and facts? How does this compare with other methods of policy formulation and what is the government's response?

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

I thank Senator Marshall for his question. When debating matters of national importance—matters such as the budget and climate change—the government believes it is important that these matters proceed on the basis of the discussion of the facts. The facts matter; the facts should be the basis of the policy arguments between political parties. But unfortunately that is not the opinion of those opposite. The government has meth­odically undertaken analysis and modelling, presented evidence, prepared reports and consulted with stakeholders, all of which has shown that a carbon price is the most economically efficient and environ­mentally effective way of cutting pollution. It is a fact that you used to—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Brandis, I am happy to take that interjection.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Wong, just resume your seat for a moment. There are some people wanting to be disorderly. It is completely disorderly to shout across the chamber. I am waiting to listen to the minister when there is silence.

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

It is a fact—through you, Mr President—that all the experts agree on.

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

That's an opinion!

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

In fact, I will just take you to this quote, Senator Brandis:

… you can’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless you have a price on carbon.

We will play guess who, shall we? It was Mr Howard in May 2007.

We on this side believe that the facts are important to this debate, but what we have on the other side, aided and abetted by their state colleagues, is a campaign of deceit and misinformation. We saw earlier this week the 34-page document, the talking points of the coalition: page after page, Mr President, of lies, lies and more lies, misinformation and misrepresentation. This set of lies is on top of a campaign of months of negativity from the Leader of the Opposition, who has nothing of any value, of any truth, to say in this debate.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that answer. Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister seen any alternative approaches to using objective evidence and facts when formulating climate change policy, and will the government consider following such approaches?

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

Yes, there have been some alter­native approaches on display and no, the government will not be following them. One of them has been the approach of the Premier of New South Wales, who claimed that public transport fares in New South Wales could rise by 3.6 per cent. That is what he said. That is what the Premier of New South Wales publicly said. And now we know that modelling provided by the New South Wales Treasury showed that the rises would be likely to be less than half a per cent. The Premier of New South Wales falsely claimed that the cost impact would be seven times higher than that which the New South Wales Treasury actually modelled. It also became clear—and I am not surprised that they are very quiet now on that side—that this intervention in the debate was made following an exchange of emails between the office of Mr Abbott and Mr O'Farrell, from Mr Abbott's policy director, a bit of geeing up of a bit— (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Again I thank the minister for that answer. I ask: can the minister outline the importance of clarity and accuracy in the costing of policies, especially in areas as important as climate change policy?

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

Clarity and accuracy in the costing of policies is important across the board and in relation to climate change policy. In fact, the approach the coalition take on this, where they clearly have not costed their so-called climate change policy properly, is just a subset of the reckless way in which they approach policy costings across the board. The party that brought in the Charter of Budget Honesty is now the party of budget dishonesty—budget dishonesty: a $70 billion black hole that has been confirmed. Despite all the things that they are trying to say to get out of it now, it has been confirmed by the shadow finance minister on national television—a $70 billion black hole on top of the $11 billion black hole that they had at the election. They are an opposition without any economic credibility, without any fiscal policy whatsoever.