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, Minister Wong. Can the minister explain why the Gillard government continues to claim that domestic emissions will fall as a result of Labor's carbon tax when the Gillard government's own modelling shows that CO2 emissions in Australia are expected to go up from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes by 2020, even after imposing billions of dollars in additional taxes?

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

What the senator fails to acknowledge is that, absent policy action, emissions will rise. Absent policy action, Australia's contribution to climate change will worsen. It is a simple logical fact that if we do not do anything our contribution to climate change will worsen. If we do not put in place policies to reduce them then emissions will continue to climb. In the absence of a carbon price Australia's carbon pollution in 2020 is expected to be more than 20 per cent above 2000 levels. To achieve what is a bipartisan five per cent reduction target, Australia will need to reduce carbon pollution by about 159 million tonnes. That is about 25 per cent off business as usual. By 2050 carbon pricing is expected to reduce our domestic emissions by 485 megatonnes to nearly half what they would be without a carbon price reduction.

The difference between the government's plan and the plan Senator Cormann presumably supports is that his plan is more expensive. Senator Cormann should explain a couple of things. Firstly, why does he think that it is a good idea to tax Australian households, working families, in order to pay polluters for a policy that will not achieve an environmental outcome? In the same way, why does he not want mining companies to pay a tax they are willing to pay but wants manufacturers and small businesses to pay more? This is an opposition that has no logic and no rationale to their policies. They simply oppose everything and run scare campaigns. The difference between the government's policy and the opposition's policy—I say it again—is that our policy will cost Australians less. Their policies will cost Australians more. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Given that the Gillard government—and Minister Wong just now—are claiming that CO2 emissions will fall, even though they are expected to increase, on the basis, if I understood the minister correctly, that emissions will be lower than they otherwise would be, will the Gillard government also accept then that real wages will fall because they also will be lower than they otherwise would be?

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

This is the sort of inverted logic we get from the opposition. I accept the Treasury advice, which is that we can put a price on carbon, grow our economy and continue to grow incomes at the same time as we reduce our pollution. These might not be propositions that the opposition wish to countenance, but they are the advice of Treasury. The reality is that the opposition also say they want to reduce pollution. That is what they say. Their policy is simple: 'We will tax Australian households more, we will take $1,300 a year off Australian families, we will give it to polluters and we hope that might do something.' This is not a policy with any economic credibility whatsoever, which is why no economist supports it. (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. Can the minister then explain why the government are so intent on pressing ahead with the carbon tax (1) they promised not to introduce and (2) which will cost jobs and will result in lower real wages while CO2 emissions in Australia and overseas continue to go up and up?

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

We will introduce a carbon price because it is the right thing to do for the economy and for the environment. We know from the Treasury modelling that jobs will grow strongly under a carbon price, so the senator is wrong. National employment is expected to increase by 1.6 million jobs by 2020. Incomes will grow strongly under a carbon price, rising by about $9,000 in today's terms by 2020. Domestic emissions under carbon pricing will fall to nearly half what they would be without carbon pricing by 2050. In other words, Senator Cormann's question is full of falsehoods. The reality is that the reason the opposition want to say those things—things which they know not to be true—is that they simply do not want to engage in any real reform. They simply want a scare campaign. We will proceed with this reform. It is the right thing for the economy and for the environment. (Time expired)

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to Senator Wong in her capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Is Mr Dick Warburton, the Chairman of Manufacturing Australia, also the climate adviser to Mr Abbott, the honourable Leader of the Opposition? As Mr Warburton said that he is now focused on the federal government's carbon tax and lobbying to delay that tax, is this the same Mr Warburton who, in 2009, said:

The carbon tax is a much more transparent, much more direct, much more flexible type of system …

And did he also say that business is quite happy to go ahead with a carbon tax?

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

Senator Wong, as you are representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency you only need to respond to those parts of the question that pertain to your portfolio. The other parts do not have to be responded to.

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

(South Australia—) (): I am asked about Mr Warburton's views in relation to carbon pricing. Probably the best thing I can do is simply point the senator to past public comments by Mr Warburton. I do not propose to speak for Mr Warburton. On 21 October 2009, he wrote an opinion piece for the Australian Financial Review in which he did discuss various aspects of policy and indicate at that point arguments in support of a carbon tax. In that opinion piece he said:

I endorse the government and opposition path that, in light of the unsettled science, we cannot afford to do nothing. However, I believe the opposition could change direction to the equally effective carbon tax route.

Obviously, it is for Mr Warburton to express his own view as to whether he has moved away from that position and for what reasons. I would note that Mr Warburton did engage in some work for me when I was climate change minister. Some of the design of the Jobs and Competitiveness Program, which is included in the clean energy package, was a result of the advice of the Warburton committee. We have picked that up. That was part of the CPRS and has been retained in the context of the clean energy package. But, more broadly, I do not feel particularly comfortable giving a view about Mr Warburton's change of position. I suspect that is properly a matter for him to engage in.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(Tasmania—) (): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that last night Mr Warburton told ABC Business Lateline:

Well, I am a sceptic. I've never moved away from that. I've always believed sceptical. But a sceptic is a different person than a denier. I say the science is not settled. I'm not saying it's wrong. I've never said it's wrong, but I don't believe it's settled.

Is Mr Warburton wrong or right in that, and can the minister trace the impact of Mr Warburton's advice as political adviser on the sceptical Leader of the Opposition? (Time expired)

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

Senator Wong, again, as you are representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency you only need to respond to those parts of the question that pertain to your portfolio.

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

Thank you, Mr President. On whether or not the science is settled the government has a very clear position: it is. The overwhelming consensus of the world's scientists with relevant qualifications—those who have advised governments around the world—is that climate change is real. There is obviously uncertainty on consequence, but most of that uncertainty is on the downside—that is, that some of the consequences could be worse than those which have been previously predicted. I would commend any senator in this place to look at the publication released by the government—I think it was earlier this year—which updated some of the science. It was entitled The Critical Decade and it does demonstrate—

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

If the science is settled why does it have to be updated?

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

That is an extraordinarily stupid interjection. (Time expired)

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Was Mr Warburton on the board of Note Printing Australia from 2002 to 2009 when in mid-2007 that board was given information dealing with how the company's agents were bribing officials in Malaysia and Nepal but decided to take no action for pragmatic and legal reasons? Is the minister aware of any extenuating circumstances which allowed Mr Warburton and that board to take no action at that time?

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

When there is silence we will proceed. Order! Again, the minister can only answer those parts of the question that relate to the portfolio.

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

I suspect this question is probably in my capacity as minister representing the Treasurer. I am asked about allegations made against Note Printing Australia. This is a matter that has been under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for some time. I am advised that these issues are now a matter for the courts. I also understand the RBA has conducted appropriate internal reviews. It is not the government's intention to provide a running commentary on these matters while they are still under investigation by the authorities and whilst court proceedings are pending.

John Williams (NSW, National 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. I refer the minister to the statement made by John Berry a director of JBS Australia, the company which owns Australia's largest abattoir, which claims that the carbon tax will add $3.3 million in costs to the abattoir at Dinmore, near Ipswich, in Queensland. JBS employs nearly 2,000 workers in Dinmore and almost another 4,000 in rural Australian abattoirs such as those in Townsville, Rockhampton, Yanco, Cobram, Bordertown and Devonport. Can the minister explain why the government is putting the jobs of meat processors at risk by imposing the biggest carbon tax in the world ahead of any move to introduce prices on carbon in Australia's major beef export competitors such as the United States and Brazil?

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

If I could deal first in relation to the second proposition, which was also the proposition in Senator Abetz's question—one of the many, and I did not get to this one—that somehow this is the world's largest price on carbon. I would make the point that the European Union obviously has a much larger economy than Australia's. Their emissions trading scheme is much larger than Australia's. I also make the point, because the opposition appear not to have listened to the evidence of the secretary of the department of climate change, that a number of public statements have been made which compare an overinflated number for Australian permits with only auction revenue from the introductory phase of the EU emissions trading scheme. This is a misleading comparison.

In relation to jobs more broadly the government is putting in place a Jobs and Competitiveness Program, which will provide some $9.2 billion of assistance over the first three years of the carbon price to support industry, to protect jobs and to encourage industry to invest in cleaner technologies. In addition there is a $1.2 billion Clean Technology Program as well as the Steel Transformation Plan, and I look forward to seeing whether or not the opposition will be supporting the government when we bring forward that legislation.

We do take the view that this is about moving to an economy that will become more competitive. In a world that will increasingly put a premium on low-carbon goods and services, a carbon price is a signal to investors to invest in clean energy and clean energy technologies. This is an important transformation of the economy. There is, I am sure, no end to the scare campaigns that will continue to be mounted from those opposite. In years to come, it will be seen as the right thing— (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that exports make up the bulk of the Dinmore abattoir's production, can the minister advise the Senate of what modelling the government has conducted on the impact of the carbon tax on Australia's meat processing industry, in particular in the event that other countries do not impose a price on carbon?

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

The government have released some of the most extensive modelling ever undertaken in Australia. In the previous parliament the modelling which was released was, I think, the largest modelling exercise ever undertaken. In addition we subsequently released updated Treasury modelling and that shows that jobs will continue to grow. Let us remind everybody: Treasury continues to advise that we will continue to grow our economy, our incomes and our jobs and reduce Australia's domestic emissions from what they otherwise would be. No amount of rhetoric from the other side will disguise the simple proposition that the economists in this country—the Treasury and respected economists—are telling governments and this parliament that pricing carbon is the most efficient way to deal with the challenge of climate change.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that Mr Berry claims he was still in negotiations with the government over the impact of the carbon tax on the Dinmore abattoir, why is the government denying industry proper consultation before the vote on the carbon tax it promised not to introduce at the last election, and is the government making the same mistakes it made during the live cattle fiasco?

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

First, in relation to consultation, if I may say this: does anybody in this chamber believe that the opposition's views on this matter would change one iota if there were more consultation? They have been consistently and persistently opposed to this reform since the day Mr Abbott became the opposition leader. No amount of evidence, no amount of argument, no amount of consultation and no amount of discussion is going to alter their blind opposition to this reform. Mr Abbott has made that clear. Mr Abbott has made very clear that the task of his political life is to stop this carbon tax. That is what he says. That is his political task. It is quite extraordinary, isn't it? He does not want to build anything, he does not want to do anything; he just wants to destroy. He is a wrecking ball, nothing more. He is all opposition and no leader.

This is a reform worth doing. This is a reform that will transform our— (Time expired)