Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) 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 to recent statements from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer pointing out the risks facing the international economy, the significant challenges faced by so many Australian businesses in areas such as manufacturing and retailing and also the need to improve productivity. Given the government's own stated concerns, isn't this the worst possible time to be introducing the world's biggest carbon tax? Can the minister name any other country that has introduced a carbon tax as expensive and far-reaching as the one proposed by this government?

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

First, on the issue of why now, I make this point: the opposition will always say that, because they have said that before. The reality is that it will never be the right time according to Senator Abetz and those on that side of the chamber. It does not matter what is occurring in the global economy, those on the other side have a very clear position: they do not wish to deal with this economic reform. They do not wish to start to shift the Australian economy towards the clean energy economy of the future; they do not wish to take that responsibility. They do not wish to take responsibility for acting on climate change. They would rather turn their faces away from reform. They would rather run a scare campaign. They would rather simply throw bombs. That is the approach of the opposition. That is the reality.

We on this side of the chamber are very cognisant also of the advice that was provided to Prime Minister Howard and that has consistently been provided to governments by experts, including the Treasury. That advice is simply that the longer we delay the higher will be the costs. We know that, when you are making an economic transition, if you make that transition later rather than earlier you lock more investment in the old economy, which then has to be unwound, rather than direct investment to the new economy, to the clean energy jobs of the future. We know that the coalition will not be responsible on this; they would rather increase costs. They have, in addition to their $70 billion black hole, a policy which is all about slugging Australian taxpayers, Australian households, to fund a reduction in Australia's carbon pollution. It is a policy without economic weight, without any grounding, without any— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Treasury assumes that more than half of the foreign carbon credits Australian businesses will be forced to buy will come from Russia and Asia and given that the Australian Crime Commission has just told an international conference on organised fraud that the carbon market is already the subject of organised crime activity, what safeguards is the government putting in place to ensure that these carbon credits are genuine and not fraudulent?

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

We have previously made very clear that we will ensure that any international offsets which are purchased under our scheme will meet the appropriate standards as provided. We will ensure that there are proper regulatory mechanisms in place. I have to say that the attitude of the opposition on this issue is one of the most economically irresponsible aspects of their policies at this time. This is an opposition which are seriously saying to Australian business, 'We want to increase the costs of reducing your pollution, because we want to run a scare campaign about international permits.' It is extraordinary. Those liberals on the other side, who believe in trade and open economy, should hang their heads in shame at the sort of rhetoric that is coming out of Mr Abbott's mouth and Senator Abetz— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister name any other nation that has introduced a carbon tax after its Prime Minister and every one of the governing party's members of parliament went to an election promising not to do so?

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

A carbon price has been in place for some time, as the opposition would know, in Europe. The opposition would also know they went to an election previously promising to put in place a price on carbon, a commitment that was reneged upon by Mr Abbott, Senator Abetz and many others as a result of the leadership change in the Liberal Party. The facts are these: climate change is with us, climate change will worsen, the world will increasingly—

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

Mr President, a point of order on relevance: sessional orders require that the minister be directly relevant to the question asked. The question related to whether the minister could name any other nation that had introduced a carbon tax after its Prime Minister and every one of the governing party's members had gone to an election promising not to do so. Nothing in the minister's answer relates to the question which was asked.

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

Mr President, Senator Abetz tries to make the point that the minister is not answering the question. In fact, the minister is answering the question and is being directly relevant. That the minister is not answering the question in the way the opposition wants her to answer the question is not a point of order. The minister is being directly relevant to the question being asked.

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

The minister has 31 seconds remaining to answer the question. There is no point of order at this stage.

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

I was asked about international action. I would make the point that Australia's top five trading partners—China, Japan, the US, Korea and India—are implementing or piloting emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes and coal taxes at various governmental levels. China has indicated it will introduce pilot emissions trading schemes in a number of provinces, including the industrial centres of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. The reality is the world is moving and we need to keep up.