Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, 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 the government's plan for a clean energy future for our economy? Has the minister seen any proposals to repeal the legislation to implement the plan, and what would the impact be if that step were taken?

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

My thanks to Senator Crossin for the question and for her ongoing support for action on climate change. The government's plan is clear. We have a plan in which polluters pay, Australian pensioners receive increased payments, Australian families get tax cuts and Australian families get increased family payments. It is a plan to cut pollution, to create clean energy jobs and to move to a clean energy economy. But again I say: pensioners receive higher payments and Australian families get tax cuts and increased family payments.

What we saw on the weekend was the shadow Treasurer not only boasting that he was going to be Treasurer in a few months time but being clear that the opposition's relentless negativity even extends to the increased pension payments and the other benefits under the carbon package—the clean energy package. So let us be very clear: the policy that Mr Hockey has signed those opposite up for is lower pensions, higher taxes and lower family payments. That is the policy you have signed up for: lower pensions, higher taxes and lower family payments. That is the policy of the coalition. I hope Mr Hockey took that through shadow ministry because those opposite are going to have to campaign to Australian pensioners at the next election on why they do not deserve an increase in the pension. They will have to campaign to Australian families on why they do not deserve increases in family payments. And they will have to campaign on why people in this country do not deserve an increase to the tax-free threshold, because that is now the coalition's policy. (Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the government remain committed to the bipartisan target of a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and is the minister confident that this target still retains widespread parliamentary support?

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

The government remains committed to the target and the opposition leader says he remains committed to the target—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

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

Senator Cormann, I remind you that interjecting is disorderly.

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

As I said, Mr President, the opposition leader keeps saying he is committed to the target, although I notice some reports in the paper over the weekend that indicate members of the coalition are concerned that Mr Abbott will in fact walk away from the five per cent target—very interesting. There might be a reason for that. The reason for that is the cost. Because what is clear from the Treasury modelling which has been released is that the 'subsidies for polluters scheme', which is Mr Abbott's policy, will cost almost five times the stated coalition policy—some $48 billion out to 2020 and an extra $1,300 in tax paid by Australian households every year. That is $1,300 more in tax. Not only do they stand for lower pensions; they stand for higher taxes for Australian households.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, thank you for that answer and that dollar amount. Has the government's plan for tackling climate change been fully costed and can the Australian public be confident that alternative approaches are based on a similarly robust analysis?

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

In answer to the first question, the government's plan has been fully costed. In answer to the second question, it is quite clear that the alternative approach put forward by the opposition has not been properly costed and will lead either to a massive blow-out in the budget or to a massive hike in taxes on Australian households. They are the only two alternatives. Those on the other side have a subsidy-for-polluters model, which involves either a massive blow-out in the budget or a massive hike in the taxes on Australian households. Those on the other side want to hide their costings. That is why they do not want the Parliamentary Budget Office. That is why they do not want to have to put forward their costings. They know their costings do not add up and their policies do not add up. What we do know is that those opposite stand for ripping away the pension increase, a massive tax hike on Australian families— (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer and the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. Given that the Treasurer has announced there is updated economic modelling of the carbon tax, can the minister advise when this modelling will be released and how many Australians will be worse off under this updated modelling?

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

The Treasurer made an announcement yesterday. I am sure that Senator Bernardi, being a hardworking frontbencher, unlike some of the ones that Senator Vanstone was referring to, would have read the Treasurer's Economic Note, which makes clear that the Treasurer will be releasing updated modelling this week that shows the impact of the carbon price on the entire economy. Some additional figures were released on Sunday. I remind the good senator that the household assistance package, as I previously indicated to the Senate, was based on the $23 per tonne carbon price.

If the Senate is concerned about the impact on Australian households, if the senator is the fiscal conservative he professes to be, then he really should be speaking to his leader and his shadow Treasurer, who are putting forward a policy which will mean a massive tax hike for Australian households. It is as simple as that. Those on the other side, by virtue of the policies they have put forward, are proposing a $1,300 tax hit on Australian households, a policy which will cost $48 billion out to 2020, more than double the economic cost of the government's package. The coalition have also signed up, as I said earlier, to clawing back from Australian pensioners the increase this government will legislate and to increasing the tax applied to Australian households and Australian families. Those opposite oppose the tripling of the tax-free threshold and, of course, the family payment system, which they will also claw back. If Senator Bernardi cares about the economic cost of his policy, I suggest he perhaps rock up to a shadow ministry and have a chat to his economic team.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. What extent of international action to reduce or limit emissions of greenhouse gases has Treasury assumed in its newly released carbon tax modelling? Specifically, what emissions reductions are assumed in the modelling?

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

I am not going to pre-empt the release of the modelling.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Just trust us.'

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

I tell you what, who would trust Senator Abetz with anything to do with money? Who would trust this bloke with anything to do with money—the senator who came in here with the Work Choices legislation, guillotined debate and kept saying, 'What a great thing it is to have lower wages and conditions here in Australia.'

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my point of order is on relevance. I asked Senator Wong about international emissions reductions, not anything to do with Senator Abetz. I ask you to draw the minister's attention back to the question.

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

There is no point of order. It would assist question time if people did not interject on other people's questions. The question was asked by Senator Bernardi and it would help question time if others did not interject with their own questions as it is disorderly.

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

I am not going to pre-empt the release of the modelling. A range of global action was assumed in the modelling that has previously been released. In response to the suggestion that the government has not been up-front, I make the point that we released an enormous amount of information in the context of both the CPRS debate and the subsequent modelling— (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister explain how spending $3.5 billion of taxpayer's money, which will be raised in the form of higher electricity charges to purchase foreign credits, amounts to cleaning up the Australian economy, as claimed in its advertising campaign? Given the nature of this, when will the government withdraw its misleading and expensive advertising campaign to do with this carbon tax?

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

The campaign by some in the coalition against international trading has to be one of the most short-sighted and, frankly, xenophobic bits of policy we have seen in this debate in a long time. Those moderates on the other side ought to be ashamed of the way this is being peddled. I would make the point that even members of the Australian Industry Group network said, 'We understand that the cost of abatement might double if we try to achieve the full abatement domestically. You are doubling the cost for Australian business if you seek to achieve the full abatement domestically.' Similar comments were made by the Business Council of Australia. It is extraordinary that the coalition, a party which is supposed to be sensible on the economy, would come in here and say, 'We want to double the cost for Australian business of— (Time expired)