Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. Given the revelations today that even the new headquarters for the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will use cheaper but more emissions-intensive Chinese aluminium, what chance will Australian manufacturers have to compete against cheaper but more emissions-intensive imports once Labor's carbon tax has pushed up the cost of production in Australia even further and made more environmental friendly Australian products less competitive?

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

Perhaps it might be useful if I provided the Senate with some facts about this matter. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has not commissioned a new building. The department has signed an agreement to relocate to a new building development in Canberra to meet the department's need for office space. As a tenant the department does not have input into the awarding of contracts for the base building, which would be a matter for the developer. The department is a tenant and not the developer of the building, and obviously the developer makes its decisions about the contracts that are awarded.

There is a range of assertions, but I would make this point: as Senator Carr has previously outlined to the chamber, this government has a very strong record of providing support for Australian industry. It was Labor that introduced requirements for Australian Industry Participation Plans to be developed by companies bidding for major government procurements. Since January 2010 an approved Australian Industry Participation Plan has been required from companies bidding for major Australian government contracts. These plans outline how Australian industry would be given opportunities to supply goods and services. We have seen in the last 18 months approximately $2.5 billion worth of announced contracts that have required Australian Industry Participation Plans. The government has also tightened requirements for firms accessing the Enhanced Project By-Law Scheme. Under this program eligible public and private project proponents must submit and implement a similar plan—an Australian Industry Participation Plan—if they wish to access duty concessions for imported goods not available in Australia. (Time expired)

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Doesn't this decision by the climate change department's landlord prove beyond doubt that a carbon tax that imposes a cost on Australian manufacturers that is not faced by manufacturers in China and other places around the world will just make Australian manufacturers less competitive and shift emissions overseas? How is that effective action on climate change?

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

The government's legislation and Clean Energy Future package are effective action on climate change for the same reasons that John Howard's promise to price carbon—

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

Mr Howard to you. He was a serious Prime Minister.

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

And you call me precious, Senator Brandis.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order, on both sides!

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

One thing I would say about Mr Howard is that he did not ever have an economic team that presented a $70 billion black hole, which is what you are presenting. So if Senator Brandis wants to defend John Howard, perhaps he should start to look at his own team. I also make the point that, as the Treasury's modelling shows, we can price carbon, grow our economy, increase jobs, increase our incomes and reduce emissions; unlike the opposition's policy, which will double the cost for Australian business to achieve the same outcome. (Time expired)

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given emissions from aluminium production in China are 50 per cent higher than emissions from producing aluminium in Australia, is it not true that a carbon tax which makes Australian manufacturers less competitive will actually cause an increase in global emissions when this is supposed to be about reducing global emissions? Why is the government so intent on forcing Australians to make significant sacrifices through higher costs of living and fewer jobs when it is carbon tax will end up increasing global emissions instead of reducing them?

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

There are a range of assumptions in that question with which the government does not agree. There is a proposition in which the Liberal Party used to believe but no longer do, which is if you want to reduce emissions you should do so at the lowest cost. We are doing so at the lowest cost. We are pricing carbon and we are utilising a market mechanism. That is the sensible economic policy. We are also supporting jobs through the transition by a very substantial jobs and competitiveness program, to assist industries, including aluminium, which will be provided with assistance. I would make this point. Those opposite appear to be saying that we should not impose a cost. They will impose a great cost. They have the same environmental objective and the Australian Treasury has made clear—these are the people who want the modelling—that you will double the cost to Australian business. (Time expired)